unless you are Henry Ford
Henry Ford's $5-a-Day Revolution
In 1914, Henry Ford started an industrial revolution by more than
doubling wages to $5 a daya move that helped build the U.S. middle
class and the modern economy.
In 1913, to help meet the growing demand for the Model T, Henry Ford
turned his attention to improving the manufacturing processes. The
business model Ford developedproduction on a grand scale, performed by
well-paid workersspread throughout the world and became the
manufacturing standard for everything from vacuum sweepers to cars, and
Transforming the Assembly Line
The moving assembly line was perhaps Ford Motor Company's single
greatest contribution to the automotive manufacturing process. First
implemented at the Highland Park plant in Michigan, the new technique
allowed individual workers to stay in one place and perform the same
task repeatedly on multiple vehicles that passed by them.
The moving assembly line proved tremendously efficient, helping the
company to far surpass the production levels of its competitors while
making its vehicles more affordable.
The $5-a-day Workday
After the success of the moving assembly line, Henry Ford had another
transformative idea: in January 1914, he startled the world by
announcing that Ford Motor Company would pay $5 a day to its workers.
The pay increase would also be accompanied by a shorter workday (from
nine to eight hours). While this rate didn't automatically apply to
every worker, it more than doubled the average autoworker's wage.
While Henry's primary objective was to reduce worker attritionlabor
turnover from monotonous assembly line work was highnewspapers from all
over the world reported the story as an extraordinary gesture of
Thousands of Workers Flock to Detroit
After Fords announcement, thousands of prospective workers showed up at
the Ford Motor Company employment office. People surged toward Detroit
from the American South and the nations of Europe. As expected, employee
turnover diminished. And, by creating an eight-hour day, Ford could run
three shifts instead of two, increasing productivity.
Henry Ford had reasoned that since it was now possible to build
inexpensive cars in volume, more of them could be sold if employees
could afford to buy them. The $5 day helped better the lot of all
American workers and contributed to the emergence of the American middle
class. In the process, Henry Ford had changed manufacturing forever.
That's precisely why Democrats insist on increasing the minimum wage.
It keeps them on the plantation so they'll continue to be reliable
votes. Anyone with a hope of bettering themselves would tar and
feather any Democrat.
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 17:54:45 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
One thing that wasn't mentioned in your article was the skill level
required for the manufacturing jobs in question. These are definitely
not "entry level" positions.
I betting most of the burger flippers and others, in one of the many
true entry level jobs today wouldn't even show up for the second day
of work at the blue oval factory.
Therefore, he didn't raise the minimum wage -- he raised the wage for
that job classification to eliminate turn over.
One of the biggest problems today that the idiot in chief is
perpetuating is high unemployment because of his socialist policies.
With high unemployment there is a surplus of workers. Who, in there
right mind, would pay premium wages when they could get many qualified
workers for lower than normal pay?
To correct this problem the anointed one would have to change his
policies on Keystone, corporate tax rates, his beloved Obamacare, his
handouts to solar companies, the draconian regulations on the coal
industry and many of his other policies. But then he would be
admitting he was wrong. We all know that never has or never will
Unfortunately, we still have three rough years ahead.
I'm all for it if the gov't. puts the top 1% on the same wage. It would
be a hell of an experiment :o) MW should have been $10 10 years ago.
Folks shouldn't cry about raising MW AND all the folks on food
stamps....it's one or the other, IMO.
So why didn't raising the minimum wage 28 times since its inception in 1938
get them out of poverty and/or off food stamps? Could it be that raising
the minimum wage increases costs which increases prices which puts them
right back to where they were (besides impacting everyone else)? Some of
the data here might be of interest to you...
If we want to reduce poverty, we need to inspire people to learn more, work
harder, work smarter and to spend what they do earn wisely. And even if
that should happen, there will still be poverty.
On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 10:08:19 AM UTC-5, dadiOH wrote:
And in addition to that, the libs always assume a static
situation. The person on min wage today is going to be on
min wage for 40 years. And that they are supporting a family
of 4. Statistics show that the overwhelming majority of
people earning min wage are teens, those just entering the
work force with no kids, no families, doing it part-time, etc.
Anyone with some motivation can move up from a min wage,
without the govt. If anyting, if the govt was smaller and
taking less of the employees money, they'd be better off.
Along with getting the government the hell out of the way, and out of
our pockets. I still cannot fathom how it is that people in the U.S.,
in a short period of time, came to think that income taxes, by the
Feds, *is* a normal state of affairs. Much less payroll taxes. Stupid
Of course it doesn't make sense, but my sense of humor just takes a turn
now and then....
What I don't get about repugnicans is how damn rigid they are about
money; we need a service economy with living wages. Not only do folks
have stagnant wages to struggle with, they have s--- dumped on them with
temp jobs, limited hours and no benefits. Just work harder and move up
the ladder? Not when most of the mfg. economy is in China or Thailand
or Bangladesh. In spite of all the crap, Americans are still most
Folks can't work when they are sick, and they can't afford health care
when they don't work....you consider them all undeserving and lazy?
What's the answer?
First of all define living wage in some non-subjective manner. Secondly,
if we add to the mininum wage, how is that going to do anything other
than move the jobs elsewhere or to more automation. You can't pick a
number out of your hat and think the economy will bend to your will
because you are Right (excuse me-- Left) and Good.
Pres. Obama's increase of the minimum wage for fed contracts is a
perfect example. First of all it is largely just for show because of the
sheer number of exemptions and the relatively low number of people who
will be impacted. But most importantly, he can't increase the amount of
money in the pot. So (and this is the part that is being studiously
ignored) for every $ added to contract A, there is a dollar subtracted
from contract Z. So, he may actually end up costing jobs because he is
deciding pay by fiat.
Putting a bunch of them out of work by making the job too expensive
doesn't seem a good idea.
Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.
On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 12:04:59 PM UTC-5, NorMinn wrote:
"repugnicans" are rigid about money? What in the world does that
mean? As for pissing and moaning about "repugnicans", the Democrats
controlled the WH, Senate, and House for Obama's first two years.
They could and did pass everything that they told us was going to
fix the economy and make everythig wonderful. The key things they
wanted, $800bil stimulus, Obamacare, extended unemployment benefits,
they got. They even got their tax hike on Americans. Now after 5 years
of that under Obama, with the Democrats still controlling the Senate,
you want to blame the economy on Republicans? Good grief!
Obama told us he had the answers, he got what he said was gonna
fix everything, so why ask us?
The answer is a pro-business president with policies that create
JOBS. Who's blocking the Keystone pipeline? Who shut down all
drilling in the Gulf because of one accident? Who had the labor
dept screwing Boeing, by not allowing them to open their new plant
that employed 3,000 in SC, because a union in Washington claims
that it was unfair? Who raised taxes that hit many small businesses
where new jobs are created? Which country has one of the highest
corp tax rates in the world?
Stop doing things that are stupid, that's part of the answer.
As for your opinion, An OPINION is a sincerely held belief NOT based
on facts. So, then, if one has an OPINION, one does NOT have facts.
You think increasing the bottom pay and decreasing the top pay is a
good thing? If so, you must also believe that a socialist, classless
society is the answer to all economic problems.
Having said that, I can only assume that you believe people who work
hard and become rich, or others that haven't necessarily worked hard
but inherited wealth should have most of their possessions stripped
from them and given to those who worked hard but weren't fortunate to
make the right decisions or those who didn't work hard at all. Is
If you believe that then you must be opposed to rich people, the real
job creators, creating wealth for everyone because of the trickle-down
effect. Rich people often achieve their wealth through hard work and
they wouldn't have an incentive to work hard if they knew they
couldn't keep a large proportion of this wealth.
Did I say anything that was wrong Norminn?
Not all boss's son is like that. My BIL(kid sister's husband) is a son
of big big boss of major oil company. He never worked there at any time
during school years or out of school. He went his own way, started a
successful consulting company, now sold it, retired at 58 with enough to
last. I'd rather put maximum wage, minimum wage doesn't do much.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.