Post: #1

If there's one thing society really controls...it's money.

I never cared to study economics much, personally cannot think of a more boring topic. One thing I know, and this isn't taught in any class, is the intentional hoarding of money by large corporations, strictly as a "buffer". Money that isn't in circulation besides in a theoretical sense. It just sits there in a corporate bank account, gets printed in a list, and the crowd goes wild.

It would simply be impossible to juxtapose the starting entry-level wage to profits made by every big company, so we'll use this article as a baseline.

http://thecontributor.com/economy/where-...%E2%80%99s

All of these companies profit in the BILLIONS. Apple, McDonalds, WalMart.

If each of these companies only made one billion less in profit and used that to pay their entry level employees more - they'd still profit billions.

The reality is, they can afford to pay a livable wage to their entry-level workers (and so can any big company which pays its worker bees a peasant's pay). Someone who works at McDonalds is seen as a joke, although they're part of a multi-billion dollar enterprise.

I'm not exactly sure how to do the math, but I know for sure if these companies weren't so about hoarding money as a "buffer", they could pay their entry-level workers at least $20 per hour (if not more) and still profit billions.

Even big oil companies which usually require some kind of engineering degree usually only pay like $18 an hour to start.

The hoarding of money is impressive in it's own right. Not everyone is meant to be CEO, Vice President, Corporate executive, or even middle-management making 40K a year.

The truth is, it's all been intentionally set up to keep a "buffer stock" there at all times, while ensuring it's never touched by anyone besides those who control it. Subway has a cheese buffer that probably goes stale after a few days, but it just sits there as a buffer.

Same with money and record profits. Except, it doesn't go stale, it just sits there, so it might as well, it's already invisible.

Post: #2

(11-14-2013 01:01 AM)la_mode Wrote:  I never cared to study economics much...

It shows.

Post: #3

Do you carry a gun, or just drive?

Post: #4

"The reality is, they can afford to pay a livable wage to their entry-level workers (and so can any big company which pays its worker bees a peasant's pay)."

First Rule Of Having Employees:

Never pay them more than what they'll work for.

People want to work for $8/hr at McDogshits? Let em. Why the hell would McDogshits pay them $20?

This thread is off to a great start haha.

Post: #5

Henry Ford paid a living wage. Yet somehow he prospered anyway and became an icon.

I think some conservatives have bought into the idea that if the government allows it, they should maximize profits at all costs in a short-sighted way.

Sometimes though paying a higher wage is more profitable in the long run.

But our current financial system, oriented as it is to quarterly earnings, militates against this kind of noblesse oblige.

Post: #6

The problem is, in several states, welfare pays more than minimum wage. More than $15 per hour in 13 states.

http://news.msn.com/us/govt-aid-pays-mor...-35-states

We've essentially created a society of derelicts.

I'm not anti-welfare or anything, but if livable wages were paid for entry level jobs, society would be better off. The truth is, the rich enjoy looking at the permanent underclass. Hoarding extravagant amounts of money is a game they play well.

Instead, corporations prefer to hoard that for no exact reason, besides possibly self-pandering when they see it printed. If they profit 14 billion instead of 15 billion, it's not going to change anything. The companies can afford it. There's too much money simply not in circulation.

Post: #7

McQueen Wrote:Never pay them more than what they'll work for.

People want to work for $8/hr at McDogshits? Let em. Why the hell would McDogshits pay them $20?

I agree, that's the only rational option.

But at the same time there is a strong anti-union sentiment all around the USA. So who's crazy there? Workers should band up and not work for less than $20 or whatever, but there are less and less ways for them do do the said "banding up", with the rare exception being government employees like teachers which are probably in the other extreme.

Post: #8

If this was visible it would be different.

The average restaurant should hoard enough food to stay in business the next two years, as a buffer. Then it would be ridiculous.

This extra money is only a buffer and not going to any sort of use. Everyone's a scrooge.

Post: #9

(11-14-2013 01:34 AM)Therapsid Wrote:  Henry Ford paid a living wage. Yet somehow he prospered anyway and became an icon.

I think some conservatives have bought into the idea that if the government allows it, they should maximize profits at all costs in a short-sighted way.

Sometimes though paying a higher wage is more profitable in the long run.

But our current financial system, oriented as it is to quarterly earnings, militates against this kind of noblesse oblige.

The story of Henry Ford paying a 'living wage' is a little more complex than most people think:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/...you-think/

Post: #10

(11-14-2013 02:23 AM)cardguy Wrote:  

(11-14-2013 01:34 AM)Therapsid Wrote:  Henry Ford paid a living wage. Yet somehow he prospered anyway and became an icon.

I think some conservatives have bought into the idea that if the government allows it, they should maximize profits at all costs in a short-sighted way.

Sometimes though paying a higher wage is more profitable in the long run.

But our current financial system, oriented as it is to quarterly earnings, militates against this kind of noblesse oblige.

The story of Henry Ford paying a 'living wage' is a little more complex than most people think:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/...you-think/

and also had people lay beatings on union organizers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Overpass

Post: #11

I've always laughed whenever someone brought up the "fact" that Ford raised his wages so his employees could buy his cars. It had nothing to do with that.

He wanted a stable workforce as in the end that was cheaper than spending half hourly and training people every week.

Quote:The $5-a-day rate was about half pay and half bonus. The bonus came with character requirements and was enforced by the Socialization Organization. This was a committee that would visit the employees’ homes to ensure that they were doing things the “American way.” They were supposed to avoid social ills such as gambling and drinking. They were to learn English, and many (primarily the recent immigrants) had to attend classes to become “Americanized.” Women were not eligible for the bonus unless they were single and supporting the family. Also, men were not eligible if their wives worked outside the home.

Ol' Henry was redpill, eh?

And anti semitic, etc...

Might not have been a nice guy, but then nice guys finish last.

Seriously, those that think corporations are evil, etc, look back to the fact that companies like Ford and GM built this country and gave thousands of people good jobs.

Without corporations like that, we would still be third world, sending our resources off to other countries at a discount.

Post: #12

You will get nowhere appealing to the sympathy of the managerial class.

Usually everybody but c-suite employees are being fucked over. The battle is between the largely passive and rich owners and the active managers, both of whom play off of each other against employees, consumers, and citizens.

The most recent financial crisis was in the know managers taking profits from clueless owners, but rank and file peoplen ended up holding the bag.

People flip out over Chinese manufacturers selling fake similac to babies, or rat meat disguised as lamb, but American business usually engages in next level chicanery.

None of this is done by twirling mustached villains. It's people like me and you that keep the machine running.

WIA

Post: #13

A clarification on McDonald's and wages. McDonald's, the corporation, makes good profit and I bet that the people who work for corporate make competitive money. McDonald's the restaurants are independently owned franchises. The guys flipping burgers doesn't work for the corporation, he works for the owner of the franchise. The franchise owner doesn't make crazy profits, because he has to kick up franchising fees to corporate and because fast food runs on very slim margins.

Post: #14

“They never pay the slaves enough so they can get free, just enough so they can stay alive and come back to work. I could see all this. Why couldn’t they?” - Charles Bukowski

Post: #15

Large corporations essentially become credit arms and pseudo banks once they reach a certain size. GE does not make dishwashers, they are in the business of cash and credit.

Post: #16

Look, I know it will never happen.

If anything, the buffer will only become larger as companies hoard money. It's become a competition to see who can hoard more. Once profits are in the billions, it's irrelevant if it's 18 billion or 21 billion. It's strictly buffer and shouldn't even be called money at that point, since it doesn't circulate. It's only looked at in a theoretical sense and for quarterly projections.

The world is very rich, but most of that money isn't even in circulation. It just sits there as a buffer.

In a way, that is sort of counterproductive.

Post: #17

Listen, once women flooded the workplace, they drove down wages. Supply almost doubled, that is simple economics.

It used to be women 'worked' taking care of families. Nowadays, women do indeed work to spend their money on idiotic status symbols which only enrich a very little capitalist elite.

The funny thing though is that these consumerist, hear me roar, women will then bitch and moan about evil capitalism, while they themselves are the major driving force for this modern consumerist corporatist society.

Post: #18

(11-14-2013 03:13 PM)la_mode Wrote:  Look, I know it will never happen.

If anything, the buffer will only become larger as companies hoard money. It's become a competition to see who can hoard more. Once profits are in the billions, it's irrelevant if it's 18 billion or 21 billion. It's strictly buffer and shouldn't even be called money at that point, since it doesn't circulate. It's only looked at in a theoretical sense and for quarterly projections.

The world is very rich, but most of that money isn't even in circulation. It just sits there as a buffer.

In a way, that is sort of counterproductive.

WRONG. You don't understand business very well.

The money held by the profitable corporations (many fail-go bankrupt-lose money) is held typically:

1. In cash at the bank - interest bearing accounts
2. in short term securities - typically AAA government
3. in long/longer term term securities - typically AAA government
4. used to loan short term - money market
5. reinvested in corporate bonds (other companies)
6. reinvested in other coproate securties (stocks of other companies)

So you are 100% wrong. The money is redeployed with the intent of doing so productively. Even if ift placed in the bank, it gains interest and banks relend it into the economy for : car loans, mortgages, lines of credit , business loans, margin for brokerage accounts, etc.......

Post: #19

^^^^^

That's what books tell you. On some level that is correct - I'm sure a lot of it is reinvested, but again, it's not really helping out the average person. It's money traded among the ultra-rich in some theoretical "return on investment" sense. It's basically a game only they can play.

If American society raised the minimum wage to something livable (instead of buffering money), we wouldn't have this society of derelicts.

Welfare pays more, lower-wage Americans don't have much incentive to work.

Post: #20

(11-14-2013 05:40 PM)la_mode Wrote:  ^^^^^

That's what books tell you. On some level that is correct - I'm sure a lot of it is reinvested, but again, it's not really helping out the average person. It's money traded among the ultra-rich in some theoretical "return on investment" sense. It's basically a game only they can play.

If American society raised the minimum wage to something livable (instead of buffering money), we wouldn't have this society of derelicts.

WRONG again.

That's exactly what the money is doing - helping the average person.

-student loans
-car loans
-business loans
-mortgages for homes
-money market - for small business
-margin for brokerage accounts


A minimum wage is one of the WORST ideas out there.

What you appear to be proposing is Communism. It doesn't work.

Post: #21

Has the average person invented penicilin, the polo vaccine, sent man to the moon, invented the car, computer or airplanes?

The average man has always mostly been interested in pussy, beer and sports and nothing wrong with that, but don't come complaining that Steve Jobs had a lot more money than you.

Post: #22

(11-14-2013 05:46 PM)scandibro Wrote:  Has the average person invented penicilin, the polo vaccine, sent man to the moon, invented the car, computer or airplanes?

Well yes. Average people do things that have a chance to be excellent things everyday.

What often gets them to the next level is the availability of capital from sponsors, investors, investment banks, partners, banks, private equity, hedge funds, wealthier friends, family,,,,,,

It is the ability of some to accumulate excess capital which provides all the progress for the others.....

without some having excess money to invest those guys who invented those things you mention would have been considered impractical dreamers.....

It wasn't just Jobs that made Apple - it was the early investors (Wall street, banks, private equity,wealthy families etc.) that allowed it to come to market.

Post: #23

(11-14-2013 05:45 PM)kdolo Wrote:  

(11-14-2013 05:40 PM)la_mode Wrote:  ^^^^^

That's what books tell you. On some level that is correct - I'm sure a lot of it is reinvested, but again, it's not really helping out the average person. It's money traded among the ultra-rich in some theoretical "return on investment" sense. It's basically a game only they can play.

If American society raised the minimum wage to something livable (instead of buffering money), we wouldn't have this society of derelicts.

WRONG again.

That's exactly what the money is doing - helping the average person.

-student loans
-car loans
-business loans
-mortgages for homes
-money market - for small business
-margin for brokerage accounts


A minimum wage is one of the WORST ideas out there.

What you appear to be proposing is Communism. It doesn't work.

Again, that's just theory.

What books tell you.

If employees were paid better the necessity for loans wouldn't be as strong.

Of course, they just wanna charge you interest.

Win-win for them.

Post: #24

la_mode,

Why don't you start a biz and start paying workers what you think is a fair wage, then come back to us and tell us your experience.

Waiting for excuse for why you can't open a biz and do it your way.

Post: #25

(11-14-2013 06:08 PM)la_mode Wrote:  

(11-14-2013 05:45 PM)kdolo Wrote:  

(11-14-2013 05:40 PM)la_mode Wrote:  ^^^^^

That's what books tell you. On some level that is correct - I'm sure a lot of it is reinvested, but again, it's not really helping out the average person. It's money traded among the ultra-rich in some theoretical "return on investment" sense. It's basically a game only they can play.

If American society raised the minimum wage to something livable (instead of buffering money), we wouldn't have this society of derelicts.

WRONG again.

That's exactly what the money is doing - helping the average person.

-student loans
-car loans
-business loans
-mortgages for homes
-money market - for small business
-margin for brokerage accounts


A minimum wage is one of the WORST ideas out there.

What you appear to be proposing is Communism. It doesn't work.

Again, that's just theory.

What books tell you.

If employees were paid better the necessity for loans wouldn't be as strong.

Of course, they just wanna charge you interest.

Win-win for them.

WRONG.

If employees were paid better there would be more demand for loans - to buy bigger homes, bigger cars, etc.

And the Companies don't "just wanna charge you interest".

They could also keep the money in accounts that don't bear interest and not lend it out.

But, people come along asking for loans - the price for the use of someone else's money is INTEREST.