The Money Mustache Community
General Discussion => Welcome and General Discussion => Topic started by: Mike in NH on April 09, 2019, 05:53:11 PM
-
Anybody catch the Last Week Tonight piece on mobile homes & trailer parks? It took some shots at Warren Buffett based on his stake in Clayton Homes.
“Mobile homes may be a terrible investment for people buying them, but they’ve been an incredible investment for Warren Buffett,” he said, adding that the Buffett-owned Clayton Homes, the largest manufacturer of mobile homes, generated pre-tax earnings of $911 million last year.
Granted, there was definitely a harsher focus on some other companies/people, but it still caught me off-guard, I don't ever really hear any criticism of Buffett. In fact, prior to his passing, I'd probably point to Jack Bogle and Buffett as having the highest wealth to negative press discrepancy (that's a new data point I just came up with) out of the mainstream ultra-rich in this country.
-
Yes I caught that! Kind of a dig at Buffett, along with praise for Dave Ramsey. I do like when finance people show up unexpectedly like that when I’m watching a show.
-
Fair's fair. John Oliver calls it like he sees it, and while I don't suspect Mr. Buffet is sitting in his office plotting how to raise rents on "people handcuffed to the table," it's probably worth him taking a hard look at whether his companies are acting ethically.
That said, there's an enormous difference between investing in exploitative landlords and investing in quality, affordable, relatively green prefabricated housing. There wasn't a lot of detail in the show on whether the investment vehicles / companies mentioned participate in both enterprises, which might make it harder to parse out and avoid people behaving badly.
-
The episode was one group of people being blamed for the money miskates of another group of people. Highlights by one sleazy bag.
Buffet owns a company that makes low cost housing. That is a good thing.
-
This is silly, because at the end of the day any home itself is a depreciating asset. It gets consumed in the same way a TV, or a car does. The appreciating asset of the purchase is the land. Manufactured homes don't typically come with that, or if they do it's not typically in an area where the land is on pace to become more valuable.
If I didn't change my flooring, paint my walls, get a new roof, etc. Every X number of years my home itself would continue to depreciate. I sometimes ask people to do this thought experiment.
Let's assume there are two homes sitting right next to each other on an identical plot of land, identical size, layout, etc. One was built in 1970 and nothing has been changed in it. The other was built this year. Which home would go for more if they were both up for sale? If it's true that "homes appreciate" as many argue then the 1970 home with no changes over the last 50 years should be worth far more. It's had 50 years to appreciate.
-
This isn't new criticism, Clayton Homes' finance division (and by extension, Buffett) has been under fire before:
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/minorities-exploited-by-warren-buffetts-mobile-home-empire-clayton-homes/
-
That's similar to hundreds of reports claiming tax refunds are down this year. (Media message Trump screwed you) It is true, on average (usually farther down the article) they are reduced by $20 vs last year.
But it is hard to find an article that discusses how much the average federal tax bill is reduced, the only reference I can find
says the average household tax is down $1,400. The other reference was a study in January on two family situations calculating
tax reductions of $1,600 and $1,800.
When I use Google and search "did Americans paying less tax in 2018" I get two hits saying that average tax bills are down,
two that seemed off topic and 9 that talked about the reduction in refunds.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/04/09/the-truth-about-how-much-americans-are-paying-in-taxes/
https://www.fool.com/taxes/2019/01/12/want-a-tax-cut-heres-how-much-typical-americans-sa.aspx
Besides the not so subtle Trump screw you message, there is no mention that it's a bad idea to give the government an interest free loan.
I watched ABC news with David Muir a couple days ago, he had a story about how average refunds are down, nothing about how taxes owed are down.
-
That's similar to hundreds of reports claiming tax refunds are down this year. (Media message Trump screwed you) It is true, on average (usually farther down the article) they are reduced by $20 vs last year.
But it is hard to find an article that discusses how much the average federal tax bill is reduced, the only reference I can find
says the average household tax is down $1,400. The other reference was a study in January on two family situations calculating
tax reductions of $1,600 and $1,800.
When I use Google and search "did Americans paying less tax in 2018" I get two hits saying that average tax bills are down,
two that seemed off topic and 9 that talked about the reduction in refunds.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/04/09/the-truth-about-how-much-americans-are-paying-in-taxes/
https://www.fool.com/taxes/2019/01/12/want-a-tax-cut-heres-how-much-typical-americans-sa.aspx
Besides the not so subtle Trump screw you message, there is no mention that it's a bad idea to give the government an interest free loan.
I watched ABC news with David Muir a couple days ago, he had a story about how average refunds are down, nothing about how taxes owed are down.
"I paid my $5 bill with a $20 and I got a smaller refund than yesterday when I paid my $7 bill with a $50...."
Its so hard to watch / read pieces of journalism that use premises like that.
-
Oliver's piece on the WWE from the week before is fairly relevant with regards to employment issues.
-
Oliver's piece on the WWE from the week before is fairly relevant with regards to employment issues.
I would like to see the wrestlers of the WWE come together, leave and start there own company. They are voluntarily signing those contracts.
-
Oliver's piece on the WWE from the week before is fairly relevant with regards to employment issues.
I would like to see the wrestlers of the WWE come together, leave and start there own company. They are voluntarily signing those contracts.
If a contract is illegal (calling employees private contractors) should it still be legally binding?
-
Oliver's piece on the WWE from the week before is fairly relevant with regards to employment issues.
I would like to see the wrestlers of the WWE come together, leave and start there own company. They are voluntarily signing those contracts.
If a contract is illegal (calling employees private contractors) should it still be legally binding?
I guess that depends on the legal definition of “employee”. I’m curious, how can an employment contract be “illegal” between two parties?
-
Oliver's piece on the WWE from the week before is fairly relevant with regards to employment issues.
I would like to see the wrestlers of the WWE come together, leave and start there own company. They are voluntarily signing those contracts.
Wrestling nerd here. A new company called AEW has just started with a few former WWE talent. They are finacially backed by the Shad Khan. It would be interesting to see if they set up the talents contracts in the same way as independent contractors or more along the same lines as other professional sports. Shad Khan also owns that Jacksonville Jaguars. Might have to do some research in to it.
-
Oliver's piece on the WWE from the week before is fairly relevant with regards to employment issues.
I would like to see the wrestlers of the WWE come together, leave and start there own company. They are voluntarily signing those contracts.
If a contract is illegal (calling employees private contractors) should it still be legally binding?
I guess that depends on the legal definition of “employee”. I’m curious, how can an employment contract be “illegal” between two parties?
Employment contracts are invalidated by courts every single day.
-
That doesn’t answer my question. On what grounds are they invalidated?
-
Oliver's piece on the WWE from the week before is fairly relevant with regards to employment issues.
I would like to see the wrestlers of the WWE come together, leave and start there own company. They are voluntarily signing those contracts.
Wrestling nerd here. A new company called AEW has just started with a few former WWE talent. They are finacially backed by the Shad Khan. It would be interesting to see if they set up the talents contracts in the same way as independent contractors or more along the same lines as other professional sports. Shad Khan also owns that Jacksonville Jaguars. Might have to do some research in to it.
That’s awesome. I’ll have to look into that. Thanks.
-
Oliver's piece on the WWE from the week before is fairly relevant with regards to employment issues.
I would like to see the wrestlers of the WWE come together, leave and start there own company. They are voluntarily signing those contracts.
If a contract is illegal (calling employees private contractors) should it still be legally binding?
I guess that depends on the legal definition of “employee”. I’m curious, how can an employment contract be “illegal” between two parties?
If you hire someone as a private contractor, who doesn't meet the legal definition of private contractor . . . I'd say that's an invalid contract.
-
Oliver's piece on the WWE from the week before is fairly relevant with regards to employment issues.
I would like to see the wrestlers of the WWE come together, leave and start there own company. They are voluntarily signing those contracts.
If a contract is illegal (calling employees private contractors) should it still be legally binding?
I guess that depends on the legal definition of “employee”. I’m curious, how can an employment contract be “illegal” between two parties?
If you hire someone as a private contractor, who doesn't meet the legal definition of private contractor . . . I'd say that's an invalid contract.
I agree. That means they should have no problem leaving for another company, job or employment opportunity.
-
That doesn’t answer my question. On what grounds are they invalidated?
Whenever they run afoul of other laws? Contracts aren't absolute.
I can't write an employment contract where I pay you less than minimum wage to be my sex slave, regardless of how eager you are to enter into it.
-
Oliver's piece on the WWE from the week before is fairly relevant with regards to employment issues.
I would like to see the wrestlers of the WWE come together, leave and start there own company. They are voluntarily signing those contracts.
If a contract is illegal (calling employees private contractors) should it still be legally binding?
I guess that depends on the legal definition of “employee”. I’m curious, how can an employment contract be “illegal” between two parties?
If you hire someone as a private contractor, who doesn't meet the legal definition of private contractor . . . I'd say that's an invalid contract.
I agree. That means they should have no problem leaving for another company, job or employment opportunity.
Agreed, if the contract is invalidated before work has been completed. No harm, no foul then.
if the contract has been fulfilled (or partially fulfilled) it becomes a more difficult problem to solve. In this particular case I think that the employer should be responsible for the benefits that were legally due but not provided to the employee while they were working. Otherwise there's no legal incentive for the employer to ever stop using illegal contracts.
-
Buffet invests in profitable businesses. Many profitable businesses are profitable because they are unethical. Welcome to being an investor.
Tobacco, liquor, and opioid manufacturers are a huge proportion of the SP500. Also shady banks like Wells Fargo. Anyone who owns VTSAX or similar (I do) is personally profiting off questionably ethical corporate exploitation of the poor, the elderly, the financially illiterate, and addicts.
Adding in "people who live in mobile homes" to that list does not, IMO, make it any worse than it already is.
-
That doesn’t answer my question. On what grounds are they invalidated?
Whenever they run afoul of other laws? Contracts aren't absolute.
I can't write an employment contract where I pay you less than minimum wage to be my sex slave, regardless of how eager you are to enter into it.
Haha. Isn’t that the type of contract the porn industry is predicted on.
-
Oliver's piece on the WWE from the week before is fairly relevant with regards to employment issues.
I would like to see the wrestlers of the WWE come together, leave and start there own company. They are voluntarily signing those contracts.
If a contract is illegal (calling employees private contractors) should it still be legally binding?
I guess that depends on the legal definition of “employee”. I’m curious, how can an employment contract be “illegal” between two parties?
If you hire someone as a private contractor, who doesn't meet the legal definition of private contractor . . . I'd say that's an invalid contract.
I agree. That means they should have no problem leaving for another company, job or employment opportunity.
Agreed, if the contract is invalidated before work has been completed. No harm, no foul then.
if the contract has been fulfilled (or partially fulfilled) it becomes a more difficult problem to solve. In this particular case I think that the employer should be responsible for the benefits that were legally due but not provided to the employee while they were working. Otherwise there's no legal incentive for the employer to ever stop using illegal contracts.
Can you knowingly sign a contract that doesn’t meet requirements then retroactively sue for the difference in benefits?
-
Oliver's piece on the WWE from the week before is fairly relevant with regards to employment issues.
I would like to see the wrestlers of the WWE come together, leave and start there own company. They are voluntarily signing those contracts.
If a contract is illegal (calling employees private contractors) should it still be legally binding?
I guess that depends on the legal definition of “employee”. I’m curious, how can an employment contract be “illegal” between two parties?
If you hire someone as a private contractor, who doesn't meet the legal definition of private contractor . . . I'd say that's an invalid contract.
I agree. That means they should have no problem leaving for another company, job or employment opportunity.
Agreed, if the contract is invalidated before work has been completed. No harm, no foul then.
if the contract has been fulfilled (or partially fulfilled) it becomes a more difficult problem to solve. In this particular case I think that the employer should be responsible for the benefits that were legally due but not provided to the employee while they were working. Otherwise there's no legal incentive for the employer to ever stop using illegal contracts.
Can you knowingly sign a contract that doesn’t meet requirements then retroactively sue for the difference in benefits?
Can you knowingly offer a contract that is illegal and then expect to profit from continuing to do so?
There is a serious power imbalance between employer and employee. History has shown us that it's not one that the free market is very efficient at solving. That's why employment law exists in the first place . . . otherwise the scales are so heavily tilted towards employers that we end up in the familiar lords/serfs pattern.
There does exist fault on the side of the employee signing the contract too of course. But if you want the illegal situation to stop in the future, then you need to apply penalties to the group that benefits the most from the crime. Penalizing someone for signing an illegal contract that denied him/her his rights isn't going to do this.
-
That doesn’t answer my question. On what grounds are they invalidated?
Whenever they run afoul of other laws? Contracts aren't absolute.
I can't write an employment contract where I pay you less than minimum wage to be my sex slave, regardless of how eager you are to enter into it.
Alas, my bucket list will remain incomplete! :)
-
Oliver's piece on the WWE from the week before is fairly relevant with regards to employment issues.
I would like to see the wrestlers of the WWE come together, leave and start there own company. They are voluntarily signing those contracts.
If a contract is illegal (calling employees private contractors) should it still be legally binding?
I guess that depends on the legal definition of “employee”. I’m curious, how can an employment contract be “illegal” between two parties?
If you hire someone as a private contractor, who doesn't meet the legal definition of private contractor . . . I'd say that's an invalid contract.
I agree. That means they should have no problem leaving for another company, job or employment opportunity.
There are probably many examples. The point being that the employer, in many cases, holds a lot of "power", so the government has made certain types of relationships/ contracts illegal. "Free to look elsewhere" is quite loaded, when the employer may be taking unfair advantage.
An example, at least in my state, would be nannies. CA requires anyone who cares for more than 1 family's offspring at a time to be licensed.
If you employ a nanny, you are their employer. You need to pay their social security taxes to the Feds, among other things. You cannot, for example "nanny share" with another family AT THE SAME TIME DURING THE SAME HOURS, and treat them like a "contractor".
(If a nanny, for example, wanted to work for you MTW, and someone else Th F, then they MAY be an independent contractor.)
-
If two parties enter into a contract should it be illegal simply because a third party thinks it’s “unfair”?
I disagree with your premise that there is a serious power imbalance between employer/employee and that history has shown us the free market cannot efficiently solve it. Free movement of labor is the best way to solve this multi-variable problem.
-
Oliver's piece on the WWE from the week before is fairly relevant with regards to employment issues.
I would like to see the wrestlers of the WWE come together, leave and start there own company. They are voluntarily signing those contracts.
If a contract is illegal (calling employees private contractors) should it still be legally binding?
I guess that depends on the legal definition of “employee”. I’m curious, how can an employment contract be “illegal” between two parties?
If you hire someone as a private contractor, who doesn't meet the legal definition of private contractor . . . I'd say that's an invalid contract.
I agree. That means they should have no problem leaving for another company, job or employment opportunity.
There are probably many examples. The point being that the employer, in many cases, holds a lot of "power", so the government has made certain types of relationships/ contracts illegal. "Free to look elsewhere" is quite loaded, when the employer may be taking unfair advantage.
An example, at least in my state, would be nannies. CA requires anyone who cares for more than 1 family's offspring at a time to be licensed.
If you employ a nanny, you are their employer. You need to pay their social security taxes to the Feds, among other things. You cannot, for example "nanny share" with another family AT THE SAME TIME DURING THE SAME HOURS, and treat them like a "contractor".
(If a nanny, for example, wanted to work for you MTW, and someone else Th F, then they MAY be an independent contractor.)
That sounds like a nightmare and plenty of billable hours for a lawyer. Haha. What ever happened to, “I’ll do this for this much money” “ok, deal”
-
If two parties enter into a contract should it be illegal simply because a third party thinks it’s “unfair”?
I disagree with your premise that there is a serious power imbalance between employer/employee and that history has shown us the free market cannot efficiently solve it. Free movement of labor is the best way to solve this multi-variable problem.
That is exactly what history has shown us. The "free" market favors the owners, not the workers, in most conditions.
-
If two parties enter into a contract should it be illegal simply because a third party thinks it’s “unfair”?
I disagree with your premise that there is a serious power imbalance between employer/employee and that history has shown us the free market cannot efficiently solve it. Free movement of labor is the best way to solve this multi-variable problem.
That is exactly what history has shown us. The "free" market favors the owners, not the workers, in most conditions.
I disagree. You can quit your job at anytime. Don’t have any other employment opportunities you like? Start your own business and sell directly to customers.
The only thing that ever gets in the way of you doing this is the state.
-
If two parties enter into a contract should it be illegal simply because a third party thinks it’s “unfair”?
I disagree with your premise that there is a serious power imbalance between employer/employee and that history has shown us the free market cannot efficiently solve it. Free movement of labor is the best way to solve this multi-variable problem.
A wild libertarian appears!
-
If two parties enter into a contract should it be illegal simply because a third party thinks it’s “unfair”?
I disagree with your premise that there is a serious power imbalance between employer/employee and that history has shown us the free market cannot efficiently solve it. Free movement of labor is the best way to solve this multi-variable problem.
That is exactly what history has shown us. The "free" market favors the owners, not the workers, in most conditions.
I disagree. You can quit your job at anytime. Don’t have any other employment opportunities you like? Start your own business and sell directly to customers.
The only thing that ever gets in the way of you doing this is the state.
So yo have never heard of big corporations undercutting the prices of mom and pop stores until they go out of business?
-
If two parties enter into a contract should it be illegal simply because a third party thinks it’s “unfair”?
That's exactly what the people of your country have decided, so yes. You are of course, free to utilize a free market approach to this particular problem and move to a different country without such protections if you don't like it. Somalia is particularly Libertarian at the moment.
-
Oliver's piece on the WWE from the week before is fairly relevant with regards to employment issues.
I would like to see the wrestlers of the WWE come together, leave and start there own company. They are voluntarily signing those contracts.
If a contract is illegal (calling employees private contractors) should it still be legally binding?
I guess that depends on the legal definition of “employee”. I’m curious, how can an employment contract be “illegal” between two parties?
If you hire someone as a private contractor, who doesn't meet the legal definition of private contractor . . . I'd say that's an invalid contract.
I agree. That means they should have no problem leaving for another company, job or employment opportunity.
Agreed, if the contract is invalidated before work has been completed. No harm, no foul then.
if the contract has been fulfilled (or partially fulfilled) it becomes a more difficult problem to solve. In this particular case I think that the employer should be responsible for the benefits that were legally due but not provided to the employee while they were working. Otherwise there's no legal incentive for the employer to ever stop using illegal contracts.
Can you knowingly sign a contract that doesn’t meet requirements then retroactively sue for the difference in benefits?
Yes, you can. Sign a contract that says you won't get paid overtime, though the position is not an exempt position, and you can have the courts get you the pay the contract should have had in it (though generally the DOL, state or federal, will make that happen without you needing to file any suits). If the contract violates the laws of the land, even if you agree to it, those illegal provisions are not valid and the legal requirements are fully enforceable.
Regarding employees that were classified as independent contractors by their employers, here's some tidbits from https://dpeaflcio.org/programs-publications/issue-fact-sheets/misclassification-of-employees-as-independent-contractors/
Legal Victories for Misclassified Workers
Both federal and state agencies and workers themselves are seeking legal action against misclassification. A number of these suits resulted in positive outcomes for the workers, establishing both correct classification and winning retroactive compensation for overtime and other lost benefits.
In April 2016, Uber decided to settle a class action lawsuit for brought against it by drivers in California and Massachusetts for $100 million. Because the case did not go to trial, the independent contractor dispute question has not yet been resolved.[49]
In April 2015, DOL announced that it recovered $700,000 in back wages, damages, and penalties for over 1,000 misclassified construction industry workers in Utah and Arizona.[50]
In September 2014, a Sacramento Superior Court in California ruled that The Sacramento Bee misclassified over 5,100 newspaper carriers as independent contractors.[51]
In May 2013, the DOL helped 196 employees at a Kentucky based cable installer recover over $1 million in retroactive overtime pay and other benefits.[52]
In 2012 and 2013, after having hired 300 additional investigators,[53] the DOL collected more than $18.2 million in back wages on behalf of 19,000 employees who had been misclassified.[54]
Two separate class action lawsuits launched by exotic dancers resulted in multi-million dollar settlements for the employees long misclassified as independent contractors. The litigation in both cases was lengthy; however, this could prove useful in establishing precedent for other misclassified employees in an industry where it appears misclassification is common practice. Going forward the employers involved in the suits will no longer classify dancers as independent contractors, but as either employees or shareholders.[55]
-
If two parties enter into a contract should it be illegal simply because a third party thinks it’s “unfair”?
I disagree with your premise that there is a serious power imbalance between employer/employee and that history has shown us the free market cannot efficiently solve it. Free movement of labor is the best way to solve this multi-variable problem.
When that third party is a court of law - absolutely. That's their purpose.
What exactly is "free movement of labor" and how does it apply to this situation?
-
If two parties enter into a contract should it be illegal simply because a third party thinks it’s “unfair”?
In the USA there is this thing called the IRS, and it turns out that the employee vs contractor issue has direct impact on some tax issues. In which case, they start to care.
-
If two parties enter into a contract should it be illegal simply because a third party thinks it’s “unfair”?
I disagree with your premise that there is a serious power imbalance between employer/employee and that history has shown us the free market cannot efficiently solve it. Free movement of labor is the best way to solve this multi-variable problem.
A wild libertarian appears!
I’m not sure how that makes me libertarian but I take acception to the term ‘wild’. Haha
-
If two parties enter into a contract should it be illegal simply because a third party thinks it’s “unfair”?
I disagree with your premise that there is a serious power imbalance between employer/employee and that history has shown us the free market cannot efficiently solve it. Free movement of labor is the best way to solve this multi-variable problem.
No, but I have heard of big corporations being more efficient and offering products at lower prices than mom and pop stores. Costumers prefer lower prices which makes it hard on mom and pop stores for sure.
That is exactly what history has shown us. The "free" market favors the owners, not the workers, in most conditions.
I disagree. You can quit your job at anytime. Don’t have any other employment opportunities you like? Start your own business and sell directly to customers.
The only thing that ever gets in the way of you doing this is the state.
So yo have never heard of big corporations undercutting the prices of mom and pop stores until they go out of business?
Edit: It didn’t post my response the first time.
No, but I have heard of large corporations being more efficient giving them the ability to lower prices. Customers prefer lower prices which can be difficult for mom and pop stores.
-
If two parties enter into a contract should it be illegal simply because a third party thinks it’s “unfair”?
That's exactly what the people of your country have decided, so yes. You are of course, free to utilize a free market approach to this particular problem and move to a different country without such protections if you don't like it. Somalia is particularly Libertarian at the moment.
Thanks for the advice. I am weighing my options.
-
Yes, you can. Sign a contract that says you won't get paid overtime, though the position is not an exempt position, and you can have the courts get you the pay the contract should have had in it (though generally the DOL, state or federal, will make that happen without you needing to file any suits). If the contract violates the laws of the land, even if you agree to it, those illegal provisions are not valid and the legal requirements are fully enforceable.
Regarding employees that were classified as independent contractors by their employers, here's some tidbits from https://dpeaflcio.org/programs-publications/issue-fact-sheets/misclassification-of-employees-as-independent-contractors/
Legal Victories for Misclassified Workers
Both federal and state agencies and workers themselves are seeking legal action against misclassification. A number of these suits resulted in positive outcomes for the workers, establishing both correct classification and winning retroactive compensation for overtime and other lost benefits.
In April 2016, Uber decided to settle a class action lawsuit for brought against it by drivers in California and Massachusetts for $100 million. Because the case did not go to trial, the independent contractor dispute question has not yet been resolved.[49]
In April 2015, DOL announced that it recovered $700,000 in back wages, damages, and penalties for over 1,000 misclassified construction industry workers in Utah and Arizona.[50]
In September 2014, a Sacramento Superior Court in California ruled that The Sacramento Bee misclassified over 5,100 newspaper carriers as independent contractors.[51]
In May 2013, the DOL helped 196 employees at a Kentucky based cable installer recover over $1 million in retroactive overtime pay and other benefits.[52]
In 2012 and 2013, after having hired 300 additional investigators,[53] the DOL collected more than $18.2 million in back wages on behalf of 19,000 employees who had been misclassified.[54]
Two separate class action lawsuits launched by exotic dancers resulted in multi-million dollar settlements for the employees long misclassified as independent contractors. The litigation in both cases was lengthy; however, this could prove useful in establishing precedent for other misclassified employees in an industry where it appears misclassification is common practice. Going forward the employers involved in the suits will no longer classify dancers as independent contractors, but as either employees or shareholders.[55]
Thank you for the info. Doesn’t seem right but it is what it is.
-
If two parties enter into a contract should it be illegal simply because a third party thinks it’s “unfair”?
I disagree with your premise that there is a serious power imbalance between employer/employee and that history has shown us the free market cannot efficiently solve it. Free movement of labor is the best way to solve this multi-variable problem.
When that third party is a court of law - absolutely. That's their purpose.
What exactly is "free movement of labor" and how does it apply to this situation?
You say that like the court of law is the almighty. That court of law once held that slavery was legal. They may not always be right.
Free movement of labor is the ability for consenting adults to engage in any employment contract they wish too. If I want to work for $5/hr, I should be allowed to. It is my body after all.
-
If two parties enter into a contract should it be illegal simply because a third party thinks it’s “unfair”?
I disagree with your premise that there is a serious power imbalance between employer/employee and that history has shown us the free market cannot efficiently solve it. Free movement of labor is the best way to solve this multi-variable problem.
No, but I have heard of big corporations being more efficient and offering products at lower prices than mom and pop stores. Costumers prefer lower prices which makes it hard on mom and pop stores for sure.
That is exactly what history has shown us. The "free" market favors the owners, not the workers, in most conditions.
I disagree. You can quit your job at anytime. Don’t have any other employment opportunities you like? Start your own business and sell directly to customers.
The only thing that ever gets in the way of you doing this is the state.
So yo have never heard of big corporations undercutting the prices of mom and pop stores until they go out of business?
Edit: It didn’t post my response the first time.
No, but I have heard of large corporations being more efficient giving them the ability to lower prices. Customers prefer lower prices which can be difficult for mom and pop stores.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy))
Dumping is well documented historically, and a very effective practice of selling below profit levels to drive competition out of business. After a few years of dumping the larger company can raise prices and increase market share, but most small retailers are out of business permanently as they usually don't have the capital needed to restart their business after the costs incurred while trying to match unsustainable prices caused by the dumping. If small retailers start to establish again to fill the market niche, then another round of dumping can be simply used to drive them out again.
A great many other issues arise when unregulated free markets exist which damage competition:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividing_territories (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividing_territories)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_price (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_price)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce))
I get that it's popular in certain circles to pretend government regulation serves no purpose, but this view is typically one held by those ignorant of history.
-
Yes, you can. Sign a contract that says you won't get paid overtime, though the position is not an exempt position, and you can have the courts get you the pay the contract should have had in it (though generally the DOL, state or federal, will make that happen without you needing to file any suits). If the contract violates the laws of the land, even if you agree to it, those illegal provisions are not valid and the legal requirements are fully enforceable.
Regarding employees that were classified as independent contractors by their employers, here's some tidbits from https://dpeaflcio.org/programs-publications/issue-fact-sheets/misclassification-of-employees-as-independent-contractors/
Legal Victories for Misclassified Workers
Both federal and state agencies and workers themselves are seeking legal action against misclassification. A number of these suits resulted in positive outcomes for the workers, establishing both correct classification and winning retroactive compensation for overtime and other lost benefits.
In April 2016, Uber decided to settle a class action lawsuit for brought against it by drivers in California and Massachusetts for $100 million. Because the case did not go to trial, the independent contractor dispute question has not yet been resolved.[49]
In April 2015, DOL announced that it recovered $700,000 in back wages, damages, and penalties for over 1,000 misclassified construction industry workers in Utah and Arizona.[50]
In September 2014, a Sacramento Superior Court in California ruled that The Sacramento Bee misclassified over 5,100 newspaper carriers as independent contractors.[51]
In May 2013, the DOL helped 196 employees at a Kentucky based cable installer recover over $1 million in retroactive overtime pay and other benefits.[52]
In 2012 and 2013, after having hired 300 additional investigators,[53] the DOL collected more than $18.2 million in back wages on behalf of 19,000 employees who had been misclassified.[54]
Two separate class action lawsuits launched by exotic dancers resulted in multi-million dollar settlements for the employees long misclassified as independent contractors. The litigation in both cases was lengthy; however, this could prove useful in establishing precedent for other misclassified employees in an industry where it appears misclassification is common practice. Going forward the employers involved in the suits will no longer classify dancers as independent contractors, but as either employees or shareholders.[55]
As a chemist, official title "Principal Field Service Engineer" it was once held that I should be classified as a pipefitter, even though I am not qualified, never touched plant equipment, not part of any union or craft organization. We were running a chemical cleaning unit. We did have plant pipefitters make all connections. The state Department of Labor said so, so I ended getting $1500 extra for that job.
-
If two parties enter into a contract should it be illegal simply because a third party thinks it’s “unfair”?
I disagree with your premise that there is a serious power imbalance between employer/employee and that history has shown us the free market cannot efficiently solve it. Free movement of labor is the best way to solve this multi-variable problem.
No, but I have heard of big corporations being more efficient and offering products at lower prices than mom and pop stores. Costumers prefer lower prices which makes it hard on mom and pop stores for sure.
That is exactly what history has shown us. The "free" market favors the owners, not the workers, in most conditions.
I disagree. You can quit your job at anytime. Don’t have any other employment opportunities you like? Start your own business and sell directly to customers.
The only thing that ever gets in the way of you doing this is the state.
So yo have never heard of big corporations undercutting the prices of mom and pop stores until they go out of business?
Edit: It didn’t post my response the first time.
No, but I have heard of large corporations being more efficient giving them the ability to lower prices. Customers prefer lower prices which can be difficult for mom and pop stores.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy))
Dumping is well documented historically, and a very effective practice of selling below profit levels to drive competition out of business. After a few years of dumping the larger company can raise prices and increase market share, but most small retailers are out of business permanently as they usually don't have the capital needed to restart their business after the costs incurred while trying to match unsustainable prices caused by the dumping. If small retailers start to establish again to fill the market niche, then another round of dumping can be simply used to drive them out again.
A great many other issues arise when unregulated free markets exist which damage competition:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividing_territories (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividing_territories)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_price (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_price)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce))
I get that it's popular in certain circles to pretend government regulation serves no purpose, but this view is typically one held by those ignorant of history.
Price to low - dumping
Price to high - gouging
Price the same - collusion
Let’s face it. You can’t win.
-
Price to low - dumping
Price to high - gouging
Price the same - collusion
Let’s face it. You can’t win.
You can totally win. Just charge fair market rates!
Don't deliberately lose money on sales in order to ruin your competition, because that's bad for free markets. Don't deliberately overcharge people by taking advantage of their misfortune, because that's bad for free markets. And then don't make any secret back room deals with your competition in order to overcharge customers, because that's bad for free markets.
Instead, charge the highest price you can fairly get people to pay. If you charge too much they will buy less and you will make less profit than if you had charged less. If you charge too little they will buy it all but you will make less profit than if you had charged more. So just try to find the price that makes you the most money in a free and open exchange, and you and the customer both win.
At least, that's the simple model of how capitalism is supposed to work. Complications arise when there are no police around to prevent dumping, gouging, and collusion. Even the idealized "free market" model needs regulation to avoid theft and enforce contracts. Truly unregulated markets always end up being dominated by thugs and strongmen, because unrestricted criminal activity is always more profitable than fair competition.
-
Price to low - dumping
Price to high - gouging
Price the same - collusion
Let’s face it. You can’t win.
You can totally win. Just charge fair market rates!
Don't deliberately lose money on sales in order to ruin your competition, because that's bad for free markets. Don't deliberately overcharge people by taking advantage of their misfortune, because that's bad for free markets. And then don't make any secret back room deals with your competition in order to overcharge customers, because that's bad for free markets.
Instead, charge the highest price you can fairly get people to pay. If you charge too much they will buy less and you will make less profit than if you had charged less. If you charge too little they will buy it all but you will make less profit than if you had charged more. So just try to find the price that makes you the most money in a free and open exchange, and you and the customer both win.
At least, that's the simple model of how capitalism is supposed to work. Complications arise when there are no police around to prevent dumping, gouging, and collusion. Even the idealized "free market" model needs regulation to avoid theft and enforce contracts. Truly unregulated markets always end up being dominated by thugs and strongmen, because unrestricted criminal activity is always more profitable than fair competition.
I don't think anyone will argue that a completely unfettered free market is perfect. I'm a huge fan of free markets, but recognize that there are cases where they're imperfect and government involvement is good, for example:
1) monopoly/duopoly/collusion
2) intellectual property
3) situations where there's an imbalance of information, i.e. uninformed consumers
4) enforcement of contracts
5) reserving use of force for the government (i.e. you can't go smash your competitor's kneecaps)
On the topic of gouging, I'm going to take an unpopular position by saying that except in some cases of both monopoly power and life-threatening and/or life-altering situations, it doesn't actually happen. Several years ago, I lived in Texas, and rode out a couple of hurricanes. One story that got a lot of attention was a group of people from the midwest who purchased a semi truck's worth of generators, drove down to the gulf coast, and were selling the generators for something like double their original cost. They caught a lot of flak for "gouging." But what's the alternative? If you take away the profit motive, you don't get people trucking generators down where they're needed most, and everyone loses out.
-
a group of people from the midwest who purchased a semi truck's worth of generators, drove down to the gulf coast, and were selling the generators for something like double their original cost. They caught a lot of flak for "gouging." But what's the alternative? If you take away the profit motive, you don't get people trucking generators down where they're needed most, and everyone loses out.
I don't think that's gouging, that's market pricing. Everyone who truly needs a generator (e.g. hospitals) already had one.
Are other people free to truck down their own load of generators and sell them for less? Are customers allowed to buy generators from more than one place? Are the people selling generators each setting their own prices independently? Seems like fair market value to me. No one screams gouging when oil prices go up because demand exceeds supply, and I don't see how generators are fundamentally different from oil in this context.
-
If two parties enter into a contract should it be illegal simply because a third party thinks it’s “unfair”?
I disagree with your premise that there is a serious power imbalance between employer/employee and that history has shown us the free market cannot efficiently solve it. Free movement of labor is the best way to solve this multi-variable problem.
When that third party is a court of law - absolutely. That's their purpose.
What exactly is "free movement of labor" and how does it apply to this situation?
You say that like the court of law is the almighty. That court of law once held that slavery was legal. They may not always be right.
Free movement of labor is the ability for consenting adults to engage in any employment contract they wish too. If I want to work for $5/hr, I should be allowed to. It is my body after all.
The Courts interpret the law. They don't make it. If they're making it out of whole cloth they're overstepping their mandate.
Regarding the movement of labor, I was thinking more along the lines of "Corporation X has an army of lawyers writing labor contacts, and little ignorant you is across the table with few options for getting your own expert to review it." Would your hypothetical contract include provisions for maximum work hours, breaks, working outside the scope of normal duties, insurance, sick leave, etc? If it did your contract would be a massive document in order to account for many of the things that are currently covered by state and federal labor laws. You might forget a few clauses your employer could exploit.
-
Oliver's piece on the WWE from the week before is fairly relevant with regards to employment issues.
I would like to see the wrestlers of the WWE come together, leave and start there own company. They are voluntarily signing those contracts.
If a contract is illegal (calling employees private contractors) should it still be legally binding?
I guess that depends on the legal definition of “employee”. I’m curious, how can an employment contract be “illegal” between two parties?
I worked for 10 years as an independent contractor, but I'm certain that if the government looked into it, I would have been reclassified as an employee. I did VCR repair in a consumer electronics repair shop.
I worked solely in his shop, I used his supplies and he got the markup, I would have been hard for me to incur any loss in my position and few other items. But I was happy with the situation, I earned more money than I had ever earned, even though I had to pay the additional SS tax. My best year I earned an inflation adjusted $139k. It was great until the price of VCRs dropped to the point that people started buying new instead of repairing them. I moved on, told another I.C. I was leaving and he might want to take on my repairs. A year later I came back for a visit, the other I.C. said he only came in 3 days a week to do any VCRs that had come in.
PS. DVDs were just coming out, I thought about learning to repair those, I'm glad I didn't, their prices dropped much quicker then VCRs.
-
I worked for 10 years as an independent contractor, but I'm certain that if the government looked into it, I would have been reclassified as an employee. I did VCR repair in a consumer electronics repair shop.
I worked solely in his shop, I used his supplies and he got the markup, I would have been hard for me to incur any loss in my position and few other items. But I was happy with the situation, I earned more money than I had ever earned, even though I had to pay the additional SS tax. My best year I earned an inflation adjusted $139k. It was great until the price of VCRs dropped to the point that people started buying new instead of repairing them. I moved on, told another I.C. I was leaving and he might want to take on my repairs. A year later I came back for a visit, the other I.C. said he only came in 3 days a week to do any VCRs that had come in.
PS. DVDs were just coming out, I thought about learning to repair those, I'm glad I didn't, their prices dropped much quicker then VCRs.
Interesting story!
-
a group of people from the midwest who purchased a semi truck's worth of generators, drove down to the gulf coast, and were selling the generators for something like double their original cost. They caught a lot of flak for "gouging." But what's the alternative? If you take away the profit motive, you don't get people trucking generators down where they're needed most, and everyone loses out.
I don't think that's gouging, that's market pricing. Everyone who truly needs a generator (e.g. hospitals) already had one.
Are other people free to truck down their own load of generators and sell them for less? Are customers allowed to buy generators from more than one place? Are the people selling generators each setting their own prices independently? Seems like fair market value to me. No one screams gouging when oil prices go up because demand exceeds supply, and I don't see how generators are fundamentally different from oil in this context.
It was probably viewed as gouging because people were banding together to recover from the storm. Here come these outsiders, trying to sell them generators for twice list price. They would have been welcome at list price, or list price + transport costs. They would have been welcome if they had come to help. Instead they were viewed as outsiders trying to profit from the misfortune of the locals.
Whether or not it's actually gouging would be an interesting debate.
-
There's no point selling at list price + transport costs because you need to make a profit off the value of time and labour required to bring the generators downfield. Maybe list price + transport costs + ($x/hour for transport labour) + ($x/hour for deemed time value of money) would be appropriate.
The alternative would be, no generators for anyone and everyone misses out.
-
Sol, the problem is, what is fair? Fair is a subjective term and everyone has there own definition. Even if a corporation is “dumping” why is that inherently unfair. I’ll gladly accept those lower prices. If the prices go back up I will gladly move to the multitude of alternatives that are available.
Your ok with charging the highest price that can “fairly” be gotten. But if I decide to provide charity through lower than cost prices, I’m the bad guy. Interesting.
-
Re: the hurricane and gouging (or not)
Interesting item to bring into town would have been TV antennas.
The cable system was knocked out for about 10 weeks. There was a run on antennas and they became hard to get locally. Sure you could go online and get one, except because the cable was out, most people had no access to the internet. Just use your smartphone, not if you had Verizon, their system was knocked down to a texting and a phone call, and in the first several weeks, chances are that didn't even work well.
I bought an AT&T phone to tether to my computer, the AT&T system was working well. I was told the were the preferred provider for first responders, this required their system to be more hardened to withstand, this type of event.
btw, I built a quick antenna for my neighbor, he used it until the cable was back and then gave it to his momma up in the boonies. I'm using a more elaborate antenna a friend built, but I can't say it is better than the very quick antenna I built.
-
Sol, the problem is, what is fair? Fair is a subjective term and everyone has there own definition. Even if a corporation is “dumping” why is that inherently unfair. I’ll gladly accept those lower prices. If the prices go back up I will gladly move to the multitude of alternatives that are available.
This comment seems to indicate a lack of understanding regarding the practice of dumping. I'd suggest you read up on it. The purpose of dumping is to remove that 'multitude of alternatives' that you're depending on and assuming will still be there. It has historically been pretty effective at doing so.
-
I understand dumping. I also understand that when the higher prices everyone is scared of eventually come, alternatives can enter the market again. Not to mention people switching to substitutes. Can you give me an example of the dumping scheme working in the real world?
-
I understand dumping. I also understand that when the higher prices everyone is scared of eventually come, alternatives can enter the market again. Not to mention people switching to substitutes. Can you give me an example of the dumping scheme working in the real world?
Off the top of my head? Sure.
The Japanese television cartels in the 70s and 80s implemented a policy of dumping (they were selling televisions at less than half the cost of manufacturing for many years) that eventually led to the closure of 21 American companies and the sale of a many others. This resulted in the collapse of North American television production, and total domination of the market by Japanese companies. The industry never recovered, and even today there are few North American brands of television available for sale.
-
What North American TV brands?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westinghouse_Electronics is a Chinese licensee of the Westinghouse name / logo.
-
What North American TV brands?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westinghouse_Electronics is a Chinese licensee of the Westinghouse name / logo.
I think that a few companies still do some assembly of stuff in the US (Olevia, Visio, Panasonic, Sharp have assembly facilities in the US), but certainly there are no 'made in the US' televisions on the market. I suspect that it would be impossible to get the designation, since the manufacturing facilities to make most of the parts used in TVs just don't exist in North America any more.
-
When did they raise the prices to make monopoly profits? It is my understanding that tv’s have been dropping in price for decades?
Do you have any evidence that they were losing money over than timeframe or were they simply more efficient and able to offer the lower price? I am very interested in this.
-
When did they raise the prices to make monopoly profits? It is my understanding that tv’s have been dropping in price for decades?
Do you have any evidence that they were losing money over than timeframe or were they simply more efficient and able to offer the lower price? I am very interested in this.
I don't have access to their financial records . . . but the Japanese companies were selling their televisions at 60% discount from the price they sold them in Japan at the time (https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-04-28-fi-2432-story.html (https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-04-28-fi-2432-story.html)). I'm not sure that 'efficiencies' in manufacture can be used to explain this . . . surely the domestic price should be more efficient than the domestic price + the cost of shipping over to the US.
As far as the price of televisions falling . . . the price of electronics across the board have fallen steadily as better manufacturing techniques have been discovered. I'm not sure that it's fair to say that televisions are cheaper today, therefore dumping and achieving market supremacy for several decades resulted in no unfair pricing by Japanese companies. It would probably be better to look at that 60% difference between the domestic price and US price for televisions for Japanese companies and see how it changed after they had no US competition.
-
From what I just read the domestic Japanese market was the monopoly granted by the Japanese government. They allowed domestic tv manufacturers to charge well over double the cost of American tv manufacturers and used those profits for rebates in America. -Washington post 1990 Japan and the Big squeeze.
Now granted none of those figures can be verified but if that’s even close to being true we were being subsidized by the entire country of Japan. If I was a citizen of Japan in those days I would be pissed. Haha.
From my brief searches, it doesn’t seem that they were ever able to raise prices high enough to get anything close to those subsidies back.
1 USA 0 Japan
-
From what I have seen, they were never able to recover this price and, overall, televisions have been getting better and cheaper for 70 years.
-
Can you post links to the data you're using to draw the conclusion that Japanese companies didn't profit from driving their competitors out of business?
-
I just did a quick google search for historical tv prices and based on this rough research tv prices have continually dropped for 70 years with the tech advancing at quite the pace. I guess I didn’t realize how quickly South Korea has moved into this market as well.
I’ll go back and try to find the link. I used my computer for the link and am posting via my phone.
Add:
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/why-are-tvs-so-cheap/250562/
https://blog.technavio.com/blog/largest-tv-manufacturers-by-market-share
https://www.cnet.com/news/are-tvs-really-cheaper-than-ever-we-go-back-a-few-decades-to-see/
Here are three.
Forgot tvhistory.tv interesting site.
-
Electronics manufacture has gone through some rather radical shifts in production techniques over the past 70 years. I don't think that saying a TV is cheaper now than it was before is evidence that no Japanese company made a profit by driving their competitors out of business really holds up to scrutiny.
Did the domestic price of televisions in Japan remain 60% below the US export price after there was no more competition? If so, I'd agree that this is likely indication that no profit was realized from the dumping practice.
-
What North American TV brands?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westinghouse_Electronics is a Chinese licensee of the Westinghouse name / logo.
I think that a few companies still do some assembly of stuff in the US (Olevia, Visio, Panasonic, Sharp have assembly facilities in the US), but certainly there are no 'made in the US' televisions on the market. I suspect that it would be impossible to get the designation, since the manufacturing facilities to make most of the parts used in TVs just don't exist in North America any more.
This is a really interesting point that we don't talk about much.
Since the majority of the high tech manufacturing has moved from the US to Asia, I wonder how long it would take to rebuild this manufacturing base in North America. We'd be back to making the tools to make the tools to build the product.
-
Electronics manufacture has gone through some rather radical shifts in production techniques over the past 70 years. I don't think that saying a TV is cheaper now than it was before is evidence that no Japanese company made a profit by driving their competitors out of business really holds up to scrutiny.
Did the domestic price of televisions in Japan remain 60% below the US export price after there was no more competition? If so, I'd agree that this is likely indication that no profit was realized from the dumping practice.
Can you show me the links where you got the information that Japanese domestic television prices were 60% of the US export price?
Everything I read the other day indicated that Japanese domestic tv prices were well over double the US sport price but the Japan government kept those exports out.
I’m not saying that no Japanese tv company has every made a profit. I am saying that no Japanese tv company was able to dump tv’s on the US market, destroying its US competition, then raise prices to monopoly high level and earn “unnecessary high profits” that everyone seems to think dumping results in.
-
Since the majority of the high tech manufacturing has moved from the US to Asia, I wonder how long it would take to rebuild this manufacturing base in North America. We'd be back to making the tools to make the tools to build the product.
This isn't happening, the electronics manufacturing process is likely going to stay in Asia for our lifetimes. If anything, economies and manufacturing are becoming more specialized, not less, and that's kind of the whole point of trade: we focus on what we do best, they focus on what they do best, and everyone benefits.
-
Since the majority of the high tech manufacturing has moved from the US to Asia, I wonder how long it would take to rebuild this manufacturing base in North America. We'd be back to making the tools to make the tools to build the product.
This isn't happening, the electronics manufacturing process is likely going to stay in Asia for our lifetimes. If anything, economies and manufacturing are becoming more specialized, not less, and that's kind of the whole point of trade: we focus on what we do best, they focus on what they do best, and everyone benefits.
I find it interesting that we compared the US (one country) vs. Asia (many countries) when it comes to manufacturing. If you look at manufacturers on a smaller scale there is quite a bit of movement among manufacturers between different Asian countries.
I agree, certain manufacturers are never coming back.
-
Electronics manufacture has gone through some rather radical shifts in production techniques over the past 70 years. I don't think that saying a TV is cheaper now than it was before is evidence that no Japanese company made a profit by driving their competitors out of business really holds up to scrutiny.
Did the domestic price of televisions in Japan remain 60% below the US export price after there was no more competition? If so, I'd agree that this is likely indication that no profit was realized from the dumping practice.
Can you show me the links where you got the information that Japanese domestic television prices were 60% of the US export price?
Everything I read the other day indicated that Japanese domestic tv prices were well over double the US sport price but the Japan government kept those exports out.
I’m not saying that no Japanese tv company has every made a profit. I am saying that no Japanese tv company was able to dump tv’s on the US market, destroying its US competition, then raise prices to monopoly high level and earn “unnecessary high profits” that everyone seems to think dumping results in.
The number is from the link that was posted earlier:
I don't have access to their financial records . . . but the Japanese companies were selling their televisions at 60% discount from the price they sold them in Japan at the time (https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-04-28-fi-2432-story.html (https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-04-28-fi-2432-story.html)). I'm not sure that 'efficiencies' in manufacture can be used to explain this . . . surely the domestic price should be more efficient than the domestic price + the cost of shipping over to the US.
It reads:
"A suit by the Zenith Corp. and National Union Electric Corp. charged that Japanese firms were selling their sets here at prices as much as 60% below those in Japan and that this practice was destroying U.S. television manufacturing. A federal appeals court in Philadelphia agreed with both of these charges but concluded that the evidence did not prove "an intent to injure" the American firms."
-
I agree With the information you have provided. But the information I have provided has shown that the Japanese government allowed those tv manufacturers to fix the price at over double the US export price.
So, 60% of an artificially high domestic price doesn’t represent what I feel like you are trying to represent.
-
Get some books on turn-of-the-century trustbusting, Plips. The reason this sort of stuff is illegal is that historically, companies *did* both drive competitors out of business by dumping, AND colluded with competitors to keep prices high.
Now, maybe that isn't necessary anymore. I'm no antitrust lawyer or economist. But the laws we enforce about those behaviors are a legacy of a time when we collectively decided they were, because the unregulated free market wasn't producing even vaguely optimal results.
You could also just grab a good biography of Theodore Roosevelt, trust busting was one of his main concerns.
-W
-
Buffet invests in profitable businesses. Many profitable businesses are profitable because they are unethical. Welcome to being an investor.
Tobacco, liquor, and opioid manufacturers are a huge proportion of the SP500. Also shady banks like Wells Fargo. Anyone who owns VTSAX or similar (I do) is personally profiting off questionably ethical corporate exploitation of the poor, the elderly, the financially illiterate, and addicts.
Adding in "people who live in mobile homes" to that list does not, IMO, make it any worse than it already is.
This, pretty much. Buffet's money is gonna do the world a lot of good. 99% of it will be spent on charity (not in endowment) after he dies, so I doubt he loses sleep because he profits off of a sleazy business.
I think it's good to have muck rakers like Oliver point this stuff out though. People should avoid doing business with sleazy people, and Oliver helps educate the world about sleazy people.
-
I agree With the information you have provided. But the information I have provided has shown that the Japanese government allowed those tv manufacturers to fix the price at over double the US export price.
I agree with you, the Japanese government probably should have stepped in to prevent the price fixing that was going on. As you've shown here (and I've been arguing), there are serious problems with allowing the free market to run unregulated.
-
I agree With the information you have provided. But the information I have provided has shown that the Japanese government allowed those tv manufacturers to fix the price at over double the US export price.
I agree with you, the Japanese government probably should have stepped in to prevent the price fixing that was going on. As you've shown here (and I've been arguing), there are serious problems with allowing the free market to run unregulated.
You put the best spin on what I was saying. Haha. A free market would not have allowed them to not allow US televisions in their market.
Walt - do you have a specific recommendation? I have done some reading on the subject but haven’t come across the same evidence you are describing.
-
The "progressive era" around the turn of the century is a complicated time, P-lips. It was when American socialism was arguably as popular as it ever became, and it led to things like the FDA and child labor laws, but it was entangled with prohibition, women's suffrage, concerns about contaminated food and environmental problems, and monopolies and trusts as well.
In other words, it's messy as hell and you're not going to find a single quick book that gives you the whole story. If you like biographies, start there (a biography of Roosevelt, or Eugene Debs, or any number of other public figures at the time will have lots of info). Many high schoolers (at least in the 90s) read Upton Sinclair's The Jungle to help give them some background on the time.
I'd start here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era
I also have to give a slight facepunch here - if you're not going to actually do any basic research about a topic (monopolies and trusts and US antitrust law) and don't know much about it, then you shouldn't be participating in the discussion. You could have acquired a basic knowledge of how and why we have these laws in no more than 10 minutes of reading.
Again, I'm not saying modern antitrust law is perfect or even a good thing. But if you want to argue that one way or the other, you need to have your basic facts and history straight.
-W
-
Also Google "Ida Tarbell."
-
Also Google "Ida Tarbell."
This.