Ok, the Bald guy at the Vons on Bristol boo'ed me tonight for entering the store. [Archive] - HP Deals, Computer Coupons And Bargains

psycho-

10-19-2003, 10:14 PM

Originally posted by Dave_7
Here's what I don't like as a customer... I don't like being played as a pawn in people's contract negotiations. Especially at a business where I spend (and have spent) quite a bit of money on a regular basis.

The all-too-famous bald guy at the local Vons on Bristol yelled from afar, "Please don't cross the picket line."

And I politely waived.

He then proceded to boo me.

Naturally, I saw some humor in this... but look... boo the scabs all you like. The ones who are actually crossing your picket line and taking non-union pay.

Boo them. Boo them all you like, all day long.

I would never, EVER boo a customer of mine.

It makes me want to go back there tomorrow and buy $200 worth of only Vons brand products.

:angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:

Dave.

My cousin taught me this line to use.

"if you don't let me cross the picket line, i'll never go to your store again and i'll tell all my friends to stop shopping at your store"

coleslaw

10-19-2003, 10:42 PM

Tell him that Mr. Clean called and he wants his head back! :hihi:

kei2

10-19-2003, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by coleslaw
Tell him that Mr. Clean called and he wants his head back! :hihi: Well the jerk store called, they're running out of YOU!
Seriously though, I'd have had words with that guy. He doesn't want people to shop while he's striking? Too darn bad. The customers have the power.

Burzhui

10-20-2003, 05:32 AM

Originally posted by psycho-

My cousin taught me this line to use.

"if you don't let me cross the picket line, i'll never go to your store again and i'll tell all my friends to stop shopping at your store"
must have taken you a while to learn it :D

appleseed

10-20-2003, 07:28 AM

two words: trader joes

Nija

10-20-2003, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by appleseed
two words: trader joes

two words: Very Expensive

zenbooty

10-20-2003, 07:37 AM

Originally posted by appleseed
two words: trader joes Do they even have meat and produce at Trader Joe's? I thought it was all dry, canned, and other packaged goods.

attgig

10-20-2003, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by kei2
The customers have the power.

exactly...and he's doing his last ditch effort to get you, the customer on their side...not the corporation's side.

attgig

10-20-2003, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by zenbooty
Do they even have meat and produce at Trader Joe's? I thought it was all dry, canned, and other packaged goods.

they do have fresh stuff, but it's all organic and very $$

Dave_7

10-20-2003, 08:27 AM

Originally posted by attgig
they do have fresh stuff, but it's all organic and very $$
Their frozen fish is pretty good, and reasonably priced. Good swordfish steaks and catfish fillets.

But after my experience last night (as written above), I've decided that I'm not going to be played.

Dave.

blueindian

10-20-2003, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by attgig

they do have fresh stuff, but it's all organic and very $$

IMHO, organic is worth the premium price. it's healthier and better for the environment.

just a thought. i now return you to your regularly scheduled thread topic.

appleseed

10-20-2003, 08:51 AM

trader joe's has cheap essentials. ie, BEER and WINE

i got a 6 pack of 17 ounce beers and a bottle of wine for 6 bucks total...well, plus tax

what else do you need?

:D

if you do need food with your alcohol, sushi is cheap too.;)

Joshua

10-20-2003, 09:34 AM

Cheap (premium (for a grocery store))caviar and power bars too. Wifey luvs the caviar.

Jihforce

10-20-2003, 10:11 AM

Tell the baldy to shove it.
Its pure BS that someone's gotta go find alternative markets that are much pricier because they don't want to be booed by some bald union freak.

kei2

10-20-2003, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by Jihforce
Tell the baldy to shove it.
Its pure BS that someone's gotta go find alternative markets that are much pricier because they don't want to be booed by some bald union freak. My thoughts exactly. I'm indifferent about the strike, but if bald Vons guy hassled me I'd go there every day during the strike and buy stuff, just to stick it to him. His "effort to sway the customer to his side and not the corporation's" is counter-productive because he is so abrasive. Hurting his cause.

appleseed

10-20-2003, 03:30 PM

ok, obvious but...

Bald Vons d00d: "Boo! Boo! Boo!"

Dave: "Why do you do this?"

Bald Vons d00d: "Because you had love in your hands, and you gave it up."

Dave: "But they would have killed Westley if I hadn't done it."

Bald Vons d00d: "Your true love lives! And you marry another. True Love saved her in the Fire Swamp, and she treated it like garbage. And that's what she is, the Queen of Refuse. So bow down to her if you want, bow to her. Bow to the Queen of Slime, the Queen of Filth, the Queen of Putrescence. Boo! Boo! Rubbish! Filth! Slime! Muck! Boo! Boo! Boo!"

Jihforce

10-20-2003, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by appleseed
ok, obvious but...

Bald Vons d00d: "Boo! Boo! Boo!"

Dave: "Why do you do this?"

Bald Vons d00d: "Because you had love in your hands, and you gave it up."

Dave: "But they would have killed Westley if I hadn't done it."

Bald Vons d00d: "Your true love lives! And you marry another. True Love saved her in the Fire Swamp, and she treated it like garbage. And that's what she is, the Queen of Refuse. So bow down to her if you want, bow to her. Bow to the Queen of Slime, the Queen of Filth, the Queen of Putrescence. Boo! Boo! Rubbish! Filth! Slime! Muck! Boo! Boo! Boo!"

CLASSIC! :heh:

Dave_7

10-20-2003, 09:43 PM

Dave_7

10-20-2003, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by appleseed
...Bald Vons d00d: "Boo! Boo! Boo!"

Dave: "Why do you do this?"...

Killin' me! :D :cool: :bigmouth:

Dave.

onalamwar

10-21-2003, 08:43 PM

Originally posted by appleseed
trader joe's has cheap essentials. ie, BEER and WINE

i got a 6 pack of 17 ounce beers and a bottle of wine for 6 bucks total...well, plus tax

what else do you need?

:D

if you do need food with your alcohol, sushi is cheap too.;)

Ralphs had some cheap alcohol this weekend.. I bought a 30 pack of Coors Lite (cans) for $9.99.. ;)

onalamwar

10-21-2003, 08:53 PM

Originally posted by Jihforce
Tell the baldy to shove it.
Its pure BS that someone's gotta go find alternative markets that are much pricier because they don't want to be booed by some bald union freak.

I didn't shop for the first week because of how I was treated the first day of the strike.. :mad:

I then decided I wasn't going to be intimidated by the strikers and now I won't hesitate to go to the store.. I went three times this weekend and got a bunch of good deals too.. (and not just the beer hehe)

I really wonder how much longer this can all last..
I actually went to the Vons on Bristol partly to see the bald guy mentioned in these forums but didn't see him. Anyways, that Vons had a really bad selection of produce. But the Ralphs on Main/Harvard in Irvine had a really great selection..

hapoo

10-21-2003, 09:28 PM

yeah, i tried shopping their last night, but i said f-it and went to target (i just wanted milk)
But i finally remember the bald guy your talking about!

Dave_7

10-21-2003, 11:07 PM

Originally posted by onalamwar
I actually went to the Vons on Bristol partly to see the bald guy mentioned in these forums but didn't see him. Anyways, that Vons had a really bad selection of produce. But the Ralphs on Main/Harvard in Irvine had a really great selection..

He was wearing a weird pink ballcap when I went. And he was one of the more vocal picketters.

:cool: That's cool that you went to see him :P

Dave.

Dave_7

10-21-2003, 11:08 PM

Originally posted by hapoo
yeah, i tried shopping their last night, but i said f-it and went to target (i just wanted milk)
But i finally remember the bald guy your talking about!

Cripes! Oh well... he'll be there again, I'm sure :P

Dave.

brainsmile

10-22-2003, 09:26 AM

cheapie

10-22-2003, 04:32 PM

i'm thinking about going out there just to see this guy.

Dave_7

10-23-2003, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by cheapie
i'm thinking about going out there just to see this guy.

We could get a G|A? group of picketters together there and carry signs that say, "Go back to work!" :P

Dave.

appleseed

10-23-2003, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by Dave_7
We could get a G|A? group of picketters together there and carry signs that say, "Go back to work" :P:stupid:
"boo to baldy"

k28la

10-24-2003, 12:14 AM

Trader Joe's milk is $1.69 versus $2.49 at the store, eggs are $1.29 versus $2.29, and overall they're not expensive, except on certain items... Anyhoo, just wanted to dispell the myths :)

Cantacuzene

10-24-2003, 06:58 AM

Why don't you idiots show some solidarity with other working class people?

Jihforce

10-24-2003, 07:54 AM

Originally posted by k28la
Trader Joe's milk is $1.69 versus $2.49 at the store, eggs are $1.29 versus $2.29, and overall they're not expensive, except on certain items... Anyhoo, just wanted to dispell the myths :)
What myths? Its not like we only eat milk and eggs. Besides, some TJs take a solid 30 min just to find parking. And if you don't go to TJs, then you go to bristol farms, whole foods or some other privately owned store. For what? So that a bunch of picketers who never bothered to read the proposed contract can boo you? Thanks but no thanks. These pricketers got til this weekend to start resolving their issues because I gotta go grocery shopping this weekend. :angry:

WhiskeyPapa

10-24-2003, 08:18 AM

Reminds me of a particularly nasty strike in my hometown. Hormel workers went on strike over a proposed paycut. Fair enough. But they were completely unwilling to bend in the negotiations. Finally the national union told the local to accept the offer, but still the local union refused. So Hormel started up production again, hired back as many of the union members as were willing, and told the rest they'd be hired when demand warranted the increase in manpower.

What did the rest do? Started a "Boycott Hormel" campaign. Now that's stupid - your job depends on an increase in demand of Hormel products, yet you work to lower that demand. Oh well, that's union mentality...

Dave_7

10-24-2003, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
Why don't you idiots show some solidarity with other working class people?

Idiot remarks aside, because they're turning down what is a relatively sweet deal, and whining... and they're using intimidation and bitterness toward the public to put pressure on their employers. If they would take a step back into the real world where you can get fired at any time (without a union to come to your aid even when you are a kcuf-up)... they might see how good they have it.

In this time where the economy is allegedly so bad, and there are allegeldy so many jobs lost... they chose the wrong time to be little whiney brats and complain about a sweet gig that they already have.

I'm with the Jih... this weekend is it.

Dave.

sizemic1

10-24-2003, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by Dave_7

*snip*

Boo them. Boo them all you like, all day long.

I would never, EVER boo a customer of mine.

*snip*
Dave.

I'm not sure if this is still the case..but when i worked for the grocery biz and they were contemplating striking, the union officials told us that we would not be striking at the store we worked at. If this is the case, then technically you're not their customer.

avlena

10-24-2003, 08:39 AM

actually, in a few cases it is the employees for the store striking at the store they work. my home town is really dinky, and only has one grocery store, an albertson's. any other grocery store is at least a 2 hours drive. he said it's really disconcerting to have one of the strikers address him by name as he's walking by. but, there's really no other options for food, so i think the strikers recognize that and haven't been mean or nasty about it.

Cantacuzene

10-24-2003, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by Dave_7

Idiot remarks aside, because they're turning down what is a relatively sweet deal, and whining... and they're using intimidation and bitterness toward the public to put pressure on their employers. If they would take a step back into the real world where you can get fired at any time (without a union to come to your aid even when you are a kcuf-up)... they might see how good they have it.

In this time where the economy is allegedly so bad, and there are allegeldy so many jobs lost... they chose the wrong time to be little whiney brats and complain about a sweet gig that they already have.

I'm with the Jih... this weekend is it.

Dave.

By that logic no one can ever complain about their job ever, I hope you see that. I'm sure thats exactly what management is going for. You and anyone else who crosses a picket line are class traitors.

avlena

10-24-2003, 12:55 PM

WhiskeyPapa

10-24-2003, 01:46 PM

Class traitors? Well said, comrade. That's right up there with race traitor, huh?

Apex

10-24-2003, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by kb0wwp
Class traitors? Well said, comrade. That's right up there with race traitor, huh?

Hahaha. Dang it, no drinking while reading forums, no drinking while reading forums. I seriously need more monitor wipes.

Dave_7

10-24-2003, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
By that logic no one can ever complain about their job ever, I hope you see that. I'm sure thats exactly what management is going for. You and anyone else who crosses a picket line are class traitors.

That's why people change jobs. What they're doing is pricing themselves out of the market (no pun intended). And there's no way around that.

Class traitors? Cripes... more on that later.

Dave.

Cantacuzene

10-24-2003, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by kb0wwp
Class traitors? Well said, comrade. That's right up there with race traitor, huh?

Nope it worse. Anything you do to weaken a strike is helping management. If management wins then they grow that much stronger over the workers. If it happens enough strikes become meaningless and management can do what they want. At that point the only protection of teh worker will be the government, and we all know who they work for really.

blueindian

10-24-2003, 03:40 PM

canta's class comment promted me to listen to Working Class Hero by John Lennon which, in turn, prompted me to post the lyrics.

As soon as you're born they make you feel small
By giving you no time instead of it all
Till the pain is so big you feel nothing at all
A working class hero is something to be
A working class hero is something to be

They hurt you at home and they hit you at school
They hate you if you're clever and they despise a fool
Till you're so fcuking crazy you can't follow their rules
A working class hero is something to be
A working class hero is something to be

When they've tortured and scared you for 20 odd years
Then they expect you to pick a career
When you can't really function you're so full of fear
A working class hero is something to be
A working class hero is something to be
Keep you doped wit religion and sex and TV
And you think you're so clever and classless and free
But you're still fukcing peasants as far as I can see
A working class hero is something to be
A working class hero is something to be

There's room at the top they are telling you still
But first you must learn how to smile as you kill
If you want to be like the folks on the hill

A working class hero is something to be
If you want to be a hero just follow me
If you want to be a hero well just follow me

as for my toughts on the strike, from what i know of it i support it.

you know what else i don't like? the freaking self checkout machines that are going in. mind you, i like the idea of the self checkout as long as there are plenty of clerks too. the harris teeter up the street from me (which i rarely shop at) is always super busy. they just took out 6 registers to put in 8 self scan stations. now there are only 5 registers and i've only seen 1 or 2 open at a time since the change.

it makes for looooooooong lines. and all so that that don't have to pay a person. it's a load of crap and yet another reason i try not to shop there.

DaFunkyUnit

10-24-2003, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by blueindian
you know what else i don't like? the freaking self checkout machines that are going in. mind you, i like the idea of the self checkout as long as there are plenty of clerks too. the harris teeter up the street from me (which i rarely shop at) is always super busy. they just took out 6 registers to put in 8 self scan stations. now there are only 5 registers and i've only seen 1 or 2 open at a time since the change.

it makes for looooooooong lines. and all so that that don't have to pay a person. it's a load of crap and yet another reason i try not to shop there.

if the lines bother you, why don't you use the self checkout?

:rolleyes:

Cantacuzene

10-24-2003, 03:57 PM

Because everytime you use the self checkout you take money out of the hands of someone clerk.

blueindian

10-24-2003, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
Because everytime you use the self checkout you take money out of the hands of someone clerk.

bingo. i'd rather pay 10 cent more for my vanilla coke and keep those folks employed. actually, it's not that i'd pay 10 cent more. i'd pay the same, but the 10 cent will go to an employee not the coroportation who is already making plenty. i'd be willing to be that the cost savings of self checkouts are going to the bottom line, not the baggers.

further, the lines at the self checkout take forever because of all the old people who don't really understand the process resorting to self checkout rather than wait 15 minutes.

Jihforce

10-24-2003, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
Because everytime you use the self checkout you take money out of the hands of someone clerk.
Whatever man. Why don't we all bring back full service gas stations then. Every time you gas up, you're taking money out of the hands of those gas station workers. :rolleyes: Its called technology man, either you embrace it or you live in the dark ages. Your choice.

Cantacuzene

10-24-2003, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by Jihforce

Whatever man. Why don't we all bring back full service gas stations then. Every time you gas up, you're taking money out of the hands of those gas station workers. :rolleyes: Its called technology man, either you embrace it or you live in the dark ages. Your choice.

Thats my point. Which is why our current economic system shows its flaws. What happens when technology replaces 80% of workers? Will we have 80% unemployment? That won't go well. The only jobs left will be service jobs. We will be a nation of corporate managers and waiters and short order cooks. I'll let you know right now there arent enough service jobs to employ 99% of this country who arent in corporate managment.

The self checkout would be good if the market was somehow compensated by creating more jobs to take the place of the ones lost and then some, but thats not the case. Unemployment just goes up by that much more. The corporation pockets the $23,000 that a checkout clerk makes and the checkout clerk goes on welfare. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

cheapie

10-24-2003, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by Cantacuzene

By that logic no one can ever complain about their job ever, I hope you see that. I'm sure thats exactly what management is going for. You and anyone else who crosses a picket line are class traitors.

management vs. labor. the eternal struggle. at least in the minds of those that have sold themselves a bill of goods that doesn't represent reality.

if we listen to you, we would come to the conclusion that human society is organized into classes whose interests stand in irreconcilable opposition.

the problem is that you acedemians don't give enough credence to the idea that people can't be put into little boxes, or that there isn't a perfect little societal model where are the little worker bees are treated fairly and people will never cheat each other. the reason your grand socialism won't ever work is that it fails to take into consideration the effects of ambition and laziness on the economic model.

how would you define me? am i mangement or am i a worker? i am educated, make decisions that affect other people's livelihood, and work in an office. but i also affected by management's decisions, have no control over my job, and can be fired at will.

also, more "normal" people own stock in companies, and are therefore beneficiaries of cost-cutting measures, than ever before.

Originally posted by Cantacuzene

Nope it worse. Anything you do to weaken a strike is helping management. If management wins then they grow that much stronger over the workers. If it happens enough strikes become meaningless and management can do what they want. At that point the only protection of teh worker will be the government, and we all know who they work for really.

unbelievable. you actually think racism is worse than helping management. if you really believe this, you are indeed pathetic.

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
Because everytime you use the self checkout you take money out of the hands of someone clerk.

job security does not come from other people eschewing that which takes bread from your table, it comes from you providing enough value to the market that you earn a living. creating an artificial means to job retention will only last so long, and is detrimental in the long-term to the work force. if you can be replaced by a little machine that scans a bar code and weighs bags, maybe you should brush up on some skills and provide some value to the world.

and before you go spouting off on the big bad "management", think about this...in the event you stick with your goal of being a professor, who do you think is going to be paying for your salary, studies, etc. it's not very likely that the bald guy at von's is going to make an endowment to your school, pay tuition, or pay enough in taxes to support you. it's people like me, educated middle and upper-class people that provide you the luxury of whining about the woes of the proletariat and the never-ending class struggle.

sbp

10-24-2003, 05:11 PM

{begins humming "L'Internationale"}

Cantacuzene

10-24-2003, 05:15 PM

management vs. labor. the eternal struggle. at least in the minds of those that have sold themselves a bill of goods that doesn't represent reality. the problem is that you acedemians don't give enough credence to the idea that people can't be put into little boxes,

Did you just put me into a little box? There is a word for that, and it begins with an 'h.'

if we listen to you, we would come to the conclusion that human society is organized into classes whose interests stand in irreconcilable opposition.

What evidence is there to indicate otherwise? The intrests of the haves are different than the have nots. Its as simple as that.

how would you define me? am i mangement or am i a worker? i am educated, make decisions that affect other people's livelihood, and work in an office. but i also affected by management's decisions, have no control over my job, and can be fired at will.

You are part of the increasingly marginalized middle class. You are harder to exploit than a common laborer due to your education and qualifications, thus its in managments interests to keep you as disunified as possible.

Their other goal is to turn you against the working class, making them your enemy, which it seems they have done. You have a genuine resentment of the poor and unskilled it seems. Another victory for the establishment.

also, more "normal" people own stock in companies, and are therefore beneficiaries of cost-cutting measures, than ever before.

Very true. It is definitly more than the amount of normal peopel who owned stock then 1900. But the % of people whose livihood depends on stocks is teh same or probably even less. The pie may have gotten bigger, but teh big slices are still teh hands of teh few. Also, the middle class stock owner was one of the many evolutions of capitalism in the US that prevent revolution. It gives the middle class a sense of partnership with the rich which further alienates the middle class from the poor, which as I said is a goal of of the rich. Basically, they give the middle class some scraps from their table and the middle class shut up and stay quiet.

unbelievable. you actually think racism is worse than helping management. if you really believe this, you are indeed pathetic.

The other way around. Racism is a reletively recent phenomina, and one likely to lessen as education increases. Racial conflicts are bad because it makes the white poor enemies of the black poor. The rich love seeing teh poor fight amongst themselves, it prevents them from uniting against the plutocrats. Whereas racism is a reletively passing thing, the poor have been exploited for far longer and will continue to be exploited long after the fires of racial hatred are gone.

it comes from you providing enough value to the market that you earn a living. creating an artificial means to job retention will only last so long, and is detrimental in the long-term to the work force. if you can be replaced by a little machine that scans a bar code and weighs bags, maybe you should brush up on some skills and provide some value to the world.

What will happen when every manufacturing and clerical job is taken by machines. Combine that with a rising population and what do you get? Thats right: staggering levels of unemployment combined with fantastic profits for the business owners. If there is no clerical and no manufacturing jobs, where do youe xpect people work? "Brush up on some skills" is a cop out. Which market of skills is growing proportionate to the losses in manufactuering and clerical jobs? Where do you suggest that these people go to work?

it's people like me, educated middle and upper-class people that provide you the luxury of whining about the woes of the proletariat and the never-ending class struggle.

No, its the government who forces you to do your part. I love how you group yourself in with the upper class. Believe me pal, they don't group you in with them. You've been conned into thinking that your interests lie with them, which is a huge error. The bald guy at Vons has more in common with you than the CEO of GM.

Apex

10-24-2003, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by Cantacuzene

Thats my point. Which is why our current economic system shows its flaws. What happens when technology replaces 80% of workers? Will we have 80% unemployment? That won't go well. The only jobs left will be service jobs. We will be a nation of corporate managers and waiters and short order cooks. I'll let you know right now there arent enough service jobs to employ 99% of this country who arent in corporate managment.

There are 2 things that will happen when technology advances to that point:

1. People will learn other marketable skills. OR:
2. Gov't will subsidize them, so that they can stay useless to society as a whole.

Technology creates new opportunities. It always has and always will. However, this opportunity is only for those willing to learn & relearn.

Heck, take a look at the web. ANYONE can make a living on the web, even if it means building a site at the local library, and using a free hosting service.

Cantacuzene

10-24-2003, 07:29 PM

I disagree. The is only so much work to be done. Technology will create new jobs yes, but can you say you know for a fact it will create them at a faster rate than technology eliminates old ones? Once agriculture, manufacturing and clerical jobs are completely mechanized what will people do for work? What will there be to be done that machines cannot do better or cheaper?

Apex

10-24-2003, 09:48 PM

Every generation has worried about the industrial/technical revolution/advancements taking away jobs. They haven't in the past, and though it's impossible to say for sure, I definitely doubt they will in the future. Every new generation of technology has simply replaced the need for unskilled labor with the need for skilled labor. The very nature of technological advancement obsoletes less skill intensive labor before skilled labor. While there will definitely be some isolated cases where this is not exactly the case, by in large this is how technology changes the face of the job market.

People are never rendered obsolete by technology, merely skill sets.

Dave_7

10-24-2003, 10:03 PM

Well, Apex, in Cantacuzene's paradise world of government assured sustenance, there is no need for competition because the government provides for the people.

In the real world, technology breeds competition. Competition makes for more jobs because rather than being given only one option, consumers are offered many.

How many car companies are there today, compared to 60 years ago? How many worldwide? How many jobs have they, alone, created? That is a HIGHLY technological industry... with machines allegedly taking the place of workers and eliminating jobs.

It's best to have a scorn for technology because it eliminates jobs? You can't stop progress. Our system thrives on it and finds a way to deal with it.

Dave.

Apex

10-24-2003, 10:24 PM

Cantacuzene has a point. Everyone must have an opportunity to work. I agree completely. We're merely approaching the issue from slightly different sides.

As much as mindless TV programming and stuff has eroded our capacity/desire to learn and grow, I think that human beings, as a whole, have an incredible capacity to expand and better ourselves. Technology is taking us to the point where our work has almost unbelievable leverage. I think it's a good thing, and look forward to it getting even better.

Cantacuzene

10-24-2003, 11:26 PM

Skilled labor or not, population is growing. If you take out the vast service industry which has erupted in the past 100 years unemployment would be around where it is in europe. The service industry has given us lower than average unemployment numbers compared to other fully industrialized countries. I don't forsee the service industry boomign again. So basically what our current system needs is technology to found a new industry. It will probably happen, but who can say for certain.

Apex is right, unskilled labor is a problem, since unskilled labor is largely going overseas where corporations can exploit 3rd world workers to help the bottom line. Where are all our unskilled people going to work? Either we need to artificially create jobs (which sucks), force corporations to bring overseas jobs back here (which the corporations won't allow the government to do) or massively increase education funding (which most conservatives won't do because it would have to be at the expense of the military.) I'd rather bring back the overseas jobs AND educate our people.

sbp

10-24-2003, 11:55 PM

You left out something-reform immigration policies. But fat chance of that happening and so the importing of poverty continues.

Why is for the left always education versus the military? After all the government spends a lot of money on different things. And heck, education is not not even a federal government responsibility.

As for the claim there is "only so much work to be done." Sounds like something out of France with its economic stagnation policies.

cheapie

10-25-2003, 12:01 AM

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
Skilled labor or not, population is growing. If you take out the vast service industry which has erupted in the past 100 years unemployment would be around where it is in europe. The service industry has given us lower than average unemployment numbers compared to other fully industrialized countries. I don't forsee the service industry boomign again. So basically what our current system needs is technology to found a new industry. It will probably happen, but who can say for certain.

Apex is right, unskilled labor is a problem, since unskilled labor is largely going overseas where corporations can exploit 3rd world workers to help the bottom line. Where are all our unskilled people going to work? Either we need to artificially create jobs (which sucks), force corporations to bring overseas jobs back here (which the corporations won't allow the government to do) or massively increase education funding (which most conservatives won't do because it would have to be at the expense of the military.) I'd rather bring back the overseas jobs AND educate our people.

nobody is contending that we don't need to keep more jobs here, reduce military spending, and educate our people. what i personally have a problem with is your assertion that anyone that doesn't fully support the strike is an "idiot" and a "class traitor". you act like you're the only educated person posting here and everyone else is to stupid to comprehend the consequences of failing to embrace the strikers. it might do you good to read your posts and realize how full of rhetoric and antagonism they are.

"Their other goal is to turn you against the working class, making them your enemy"

"Why don't you idiots show some solidarity with other working class people? "

"Another victory for the establishment"

"The rich love seeing teh poor fight amongst themselves"

"You and anyone else who crosses a picket line are class traitors"

as you so eloquently to argue in the context of religion, there are more than one points of view in this area as well.

perhaps if you had more experience in the business world like i and others do, you would realize how small the margin of error is for businesses. and perhaps if i had to support a family on a supermarket income, i would be more reticent to dismiss their concerns.

and please don't ever accuse me again of having "....a genuine resentment of the poor and unskilled." i give more of my time and money to the poor and needy than most people that claim to be a friend of the disenfranchised.

Cantacuzene

10-25-2003, 07:37 AM

Why is for the left always education versus the military? After all the government spends a lot of money on different things. And heck, education is not not even a federal government responsibility.

Beacuse the military is the number one spending item in the budget and thus its the first thing that should be looked at for waste.

you act like you're the only educated person posting here and everyone else is to stupid to comprehend the consequences

Thats just how you want to see it.

it might do you good to read your posts and realize how full of rhetoric and antagonism they are.

Ofcourse I'm antagonistic. Its sad to see working class people trying to bring down other working class people while supporting a large company that doesn't give a damn about them. Its a real travesty and if you cannot see that so be it, but don't complain when it happens to you.

and perhaps if i had to support a family on a supermarket income, i would be more reticent to dismiss their concerns.

Thats pretty much exactly what I'm saying. You sympathize with the supermarket companies because the margin of sucess in business is so small, yet you fail to sympathize with an actual human who has to work and feed his family. Ask yourself, 'why am I more sympathetic to the interests of some company over a real person?'

and please don't ever accuse me again of having "....a genuine resentment of the poor and unskilled."

Well you interprete my posts and say that they are full of antagonism, I am not allowed to do the same to you? Reading your posts it would be hard to think otherwise.

Markel

10-25-2003, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
I disagree. The is only so much work to be done. Technology will create new jobs yes, but can you say you know for a fact it will create them at a faster rate than technology eliminates old ones? Once agriculture, manufacturing and clerical jobs are completely mechanized what will people do for work? What will there be to be done that machines cannot do better or cheaper?
I once worked for a company that made factory automation systems. Do some research - you'll find that they create as many jobs as they replace. And the jobs they create are much more desirable than the jobs they replace.

Cantacuzene

10-25-2003, 08:54 AM

blueindian

10-25-2003, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by Markel

I once worked for a company that made factory automation systems. Do some research - you'll find that they create as many jobs as they replace. And the jobs they create are much more desirable than the jobs they replace.

I too worked for a company that made factory automation systems. The systems were capable of eliminating hundreds of workers and created tens of jobs. The jobs were more desirable, but the people who lost jobs couldn't get them.

Dave_7

10-25-2003, 10:01 AM

cheapie

10-25-2003, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by Cantacuzene

Well you interprete my posts and say that they are full of antagonism, I am not allowed to do the same to you? Reading your posts it would be hard to think otherwise.

you have every right to do so, in fact, on occasion, you would be correct. however, i have yet to call people with opposing views "idoiots" and "traitors."

you're an intelligent person. use your intellect to persuade people. don't beat them/us over the head with your arguments and opinions.

Apex

10-25-2003, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by blueindian

I too worked for a company that made factory automation systems. The systems were capable of eliminating hundreds of workers and created tens of jobs. The jobs were more desirable, but the people who lost jobs couldn't get them.

That is, assuming that the people who lost jobs lacked the ability to move beyond that station in life. This is exactly what we're talking about.

You and Cantacuzene believe that people are stuck in their "class," unable to improve themselves. Others of us believe it's accurate to say that the people who lost jobs had to learn and train more to get them.

Cantacuzene

10-25-2003, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by Apex
You and Cantacuzene believe that people are stuck in their "class," unable to improve themselves. Others of us believe it's accurate to say that the people who lost jobs had to learn and train more to get them.

Oh c'mon Apex, I did not ever say that. If I believed that I wouldn't be going to college, I would have gone and gotten a job with my dad when I was 16 and that would have been end of story.

When a 45 year old factory worker loses his job of 23 years to a robot you can't honestly say you expect him to go get "more training" in order to get a new job. Thats not how life works and you know it.

sbp

10-25-2003, 01:41 PM

Beacuse the military is the number one spending item in the budget and thus its the first thing that should be looked at for waste.Next years budget is over 2.2 trillion. (http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2004/budget.html) And no, defense is not the number one spending program.

Cantacuzene

10-25-2003, 02:58 PM

Cutting social security is much worse to a political career than cutting military. Besides I can think of at least 87 billion dollars of military waste that could have been easily cut.

sbp

10-25-2003, 03:06 PM

I can think of a whole lot more money that can be cut.

Iraq and its costs will end eventually. In contrast will students loans {40% default rate} and all these other stupid nanny state programs end? Nope, their costs will grow much bigger. :thumbdown

Cantacuzene

10-25-2003, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by sbp
In contrast will students loans {40% default rate} and all these other stupid nanny state programs end? Nope, their costs will grow much bigger. :thumbdown

I could have sworn that Apex wanted more people to get education? You conservatives should get your stories straight. So typical, you want people get educations but you don't actually want to pay for it. YOu want a clean environment but you dont want to pay to clean it up. Goes on and on.

So what is it, do you want people to "get educations and better themselves" or do you want to get rid of student loans and have a growing mass of unskilled workers? You can't have it both ways.

sbp

10-25-2003, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
I could have sworn that Apex wanted more people to get education? You conservatives should get your stories straight. So typical, you want people get educations but you don't actually want to pay for it. YOu want a clean environment but you dont want to pay to clean it up. Goes on and on.

So what is it, do you want people to "get educations and better themselves" or do you want to get rid of student loans and have a growing mass of unskilled workers? You can't have it both ways. This is where the left shows its blind folks. You'd think they would have figured out its not up to the taxpayer to bend over and pay for everything.

So typical, you want people get education but you don't want them to pay for it. Yep, people are so lazy they don't want to invest in themselves-that's why its up to the all knowing nanny state to do so. :pfft: Got can do spirit versus I'm "a victim thats owed everything just for being here" mentality?

A government thats big enough to give people everything, is big enough to take everything away.

InfiniteNothing

10-25-2003, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by sbp

So typical, you want people get education but you don't want them to pay for it. Yep, people are so lazy they don't want to invest in themselves[/i]

Maybe if they didn't have to spend up to 20% on heath care they could afford an education.;)

He recomended loans. They would be paying for their education.

dbax791

10-25-2003, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by Cantacuzene

When a 45 year old factory worker loses his job of 23 years to a robot you can't honestly say you expect him to go get "more training" in order to get a new job. Thats not how life works and you know it.

Umm yup. If a robot can do the job that a person can do I'm all for it. The savings are either passed on to consumers or the shareholders and the worker comp claims are amazingly low from robots.

Nobody is "entitled" to a job. I work in IT, my job may be sent to India. But it is my responsibility to build the skills that the market demands. By your logic, we should feel bad about the out-of-work telegraph repairmen.

Dave_7

10-25-2003, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by dbax791
...But it is my responsibility to build the skills that the market demands. By your logic, we should feel bad about the out-of-work telegraph repairmen.

Yep... it's our responsibility to be mobile enough to be able to move to where the work is (geographically and education/training-wise).

Dave.

sbp

10-25-2003, 04:33 PM

"Why don't you idiots show some solidarity with other working class people?"
Worker solidary in stupidity. No thanks!

These strikers are the ones turning against the working class and making them their enemy by hassling and yelling.
Chalk up another victory for idiocy. Yaaay! http://home.earthlink.net/~sbp777/smilies/clapping3.gif

Sorry, not going to support dips, no matter what. Why don't these dips use their brains and understand folks have to buy food. That folks have a free choice where to shop. Yeah no doubt welfareloser would appreciate having to go out of her way to shop elsewhere. Just like my pregnant sister would who also has twins. Got|open up a cans of wupass?

As Jihforce said in his wonderful post: "Tell the baldy to shove it"!

What a nice view of the middle class you have Canta.

Poor us, we're part of the increasingly marginalized middle class. boohoo Me personally, my father who owns his own small businesses and was exploitive. And we all know Apex is a slavedriver...poor LP and Jenny. :(

Cantacuzene

10-25-2003, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by sbp

So typical, you want people get education but you don't want them to pay for it. Yep, people are so lazy they don't want to invest in themselves-that's why its up to the all knowing nanny state to do so.

Is a loan not an investment? Like I said, you have these great ideas like "peopel should get educationa nd training" but you don't have any plans to make that happen. You want people to "invest" in their education, but you want to take away student loans. Here is where the right shows its blind. You just assume every problem will eventually solve itself.

The savings are either passed on to consumers or the shareholders

Never once, in the entire history of business, has savings been passed onto the consumer. As for as passing it along to the stock holder look at it this way... You fire a working class guy, and pass his $30,000 salary on to the rich guy who owns 80,000 shares. Granted a middle class guy who owns 500 shares will make a few bucks, but the bulk of the money goes to the fat cat. So essentially you are taking from a hardworker and giving to a guy who is already rich. Bravo! Thats not a smart way to run a national economy.

Yep... it's our responsibility to be mobile enough to be able to move to where the work is (geographically and education/training-wise).

Again, you all miss the point. You are skilled workers with educations. You have the ability to be mobile. We aren't talking about you. We are talking about the people who for whatever reason, and dont dare call it laziness, do not have the luxury of a college education. How many of you have taken out student loans for that education? If SBP got his way you wouldnt have that education and you would be one of these unskilled workers. Your tune would be different I imagine.

Sorry, not going to support dips, no matter what. Why don't these dips use their brains and understand folks have to buy food. That folks have a free choice where to shop.

So are you against all strikes, or just strikes that inconvience you? :confused: Actually it doesn't matter since either choice is selfish.

Poor us, we're part of the increasingly marginalized middle class. boohoo Me personally, my father who owns his own small businesses and was exploitive. And we all know Apex is a slavedriver...poor LP and Jenny.

I have no idea what you were going for here. I didn't realize GotApex? was in the same caliber of company as IBM or Nike.

Dave_7

10-25-2003, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
... Again, you all miss the point. You are skilled workers with educations. You have the ability to be mobile. We aren't talking about you. We are talking about the people who for whatever reason, and dont dare call it laziness, do not have the luxury of a college education. How many of you have taken out student loans for that education? If SBP got his way you wouldnt have that education and you would be one of these unskilled workers. Your tune would be different I imagine...
My point goes back to the Santa Monica city council pressing for a "Living Wage" of $18/hr. They used the example, as you often do Cantacuzene, of the single-mother of three. How she can't pay rent and buy food for her kids because the wages aren't high enough.

"Do you think they'd let me live in Montana?"

"I'd like to think they'd let you live wherever you like."

Not only is that true on the Red October... it's true in Santa Monica.

My point was that people need to be mobile enough to move to where the work is. Nothing entitles anyone to live in Santa Monica (where rent is outrageously high, compared to, say, Des Moines) and be able to support three kids. We are allowed to move where the work is, without having to ask anyone. Freedom!

It's not reasonable to assume that you should be able to live in one place for ever and be guaranteed a job.

Dave.

Apex

10-25-2003, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by Cantacuzene

Oh c'mon Apex, I did not ever say that. If I believed that I wouldn't be going to college, I would have gone and gotten a job with my dad when I was 16 and that would have been end of story.

When a 45 year old factory worker loses his job of 23 years to a robot you can't honestly say you expect him to go get "more training" in order to get a new job. Thats not how life works and you know it.

OK, fair enough. Though you got to admit, you did sort of imply it, or something similar. I understand that you are willing to learn and improve yourself (most people on the internet tend to be), but I think that fewer of the people with left leanings believe that the general populace are able.

I personally do not think that 45 is too old to learn something new. I would say that some job changes will be more difficult at that age, but switching to another factory or some other job in the same factory should definitely be challenging, but not impossible.

Originally posted by Cantacuzene

Never once, in the entire history of business, has savings been passed onto the consumer.

The savings is passed on to the consumer whenever it's in the best interest of the company (ie. because of competition) to do so. Take a look at the computer industry. If the savings were not passed on to the consumer, how much do you think your Athlon 2500+ would have costed? I'm guessing somewhere north of $8000.

Smart businesses price their products so that it will generate the highest profits. In many MANY industries, especially those that are evolving rapidly, this means cutting the prices, not increasing them.

Originally posted by Cantacuzene

I have no idea what you were going for here. I didn't realize GotApex? was in the same caliber of company as IBM or Nike.

Alas, no, not yet. I don't have the depth of vision to create a corporation of that caliber or size. I freely admit that. But if one day, I can create a global corporation that employs tens of thousands, I'd love to. :)

Cantacuzene

10-25-2003, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by Apex
Alas, no, not yet. I don't have the depth of vision to create a corporation of that caliber or size. I freely admit that. But if one day, I can create a global corporation that employs tens of thousands, I'd love to. :)

Just don't move their jobs to se asia when times get tough. ;) :P

k28la

10-26-2003, 09:38 PM

Originally posted by Jihforce

What myths? Its not like we only eat milk and eggs. Besides, some TJs take a solid 30 min just to find parking. And if you don't go to TJs, then you go to bristol farms, whole foods or some other privately owned store. For what? So that a bunch of picketers who never bothered to read the proposed contract can boo you? Thanks but no thanks. These pricketers got til this weekend to start resolving their issues because I gotta go grocery shopping this weekend. :angry:

Not where i live... in fact, i can walk if i wanna... still, their products are about the same price and better quality... only time i go to the big chains is when something's on sale... then they try to get you on the little things like shampoo and deodorant, but target's got my back on that, so i'm fine :D

And for the record, Bristol Farms and Whole Foods are FAR DIFFERENT than TJ's... I mean, you can even get a bottle of Vodka for $4.99 and Wine for $1.99 at TJ's... Now tell me that's not a bargain! :bandit:

cheapie

10-26-2003, 10:02 PM

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
Never once, in the entire history of business, has savings been passed onto the consumer. .

that's not an overly accurate view of the business world. why do you think wal-mart's prices are so low. why are gas prices still at a very good price in terms of real dollars. why can we send a freakin' letter across the country for less than 40 cents?

because of cost cuts like this and others. making something more efficient doesn't necessarily mean that prices will drop. it can mean prices keep constant while the costs of goods go up.

edit: first sentence edited cuz it sounded too crappy after reading it in the morning

Apex

10-26-2003, 10:29 PM

Originally posted by k28la
I mean, you can even get a bottle of Vodka for $4.99 and Wine for $1.99 at TJ's... Now tell me that's not a bargain! :bandit:

Depends on the quality. You become blind = not such a bargain. ;)

Jihforce

10-26-2003, 10:39 PM

Originally posted by k28la

Not where i live... in fact, i can walk if i wanna... still, their products are about the same price and better quality... only time i go to the big chains is when something's on sale... then they try to get you on the little things like shampoo and deodorant, but target's got my back on that, so i'm fine :D

And for the record, Bristol Farms and Whole Foods are FAR DIFFERENT than TJ's... I mean, you can even get a bottle of Vodka for $4.99 and Wine for $1.99 at TJ's... Now tell me that's not a bargain! :bandit:

Haha true that. But you see, not every TJ is like the one next to your place. And I highly doubt, i'd make that special trip to you TJs just because is less crowded. I'm not doubting what you're saying, but lets face it, I'm not wrong either. And yes, BF and WF are not the same as TJ, but under the circumstances, those are the only other stores that aren't striking. Now Food4Less is not striking either, however, I'm not about to drive to 5-10 miles just to get food when i can go to Vons when its only 1/4 mile from me. Unless the strikers wanna pay for me gas :D
Unfortunaly, i didn't get around to cross the picket line this weekend, it was so smokey outside, i decided to stay home. But there's always next week ;) I'm no trying to be and ass and cross the picket lines purposely, but I good a wife and myself to fee. Midnight runs to Taco Bell isn't exactly something I can do anymore.:(

Jihforce

10-26-2003, 10:52 PM

Originally posted by cheapie
that's just plain ignorant and exhibits an incredibly uneducated view of the business world.

He is no business major I give you that ;)
I, like many people here believe that people can do better than just stay in an unskilled job for their entire life. There are some strikes I would support. But they must be in a fairly highly skilled industry. When it comes to groceries, I do not believe scanning fruits and vegetables is considered highly skilled. Other companies such as staples do not hire thru unions. They simply hire people who want the job. May times, it becomes a transition job for most people who work there. Like I mentioned before, some jobs, like filling someone's gas, aren't meant to stick around forever. I can bag my own groceries and I have done so in the past. Why? It doesn't take any skill to do that, its just labor. I do appreciate the service, but I'm sorry, that's just not a skill that requires an union to represent them.

Thesifer

10-26-2003, 11:44 PM

I had a very interestingly nice experience with the Strikers at Albertsons the other day... Went there to get Some midol cause the girlfriend really needed it ... And as we were walking in .. the obvious "Head striker" the ring leader was like "Hi.. We know you still need to shop for things but if you could just help us out and buy very little.. we would appreciate it " ... It was a rather nice way to go about it atleast.. .and then he said "Have a nice day" as we left.. Although It wont make me NOT shop there.. Atleast he was nice.. I dont believe me not shopping there will affect the strike.. and besides.. its right down the street anyhow..

Cantacuzene

10-27-2003, 06:53 AM

Originally posted by cheapie
that's not an overly accurate view of the business world.

I stand by it. Wal mart only has lower prices in order to gain market share. They aren't doing it out of some philanthropic ideal, they are doing it to pad their bottom line, like everyone else. If it was more profitable in the long run to jack up their prices sky high, they would do it in an instant. And the postal service is a terrible example for you to site, since it isn't a corporation and is largely government subsidized. I can assure you, not too many conservatives would prefer businesses be run like the postal service.

cheapie

10-27-2003, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by Cantacuzene

I stand by it. Wal mart only has lower prices in order to gain market share. They aren't doing it out of some philanthropic ideal, they are doing it to pad their bottom line, like everyone else. If it was more profitable in the long run to jack up their prices sky high, they would do it in an instant. And the postal service is a terrible example for you to site, since it isn't a corporation and is largely government subsidized. I can assure you, not too many conservatives would prefer businesses be run like the postal service.

this is not a discussion on motives. of course companies would charge as much as possible.

you stated that lower costs never result in lower prices for consumers. one of the main reasons that wal-mart has lower prices than the competion is that the are extremely efficient and constantly place downward prive pressure on their suppliers. the same is true for mcdonald's, and my company. lowering costs helps keep costs in line while also providing an acceptable rate of return.

InfiniteNothing

10-27-2003, 11:10 AM

If a company will charge as much as possible then they will only lower prices to make demand. I don't see why a company would lower their prices if they, say, get a reduction in rent.

Walmart is a bad example because they've always had low prices and low costs. I don't think we can say whether they'd pass savings to their customers. They'd lower prices to put a newbie out of business even if their costs were high. And why not? They can just raise their prices later.

cheapie

10-27-2003, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing
If a company will charge as much as possible then they will only lower prices to make demand. I don't see why a company would lower their prices if they, say, get a reduction in rent.

Walmart is a bad example because they've always had low prices and low costs. I don't think we can say whether they'd pass savings to their customers. They'd lower prices to put a newbie out of business even if their costs were high. And why not? They can just raise their prices later.

you're missing my point. believe me. i am not contending that companies want to maximize their profit and will not lower prices unless they have to.

my point is this: just because the prices don't drop when companies lower one of their costs doesn't mean the consumer isn't benefitting. there are many costs that are rising substantially and are only partially offest by layoffs, automation, etc. insurance is a biggie.

and wal-mart is not only a good example, it's a perfect example. yes, they've always had low prices. how do they do it? by squeezing suppliers, employees, cities, etc. consumers def. benefit by the lowering of costs. do the benefits of lowered prices on groceries offset the costs incurred by small businesses going out of business and employees lacking benefits? dunno. i'm not making an arguement either way.

if you think companies are raking in more and more money, theck the annual reports and p/e ratios. many companies are reducing manpower, benefits, etc. to maintain profit levels and current pricing.

Apex

10-27-2003, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing
If a company will charge as much as possible then they will only lower prices to make demand. I don't see why a company would lower their prices if they, say, get a reduction in rent.

It depends on how stupid the people running the company are. Companies exist to maximize total profit. If lower prices allow them to reach a higher total profit, and rent allows them to do so, then they will.

If you're talking about lowering prices in a long term fashion as a philanthropic gesture, then you're talking about a charity, not a business... or at the very least a poorly run business.

Cantacuzene

10-27-2003, 12:55 PM

Well my example is the best in any event. IBM is moving tons of jobs overseas. They stand to lower their costs quite considerably. Will we see this result in the price of think pads dropping? I seriously doubt it. In all likelihood the price will continue to follow whatever trend its been following as of late. The savings are going to the bottom line, not the consumer.

American industry became a powerhouse when Ford paid his workers enough money to buy the products they produce. This is the answer to the Marxist theory of alienation from your work. It worked. The middle class boomed. The trend as of late has been regressive however. Its appearing more and more that we are returning to the state of affairs that we had in the Gilded Age. I don;t think even the most economically conservative person would think that doing that is a good idea.

Apex

10-27-2003, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
Well my example is the best in any event. IBM is moving tons of jobs overseas. They stand to lower their costs quite considerably. Will we see this result in the price of think pads dropping? I seriously doubt it. In all likelihood the price will continue to follow whatever trend its been following as of late. The savings are going to the bottom line, not the consumer.

Actually, we have seen ThinkPad prices drop quite considerably, and will consider to see them drop. The reason for the drop is competition. Dell, & HP have made big inroads on IBM's marketshare of the business buyer market. The vehicle that allows IBM to make the pricing cuts while remaining profitable is the movement of many departments overseas.

Yet again, only a stupid company or a charity will drop pricing when it cuts into profits to do so (without competition forcing the issue). If you're looking for a company to not maximize profits, you should be looking for a charity or gov't organization, or similar entity for a handout.

Cantacuzene

10-27-2003, 03:21 PM

Dropping the price because your competitors do is not the same as dropping the price because you are saving money on production. Seems to me that sicne they are now saving on production, they should drop the prices even more, because Dell are still American made.

Jihforce

10-27-2003, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
Well my example is the best in any event. IBM is moving tons of jobs overseas. They stand to lower their costs quite considerably. Will we see this result in the price of think pads dropping? I seriously doubt it. In all likelihood the price will continue to follow whatever trend its been following as of late. The savings are going to the bottom line, not the consumer.

Why use IBM as your one and only "BEST" example? Why not use Dell? Dell has moved much of their customer support base overseas as well. This is a cost cutting move that has allowed us, the consumers to buy laptops for around 1k when they used to cost about 2k.
You need to understand that not every business operates with the same philosophy. Sure, they are all in the business of money, but some go about it differently. That's what business philosophies are all about. Computer companies in general have lowered prices because the cost of producing its parts have gone down. They could have easily kept their prices constant and made even more of a profit.

Jihforce

10-27-2003, 03:33 PM

Cantacuzene

10-27-2003, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by Jihforce

Why use IBM as your one and only "BEST" example? Why not use Dell? Dell has moved much of their customer support base overseas as well. This is a cost cutting move that has allowed us, the consumers to buy laptops for around 1k when they used to cost about 2k.

No, the drop in laptop prices has come mostly about because the higher yields of LCDs by LCD manufactuerers.

Jihforce

10-27-2003, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
No, the drop in laptop prices has come mostly about because the higher yields of LCDs by LCD manufactuerers.
Ok, fine. How about being able to buy a Dell dimension desktop for around 400 bucks when you could easily spend 1k back in the late 90s?

le_stick

10-27-2003, 04:29 PM

REVOLUTION!!!!!!! that is what will happen when the rich getting too rich and the poor getting too damn poor.....Russia 1917, China 1949 and many more. I hope we are not going to that path.

Cantacuzene

10-27-2003, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by Jihforce

Ok, fine. How about being able to buy a Dell dimension desktop for around 400 bucks when you could easily spend 1k back in the late 90s?

Because LCDs arent the only technology benefitting from higher yields?

Cantacuzene

10-27-2003, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by le_stick
REVOLUTION!!!!!!! that is what will happen when the rich getting too rich and the poor getting too damn poor.....Russia 1917, China 1949 and many more. I hope we are not going to that path.

We definitly aren't. Thank God. Americans hate demogogues.

TofuNinja

10-27-2003, 05:32 PM

Gee the Bald Guy is affecting people in FLorida... cool... Never knew the California grocery strike would reach that far.

Kevster

10-27-2003, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by Cantacuzene

Because LCDs arent the only technology benefitting from higher yields?

Which is the direct result of better manufacturing processes (automated, of course?).

I'm not taking any side on this argument - most of my family is in the skilled trades (eletricians, carpet/floor installers, carptenters) and I'd rather not see them go the way of the cooper or the wheel-maker trades.

kei2

10-27-2003, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
Dropping the price because your competitors do is not the same as dropping the price because you are saving money on production. Seems to me that sicne they are now saving on production, they should drop the prices even more, because Dell are still American made. Competition is the only reason prices drop. If a single company, American or not, had a monopoly on the market there's no way prices would come down. Beyond that, it's a simple matter of supply and demand. Companies sell their products at whatever price based on the number of units they can deal at that price. If lowering the price (and thus the profit per unit) a bit will draw in a good number more customers, that's what the company should and would do. It doesn't matter if the company is saving on production.

Dave_7

10-27-2003, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by TofuNinja
Gee the Bald Guy is affecting people in FLorida... cool... Never knew the California grocery strike would reach that far.

:thumb:

I drove by and he was there on Sunday evening in his trademark goofy-nylon-ballcap.

Dave.

Apex

10-27-2003, 06:35 PM

Cantacuzene

10-27-2003, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by Apex

Why should they drop prices because production costs are lower? You think they're operating in the elastic portion of the demand curve? I'm still not understanding it.

What I'm saying is, I alleged that companies rarely if ever pass a savings onto consumers. People try to claim that when production costs get lowered we see that get passed onto consumers. I say it does not.

Apex

10-27-2003, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by Cantacuzene

What I'm saying is, I alleged that companies rarely if ever pass a savings onto consumers. People try to claim that when production costs get lowered we see that get passed onto consumers. I say it does not.

Ah ok, gotcha. Basically, companies do pass cost savings on to customers, but smart companies only do so when it's in their best interest (> unity elasticity demand, competition, loss leaders to drive sales, etc). We all pretty much agree on that?

InfiniteNothing

10-27-2003, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by Apex

It depends on how stupid the people running the company are. Companies exist to maximize total profit. If lower prices allow them to reach a higher total profit, and rent allows them to do so, then they will.

What I'm saying is that if lowering prices alow them to reach higher profit, rent or no rent drop, they will lower prices. I don't see where the company saving money has anything to do with what they charge the customers.

I think Kei said it best
Competition is the only reason prices drop. If a single company, American or not, had a monopoly on the market there's no way prices would come down. Beyond that, it's a simple matter of supply and demand. Companies sell their products at whatever price based on the number of units they can deal at that price. If lowering the price (and thus the profit per unit) a bit will draw in a good number more customers, that's what the company should and would do. It doesn't matter if the company is saving on production.

cheapie

10-27-2003, 08:02 PM

you need to expand your view of how companies pass savings on to consumers. since i'm sure you won't believe me, do a comparison of what gasoline, a cheeseburger, a pair of pants, television, microwave, etc. cost today in terms of real dollars compared to 20-30 years ago. why do you think they're so much cheaper? because of cost savings and increased efficiency.

Apex

10-27-2003, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing

What I'm saying is that if lowering prices alow them to reach higher profit, rent or no rent drop, they will lower prices. I don't see where the company saving money has anything to do with what they charge the customers.

I think Kei said it best

Except for the fact that what Kei said was inaccurate... :)

Monopolies do NOT price products as high as the market will bear. Their pricing strategies are different from companies in a competitive market, but they will still lower prices when it'll bring in more profits.

Come on folks, high school economics. ;)

speedracer120

10-27-2003, 08:42 PM

Sorry to go on another tangent, but companies seem to price at levels which have no bearing on costs. More well to do neighborhoods with relatively easy access and reasonable costs, have higher prices, because what is considered reasonable at one neighborhood is much different from another. Jeez the price of Big Macs fluctuate with every freaking store. Every time I go to a stupid fast food place, I think what idiot would pay 6 bucks for a salad or burger? Yet there are those who will pay that much. For me, price seems very much market/demand driven more than costs/supply. So if consumers are willing to pay, the companies will keep the prices high where they like them to stay.

Cantacuzene

10-27-2003, 08:47 PM

Originally posted by cheapie
since i'm sure you won't believe me, do a comparison of what gasoline, a cheeseburger, a pair of pants, television, microwave, etc. cost today in terms of real dollars compared to 20-30 years ago. why do you think they're so much cheaper?

Hardly possible. The average real income of the americans has dropped steadily in the past 30 years. If anything, the real dollars cost of these products is simply declining to match the declining income of the average consumer.

InfiniteNothing

10-27-2003, 08:54 PM

Originally posted by Apex

Except for the fact that what Kei said was inaccurate... :)

Monopolies do NOT price products as high as the market will bear.

I should have cut the first part out. Of course it's not completely untrue.

kei2

10-27-2003, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by Apex
Monopolies do NOT price products as high as the market will bear. Their pricing strategies are different from companies in a competitive market, but they will still lower prices when it'll bring in more profits.Okay fine I mis-spoke. My point is, if there was no competition (i.e. a monopoly), there is one less reason to drop prices. Competition drives prices down because consumers have more options, so in a monopoly situation that price-dropping factor is out of the picture.

Plus, in a monopoly situation, the supplier would have the supply-demand curves figured out pretty fast I think... and eventually they could establish the most profitable price and not lower it. Competition wouldn't drive the prices down, so only a change in the supply and demand curves would cause any price drop.