Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Grey Templar wrote:



Thus, Bob gets paid 250k a year plus full benefits because not only is his job far more difficult its far more important that his job gets done correctly and it would be far more difficult to find someone qualified to do it, while Steve gets paid $8 an hour(16.6k) because his job is so simple anyone can do it, he is easily replaced, and the consequences of mistakes are not severe.

I just started my new job at a waterpark in the food department. Withing two days I learned nearly everything there is to do. While they where upset of me burning 200 or so hotdogs for the day, they let it slide because I did better later. But like i said, in 10 hours I was able to do nearly any job for most of the kitchen. I wrk hard, but it isnt work that IS hard.
Some jobs require more skill, thus you demand a better wage.
Like I have been saying,, throwing money at poverty is not the answer. Fundamental problems like culture of poverty, acess to school and so forth are how you fix poverty.

 easysauce wrote:


so all those benifits of the "movie" trickling down (movie sales, jobs for ticket rippers and floor sweepers, popcorn manufacturer and distribution ect) are in fact, totally unrelated to the actor, and are caused by the top level guys who actually made the investment in the movie...

Perhaps movies are a bad example to use? I mean, when I go to the movies, I'm not going to see if Bob Disney IV did a good job selecting the right people to fake that they're all baseball or cricket players (to make up a fake CEO name, and use a movie that is currently playing)... No, I go to a movie to see Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie do stuff. I go to see Eva Green's bewbs, or ridiculous over-the-top action for the latest Stallone "Expendables" movie. To me, it's kind of circular, as certainly the CEO is putting money on the line, but ultimately, it comes down to the name on the billboard/movie poster that will drive revenue. Even then, most CEOs aren't directly involved with their movies, and the scientific aspect of what movies are deemed a good risk by the studio are usually handled by people further down the flag pole.

 Asherian Command wrote:

Because we are human beings, we should get the exact same treatment as other human beings.

right, have fun in your fairy tale world then...

being equal in worth=/= being paid the same for different work,

Having a ditch digger making the same $ as a surgeon makes does not work...

you will end up with no surgeons because no one is stupid enough to take on all that extra work, responsability, risk, frustration, and so on, when they can just throw a shovel for the same reward.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
That is a very western thinking, that the workers don't do as much work for the company as the executives do.

Except they don't do as much work for the company.

You are making the mistake of simply seeing all work as being equal, its not.


The work Steve the shelf stocker does is far less important(and complicated) than the work that Bob the Manager of Supply does.

If Steve forgets to put more catfood out, the company might lose $20 because someone came for catfood and saw they were out.

If Bob forgets to order Catfood for the 30 stores he is overseeing, the company might lose thousands of dollars(and possibly a contract with the pet food manufacturer)

Thus, Bob gets paid 250k a year plus full benefits because not only is his job far more difficult its far more important that his job gets done correctly and it would be far more difficult to find someone qualified to do it, while Steve gets paid $8 an hour(16.6k) because his job is so simple anyone can do it, he is easily replaced, and the consequences of mistakes are not severe.

Your seeing it like one could do without the other. With The work of steve, the job is not done. Think of the company as an organism, without certain parts of the organism it will fall apart. So in order to stay alive the organism has to have those receptors constantly working but it gets equal amounts of energy to stay alive.

Yes they may have risks but if either do not do their job, the company still suffers, a small mistake can lead to an avalanche. If none of the works like steve, didn't do their job, that would lead to a lot of problems.

No, the company doesn't need Steve. They just need the work he does. And anyone can do it. Steve is easily replaceable. Thus he is only worth 16.6K a year while Bob is worth 250k+benefits.

And there are always more people wanting to work than there are positions available.

So if Steve doesn't like his job anymore and demands more pay or he's quitting. Well, he quits and the company hires John to replace him.

So yes, the company can do without Steve far better than it can do without Bob. And so Bob is more valuable, and gets paid 15 times more.


Your organism example however fails because employees are not comparable to organs, but it works when low level employees are comparable to individual cells, managers would be comparable to organs responsible for regulation of areas of the body, and top level executives would be comparable to the nervous system.

Steve in this example is a lowly muscle cell in the bicep. He himself is not particularly important, he only receives a tiny amount of nutrients and follows the commands he receives from nerve impulses. If he has some defect its not particularly important.

Meanwhile, Bob is the heart pumping nutrients throughout the entire body. If he fails, the entire body suffers and its very difficult to get a new heart.

Every micropart is important to the cell. So it does work, because it can simply regrow it. Yes he is easily replaced, but that still uses resources. I wouldn't say managers are comparable to an organ, that is just an egositical way of saying this person is more important, when in fact the manager can be replaced, we don't know anything about Steve. Maybe steve is working there because he is paying off student loans? Maybe he is more qualified than his boss. Maybe he is going to school, maybe he isn't. But we don't know. We don't know anything about Steve.

You assume he is an uneducated idiot. Which we do not know. He might be, but he might not be. We can't assume he is.

We can't say who is more qualified because human beings can be taught to do anything. Anyone can be a doctor if they wanted to, anyone can be a manager, anyone can be someone that flips burgers. just because you are in a position like that does not mean that is the only thing you do.

 easysauce wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

Because we are human beings, we should get the exact same treatment as other human beings.

right, have fun in your fairy tale world then...

being equal in worth=/= being paid the same for different work,

Having a ditch digger making the same $ as a surgeon makes does not work...

you will end up with no surgeons because no one is stupid enough to take on all that extra work, responsability, risk, frustration, and so on, when they can just throw a shovel for the same reward.

Not true, because back during the middle ages, people were paid because of how well they did something, not for how long.

I am merely suggesting that as communisum is a good system its not perfect. There are far better alternatives to economics. The middle age's economic system actually is fundamentally different compared to the capitalist version. WHere the buyer influences how much they pay for something. Not the company.

It should be rated based on how well something is done. Not on how long or what you want someone else to pay.

Yes because that is a fairy tale, this whole idea of equal rights and equal opportunity. Its called trying to work for a better world. Trying to do something about it, instead of accepting it as is.

Economy's fall and rise, they are not forces of nature and they can be changed. They are human made. If it's not working. Change the darn thing.

Everyone needs a pay raise, a living wage, and pay adjustments to COLA. How else can one buy gold for the coming economic collapse of the US

 Jihadin wrote:
Everyone needs a pay raise, a living wage, and pay adjustments to COLA. How else can one buy gold for the coming economic collapse of the US

You're not the only one to mention this hahaha.
The signs are everywhere.

Won't be gold though. Cannot eat gold. Gold cannot protect you. Gold is weight. Bullets, booze, and tobacco

 Jihadin wrote:
Won't be gold though. Cannot eat gold. Gold cannot protect you. Gold is weight. Bullets, booze, and tobacco

Well I hear the people that own walmart have all that in their private bunker.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/andrew-puzder-why-young-people-cant-find-work-1402355248

In President Obama's speeches this year, a steady theme has been creating jobs and economic opportunity for Americans. In his State of the Union address in January he said that "what I believe unites the people of this nation . . . is the simple, profound belief in opportunity for all—the notion that if you work hard and take responsibility, you can get ahead." And in his weekly address on Saturday, he repeated his strong appeal to young people: "As long as I hold this office, I'll keep fighting to give more young people the chance to earn their own piece of the American Dream."

Yet during the more than five years Mr. Obama has been in office, young people have been especially hard-hit by the slow and virtually jobless recovery. Given the destructive effect this has on individual initiative and the prospects of a productive and rewarding working life, the continuing struggle of young Americans to find jobs, start building families and contribute to society is no longer simply a matter of politics or policy. On a deeply human level, it's profoundly sad.

Consider these grim employment numbers:

• In February the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) recorded the lowest percentage of 16- to 19-year-olds working or actively looking for work (32.9%) since the bureau started tracking the data in 1948. The BLS recorded the second-lowest labor-participation rate for this group in April (33.2%) and the third-lowest in January (33.3%). May's rate was the sixth lowest (33.8%).



• Over the past two years, the BLS has recorded some of the worst labor participation rates for 20- to 24-year-olds since 1973, when the Vietnam War was beginning to wind down. In August 2012, the 69.7% rate was the lowest since '73. The second-lowest (70%) came in March last year. This year, the third-lowest rate came in April (70.2%). May's rate was a still-miserable 71%.



• Looking at the seasonally unadjusted data—which is what the BLS makes publicly available—for 25- to 29-year-olds, the April 2014 labor-participation rate was the lowest the BLS has recorded since it started tracking the data in 1982 (79.8%). May's rate was the second-lowest (79.9%). January, February and March tied with the fourth-lowest (80.3%).

These disturbing numbers raise a simple question: Where are the entry-level jobs?

Five years of 2% average yearly GDP growth simply doesn't produce enough jobs to absorb the natural increase in the labor force, and over the past eight quarters GDP growth has averaged only 1.7%. Between May 2008 and May 2014, BLS data show that the employable population increased by 14,217,000 while the number of people employed actually decreased by 94,000 and the number of people unemployed increased by 1,404,000. It remains a bad time for young people to be looking for jobs.

Nonetheless, various states and municipalities have increased their minimum wage, thereby increasing the cost of employing inexperienced workers. Minimum-wage jobs have always been a gateway to better opportunities. In making hiring decisions, businesses must weigh the quality and value of work that entry-level employees produce against the cost of employing them. For many businesses in high-minimum-wage states or municipalities—Seattle leads the list, having approved a move to a $15 minimum wage—that trade-off is no longer working.

The bottom line on labor: Make something less expensive and businesses will use more of it. Make something more expensive and businesses will use less of it. The Congressional Budget Office has forecast a loss of 500,000 jobs should the president's proposal to increase the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour become law.

The CBO also forecast that this increase would lift a number of people who already have jobs above the poverty threshold. For 500,000 unemployed people, however, that's 500,000 opportunities American businesses will never create.

ObamaCare is also increasing the cost of hiring inexperienced workers. The health-care law requires that businesses with more than 50 full-time employees offer medical insurance to employees working 30 or more hours a week. The administration knows that the employer mandate will kill jobs and has twice delayed implementing it. With an election on the horizon, American businesses know that these delays were political and that the mandate's economically damaging impact is in the pipeline, coming their way.

ObamaCare gives businesses an incentive to either eliminate entry-level jobs or keep the workers' hours to under 30 a week. It also gives businesses a reason to reduce the hours of experienced employees to under 30 a week. These experienced employees are now working second jobs to compensate for their lost hours—resulting in fewer positions for less-experienced workers.

To get on the ladder of opportunity, America's young people need jobs. Creating disincentives to hire them diminishes the notion that "if you work hard and take responsibility, you can get ahead." The reality is that you can't get ahead if you can't find a job.

I'm not speaking primarily as a business CEO. My company will adjust to new laws. I'm speaking as someone from a working-class family. I started work scooping ice cream for the minimum wage at Baskin-Robbins. To put myself through college and law school while supporting my family, I cut lawns, painted houses and busted concrete with a jackhammer. I know how important these jobs are. For one thing, they taught me—as no lectures from my parents ever could—that I needed a good education so I wouldn't have to settle for low-paying work the rest of my life. Too many young people today are being deprived of even that basic lesson.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asherian Command wrote:
If you have read Karl Marx's Book Communism you can see that Russia didn't actually follow the ideas of communism at all.

In fact they skipped the most needed attribute. You need to have first been a Capitalist economy in order to become a Communistic system.

Russia was never a true Communism economy. It was basically a downplayed capitalist economy.

If that person does not want the rest of the pie then they might give it to me or they might get rid of it. It's their choice!

This simply isn't true.

dereksatkinson wrote:
SNIP

I would disagree, it is very true. I've studied it, and thats what happened.

Capitalism is a very flawed system, just like communisum. Giving everyone the same pay would do wonders. Giving everyone a chance to live is something that would change a lot of things.

Because all jobs are needed for a society to succeed.

 Asherian Command wrote:

Spoiler:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
That is a very western thinking, that the workers don't do as much work for the company as the executives do.

Except they don't do as much work for the company.

You are making the mistake of simply seeing all work as being equal, its not.


The work Steve the shelf stocker does is far less important(and complicated) than the work that Bob the Manager of Supply does.

If Steve forgets to put more catfood out, the company might lose $20 because someone came for catfood and saw they were out.

If Bob forgets to order Catfood for the 30 stores he is overseeing, the company might lose thousands of dollars(and possibly a contract with the pet food manufacturer)

Thus, Bob gets paid 250k a year plus full benefits because not only is his job far more difficult its far more important that his job gets done correctly and it would be far more difficult to find someone qualified to do it, while Steve gets paid $8 an hour(16.6k) because his job is so simple anyone can do it, he is easily replaced, and the consequences of mistakes are not severe.

Your seeing it like one could do without the other. With The work of steve, the job is not done. Think of the company as an organism, without certain parts of the organism it will fall apart. So in order to stay alive the organism has to have those receptors constantly working but it gets equal amounts of energy to stay alive.

Yes they may have risks but if either do not do their job, the company still suffers, a small mistake can lead to an avalanche. If none of the works like steve, didn't do their job, that would lead to a lot of problems.

No, the company doesn't need Steve. They just need the work he does. And anyone can do it. Steve is easily replaceable. Thus he is only worth 16.6K a year while Bob is worth 250k+benefits.

And there are always more people wanting to work than there are positions available.

So if Steve doesn't like his job anymore and demands more pay or he's quitting. Well, he quits and the company hires John to replace him.

So yes, the company can do without Steve far better than it can do without Bob. And so Bob is more valuable, and gets paid 15 times more.


Your organism example however fails because employees are not comparable to organs, but it works when low level employees are comparable to individual cells, managers would be comparable to organs responsible for regulation of areas of the body, and top level executives would be comparable to the nervous system.

Steve in this example is a lowly muscle cell in the bicep. He himself is not particularly important, he only receives a tiny amount of nutrients and follows the commands he receives from nerve impulses. If he has some defect its not particularly important.

Meanwhile, Bob is the heart pumping nutrients throughout the entire body. If he fails, the entire body suffers and its very difficult to get a new heart.

Every micropart is important to the cell. So it does work, because it can simply regrow it. Yes he is easily replaced, but that still uses resources. I wouldn't say managers are comparable to an organ, that is just an egositical way of saying this person is more important, when in fact the manager can be replaced, we don't know anything about Steve. Maybe steve is working there because he is paying off student loans? Maybe he is more qualified than his boss. Maybe he is going to school, maybe he isn't. But we don't know. We don't know anything about Steve.

You assume he is an uneducated idiot. Which we do not know. He might be, but he might not be. We can't assume he is.

We can't say who is more qualified because human beings can be taught to do anything. Anyone can be a doctor if they wanted to, anyone can be a manager, anyone can be someone that flips burgers. just because you are in a position like that does not mean that is the only thing you do.

Thing is, it takes A Lot more time to train a surgeon than to train a shelf-stocker. Same for management. And if the guy isn't educated in the field he's employed in, the education ain't worth jack to his employer. Would it be nice if he could pay off his loans faster? Yeah, but really, having a load of debt and a degree in English Lit does not make Steve more valuable than Carl, a hard-worker who just happened to have dropped out of highschool. In fact, all else being equal, Carl might be a better investment for the employer, because he won't go off to something he's "Qualified" for. Instead, he may stick around, and be worth grooming for a night manager position or something.

 Asherian Command wrote:

dereksatkinson wrote:
SNIP

I would disagree, it is very true. I've studied it, and thats what happened.

Capitalism is a very flawed system, just like communisum. Giving everyone the same pay would do wonders. Giving everyone a chance to live is something that would change a lot of things.

Because all jobs are needed for a society to succeed.

I'm sure you've studied it extensively but you are flat out wrong. If you do not reward skilled labor, you will not have skilled laborers.

Either way.. you are taking this way off topic because this is a discussion about minimum wage.

dereksatkinson wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

dereksatkinson wrote:
SNIP

I would disagree, it is very true. I've studied it, and thats what happened.

Capitalism is a very flawed system, just like communisum. Giving everyone the same pay would do wonders. Giving everyone a chance to live is something that would change a lot of things.

Because all jobs are needed for a society to succeed.

I'm sure you've studied it extensively but you are flat out wrong. If you do not reward skilled labor, you will not have skilled laborers.

Either way.. you are taking this way off topic because this is a discussion about minimum wage.

Well I agree the Minimum wage will not work. It will only fluctuate the market and economy.

Its a problem if anyone thinks just raising the pay raise will do anything. Regulation of the companies and ensuring they do not freak out would probably help.

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

Spoiler:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
That is a very western thinking, that the workers don't do as much work for the company as the executives do.

Except they don't do as much work for the company.

You are making the mistake of simply seeing all work as being equal, its not.


The work Steve the shelf stocker does is far less important(and complicated) than the work that Bob the Manager of Supply does.

If Steve forgets to put more catfood out, the company might lose $20 because someone came for catfood and saw they were out.

If Bob forgets to order Catfood for the 30 stores he is overseeing, the company might lose thousands of dollars(and possibly a contract with the pet food manufacturer)

Thus, Bob gets paid 250k a year plus full benefits because not only is his job far more difficult its far more important that his job gets done correctly and it would be far more difficult to find someone qualified to do it, while Steve gets paid $8 an hour(16.6k) because his job is so simple anyone can do it, he is easily replaced, and the consequences of mistakes are not severe.

Your seeing it like one could do without the other. With The work of steve, the job is not done. Think of the company as an organism, without certain parts of the organism it will fall apart. So in order to stay alive the organism has to have those receptors constantly working but it gets equal amounts of energy to stay alive.

Yes they may have risks but if either do not do their job, the company still suffers, a small mistake can lead to an avalanche. If none of the works like steve, didn't do their job, that would lead to a lot of problems.

No, the company doesn't need Steve. They just need the work he does. And anyone can do it. Steve is easily replaceable. Thus he is only worth 16.6K a year while Bob is worth 250k+benefits.

And there are always more people wanting to work than there are positions available.

So if Steve doesn't like his job anymore and demands more pay or he's quitting. Well, he quits and the company hires John to replace him.

So yes, the company can do without Steve far better than it can do without Bob. And so Bob is more valuable, and gets paid 15 times more.


Your organism example however fails because employees are not comparable to organs, but it works when low level employees are comparable to individual cells, managers would be comparable to organs responsible for regulation of areas of the body, and top level executives would be comparable to the nervous system.

Steve in this example is a lowly muscle cell in the bicep. He himself is not particularly important, he only receives a tiny amount of nutrients and follows the commands he receives from nerve impulses. If he has some defect its not particularly important.

Meanwhile, Bob is the heart pumping nutrients throughout the entire body. If he fails, the entire body suffers and its very difficult to get a new heart.

Every micropart is important to the cell. So it does work, because it can simply regrow it. Yes he is easily replaced, but that still uses resources. I wouldn't say managers are comparable to an organ, that is just an egositical way of saying this person is more important, when in fact the manager can be replaced, we don't know anything about Steve. Maybe steve is working there because he is paying off student loans? Maybe he is more qualified than his boss. Maybe he is going to school, maybe he isn't. But we don't know. We don't know anything about Steve.

You assume he is an uneducated idiot. Which we do not know. He might be, but he might not be. We can't assume he is.

We can't say who is more qualified because human beings can be taught to do anything. Anyone can be a doctor if they wanted to, anyone can be a manager, anyone can be someone that flips burgers. just because you are in a position like that does not mean that is the only thing you do.

Thing is, it takes A Lot more time to train a surgeon than to train a shelf-stocker. Same for management. And if the guy isn't educated in the field he's employed in, the education ain't worth jack to his employer. Would it be nice if he could pay off his loans faster? Yeah, but really, having a load of debt and a degree in English Lit does not make Steve more valuable than Carl, a hard-worker who just happened to have dropped out of highschool. In fact, all else being equal, Carl might be a better investment for the employer, because he won't go off to something he's "Qualified" for. Instead, he may stick around, and be worth grooming for a night manager position or something.

Agreed it does. But it still does not mean they do not have their uses. The Surgeon should be given more benefits, but to be honest money should be the least of your concerns. Maybe they get other benefits for being a surgeon.

But lets get back on topic mainly on minimum wage.

*Double post*

 CptJake wrote:

...

From: http://www.forbes.com/sites/modeledbehavior/2013/12/24/are-walmart-and-mcdonalds-welfare-queens/

...
Maybe you can find some actual analysis backed by numbers to answer the points that guy makes. I haven't seen any but that does not mean it does not exist.

Look at the financial returns for Walmart from the point where SNAP assistance was reduced.

I do know if you make anything more expensive, to include labor, businesses use less of it.

That's not actually true. If it were, trucking companies would see usage change with gas prices, but they don't. Sometimes, something has to get done, regardless of the cost. I don't disagree that most public companies operate primarily for the benefit of the investor, and that's one the big changes in philosophy that happened in this country, and largely not in Europe, that has contributed to the insane inequality here (and also, not in Europe). In Europe, corporate responsibility leads to an environment where the good of the employees and community are considered alongside the returns for the investor.

I had a read a really good article on how this change took place, but I can't find it now. Needless to say, it's not the normal model in much of Europe, and certainly not in the countries that you'd want to emulate (Germany, Finland, Sweden). For the .01%, the US offers far more luxuries and benefits than most of the rest of the world, but for 99% of people (most likely including everyone reading this forum), you'd be better off somewhere else. Why you're defending the US economic model is beyond me, as the results don't do much to justify your faith in it.

Anyway, Walmart (again) has experienced significant problems trying to reduce their labor costs in the last few years. It's one of the things cited as to why Costco is outperforming Walmart, despite paying an average of almost double. Walmart cut staffing, and found that people couldn't buy cheap stuff that was left on the loading dock. Would you believe that someone has to actually unload the box and put the goods on the shelves in order for people to buy them? I'm sure there are places where employment can be reduced, but businesses have to be very careful about that - there's a reason you hire someone, and it's generally because you have work for them to do.

It's easy to say that higher wages will result in job losses, but would you believe that we've raised the minimum wage many times in the past, all for the same reason (natural inflation has negated it's ability to provide a living wage, the founding principle of the minimum wage), and both society and businesses have survived every time. It would seem to be a testament to the inability of our politicians to ever get anything right that we have to have this debate every decade or so, rather than tying the minimum wage to basic economic indexes and letting it auto-compensate on a yearly basis. In a truly just society, we'd tie the pay of the politicians to a multiple of the minimum wage.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Agreed it does. But it still does not mean they do not have their uses. The Surgeon should be given more benefits, but to be honest money should be the least of your concerns. Maybe they get other benefits for being a surgeon.

dereksatkinson wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Agreed it does. But it still does not mean they do not have their uses. The Surgeon should be given more benefits, but to be honest money should be the least of your concerns. Maybe they get other benefits for being a surgeon.

Hey Marx was interesting but it doesn't mean he was a 100% correct. Just like John Locke who created capitalism. Both systems are flawed. But if we combined what was best between the two we might have a perfect system.

 Redbeard wrote:

In a truly just society, we'd tie the pay of the politicians to a multiple of the minimum wage.

Yes, and that multiple would actually be a fraction

 Redbeard wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

...

From: http://www.forbes.com/sites/modeledbehavior/2013/12/24/are-walmart-and-mcdonalds-welfare-queens/

...
Maybe you can find some actual analysis backed by numbers to answer the points that guy makes. I haven't seen any but that does not mean it does not exist.

Look at the financial returns for Walmart from the point where SNAP assistance was reduced.

I do know if you make anything more expensive, to include labor, businesses use less of it.

That's not actually true. If it were, trucking companies would see usage change with gas prices, but they don't. Sometimes, something has to get done, regardless of the cost. I don't disagree that most public companies operate primarily for the benefit of the investor, and that's one the big changes in philosophy that happened in this country, and largely not in Europe, that has contributed to the insane inequality here (and also, not in Europe). In Europe, corporate responsibility leads to an environment where the good of the employees and community are considered alongside the returns for the investor.

I know you'll find this hard to believe, but you are wrong. Higher (and unstable) fuel costs have directly contributed to intermodal freight shifts in transportation as well as changes in things like weight/volume of packaging which lead to less $$$ being spent on the transport of the goods. If I can pack 100 TVs on the truck due to new packaging than the 95 I used to fit on the truck, I use less fuel per TV. As fuel costs rise companies re-look how they move freight and conduct warehousing operations.

3.4.2. Fluctuating Fuel Prices Fuel prices have an impact on sourcing and mode choice decisions. While cheap petroleum-based fuels helped drive globalization over the past few decades, fuel prices doubled between 2006 and 2008, increasing the portion of carriers’ operating costs devoted to fuel from a historic average of approximately 15% to over 40% (Gordon 2009). For importers, fuel prices in the fall of 2008, when oil prices were around $100 per barrel, were equivalent to an 11% tariff on containerized goods, up from the equivalent of 3% in 2006 when oil was $20 per barrel (Solomon 2009). While fuel prices have moderated since their peak, the movement towards shorter supply chains may accelerate as the global economy begins to recover and fuel prices are driven higher by increasing and more volatile demand. One early example of this trend is Tesla motors, based in California, which recently canceled plans to produce its 1,000-pound batteries in Thailand, opting for a closer source, thereby reducing the shipping distance of each battery by approximately 5,000 miles (Gordon 2009). Fluctuating fuel prices make higher-fuel-consuming modes, such as truck, less cost-effective and more volatile and may lead some shippers to investigate the use of alternative modes, particularly rail, for some commodities and trade lanes.

see Graph page 25


For trucking, fuel costs in early 2010 accounted for 31% of marginal operating costs per mile; driver labor costs for 36%. These proportions have varied considerably in recent years with fuel accounting for 38% in 2008 and 28% in 2009 (American Transportation Research Institute 2011). The cost and volatility of fuel prices in the past decade has been a major factor pushing the motor carrier industry to search for more fuel-efficient engines and transmissions, more aerodynamically clean truck shapes, and more efficient head-haul and back-haul routing and dispatching.

from: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/55636.pdf

These are relevant too:

http://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/Modal_Shift_Study_-_Executive_Summary.pdf

http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/freight_story/costs.htm

Okay, so trucking may not be the right example. I think you'll agree, though, that there are some things that companies cannot use less of just because the price changes.

It's such an obvious idea that there's even an economic term for it, inelastic demand.

If you need to stock the shelves in your store, there's a set amount of work that needs to be done, and you can't magically hand-wave away employees while still expecting it to get done.

This is true else they would have already done it.

 Redbeard wrote:
Okay, so trucking may not be the right example. I think you'll agree, though, that there are some things that companies cannot use less of just because the price changes.

It's such an obvious idea that there's even an economic term for it, inelastic demand.

If you need to stock the shelves in your store, there's a set amount of work that needs to be done, and you can't magically hand-wave away employees while still expecting it to get done.

Wrong again. Used to be a set number of registers equaled a set number of cashiers. Now we have self check out. The price of labor goes high enough and stocking mechanisms (to include how loads are packed for shelving and other efficiencies and automation efforts) will become economically viable. Or I cut employees further in other areas. Bottom line, labor prices go up, the companies WILL find a way to use less. Labor (especially unskilled labor) is not inelastic.

I have yet to see a self checkout that in practice actually replaced a human being in a meaningful way. Every one I've seen in action has only substantially increased it took someone to check out while also requiring an employee to stand next to it fixing the problems that crop up on nearly 100% of checkouts. Your mileage may vary.

I myself refuse to use self-checkouts without some kind of discount; if I wanted to ring up groceries I'd ask for an application.

 Ouze wrote:
I have yet to see a self checkout that in practice actually replaced a human being in a meaningful way. Every one I've seen in action has only substantially increased it took someone to check out while also requiring an employee to stand next to it fixing the problems that crop up on nearly 100% of checkouts. Your mileage may vary.

I myself refuse to use self-checkouts without some kind of discount; if I wanted to ring up groceries I'd ask for an application.

I see it all the time now in St. Louis... you'd get used to it.

The real change is "self checkout" at fastfood joints.

 Ouze wrote:
I have yet to see a self checkout that in practice actually replaced a human being in a meaningful way. Every one I've seen in action has only substantially increased it took someone to check out while also requiring an employee to stand next to it fixing the problems that crop up on nearly 100% of checkouts. Your mileage may vary.

I myself refuse to use self-checkouts without some kind of discount; if I wanted to ring up groceries I'd ask for an application.

Self-checkouts near me work fantastically and I use them almost exclusively with zero issue. And one employee can oversee 6-10 checkout devices and there is usually never a backup as a majority of people have become used to them. Every grocery store, big box store and hardware store within 50 miles of me seems to have self checkout now.

Also, places who have removed fast-food cashiers with Made-to-order kiosks for ordering food are also much better. I can place my food order, and verify it with zero staff interaction, and they simply prepare the food. accuracy is way up too. Never had an order wrong with a location with MTO food.

Stores are simply eliminating cashiers or putting the work on the consumer. Eliminating jobs in response to making wages more expensive.

Minimum Wage increase will not work unless they are tied to a COLA every year as well.

 Ouze wrote:
I have yet to see a self checkout that in practice actually replaced a human being in a meaningful way. Every one I've seen in action has only substantially increased it took someone to check out while also requiring an employee to stand next to it fixing the problems that crop up on nearly 100% of checkouts. Your mileage may vary.

I myself refuse to use self-checkouts without some kind of discount; if I wanted to ring up groceries I'd ask for an application.

Agreed.

 CptJake wrote:

 Redbeard wrote:
Okay, so trucking may not be the right example. I think you'll agree, though, that there are some things that companies cannot use less of just because the price changes.

It's such an obvious idea that there's even an economic term for it, inelastic demand.

If you need to stock the shelves in your store, there's a set amount of work that needs to be done, and you can't magically hand-wave away employees while still expecting it to get done.

Wrong again. Used to be a set number of registers equaled a set number of cashiers. Now we have self check out. The price of labor goes high enough and stocking mechanisms (to include how loads are packed for shelving and other efficiencies and automation efforts) will become economically viable. Or I cut employees further in other areas. Bottom line, labor prices go up, the companies WILL find a way to use less. Labor (especially unskilled labor) is not inelastic.

You're drawing an incorrect assumption that added productivity is due to increase costs. Costs could stay the same, and increased productivity would still be beneficial. Either you're arguing that no one will ever seek to cut costs unless costs go up, or you're being rather over-eager to yell out "you're wrong".

nkelsch wrote:
Also, places who have removed fast-food cashiers with Made-to-order kiosks for ordering food are also much better. I can place my food order, and verify it with zero staff interaction, and they simply prepare the food. accuracy is way up too. Never had an order wrong with a location with MTO food.

We're talking about something different now. I have not used a MTO kiosk for fast food but would like to as I agree, it's going to avoid a ton of transposition errors.

nkelsch wrote:
Stores are simply eliminating cashiers or putting the work on the consumer. Eliminating jobs in response to making wages more expensive.

They'd implement automation wherever they could anyway.

 Ouze wrote:
I have yet to see a self checkout that in practice actually replaced a human being in a meaningful way. Every one I've seen in action has only substantially increased it took someone to check out while also requiring an employee to stand next to it fixing the problems that crop up on nearly 100% of checkouts. Your mileage may vary.

I myself refuse to use self-checkouts without some kind of discount; if I wanted to ring up groceries I'd ask for an application.

I think LEO, Judge, or whatever court of law favor my side if I beat that self check out register with a 2 by 4to infinite pieces. Repeatedly. PTSD you know...