Bear Grylls VS Les Stroud Knife Deathmatch!

[Hiro-kun]

Yes, but he's the "one man" who actually makes my knife.

The several men, women, and children who make my hypothetical Bear Grylls Gerber knife in a Chinese factory only receive pennies on the dollar for their work on my knife. In other words, Chad Vincent, the CEO of Gerber Legendary Blades, along with a cadre of other executives and their staff are never within a thousand miles of my hypothetical Bear Grylls Gerber knife. Yet, the vast majority of the money that I spend on that knife goes into the pockets of individuals who live on entirely different continents from where that knife was made.

While an executive may be earning a larger proportion of those sales than the guy who attaches the handles, organizing an international manufacturer arguably requires rarer skills and commands higher pay. What you get from paying a greater proportion of the price to the executive is the opportunity to own a knife at a lower cost to you than if all aspects of manufacturing were done by a single person because the executives have the business and organizational skills to make it possible to supply a large number of knives for a low price. Whether the current compensation executives receive in the US is too high or not is a matter of debate, but this is a issue that affects most corporations. Large manufacturers make their profits off of the sheer volume of sales, so the portion of the purchase price of a mass-manufactured knife that goes to the executives is probably much smaller than the full amount you give to an independent maker.

You may say that you can avoid this by buying directly from independent makers and that you are willing to pay a premium to do so because it puts more money in their hands. I ask, why is it worth more to you to pay a single person to make a knife from scratch than it is to buy a comparable knife from a large company and end up paying some of the price to an exec?

 

[Thomas Linton]

Gerber is a "brand" owned by Fiskars, a multinational. The division President for North American Outdoor products for Fiskars is a guy named Rob Kass.

Unless you have access to Fiskars' books, hard to see how you know how the "dollar" is divided up.

 

[dejard]

While an executive may be earning a larger proportion of those sales than the guy who attaches the handles, organizing an international manufacturer arguably requires rarer skills and commands higher pay. What you get from paying a greater proportion of the price to the executive is the opportunity to own a knife at a lower cost to you than if all aspects of manufacturing were done by a single person because the executives have the business and organizational skills to make it possible to supply a large number of knives for a low price. Whether the current compensation executives receive in the US is too high or not is a matter of debate, but this is a issue that affects most corporations. Large manufacturers make their profits off of the sheer volume of sales, so the portion of the purchase price of a mass-manufactured knife that goes to the executives is probably much smaller than the full amount you give to an independent maker.

You may say that you can avoid this by buying directly from independent makers and that you are willing to pay a premium to do so because it puts more money in their hands. I ask, why is it worth more to you to pay a single person to make a knife from scratch than it is to buy a comparable knife from a large company and end up paying some of the price to an exec?

Because I do everything I can to avoid supporting a corporate system that farms out its manufacturing to countries with regulatory and wage structures that mirror those of 19th century industrialization while at the same time enjoying all the wealth and privilege that 21st century Western society provides and then some. Add to that, the loss of our manufacturing base and jobs here in the US because of the corporate profiteering (aka greed) that finally re-discovered it's 19th century labor force in local peasant populations halfway around the world.

I have to give you credit however. It takes guts to defend the so-called skills and self-generated prerogatives of corporate CEOs over those who actually produce the products we consume.

 

[stabman]

I have to give you credit however. It takes guts to defend the so-called skills and self-generated prerogatives of corporate CEOs over those who actually produce the products we consume.

I worked a few years as a machinist (producing things).
A lot of CEO's seem to work harder than I was, certainly not less.

A different set of skills.
A different type of work.

 

[Hiro-kun]

Because I do everything I can to avoid supporting a corporate system that farms out its manufacturing to countries with regulatory and wage structures that mirror those of 19th century industrialization while at the same time enjoying all the wealth and privilege that 21st century Western society provides and then some. Add to that, the loss of our manufacturing base and jobs here in the US because of the corporate profiteering (aka greed) that finally re-discovered it's 19th century labor force in local peasant populations halfway around the world.

I have to give you credit however. It takes guts to defend the so-called skills and self-generated prerogatives of corporate CEOs over those who actually produce the products we consume.

Do you think that if the US took those manufacturing jobs back, the workers in those other countries would be better off?

 

[dejard]

Do you think that if the US took those manufacturing jobs back, the workers in those other countries would be better off?

I honestly don't know, but I do know that the displaced manufacturing workers here in the US certainly would. But this is all fantasy talk -- it's not going to happen.

Support whoever makes you fell warm and fuzzy.

 

[Hiro-kun]

I honestly don't know, but I do know that the displaced manufacturing workers here in the US certainly would. But this is all fantasy talk -- it's not going to happen.

Support whoever makes you fell warm and fuzzy.

I support whomever the evidence says provides the best joint outcome for all people. Workers whose jobs have been outsourced or obsoleted are better off, but everyone else will be worse off. Consumers will pay more for the same things, taxpayers will received reduced services, and the foreign workers who lost their jobs turn to subsistence agriculture, crime, and/or prostitution. I don't think that all outcomes where someone becomes worse off are necessarily bad; I tend to the Keynesian side of economics and Thomas Piketty's work Capital in the Twenty First Century is quite compelling; I do think that CEOs and other such rich folk can afford to pay more tax. But, the majority of economists agree that protectionism is almost never the way to go.

Also, the idea that manufacturing in the US is dead is a myth. US manufacturing output has never been higher.

 

[Thomas Linton]

Because I do everything I can to avoid supporting a corporate system that farms out its manufacturing to countries with regulatory and wage structures that mirror those of 19th century industrialization while at the same time enjoying all the wealth and privilege that 21st century Western society provides and then some. Add to that, the loss of our manufacturing base and jobs here in the US because of the corporate profiteering (aka greed) that finally re-discovered it's 19th century labor force in local peasant populations halfway around the world.

I have to give you credit however. It takes guts to defend the so-called skills and self-generated prerogatives of corporate CEOs over those who actually produce the products we consume.

Leadership is the essential ingredient for success. That is not to say that all executive pay is merited, but it certainly can be.

 

[dejard]

I support whomever the evidence says provides the best joint outcome for all people. Workers whose jobs have been outsourced or obsoleted are better off, but everyone else will be worse off. Consumers will pay more for the same things, taxpayers will received reduced services, and the foreign workers who lost their jobs turn to subsistence agriculture, crime, and/or prostitution. I don't think that all outcomes where someone becomes worse off are necessarily bad; I tend to the Keynesian side of economics and Thomas Piketty's work Capital in the Twenty First Century is quite compelling; I do think that CEOs and other such rich folk can afford to pay more tax. But, the majority of economists agree that protectionism is almost never the way to go.

Also, the idea that manufacturing in the US is dead is a myth. US manufacturing output has never been higher.

Your protectionism dichotomy doesn't really work here, And invoking Piketty is rich – no pun intended. In any event, I've never been much of a Keynesian despite my admiration for Krugman. I suspect any further pursuit of this discussion will go off the rails of BF rules.