Justify starvation wages/cheap labor (unemployed, legal, activist, soldier)

[GregW]

Neuling figured it out. Just what justifies the incredible, and I believe unsustainable, difference between the wages of workers that actually create the increased wealth (products) and the executives that redistribute the wealth to themselves and the owners?

IMHO there is no justification. The wealth should be shared within the firm before any is transferred outside the firm. The workers should own the factories and have a say in how the factory is run and much the executives are paid.

[Ecovlke]

This is how capitalism should work, IMO. This company has had massive success even through this recession. I hope all of you will take the time to read about them. I have no affiliation with this company, and have nothing to gain by posting this, but this company has the ethics that would turn this country around. I've not yet even purchased one item from them, but I will!

It's just too bad that CEO's of failing mega-corporations believe they 'deserve' multi-million dollar salaries and bonues paid by you and I. They'd do well to learn a thing or two from the following little company.

Mountain Rose Herbs | Bulk organic herbs, spices & essential oils

[hnsq]

Originally Posted by GregW

Neuling figured it out. Just what justifies the incredible, and I believe unsustainable, difference between the wages of workers that actually create the increased wealth (products) and the executives that redistribute the wealth to themselves and the owners?

IMHO there is no justification. The wealth should be shared within the firm before any is transferred outside the firm. The workers should own the factories and have a say in how the factory is run and much the executives are paid.

Those workers don't create wealth, they produce products for the executives who create the wealth. A factory worker is replaceable, the person who came up with the idea for the product is not.


OP - those are two VERY different topics. Starvation wages and cheap labor are NOT the same thing. Starvation wages are never ok. The concept of cheap is VERY relative though. If a person is happy with the wage they are getting, and it is enough to cover their needs, then it is OK. The concept of cheap labor is meaningless. What is considered cheap labor to a wealthy American (and by world standards, the majority of the people on this board are wealthy) could very possibly be a very comfortable wage that can feed a family in a third world country.

[Neuling]

Factory workers are only replaceable when they think of themselves as individuals trying to keep their jobs at the expense of the others instead of acting as a single body with the same interest. That is why most managers hate and fear unions. When workers act in a coordinated way, they are no longer replaceable little wheels in the machine.

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by aspiesmom

The title pretty much says it all.

I would like to hear how people justify confiscating money from the people that earn it so that they may give it to those who did not earn it.

Please answer the question only with intelligent and sound responses and remain on topic. Do not turn this into another verbal food fight by throwing out what ever you can think of. Any off subject responses will be considered trolling.

If you think you can intelligently articulate a sound basis for "starvation wages/cheap labor" please do so. If not, don't reply.

I believe you charge what the market indicates is a fair price. If you don't have to pay someone so much to produce something, you can sell it cheaper. That then causes things to be more affordable.

Fact is, the auto workers unions are a big part of what killed the American auto industry.

[Jadex]

Originally Posted by aspiesmom

The title pretty much says it all.

I would like to hear how people justify confiscating money from the people that earn it so that they may give it to those who did not earn it.

Please answer the question only with intelligent and sound responses and remain on topic. Do not turn this into another verbal food fight by throwing out what ever you can think of. Any off subject responses will be considered trolling.

If you think you can intelligently articulate a sound basis for "starvation wages/cheap labor" please do so. If not, don't reply.

You seem to think that we should just say start paying the fry cook at McDonalds$15 an hour

What do you think would happen if we did that?

Do you think McDonalds would have to increase their prices to pay for the fry cook earning 15.00 an hour

Also you dont seem to mind the gov confiscating peoples money that they earn.

[SourD]

Originally Posted by GregW

Neuling figured it out. Just what justifies the incredible, and I believe unsustainable, difference between the wages of workers that actually create the increased wealth (products) and the executives that redistribute the wealth to themselves and the owners?

IMHO there is no justification. The wealth should be shared within the firm before any is transferred outside the firm. The workers should own the factories and have a say in how the factory is run and much the executives are paid.

It's not like the workers invested in the company, they didn't buy any of the materials or machinery, they are just laborers. So that being said, the workers are not the ones creating the wealth. They are laboring to put together something and getting paid for doing so. The people who own the company are the ones investing the money which in turn makes more money.

[Chuckity]

Originally Posted by Jadex

You seem to think that we should just say start paying the fry cook at McDonalds$15 an hour

What do you think would happen if we did that?

Do you think McDonalds would have to increase their prices to pay for the fry cook earning 15.00 an hour

And, I'd add that leveling the playing field with wealth redistribution (globally & domestically) means pulling the middle class & US down ... not pulling the poorest of the poor up.

I can't for the life of me understand why the left doesn't see that.

[Neuling]

Originally Posted by Jadex

You seem to think that we should just say start paying the fry cook at McDonalds$15 an hour

What do you think would happen if we did that?

Do you think McDonalds would have to increase their prices to pay for the fry cook earning 15.00 an hour

Also you dont seem to mind the gov confiscating peoples money that they earn.

I think there must simply be a reasonable ratio between wage and cost of living. Anyone working 40 hours a week should be able to lead a decent life on their wage rather than being a working poor.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by aspiesmom

The title pretty much says it all.

I would like to hear how people justify confiscating money from the people that earn it so that they may give it to those who did not earn it.

Please answer the question only with intelligent and sound responses and remain on topic. Do not turn this into another verbal food fight by throwing out what ever you can think of. Any off subject responses will be considered trolling.

If you think you can intelligently articulate a sound basis for "starvation wages/cheap labor" please do so. If not, don't reply.

You did not "intelligently articulate" your premise. You stated:

I would like to hear how people justify confiscating money from the people that earn it so that they may give it to those who did not earn it.

Then you throw in a red-herring:

If you think you can intelligently articulate a sound basis for "starvation wages/cheap labor" please do so. If not, don't reply.

To "confiscate" is to take or seize with authority.

The only entities that "confiscate" money are local, county, state and the pseudo-federal governments. Those entities confiscate money and are justified in doing so because you have:

1) given your express consent by electing those officials to office; or

2) given your tacit consent by failing or refusing to vote; or

3) given your tacit consent by failing to actively participate in your government at one or more levels.

The red-herring you offered up is justified by the Laws of Economics, specifically to wit: The Law of Supply & Demand.

The Price of any Product or Service is a function of Supply & Demand.

When the Supply of corn is constant, but Demand increases because the E85 Ethanol Fuel Standard must be implemented, and because of increasing Demand for High Fructose Corn Syrup for use in beverages, then the price of corn rises as does the price of gasoline (since its price is now directly related to the price of corn used in ethanol).

Wages are also a function of Supply & Demand. Every laborer is capable of providing a Product (making widgets, welding, creating floral arrangements, making bearnaise sauce etc) or a Service (filing, billing, copying, analyzing, evaluating, assessing etc).

When the Supply of laborers is high, and the Demand for laborers is low, then Wages decrease. The Supply & Demand of Labor can be broken down into segments or sectors. For example, the Supply of Physical Therapists is very low (but increasing) while the Demand for Physical Therapists is very high. That results in Physical Therapists being paid extraordinarily high wages and benefits.

The Supply of Fast-Food workers is very, very high, while the Demand for Fast-Food Workers is very low. Accordingly, the Wages are very low. However, the pseudo-federal government and some state and local governments have interfered with Wages by enacting a minimum wage. The Laws of Economics, and in particular the Law of Supply & Demand can never be violated (not even by god), that results in Fast Food restaurants hiring even fewer workers, or raising prices of products offered, reducing portion sizes, reducing or eliminating benefits for employees, or other measures, such as black-marketing, ie hiring illegal aliens who can be paid wages below those mandated by the pseudo-federal government or the state and local governments.

If your premise actually revolves around corporate share-holders, and that could be the case since you failed to "intelligently" articulate the point, that would also be justified by laws enacted by the people you elected to office directly by voting or indirectly by not voting or not participating in the various levels of your government.

A publicly owned corporation (as opposed to a private corporation) has no moral, ethical or legal duty or obligation to hire employees. The hiring of employees is incidental to the publicly owned corporations primary function, which is to make profits for share-holders.

If a publicly owned corporation can make profits without hiring any employees, then that exactly is what the publicly owned corporation should do, especially since it is morally, ethically and legally obligated to do so.

If it is your contention that employees should be receiving the monies share-holders receive as wages instead of actually being paid out to the share-holders, then you need to participate in your government at all levels and elect persons to office at all levels who will remove the legal requirements which force corporations make money for its share-holders so that those monies can be paid as wages to the employees.

If the real issue here is that banks, financial institutions, mortgage companies and credit card companies are earning money through interest rates, of which a portion ends up in the pockets of share-holders, then the issue is moot, since no money is being confiscated. You are, of your own free will, giving them money in excess of the price of the goods or services you are purchasing because you lack self-discipline and have an innate desire to satisfy infantile urges in a manner that could hardly be considered "adult-like" or responsible, or even intelligent for that matter.