31–40 of 83 posts
"Higher wages were necessary, Ford realized, to retain workers who could handle the pressure and the monotony of his assembly line." This sentiment and empathy seems to be lost in today's business / cultural climate.
He raised the wage, in large part, because he could not retain employees due to the work conditions.
I can't believe this actually needs to be said, but a single employer raising its wages is not the same thing as a government raising a legally mandated minimum wage. It's so much not the same thing, that the very fact the article tries to conflate them by comparing Ford's decision with the proposal from the Obama administration makes me doubt the voracity of the entire piece. For one thing, Ford's logic is quite sou…
100% agree. In Ford's case, it was a voluntary decision to attract and keep the best workers. In the case of federally mandated minimum wage, it's a threat of force against business owners who are otherwise acting peacefully and quite literally, minding their own business. Raising the minimum wage results in: - A raise in the price of products (hurting the poor the most) - Firing employees - Reducing hours - Going ou…
[1] http://www.econtalk.org/jacob-vigdor-on-the-seattle-minimum-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And it's so common we have 1 example from a century ago and we're still talking about it.
What are you arguing? That wages haven't risen since?
Ford, the company, along with GM gave up that system half a century later for a more rigid system that included more outsourcing but had the upside of being impermeable to strikes. Toyota on the other hand continued the flexible system along with the higher cost of labor and royally outsmarted the American companies in the 70s.
The role of organized labor shouldn't be ignored. And neither should the competitve advantage of working with well-skilled and well-contented labor.
There is a massive difference between employers raising minimum wage (healthy for the economy, good for the individual, healthy for the employer), and the government raising minimum wage ( hurts the economy, regressive against low income individuals, bad for the individual, bad for employers).
[citation needed]
Actual data tends to disagree: https://www.nber.org/papers/w4509
I can't believe this actually needs to be said, but a single employer raising its wages is not the same thing as a government raising a legally mandated minimum wage. It's so much not the same thing, that the very fact the article tries to conflate them by comparing Ford's decision with the proposal from the Obama administration makes me doubt the voracity of the entire piece. For one thing, Ford's logic is quite sou…
> I'm easily making more money, in nominal dollars, than an average CEO in 1919, but I'm not running wild in Saint-Tropez every summer either. Not arguing with your general point. But on this count, I think you're vastly better off than the average CEO in 1919. You have luxury they couldn't have even imagined. - quality of medical care - entertainment - air travel - cars - food regardless of season - etc
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Furthermore, the idea that people become richer because the number on the bottom of their check goes up, rather than the buying power of that number, is easily debunked by looking at the entire history of inflation. I'm easily making more money, in nominal dollars, than an average CEO in 1919, but I'm not running wild in Saint-Tropez every summer either. This argument makes no sense. Raising the minimum wage doesn'…
It affects everyone equally who would get minimum wage. If when Ford increased their minimum, every other company Ford competed for workers against also raised their minimum, then it wouldn't have the same retention effect.
Our minimum wage being so low puts great strain on our social services (and if they didn't exist, the situation would be even worse - it would just be a reversion to what we saw before and during the great depression). Noone should be fully employed and still require food stamps and public housing vouchers, but that's the reality of today.
How is there no mention of the strength of organized labor during that period in the article or any of these comments? That was a big part of what motivated Ford to appease the workers when rolling out his new flexible production system. It wasn't his benevolence. Ford, the company, along with GM gave up that system half a century later for a more rigid system that included more outsourcing but had the upside of bein…
Ford's rationale for increasing the wage for his workers, as laid out by him, was to make it so every Ford employee could buy a Ford car.
If you're curious, and want to know more about Ford Motor Company, I highly recommend a book called Wheels for the World by Douglas Brinkley. (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/067003181X/) Ford opened its full archives to the author, and it covers their entire history, warts and all.
I can't believe this actually needs to be said, but a single employer raising its wages is not the same thing as a government raising a legally mandated minimum wage. It's so much not the same thing, that the very fact the article tries to conflate them by comparing Ford's decision with the proposal from the Obama administration makes me doubt the voracity of the entire piece. For one thing, Ford's logic is quite sou…
The frame of the article is that Ford, a dashing socialist in disguise, woke up and decided one day that all would be well and good in the world if workers were paid $5/hr. That isn't going to be what happened. He would have thought about it carefully and moved deliberately because he thought it would benefit his business. I'll draw an analogue with, say, Google and their 20% time back in the day. It might be quirky…
Consider that 5 dollars for an 8 hour day in 1914 dollars works out to almost 16 dollars an hour in 2019 dollars.