Pricing is out of control

[JerryETX]

So you never ask for a raise or a change in benefits? Your first agreement is it? That's a choice, I suppose.

I’ve never had to ask. My performance speaks for itself.

 

[Docwagon1776]

I’ve never had to ask. My performance speaks for itself.

Still a modification to the original terms. And not applicable to contract work.

Why? Because greed doesn't look good on anyone.

I started out in manufacturing. Was a decent job. Non-union, good pay and good benefits. Still, I wanted better. So I put myself though college, working full time with a family. When I got through, I expected to make more money than my buddies back on the line, and I did. Pretty much doubled my income within a couple of years. But not by beating my employer up, by making myself more valuable.

And that's fine and admirable. But it is not sufficient to keep a large middle class. If you want a large middle class, semi skilled blue collar workers must be in that group.

Given ever increasing GDP, they are also more valuable.

Beating up the employer is a ridiculous way to paint it, in my opinion.

 

[TestPilot57]

I don't know. Cost plus 10% seems fair. And by cost, I mean the cost to build and ship it.

No. Way.

Just the design, engineering (including crash testing!) and tooling has to be more than 10% (of course, this is a fixed cost that reduces as time goes on, hence the reason for long product cycles with only minor refreshes). Sales and marketing has to be another 3-5%. And the shareholders should be entitled to at least another 3-5%. Then the dealer has to make something.

Fact is, any corporation is beholden firstly to its shareholders. Shareholders demand a profit. If they don't make a profit they go elsewhere. If enough jump ship the company folds. So the company has to turn a profit commensurate with the investment. The counterweight is that the company (with rare exception) can't just charge whatever they want to generate profit, because then people will tend to buy alternative products. And with no sales, profits go away as well.

Bottom line, if you feel a company is making too much profit, maybe it's time to buy some of their stock so you can profit yourself...

 

[jejb]

And that's fine and admirable. But it is not sufficient to keep a large middle class. If you want a large middle class, semi skilled blue collar workers must be in that group.

Sure they are, without question. But when the price exceeds a certain point, it can drive a lot of manufacturing out of the States to Mexico, India, etc.

Given ever increasing GDP, they are also more valuable.

Not sure what GDP has to do with it, but given inflation, I'd expect most folks to get raises to try and keep up. But 46% and a 32 hour week? That just ain't right. Greed at it finest, IMO.

Beating up the employer is a ridiculous way to paint it, in my opinion.

And you are certainly entitled to your opinion, just as I am mine.

 

[Docwagon1776]

Sure they are, without question. But when the price exceeds a certain point, it can drive a lot of manufacturing out of the States to Mexico, India, etc.

Not sure what GDP has to do with it, but given inflation, I'd expect most folks to get raises to try and keep up. But 46% and a 32 hour week? That just ain't right. Greed at it finest, IMO.

And you are certainly entitled to your opinion, just as I am mine.

Without turning it into a treatise, GDP and total work force show you how much any average worker contributes to the economy. It has steadily risen, for a host of reasons, meaning each worker today produces more "stuff" per man hour than his predecessors did, yet his wages vs his predecessors remained stagnate from the 1970s through COVID, then lost ground pretty dramatically. In short, Joe Regularguy in the '70s made less "stuff" but had more purchasing power for that "stuff" than the same guy in the same job in 2023. In contrast, the top wage earners have steadily gained ground, which is why we're where we're at and it's accelerating.

Globalization exists, no doubt, and our economy requires some levels of protectionism to maintain our middle class. It's why we still have a shipbuilding industry at all, we subsidize it and engage in protectionism because shipbuilding is mandatory for our own national defense. As is an automotive industry, semi-conductor industry, etc. We can only outsource so much to our enemies and those who can be readily influenced by our enemies without surrendering our ability to protect ourselves and project power. Wages are just part of that, and often not the largest. Energy costs and regulatory compliance, for example. I'm unapologetically America first in this regard, though I understand the issues that creates, again focusing solely on economics and not politics.

I'm not saying wages need to be equal, what I'm saying is wages need to be proportional. Unless you want a return to serfdom, an accelerating trend of economic power (and associated power that goes with it) makes it more and more difficult to maintain a democratic free market style of existence.

 

[Docwagon1776]

Stellantis counters with reduced benefits and pensions, at a time of record profit...

UAW calls Stellantis contract offer 'trash'

United Auto Workers (UAW) union President Shawn Fain angrily tossed contract proposals from Stellantis in a trash can on Tuesday, citing numerous concessions that the Chrysler parent is seeking in labor talks.

www.reuters.com

I'll leave it at that for folks to decide who's "greedy" and what that means for the future of the American middle class over the next 50 years.

 

[jejb]

Without turning it into a treatise, GDP and total work force show you how much any average worker contributes to the economy. It has steadily risen, for a host of reasons, meaning each worker today produces more "stuff" per man hour than his predecessors did, yet his wages vs his predecessors remained stagnate from the 1970s through COVID, then lost ground pretty dramatically. In short, Joe Regularguy in the '70s made less "stuff" but had more purchasing power for that "stuff" than the same guy in the same job in 2023.

You must be talking about productivity, not GDP. And that has risen. Most likely because of tech and robotics though, not from workers working any harder.

In contrast, the top wage earners have steadily gained ground, which is why we're where we're at and it's accelerating.

Show me some evidence that that is "why we're where we're at".

Globalization exists, no doubt, and our economy requires some levels of protectionism to maintain our middle class. It's why we still have a shipbuilding industry at all, we subsidize it and engage in protectionism because shipbuilding is mandatory for our own national defense. As is an automotive industry, semi-conductor industry, etc. We can only outsource so much to our enemies and those who can be readily influenced by our enemies without surrendering our ability to protect ourselves and project power.

Agreed. But that knife has 2 edges. By granting some industries protection, it gives greedy unions the opportunity to run rough shod over them. Hopefully that will not lead to more sad stories like the recent Yellow Trucking company.

Wages are just part of that, and often not the largest. Energy costs and regulatory compliance, for example. I'm unapologetically America first in this regard, though I understand the issues that creates, again focusing solely on economics and not politics.

From the article in the post just below yours:
Two people briefed on the matter told Reuters that automakers have estimated the UAW's contract demands could raise the current mid-$60-per-hour labor rate to more than $150 per hour.

I'm not saying wages need to be equal, what I'm saying is wages need to be proportional. Unless you want a return to serfdom, an accelerating trend of economic power (and associated power that goes with it) makes it more and more difficult to maintain a democratic free market style of existence.

Wage increases like being sought here are going to help to drive inflation ever higher, meaning all those other middle class folks that aren't getting 46% raises and 32 hour work weeks will become "serfs", to use your term.

 

[Docwagon1776]

UPS driver pay and benefits deal in US to be worth $170,000 a year, firm says

The shipping giant warns of lower profits after it agreed a deal to avert a US drivers' strike.

www.bbc.com

UPS seems to be able to figure out a way to keep workers' pay somewhat more in line with inflation rates.

 

[jejb]

UPS driver pay and benefits deal in US to be worth $170,000 a year, firm says

The shipping giant warns of lower profits after it agreed a deal to avert a US drivers' strike.

www.bbc.com

UPS seems to be able to figure out a way to keep workers' pay somewhat more in line with inflation rates.

That contract gives UPS drivers a total of $7.50 more per hour, spread out over 5 years. I'm guessing that's not 46%. And they were not asking for 32 hour work week.