News Stories

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

That would be something.

If they did it voluntarily, it would certainly do wonders for their approval ratings.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Decagon

Then they'd just buy more Yen, forcing the Japanese CB to buy dollars. Two birds, one stone.

They probably see more room for gains in China if China loosens the Yuan more. This might be relatively cheap considering how recent market turbulence also pushed more money into Singapore and strengthened your currency vs the dollar.

With so much money in Singapore, inflation would rise so high that I would go back to eating instant noodles everyday.

Some U.S. firms paid more to CEOs than taxes: study

(Reuters) - Twenty-five of the 100 highest paid U.S. CEOs earned more last year than their companies paid in federal income tax, a pay study said on Wednesday.

It also found many of the companies spent more on lobbying than they did on taxes.

And the highlight of today :

Sony, Toshiba, Hitachi to merge LCD operations

[Tom Bombadil]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

The Chinese has plenty of retail experience already. Why do they need more? I suspect it is more of an attempt to avoid the yuan from rising when the Americans pull out their US dollars, which results in greater costs for the Chinese construction sector as the money supply becomes less diluted.

Then again, it could be paranoia.

I am not sure how you have drawn that conclusion from the sentence quoted. I don't know things on a grand scale, but the cooperation is a good thing for consumers, esp. if you travel between China and US. If you open a bank account with BOA, then you use withdraw Chinese yuan from a CCB ATM machine using the BOA card in China with good conversion rate and very little fee. My former roommate had a BOA account. I had entertained the idea of getting one myself, except BOA doesn't have a local branch at our small town and I was stuck with a local bank.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Some U.S. firms paid more to CEOs than taxes: study

All that because of the loopholes... gotted from lobbying.

[SeijiSensei]

Just to take one example of where we might find some money to pay for emergencies, how about the Navy's proposal to build 275 new ships over the next couple of decades at an average cost of $17-20 bn per year? Reducing our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan will have no effect on these costs.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

Just to take one example of where we might find some money to pay for emergencies, how about the Navy's proposal to build 275 new ships over the next couple of decades at an average cost of $17-20 bn per year? Reducing our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan will have no effect on these costs.

But then, what would America do if Britain attacked? It would be 1812 all over again!

[Solace]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

Just to take one example of where we might find some money to pay for emergencies, how about the Navy's proposal to build 275 new ships over the next couple of decades at an average cost of $17-20 bn per year? Reducing our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan will have no effect on these costs.

Why do that when you can cut paychecks for working people even more? Besides, we need to get rid of that "uncertainty" for Job Creators, right?

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

But then, what would America do if Britain attacked? It would be 1812 all over again!

Nah, (if it happens) it would merely restore the status quo: Cameron unveils armed forces cuts (Oct 19, 2010).

The RAF and navy will lose 5,000 jobs each, the Army 7,000 and the Ministry of Defence 25,000 civilian staff.

'Tis a shame though. Nothing like a good war to stir emotions, raise demand for war bonds and spur job creation. Oh, wait.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Solace

Why do that when you can cut paychecks for working people even more?

Actually, they have a point. Why should a guy who's been doing the job for 20 years earn more then the guy who's been doing it for 2, even though their quality of work is exactly the same? I say equal pay for equal work.

Instead, they should promote the guy who's been there for 20 years to a more senior position, like foreman, or if he has the capability, educate him up to an even more senior role. Give him career advancement. If he wants to stick to manual work, put him in more skilled tasks that require more precise and dependable work.

As for the second article you linked, I agree with it. I did a cursory calculation and the American unemployed could all be employed on a decent(if not stellar) 25,000 a year wage for about a trillion dollars a year. I'm pretty sure there's enough money stirring around America's boardrooms for that...

[Solace]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Actually, they have a point. Why should a guy who's been doing the job for 20 years earn more then the guy who's been doing it for 2, even though their quality of work is exactly the same? I say equal pay for equal work.

Instead, they should promote the guy who's been there for 20 years to a more senior position, like foreman, or if he has the capability, educate him up to an even more senior role. Give him career advancement. If he wants to stick to manual work, put him in more skilled tasks that require more precise and dependable work.

Equal pay for equal work? Don't make me laugh. A teacher has arguably one of the most important jobs in society. What they do has lasting effects on future generations and society as a whole. Someone who plays on a professional team entertains you for a few hours a week. Is it hard being an athlete? Sure. But winning or losing games isn't usually a huge impact on society. Usually. Heck, entertainers make far more than the President, arguably the most powerful, influential, and stressful job in the world.

You know that guy who washes your dishes, cleans your tables, takes your orders? All important jobs. Customer service (as horrid as it has become) is typically a low paying job that honestly isn't worth half the stress you get paid to endure. How about a career in sanitation? Not many of us think "When I grow up, I want to go door to door and empty garbage!". Yet it is an important job.

I could go on, but my point here is that worth is subjective. The only "true" measure we rank the value of a paycheck to these days is what level you're in. The higher up in management, the more you make. The CEO/owner? Money baby. Is it any wonder that so many students are moving toward management and finance degrees? Why suffer as an assembly line worker for 20 years when you can coast your way to the top as a manager, and even better - in an industry where profit can be generated out of thin air?

The second article is directly tied to the first. The more you cut the people who run the machine, the less inclined they are to keep it running. Eventually, the machine will be prevented from running at all.

It's a sickening thought, when it comes down to it. The top 400 households in the country hold more wealth than the bottom 180 million combined. That's nearly two thirds of the country. There's oppressive regimes that have better income equality than the US. Imagine that.

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by Solace

It's a sickening thought, when it comes down to it. The top 400 households in the country hold more wealth than the bottom 180 million combined. That's nearly two thirds of the country. There's oppressive regimes that have better income equality than the US. Imagine that.

Obligatory Daily Show Reference

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Solace

Equal pay for equal work? Don't make me laugh. A teacher has arguably one of the most important jobs in society. What they do has lasting effects on future generations and society as a whole. Someone who plays on a professional team entertains you for a few hours a week. Is it hard being an athlete? Sure. But winning or losing games isn't usually a huge impact on society. Usually. Heck, entertainers make far more than the President, arguably the most powerful, influential, and stressful job in the world.

You know that guy who washes your dishes, cleans your tables, takes your orders? All important jobs. Customer service (as horrid as it has become) is typically a low paying job that honestly isn't worth half the stress you get paid to endure. How about a career in sanitation? Not many of us think "When I grow up, I want to go door to door and empty garbage!". Yet it is an important job.

Don't go putting words in my mouth, we're talking about two completely different things.

I (and the people from harvard in that article) are saying that workers should not be payed more simply due to seniority. It has absolutely nothing to do with how society values different kinds of work (and how wrong that may be). If two welders are producing the same quantity of welds, at the same quality, they should both be payed the same amount regardless of how long they have worked. It's fairness.

I was argueing that instead of offering wage increases, companies should offer promotion to higher paid work that requires higher level of skill.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

Obligatory Daily Show Reference

Heh. Spot on as usual.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Don't go putting words in my mouth, we're talking about two completely different things.

I (and the people from harvard in that article) are saying that workers should not be payed more simply due to seniority. It has absolutely nothing to do with how society values different kinds of work (and how wrong that may be). If two welders are producing the same quantity of welds, at the same quality, they should both be payed the same amount regardless of how long they have worked. It's fairness.

I was argueing that instead of offering wage increases, companies should offer promotion to higher paid work that requires higher level of skill.

I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm stating that the notion of job pay equality is a dangerous road. The argument does not fly in the face of management justifying ever increasing wages to retain "top tier talent" while telling the people who have been loyal to the company for years that they're cutting those jobs and outsourcing to cheaper labor elsewhere, or forcing people to take pay cuts by laying them off and then offering to rehire them at less than what they were making.

In principle, I might agree with you somewhat. In reality, it's hypocrisy. Hence the second article's point about the recovery being great for people who aren't in the middle and bottom rungs of a business.

Ask yourself this question. Do you really think companies, having shed as much labor as possible, cut as much benefits and pay as they could, automated and made efficient as much as possible to keep as competitive as possible, have any incentive to hire back to pre-Recession levels with increased wages that make real progress toward shrinking the income gap?

If that question feels too off topic, here's a more direct one. You have a job opening for a higher paid job that requires higher skill in the company. You have two employees who qualify. One just joined a year ago and does excellent work. The other joined five years ago and is equally skilled. Do you still use seniority to judge who "earns" the position?

If the answer is yes, then how is that any different from simply paying one person more because of seniority (assuming all other factors are equal).

If the answer is no, then seniority doesn't matter at all. What prevents an employee from job hopping the minute a better opportunity arises? Or to put it another way, how do you protect the investment of hiring an employee if another company can simply offer a better package and poach him away from you?

[Ithekro]

If I recall, most of those ships are to replace older ones and maintain the fleet strength. The US Navy has been cut back a lot since 1990. A whole lot. (About a third in terms of combat strength if I recall correctly)

Also shipbuilding is a large industry that has been heavily on the decline.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Solace

I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm stating that the notion of job pay equality is a dangerous road. The argument does not fly in the face of management justifying ever increasing wages to retain "top tier talent" while telling the people who have been loyal to the company for years that they're cutting those jobs and outsourcing to cheaper labor elsewhere, or forcing people to take pay cuts by laying them off and then offering to rehire them at less than what they were making.

I see nothing inherently wrong with what you're saying. People should be paid according to the quality of their work, and other things they bring to the company.

In principle, I might agree with you somewhat. In reality, it's hypocrisy. Hence the second article's point about the recovery being great for people who aren't in the middle and bottom rungs of a business.

That's a seperate issue, the recovery has worked for people at the top and not the bottom for a whole host of reasons. It's something worth discussing in itself, but I don't think it has the utmost relevance to the "equal pay for equal work" issue.

In fact I would argue that "seniority pay" is just as bad, because it encourages management to use a revolving door of workers, cutting them before they could "reasonably" demand a higher wage due to seniority under the current system, and it ends out meaning that they never need to pay decent wages to these revolving door staff. It also encourages a bad attitude in senior employees, they do not need to further themselves at all in order to be guaranteed higher and higher paychecks. That doesn't help them and it doesn't help the company, and the loyalty in encourages is one entirely motivated by profit motive.

Ask yourself this question. Do you really think companies, having shed as much labor as possible, cut as much benefits and pay as they could, automated and made efficient as much as possible to keep as competitive as possible, have any incentive to hire back to pre-Recession levels with increased wages that make real progress toward shrinking the income gap?

Companies should hire workers if they feel they need them, not just "because they can". If a company wants to expand it's business, it inevitably needs to hire more workers. If they want good and creative productivity out of their workers, they inevitably need to pay workers well, a happy worker is a good worker, and a happy worker will go the extra mile for the company.

If that question feels too off topic, here's a more direct one. You have a job opening for a higher paid job that requires higher skill in the company. You have two employees who qualify. One just joined a year ago and does excellent work. The other joined five years ago and is equally skilled. Do you still use seniority to judge who "earns" the position?

They are not "equally skilled", the senior one is (likely) superior to the newer one for several reasons:
1. He has demonstrated loyalty to the company by staying with it for so long, so any investment in upskilling him will not be as likely to be lost.
2. He has a greater familiarity with the company, it's procedures, and his colleagues, so he will be better placed to do well in the company.
3. Due to the above he will have greater trust from his colleagues, and be much better placed to lead them
4. Management will have a much better idea of his competencies and qualities, and have a better idea of what he can and can't do.

And the above applies equally in the reverse to the newer employee. Having such a policy still makes the long time employees feel appreciated, encourages skill advancement in the employee and more. This isn't rocket science, it's an approach used by most succesful businesses and companies. It's just about treating your employees right while expanding and giving your employees new room to grow.

If the answer is yes, then how is that any different from simply paying one person more because of seniority (assuming all other factors are equal).

Because you're not simply paying tem more based on seniority, you are instead providing increased opportunity based on seniority.

If the answer is no, then seniority doesn't matter at all. What prevents an employee from job hopping the minute a better opportunity arises? Or to put it another way, how do you protect the investment of hiring an employee if another company can simply offer a better package and poach him away from you?

If you do the above, and also foster a good relationship with your employees, they won't hop the minute a shiny new package comes along. Because you have indicated that you reward loyalty, you have indicated that you are in turn loyal to them and you have also indicated that you are interested in looking out for their welfare. Most people do not have a mercenary temperament, given a choice they prefer to stay in a single place, if that single place satisfies all their needs and they feel happy and fulfilled there.

If you treat your employees well, they won't leave you. It does not nessecarily go against the profit motive either, as it's been generally shown that satisfied workers are more productive, and provide more "extraordinary" service to the company if the company is in dire need, as they are invested in the company themselves, rather than being mercenaries working for a paycheck.

[MrTerrorist]

The next theater of war will be the South China Sea

One word. Damm.

[ganbaru]

Obama to address Congress on September 8
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...77U40T20110901

[solomon]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

I see nothing inherently wrong with what you're saying. People should be paid according to the quality of their work, and other things they bring to the company.


That's a seperate issue, the recovery has worked for people at the top and not the bottom for a whole host of reasons. It's something worth discussing in itself, but I don't think it has the utmost relevance to the "equal pay for equal work" issue.

In fact I would argue that "seniority pay" is just as bad, because it encourages management to use a revolving door of workers, cutting them before they could "reasonably" demand a higher wage due to seniority under the current system, and it ends out meaning that they never need to pay decent wages to these revolving door staff. It also encourages a bad attitude in senior employees, they do not need to further themselves at all in order to be guaranteed higher and higher paychecks. That doesn't help them and it doesn't help the company, and the loyalty in encourages is one entirely motivated by profit motive.


Companies should hire workers if they feel they need them, not just "because they can". If a company wants to expand it's business, it inevitably needs to hire more workers. If they want good and creative productivity out of their workers, they inevitably need to pay workers well, a happy worker is a good worker, and a happy worker will go the extra mile for the company.


They are not "equally skilled", the senior one is (likely) superior to the newer one for several reasons:
1. He has demonstrated loyalty to the company by staying with it for so long, so any investment in upskilling him will not be as likely to be lost.
2. He has a greater familiarity with the company, it's procedures, and his colleagues, so he will be better placed to do well in the company.
3. Due to the above he will have greater trust from his colleagues, and be much better placed to lead them
4. Management will have a much better idea of his competencies and qualities, and have a better idea of what he can and can't do.

And the above applies equally in the reverse to the newer employee. Having such a policy still makes the long time employees feel appreciated, encourages skill advancement in the employee and more. This isn't rocket science, it's an approach used by most succesful businesses and companies. It's just about treating your employees right while expanding and giving your employees new room to grow.


Because you're not simply paying tem more based on seniority, you are instead providing increased opportunity based on seniority.


If you do the above, and also foster a good relationship with your employees, they won't hop the minute a shiny new package comes along. Because you have indicated that you reward loyalty, you have indicated that you are in turn loyal to them and you have also indicated that you are interested in looking out for their welfare. Most people do not have a mercenary temperament, given a choice they prefer to stay in a single place, if that single place satisfies all their needs and they feel happy and fulfilled there.

If you treat your employees well, they won't leave you. It does not nessecarily go against the profit motive either, as it's been generally shown that satisfied workers are more productive, and provide more "extraordinary" service to the company if the company is in dire need, as they are invested in the company themselves, rather than being mercenaries working for a paycheck.

That sounds like a convo that they should be having (but aint) in Japan.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Actually, they have a point. Why should a guy who's been doing the job for 20 years earn more then the guy who's been doing it for 2, even though their quality of work is exactly the same? I say equal pay for equal work.

Instead, they should promote the guy who's been there for 20 years to a more senior position, like foreman, or if he has the capability, educate him up to an even more senior role. Give him career advancement. If he wants to stick to manual work, put him in more skilled tasks that require more precise and dependable work.

You can only have a limited amount of people working in leading positions. Otherwise you end up with bloated micromanagement and beaucracy similar to governmental agencies (they use the model that you are proposing). But were they subjected to free market competition, they would be underperforming heavily. In part because they have too many people doing the same thing (redundancy) and have too many deciders to actually persue a consistent marketing/operations/company strategy. I am not saying that these disadvantages make such agencies inferior to free market institutions. Because these agencies do not have the tendency to save wherever they possibly can to increase profits and at the time run down their basis for operations. If you have realy important sectors that need high reliability you'ld better off not privatizing it. Because than reliability and long term stability are traded in for short term gains.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

As for the second article you linked, I agree with it. I did a cursory calculation and the American unemployed could all be employed on a decent(if not stellar) 25,000 a year wage for about a trillion dollars a year. I'm pretty sure there's enough money stirring around America's boardrooms for that...

While that is true, you cannot expect the free market to be altruistic. Thats not possible in an competition environment. Hence wealth distribition can only be effectively controlled by an instamce that is a) to a certain degree independent from the free market mechanisms, and b) powerful enough to enforce the regulating policies.

[DonQuigleone]

[QUOTE=Jinto;3750587]You can only have a limited amount of people working in leading positions. Otherwise you end up with bloated micromanagement and beaucracy similar to governmental agencies (they use the model that you are proposing). But were they subjected to free market competition, they would be underperforming heavily. In part because they have too many people doing the same thing (redundancy) and have too many deciders to actually persue a consistent marketing/operations/company strategy. I am not saying that these disadvantages make such agencies inferior to free market institutions. Because these agencies do not have the tendency to save wherever they possibly can to increase profits and at the time run down their basis for operations. If you have realy important sectors that need high reliability you'ld better off not privatizing it. Because than reliability and long term stability are traded in for short term gains.
[quote]
True, but there's even more scope today for less of occupations to be menial.

While that is true, you cannot expect the free market to be altruistic. Thats not possible in an competition environment. Hence wealth distribition can only be effectively controlled by an instamce that is a) to a certain degree independent from the free market mechanisms, and b) powerful enough to enforce the regulating policies.

Obviously true, but I do think the government could operate a "back to work" scheme similiar to the WPA of the depression years. People need work, not just unemployment benefit. And with the long term unemployed becoming even more discriminated against when companies hire, they need help staying in the employment pool. The only problem is getting the money for such a thing...