• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

In case anyone still believes the legend about Henry Ford making his cars affordable to his workers

 
 
 
Loren Pechtel said:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwor...ay-wages-its-not-what-you-think/#19ac189d766d

It was about reducing turnover!

And the article makes a good point--should Boeing's products be affordable to it's employees???
Click to expand...
This article has been debunked seven ways to Sunday. Reducing turnover (!) is in no way incompatible with supporting demand. As Ford spelled out :

“We increased the buying power of our own people, and they increased the buying power of other people, and so on and on, (...) It is this thought of enlarging buying power by paying high wages and selling at low prices that is behind the prosperity of this country.”

or

"We believe in making 20,000 men prosperous and contented rather than follow the plan of making a few slave drivers in our establishment millionaires."

or

"All other considerations aside, our own sales depend in a measure upon the wages we pay. If we can distribute high wages, then that moneyis going to be spent, and it will serve to make storekeepers and distributors and manufacturers in other lines more prosperous, and their prosperity will be be reflected in our sales. Country-wide high wages spells country-wide prosperity."

- Henry Ford, My Life and Work

Loren Pechtel has made reference here to Tim Worstall's widely debunked 2012 article at least twice to my recollection.
 
Henry Ford was a tyrant. The extra pay was only available to married white men, no women, single men, or persons of color. You also had to endure home inspections to make sure you were living an upstanding, god-fearing life, meaning no drinking, etc.
 
ZiprHead said:
Henry Ford was a tyrant. The extra pay was only available to married white men, no women, single men, or persons of color. You also had to endure home inspections to make sure you were living an upstanding, god-fearing life, meaning no drinking, etc.
Click to expand...

Not to mention he was a fucking Nazi.
 
ZiprHead said:
Henry Ford was a tyrant. The extra pay was only available to married white men, no women, single men, or persons of color. You also had to endure home inspections to make sure you were living an upstanding, god-fearing life, meaning no drinking, etc.
Click to expand...

He later saw the error of his original thinking.
(Ford quote from wikipedia)
"paternalism has no place in industry. Welfare work that consists in prying into employees' private concerns is out of date. Men need counsel and men need help, often special help; and all this ought to be rendered for decency's sake. But the broad workable plan of investment and participation will do more to solidify industry and strengthen organization than will any social work on the outside. Without changing the principle we have changed the method of payment.[30]"

In the end, imperfect humans will always do imperfect things. But neither the government or industry can directly control what men do. The government of China is now trying to do exactly what Ford attempted but I predict they will fail with this as well. All men want to live free. Even the imperfect men.
 
Last edited:
J842P said:
ZiprHead said:
Henry Ford was a tyrant. The extra pay was only available to married white men, no women, single men, or persons of color. You also had to endure home inspections to make sure you were living an upstanding, god-fearing life, meaning no drinking, etc.
Click to expand...

Not to mention he was a fucking Nazi.
Click to expand...

At the time his relationship with Germany, it was perfectly legal because the US was not officially in the war yet.

(From wikipedia)Ford had opposed the United States entry into World War II[36][50] and continued to believe that international business could generate the prosperity that would head off wars. Ford "insisted that war was the product of greedy financiers who sought profit in human destruction"; in 1939 he went so far as to claim that the torpedoing of U.S. merchant ships by German submarines was the result of conspiratorial activities undertaken by financier war-makers.

To me, that sounds exactly like something they might do. If the bankers during Fords time were close to as corrupt as they are today I could very well believe some of that anyway. Still does not justify the holocaust by any means. But it may explain some of his rhetoric as it related to antisemitism of his day.
 
Ford was not perfect in every way (obviously), but he is still a hero in my eyes. The incredible benefit he brought bringing a middle class to America far outweighs any of his other character flaws IMO. His actions brought more financial wealth to more people than anyone else I can imagine representing the very finest moments of capitalism. Not to mention producing incredibly advanced automobiles for that time.

I put him on the same pedestal as Neil Armstrong deserving of great respect, admiration, and accomplishment.
 
Many were doing busyness with Germany. A version of Mein Kemf was making the rounds. Lindberg was a supporter. The German American Bundt.

Ford was in line with the form of capitalism Mark was familiar with. He fought unions tooth and nail and had his own armed thug force. There were killings.
 
RVonse said:
Ford was not perfect in every way (obviously), but he is still a hero in my eyes. The incredible benefit he brought bringing a middle class to America far outweighs any of his other character flaws IMO. Not to mention producing incredibly advanced automobiles for that time.

I put him on the same pedestal as Neil Armstrong deserving of great respect, admiration, and accomplishment.
Click to expand...
The credit goes to the army of unnamed scientists and engineers that made Neil's ride possible. Neil was just payload. Although I will certainly give Neil and the other early astronauts credit for having some humongous balls.
 
RVonse said:
Ford was not perfect in every way obviously but he is still a hero in my eyes. The incredible benefit he brought bringing a middle class to America far outweighs any of his other character flaws IMO. Not to mention producing incredibly advanced automobiles for that time.

I put him on the same pedestal as Neil Armstrong deserving of great respect, admiration, and merit.
Click to expand...

He brought cheap cars to the middle class in the end creating suburbia and killing mass transit. Trains. He was more Trump like. Not really business competent. He fought change and innovation trashing his son in the process, almost going bankrupt. He was dishonest but they all were, cutthroat competition.

His success came from a few good engineers he brought in to create mass production. Which he tended to trash like Trump does.

In the day big business was ruthless, devious, dishonest, and cut throat. All the auto companies tried to destroy each other.

Trump is a throwback to the days of Ford. Some people worship Trump as well, in spite of all his business failures, bigotry, and bald face lies.
 
Henry Ford was very good at selling Henry Ford.

The story of the $5/day wage has been peddled as having every possible motive known to modern economics. Paying workers enough to make buying a car possible, is the sugar coated version.

The real motive was the simple economics of the assembly line as it existed in those days. It depended upon human labor to manipulate all those parts until a car appeared at the end of the line. This required a new kind of skill. Simply put, an assembly worker had to work efficiently and quickly. Not everybody could handle this kind of manual drudgery. It took at least 90 days for a worker to gain the necessary skill, and a large percentage never made it that far.

This meant the process had to start all over again. In the meantime, a large percentage of the workers were working at their least efficient level. When Ford announced the $5/day wage, it meant he had the choice of the most experienced auto workers in the North Michigan area. Instead of a revolving door of manual laborers, he could fill his assembly line with men who had spent years at Chevrolet and Buick. His man-hours per car plummeted, allowing him to reduce the sale price of his cars and increase market share.

As for Boeing, they make airliners, but they sell seats on an airplane. The question is not whether a Boeing employee can afford to buy a 737, but whether they can afford a plane ticket.
 
laughing dog said:
Loren Pechtel said:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwor...ay-wages-its-not-what-you-think/#19ac189d766d

It was about reducing turnover!
Click to expand...
This debunked article keeps popping up.
Loren Pechtel said:
And the article makes a good point--should Boeing's products be affordable to it's employees???
Click to expand...
That is an idiotic point - planes are terribly expensive and not easy to use.
Click to expand...

Au contraire - planes are very easy to use. All you need is sufficient ID and a wad of cash or a viable credit card and you can use them to your heart's content if you're willing to submit to TSA screening, long waits on the ground etc.. Bigger wads of cash can reduce those inconveniences. I mean it's not like the good old days when air travel was fun - show up at the gate 15 minutes before flight time with a roll of c-notes and go whereverthehell you want to, sprawled out over two or three seats... even international if you happen to bring a passport. But it still doesn't require ridiculous expenditures or expertise to "use planes".
Boeing would be strictly a military operation without some ease of access...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom