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.
As this is the Employment thread, I'm still trying to connect the dots between morality and employee pay.
Because there aren’t any. There is no correlation. All being legal the employer offers x amount of money for a job. A person decides to take x job for x pay. That person accepted the terms set forth in employment and compensation as the company saw fit. The company is not morally obligated to pay more simply because the employee can’t financially compete.
The employee should look at his needs and adjust his career part to meet and exceed those needs. It’s nobodys fault if the employee doesn’t do that. But most employees or people who in general would sit there complain about working conditions yet do nothing to better themselves but fully expect the company to reshape itself to accommodate them.
It is in society's best interest to have an even playing field between employers and employees rather than something unbalanced in either direction, where desperation of one side is exploited for the gain of the other side.
I'm not even sure what it is you're arguing...
That's because you are trying to see a political argument when what you're reading is, as I've made clear twice already, a moral argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlygal
It was YOU who brought up the idea of morality connected to business and employee pay.
Correct. That's because everyone else was inanely fixated on the political-financial arguments, which I are of less importance from a human standpoint than the moral arguments. If all you are willing to think about are the political-financial arguments, then you're going to invariably come to a political-financial answer, instead of a moral one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlygal
Funny how people post comments but refuse to elaborate further. Then, when called out, they accuse others of posing statement arguments.
Don't blame others for your unwillingness to rise above the political posturing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceangaia
There's no error here. I'm simply telling you how it is while you're arguing how it should be.
Thankfully, at least you understand that the discussion has different layers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceangaia
Rather than disagree why don't you just tell us what past societies were "great" based on those standards?
So in other words, you say that because nothing has ever been good, that goodness shouldn't be what drives our intentions and behaviors.
Sorry, no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlygal
As this is the Employment thread, I'm still trying to connect the dots between morality and employee pay.
That's the problem. As I said to you above: If all you are willing to think about are the political-financial arguments, then you're going to invariably come to a political-financial answer, instead of a moral one. If you really see no relevance to the matter of morality in this matter, then why do you bristle at having pointed out the lack of moral character of what you're suggesting? Answer: Because it is relevant and you know instinctively that it is relevant, despite your baseless claim to the contrary, and arguably it is most relevant.
That's because you are trying to see a political argument when what you're reading is, as I've made clear twice already, a moral argument.
Correct. That's because everyone else was inanely fixated on the political-financial arguments, which I are of less importance from a human standpoint than the moral arguments. If all you are willing to think about are the political-financial arguments, then you're going to invariably come to a political-financial answer, instead of a moral one.
Don't blame others for your unwillingness to rise above the political posturing.
Thankfully, at least you understand that the discussion has different layers.
So in other words, you say that because nothing has ever been good, that goodness shouldn't be what drives our intentions and behaviors.
Sorry, no.
That's the problem. As I said to you above: If all you are willing to think about are the political-financial arguments, then you're going to invariably come to a political-financial answer, instead of a moral one. If you really see no relevance to the matter of morality in this matter, then why do you bristle at having pointed out the lack of moral character of what you're suggesting? Answer: Because it is relevant and you know instinctively that it is relevant, despite your baseless claim to the contrary, and arguably it is most relevant.
My interest is purely intellectual. I learn from hearing and pondering different opinions. I was a business major in college so I've heard a multitude of different thoughts on the ethical or moral responsibility of business. Usually such arguments fail as the foundation of business and the profit motive never purports to being ethical or moral.
It's funny how some people can't understand the side of the business owner/management. Those that assume the greatest risk should earn the greatest profit from taking that risk.
It's funny how some people can't understand the side of the business owner/management. Those that assume the greatest risk should earn the greatest profit from taking that risk.
I'm sure even you would admit there are limits to this.
How much profit should somebody make when risking their lives and the livelihood of their families?
Being put in a position where you have to choose between retaining your employment, or risking injury or death is still very common in the workplace.
We both know that jobs that truly pose the greatest risks do not generated the greatest profit for those performing the work.
Yes it is. And everyone needs to decide how they will deal with this fact. Some are perfectly willing to do dangerous jobs, others aren't.
And? What's the point?
Where did that number come from?
So long as people are educated on their workplace rights (most aren't), they will deal with that fact by holding their employers to OSHA's General Duty Clause.
My point is immediately put down the argument some make that because OSHA exists there's no function for unions anymore. That's a fallacy. Anybody that understands how OSHA works would understand that.
It was a silly response to a silly question. I think you posed the question believing that it was some sort an "A-Ha! Gotcha!" But it's not. The simple, correct answer to the question is "Whatever amount the market determines is correct for the position."
It was a silly response to a silly question. I think you posed the question believing that it was some sort an "A-Ha! Gotcha!" But it's not. The simple, correct answer to the question is "Whatever amount the market determines is correct for the position."
Do you disagree?
Is it the market or union negotiations that determines the amount?
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.
