John Deere strike imminent?

isufbcurt

Well-Known Member
Apr 21, 2006
25,712
39,335
113
44
Newton
By "free money" I mean money from the government that they give you when you are unemployed, and you do not have to work at any job to receive. Perhaps I could have been clearer about that.

Unemployment insurance is paid by employers, not employees; its part of payroll tax. It isn't a savings plan employees contribute to, that can be drawn on later when you are unemployed. I suppose an economist might say wages would be marginally higher if employers didn't have to pay it, so in that sense it could have been given to the employee instead.

Would you consider "free money" to be all the grants and PPP loans myself and my clients received? One restaurant client of mine got almost $100k of this money, not bad for a business that has 5 employees.
 

Gunnerclone

Well-Known Member
Jul 16, 2010
69,107
69,120
113
DSM
That's Marx and Lenin paraphrased. Stoking class envy to justify someone (whoever controls government power) taking property from someone else. How did that turn out for workers in the communist paradise? You just end up with new masters, except they also have the monopoly on force, so then you are really hosed. Sorry for the historical aside, it just really struck me as Marx 101.

It’s easy to say this but we have no idea what that would look like in our current system.
 

Rabbuk

Well-Known Member
Mar 1, 2011
55,233
42,628
113
It's almost like people don't understand the purpose of unemployment insurance is to remove the pressure to find a job that doesn't fit your skills or is exploitative by making sure you don't starve to death. And you pay for it.
 

BryceC

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 23, 2006
25,734
18,482
113
I get that's what it is, but I guess I don't see what business interest long-term JD would have in allowing this to drag out forever. This is possibly the least amount of leverage over the workforce they've had in decades. There will be plenty of opportunities to take those miles back later down the road (these are only 6 year terms at a time, right?), but lost profits now are lost forever. This current labor situation is certainly not forever.

Ag is very cyclical as well. They can't make an agreement based on on the last 18 months. They just can't.
 

VeloClone

Well-Known Member
Jan 19, 2010
45,775
35,136
113
Brooklyn Park, MN
It's almost like people don't understand the purpose of unemployment insurance is to remove the pressure to find a job that doesn't fit your skills or is exploitative by making sure you don't starve to death. And you pay for it.
The purpose of unemployment insurance is to fill a short gap while someone transitions from one job to another, not to fund someone long term because they don't want to work.

And the former employer pays for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cyfan21

Urbandale2013

Well-Known Member
Jan 28, 2018
4,288
5,269
113
29
Urbandale
Totally agree. Half of corporations and corporate executives are below average!


WRT banning stock buy backs... it's interesting, but not sure if its best solution. It's the most tax efficient way to return cash to shareholders (dividends get taxed at higher rate than capital gains) which is mostly why its used. But there may be good reasons for companies to do buybacks beyond returning cash. But it's certainly worth consideration as policy; maybe combined with other things it has a role.

Generally anything that gets executives to manage for the medium and long term as much as short term would be a very good thing. And when they start looking at medium and long term, that's when workforce gets a lot more attention as an asset rather than just a cost. Execs who can't see that are in the below average category, imho.
From my understanding is stock buy backs used to be illegal. Companies still could buy up shares if they really wanted to but there was a more formal process that ensured it wasn’t abused. They’ve been legal my entire life though so I don’t know for sure.

Buy backs just add to the nature of the stock market as being a giant casino. The primary driving force on share price is trading in today’s day and age. The entire principle of the stock market is to invest long term. We need to figure out how to get back to that time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CascadeClone

MeowingCows

Well-Known Member
Jun 1, 2015
35,652
33,994
113
Iowa
Ag is very cyclical as well. They can't make an agreement based on on the last 18 months. They just can't.
I have a hard time feeling bad for the ag industry, considering how much of it is held up by government in some way. Feel about as bad for corporate ag as I do for the oil industry. JD can afford this change just fine, they're in no shortage of funding lately.

However, JD still doesn't make money if they don't have their labor, and they don't exactly have leverage lately to replace that workforce out of nowhere. Surely the Union knows this. That's mainly why I would think JD would want to be done with this negotiation quickly. They're going to profit a lot more over a "bad" deal for themselves than they are over multiple months of near-zero production.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: cyfan21 and NWICY

Pope

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Feb 7, 2015
7,278
16,406
113
Why are you assuming the white collar employees are upset about it? They're still getting their normal salaries and potentially OT pay based on that salary. From the folks I know, there's a lot of JD white collar employees that come from farming backgrounds that are happy to pick up tools and build a tractor. It's something that they don't normally get to do. This isn't physically grueling work these days. They're not shoveling coal into furnaces by hand at the foundry anymore.
I sure as heck wouldn't want to buy a machine that was assembled by those white collar workers!
 

deadeyededric

Well-Known Member
Dec 12, 2009
14,655
12,448
113
Parts Unknown
The Deere starting wage of $18 and change is the most surprising thing I've seen in this thread. My guess would have been $22.
What is their total hourly compensation package? Surely at least 30 isn't it? They probably still do better than most non-union guys making in the mid to high 20's.
 

BryceC

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 23, 2006
25,734
18,482
113
I have a hard time feeling bad for the ag industry, considering how much of it is held up by government in some way. Feel about as bad for corporate ag as I do for the oil industry. JD can afford this change just fine, they're in no shortage of funding lately.

However, JD still doesn't make money if they don't have their labor, and they don't exactly have leverage lately to replace that workforce out of nowhere. Surely the Union knows this. That's mainly why I would think JD would want to be done with this negotiation quickly. They're going to profit a lot more over a "bad" deal for themselves than they are over multiple months of near-zero production.

I mean I guess we'll see. If they are going to stick on a 30-40% raise it's going to last a very a long time.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: mramseyISU

AuH2O

Well-Known Member
Sep 7, 2013
11,129
16,987
113
I get that's what it is, but I guess I don't see what business interest long-term JD would have in allowing this to drag out forever. This is possibly the least amount of leverage over the workforce they've had in decades. There will be plenty of opportunities to take those miles back later down the road (these are only 6 year terms at a time, right?), but lost profits now are lost forever. This current labor situation is certainly not forever.
Someone mentioned this earlier, and my co-workers brother is at that facility and confirmed, is that there have been so many supply problems with parts that having a major slowdown or shut down for a couple months probably isn't the end of the world while they try to stock up on parts. It doesn't give JD leverage, but it buys them time to negotiate. So they don't have to blink quite yet.
 

CascadeClone

Well-Known Member
Oct 24, 2009
9,064
10,888
113
Would you consider "free money" to be all the grants and PPP loans myself and my clients received? One restaurant client of mine got almost $100k of this money, not bad for a business that has 5 employees.

Fair question.

Our business got some too. We also only got basically what covered payroll, and we didn't let anyone go despite a 75% revenue drop. I think the amount we got that ended up paid out as payroll was not free money to our business; essentially it was unemployment benefits at a higher rate paid out through the employer. Because we did have to do something to get that money (ie pay it out) and we WOULD have let some people go if that hadn't happened. But the amount that went to interest and utilities etc was indeed "free money".

FWIW, I am still undecided if helicopter money on businesses via PPP was a good idea or not. The thinking that covid was short term but severe, and maintaining business and employment stability was worth the cost, it made sense to me. Time will tell, I suppose.
 

jbhtexas

Well-Known Member
Oct 20, 2006
14,130
4,087
113
Arlington, TX
There was no search for work required for the Federal relief and even Kansas waived that requirement for state funds, so I doubt your story very much.

And, how many people who post this crap can really know so many restaurant owners?

It look likes the crap is coming from you...

AUSTIN – The Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) announced today that as the Texas economy continues to open TWC will reinstate state work search requirements, which had been suspended since March, but will resume on November 1, 2020. Work search is a federal requirement to receive unemployment benefits. Individuals will continue to receive benefits but must show an active effort to obtain new employment. A wide variety of activities qualify as a work search, see below for more information.

 
  • Winner
Reactions: VeloClone

CascadeClone

Well-Known Member
Oct 24, 2009
9,064
10,888
113
From my understanding is stock buy backs used to be illegal. Companies still could buy up shares if they really wanted to but there was a more formal process that ensured it wasn’t abused. They’ve been legal my entire life though so I don’t know for sure.

Buy backs just add to the nature of the stock market as being a giant casino. The primary driving force on share price is trading in today’s day and age. The entire principle of the stock market is to invest long term. We need to figure out how to get back to that time.

Maybe if you inflation indexed capital gains tax, or made short term cap gains tax higher and long term cap gains tax much lower? Maybe that would drive both longer term corporate thinking as well as investor behavior. IDK.
 

CascadeClone

Well-Known Member
Oct 24, 2009
9,064
10,888
113
So like capitalism?
Like everything. Capitalism is the worst economic system, except for all the others.

At least in capitalism private business (and individuals) has some power to stand up to government power. Look what happens when the same people control the levers of power of both government and business. Nothing good. Corruption at best, totalitarianism at worst.


EDIT - 6 minutes for a self-bump on your question? Give me a break... I'm getting back to work. I just enjoy the policy / economic / history discussion; when it stays out of the political shouting, which is hard on the internet.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Cyclones1969

Help Support Us

Become a patron