Should a person who works really hard doing a physical "dirty job" be paid well? (NAFTA, Clinton)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, the phrase, "has to" implies a moral obligation to your fellow humans, if business considerations become elevated to a more important level than that of human welfare, and they are already in some instances, I'll see that as a step backwards. I added a portion of your statement to say that I agreed with your contention regarding the wisdom of choosing to recognize the fact of worker reward being a good thing. It's just a simple thing but most people want to argue the economic principle instead. I merely stated that I think low pay was a bad idea, I still do. Are you worried that some may use force to persuade the rest? I know I am. I'm thinking that some group will force you to do something you don't want to do, I won't be in that group.........
I believe we agree more than what it seems.
I do agree with you in principle in this way. It is a good business strategy to treat your employees with more dignity and as human beings.
However, I do not believe we need to mandate this principle. Companies are just like people. Some do not care much about their employees and some do.
Where I think you get into a complicated areas is when you associate low pay with people treatment. At this point you enter an area so complicated by the simple fact is what is low pay to you may not be to others.
There are many labor laws that to me may have the good intent but in the end may hurt more than do good.
Example: Way back I believe in the 40s unions started to push for minimum wages supposedly to help the employees. The real reason? Because whites wanted to get many of the job many blacks had. Many low paying jobs that whites wanted started to get higher minimum wages. The results? Many employers started to give those jobs to the whites becuase they had on average higher levels of education so they would be qualified to do more. After all the employer tried to get the most for the more money they had to pay now that a minimum wage law came into effect. Who got affected now? Black unemployment went higher because the low skilled jobs now went to whites. If the union and some federal act did not get on the way of the market blacks would not have suffered. That only aggravated the economic and employment problem blacks had. Sure it may have been low pay at the time but it was a fair system in the sense that the people that qualified for that job was being hired, blacks. Now a job got given a labor wage it did not deserve and those that needed it the most and were more willing and qualified to do it lost.
A black writer said it was a racist law even though it was supposed to help blacks.
That is why I mentioned the point about unions. When it comes to wages they should have no business meddling into how much to pay.
A federal minimum wages does the same. All businesses do is to simply tack on the commodity price the higher wages they are now obligated to pay and then we are back at the drawing board.
A minimum wage in Smallville USA may go a lot further than in New York city. Smallville folks may be happy but NY city people lost because the employers all they have to do is pay the minimum the law says. Under the market system those folks in NY may possibly get better pay as the market dictates so everybody there would not have to pay the higher price due to dictated wages.
I have no problem teaching companies how to treat empoyees but in the end it is up to the company. They will loose to competition by more people quiting thus having constant rotation and having to train new personnel. The longer a company keeps an employeer the better. That is the difference between many good and bad companies.
That is my view.
You have a great day.
El Amigo
Pay is based on multiple variables, including supply/demand of the labor force, the skill/knowledge required to do the work, the working conditions, and other variables. When creating wage scales, "working conditions" are typically factored into determining the wage. But "professional knowledge and expertise" is another variable also factored in and typically weighted more heavily.
So the guy who is laboring with a highly demanding physical job will get "credit" for the working conditions, and the accountant will get more "credit" for the professional knowledge and expertise. But in the labor market, you have to pay more for professional knowledge than for demanding working conditions.
A friend of mine who works really really hard doing really physically draining highway maintenance work is paid poorly. He comes home from work emotionally and physically drained. But at the end he is just making enough money for basic survival. Another friend of ours makes close to $100K as a Cost Accountant. The job is not too hard for him but the bosses are pleased with his work. He got the job because he studied hard in school and got a Masters Degree in Accounting and has become an expert in Cost Accounting.
But should he make three times as much sitting in an office in 72 comfort in his own office as our other friend who makes 30K for busting his butt on the highway road project in extreme weather?
That's a trick question, right? Why did the Phillies just sign Ryan Howard to a new $125 Million Dollar contract? Because only two or three people on earth can do what he can do.
Take a healthy 20 yr old and how long would it take to have them replace your 2 friends at their jobs? Many 20 year olds probably can't do the cost accounting job or at least not well no matter how hard they tried and it would take them the better part of a decade to get there. Ditto for someone that flies commercial jets or is an air traffic controller etc. etc. etc.
So basically, it's supply and demand....and in the case of the cost accounting job years of formal and then on the job training. (Not to mention a fairly high cash layout for that education.)
The job it "not too hard for him" because he has mental gifts that he has developed over many many years.
Basically, it sounds like you don't value education.
I'm looking forward to the day a cost accountant's job is made obsolete by a $12 computer program bought at Staples, or out sourced to some third world nation. Then we'll see how much THEY'RE worth.
Since the free market system is based on voluntary exchanges of products and labor, I see no problem with people, or groups of people (i.e., unions), withholding their labor in exchange for higher wages. If the good folks at Wal-Mart collectively decide that they should be getting paid triple for their labor, and form a union and go on strike in order to obtain what they want, then that's the free market at work, as those people are only willing to part with their labor if they're getting paid x-number of dollars, and no less.
Of course, if this happened in reality, Wal-Mart would probably close their stores outright, like the one they closed in Quebec when the workers formed a union at one of their stores up there. But then they'd be out of biz....lol.
The point I'm making, though, is that every worker has the right to decide what his or her labor is worth - if someone is willing to work for min wage, and shows up for work every day to collect that wage, that's fine and dandy, so long as they do so voluntarily. But if he or she gets together with their co-workers and decide that their labor is worth $14 an hour and no less, then they have every right to withhold that labor until their employer pays up.
If people of 100 years ago didn't think this way, I seriously doubt we'd be where we are today, and if current trends continue (decreasing value of labor), I suspect we'll eventually revert to the days prior to the 20th century, with virtually no middle class - just a few rich and the rest being poor. That's not the kind of world I want to live in - do any of you?
OK frankly I didn't read all of the posts here since this quickly started digressing into a pissing contest and other assorted BS. But based on what I did see, it seems that regardless, many of you are missing the point, or maybe I just came away with a diff. one...
It's not about the realities of the world eg people with degrees or other specialized knowledge, certifications etc generally get paid more. Duh.
It's about on a broad abstract level whether someone SHOULD get paid more in line with such people because in a physical way they are working as hard if not harder than people doing it in an intellectual way, so to speak. Generally speaking, I agree. PS I'm a corporate schlep but also work hard. Sadly, how hard you work and how much you make - even within certain job types or the same freaking company - often doesn't align either.
A friend of mine who works really really hard doing really physically draining highway maintenance work is paid poorly. He comes home from work emotionally and physically drained. But at the end he is just making enough money for basic survival. Another friend of ours makes close to $100K as a Cost Accountant. The job is not too hard for him but the bosses are pleased with his work. He got the job because he studied hard in school and got a Masters Degree in Accounting and has become an expert in Cost Accounting.
But should he make three times as much sitting in an office in 72 comfort in his own office as our other friend who makes 30K for busting his butt on the highway road project in extreme weather?
I see it somewhat as a matter of social need. While there is indeed a need for accountants, EVERYONE uses the road. The people that make so much money (really everyone), couldn't do any of it if it weren't for your friend that built the road.
Since the free market system is based on voluntary exchanges of products and labor, I see no problem with people, or groups of people (i.e., unions), withholding their labor in exchange for higher wages. If the good folks at Wal-Mart collectively decide that they should be getting paid triple for their labor, and form a union and go on strike in order to obtain what they want, then that's the free market at work, as those people are only willing to part with their labor if they're getting paid x-number of dollars, and no less.
Of course, if this happened in reality, Wal-Mart would probably close their stores outright, like the one they closed in Quebec when the workers formed a union at one of their stores up there. But then they'd be out of biz....lol.
The point I'm making, though, is that every worker has the right to decide what his or her labor is worth - if someone is willing to work for min wage, and shows up for work every day to collect that wage, that's fine and dandy, so long as they do so voluntarily. But if he or she gets together with their co-workers and decide that their labor is worth $14 an hour and no less, then they have every right to withhold that labor until their employer pays up.
If people of 100 years ago didn't think this way, I seriously doubt we'd be where we are today, and if current trends continue (decreasing value of labor), I suspect we'll eventually revert to the days prior to the 20th century, with virtually no middle class - just a few rich and the rest being poor. That's not the kind of world I want to live in - do any of you?
I agree every worker has a right to decide what is labor worth. OK, but the market is the one that decides in the end.
I can say my labor is worth $40/hour. However, if my labor is so expensive and what my boss produces by paying that money in end we end up without a job becuase other companies may sell the product for less because others get paid less. So in the end the market is the one that decides how much certain labor is worth. Why? Because the customer is the one that decides how much he wants to pay for the product. The odds? The customer will most likely go for the same product that costs less.
The last part of your message to me tends to be the rhetoric politicians do. It is interesting that nations that adopt the most capitalist system with the most market control are the countries that tend to have the highest standards of living, live longer, pay less taxes, and bigger houses, higher cloric intake, higher average of car ownership per family, etc. However, for the sake of argument let us say there is no middle class. Even than the so called poor in the USA today have a much higher standard of living that many people in the world not classified as poor. The lowest quintile in the US is based on a few criteria that is hotly debated regarding how to determine you are poor. You look very close and many 'poor' do not have it bad. They have a lot or more luxuries that probably most of the rest of the world. Many people around the world would wish to have all the things our poor have. I am not saying there are no poor people. There are and we as a society can find ways to help them. What I am saying that poor as it is classified to me is not a true reflection of the living standard of many of those that fall in this category.
You say that labor cost may start to go down. Well, of course it would but so would commodity prices in the products made by the worker so everybody will benefit. Letting the market work as it should would eventually bring the levels of labor cost and wages down to a certain level and it will keep verying with the market changes back and forth as it should be but still there would not be much artificial prices. Granted, anti-trust laws can be benficial when a giant corporation control the system. I have no problem with making sure they do not start to abuse the people. But when the government interferes to much all it does is make things worst. There is where I keep asking why do people keep demanding the government interfere knowing the government is the worst? It is like the blind leading the blind. Politicians do not have a good record and yet people want them to fix the economy by interfering at every little thing. You do not trust your money to three types of people, children, thieves, and politicians. Why? Because these three types of people get money from people that worked for it, not them so it is easy for them to spend somebody elses money.
Wal-Mart out business when the closed down? Really? Wal-Mart may have lost a store but the ones who got hurt were the people that got toghether to fight the company.
I have no problem either if people want to get together to demand higher wages either. However, I do not agree with the government getting in the middle of a dispute between workers and the company. Let them settle their differences. If the workers win, more power to them but if not it is just a good. It was their fight. Also, the workers should not get together and become thugs when others take the jobs they had because they did not show up for work to demand higher wages. They are also in essence stopping the company to keep running. That is a risk they take when they decide to go on strike. The company will also loose by having to hire and train people.
I see it somewhat as a matter of social need. While there is indeed a need for accountants, EVERYONE uses the road. The people that make so much money (really everyone), couldn't do any of it if it weren't for your friend that built the road.
Nothingn wrong in looking at society as a whole and see what is good for the good of the nation as a whole.
The friend that built the road got his pay. What are you saying? That because he built the road we need to show some type of appreciation? What should that be?
Also, the road was made by the government for the benefit of all. The taxpayer most likely paid for that road so the worker got his pay. In reality it was an exchange between the worker and the taxpayer. It is a done deal, no more no less.
As far as the social needs the constitution was drafted with what the people as a nation need as a whole. I do not know if you have heard of the Tragedy of Commons. That is a very good concept to decide what a government is good for and when the government should not interfere.
Also, The Constitution delineated what are the government responsibilites and commerce was one of them. However, these responsibilties were designed to encourage commerce, not to meddle in the details. Let the market work its magic. The people and business can work things out without government interference.
You have a great day.
El Amigo
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
but also work hard. Sadly, how hard you work and how much you make - even within certain job types or the same freaking company - often doesn't align either.