AeroWesty
Topic Author
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

The First 100 Hours - Keeping Track

Sat Jan 13, 2007 5:24 am

In another thread, I copied down the Democrat's plan for the First 100 Hours in the new Congress:

TUESDAY: Implement the remaining recommendations that the 9/11 commission made two years ago;
WEDNESDAY: Raise the federal minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour over two years;
THURSDAY: Expand federally funded stem-cell research;
FRIDAY, JAN. 12: Allow the federal government to negotiate for lower Medicare prescription drug costs;
JAN. 17: Cut interest rates on federally subsidized student loans from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent;
JAN. 18: End some subsidies for oil companies and invest more money in renewable energy.

Before they began the 100-hour measures, the Democrats were to press for new restrictions on gifts and meals from lobbyists, limiting or banning privately sponsored travel for members and their staff, increased disclosure of earmarks and new budget rules that would require offsets to any new spending to control the federal deficit.

I've been busy with a few other things that have not allowed me to keep track of everything they've done this week. Where do we stand? Does anyone know of a website where anyone's keeping track?
International Homo of Mystery
 
rjpieces
Posts: 6849
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 8:58 am

RE: The First 100 Hours - Keeping Track

Sat Jan 13, 2007 5:29 am

Quoting AeroWesty (Thread starter):
Does anyone know of a website where anyone's keeping track?

http://www.congress.gov

Click on "On the House Floor now" on the right side of the screen. You can select which days you want to look at there, and it has all of the information you want to know including roll calls of how members voted.

For example, here is the Roll Call for H.R. 3, the Stem Cell Research Act:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll020.xml
"Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon"
 
AeroWesty
Topic Author
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: The First 100 Hours - Keeping Track

Sat Jan 13, 2007 5:35 am

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 1):
Click on "On the House Floor now" on the right side of the screen. You can select which days you want to look at there, and it has all of the information you want to know including roll calls of how members voted.

Excellent, thanks. I didn't even think of going right to the source.
International Homo of Mystery
 
AirCop
Posts: 5553
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:39 am

RE: The First 100 Hours - Keeping Track

Sat Jan 13, 2007 5:48 am

The minmum wage and stem cell both passed the house with bi-partisan support, although Mr. Bush will veto the stem cell, and he also promises a veto on the bill to ALLOW please note not require negotiate for lower drug cost. Heck, this is more than the last Republican congress did in two years for the ordinary citizens of this country.
 
AeroWesty
Topic Author
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: The First 100 Hours - Keeping Track

Sat Jan 13, 2007 5:55 am

Quoting AirCop (Reply 3):
although Mr. Bush will veto the stem cell, and he also promises a veto on the bill to ALLOW please note not require negotiate for lower drug cost.

I caught a sound bite last night on the news that because the VA negotiates directly with drug companies, but not Medicare, veteran's costs for medications are on average 60% lower than for seniors. I'll have to read up on the text of the bill to see why our president doesn't want the same pricing advantage we already know is achievable.
International Homo of Mystery
 
searpqx
Posts: 4173
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2000 10:36 am

RE: The First 100 Hours - Keeping Track

Sat Jan 13, 2007 5:59 am

I was going to put this information in the thread on 'Disappointing Democrats', but it appears to have gone off track, so I'll stick this here. You can argue with the intent of the bills all you want, but at least in this sense, the Dems are keeping their word.

Finished are new rules on ethics, lobbying and budgeting - part of the Democrats' 100-hour promise in November but not included on Pelosi's clock. Also completed are the passage of three bills: antiterrorism measures, a minimum-wage increase and expanding federally funded stem cell research.

With just three bills to go, and one of those scheduled for passage Friday, Democrats appear on their way to accomplishing their promise, regardless of which clock is used.

From Seattle Times/AP Clock ticking on Dems' 100-hour agenda
"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
 
AeroWesty
Topic Author
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: The First 100 Hours - Keeping Track

Sat Jan 13, 2007 6:02 am

Quoting Searpqx (Reply 5):
With just three bills to go, and one of those scheduled for passage Friday, Democrats appear on their way to accomplishing their promise

Fantastic to hear. An example of good ol' San Francisco values hard at work, I see.  Wink
International Homo of Mystery
 
graphic
Posts: 1293
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 10:41 am

RE: The First 100 Hours - Keeping Track

Sat Jan 13, 2007 6:09 am

Quoting AeroWesty (Thread starter):
WEDNESDAY: Raise the federal minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour over two years;

Bad idea

Quoting AeroWesty (Thread starter):
THURSDAY: Expand federally funded stem-cell research;

Good idea

Quoting AeroWesty (Thread starter):
FRIDAY, JAN. 12: Allow the federal government to negotiate for lower Medicare prescription drug costs;

Good idea

Quoting AeroWesty (Thread starter):
JAN. 17: Cut interest rates on federally subsidized student loans from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent;

Very good idea

Quoting AeroWesty (Thread starter):
JAN. 18: End some subsidies for oil companies and invest more money in renewable energy.

Also a good idea.

seems like they're on the right track...so far.
Demand Media fails at life
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: The First 100 Hours - Keeping Track

Sat Jan 13, 2007 6:18 am

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 2):
I didn't even think of going right to the source.

 banghead  wink 

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 4):
veteran's costs for medications are on average 60% lower than for seniors.

For some, not all. And the co-pay just went up again. I don't take many drugs - and nothing on a daily basis (unless you could Schmirnoff or Tallisker). But I know some vets that do, and the costs - as with civilians - continues to rise. Was a time, the out of pocket to a Vet was Zero.

I think the retirees in this country - regardless of status (vet or otherwise) get fleeced pretty good by the Drug Companies. Any time now, Congress can deal with that. I watch my Father put out a couple hundred $$$ a month on scrips . . . the same drugs available in Canada for a quarter the cost.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 6):
An example of good ol' San Francisco values

 vomit 

It's just good old fashion taking care of business. Nothing to do with SFO . . . same thing they should have been doing all along.


I am concerned about the minimum wage increase on the economy, not that I don't think folks deserve it, I think they do . . . I am wondering when we'll see the other show fall - job cuts, inflation increase. How long will it take before those two factors rear their ugly heads?
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: The First 100 Hours - Keeping Track

Sat Jan 13, 2007 6:27 am

Quoting AirCop (Reply 3):
Heck, this is more than the last Republican congress did in two years for the ordinary citizens of this country.

You forgot one thing: the Republican Congress doesn't give a rats' behind about the ordinary citizen; they gave huge windfalls to banks with this atrocious bankruptcy bill, which only penalized people, and made it more difficult for them to get their financial lives back in order; they give billions in corporate welfare to big business; they give huge tax cuts to the wealthy, while giving almost nothing back for everyone else.

This Congress has been more active in one week than the last one in 2 years. It's truly

Quoting Graphic (Reply 7):
Quoting AeroWesty (Thread starter):
WEDNESDAY: Raise the federal minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour over two years;

Bad idea

Good idea. If we can afford huge tax breaks for the wealthy, we can afford a higher minimum wage.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
AirCop
Posts: 5553
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:39 am

RE: The First 100 Hours - Keeping Track

Sat Jan 13, 2007 6:34 am

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 8):

I am concerned about the minimum wage increase on the economy, not that I don't think folks deserve it, I think they do . .

And what is 37 states (alot them voters approved) already have higher minimum wages than the federal wage standard. Doesn't appear to be hurting those states. So what if one pays a nickel more for their Big Mac.
 
graphic
Posts: 1293
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 10:41 am

RE: The First 100 Hours - Keeping Track

Sat Jan 13, 2007 6:40 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 9):
Good idea. If we can afford huge tax breaks for the wealthy, we can afford a higher minimum wage.

We can afford neither. A huge minimum wage increase leads to huge unemployment...or higher employment of illegal workers.
Demand Media fails at life
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: The First 100 Hours - Keeping Track

Sat Jan 13, 2007 6:42 am

Quoting AirCop (Reply 10):
And what is 37 states (alot them voters approved) already have higher minimum wages than the federal wage standard. Doesn't appear to be hurting those states. So what if one pays a nickel more for their Big Mac.

Alaska included . . . and I see the cost of living here compared to other states. Which is exactly what concerns me.

Alaska and Hawaii aren' good example - as we are remote and a higher COL is almost guaranteed - but what about places like Alabama? Tennessee? Louisiana? Costs for goods will increase because the cost to produce, store, stock, sell the goods will increase. Fine and dandy if you're one of the people with a job. But what about pensioners? I don't see my Mother's SS increasing to cover the additional cost. I don't see my Father's Railroad Retirement increasing to cover the additional cost.

Therein lies a big headache. That nickel for a Big Mac may not be a big deal to you and me - to those folks on a fixed income - it's going to be.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: The First 100 Hours - Keeping Track

Sat Jan 13, 2007 6:46 am

Quoting Graphic (Reply 11):
We can afford neither. A huge minimum wage increase leads to huge unemployment...

Bull. That line has been brought out by conservatives every time anyone mentions rising the minimum wage, and it doesn't do squat. It's a scare tactic, to keep the big tax breaks out there for the wealthy.

Raise the minimum wage. It's the right thing to do for workers in this country.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
AirCop
Posts: 5553
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:39 am

RE: The First 100 Hours - Keeping Track

Sat Jan 13, 2007 6:55 am

Quoting Graphic (Reply 11):
A huge minimum wage increase leads to huge unemployment..

Could you define huge?

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 12):
Therein lies a big headache. That nickel for a Big Mac may not be a big deal to you and me - to those folks on a fixed income - it's going to be.

Agreed, but on the other end, you got people for what every reason (job field, lack of education, disability) that also need the little extra income. The wage increase for those workers isn't going to be big enough to change their life style, but keeping the wage at $5.15 or whatever for the past 15 years, its time for an increase.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 12):
I don't see my Father's Railroad Retirement increasing to cover the additional cost.

I understand your father's pain, if I remember right, RR retirement is in lieu of Social Security. And thats another law that needs to be change, that teachers, public safety employees that don't pay in SS, but yet pay into SS for 20-30 years should be entitled to their full benefits.
In short there isn't a perfect answer for the individuals on fixed incomes now. For the younger members, advice, save for your retirement NOW.
 
graphic
Posts: 1293
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 10:41 am

RE: The First 100 Hours - Keeping Track

Sat Jan 13, 2007 7:04 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 13):
Bull. That line has been brought out by conservatives every time anyone mentions rising the minimum wage, and it doesn't do squat. It's a scare tactic, to keep the big tax breaks out there for the wealthy.

No bull about it. Scare tactic by conservatives? maybe, but there is concrete truth behind it. Easy math here:

Your business makes a weekly revenue of $16,000.

You have 50 minimum wage ($5.15) employees working 40 hours a week.

At that rate, you're paying $10,300 weekly for labor.

Now the minimum wage increases to $7.25 so your labor cost goes up to $14,500. You can still afford to pay your employees, but instead of pulling a 30% profit margin, you're now pulling an 11% profit margin.

And that's a fixed cost. Any increase in the price of, say, oil, or for example, electricity, could put your business in the red real quick.

So you want a 30% profit margin again to be safely profitable.

You need to bring your labor cost back to $10,300. To do that, 15 employees gotta go. A 28% increase in the minimum wage has led you to layoff 30% of your workforce.

Now imagine that translating to the entire minimum wage workforce, factoring those who weren't working minimum wage before the increase, but are now because of the increase. that's gonna be anywhere in the neighborhood of 30% (that we just figured out) to 50% of the minimum wage workforce going into unemployment because employers simply can't afford to pay them all.

With that much unemployment, this business's weakly profit is bound to go down because not as many people can afford to buy their product.

Scare tactic? maybe. Concrete evidence: I'd say so.

I voted mostly left during the last election, but I didn't vote to increase our state's minimum wage, nor do I support any increase in the minimum wage. Many of the folks working minimum wage are hard workers and on a personal level I'm sure they do deserve better, but the economy simply can't support it.
Demand Media fails at life
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: The First 100 Hours - Keeping Track

Sat Jan 13, 2007 7:09 am

Quoting Graphic (Reply 15):
Scare tactic? maybe.

No maybe. Yes, absolutely. So it's better to keep these employees in low wages, just to make a few more $$$.

Sorry, but I'll go with a higher working wage for Americans.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
graphic
Posts: 1293
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 10:41 am

RE: The First 100 Hours - Keeping Track

Sat Jan 13, 2007 7:13 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 16):
So it's better to keep these employees in low wages, just to make a few more $$$.

Yes, it is, because that way there are 50 people making some money rather than 35 people making slightly more money and 15 people making no money.
Demand Media fails at life
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: The First 100 Hours - Keeping Track

Sat Jan 13, 2007 7:15 am

Quoting Graphic (Reply 17):
Yes, it is, because that way there are 50 people making some money rather than 35 people making slightly more money and 15 people making no money.

I'm not buying it. I don't care what your "facts" say. Giving Americans more financial buying and savings power is not a bad thing. This will cost few, if any jobs. It's a scare tactic to keep people who don't make a lot in poverty conditions.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
AirCop
Posts: 5553
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:39 am

RE: The First 100 Hours - Keeping Track

Sat Jan 13, 2007 7:15 am

Quoting Graphic (Reply 15):
Scare tactic? maybe. Concrete evidence: I'd say so.

I realize that you are young, but these are the same arguments used 15 years ago and prior in regards to raising the minmum wage. (When I first started to work in high school in the early 70's it was $1.50hr). Anyway the arguments haven't proven to be true. For example what kind of businesses pay minmum wages now. I would agrue most of them are fast food, movie houses, okay maybe Wal-Mart, but the businesses that pay these wages will actually raise their prices, and because of the type of business it is, it won't have any affect on the unemployment rate nor will it hurt the profit margin of the business. Here in my area in Arizona, these types of business already raised their prices prior to the new wage law going into effect.

[Edited 2007-01-12 23:16:43]
 
j_hallgren
Posts: 1427
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2000 11:48 am

RE: The First 100 Hours - Keeping Track

Sat Jan 13, 2007 7:21 am

There is also the ripple factor to consider...that raising minimum forces a corresponding increase in many, if not most all, wages for those making above min wage...some unions have wage rates, as I understand, that are specifically linked to min so any change in it makes a ripple thru many other areas...and thus, it really doesn't help any as overall cost goes up, so you're at same level compared to others, but just at higher number.
COBOL - Not a dead language yet!
 
graphic
Posts: 1293
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 10:41 am

RE: The First 100 Hours - Keeping Track

Sat Jan 13, 2007 7:37 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 18):
I'm not buying it. I don't care what your "facts" say.

"facts," "truth," "hard evidence," all just buzzwords really.  Wink

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 18):
Giving Americans more financial buying and savings power is not a bad thing.

I agree.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 18):
This will cost few, if any jobs.

You're wrong.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 18):
It's a scare tactic to keep people who don't make a lot in poverty conditions.

Kool aide tastes good today?

Quoting AirCop (Reply 19):
I realize that you are young, but these are the same arguments used 15 years ago and prior in regards to raising the minmum wage. (When I first started to work in high school in the early 70's it was $1.50hr).

Lets have some fun with inflation.

The anual rate of inflation is around 5%. That means that in 2 years something that cost $1.00 today is going to cost $1.05 or thereabouts in 2 years (ceterus perebus...for the most part, not factoring in something like a massive terrorist attack or natural catastrophe that could artificially pump inflation much higher). In 2 years, the minimum wage goes up 28%. That means that if you're paying a guy $1.00 to do something now, in 2 years you'll be paying him $1.28. But for every $1.28 that you spend, you only make $1.05.

See the problem now?

Quoting AirCop (Reply 19):
For example what kind of businesses pay minmum wages now. I would agrue most of them are fast food, movie houses, okay maybe Wal-Mart,

Wal Mart is widely known to use illegal workers at lower wages. You can't factor in a black market as a model for the general economy, because

Quoting AirCop (Reply 19):
but the businesses that pay these wages will actually raise their prices, and because of the type of business it is, it won't have any affect on the unemployment rate nor will it hurt the profit margin of the business.

You assume that they'll raise wages as well as prices, but what is widely assumed is that many of their employees (janitorial crews, night crews) are illegal workers working already below minimum wage. So why would they have to raise prices and wages?
Demand Media fails at life
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: The First 100 Hours - Keeping Track

Sat Jan 13, 2007 8:07 am

Quoting Graphic (Reply 21):
Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 18):
This will cost few, if any jobs.

You're wrong.

I've seen it before. It's not wrong.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: The First 100 Hours - Keeping Track

Sat Jan 13, 2007 8:40 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 18):
Giving Americans more financial buying

Sure about this are you Falcon? Increased wages are great, but they will cause increased costs on the producer, distrubutor, retailer . . . who will raise the Price of goods. So, will there really be an increase in buying power? I don't see it. Perhaps in the short term, until inflation catches up.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
AirCop
Posts: 5553
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:39 am

RE: The First 100 Hours - Keeping Track

Sat Jan 13, 2007 8:40 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 22):
I've seen it before. It's not wrong.

 checkmark 

Quoting Graphic (Reply 21):
Wal Mart is widely known to use illegal workers at lower wages. You can't factor in a black market as a model for the general economy, because

Perhaps because firms have a large time getting people to work for $5.15hr. Even in North Dakota. I'm guessing that $5.15/hr doesn't go far.
Perhaps when you graduate and join the real work force, you might have a different perpective. Besides it's well documented lack of income also equals a increase in crime in that income level.
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: The First 100 Hours - Keeping Track

Sat Jan 13, 2007 8:58 am

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 24):
So, will there really be an increase in buying power?

Yes, I believe it will, my friend. If costs go up, they'll most likely go up a fraction of what the wages go up. I think it's always a good thing to put more money in the pockets of those who work hard for very little.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
AirCop
Posts: 5553
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:39 am

RE: The First 100 Hours - Keeping Track

Sat Jan 13, 2007 9:00 am

This is from the San Francisco Chronicle regarding Paul Pelosi;
The bulk of the Pelosis' money comes from investments in stocks and real estate. Operating through Financial Leasing Services, his San Francisco investment firm, Paul Pelosi owns stock in companies including Microsoft, AT&T, Cisco Systems, Disney, Johnson & Johnson and a variety of tech stocks.

Since he is a very wealthy person, I going out on the limb here, I suppose that he has alot of investments in all sorts of companies and while $17m sounds like alot, in the grand scheme of things I doubt that would be enough for him to use his influence and get special treatment for Del Monte.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: The First 100 Hours - Keeping Track

Sat Jan 13, 2007 9:01 am

So where is our resident democrat basher, ASF? He isn't interested in a factual discussion of the new Congress?

What a surprise......not.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: The First 100 Hours - Keeping Track

Sat Jan 13, 2007 9:14 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 25):
I think it's always a good thing to put more money in the pockets of those who work hard for very little.

Please understand I'm all for putting $$$ in people's pockets. That's not my concern. This increase in the wage will drive up costs to the end user - that's a guarantee. What are the Democratss going to do about the fixed income folk I mentioned earlier. Not too distant future, you and I and a lot of other members here will be in that boat (or fairly close to it), with or without any savings/retirement plan. IWe may be helping the lower working class, but we're not affecting the middle class and certainly not the wealthy. It is going to impact the fixed income folks - hard.


And after a few months - a year perhaps - the increased buying power will be null and void because of the increased costs to the consumer . . . someone has to pay for these raises. It's going to be the consumer. Wages go up, prices go up, inflation goes up . . . here we go . . .
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
AirCop
Posts: 5553
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:39 am

RE: The First 100 Hours - Keeping Track

Sat Jan 13, 2007 9:31 am

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 28):
What are the Democratss going to do about the fixed income folk I mentioned earlier. Not too distant future, you and I and a lot of other members here will be in that boat (or fairly close to it), with or without any savings/retirement plan.

Agreed, but what did the Republicans do? Not a thing, did pass some kind of Medicare bill that costing our seniors even more. Medical care is probably the #1 enemy of our former middle class seniors, and the number that have lost their pensions/medical benefits from their employers.
 
allstarflyer
Posts: 3264
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:32 am

RE: The First 100 Hours - Keeping Track

Sat Jan 13, 2007 12:01 pm

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 9):
they gave huge windfalls to banks with this atrocious bankruptcy bill, which only penalized people, and made it more difficult for them to get their financial lives back in order

That's kinda garbage there. I was on the receiving end of my 2nd airline furlough at the end of '05, and was heading towards BK (until, basically, I was saved by a miracle - somebody bought my condo). I could have made a better decision (or two - at least), and, if I had, I wouldn't have been in that mess. How many people get into credit/financial trouble simply because they make dumb decisions? The BK laws had to be fixed, or else there's not as much deterrent to the consumer/worker to watch his spending choices - the lenders and creditors lose less this way as, for example, higher income earners will now have to pay something under chapter 13 instead of having a "clean slate" under chapter 7.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 13):
Quoting Graphic (Reply 11):
We can afford neither. A huge minimum wage increase leads to huge unemployment...

Bull. That line has been brought out by conservatives every time anyone mentions rising the minimum wage, and it doesn't do squat. It's a scare tactic, to keep the big tax breaks out there for the wealthy.

Let it shake out here after the next two quarters. We may see by then if the new minimum wage law drives up unemployment. I, for one, am not optimistic.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 27):
So where is our resident democrat basher, ASF?

That guy's getting on my nerves. He's getting way out there. Robosexualism now?

-R
Living the American Dream
 
piercey
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 11:07 am

RE: The First 100 Hours - Keeping Track

Sat Jan 13, 2007 12:30 pm

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 9):
Good idea. If we can afford huge tax breaks for the wealthy, we can afford a higher minimum wage.

nope. see:

Quoting Graphic (Reply 15):
Your business makes a weekly revenue of $16,000.

You have 50 minimum wage ($5.15) employees working 40 hours a week.

At that rate, you're paying $10,300 weekly for labor.

Now the minimum wage increases to $7.25 so your labor cost goes up to $14,500. You can still afford to pay your employees, but instead of pulling a 30% profit margin, you're now pulling an 11% profit margin.

And that's a fixed cost. Any increase in the price of, say, oil, or for example, electricity, could put your business in the red real quick.

So you want a 30% profit margin again to be safely profitable.

You need to bring your labor cost back to $10,300. To do that, 15 employees gotta go. A 28% increase in the minimum wage has led you to layoff 30% of your workforce.

listen, big business will get affected, but small business will get slaughtered.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 16):
Sorry, but I'll go with a higher working wage for Americans.

Which is needed, but not with this big of a jump!

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 18):
This will cost few, if any jobs.

 redflag  As some of you know, I go back to work after March 14th (the thread about it is around here somewhere). Either way, my boss sent me an e-mail last night saying that I'm basically the first one to go if he needs to layoff some people. If he can pull it off, I get a pay raise, but if not...
Well I believe it all is coming to an end. Oh well, I guess we are gonna pretend.
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: The First 100 Hours - Keeping Track

Sat Jan 13, 2007 1:10 pm

Quoting AirCop (Reply 29):
Agreed, but what did the Republicans do? Not a thing,

No argument, I was definitely against that medicare bill. . . . point I'm trying to make here my friend, is that all is not as rosey with the Minimum Wage increase as folks think. Sure, it'll be great to have a bit of extra coin tinkling in the pocket - but if we're not very careful, we'll have runaway inflation and the fixed income folk will be left holding the (empty) bag.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
searpqx
Posts: 4173
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2000 10:36 am

RE: The First 100 Hours - Keeping Track

Sat Jan 13, 2007 2:43 pm

All of the arguments against raising the minimum wage center around the fact that it will 'cost jobs'. Graphic's scenario is the classic representation. What isn't taken into account is that:
1) Revenue is not a static item - as costs increase (labor), so do prices. No its not a one to one relationship, but its enough to offset the drastic margin erosion cited by Graphic.
2) The increase is not a knife edge increase. It'll be implemented in 3 steps over a 26 month period. So again, your hypothetical company will not go from a $10,300 cost of labor on Monday, to a $14,500 cost on Tuesday.

Finally, while there is no definitive answer one way or the other, there is plenty of evidence produced since the last increase that a minimum wage increase doesn't negatively impact overall jobs, and in some cases, may actually increase job opportunities.
"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: The First 100 Hours - Keeping Track

Sat Jan 13, 2007 2:59 pm

Quoting Searpqx (Reply 33):
2) The increase is not a knife edge increase. It'll be implemented in 3 steps over a 26 month period. So again, your hypothetical company will not go from a $10,300 cost of labor on Monday, to a $14,500 cost on Tuesday.

Completely understand that . . . as I said, initially, everyone will feel good, a little extra coin, no big impact on the economy - three years out however, I see the inflation rate increasing because NOW employers have to either charge more to keep the same number of employees paid or can some employees, expect more out of those that remain, and charge the same for their prodoct. Natually there will be a price increase - with or without an increase in the min wage - that happens anyway.

I am prepared to see a much more substantial increase - at least in the lower 48 - we already exceed the new min wage in Alaska . . .

That's my run on my friend . . . might not see it tomorrow, might not see it in early 2008, but by 2010, if not properly and carefully managed, unemployment will up and inflation will be up . . . it's happened before.

Quoting Searpqx (Reply 33):
Finally, while there is no definitive answer one way or the other, there is plenty of evidence produced since the last increase that a minimum wage increase doesn't negatively impact overall jobs, and in some cases, may actually increase job opportunities.

Last min wage increase wasn't over 25% either . . .
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
N174UA
Posts: 860
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 4:17 pm

RE: The First 100 Hours - Keeping Track

Sat Jan 13, 2007 4:05 pm

Quoting Graphic (Reply 21):
Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 18):
This will cost few, if any jobs.

You're wrong.

You're both right, and both wrong. If businesses get a tax break (or whatever W wants added to the bill to help small businesses) the impact will be next to nill. If not, the difference will likely be absorbed by a.) small overall increases in the retail price and b.) slight reduction in hours scheduled to offset the higher labor cost.

Quoting Graphic (Reply 15):
And that's a fixed cost

Huh? Labor? No....labor is a VARIABLE cost in this situation! The amount of labor used to prepare burgers and salads and shakes depends on the number of customers. If the place is packed, more labor is required. If the place is always slow, then the store manager will have to reduce the number of hours that he/she schedules for their employees.

The only time labor is "fixed" is under a union contract which stipulates that covered workers must be paid x number of hours per week, regardless. That situation does likely not apply to workers who earn minimum wage.

Piercey gives a good example below of what happens when labor costs increase through legislation or other means. Because labor is a variable cost, the tool the manager uses to adjust to the increase in variable cost is by reducing the amount of labor. It is usually always impossible in the "short run" to reduce a fixed cost like a tax payment or lease payment on a machine. Therefore, when costs unexpectedly rise (wages, fuel prices, etc.) then the business manager/owner has very few options to quickly fix the problem, and the only way is usually through changes to labor staffing levels and/or wages. In the "long run", all costs are variable. Shortages are associated with the short run, and the longer term problem of managing resource scarcity is associated with the long run.

Quoting Piercey (Reply 31):
Either way, my boss sent me an e-mail last night saying that I'm basically the first one to go if he needs to layoff some people. If he can pull it off, I get a pay raise, but if not...



Quoting Searpqx (Reply 33):
and in some cases, may actually increase job opportunities.

Sure would love to see how this happens....   

According to economic theory, when a governmental body (state or federal) imposes a new minimum wage level, they are in effect imposing a price floor. If the equilibrium wage is $5 before, but then is raised to $7, the increase creates a situation where the labor market is out of balance, and employers will have to reduce/eliminate workers to correct this imbalance, creating a surplus of workers who are without work. The other solution, according to theory, is that the wage would have to be lowered back to $5 to eliminate the short term imbalance and restore the original labor market equilibrium at the $5 level. So yes, minimum wage increases actually hurt the very people they were designed to help. (Rent control is another example, though it's the reverse logic, and that is a price ceiling,where it creates a shortage of apartments at an artificially lower rent level)

In practice, if businesses are given some other favorable condition(s) such as a tax credit or whatever, then the impact is lessened somewhat, so that workers wouldn't be eliminated, but possibly working a lower number of hours, which defeats the purpose of the wage increase to begin with. It's great to go from $5 to $7, but if the result is going from 30 hours per week down to 20, then it means there is a better mechanism to improve the take home salary of affected workers.

Minimum wage is highly political, as we've seen in this post. We saw an increase in 1997, then nothing for 10 years, then now a 3-step increase from $5.15/hour to $7.25 over 2 years. The result is an upward pressure on inflation of goods as workers spend more. To me, as an economist, this is foolish! What makes sense, and what should have been put in this bill, is an annual increase in the minimum wage that is directly tied to the inflation rate. Small incremental increases every year to 'smooth out' the impact on business, but also helps the workers as well keep up. I think it's better to invest in training programs to increase worker skill levels rather than handing them an across-the-board wage increase.

[Edited 2007-01-13 08:22:58]
 
GuitrThree
Posts: 1940
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 12:54 pm

RE: The First 100 Hours - Keeping Track

Sun Jan 14, 2007 12:55 am

Quoting Graphic (Reply 21):
Wal Mart is widely known to use illegal workers at lower wages. You can't factor in a black market as a model for the general economy, because

Really? Wal Mart is widely known to use illegal workers? Since when? Since when was Wal Mart EVER busted for using illegal workers? Since when have you ever seen, and believe you me you would, television coverage of illegal workers in Wal Mart?

There hasn't been, except for one incident a few years ago where some sub-contractor was using illegals for some type of cleaning crew. If you have specific examples of Wal Mart knowingly giving a pay check to an illegal please bring it to the table. I'd like to know and start complaining to the company loudly.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 9):
Good idea. If we can afford huge tax breaks for the wealthy, we can afford a higher minimum wage.



Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 13):
Bull. That line has been brought out by conservatives every time anyone mentions rising the minimum wage, and it doesn't do squat. It's a scare tactic, to keep the big tax breaks out there for the wealthy



Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 16):
No maybe. Yes, absolutely. So it's better to keep these employees in low wages, just to make a few more $$$.

Sorry, but I'll go with a higher working wage for Americans.



Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 18):
I'm not buying it. I don't care what your "facts" say. Giving Americans more financial buying and savings power is not a bad thing. This will cost few, if any jobs. It's a scare tactic to keep people who don't make a lot in poverty conditions.



Quoting AirCop (Reply 19):
I realize that you are young, but these are the same arguments used 15 years ago and prior in regards to raising the minimum wage. (When I first started to work in high school in the early 70's it was $1.50hr). Anyway the arguments haven't proven to be true.



Quoting Searpqx (Reply 33):
Finally, while there is no definitive answer one way or the other, there is plenty of evidence produced since the last increase that a minimum wage increase doesn't negatively impact overall jobs, and in some cases, may actually increase job opportunities.

Explain to me why everyone loves to bash "big business" by complaining that they don't pay enough, benefits suck, the only people that make money are the CEO's and the stock holders, they use and abuse the little guy, so on, and so on, but when the Minimum Wage increase happens these same people actually now think these evil corporations are going to do nothing to offset the loss in profit? They are suddenly not going to cut the labor force to continue to make huge unethical profits that all go to the already rich people? They suddenly are going to care more about their workers than themselves. Really? Do tell me so.. I'd love to hear the first story about a CEO of a large corporation who is willing to take a major paycut to keep the same level of employees....

You know, and I say this seriously. Maybe GWB ISN'T, after all his claims, the reason why unemployment is at record lows. Maybe, just maybe, it's because over such a long period of time, the minimum wage has been not been changed. You see, I understand that someone cannot support a family on minimum wage, but those jobs are entry level and someone with a family should, well, not just be entering the work force. I know, I know, it's a hard concept for some to understand, start when your 16-18, work hard, get promoted, I know, for some, they just fell into the trap of having sex when they were 14 and had to watch a kid until they were 20, I get it..
BUT, that being said, the minimum wage not only effects the "entry-level" jobs, it effects ALL jobs, higher minimum wage, equals higher other wages, which means less profits.

Now, again, look at the picture as you always have. Will CEO'S and STOCKHOLDERS stand to lose profit because wages went up and be nice people, or will the unemployment rate go up.

YOU might think that giving entry level workers a $2 raise is a great thing, but ask those million or so people, (which represent only a 1 to 2% increase in the unemployment level) how grand its going to work for them... and that 1-2% ISN'T just the minimum wage gang, its ALL WORKERS, since ALL LEVELS of INCOME are effected with the increase.
As Seen On FlightRadar24! Radar ==> F-KBNA5
 
AirCop
Posts: 5553
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:39 am

RE: The First 100 Hours - Keeping Track

Sun Jan 14, 2007 1:27 am

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 36):
, it effects ALL jobs, higher minimum wage, equals higher other wages, which means less profits.

Not always.

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 36):
the reason why unemployment is at record lows.

No its not, some states in the 90's had less than a 2% unemployment rate, Minnesota comes to mind.

But anyways, my background is in criminal justice and education, a werid combination but whatever. Take company X. Its in a battle with Company y for the leadership for produce widgets. Y pays more than X. Employees are leaving X for Y better pay and benefits. X is playing a bundle in training costs and recuritment expenses, while Y is maintaining a stable workforce. Which company would be better off. The one that pays more, or the one that keeps its wages low, but spends its savings and more on hiring and training?

Now just another idea, alot of folks here complain about the inflation pressures of the minmum wage. What about your salary when your employer offers you a pay raise? Would you decline it because of inflation pressures? Again giving teachers and police officers raises, they don't produce anything that can be sold in the marketplace, wouldn't that cause inflation, so we should deny them a salary they can almost live on?

Almost sounds like an Aerospace post  biggrin 
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: The First 100 Hours - Keeping Track

Sun Jan 14, 2007 1:31 am

Quoting AirCop (Reply 37):
Now just another idea, alot of folks here complain about the inflation pressures of the minmum wage. What about your salary when your employer offers you a pay raise?

Apples and oranges. Your employer is most likely offering you a wage increase because he doesn't want to lose you to a competitor. He's calculated that he can afford the increase, and is probably not going to increase prices on account of your raise. But even if he does, it is the marketplace which is driving his decision, not an arbitrary order by the government.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
AeroWesty
Topic Author
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: The First 100 Hours - Keeping Track

Sun Jan 14, 2007 1:44 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 38):
But even if he does, it is the marketplace which is driving his decision, not an arbitrary order by the government.

There's a subtle thing working here, which is the Law of Diminishing Returns. AirCop has a good point, because a stable, educated workforce, will most likely produce a higher quality product that will command a demand of its own in the marketplace, even for inexpensive items. An employer needs to balance the cost of producing something right the first time vs. the cost of returns, repairs, or loss of sales that might come about due to an inexperienced workforce.
International Homo of Mystery
 
GuitrThree
Posts: 1940
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 12:54 pm

RE: The First 100 Hours - Keeping Track

Sun Jan 14, 2007 2:07 am

Quoting AirCop (Reply 37):
But anyways, my background is in criminal justice and education, a werid combination but whatever. Take company X. Its in a battle with Company y for the leadership for produce widgets. Y pays more than X. Employees are leaving X for Y better pay and benefits. X is playing a bundle in training costs and recuritment expenses, while Y is maintaining a stable workforce. Which company would be better off. The one that pays more, or the one that keeps its wages low, but spends its savings and more on hiring and training?

Which is why a minimum wage law is a joke anyway. I understand that to be a truly competitive company, you need to compete on all levels. This includes everything, from buying (if you have to) parts to selling at the right price, to maintaining competitive IT systems, etc, etc, etc, and also just as if not more important, a great work force. Therefore, a company that refuses to pay more in wages, will never be as good as the one that actually looks after their employees, but by not only good wages, but benefits and outside work life.
The problem with your statement is that while the minimum wage goes up, the bad company X, will be paying a little more now, but the good company Y will also increase their wages to stay competitive, thus X people still leaving for Y, thus keeping things all equal, except for the fact that now both companies are not making the same amount of money. Thus CEO's of both companies will need to reevaluate where to cut cost to bring profit levels back up. Wonder where this will come from? Y, obviously won't cut wages, and X legally can't cut wages, so the only way would be to cut workers, thus, unemployment results.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 37):
No its not, some states in the 90's had less than a 2% unemployment rate, Minnesota comes to mind.

Overall, the countries unemployement levels have been FAR lower than they have been in the last 4 decades. You can pick and choose from the lot to try to prove your point, but you have to look at the entire picture. It's like saying the Airline industry was ok in 2005 because Southwest made money, while ignoring that the rest lost money big time. Now, please don't quote me on numbers, or even if this is true, just using it as an example of how picking one or two states that went against the grain doesn't prove anything.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 37):
Now just another idea, alot of folks here complain about the inflation pressures of the minmum wage. What about your salary when your employer offers you a pay raise? Would you decline it because of inflation pressures? Again giving teachers and police officers raises, they don't produce anything that can be sold in the marketplace, wouldn't that cause inflation, so we should deny them a salary they can almost live on?

No, certainly, I wouldn't turn it down. I'm, however, missing your point here. You need to define pay raise here. Is it a mandatory minimum wage pay raise? Is it a guaranteed pay raise in some sort of union contract or job description benefit? Is it a pay raise for hard work, showing up, and thus a merit raise? Why I ask is because I bet, company "Y" gives raised based on merit, while company X gives raises based on need to, by law, or rule.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 37):
Again giving teachers and police officers raises, they don't produce anything that can be sold in the marketplace, wouldn't that cause inflation, so we should deny them a salary they can almost live on?

Ahh, the old Teacher/Police officer argument. Now, I can't say what you make, but here is the what a Typical 2007 ENTRY level Police officer in Nashville makes:

Trainee : $33,537
Police Officer 1: $36,536
w/2 year college: $38,385
w/4 year college: $39,503
Police Officer 2: $41,276
w/2 year college: $42,514
w/4 year college: $43,752

Now, these are ENTRY pay for each position. They also do NOT include overtime, -or- time paid in court, which easily can mean that $36K is $46K, and that $43K is $53K with o/t and a couple of raises. So to say that they have salaries that they can "almost live on" is out of line. Do they deserve more? Yes. But to claim that they are living just on the bottom side of the poverty level is just wrong. Maybe, yes, small town officers make $7 an hour, I've seen this, yes, but again, aren't most of those small town jobs entry level position where people move up to bigger departments, such as Nashville? Besides that Nashville, and other departments offers "rank transfers," meaning that if you are a Sgt in your small town, and go to work in Nashville, you start there as a Sgt with Sgt pay.

I know, this is getting way off of base from the original thread of "100 hours," but it simply shows how little the minimum wage really used in America and how by raising it, the ripple effect is going to be huge.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 37):
Again giving teachers and police officers raises, they don't produce anything that can be sold in the marketplace, wouldn't that cause inflation,

Oh... see, your missing it here. Actually, teachers and police officers DO sell something. It's called a SERVICE, just like a cleaning crew. And when the cost of providing that service goes up, so do taxes...
As Seen On FlightRadar24! Radar ==> F-KBNA5
 
AeroWesty
Topic Author
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: The First 100 Hours - Keeping Track

Sun Jan 14, 2007 2:18 am

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 40):
Wonder where this will come from? Y, obviously won't cut wages, and X legally can't cut wages, so the only way would be to cut workers, thus, unemployment results.

Productivity also works into this, as higher paid, happier workers, with fewer worries are more productive employees. It's not all cut and dried "if X then Y". There are a lot of other parameters at work.

An employer may choose to invest in upgrading his facilities to boost productivity, even, that may not have been necessary at lower wage levels, creating jobs in secondary industries.
International Homo of Mystery
 
AirCop
Posts: 5553
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:39 am

RE: The First 100 Hours - Keeping Track

Sun Jan 14, 2007 2:31 am

Take the example of Costco vs. Sam's Club. Costco employees after three years are making nearly $45,000 plus benefits'; Sam's Club between $8-$9 hr, turnover rate, Costco (almost takes an act of congress to get hired) so less than 5%, Sam's Club approximately 20%, Costco limits profit margin to 7% (Wall Street doesn't like that) , whatever the market will bear with Sam's Club. On the face on Sams Club should win this hands down, wrong; the consumers vote for Costco. Wonder why? Costco is the one company that Wal-Mart has not been able to challenge for top spot in the market place.
 
GuitrThree
Posts: 1940
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 12:54 pm

RE: The First 100 Hours - Keeping Track

Sun Jan 14, 2007 2:43 am

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 41):
An employer may choose to invest in upgrading his facilities to boost productivity, even, that may not have been necessary at lower wage levels, creating jobs in secondary industries.

Good point, however, a boost in productivity without increasing sales can only mean less employees are needed to produce the same amount of product. Hence, once again layoffs..

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 41):
creating jobs in secondary industries.

jobs in secondary industries that are gone when the upgrade is complete.
As Seen On FlightRadar24! Radar ==> F-KBNA5
 
AeroWesty
Topic Author
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: The First 100 Hours - Keeping Track

Sun Jan 14, 2007 2:51 am

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 43):
Hence, once again layoffs..

It can also mean not hiring more workers, or, producing a better product more cheaply that becomes in greater demand in the marketplace, creating jobs. As I said, it's not always "if X then Y".

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 43):
jobs in secondary industries that are gone when the upgrade is complete.

It's obvious you've never done industrial purchasing. Once one company buys new equipment and produces faster/cheaper/whatever, that builds more orders from competitors for the same advantage worldwide, providing even more jobs on secondary, tertiary, etc. levels.
International Homo of Mystery
 
GuitrThree
Posts: 1940
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 12:54 pm

RE: The First 100 Hours - Keeping Track

Sun Jan 14, 2007 3:16 am

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 44):
It's obvious you've never done industrial purchasing.

Yep. I'll give you that one. Never myself purchased anything industrial!

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 44):
Once one company buys new equipment and produces faster/cheaper/whatever, that builds more orders from competitors for the same advantage worldwide, providing even more jobs on secondary, tertiary, etc. levels.

Maybe, maybe not. Depends upon what product the company is making. I for one, think that companies are already, and have been always looking at equipment to make things faster and cheaper, unless of course their locked in to some horrid union contract that says you need five workers per wheel to bolt on each wheel (because of course, there are 5 bolts per wheel). So the argument that raising the minimum wage will result in companies finally upgrading their "stuff" is pretty much moot in most cases. I would say that those that haven't are in production of odd items, thus no one has mastered the equipment, because the cost is way too high to "invent." So high, I would guess, that there would be only one option left, which I don't believe has been discussed here. And that would be? Of course, move the plant to Mexico and ALL jobs are lost.

Yep, your right... just because X doesn't mean Y. So there you go, my option to "just because X doesn't mean Y". In this case it could mean X= M-E-X-I-C-O. Another grand result of the minimum wage increase. Thanks Nancy.

[Edited 2007-01-13 19:18:31]
As Seen On FlightRadar24! Radar ==> F-KBNA5
 
AeroWesty
Topic Author
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: The First 100 Hours - Keeping Track

Sun Jan 14, 2007 3:51 am

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 45):

Yep, your right... just because X doesn't mean Y. So there you go, my option to "just because X doesn't mean Y". In this case it could mean X= M-E-X-I-C-O. Another grand result of the minimum wage increase. Thanks Nancy.

Quite obviously, in a world economy, some jobs will be lost, no doubt. However, the opportunity exists to do things better, which stimulates demand and jobs. It's called innovation.

If you owned a factory that made sponges, for example, you could probably source it anywhere in the world. But, if you couldn't deliver on time due to distance, or didn't have skilled enough workers to operate the manufacturing and packaging machines correctly, and put your product at a competitive disadvantage, you will seek a level, just like water, of where it makes the best sense to manufacture, or go out of business because people won't order from you any longer.

A number of companies have brought previously outsourced goods and services back to the U.S. simply because the economics of outsourcing didn't work once the consumer actually used the product or service. On the other hand, outsourcing some parts of the process has allowed jobs in the U.S. to either be maintained or increase due to modulating the manufacturing process. The 787 comes to mind in the latter example.
International Homo of Mystery

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aerlingus747, Baidu [Spider], MileHighClubber, petertenthije and 28 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos