This is truly scary.

[ERD50]

Sorry, but I just have no empathy for people who, if they can't screw their own countrymen, want to go screw some poor foreign kid even worse.....

Think about that for just a minute. If a company opens a factory in a poor country, the people have a *choice* to work there or not. AFAIK, no one is forcing them to take those jobs, are they? The fact is, those workers are happy when a factory opens in their area. It may seem like poor pay and lousy work to you and me, but it is better than the alternative those poor people have. To them, it represents opportunity. So you would rather see these people starve than get an opportunity for a better life? (OK you will accuse me of putting words in your mouth again - guilty, but you must realize there are real consequences to the actions you want to take).

And no, I don't want to see their situation taken advantage of, but don't assume that is the case. Take a look here:

"Supplier Code of Conduct"

and: http://www.apple.com/supplierresponsibility/

Most of the electronic manufacturers sign up to a code of conduct that *exceeds* the local regulations. Why? It is good business. Remember the flak Nike got when there were reports of 'sweatshop' conditions? And as you pointed out, for some nominal increase in salary benefits, the company gains a lot in employee loyalty.

Hey, sorry if I seem to always come across negative on these issues. But I truly believe it much more complex than just 'provide everybody a living wage'. The wage compression that lets-retire points out is a very real issue. Everybody up the ladder will need a boost too. The guy/gal that was already getting a 'living wage' for working a bit harder/smarter will now demand more than the person that was previously getting minimum wage, and is now their 'equal'. Lots and lots of impacts all across the board.

I'm darned tired of talking to support techs at software companies who barely speak English, who barely understand the problem I'm trying to report, or who read some scripted response, even after I tell them that I've tried the standard fixes. If I could find alternate companies that don't do that, they'd get my business.

Personally, I don't care where the person is located, as long as they are communicating effectively and solving my problem.

But I can report that I have had excellent customer support from Apple, and they are consistently ranked at the top in customer support in surveys and Consumer Reports. The rep listened to the problems I had, listened to the troubleshooting that I had done, and did not run me through the automatic scripted 'reinstall the OS' type things. I was pretty amazed at just how efficient they handled the few problems I have had to call about.

-ERD50


PS - As Ha states above, no system will be perfect. IMO, the 'free market' does require regulation in those 'common' areas where everyone is impacted, but there is little/no benefit to an individual company to provide the lead (pollution controls being the #1 example).

 

[lets-retire]

When I was in Turkey I was chastised by several of my new in country co-workers and subordinates for purchasing the hand-tied Turkish carpets. The reasoning they gave was the companies are taking advantage of young girls by making them tie these rugs. In reality the young girls were making a very good living, while in an apprentice program. When they are skilled enough they will tie high end rugs and be paid several thousand dollars for work that lasted a couple months. In contrast a well paid Baskin and Robins worker who worked six days a week 12 hour days earned a whopping $60 per month.

We often hear of the very low wages earned by people in countries with lower standards of living than our own and think the people are being oppressed. Many times I have to look on this with a bit of skepticism. Most things on their economy are much cheaper than they are here and making $200-300 per month is a decent wage, for them. Eventually everything will equal out. As our companies move certain parts of their company to other countries their economies will improve causing their wages to increase.

Edited to correct some glaring grammar and word usage issues.

 

[bssc]

Of course, Bezos put the Donald to shame by making $1.8 billion last week (with qualifiers).

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Dispatch/HeMadeBillionsInTwoDays.aspx

 

[LKH]

True, but he came close.

"by 1991 increasing debt brought Trump to business bankruptcy[4]
and the brink of personal bankruptcy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump

I think the distinction is a fine one, but evidently Trump gets fractious about it. 'Course with his personality, money is probably about the only way he keeps friends and women around...

 

[LKH]

All those arguments are worth talking about, but I don't honestly think any of them are good reasons not to pay workers a living wage. If someone works for you full time, you owe them enough to live on. It really is that simple, at least to me. Will that impact businesses? Sure. But I guess I don't think it's a good thing to have businesses thriving while their employees are trying to get enough to feed their kids on the $21 a week you get from food stamps. I don't think it's a good thing to have low unemployment if 12% of those who are "employed" can't afford health care and live on mac and cheese.

And if companies, to avoid paying Americans a living wage, want to farm jobs overseas - fine - so long as they pay THOSE workers a living wage for where they live. And additionally, I think they need to pay a tax. After all, by removing jobs from American soil, they are depriving the government of the taxes those workers would pay - and if more people end up on the dole because fewer jobs are available in the US, then those companies are also contributing to a drain on the resources of the government.

WRT the term socialism... I guess my concern is that when you label anything that limits unfettered greed with a politically loaded term, the knee-jerk reactions tend to shut down reasoned discussion. If free market economy means that companies should be allowed to unilaterally set wages so low that people who work full time would actually live better on welfare, then I think some regulation is needed to offset the consequences of unfettered greed. If that's socialism, so be it. While I think capitalism, by and large, works better than the alternatives, maybe pure capitalism, with nothing to rein in abuses by the folks who hold the purse strings, isn't the best solution either.

 

[lets-retire]

And if companies, to avoid paying Americans a living wage, want to farm jobs overseas - fine - so long as they pay THOSE workers a living wage for where they live. And additionally, I think they need to pay a tax. After all, by removing jobs from American soil, they are depriving the government of the taxes those workers would pay - and if more people end up on the dole because fewer jobs are available in the US, then those companies are also contributing to a drain on the resources of the government.

WRT the term socialism... I guess my concern is that when you label anything that limits unfettered greed with a politically loaded term, the knee-jerk reactions tend to shut down reasoned discussion. If free market economy means that companies should be allowed to unilaterally set wages so low that people who work full time would actually live better on welfare, then I think some regulation is needed to offset the consequences of unfettered greed. If that's socialism, so be it. While I think capitalism, by and large, works better than the alternatives, maybe pure capitalism, with nothing to rein in abuses by the folks who hold the purse strings, isn't the best solution either.

If everything remained equal the company does pay the taxes, in fact more taxes. Assuming the move made the company more efficient and did not change sales their profit would go up. Just a wild estimation the company cuts 1000 $30,000/per year jobs here and spends $11,000 per job per year at the new place. The would increase the company's income by a large number, so they would be taxed on the increase in profit at a higher rate than the individual.

Wage setting is only unilateral if the government mandates a wage. If the wage is too low people leave to find better pay or benefits. That is how free markets work.

 

[LKH]

In theory, that might be true. And in that case, maybe someone ought to make a point of letting the public know who's putting Americans out of work and farming jobs overseas to avoid paying a living wage. Then the purchasing power of American citizens can also play its part in the free market economy.

For many millions of jobs, "the market" has set wages too low for people to live on. The people in those jobs often don't have options - their job history or skillsets keep them in those crummy, low-paying jobs. They might be trying to turn their lives around, but they're not getting much of a chance. I'm all for the government stepping in, if companies won't do the right thing on their own.

 

[lets-retire]

In theory, that might be true. And in that case, maybe someone ought to make a point of letting the public know who's putting Americans out of work and farming jobs overseas to avoid paying a living wage. Then the purchasing power of American citizens can also play its part in the free market economy.

For many millions of jobs, "the market" has set wages too low for people to live on. The people in those jobs often don't have options - their job history or skillsets keep them in those crummy, low-paying jobs. They might be trying to turn their lives around, but they're not getting much of a chance. I'm all for the government stepping in, if companies won't do the right thing on their own.

Since we're arguing a circle this is my last post. The companies are paying a living wage, in the countries they move jobs to. The simple point is, since our wages have risen so far above the majority of the rest of the world we have no choice. To remain competitive the companies must move jobs to other countries. I'm sure you'll agree that a company cutting several thousand American jobs and remaining in business, is far better than keeping all of the jobs here and going out of business or having such a difficult time competing as to suffer a slow death.

The reason wages are so low is limited, for most people in the workforce. The job requires little or no skill. In this case the job pool is literally limitless. The job requires skill, but there is an overabundance of people who are willing and able to do the work at the going pay. The pay is set by a government organization and a free market competitor is not readily available. This is the situation with teachers, police, fire, and many other government jobs.

The first situation is the one most people complain about because it is the most easily observed. These people are also the ones pulled out in arguments for increasing the minimum wage. These are also the ones that I believe have the least reason to complain. They are either just entering the work force or have done little to improve their value to any employer.

The second situation is essentially the luck of the draw. Someone learns skills in a currently hot job market, but so does everyone else and the market becomes saturated with qualified people.

The third as I stated in earlier posts I believe also have no reason to complain. They chose the career and these jobs are known for having low pay, yet the person decided to train for the job anyway. Yes they could and probably should be paid better, but the pay was low when they decided to try to obtain the position and it will probably be low until they retire.

 

[FinanceDude]

Since we're arguing a circle this is my last post. The companies are paying a living wage, in the countries they move jobs to. The simple point is, since our wages have risen so far above the majority of the rest of the world we have no choice. To remain competitive the companies must move jobs to other countries. I'm sure you'll agree that a company cutting several thousand American jobs and remaining in business, is far better than keeping all of the jobs here and going out of business or having such a difficult time competing as to suffer a slow death.

The reason wages are so low is limited, for most people in the workforce. The job requires little or no skill. In this case the job pool is literally limitless. The job requires skill, but there is an overabundance of people who are willing and able to do the work at the going pay. The pay is set by a government organization and a free market competitor is not readily available. This is the situation with teachers, police, fire, and many other government jobs.

The first situation is the one most people complain about because it is the most easily observed. These people are also the ones pulled out in arguments for increasing the minimum wage. These are also the ones that I believe have the least reason to complain. They are either just entering the work force or have done little to improve their value to any employer.

The second situation is essentially the luck of the draw. Someone learns skills in a currently hot job market, but so does everyone else and the market becomes saturated with qualified people.

The third as I stated in earlier posts I believe also have no reason to complain. They chose the career and these jobs are known for having low pay, yet the person decided to train for the job anyway. Yes they could and probably should be paid better, but the pay was low when they decided to try to obtain the position and it will probably be low until they retire.

Good points. The US is going through a painful but necessary "reallocation" of manufacturing jobs. This isn't the 60's, where Dad and Uncle Bob worked at the West Bend company making pots and pans, and retired after 30 years with a nice pension.

Globalization has forced the wage issue, so American companies are moving manufacturing to lower wage areas of the globe. In those countries, it is a godsend. I remember that GM opened a car plant in Mexico, and "only" had to pay $14 an hour in wage and benefits, while the average UAW worker gets $45 a hour. However, since the average Mexican worker gets only about $2.00 a hour, these jobs were definitely nice to get.

Right now, the US is making a killing in highly machined large scale manufacturing. There's a company in my area that makes gears for large turbines. The kicker is that although there are places in Turkey and China that do this work, the big puyers of the technology don't trust the tolerances and qulaity of their work. So this company continues to have record year after record year.............there is hope for American business, and that's in custom jobbing........

 

[Texas Proud]

LKH....

Who said that the person should only work 40 hours for a 'living wage' And just out of curiosity.. what amount in dollars for a full year is this magical number??


Also, as someone pointed out, the wages that are being paid in the other countries are very HIGH compared to other choices they have... I saw a Frontline program on the India call centers... there were doctors and lawyers that were taking the jobs because they paid MORE than they could get doing their profession... the work conditions are also MUCH BETTER than for local businesses... they pay for transportation to and from work... they pay for all your meals at work... and also the high wage.. to them, it is the best job available in their country...

 

[LKH]

Magic number? I think HUD comes up with figures that, depending on the number in the household, allows for basic necessities. Of course the numbers change annually, depending on inflation, the economy, cost of healthcare, etc.

In most cases, yes, the wages offered by American companies are better than what folks might get otherwise. But we do hear about sweat shops run by US companies. So I think it's reasonable to require that they pay reasonably overseas.

Ultimately, the fact is, while some businesses will do the right thing without anyone telling them to, there are an awful lot that won't, and have to be told. All I know is that there is no excuse for what is supposedly the wealthiest country in the nation to have a whole class of people that we somehow feel it's OK to treat like slaves.

L