Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 48 of 48

Thread: There go more jobs...

  1. #26
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: There go more jobs...

    Without proper regulations of industry to make sure there is some amount of balance in the economy, American will stop being the largest consumer in the world. Our standard of living will dramatically decrease across the board, not just for a few. It is a dangerous domino effect.
    Well, the Chinese and Arabs know this ... which is the very reason that the Chinese keep buying US Treasury bonds and the Arabs keep investing petrodollars in the USA. This allows the US gov't and US banks to then loan the Chinese and Arab money back to US consumers, who in turn keep spending that money to buy Chinese goods and Arab oil. As long as the wheels of this 'credit machine' can keep turning, i.e. as long as heavily indebted consumers can keep borrowing more money and avoid bankruptcy, then the cycle can continue. However, once this is no longer possible, the entire money flow machine could come crashing down like the 'house of cards' it actually is. This is also the reason that the 'tin foil hat' crowd believes that the only option available to the US gov't is to keep printing more new US dollars as fast as possible, thus reducing the value of the US$ and along with it the value of US consumer debt which must eventually be paid off (and screwing the Chinese and Arabs in the process by devaluing their US$ holdings).

  2. #27
    Veteran Member Lurker's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    209
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: There go more jobs...

    Vamp, have you gone to a Wal-mart lately? The reason those things are so cheap is because of the salaries of the workers who make them, right? If you want everything to be made in America, price levels would double or triple for lots of manufactured items.

    Those people who lose jobs in manufacturing become taxi drivers, hairdressers, marketing consultants, real estate agents, etc. Unemployment in this country is 5%. Twenty years ago it was higher than that, so the "export" of jobs doesn't seem to have prevented new jobs being created.

    The reason Delphi is in the fix it is in is, as Melonie says, because their workers are much better paid than overseas workers. There's nothing anyone can do about that. Building a wall around the US will make our lives worse, not better. The US can lose its manufacturing sector in the coming decades and keep its role as the "intellectual capital" capital of the world. The main concern is, as politicans and Greenspan have been stressing for years, to try and educate people so they have the most flexibility possible in a world where lifetime employment in a manufacturing job just isn't going to be the reality most Americans live in.
    "All this time you were pretending
    So much for my happy ending."
    --Avril Lavigne

  3. #28
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: There go more jobs...

    Vamp, have you gone to a Wal-mart lately? The reason those things are so cheap is because of the salaries of the workers who make them, right? If you want everything to be made in America, price levels would double or triple for lots of manufactured items.
    Actually, while relative hourly pay rates and relative employee benefit costs are a significant factor, there are also many other factors which make for a major difference in production costs in the USA and production costs in the '3rd world'. I'm talking about the costs of OSHA workplace safety compliance, the costs of DEC environmental compliance, the cost of non-gov't subsidized power and other utilities, property taxes on the factory, the cost of mandatory gov't programs i.e unemployment and workmen's comp insurance etc. As I said in an earlier post, for some 20 years now the de-facto US gov't policy is to encourage US manufacturers to stop manufacturing in the USA. The 'price' that must be paid for 'cleaning up' the past environmental and safety issues from US manufacturers of 25-50+ years ago is to export future environmental and safety problems along with manufacturing operations, but to allow ourselves to become a non-independent 'cog' in the global economic wheel rather than the somewhat self-contained economy we used to be 50 years ago.

    I also agree with you that 'intellectual property' , 'high finance', 'retail sales' and resulting 'service industries' to serve those involved with the other 3 professions are now America's chosen 'niche' in the global economy. However, all of these professions basically depend on a continued 'cut' of worldwide cash flows as their source of income. Anything that disrupts the global cash flows will also starve the top of the pyramid i.e. the bankers, brokers, engineers, etc. and the negative cash consequences will then quickly trickle down to the 'retail' and 'service industry' level.

    Also, all of these professions at the top of the pyramid require major brainpower/credentials and/or a 'stake in the business' in order to offer a 'middle class' pay rate. In today's global scenario, a union fork truck driver earning $75k per year 'middle class' pay without a college degree and/or without a 'stake in the business' at a US Delphi/GM plant simply does not have economic viability. This will indeed result in a forced readjustment to the standard of living of former union employees - at which point they will appreciate WalMart prices even more.
    Last edited by Melonie; 04-04-2006 at 02:52 PM.

  4. #29
    Featured Member Vamp's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,111
    Thanks
    271
    Thanked 757 Times in 289 Posts

    Default Re: There go more jobs...

    Alot has been said on both sides. I have one question. Should all US workers be paid based on their overseas counterpart?

  5. #30
    Featured Member Vamp's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,111
    Thanks
    271
    Thanked 757 Times in 289 Posts

    Default Re: There go more jobs...

    Walmart's prices have little to do with their employees. I used to work at Walmart. There is a great book called the Walmart effect. In the book it talks about how Walmart fixes their prices. If they are dealing with an American manufacturer that can't meet the price they want; they tell them to take their operation overseas. If they dont Walmart will not do business with them.
    Walmart corp heads are some of the richest people in the world. But they cant afford basic health care for their employees? How does that make sense?

    All workers deserve a living wage no matter what skill level. Not a wage to keep up with the jones. Not everyone will be able to get the education to progress. Our country is changing. The lower classes shouldn't be left behind. If a company is making huge profits then employees should share in the benefits.

    For the past twenty or more years this country has gone thru deregulation. The regulations were in place to create a checks and balance. Without them we have seen a huge rise in corp fraud. The fraud that can be proven in a court that is.

    The greed of corporations and our goverment will be our downfall. Profits at any cost only makes a few wealthy and a great many more poor.

  6. #31
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: There go more jobs...

    All workers deserve a living wage no matter what skill level. Not a wage to keep up with the jones. Not everyone will be able to get the education to progress
    The problem is that SOMEBODY has to subsidize the cost of providing that 'living wage" a.k.a. "minimum American standard of living" which the un/semi skilled un/semi educated person cannot provide for themselves through the true value of their own labors. Ultimately, artificially improving the standard of living of un/semi skilled Americans occurs at the expense of a declining standard of living of skilled 'middle class' Americans. If taken to extremes a la the old Soviet Union, Cuba etc. a situation always develops where the skilled workers realize that breaking their butts does not result in improvement in their own lives which is significanly above their un/semi skilled neighbors. When that happens, and those that 'can' lose the incentive to do more than going through the motions because they know that anything extra they earn/produce will just be taken from them and given to their neighbors, everybody loses. America tried this economic system ... once ... a long time ago ... at the Plymouth Colony ... and failed miserably !

    " Bradford’s comments make it clear that common ownership demoralized the community far more than the tax. It was not Pilgrims laboring for investors that caused so much distress but Pilgrims laboring for other Pilgrims. Common property gave rise to internecine conflicts that were much more serious than the transatlantic ones. The industrious (in Plymouth) were forced to subsidize the slackers (in Plymouth). The strong “had no more in division of victuals and clothes” than the weak. The older men felt it disrespectful to be “equalized in labours” with the younger men.

    This suggests that a form of communism was practiced at Plymouth in 1621 and 1622. No doubt this equalization of tasks was thought (at first) the only fair way to solve the problem of who should do what work in a community where there was to be no individual property: If everyone were to end up with an equal share of the property at the end of seven years, everyone should presumably do the same work throughout those seven years. The problem that inevitably arose was the formidable one of policing this division of labor: How to deal with those who did not pull their weight?

    The Pilgrims had encountered the free-rider problem. Under the arrangement of communal property one might reasonably suspect that any additional effort might merely substitute for the lack of industry of others. And these “others” might well be able-bodied, too, but content to take advantage of the communal ownership by contributing less than their fair share. As we shall see, it is difficult to solve this problem without dividing property into individual or family-sized units. And this was the course of action that William Bradford wisely took.

    PROPERTY IS PRIVATIZED

    Bradford’s history of the colony records the decision:

    At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other things to go in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number.

    So the land they worked was converted into private property, which brought “very good success.” The colonists immediately became responsible for their own actions (and those of their immediate families), not for the actions of the whole community. Bradford also suggests in his history that more than land was privatized.

    The system became self-policing. Knowing that the fruits of his labor would benefit his own family and dependents, the head of each household was given an incentive to work harder. He could know that his additional efforts would help specific people who depended on him. In short, the division of property established a proportion or “ratio” between act and consequence. Human action is deprived of rationality without it, and work will decline sharply as a result."

    from

  7. #32
    Featured Member Vamp's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,111
    Thanks
    271
    Thanked 757 Times in 289 Posts

    Default Re: There go more jobs...

    Who do you think subsidizes those that get a wage less than a living wage?

    If they dont deserve a living wage aka $25,000 a year, what do they deserve? How is this figure determined?

    And once again should ALL american workers be paid the same as their counterpart overseas ?

  8. #33
    God/dess Deogol's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,493
    Thanks
    120
    Thanked 50 Times in 35 Posts

    Default Re: There go more jobs...

    Quote Originally Posted by Vamp
    Who do you think subsidizes those that get a wage less than a living wage?

    If they dont deserve a living wage aka $25,000 a year, what do they deserve? How is this figure determined?

    And once again should ALL american workers be paid the same as their counterpart overseas ?
    God I hope we aren't paid the same as workers overseas. I would rather not be scooping rice out of a bowl with my hands.

  9. #34
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: There go more jobs...

    Who do you think subsidizes those that get a wage less than a living wage?
    without going too far towards the political, those that are earning a wage less than your 'living wage' are currently subsidized by tax revenues from other workers ... and given IRS statistics 96.5% of those tax revenues are collected from those earning $29,019 or more. This means that none of the cost of subsidizing that 'poor' person is paid by other 'poor' persons, and that a large degree of the subsidy cost is paid by 'middle class' or the 'rich' who are charged much higher tax rates.

    With the 'living wage' system, EVERY customer of the business employing that employee at a 'living wage' is contributing to the subsidy - 'rich' and 'middle class' and 'poor' alike - and in equal percentages - because the cost of the subsidy winds up being tacked onto the cost of the business' product. As a secondary result, the business owners wind up contributing to the subsidy as well, in the form of reduced profit margin. Also, more highly skilled workers at the same business also contribute (involuntarily) to the 'living wage' subsidy as that business foregoes future pay raises to more highly paid more highly skilled employees as the business owners must attempt to keep their product competitively priced versus other businesses not bound to pay 'living wage' rates to unskilled employees.

    And yes, to some degree at least, the 'market' dictates that no company which attempts to pay unskilled workers at pay rates which are vastly higher than its 'global' competitors can remain financially solvent indefinitely ... meaning that highly paid (on a worldwide basis) un/semi skilled American workers will be facing a choice of significant pay cuts or permanent loss of jobs as that employer goes bankrupt.

  10. #35
    Featured Member Vamp's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,111
    Thanks
    271
    Thanked 757 Times in 289 Posts

    Default Re: There go more jobs...

    The gov't is aware (from bitter past experience) that in order to keep the 'very rich' investing in America, that they must keep the effective tax rates applied to the US earnings of the 'very rich' at a low enough level that it doesn't skew the after-tax return on investment equation in favor of moving their money offshore. 10-15% of something is much more helpful to the US gov't coffers than 20-25% of nothing ! However, from a media standpoint, to avoid widespread discontent on the part of 'poor' and 'middle class' Americans, the gov't has a vested interest in perpetuating the false impression that the 'very rich' are actually paying the published 36% tax rate.

    This is from your post on another thread Melonie. So basically the non living wage earners are subsidized by the middle class. In turn bringing down the middle class. So the rich get out of paying taxes and living wages so their profits are greater.

  11. #36
    Veteran Member Lurker's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    209
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: There go more jobs...

    Quote Originally Posted by Vamp
    Walmart's prices have little to do with their employees. I used to work at Walmart. There is a great book called the Walmart effect. In the book it talks about how Walmart fixes their prices. If they are dealing with an American manufacturer that can't meet the price they want; they tell them to take their operation overseas. If they dont Walmart will not do business with them.
    Walmart corp heads are some of the richest people in the world. But they cant afford basic health care for their employees? How does that make sense?

    All workers deserve a living wage no matter what skill level. Not a wage to keep up with the jones. Not everyone will be able to get the education to progress. Our country is changing. The lower classes shouldn't be left behind. If a company is making huge profits then employees should share in the benefits.

    For the past twenty or more years this country has gone thru deregulation. The regulations were in place to create a checks and balance. Without them we have seen a huge rise in corp fraud. The fraud that can be proven in a court that is.

    The greed of corporations and our goverment will be our downfall. Profits at any cost only makes a few wealthy and a great many more poor.
    Right...Wal-mart's prices have little to do with their employees, since the people who MAKE their goods work overseas.

    Everything else in this post makes sense IF you're a socialist, so debating those ideas is a political argument which I don't have much appetite for.

    I'll take a stab at answering your question--US wages should be benchmarked off international COMPETITORS. For many industries (mostly services), there is no offshore solution--a guy in India can't cut my hair, and a woman in Bulgaria can't give me a lap dance. So for jobs that are portable (like accounting or manufacturing) the job goes where the cheap labor is. For jobs that aren't portable (like stripping and haircutting) the labor goes where the job is.
    "All this time you were pretending
    So much for my happy ending."
    --Avril Lavigne

  12. #37
    Featured Member Vamp's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,111
    Thanks
    271
    Thanked 757 Times in 289 Posts

    Default Re: There go more jobs...

    Well if having a mim living wage is socialist then America has been socialist for a long time .


    Letting illegals cut your lawn, do housekeeping, cutting your hair, etc is the offshore solution.

    If one sector is based on their overseas counterpart soon it will be all. Find out what your counterpart overseas wages are. Do you want to live on that wage? Then why should anyone else?

  13. #38
    Veteran Member Lurker's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    209
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: There go more jobs...

    The fact that there is a minimum living wage/income level is an incontrovertible fact. The idea that it should be provided to everyone regardless of the value (real or perceived) of their work is socialist. Most Western governments have some socialistic impulse which provides a "safety net" for people. Maybe you think it should be at a certain level, and I think it should be at another. I'm not sure there's much point in arguing about it, but I DO find it strange that the same people who want every American to have a certain living standard apparently don't give a fig for the third-world workers who are well BELOW that level and want to work hard to approach it.

    And no, letting illegals do the jobs you cite is NOT the offshore solution. It's the converse--as I said above, it's an issue of labor coming to find the job (call it an "immigration problem" if you want) rather than the job going to find the labor (the "offshore" problem). Americans generally don't want to DO the jobs that immigrants take in our economy and fortunately by and large they don't have to.

    If you really think all wages will soon be based on the global lowest-cost provider for that service, you should certainly get out of the sex/stripping industry as soon as possible!
    "All this time you were pretending
    So much for my happy ending."
    --Avril Lavigne

  14. #39
    Featured Member Vamp's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,111
    Thanks
    271
    Thanked 757 Times in 289 Posts

    Default Re: There go more jobs...

    I have posted on other threads that foreign workers should get a living wage too. I cant do anything about their living conditions. But I can about American workers with my vote and voice.

    I do not believe that Americans are arrogent enough to decline a job because it is manual labor. The ONLY reason Americans will not do the jobs illegals do is because they are paid below min wage with no benefits.

    I do believe that if the current trend continues all American workers will be paid based on their counter part overseas. I am not a stripper or in the sex indrustry. I work in the finance world. I will not be immune from the current trend in any case.

  15. #40
    Veteran Member Lurker's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    209
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: There go more jobs...

    Re: your first paragraph, you are very idealistic.

    Re: your second paragraph, I wouldn't say that it's arrogance necessarily. For a typical American who is struggling, they can go live with their family and do odd jobs and be much happier than they would be doing some of these hard jobs. An immigrant might be making far more than they ever would in their home country. Different opportunity sets. I DON'T believe that all jobs illegal immigrants do pay below minimum wage, though I'm sure there are some (several) that do fit that description. I'm not sure how to feel about those jobs--if you can't grow apples in the US without paying your apple pickers below minimum wage, should apple farmers go out of business, or hire illegal migrant workers? I don't really have an answer for that, but I tend to think the latter.

    In the finance world, YOU (and I, incidentally) will definitely suffer from internationalization. But not everyone will. The only reason haircutters would is if the other opportunities available for workers become worse, and therefore the supply of potential haircutters goes up relative to the demand. But that's a different dynamic which does not result in a direct correlation between overseas pay scales in the same job. It's a second- or third-order effect.
    "All this time you were pretending
    So much for my happy ending."
    --Avril Lavigne

  16. #41
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: There go more jobs...

    Trying to stick with the financial side of this 'living wage' issue, the 'experts' figure that localities that enact 'living wage' legislation cause the following to happen ...

    If there were formerly 1000 minimum wage workers in that locality, after a year or two there will be about 600 former minimum wage workers now earning the 'living wage', and 400 former minimum wage workers now unemployed. Part of the unemployment is due to the fact that employers now have a much greater incentive to automate low skill jobs i.e. installing self-check outs, employers now taking the risk of hiring illegal workers at pay rates well below the 'living wage', employers relocating outside of the jurisdiction where the 'living wage' must be paid, and low margin unskilled labor intensive business owners simply pulling the plug before they experience financial losses.

    Additionally, there will be about another 200 more highly skilled, more highly paid workers who are also no longer working or spending money in that locality, as the businesses they worked for relocate outside of the 'living wage' jurisdiction.

    The 600 'living wage' earners lose eligibility for some social welfare programs they were previously eligible for, meaning that their de-facto standard of living is not significantly altered. However, the locality experiences the higher budget costs of providing social welfare benefits to the 400 newly unemployed than is offset by the 600 now being paid a 'living wage' instead of minimum wage. The locality also loses sales and property tax revenue due to the relocation of some businesses and the relocation of 200 more highly skilled workers who follow their relocating employer. This may prompt the locality to increase sales and property tax rates in subsequent years.

    In the end, nobody in that locality actually benefits from the 'living wage' in a financial sense, not those whose pay rate increased from minimum wage to 'living wage' but who lose eligibility for social welfare benefits, not those who must buy 'marked up' retail products where the price was increased to allow the employer to meet the new higher payroll, not the employer whose profit margin is squeezed, and certainly not those who were previously earning minimum wage and are now unemployed. You might research the recent riots in France over 'disposable' young workers, as the fundamental enconomic principles involved are very similar.

  17. #42
    Veteran Member Lurker's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    209
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: There go more jobs...

    Argh! I was about to make the "that locality = France" joke then got to your last sentence!

    Anyway, thanks for the good summary Melonie!
    "All this time you were pretending
    So much for my happy ending."
    --Avril Lavigne

  18. #43
    Featured Member Vamp's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,111
    Thanks
    271
    Thanked 757 Times in 289 Posts

    Default Re: There go more jobs...

    I am not going to continue to beat a dead horse. We disagree across the boad.

    I used to think being able to change anything in this country with a vote or voice was idealistic. I have decided that it isnt. It is how the founding farthers made this country. By not excerising my rights, I will loose them.

  19. #44
    Yekhefah
    Guest

    Default Re: There go more jobs...

    ^^^ You've already lost most of them.

  20. #45
    God/dess Deogol's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,493
    Thanks
    120
    Thanked 50 Times in 35 Posts

    Default Re: There go more jobs...

    Quote Originally Posted by Vamp
    I am not going to continue to beat a dead horse. We disagree across the boad.

    I used to think being able to change anything in this country with a vote or voice was idealistic. I have decided that it isnt. It is how the founding farthers made this country. By not excerising my rights, I will loose them.
    The founding fathers made this country by killing british soldiers and govenors. They didn't make it by protesting and writing letters to King George.

    Anyhow - people will get a living wage either way.

    If they can't earn it legally, they will earn it illegally - after all - it is a _living_ wage. People will want to live.

    And if they are caught, then they will in essence be paid around $28,000 to house them and health insurance ()

    It is kinda disheartening to know that 1 out of 140 people in this country are in prison ()

    So, these people are going to get paid either way.

  21. #46
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: There go more jobs...

    And if they are caught, then they will in essence be paid around $28,000 to house them and health insurance
    That's actually not all that expensive compared to the cost of paying for the Earned Income Tax Credit or unemployment + medicaid + subsidized housing + subsidized utilities they'd be collecting if they weren't incarcerated. And we're not talking about one person in 140, more like 1 person in 6 ! However, if you count the medicaid + subsidized housing + subsidized utilities + WIC etc. being collected by family members of the incarcerated ...
    .
    Last edited by Melonie; 04-08-2006 at 06:16 PM.

  22. #47
    God/dess FBR's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2003
    Posts
    8,351
    Thanks
    85
    Thanked 342 Times in 244 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Mellow

    Default Re: There go more jobs...

    I know quite a few Delphi skilled trade guys. Im talking toolmakers, welders, electricians etc A good percentage are already working part time evenings at other companies due to their concern about job security. I talked to one guy yesterday, a toolmaker, who is making $16 per hour at his part time evening job instead of $30 per hour at Delphi. I asked him what he thought about it. He responded that he wasnt sure who was fucking him...the company or the union but he had to cover his butt and take care of his family.

    This guy was, and I underscore was...a typical Friday afternoon strip clubber who could spend a few hundred on dancers and not think twice about it. Not any more.

    FBR
    Once again I have embraced my addiction and have put off the moral dilemma to another day.

  23. #48
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: There go more jobs...

    This guy was, and I underscore was...a typical Friday afternoon strip clubber who could spend a few hundred on dancers and not think twice about it. Not any more.
    Well, therein lies the bottom line for dancers ! In order to have money to invest, you first have to be earning money at a club. The massive loss of highly paid union manufacturing jobs at Delphi and hundreds of other US manufacturers, and the substitution of 'realistic' pay rate jobs, leaves these guys with a choice - either let their family's standard of living decline, or cut out 'unnecessary' expenses. Dropping a few hundred at a strip club on a weekly basis is not something that a blue collar worker receiving a 'realistic' paycheck can afford to do anymore, or at least it can't be done without negative consequences to his family's standard of living !

    This then raises the question, given that blue collar club earnings potential is destined to go downhill along with the paychecks of blue collar workers, of what types of clubs will still have a decent customer revenue stream in the future. IMHO there are two answers to this question ... upscale 'show clubs' that cater to bankers, brokers, businessmen, lawyers etc. who are profiting handsomely from the global economy, and 'high mileage' clubs which will provide enough 'bang for the buck' to blue collar workers to convince them to short their family's weekly budget.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. BL*W jobs..
    By whirlerz in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-13-2011, 10:34 AM
  2. So many jobs!
    By Deogol in forum Dollar Den
    Replies: 73
    Last Post: 07-24-2010, 04:26 AM
  3. Other jobs?
    By mistybayside in forum Stripping (was Stripping General)
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-27-2009, 11:55 AM
  4. What Other Jobs Have You Done???
    By seraya in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 75
    Last Post: 09-19-2007, 10:33 AM
  5. Other Jobs?
    By piper_monroe in forum Stripping (was Stripping General)
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-22-2004, 05:09 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •