Jump to content

Only 60 per cent of Hamilton and GTA workers have secure jobs, report


WIP

Recommended Posts

3. ... the cost gets passed on to the taxpayer.

You mean, just like how corporations pass on costs to the consumer? Somebody has to pay for those lawsuits, lobbying and pro-corporate propaganda. Consumers pay for corporate screw ups because the cost gets put into the product. We pay for companies to market their product to us to convince us to buy it.

If they stopped marketing and we just choose what products we liked, how much would the cost of living go down by? If corporate lobbyists were declared illegal (As they should be), how much would our costs go down by? If insurance companies weren't allowed to pass their poor investments decisions in other sectors onto their customers, how much would that go down by?

What I described above, is way more sick than a government providing good wages to it's workers.

responsible government should seek to deliver the services it has to deliver in the most cost-effective way possible, and paying union salaries and benefits that are far above comparable positions in the private sector does not achieve that end. There is no evil or conspiracy in pointing this out.

Except when you point out that women and minorities get paid fairly in public sector jobs... and women make up the lion's share of many sectors of public service jobs :) That's just inconvenient information though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You mean, just like how corporations pass on costs to the consumer? Somebody has to pay for those lawsuits, lobbying and pro-corporate propaganda. Consumers pay for corporate screw ups because the cost gets put into the product. We pay for companies to market their product to us to convince us to buy it.

If they stopped marketing and we just choose what products we liked, how much would the cost of living go down by? If corporate lobbyists were declared illegal (As they should be), how much would our costs go down by? If insurance companies weren't allowed to pass their poor investments decisions in other sectors onto their customers, how much would that go down by?

What I described above, is way more sick than a government providing good wages to it's workers.

Corporations have to compete with other corporations. If one uses too much money on marketing, lobbying, etc, and that money folds into the cost of their product, so that a competitor is able to undercut them, then they will not be very successful. That's the difference between government and private industry: government doesn't have to compete.

Except when you point out that women and

minorities get paid fairly in public sector jobs... and women make up

the lion's share of many sectors of public service jobs smile.png That's just inconvenient information though.

Not sure of the relevance of this. Gender and racial differences in pay are small and getting smaller all the time in both private and public sector employment. But even if that weren't so, I still don't see the relevance of this remark to the points being discussed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Corporations have to compete with other corporations. If one uses too much money on marketing, lobbying, etc, and that money folds into the cost of their product, so that a competitor is able to undercut them, then they will not be very successful. That's the difference between government and private industry: government doesn't have to compete.

Not sure of the relevance of this. Gender and racial differences in pay are small and getting smaller all the time in both private and public sector employment. But even if that weren't so, I still don't see the relevance of this remark to the points being discussed.

If women and minorities make 80cents to the white males dollar in the private sector... And 100% in the public sector, a large portion on the "average wage" difference is simply equitable pay practices.

All corporations spend such money. All pass it onto the consumer. Corporations often pass liability onto the taxpayer (nuclear power, oil environmental contamination). Paying people a decent wage is not evil, in the same light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All corporations spend such money. All pass it onto the consumer. Corporations often pass liability onto the taxpayer (nuclear power, oil environmental contamination). Paying people a decent wage is not evil, in the same light.

Here's a little paradox for you, MCC: marketing costs are one of the few areas that provide North American jobs that pay well. It's a kind of jobs tax on the products.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a little paradox for you, MCC: marketing costs are one of the few areas that provide North American jobs that pay well. It's a kind of jobs tax on the products.

Everyone pays everyone else's wages.

That is the whole point. Everyone should make less because this world is run by conservative think tanks with tons of money to spew propaganda that says so... unless you point out scenarios that benefit corporations, then for some reason it's all dandy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no such thing, at least in North America, as a country having 100% work force and not ALL people can get a college/ university degree, even though one is better off with one. There are many reasons why people can't find or get a job. Since companies are holding on to trillions of dollars, many companies are hiring on contract or under 40 hours. Unless, one is a professional or a MP/ MPP , couples need two incomes just to have the basics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a little paradox for you, MCC: marketing costs are one of the few areas that provide North American jobs that pay well. It's a kind of jobs tax on the products.

Because marketing is the process of presenting an item in a way you will buy it even though you have no use for said item. That seems to be quite valuable. But in the end, nothing but fluff.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don`t do it for a living, but without looking I would characterize it as managing the market for an item you`re producing or selling.

I don`t know why anybody would add the `no use` clause unless... they just had something against marketing.

You have been posting some strange stuff lately. Have you ever bought anything you don't really need, but you really want?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have been posting some strange stuff lately. Have you ever bought anything you don't really need, but you really want?

If you "really want" something, that generally doesn't reconcile with your characterization of something that you "have no use for". There are plenty of things that I don't "really need" (the only "real needs" are air, water, food, shelter) that I nonetheless have a use for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I realize that. And yes I have bought things I have absolutely no use for.

You're giving quite a few non-sequiturs here, GH.

You have DEFINED marketing as effectively putting useless products in peoples' hands. In fact, there is quite an art and science to it and hucksters are not the mainstay of the practice of marketing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're giving quite a few non-sequiturs here, GH.

You have DEFINED marketing as effectively putting useless products in peoples' hands. In fact, there is quite an art and science to it and hucksters are not the mainstay of the practice of marketing.

Marketing is creating desire for a product you might not have normally bought. Or trying to create the view of apparent difference in a product when not much really exists.

For example, the $4000 Rainbow vacuum cult. NO Vacuum could possibly be worth that but they market it to people in a way to sell it. The "added value" is useless so to speak, a vacuum is pretty much a vacuum.

The 4p's of the marketing mix. Product, Price, Placement, Promotion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marketing is creating desire for a product you might not have normally bought. Or trying to create the view of apparent difference in a product when not much really exists.

For example, the $4000 Rainbow vacuum cult. NO Vacuum could possibly be worth that but they market it to people in a way to sell it. The "added value" is useless so to speak, a vacuum is pretty much a vacuum.

The 4p's of the marketing mix. Product, Price, Placement, Promotion

It's a reason why psychology is part of marketing. Mike like others, probably think they have complete free will and are not influenced in any way by advertising product packaging, placement ect. Most of those decisions are made subconsciously. And that is what the marketers are betting on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're giving quite a few non-sequiturs here, GH.

You have DEFINED marketing as effectively putting useless products in peoples' hands. In fact, there is quite an art and science to it and hucksters are not the mainstay of the practice of marketing.

The purpose of marketing is to sell you something, no matter if you need it or not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The purpose of marketing is to sell you something, no matter if you need it or not.

Marketing is creating desire for a product you might not have normally bought. Or trying to create the view of apparent difference in a product when not much really exists.

"might not" "whether you need it or not" - yes, I agree with these statements.

And it's up to you to decide if you need things or not, isn't it ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"might not" "whether you need it or not" - yes, I agree with these statements.

And it's up to you to decide if you need things or not, isn't it ?

I agree, but there are many out there who have lots of nice toys and the debt load to go with it. Most of these things they cannot afford, but a nice low monthly payment plan is an enticing bit.

Advertising/marketing is in place to sell you something. Sure it's up to you, but much of this happens on a subconscious level.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201203/mind-control-neuroscience-in-marketing

In an article in the New York Times, by Natasha Singer, "Making Ads That Whisper to the Brain," she argues that because most of our brain's activity is unconscious, neuromarketers believe that traditional surveys and focus groups are inaccurate. She cites the view of Dr. A.K. Pradeep, of Neurofocus, a neuromarkting firm, who contends that for marketing pitches to consumers to work, they need to reach the unconscious levels of the brain.

One of the most significant developments focuses on the connection between neuroscience research and the marketing is how to measure what consumers are feeling. This is based on the assumption t hat consumers connect strongly to brands and products that make them feel strong emotions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, but there are many out there who have lots of nice toys and the debt load to go with it. Most of these things they cannot afford, but a nice low monthly payment plan is an enticing bit.

Ok, sure. But we're on a tangent now. I'm not here to defend marketing, except to point out that it provides employment at a cost, just as local manufacturing does. That was my whole point, and that's as far as I would like to go in stating that there is value in the practice of marketing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why can't people look after their own benefits? It isn't that expensive. Around $100 a month from Blue Cross or Sun Life. Maybe some better deals out there if one is inclined to open their eyes and look. So instead of sitting around whining about it, why not take matters into your own hands and deal with it?

You get screwed buying your own benefits. The rates are higher and the insurance companies find loopholes to avoid paying. Group plans are much more efficient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...