41–50 of 83 posts
Ford doubling his minimum wage is simply an example of capitalism (not government) raising wages. This is why capitalism is the greatest economic system (by a mile) ever devised.
"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.
I think there's little sentiment to it and much practicality. He raised the wage, in large part, because he could not retain employees due to the work conditions.
Put another way, Ford understood that to get what he wanted he'd have to consider the fate and faith of his employees. Do you think that's how Bezos thinks?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Disagree. The alternative is people leaving the company, industry, or workforce as laborers entirely. If all companies offered $.02 per hour, with little change in purchasing power, basically everyone would elect not to work and instead steal from and destroy businesses. And you can't look at economics in a vacuum; economics are intimately related to politics. An angry, poor population is a violent population, and fe…
Yes, this seems obvious.
> And you can't look at economics in a vacuum
Agreed, as long as we acknowledge that we shouldn't use this truism as an excuse to sweep away every argument about economics.
Overall, I don't see how you've contradicted my point, which was that when Ford increased bottom wages, it worked as long as other competitors for its labor market did not increase their bottom wage in kind. It seems like you're just making a case against low minimum wage in general.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
This[1] discussion on the minimum wage (specifically centered on Seattle's recent laws) provides a more nuanced goal than just "helping workers" or "getting them dependent"; essentially he's saying there are two types of minimum wage workers - teenagers looking for summer money, and adults making a living -, and you can help the latter if you don't mind screwing the former. [1] http://www.econtalk.org/jacob-vigdor-on…
when you put it like this, it seems obvious to say that the right move is to screw over the teenagers who are much less likely to be supporting a family or themselves.
I'm not sure this is great in the long run though. imo, having some kind of part time job is very important in highschool. for a lot of teens, it might be the first time they are exposed to an environment that has no inherent reason to make things work for them. until we finally get luxury space communism, this is a really important experience to have early in life.
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…
For the same reason why luddites were and still are depicted as crusaders against technology: it's a convenient narrative for some.
> “The owner, the employees, and the buying public are all one and the same, and unless an industry can so manage itself as to keep wages high and prices low it destroys itself, for otherwise it limits the number of its customers. One’s own employees ought to be one’s own best customers.” I note that in a world of globalising trade this isn't true - there are vast untapped reserves of both employees and customers out…
taken literally this is an absurd claim. sure it makes sense if you're making the first mass produced car, but no matter how well my company treats me, I'm not going to buy their niche B2B software.
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.
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…
The strength of organized labor, particularly at Ford in 1914 was weak, both GM and Chrysler unionized in 1937, Ford was the last to do so of the big three, holding out until 1941. 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 W…
It was about seeing off an incipient threat. IWW were quite active at the time. Amazon's goal last year was similar when they raised wages even though they refused to recognize the union.
>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.
Which was obviously bullshit. The effect employees buying cars could have had on the bottom line was far outstripped by the increased wage bill.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think there's little sentiment to it and much practicality. He raised the wage, in large part, because he could not retain employees due to the work conditions.
Right. And today, instead, churn is accepted. "Leadership" blames staff for being unmotivated, etc. Put another way, Ford understood that to get what he wanted he'd have to consider the fate and faith of his employees. Do you think that's how Bezos thinks?
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…
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/raising-fast-food-hourly-w...
There would be no need for a minimum wage if we had UBI but that kind of thing is too far off.