Pelican Parts Order - Page 2 - 986 Forum - The Community for Porsche Boxster & Cayman Owners

scottvd · 01-23-2014, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ultimate1

While a lot of people want Amazon service, I have made it a point to do as little business with Amazon as possible. Many of their employees are paid in a similar fashion to Walmart employees and therefore have to rely on help from the government. Sorry but I avoid doing business with companies like Amazon that use government assistance to subsidize their payroll to prop up their profits. Therefore, if doing business away from Amazon takes a little longer then I am willing to accept that. .

Working for Amazon isn't forced labor, you don't HAVE to work there - am I totally missing something? Any employees working for Amazon are free to go work somewhere else if they would prefer or could earn extra income. How in the world is Amazon using government assistance to subsidize their payroll?

How is Walmart doing this as well? The federal and state government already sets extremely strict compensation rules for US-based businesses, why are you blaming/boycotting these corporations for providing jobs? I'm totally lost on this one.

schnellman · 01-23-2014, 10:50 AM

Since this is somewhat of a survey, I'd like to add my experience. I have dealt with Pelican Parts for the past six years and have always found them to be great. A wide variety of good products at a fair price. If anyone has a problem with them, I believe a phone call could clear it up.

(ps PP, if you're monitoring this, contact me via PM regarding my gift certificate)

Perfectlap · 01-23-2014, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottvd

Working for Amazon isn't forced labor, you don't HAVE to work there - am I totally missing something? Any employees working for Amazon are free to go work somewhere else if they would prefer or could earn extra income. How in the world is Amazon using government assistance to subsidize their payroll?

How is Walmart doing this as well? The federal and state government already sets extremely strict compensation rules for US-based businesses, why are you blaming/boycotting these corporations for providing jobs? I'm totally lost on this one.

He's not talking about the employees/employer relationship. He's talking about the employer/tax payer connection.

Obviously the employee is free to walk out anytime he chooses, that's how the free market works. The problem for tax payers is that the unemployment rate after economic crisis has reset to a new reality (but this was actually here for well over a decade, the credit bubble of 2002-2007 just temporarily eased falling unemployment and wage growth). This new reality means that workers at the very bottom of the education and skills totem pole are plentiful. This is helpful for small business owners struggling to recover from the collapse. However Low-wage corporate employers are frankly taking advantage of this situation. They know full well that an above-average number of their full time workers will not be able to live on what they pay them unless they turn to the tax payers for assistance. In the event that you were to cut the food stamps and other forms of assistance, the pool of low income workers does not decrease (contrary to the argument that they will all quit for higher paying jobs at Goldman Sachs the next day). The bulk of them do not have the means to pay for educational training for higher paying jobs, and if they had the skills component to move up the ladder they wouldn't be in that job in the first place. It's a vicious cycle at the very bottom and large corporate employers know these low income workers aren't going anywhere. In general, the U.S. worker is becoming less and and less relevant to these corporations (look at ther stock prices -- all time highs) more and more of their revenue and earnings come from offshore operations. The irony is that even an increase of a few dollars an hour (say an extra $70-80 a week for that household) would greatly reduce the need for the state and federal govt's assistance, and do little as far as raising prices for these large corporations, they can easily absorb marginal wage increases without losing very much in earnings.

thstone · 01-23-2014, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perfectlap

...and do little as far as raising prices for these large corporations, they can easily absorb marginal wage increases without losing very much in earnings.

I agreed 110% up until the very last sentence!

Labor typically comprises 70-85% of the price of a good. Raw materials are cheap!

This is why going offshore pays such huge dvidends (typically 1/6 the cost of US labor).

Increase the cost of labor and the price has to increase by almost the same amount.

There is no way for a company to absorb an 25% increase in labor cost without completely wiping out profits (assuming nothing else changes).

So how do we fix this? Well, SOMETHING ELSE has to change and that something is the overhead costs . OH costs for most companies are out of control and need to be substantially reduced. This is the part of the cost that no one sees. Once this is accomplished, then companies can afford to pay low wage earners more without impacting profits.

scottvd · 01-23-2014, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perfectlap

Low-wage corporate employers are frankly taking advantage of this situation. They know full well that an above-average number of their full time workers will not be able to live on what they pay them unless they turn to the tax payers for assistance.

The bulk of them do not have the means to pay for educational training for higher paying jobs, and if they had the skills component to move up the ladder they wouldn't be in that job in the first place.

The irony is that even an increase of a few dollars an hour (say an extra $70-80 a week for that household) would greatly reduce the need for the state and federal govt's assistance, and do little as far as raising prices for these large corporations, they can easily absorb marginal wage increases without losing very much in earnings.

Oh, all this - we should just stick to talking about cars and stuff!

I appreciate all your input but disagree with most of it. I feel each individual is responsible for themselves and their decisions. Amazon and Walmart provide many entry-level jobs, not careers. The problem is not the with corporation that is creating jobs, contributing to the economy, providing products and services - but the problem lies with the individual who fails to equip themselves with the education and skills necessary to earn a sufficient income to support the American life style. I don't think Amazon and Walmart are responsible to create tons of career-level jobs for under-skilled and under-motivated Americans.

These jobs should be for youth working their way through school, not parents of children needing to support dependents. There's something wrong with the worker at that point, not the employer.

Education and equipping are available in abundance in this country, I'm not sure how anyone could make a case that they are unable to receive education.

An increase of $70/week would work about as well as the stimulus checks did. It's a fact that many people live above their means regardless of income. Look at what the average American home was in the 1940's - we'd hardly consider it a garage today. Our "low income" have more luxuries that most people around the world.

I see the problem not with the big bad corporations that make an easy target, but with the poor decision making/planning that characterizes so much of the populous:
Lack of education, direction, and equipping.
Lack of commitment in relationships, so children are being born outside of wedlock and being "raised" by two people who aren't even serious enough to commit to each other, but are nevertheless bringing new life - a life that is dependent upon both of them.
Everyone has a smartphone, a flat screen TV with cable, a car less than 10 years old, etc. you name it.

It sounds good to just give increase of $70-80 but this would be giving additional resources to someone who has already not proven themselves faithful with the resources they've already been entrusted with, why give (unearned) them more?

Many immigrants moved to this country for the opportunity to work and make a better life for themselves. They made a lot with a little and worked hard - that doesn't characterize many people today. This sense of American entitlement is bringing nothing but ruin.

Oh man.. how did we get here? So anyhow, what'd you do with your 986 today?! We can both agree that's cool!

Perfectlap · 01-23-2014, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottvd

Oh, all this - we should just stick to talking about cars and stuff!

I appreciate all your input but disagree with most of it. I feel each individual is responsible for themselves and their decisions. Amazon and Walmart provide many entry-level jobs, not careers. The problem is not the with corporation that is creating jobs, contributing to the economy, providing products and services - but the problem lies with the individual who fails to equip themselves with the education and skills necessary to earn a sufficient income to support the American life style. I don't think Amazon and Walmart are responsible to create tons of career-level jobs for under-skilled and under-motivated Americans.

These jobs should be for youth working their way through school, not parents of children needing to support dependents. There's something wrong with the worker at that point, not the employer.

Education and equipping are available in abundance in this country, I'm not sure how anyone could make a case that they are unable to receive education.

An increase of $70/week would work about as well as the stimulus checks did. It's a fact that many people live above their means regardless of income. Look at what the average American home was in the 1940's - we'd hardly consider it a garage today. Our "low income" have more luxuries that most people around the world.

I see the problem not with the big bad corporations that make an easy target, but with the poor decision making/planning that characterizes so much of the populous:
Lack of education, direction, and equipping.
Lack of commitment in relationships, so children are being born outside of wedlock and being "raised" by two people who aren't even serious enough to commit to each other, but are nevertheless bringing new life - a life that is dependent upon both of them.
Everyone has a smartphone, a flat screen TV with cable, a car less than 10 years old, etc. you name it.

It sounds good to just give increase of $70-80 but this would be giving additional resources to someone who has already not proven themselves faithful with the resources they've already been entrusted with, why give (unearned) them more?

Many immigrants moved to this country for the opportunity to work and make a better life for themselves. They made a lot with a little and worked hard - that doesn't characterize many people today. This sense of American entitlement is bringing nothing but ruin.

Oh man.. how did we get here? So anyhow, what'd you do with your 986 today?! We can both agree that's cool!

I agree with most of what you are saying, too many are poorly prepared for well ...reality. Was true in the past, is true now and will continue to be true in a country where such a large % of the students are being left behind relative to Asian states while the cost of college makes it a no-go. What one American A student spends on a BS, an A+ Indian student will spend on three engineering degrees. End result, a huge number of unskilled and uneducated working adults in the making.

But that's not really the point ultimate1 is raising (which many agree with). And it's not really a political point, more so a commercial one between consumer and corporation. You as consumer can support corporations that pay a living wage (like a Costco who I believe pay $15+ an hour for service labor) and reduce the possibility that this low skilled worker will lean on the tax payers for food and healthcare assistance or you can instead continue supporting major U.S. corporations that fully acknowledge that they pay just barely above poverty wages -- in order to give you such low prices. Again, we're not talking about small businesses here. Now some argue that these were NOT meant to be career wages or full time jobs. And that's 100% true, they weren't meant to be that but I put "meant" in the same bin as Congressional budgets being meant to avoid $5 trillion national debts, that became $10 trillion, that became $16 trillion and no matter who is power will become $30 trillion debts.
Budgets hold no water without Constitutional requirements and unskilled workers have few options to seek better education and training while meeting living expenses, so its working that low-wage job or they're on the street.

Now I'm not onboard with Ultimate1 in boy-cotting the Wal-Marts, McDonalds and Amazons of the corporate low wage world, because I believe that despite their "Mr. Smithers-esque" businesses practices, if not for their success (even at tax-payer expense) they wouldn't have jobs at all. But I also recognize that many of these low-wage corporate employers have run countless small businesses out existence who did a far,far better job of looking after their employees. Neither were these small businesses actively destroying U.S. manufacturing by undercutting the competition with retail prices that small business can't even buy at wholesale.

And also, we're not discussing privately owned small or mid caps here, but public corporations where the books are fully open to every shareholder as well as public interest groups who document these poverty level wages.
And if anything isn't disclosed to shareholders of these Amazons, Wal-Marts and McD's then that's a much bigger problem.

Jamesp · 01-23-2014, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perfectlap

He's not talking about the employees/employer relationship. He's talking about the employer/tax payer connection.

Obviously the employee is free to walk out anytime he chooses, that's how the free market works. The problem for tax payers is that the unemployment rate after economic crisis has reset to a new reality (but this was actually here for well over a decade, the credit bubble of 2002-2007 just temporarily eased falling unemployment and wage growth). This new reality means that workers at the very bottom of the education and skills totem pole are plentiful. This is helpful for small business owners struggling to recover from the collapse. However Low-wage corporate employers are frankly taking advantage of this situation. They know full well that an above-average number of their full time workers will not be able to live on what they pay them unless they turn to the tax payers for assistance. In the event that you were to cut the food stamps and other forms of assistance, the pool of low income workers does not decrease (contrary to the argument that they will all quit for higher paying jobs at Goldman Sachs the next day). The bulk of them do not have the means to pay for educational training for higher paying jobs, and if they had the skills component to move up the ladder they wouldn't be in that job in the first place. It's a vicious cycle at the very bottom and large corporate employers know these low income workers aren't going anywhere. In general, the U.S. worker is becoming less and and less relevant to these corporations (look at ther stock prices -- all time highs) more and more of their revenue and earnings come from offshore operations. The irony is that even an increase of a few dollars an hour (say an extra $70-80 a week for that household) would greatly reduce the need for the state and federal govt's assistance, and do little as far as raising prices for these large corporations, they can easily absorb marginal wage increases without losing very much in earnings.

What's missing here is that businesses don't have the operating margins to pay more. They will be undersold, and go bankrupt. If a business does not turn a profit, it ceases to exist. If the owners don't get the required return on investment and risk, they go elsewhere or perish. Stock prices are no indicator of business health, I cite the tech bubble, Long and short, if Walmart employees or any employees want to make a point, leave. If you can not do that, stay. I have personally done that on more than one occasion. Vote with your feet. If every "low pay" Walmart employee walked out today, Walmart would cease to exist tomorrow.

Jamesp · 01-23-2014, 01:49 PM

And Scottvd is right. Vroom, Vroom.

Perfectlap · 01-23-2014, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jamesp

What's missing here is that businesses don't have the operating margins to pay more. They will be undersold, and go bankrupt. If a business does not turn a profit, it ceases to exist. If the owners don't get the required return on investment and risk, they go elsewhere or perish. Stock prices are no indicator of business health, I cite the tech bubble, Long and short, if Walmart employees or any employees want to make a point, leave. If you can not do that, stay. I have personally done that on more than one occasion. Vote with your feet. If every "low pay" Walmart employee walked out today, Walmart would cease to exist tomorrow.

I'm not talking about all businesses. I've long believed that if you're going to have a minimum wage, then every business in America should not be held to the same state and federal minimum wage. Businesses with a million plus employees like a Wal-Mart should lose deductions if they pay within a certain % of the minimum wage. They benefit from the low bar of minimum wage by paying peanuts since peanuts is all that the average small business struggling to survive must legally pay.

And I disagree that all businesses in America can't afford to pay any more. I don't think this side discussion was focused on businesses that are on the margin.
More so corporations that record more revenue than the GDP of most developing nations.

Tucker2 · 01-23-2014, 09:20 PM

I have two total experiences with them...both in November of 2013.

First was an online order which arrived exactly when they said it would. Under a week delivery time.

Second was an extended conversation about tranny fluid with one of their techs on the phone. He was very patient with me and provided very valuable info.

For me....two thumbs way up. Sorry for those who have had less than ideal results.

scottvd · 01-23-2014, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tucker2

I have two total experiences with them...both in November of 2013.

First was an online order which arrived exactly when they said it would. Under a week delivery time.

Second was an extended conversation about tranny fluid with one of their techs on the phone. He was very patient with me and provided very valuable info.

For me....two thumbs way up. Sorry for those who have had less than ideal results.

Ya, I get it, mistakes happen. I'm not sure what went wrong with my order- but life goes on. The 101 book looks super helpful.

Deserion · 01-21-2014, 06:22 PM

Then again, they did list in the order status what the holdup was...

Quote:

Original targeted ship date has been delayed due to difficulties sourcing the following parts: PNA-702-013-00-OEM; PNA-702-013-00-OEM; PNA-705-001-99-OEM; PNA-705-001-99-OEM;
We will ship as soon as the order is complete.

scottvd · 01-23-2014, 10:20 AM

Here's the full details-

Tue 12/31/2013 2:13 PM
Order placed for:
101 Book
Valve stem caps
License plate frame
Lloyd floor mats (these are drop shipped from Lloyd, not by Pelican)

Fri 1/3/2014 12:32 PM
Recieve email about credit card fraud, first time buyers must do this and that...

Mon 1/6/2014 11:48 AM
Needed more info to process credit card, email from Phillip Sokolsky

Mon 1/6/2014 3:13 PM
George Tofaeono emails me to say they will now process my order

Tue 1/7/2014 7:00 PM
The following parts are out of stock:
PNA-702-013-00-OEM - Porsche Stainless Steel License Plate Frame
PNA-705-001-99-OEM - Factory Tire Valve Stem Caps

Mon 1/13/2014 7:00 PM
PNA-705-001-99-OEM - Factory Tire Valve Stem Caps
Refund Completed: Reason: Non-Stocked Item, Amount: $17.47

Wed 1/15/2014
I receive Lloyd mats

Tue 1/21/2014 6:00 PM
Hey Scott, we're ready to ship your order!!!1

Thurs 1/23/2014
License plate frame and 101 book arrive.

Kinda weird they email me that stuff is out of stock, then ~6 days later they email to let me know they actually won't be selling that product at all?

Here's the exact same license plate frame, in stock, cheaper, from Amazon

Ugh.. oh well, I got some jellybeans for my 20+ day wait!

Edit:
BTW, I had a few min just now to flip thru the 101 book, looks great!

Perfectlap · 01-23-2014, 01:25 PM

^ in most instances this is true. But I think there was in fact a study that a "mega" low wage employer (like Wal-Mart for instance) could raise wages and there would be no hit to profitability as they would simply raise prices -- their prices are already lower than the rest of the market which would ironically increase competition in retail (some only shop at Wal-Mart), while increasing 'value' in other areas like service (non-existent at every Wal-Mart I have ever visited). And because of the economies of scale at work in Wal-Mart's sales, the price increase would be like something in the neighbohrhood of 10-20 cents for their biggest sellers (and there are a ton of products there). Which tells me that labor for a mega low wage employer is not nearly their biggest cost when they are NOT providing healthcare insurance for all but a small sliver of their workforce.

Perfectlap · 01-24-2014, 09:54 AM

oh I agree it's always better to be a job-creator than a job-filler. But the bulk of our workforce are not that, and our history has never been one where the vast majority are entrepreneurs.
It's a $16 trillion behemoth which requires a hell of a lot of job-fillers to make the gears turn. The job-fillers having decent wages and access to home and colllege loans is why we even had the largest and most robust middle class in economic history.
And Frankly, being a job-creator or entrepreneur is a special quality that very few have naturally and fewer still are successful with. A lesson some learned the hard way very recently and found their one time job-creator status involuntary switched to job-filler (at the minimum wage). After which the bank then told them "sorry credit is tight I can't give you a second loan to start your next business". Have you seen the state of subprime today, some five years after the debacle? Non-existent. Turns out you can't securitize risky loans (as many start up loans are) after everyone fell for it the first time around. If you look at employment trends since the 1970's you'll see that successful job-creators are not nearly enough in numbers to keep job growth (relative to population growth) from falling with each decade, along with nearly stagnant household net worth and stagnant wages in the last decade. This country's labor force needs are far greater than the limited number of job creators who find scuccess can provide to a an economy of this scale. Unfortunately with so much manufacturing going offshore, these service jobs at very low hourly rates have become a necessary evil and reality all in one.

And some corporations are definitely taking advantage of the workforce. Sorry, while I completely agree that most are responsible for their own poor choices and are currently paying the price but that doesn't mean some of these corporations aren't using the imbalance in available workers to limited jobs to their advanatage (while passing off living expenses that keep their workers out of poverty levels to the tax payers). It's not a binary issue where you can only blame one side of the coin -- if you do, it becomes a political argument that ignores economic reality. Whever there is a person in life prone to making mistakes, there is an actor looking to take advantage. If its kept between the two (worker and employer) fine. But once the tax payer is roped in, as will always be the case in a mininum wage regime with safety net programs (and I can't think of one major economy doesn't have both) then it's not just a matter between employer and low-wage worker anymore. Either abolish minimum wage and food stamp assistance totally (good luck with that, even conservative states haven't done away with them) or require these minimum wage corporate employers to pay more. being in the ineffective middle is never going to work.

Jamesp · 01-24-2014, 03:03 PM

So where does the extra money come from to pay more for an increased minimum wage? Do I raise prices and lose my customer base? Do I fire a third of my employees and give the workload and money to the other two thirds? Do I fire everybody and fold up shop to go do something else with my money? I know, I'll cut all the executives wages and benefits and give it to the little guys, right after I cut stock holder dividends. But then they will all leave and the company folds. This is hard math, but it is reality.

nicecar · 01-24-2014, 04:02 PM

did the guy get his order? I only got thru chapter 2

scottvd · 01-24-2014, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nicecar

did the guy get his order? I only got thru chapter 2

LOL, yes- I recieved my Lloyd mats in a reasonable time, they canceled my valve stems and shipped the license plate frame and 101 book some 21 days from order date.

recycledsixtie · 01-24-2014, 04:04 PM

I have no problem with Pelican Parts even if it takes 2 weeks to get the parts.
-Parts delivered as ordered check
-Honesty/integrity /reputation good check
-Trust them with my credit card no. check
-Good internet catalogue and display check

Thanks Wayne D.
G.

PS If I really need something badly then I can go to my Porsche dealer but I try to avoid that.

scottvd · 01-24-2014, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jamesp

So where does the extra money come from to pay more for an increased minimum wage? Do I raise prices and lose my customer base? Do I fire a third of my employees and give the workload and money to the other two thirds? Do I fire everybody and fold up shop to go do something else with my money? I know, I'll cut all the executives wages and benefits and give it to the little guys, right after I cut stock holder dividends. But then they will all leave and the company folds. This is hard math, but it is reality.

Your from Texas so it's no surprise I agree with you.. So refreshing..