Re: Retardation On Other Forums

[RW]

That's what corporations seem to claim in order to save money and up profit.  GBB did make a very valid point about Henry Ford's wage model.  What good is a product if no one can afford to buy it?



Why you can't compare minimum wages between countries is cost of living equivalents.  Australia is closer to Canada in pricing, where products in the US tend to be cheaper.  That means that $7 stretches much farther in the US than it does in Canada.

What corporation? You mean the independent owner/operator of a McDonald's store. Comparing the auto sector to franchised fast food outlets is disingenuous even for a non-thinking asshole like Bob.





Ask anyone that has been to Aus, it is more expensive than here. That aside, Australian fast food franchisees cope with higher wages by utilizing cheaper workers(under 18), more expensive/higher profit menu items and technology which reduces the need for workers. They end up spending about as much on wages as their Canadian and US counterparts.



BTW, Walmart and Target fit right in with Henry Ford's biz model. They the reasons everyone can afford cheap communication devices.

Honestly Shen, most of these fast food joints have the government setting their wages as they pay minimum wage.  Who actually dictates wages is almost moot.



I can't say I saw a comparison between fast good and automotive industries but the point remains about product affordability vs wage rates.  I'll take you to task on that myself if you want to argue it.



Do you actually have any statistics on wage costs in Australia vs the US and Canada?  I'd like to see it if you do.



Walmart and Target don't actually make anything though.

[Anonymous]

That's what corporations seem to claim in order to save money and up profit.  GBB did make a very valid point about Henry Ford's wage model.  What good is a product if no one can afford to buy it?



Why you can't compare minimum wages between countries is cost of living equivalents.  Australia is closer to Canada in pricing, where products in the US tend to be cheaper.  That means that $7 stretches much farther in the US than it does in Canada.

What corporation? You mean the independent owner/operator of a McDonald's store. Comparing the auto sector to franchised fast food outlets is disingenuous even for a non-thinking asshole like Bob.





Ask anyone that has been to Aus, it is more expensive than here. That aside, Australian fast food franchisees cope with higher wages by utilizing cheaper workers(under 18), more expensive/higher profit menu items and technology which reduces the need for workers. They end up spending about as much on wages as their Canadian and US counterparts.



BTW, Walmart and Target fit right in with Henry Ford's biz model. They the reasons everyone can afford cheap communication devices.

Honestly Shen, most of these fast food joints have the government setting their wages as they pay minimum wage.  Who actually dictates wages is almost moot.



I can't say I saw a comparison between fast good and automotive industries but the point remains about product affordability vs wage rates.  I'll take you to task on that myself if you want to argue it.



Do you actually have any statistics on wage costs in Australia vs the US and Canada?  I'd like to see it if you do.



Walmart and Target don't actually make anything though.

The government set my wage when I was a waitress..



I made minimum wage plus tips which were shared with kitchen staff..



It's not that my boss was cheap or mean, that is all they could afford.

[Anonymous]

That's what corporations seem to claim in order to save money and up profit.  GBB did make a very valid point about Henry Ford's wage model.  What good is a product if no one can afford to buy it?



Why you can't compare minimum wages between countries is cost of living equivalents.  Australia is closer to Canada in pricing, where products in the US tend to be cheaper.  That means that $7 stretches much farther in the US than it does in Canada.

What corporation? You mean the independent owner/operator of a McDonald's store. Comparing the auto sector to franchised fast food outlets is disingenuous even for a non-thinking asshole like Bob.





Ask anyone that has been to Aus, it is more expensive than here. That aside, Australian fast food franchisees cope with higher wages by utilizing cheaper workers(under 18), more expensive/higher profit menu items and technology which reduces the need for workers. They end up spending about as much on wages as their Canadian and US counterparts.



BTW, Walmart and Target fit right in with Henry Ford's biz model. They the reasons everyone can afford cheap communication devices.

Honestly Shen, most of these fast food joints have the government setting their wages as they pay minimum wage.  Who actually dictates wages is almost moot.



I can't say I saw a comparison between fast good and automotive industries but the point remains about product affordability vs wage rates.  I'll take you to task on that myself if you want to argue it.



Do you actually have any statistics on wage costs in Australia vs the US and Canada?  I'd like to see it if you do.



Walmart and Target don't actually make anything though.

I do not like Target, but the Wal-Mart low price way has been good for my family and saved us money

[Annie]

I shop Walmart too, but I also try to shop at organic family grown grocers as much as possible. It's hard for family's to get by and Walmart does help a lot with that but at the same time I hear so much bad about it :(

[Anonymous]

I shop Walmart too, but I also try to shop at organic family grown grocers as much as possible. It's hard for family's to get by and Walmart does help a lot with that but at the same time I hear so much bad about it :(

I think much of the criticism of Wal-Mart is unfair Annie..



My family could get by without them, but for families less fortunate than ourselves they have been a big help.

[Annie]

Oh it would be a lot harder for us if we didn't have one to go to. I hear they don't pay they're employees full wages but give them shifts under the amount of hours to get full pay. I don't know anyone who works there to ask if it's true and I don't want to ask a cashier while she's working, that wouldn't seem right some how.

[Anonymous]

Oh it would be a lot harder for us if we didn't have one to go to. I hear they don't pay they're employees full wages but give them shifts under the amount of hours to get full pay. I don't know anyone who works there to ask if it's true and I don't want to ask a cashier while she's working, that wouldn't seem right some how.

The one I go to has a sign as you enter that reads full time and part time associates needed..



It lists the jobs they are hiring for.

[Obvious Li]

Oh it would be a lot harder for us if we didn't have one to go to. I hear they don't pay they're employees full wages but give them shifts under the amount of hours to get full pay. I don't know anyone who works there to ask if it's true and I don't want to ask a ces forced on them by govt.ashier while she's working, that wouldn't seem right some how.

i have been unable to find a target, walmart, shoppers, london drugs, save on foods, safeway, superstore or any other large chain store in western Canada that offers 40 hour weeks any more...at least to their entry level employees...they do this to reduce costs of benefits and wages forced on them by govt. in the form of increased minimum wages across canada and around the world.....the result is lower total monthly income per employee, less workers and demand for higher productivity to counteract the increased costs associated with higher wages.......that is the inevitable result of demands for higher wages and benefits by low wage employees.....at one time, and i am assuming it is the same today, 75% of Macdonalds revenue worldwide was from real estate rental...not selling hamburgers.......so Macdonalds Inc has a different business model than individual franchise owners



it is a puzzlement to me why the left has this hate on for walmart.......it is the largest private employer in the world...it provides employment for the lowest rungs of society, a lot of whom are unemployable in practically any other field......hundreds of thousands of low educated blacks and trailer trash are employed there.....not to mention the thousands of dollars low income families are able to save annually by shopping there....it's kinda like their hate for pipelines.....no rhyme or reason...just blind obedience to some myth debunked long ago......

[Anonymous]

Oh it would be a lot harder for us if we didn't have one to go to. I hear they don't pay they're employees full wages but give them shifts under the amount of hours to get full pay. I don't know anyone who works there to ask if it's true and I don't want to ask a ces forced on them by govt.ashier while she's working, that wouldn't seem right some how.

i have been unable to find a target, walmart, shoppers, london drugs, save on foods, safeway, superstore or any other large chain store in western Canada that offers 40 hour weeks any more...at least to their entry level employees...they do this to reduce costs of benefits and wages forced on them by govt. in the form of increased minimum wages across canada and around the world.....the result is lower total monthly income per employee, less workers and demand for higher productivity to counteract the increased costs associated with higher wages.......that is the inevitable result of demands for higher wages and benefits by low wage employees.....at one time, and i am assuming it is the same today, 75% of Macdonalds revenue worldwide was from real estate rental...not selling hamburgers.......so Macdonalds Inc has a different business model than individual franchise owners



it is a puzzlement to me why the left has this hate on for walmart.......it is the largest private employer in the world...it provides employment for the lowest rungs of society, a lot of whom are unemployable in practically any other field......hundreds of thousands of low educated blacks and trailer trash are employed there.....not to mention the thousands of dollars low income families are able to save annually by shopping there....it's kinda like their hate for pipelines.....no rhyme or reason...just blind obedience to some myth debunked long ago......

I did not know that real estate rental was how McDonald's made most of it's earnings..



I worked at a Canadian Tire store as a teenager Obvious Li..



Then as now, most Canadian workers started on a part time basis..



The one I worked at has a lot of Filipino TFW's, but they all get full time hours.

 ac_umm

[Anonymous]

JOE, who always uses proxies is concerned about his private information?? ac_toofunny

Some days ago I posted in another thread, and my personal information was posted on this forum by a poster who goes under the moniker, bruce.



I've since switched to another Internet Service Provider and have obtained a completely new I.P. Address.



As well, I've decided to no longer post from my own personal Internet address.

Some days ago I posted in another thread, and my personal information was posted on this forum by a poster who goes under the moniker, bruce.

I never seen anyone crave attention to the extent that clown does. ac_rollseyes

[Renee]

The whole idea that Henry Ford paid his workers high wages so they could afford a new Ford is nothing but propaganda. The following article in Forbes explains that the model many proponents of raising the minimum wage are using doesn't work.



 "It should be obvious that this story doesn't work: Boeing would most certainly be in trouble if they had to pay their workers sufficient to afford a new jetliner. It's also obviously true that you want every other employer to be paying their workers sufficient that they can afford your products: but that's very much not the same as claiming that Ford should pay his workers so that they can afford Fords."



http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/04/the-story-of-henry-fords-5-a-day-wages-its-not-what-you-think/">http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall ... you-think/">http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/04/the-story-of-henry-fords-5-a-day-wages-its-not-what-you-think/



According to the Forbes article, H. Ford paid his workers more than average because of the extremely high turnover rate. It seems the majority of his workforce couldn't deal with the hours and conditions on the line so he needed to pay them a lot more to keep production moving. In 1913 Ford needed a workforce of 14,000 but hired 52,000. Apparently through the course of the year 38,000 workers fell by the wayside for various reasons.  



"At the time, workers could count on about $2.25 per day, for which they worked nine-hour shifts. It was pretty good money in those days, but the toll was too much for many to bear. Ford's turnover rate was very high. In 1913, Ford hired more than 52,000 men to keep a workforce of only 14,000. New workers required a costly break-in period, making matters worse for the company. Also, some men simply walked away from the line to quit and look for a job elsewhere. Then the line stopped and production of cars halted. The increased cost and delayed production kept Ford from selling his cars at the low price he wanted. Drastic measures were necessary if he was to keep up this production."



Liberals love to twist the truth to suit their fantastical view of how they think society and economics should work and it's especially true for those libertards that are extremely pro-union and anti-corporation. I find it laughable that they are trying to use the business philosophy of Henry Ford to bolster their pro-worker, pro-high minimum wage arguments. Henry Ford was a known and published anti-Semite, he was also violently anti-labor union and worst of all; despite the fact that he paid his workers relatively well, he considered them at best, expendable.

[Anonymous]

The whole idea that Henry Ford paid his workers high wages so they could afford a new Ford is nothing but propaganda. The following article in Forbes explains that the model many proponents of raising the minimum wage are using doesn't work.



 "It should be obvious that this story doesn't work: Boeing would most certainly be in trouble if they had to pay their workers sufficient to afford a new jetliner. It's also obviously true that you want every other employer to be paying their workers sufficient that they can afford your products: but that's very much not the same as claiming that Ford should pay his workers so that they can afford Fords."



http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/04/the-story-of-henry-fords-5-a-day-wages-its-not-what-you-think/">http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall ... you-think/">http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/04/the-story-of-henry-fords-5-a-day-wages-its-not-what-you-think/



According to the Forbes article, H. Ford paid his workers more than average because of the extremely high turnover rate. It seems the majority of his workforce couldn't deal with the hours and conditions on the line so he needed to pay them a lot more to keep production moving. In 1913 Ford needed a workforce of 14,000 but hired 52,000. Apparently through the course of the year 38,000 workers fell by the wayside for various reasons.  



"At the time, workers could count on about $2.25 per day, for which they worked nine-hour shifts. It was pretty good money in those days, but the toll was too much for many to bear. Ford's turnover rate was very high. In 1913, Ford hired more than 52,000 men to keep a workforce of only 14,000. New workers required a costly break-in period, making matters worse for the company. Also, some men simply walked away from the line to quit and look for a job elsewhere. Then the line stopped and production of cars halted. The increased cost and delayed production kept Ford from selling his cars at the low price he wanted. Drastic measures were necessary if he was to keep up this production."



Liberals love to twist the truth to suit their fantastical view of how they think society and economics should work and it's especially true for those libertards that are extremely pro-union and anti-corporation. I find it laughable that they are trying to use the business philosophy of Henry Ford to bolster their pro-worker, pro-high minimum wage arguments. Henry Ford was a known and published anti-Semite, he was also violently anti-labor union and worst of all; despite the fact that he paid his workers relatively well, he considered them at best, expendable.

Well, if Gay Boy Bob is using it to promote his agenda, it has to be misleading. Secondly, Ford and Sam Walton had a lot in common; they both helped make products that would normally be out of reach to the masses affordable.

[Romero]

"It should be obvious that this story doesn't work: Boeing would most certainly be in trouble if they had to pay their workers sufficient to afford a new jetliner. It's also obviously true that you want every other employer to be paying their workers sufficient that they can afford your products: but that's very much not the same as claiming that Ford should pay his workers so that they can afford Fords."

You're comparing being able to afford a car to being able to afford a jetliner? Jets cost hundreds of millions!

[Anonymous]

"It should be obvious that this story doesn't work: Boeing would most certainly be in trouble if they had to pay their workers sufficient to afford a new jetliner. It's also obviously true that you want every other employer to be paying their workers sufficient that they can afford your products: but that's very much not the same as claiming that Ford should pay his workers so that they can afford Fords."

You're comparing being able to afford a car to being able to afford a jetliner? Jets cost hundreds of millions!

Your pal Pat compared Ford to places like Walmart. Anyway, at the time, making auto ownership widely available was unknown.

[Anonymous]

The whole idea that Henry Ford paid his workers high wages so they could afford a new Ford is nothing but propaganda. The following article in Forbes explains that the model many proponents of raising the minimum wage are using doesn't work.



 "It should be obvious that this story doesn't work: Boeing would most certainly be in trouble if they had to pay their workers sufficient to afford a new jetliner. It's also obviously true that you want every other employer to be paying their workers sufficient that they can afford your products: but that's very much not the same as claiming that Ford should pay his workers so that they can afford Fords."



http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/04/the-story-of-henry-fords-5-a-day-wages-its-not-what-you-think/">http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall ... you-think/">http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/04/the-story-of-henry-fords-5-a-day-wages-its-not-what-you-think/



According to the Forbes article, H. Ford paid his workers more than average because of the extremely high turnover rate. It seems the majority of his workforce couldn't deal with the hours and conditions on the line so he needed to pay them a lot more to keep production moving. In 1913 Ford needed a workforce of 14,000 but hired 52,000. Apparently through the course of the year 38,000 workers fell by the wayside for various reasons.  



"At the time, workers could count on about $2.25 per day, for which they worked nine-hour shifts. It was pretty good money in those days, but the toll was too much for many to bear. Ford's turnover rate was very high. In 1913, Ford hired more than 52,000 men to keep a workforce of only 14,000. New workers required a costly break-in period, making matters worse for the company. Also, some men simply walked away from the line to quit and look for a job elsewhere. Then the line stopped and production of cars halted. The increased cost and delayed production kept Ford from selling his cars at the low price he wanted. Drastic measures were necessary if he was to keep up this production."



Liberals love to twist the truth to suit their fantastical view of how they think society and economics should work and it's especially true for those libertards that are extremely pro-union and anti-corporation. I find it laughable that they are trying to use the business philosophy of Henry Ford to bolster their pro-worker, pro-high minimum wage arguments. Henry Ford was a known and published anti-Semite, he was also violently anti-labor union and worst of all; despite the fact that he paid his workers relatively well, he considered them at best, expendable.

I know Renee, Henry Ford would be considered a monster by today's standards. A benevolent capitalist? A concern for social justice? I don't think so.



A quick search confirmed the romantic notions of a caring capitalist were lies. He was much worse than any CEO we see today.



In December 1937, the company was found in violation of the Wagner Act and was ordered to cease interfering with workers' efforts to unionize. In 1941, when wages at Ford were in fact lower than the average wage for the industry, Henry Ford continued to insist that "we do not intend to submit to any union."



Finally, in the spring of 1941 — after violent strikes, brutal assaults by Ford agents and government pressure — Ford and his company capitulated and agreed to a union shop. Ford workers were finally able to negotiate a contract.



Ford created the $5-a-day wage because he needed to reduce a yearly staff turnover of more than 200 percent (Foxconn has increased its wages in China fivefold since 2010 for similar reasons).



Ford employed a brutal union-busting operation and was the last big automaker to recognize a union.



Unlike German leaders who have endeavored to preserve jobs in today's bad economy, in 1931 Ford laid off 75,000 people, leading to the Ford Hunger March in 1932. Dearborn, Mich., police and Ford security opened fire on unarmed marchers, shooting dozens and killing five.



Labor terms may be bad today, but I am glad Henry Ford is not around to improve them.