New Best Seller In Economics

[Tiberius]

 

 

It was to keep his turnover lower. He had huge turnover and no shows on his assembly line because the work sucked so it was a business decision. It actually cost less to his bottom line to pay his employees twice the going rate than to deal with the turnover problems he had. But keep pushing that feel good story of he did it so his employees could afford to buy his cars.

 

Good call, I'll give you that one, but it was also so they could buy his cars. Not sure how you can say a guy wanting to sell cars is a feel good story?

 

http://corporate.ford.com/news-center/press-releases-detail/677-5-dollar-a-day

 

"While Henry's primary objective was to reduce worker attrition—labor turnover from monotonous assembly line work was high—newspapers from all over the world reported the story as an extraordinary gesture of goodwill.

 

Thousands of Workers Flock to Detroit

 

After Ford’s announcement, thousands of prospective workers showed up at the Ford Motor Company employment office. People surged toward Detroit from the American South and the nations of Europe. As expected, employee turnover diminished. And, by creating an eight-hour day, Ford could run three shifts instead of two, increasing productivity.

 

Henry Ford had reasoned that since it was now possible to build inexpensive cars in volume, more of them could be sold if employees could afford to buy them. The $5 day helped better the lot of all American workers and contributed to the emergence of the American middle class. In the process, Henry Ford had changed manufacturing forever."

[boyst]

Gators Amazon Literary Wish List

[Tiberius]

Gators Amazon Literary Wish List

 

I'm actually reading Thomas Dewey's biography which is an amazing book. Richard Norton Smith is a great writer, I just finished the section where Dewey prosecuted Lucky Luciano for running a prostitution ring or racket. Wow! Now that's some real history right there, NYC was in the clutches of thugs that ran a racket on everything sold in the city from artichokes to haddock. You either paid protection or you got beat up and your store was burned down and trucks destroyed.

[mead107]

If you took all the money away from everyone and gave them all $100, in ten years the people that had all the money before would have all the money again. The same people would be poor.

[Chef Jim]

If you took all the money away from everyone and gave them all $100, in ten years the people that had all the money before would have all the money again. The same people would be poor.

 

Yup.

[Koko78]

If you took all the money away from everyone and gave them all $100, in ten years the people that had all the money before would have all the money again. The same people would be poor.

 

Those people should be punished for obtaining more than their "fair share" of $100 by being taxed, and the money being forcibly redistributed to those who could not keep their $100.

[B-Man]

Get Rich or Die Trying :Hate economic inequality? Support Social Security reform.

 

By Kevin D. Williamson

 

The Left’s favorite economist of the moment, Thomas Piketty, organizes his argument in Capital in the Twenty-First Century around the statement r > g, where r is the rate of return on capital and g is the rate of economic growth. If r > g, he argues, then economic inequality will inevitably increase and will indeed be compounded, as the income derived from capital outpaces the income derived from other sources, such as wages. Putting it in the shape of a formula gives a certain science-y panache to the utterly uncontroversial observation that people who save and invest their money will generally end up richer than those who don’t. Professor Piketty argues that preventing the growth of corrosive inequality requires reducing the wealth of investors, which he proposes to accomplish through a fancifully conceived global tax on capital.

 

{snip}

 

 

When it comes to the so-called problem of economic inequality, me and dead owls don’t give a hoot. But if you want a radically richer society, there are few more reliable ways to get there than savings and investment. And if that spreads around some of the benefits of holding capital and allows the intergenerational transfer of real wealth from real investments to transform a few million families and enrich formerly impoverished communities, then three cheers for the guys in the pinstriped suits.

 

I suppose we have to consider the politics, too: A guy who works as a retail manager and has $700,000 in his retirement account smells like a Republican to me, somebody who’s going to be damned surly about things like inflation, income redistribution, and the imposition of punitive taxes and regulations on businesses in which he is invested with his own money; the same guy dependent on a pitiful little check from the government smells like a Democrat, one inclined to moaning about the fat cats and inequality and the general unfairness of it all.

 

And that, I suspect, is why Democrats will fight all the way down to bloody stumps to stop Social Security reform. It’s harder to recruit a guy with a fat portfolio into your harebrained class war, whereas a guy getting a government check is an easy mark. He might not be depressed enough to read Capital in the Twenty-First Century, which I suspect will join A Brief History of Time among the best-selling-least-read books of our time. (“A classic,” Mark Twain said, “is something everyone wants to have read and no one wants to read.”) But if he’s eating the federal cheese, he’ll keep voting for Democrats, even if he never stops to appreciate the irony in Harry Reid (D., Ritz-Carlton) getting rich peddling envy to rubes like him.

[DC Tom]

You either paid protection or you got beat up and your store was burned down and trucks destroyed.

 

Sounds like the Obama Administration...

[boyst]

Where is my $100?

[Koko78]

Where is my $100?

 

You don't deserve it. There's someone else who has dire need of your 'fair share'.

 

Since you felt the need to question where your money was, perhaps the IRS can help you out. You're now going to be audited, without lube. I hope you kept your receipts from when you were in kindergarten.

 

Forward!

[boyst]

You don't deserve it. There's someone else who has dire need of your 'fair share'.

 

Since you felt the need to question where your money was, perhaps the IRS can help you out. You're now going to be audited, without lube. I hope you kept your receipts from when you were in kindergarten.

 

Forward!

It sounds more like I just have to go to the back of the line... I guess that is forward.