Is there any really major manufacturing company lost in the last 5 years other than in the automobile industry? :hmmm: If not, what jobs then are we looking to replace?

Take a look at factcheck.org

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/03/bid...d-jobs-claims/

Why limit it to just 5 years? This trend has been going on since the 70's We can't retrain our way out of this. No matter how motivated and educated people are there just aren't enough jobs to employ all of them.

Good article.


http://www.itif.org/publications/wor...turing-decline

The last five years was extremely fluid in job loss as well as closing companies and housing bubble burst. A time when a division between lower wage jobs and high paying wages is very visible.

I don't disagree with that but I wonder what it has to do with recognizing the problem.

See post #33. It backs up your assertion here:

August:

Sitting on one's posterior waiting for someone else to create a job for you probably won't end well. I guess if cell phones were cheaper people might take the money they had left over and buy a chicken coop, or dig a fish pond, plant a vegetable garden, buy storage units and sell the stuff on craigslist, etc. Sounds like too much work for the average modern day american though.

Well I don't know if the answer is to replace manufacturing jobs with new manufacturing jobs. After all even though the reason these jobs went away is that they weren't economically competitive that's not the only obstacle we'd have to overcome to bring them back. Modern technology has severely reduced the need for humans to do them.

I watch a lot of the railroad documentaries from the 40's and 50's and one thing that is readily apparent in all of them is just how labor intensive everything was back then. What took 100 strong men now takes 1 button pusher. So what do we do with the other 99 people?

August:
Sign them up for a government job!

Robotics has taken people out of the picture. It is a conglomerate of items that has brought us to this juncture. But, still bringing back some manufacturing that went overseas will help. Even so, we still do manufacture quite a bit.

I hear FEMA is looking for people to work in those Death Camps.
:hmmm:

As far as I know you still need someone to clean and maintain the guillotines.
:haha:

Those folks have been assigned to the FEMA coffins. A lot to inventory you know. :03:

:hmmm:
I seen all those videos.
What I can't wrap my head around is if it's all secret?
Why can I see YouTube videos?
:har:
What part of 'YouTube' and 'Secret' just don't mesh?

What is CPI Increase? Not sure if serious but let me quickly outline what CPI is. CPI stands for Consumer Price Index. In my country for instance the cpi gets adjusted quarterly. CPI in a nutshell is the measurement of the average price paid for a market basket of goods and services.
Items are bought by 2 groups, namely Urban consumers and Urban wage earners.
Now, what has the cpi got to do with the cost of hiring someone to flip burgers at Maccas? Well, apart from inflation, which i will cover shortly, cpi adjustments are used by escalation agreements, escalation contracts ask for an increase in types of payments made when an increase of prices occurs (cpi adjustments).
An adjustment of wage rates also is included here.
These are called collective bargaining agreements. CPI increases drive costs like rent, housing, food, goods, services and more. To compensate for the increase in living costs, wage rates are adjusted. Quiete simple really. Not getting a cpi increase, regularly, is actually almost a stealth pay cut. If you follow me.
CPI increases are there to cover inflation. I think you call it indexing in your Country. So do we.

Agreed, however that's not the points i'm trying to raise.
Although, inflation also has something to do with annual wage increases.

Here or Here Granted, i'm talking about Australia here, but you get the idea. Not sure if the States have that? I'd be extremely surprised if not. I would imagine the US Dept of Labour-Wage and Hour Division would be involved in that perhaps.

Again, i am talking about my country. Granted, i should be using examples that are applicable to the country of origin for the article. Granted, one should never allow a contract or workplace agreement to become outdated, but it does happen. Once again, i used my country as an example.
Wrong. It seems you want to talk about wage rate increaes yet you also want to talk about someone not performing well in their jobs so they aren't qualified to obtain a wage increase? Well, if the case you make is that a person that's on a minimum wage doesn't perform and they aren't entitled to a wage increase, then what are they doing there still? In fact, the article mentions nothing of poor performance. Or does it? So, we come back to wage increases, cpi, inflation, workplace bargaining agreements, annual wage rate reviews, and so forth.
You don't perform, you don't get a pay rise? I don't understand what that has to do with the point i'm trying to make that every, yes every working person in America is entitled to pay rises, reviewed annually, in line with indexing and inflation.
I am talking about minimum wage per hour, no bonuses, no tips, no allowances, nothing, just the minimum amount you get paid. Or in better terms, the base rate.

Further, indexing the minimum wage means adjusting it annually to keep pace with rising costs of living. But i've already outlined that. CPI.
In 2011, just as an example, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington saw their minimum wages automatically go up by 9 to 12 cents.
The minimum wage at Maccas does not take into account rising prices.
After adjusting for inflation, the minimum wage is about $3.30 less than it was in 1968. Back then—forty-five years ago—the minimum wage was $10.56 an hour, according to a very useful chart from CNNMoney.
There we have inflation, and how it ties in with cpi and wage rates.
Here's a good read on a study that was done 20-odd years ago on fast food outlets, minimum wage rates and increases, and how employers felt about that http://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/njmin-aer.pdf

When workers are paid more, they tend to work harder, and quit less readily. Firms, knowing they can’t simply rely on low wages, have an incentive to invest in new equipment and training programs. All of these things can boost productivity, which is the lynchpin of prosperity.
President Obama noted in his speech, “a family with two kids that earns the minimum wage still lives below the poverty line. That’s wrong.” And he’s right.

Not at all Steve, i was referring to another poster with that comment, for it seemed that they were in that position.

. When it has to do with annual wage reviews, indexing and inflation, then a wage rate increase is not only fair but just, to meet the increased costs.
Yes of course, but i think somewhere along the line wires were crossed with other members and perhaps i didn't make myself clear, i wasn't talking about performance-based increases in payment. Or bonuses, allowances or any other money on top of the minimum rate of pay for these workers. I was, and am talking about the minimum wage and how that should be adjusted annually if not half-yearly, which it is in this country, to meet the rising costs of living caused by the cpi, or indexing.
Once again, i made the mistake of using my country as an example, which is not being realistic.
But you get what i mean.

Well learning new skills is not the issue here since emplyees seem to be 'management' material, or so i read it.
Yes, employers pay what people are worth, but we must be careful to ensure what the employer pays is also the award rate. Paying the correct amount to a employee is law. Once again, we are not talking about performance-based bonuses, or raises dependent on someone's amazing skill set at work.
We are, or at least i was, talking about the minimum award rate. There is no way out for an employer to NOT pay that. Nothing to do with performance.

U.S. minimum wage is low compared to its counterparts in other advanced countries. In France and Ireland, for example, the minimum remuneration level is more than eleven dollars an hour. Even in Great Britain, which is usually regarded as a country with a flexible, U.S.-style labor market, it is close to ten dollars an hour. Another informative chart, this one from Business Insider, shows that the U.S. minimum wage is comparable to ones in places like Greece, Spain, and Slovenia—countries where G.D.P. per capita and labor productivity are markedly lower than in the United States. You have an advanced economy but a middle-level minimum wage.
That chart is 2011, however, At the current $7.25 rate, full-time workers earning minimum wage make an annual $14,500, while the federal poverty level for a family of two is $15,130. Some have argued that Obama should have called for an even higher wage floor — he promised $9.50 in his 2008 campaign — but regardless, the United States has one of the lowest minimum wages among developed economies.
Her's a more recent chart:
http://i.imgur.com/R1u0vAi.gif

I'm in Australia, and as you can see, $15 p/hr is not a big deal, so to speak for us Aussies.
Now, i wouldn't call any of that minimum wage, letalone the $15 p/hr they are asking for, a fat pay cheque? Would you, after seeing the facts that i linked with charts above?
Some of the major economies in Europe also pay well above the U.S. minimum. France just raised its minimum wage to €9.43, or $12.68 an hour, while workers in the U.K. are paid at least £6.11, or about $9.50.
Hell, even Canada gets more, although they don't have a minimum national wage, workers must be paid at least 9.75 Canadian dollars, or $9.73, an hour, while workers in Yukon get at least $10.27.
Obama proposed a national hike of minmum wages to $9 US, but even then it would leave the US trailing above-mentioned counterparts.


Again, that is not what i'm trying to get across. Probably my fault in not making myself concise enough in the first place.

Actually - a person's appearance actually is part of the standard by which they are judged - and such judgment is perfectly legal. An employee is expected to represent the company - and while the company may not choose to restrict the right to wear things like nose rings or ear gauges that you could drive a Buick through, the individual manager has every right to determine whether or not such accoutrements present the desired presentation appropriately. Its just like the whole uniform issue - most restaurants mandate that one be worn. Some however (apparently) do not mandate that the shirt be tucked in. If that is the case - then it is up to the discretion of the management come review time to determine who better "represents", and reward accordingly.

I didn't call anyone a "low life" - you did. Why insult them? Unless your talking about the two real world lowlifes that they mentioned by name - which I deal with them at the end of this post....

No we aren't - these people never left square one because they haven't chosen to actually invest in themselves enough to make their life better. Instead of whining about how they can't make ends meet on a part time job.

I made no such claim - I have no idea why you even think I did.

No - its because the job they are tasked to do is not worth getting done at $15 an hour to the company that provides said job.

That is easy. If it was worth $15 dollars an hour to get it done - then the going rate would not be minimum wage.

They were wanting to unionize if my memory serves what the article says - so they wouldn't have a contract.

I don't need to, because if your in a position that maxes out at say.... $9.50 an hour, that is the most your going to get in that position. If you excel, you get promoted to a new one where the pay scale increases... That is how it works, you see....

Nope to either of those - nor does it matter because McDonald's, like pretty much 95+% of non-union business in this country, works on a fairly standard corporate model when dealing with employees. I know how that structure works, and thus know why the people are whistling in a tornado trying to double their wages.

Ok, so lets get this straight... You agree they took a low ceiling job knowing it was a low ceiling job unless they really excel, but your ok with them just saying "screw it, it shouldn't be a low ceiling job - give us more because we want it"? So why don't you go in tomorrow and tell your boss that your job sucks and you should get a 100% raise?

No - McDonalds offers training for any crew member - however they have to take it and show by their incentive and effort and performance that they deserve to move up. Again - work hard and make it happen - instead of crossing the counter and holding a picket sign....

:har: No, your assuming that everyone has done all the training but can't take the job because they have cancer or some other deadly thing or they have a family to spend time with. Did you happen to notice that they want $15 bucks an hour for PART TIME jobs? Hey, that 20 hr. workweek really gets in the way of my cancer treatments that I do with my kids.... Or was it playing Xbox?


No, what excludes them from a wage increase is simple market realities - they are doing a job that is not worth more than minimum wage to get done....

Funny that - I heard none of them say that the job that they do is actually WORTH more than what they get paid to do it. Instead we get a lot of complaining that it isn't enough. The reason its a "Give Me" attitude is because we don't hear them say the deserve it for the performance or the "long" 8 hr shifts they work (all of three days a week). We hear it because its not enough to support a woman and her "extended" family of seven... Maybe some of them should start workin at Mickey D's too then.... even have someone take a managers job so they will quit makin babies? Wow - once again - personal responsibility - dang that is so outta style.

As for ole Alterique Hall - you know - the guy who "has to rely on his grandmother for meals"? - well - not only does he want a raise, but he seems to not be needing so much really since his facebook account talks about how he "got his food stamps" and he gets a paycheck too?

I didn't say what a fat paycheck is. A "fat" paycheck for ole Alterique Hall seems to be 650G's, once again per his facebook....

https://www.facebook.com/iflush1

Now - to me, a fat pay check is one in which you didn't earn the money that is in it - ie. you got paid a greater amount than the work you did was worth. So - if your flipping burgers, yes a $15/hr paycheck would be "fat". If your flying an cargo plane cross country in an ice storm, I'd call that same check pretty darn "lean".

Seriously - these morons calling for some gift of more money for doing a job that isn't worth what they want - can cry me a river. The ones that choose to support deadbeats who won't work themselves, or people who cry about a lack of food and get food stamps, a paycheck and want a huge payday from a lawsuit to boot - make me sick.

The reality? If you want to support yourself (and possibly someone else or your kids or something) - don't work a PART TIME job and expect that to pay all the bills. You gotta be on crack or something to think that would work. And people wonder why drug testing welfare recipients enters some people's heads.... :/\\!!

Define judging. Actually don't. I know what judging is. In what context. Who is doing the judging? You? Me? The employer? The customer?
Once we've figured that out, then we can proceed whether or not discrimination comes into it. But to make a 'throw-away' remark at the end of a post, totally out of context, to me at least, is why the word discrimination was mentioned. Because this: Of course, and? Now you are talking about grooming standards.We are getting away from your first point that you alluded me to, which was the question of when judging becomes discrimination. No, some don't, we are still talking about grooming standards, which is pointless because every establishment has different standards. And also fruitless since that is not what you originally pulled me up on. Really? Well, you're talking to a Restaurant Manager with 10 years' experience now. Staff under me were required to wear the company uniform, including name badge and their 'tools' of the trade, ie waiter's friend, pen, notepad, apron (in most cases). That were the basics. Without talking about nail polish, make-up, shoes, ear-rings, piercings, colour in hair, etc etc. But, again we aren't talking about grooming standards, since that isn't what you pulled me up on. In all my time as Restaurant Manager i have never ever paid someone more than what they are entitled to, which is to say, more than the base rate, if they have excelled at their job during a busy service period. Or have i paid them more than they are entitled to if they wore their uniform to work for that shift.Why? Because here we have a minimum award rate, governed by the state that you work in, which is in turn governed by the Federal Government.
Now i don't know what the restaurant staff in the US get paid extra for wearing their uniform correctly. Which should be part of the job requirement anyhow. I'm scratching my head here.
If you said to me what has all this to do with grooming and not discrimination, and why am i talking about grooming, even though i know that will not address your initial pulling-up post, then it is because you use the words "standards" and "represents", "presentation", "wear" and "appearance". I've probably missed a few.
Actually, after re-reading your first part of this, i think you mean a person is judged on how they dress, as in uniform at the establishment from customers or other staff or management. Ie, the customer may say: gee what a shabby employee that is, look how he is dressed, what sort of a place is this? Or other staff may say: wow, look at John, how come he gets away with piercings and ear-rings and his shirt out when we have to have our shirt tucked in?
Or management might say: gee, i'm going to have to talk to John about his dress code, he's really slipping.
Now in a perfect world, those comments by the customer, the other staff and management is acceptable, as in, no immediate appearance of discrimination made.
Just some remarks about someone's appearance. But, we don't live in a perfect world, and all too often i have seen the above comments i gave from the 3 parties turn into these:
Customer: Crap, look at this guy, he has metal in his face, i'm not getting served by him, no f'in way! Other staff: Hey John, you're a freak! Management: (At the job interview, providing the staff handbook does not mention the prohibition of piercings, hair colouring, tattoos, and let me tell you, jobs exist where you are more than entitled to wear such art) No way i'm hiring this guy, look at him, he looks like crap, he looks like scum and i bet he wouldn't be able to perform his tasks as well as my 'clean, unpierced, un-tattooed and non-alternative staff members.
So there we have it, judging. Any way you slice and dice that, it's judging. And discrimination.
Fyi, since you now know what i do career-wise, yes, i've hired plenty of alternative people, that could do the job better than a staff member that i had on my books, who was non-alternative. Yes, i've had numerous occasions with mu superiors that that person who has tattoos and a piercing which i hired the week before can do an awesome job. And yes, i've re-written many staff handbooks, moreso the grooming standards, to incorporate just such people. All too many times i see judgemnts meted out against people like this and it irritates me to no end.
Don't judge a book by its cover. It's an oldie but a dam goody.


I did, no disputing that Admittedly, i should have known better to use a throw-away term like that, because it can be misconstrued online. I used the term in frustration because i took this comment of yours which i saw as a little condescending. As if to say, well, look at me, look at what i've done aren't i wonderful and everyone else should follow my lead. The term was used, not because i believe they are, far from it, but i used it in a sarcastic way. I admit it was a error on my behalf.

.
Well we are at square 1 with this quote because firstly, they aren't whining, and secondly, protesting has benefits.
You perceive them as whiners, that's harsh. You've never wanted to be heard about anything in life? Never had grievances? Everything's always been rosy and dandy for you? In the work place i mean, since this is a protest about wages.
Sure, you may not perceive protesting to be the outlet for your work frustrations, or if you wanted to be heard about concerns you have about working conditions, pay rates or some such, you wouldn't protest. Or whine, as you put it.
Seriously, i apologized above about maybe perceiving you post about your work history wrongly, but then you come out with the word 'whining'.
Yep, protesting about fairer wage rates is whining.
Yep, get a education and get a better paying job. Sure, that's what you did, so it will all be fine.


Maybe not $15 p/hr but certainly a wage rate review needs to take place to bring the US in line with western european and also Japanese rates of pay for working at Maccas.
Hence the whining, errr, protesting by these people


Forming or joining a union in the workplace does not mean you don't have to sign a contract. Depending on the type of union and the establishment you would work for.
Unions do not exempt you from having to sign bargaining agreements or contracts.


Well, let's hope they get a fair go. Goes back to waht i said before about bringing this inline with western europe and japan rates of pay.



Ok, so lets get this straight... but your ok with them just saying "screw it, it shouldn't be a low ceiling job - give us more because we want it"?[/QUOTE]I wouldn't be ok with it. If i in fact said that, which i didn't. And it's not what they are protesting about. It will still be a low ceiling job, even if they get a pay rise. Whatever that amount will be. Give us more because we want it? Where did that come from? Is that your summation from the article? Are you assuming that that is what they are saying?
No where in that article do i see one of them saying give me more because i want it.
What infact is there, is "a request for an increase in the minimum wage" via a national protest.
I think your perception of the article is not realisitic.


I've done that. I've had battles with HR and superiors in the past, remonstrating that my job sucks, as in unsafe and unhygienic work areas, trouble-some staff, drugs on the premises, out of date food, fighting by staff on the premises, physical and sexual violence towards female staff members....yea, i've certainly done that before. I put my foot down and we worked things out quickly.
Oh and i forgot to mention, yes, i've approached bosses before about pay increases. Not increase to base rate, because the boss isn't responsible for setting that, but, bonuses, extra allowances. Absolutely.
And your point is?


Seems to me you have something against people who protest? Or is it just people that aren't as hard-working or as educated as you?
That's the impression i'm getting, because it comes up a lot the hard work and whatnot. Judging people who are in the service industry. I've had plenty of that sort of croud in my establishments before, over the years. People who don't have the abilities, whether mental or physical or financial to obtain an education and to further their prospects of career ladder ascension.
Why is it such a bother to you that they are protesting? Does it irritate you that you had to work for something in your life and they don't?
Gee i hope not.



Aha. So exclusion even when indexing, inflation and annual award reviews occur?
Right.
When reviews of minimum wage rates are done annually and bringing minimum wages inline with the cpi increases and the western european countries and japan as an example in relation to McDonald's wages for that type of job.
Thank god for minimum wage rate reviews, thank god for cpi increases, otherwise stealth pay declines would be a reality. Which in some cases occur.



What has that got to do with me saying: Funny that i don't get the " give me attitude" from the article? It isn't. As i outlined in post number 43. So there is a give me attitude? No. We hear it because of your next quote: Just just 1 reason. Is their minimum wage rate better? Yes of course, now we are getting judgmental again.


He can get both? Blame the government for that.




Seriously - these morons[/QUOTE] And there we have it. Morons. They irritate you don't they? No idea why. Deadbeats. Maybe the term low-life should have been used by you? Would you rather they not support the deadbeats, as you put it, and that you, the tax payer supports them? Is that in that guy's facebook? I didn't check it. The hell? Lawsuit? Where did that come from? I know they do. You've certainly demonstrated that already.

Sometimes isn't as easy as that. Maybe they are? Since they support deadbeats and are crying a river of tears and whine and make one sick.