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.
Opposite backwards world. Simplistic to the core...
Let me try to put it in a way even you will understand.
I arrive on these shores on a boat. I know the military guy running the corporation (that is how we were settled), so I get some land. It's land with lots of coal underneath it. Later on, my land becomes part of a State...I, or my family, retain title because we were lucky enough to choose the right side (could have went either way)....
Now coal is discovered.....or at least how to use it industrially.
So, the next 100,000 people who get off that ship with exactly what I had....nothing....and they take their oaths of citizenship and serve in the military and all that....I (the mine operator) have a MORAL duty to pay them as little as possible, even if they starve. I also have a MORAL responsibility to mess up the land, water and air as much as possible for every last dollar worth of profit...even if at the point of a gun (which happened many a time!).....
That seems to be your world view.
The other world view is also quite simple. Seven BILLION people on the planet...small planet. Limited resources. Groups of these people form groups - called "countries" or "states". These countries realize that the King or his assigned kin had no right to sell and give away ALL the natural wealth of said lands to a selevt few....rather that there is a certain "commons" that we all must pay to have the structure of a society and a country.
So the "fair way" I am suggesting is that multiple issues are taken into account....
1. The Environment
2. The Mine Owner
3. The Miners
4. The Country as a whole....
Now, I know that is twice as complicated as counting to the 2 numerals you suggested. But I think it is more of a modern world view which takes into account that we are not in a Feudal society nor is it "winner takes all". We have common interests. The Miner is fine with the Mine Owners having a very nice house and some excess wealth...as long as he is not missing an arm to provide it.
Some of you seem to get so caught up in these "must be" and "worst thing ever" world views that you forget our Government....meaning the USA...is based (supposedly) around We the People - and the General Welfare and Happiness of The People and their kin.
Most people who work two or three jobs for low wages don't do it voluntarily. Go to Germany or Denmark and check out how many people are working at the 7-11 after getting off work at the factory. Zero.
So, in effect, they are forced...not at the point of a gun, but by possibility of sickness, bankruptcy and other factors.
I only need you explain how forcing people at gunpoint to pay above fair market rate is in any way moral, just or fair.
I only need you explain how forcing people at gunpoint to pay above fair market rate is in any way moral, just and fair.
And they pointed out that property "rights", and concepts such as copyright exist because of those same guns, and people are forced to respect them. And yes, at gunpoint.
WHY should we respect copyright? Or the idea that someone should be able to own property? And deny others the ability to grow food on it?
Etc etc. You can't pick those and call it moral, while also claiming things like this are moral. We are a complex nation of laws that allow us to function. Welcome to the future!
And they pointed out that property "rights", and concepts such as copyright exist because of those same guns, and people are forced to respect them. And yes, at gunpoint.
WHY should we respect copyright? Or the idea that someone should be able to own property? And deny others the ability to grow food on it?
Etc etc. You can't pick those and call it moral, while also claiming things like this are moral. We are a complex nation of laws that allow us to function. Welcome to the future!
Did you seriously ask why the property right?
You are more than welcome to give up that right. Where do you live? What’s your bank account number
IF America was once "great", then it's a fairly simple matter of indexing it to inflation with perhaps a side of productivity.
Min wage was 2.10 in 1975.
Using the lowest form of just CPI, that would be about $10.25 today.
Worker productivity is up 220% since that time. In theory, that worker could be paid vastly more and things would be somewhat level with how they were in 1975.
Using just the basics, a minimum wage now of $11 or $12 an hour (Federal) with growth tied to inflation and a bit to productivity would be a really "low end" solution...
In my own case, I made
$3.60 an hour unskilled temp day labor in 1972
$5 an hour in low wage TN for unskilled house framing (I carried studs, no talent except hammering where told)....
That equates to over $25 per hour for the 2nd job......today. In low wage rural TN.
Yet you think $8 an hour is a fair wage?
We have a lot of problems in the USA and one of them is that workers cannot even start to keep up - when folks like are promoting for them to sell their labor fo1/2 or 1/3 of what it was in the 1970's. Doesn't seem like a setup to Make America Better. IMHO, anyway.
Worker productivity gains are in large part due to CAPEX in technology innovations - it has nothing to do with how much humans work. People actually put far less effort and energy into most jobs currently than they have ever before, thanks to technology and automation.
So workers could in theory be paid LESS because they DO less.
For example, grocery store checker. This job is a piece of cake compared to what USED to be required to perform it (ie used to have to manually key in item...then barcodes and checkout scanners came along).
So why should a grocery checker make anywhere close to what they USED to make when they did more work?
If you look at who was actually responsible for the efficiency gains in grocery checkout lanes, its not any worker. Its a few players...and none of them are even in the store.
Its the company management, the shareholders, and the creators/manufacturers of the barcode system, and the checkout scanner who together created the product, built the product, sold the product, bought the product...its not the checker.
So why should any part of the savings from the gains in efficiency go to the worker who had no part in it, and in fact wound up with an easier less stressful job than they one they had?
Last edited by Ibginnie; 10-04-2018 at 06:40 PM..
Reason: edited quoted post
Which is why I never suggested tripling inflation adjusted wages. My point is that the worker should - and always did and does in modern advanced and civilized countries, in a small share of that gain.
The CEO who "accomplished" great things by using the publics money to buy a robot.....are you saying that he or she is worth 10X as much as they made before in relation to the other levels of workers? 5X.
It's pretty dang easy to order up a robot these days. I know many people who have done so. Order it and they will come and install and program it. It doesn't take a OS development engineer to order it nor understand the need for it.
Companies I've had business with generally have purchased welding robots and pallet stacking ones. They've been using them for 30 years, BTW, so that can't be all that made productivity greater...
I'm sure you've seen lots of these charts...many ways to slice it....so what is your opinion. Is 200X the average workers pay the right number - or 100X, or 1000X?
These decisions are actually made by human beings...and, by law and regulations (tax policy). As it stands, it pays to screw workers and give CEO's 100's of millions. The United Health Care CEO retired with something like 800 Million dollars. That we seem to think that money doesn't make our health care cost more...and/or our nurses get paid less....seems crazy!
Worker productivity gains are in large part due to CAPEX in technology innovations - it has nothing to do with how much humans work. People actually put far less effort and energy into most jobs currently than they have ever before, thanks to technology and automation.
So workers could in theory be paid LESS because they DO less.
For example, grocery store checker. This job is a piece of cake compared to what USED to be required to perform it (ie used to have to manually key in item...then barcodes and checkout scanners came along).
So why should a grocery checker make anywhere close to what they USED to make when they did more work?
If you look at who was actually responsible for the efficiency gains in grocery checkout lanes, its not any worker. Its a few players...and none of them are even in the store.
Its the company management, the shareholders, and the creators/manufacturers of the barcode system, and the checkout scanner who together created the product, built the product, sold the product, bought the product...its not the checker.
So why should any part of the savings from the gains in efficiency go to the worker who had no part in it, and in fact wound up with an easier less stressful job than they one they had?
Spot on post. BTW, it is great to see the progress we have made via automation, and we've only just begun.
Amazon can pay its help whatever it wants. What it shouldnt do is advocate that everyone else have to pay the same $15.00 per hr. Such a rate eliminates jobs for the low skilled and makes it harder/eliminates start-ups.
The real min. wage is zero.
That is exactly what I thought when I saw the news.
Amazon wants the government to force everyone else to pay $15/hr so that Amazon won't be at a disadvantage.
Bezos isn't satisfied with all the small businesses he has destroyed already. He wants to destroy what's left, and this is the way to do it. Force everyone else out of business due to arbitrarily high labor costs.
I refuse to buy anything from Amazon. Bezos is a PIG.
the more money they pay their employee, the more income tax the government can collect, hell yes they want walmart to pay more. only problem, a 1/3 of the employees going lose their jobs permanent
No, actually, it is using another set of numbers equally as arbitrary as $20-25. Because the real minimum wage is either $0 or undefined, depending on your mathematical and economic philosophies. Wage represents an agreement between two voluntary parties. Given the infinite range of difference between individuals, it would stand to reason that there would be infinite variability of the wage that could be agreed upon for a specific task. The minimum, therefore, is either 0 (assuming the philosophy that once the worker is paying to work, it is no longer "work" but something else), or undefined (assuming negative numbers as a wage that could be agreed upon, as in purely mathematical without notions of defining the world "work").
If I agree to do a thing for someone else for less than some arbitrary government number, our agreement establishes a minimum below the one being forced upon the society by a tyrant. Therefore, in reality, the minimum wage is the lowest wage anyone actually agrees to in exchange for work. That wage may not satisfy the whim of tyrants, but it is indeed a true minimum between voluntary actors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri
IF America was once "great", then it's a fairly simple matter of indexing it to inflation with perhaps a side of productivity.
Min wage was 2.10 in 1975.
Using the lowest form of just CPI, that would be about $10.25 today.
Worker productivity is up 220% since that time. In theory, that worker could be paid vastly more and things would be somewhat level with how they were in 1975.
Using just the basics, a minimum wage now of $11 or $12 an hour (Federal) with growth tied to inflation and a bit to productivity would be a really "low end" solution...
In my own case, I made
$3.60 an hour unskilled temp day labor in 1972
$5 an hour in low wage TN for unskilled house framing (I carried studs, no talent except hammering where told)....
That equates to over $25 per hour for the 2nd job......today. In low wage rural TN.
All of these numbers are anecdotal and arbitrary. The relevant portion of that story is that you did something voluntarily under well defined terms known ahead of time. When you were paid $3.60 for unskilled day labor in 1972, were you forced against your will to do that work and/or accept that wage, or was that employment agreement voluntary? Every job I have ever held was purely voluntary, and I knowingly and voluntarily accepted the wage/compensation of every single one. It was fair because I knew the terms and I agreed to them. When you did unskilled day labor in 1972, you knew the terms of employment and voluntarily accepted them. 2018 is no different. Nobody is indentured, nor enslaved (except by government, but that is another thread entirely) and all work is voluntary employment agreements between two wiling parties.
All wages are "fair" when all parties involved in employment contracts are VOLUNTARY. If you agree to it ahead of time, then it is fair.
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri
Yet you think $8 an hour is a fair wage?
Sure, if the party agreeing to be paid that wage does so voluntarily, free from initiated force or coercion. I do not define fair for others, only for myself. Based on my skills and the value I produce, "fair" for me to do my job is nothing less than $50/hr, plus benefits. The industry I work in knows that everyone like me thinks this way, so that is approximately the minimum wage for my skills in my industry. But that is an organic minimum that is based on employers not willing to go above that wage finding it remarkably difficult to hire anyone with my skills, and employers talk, read about trends, etc.
So nationwide, the corporate masters know what certain jobs must pay if they wish those jobs to be done, and it all comes from voluntary agreements, free from initiated force/coercion. But some people in my industry undercut all the time. Their choice. I negotiate what I find fair, and if they want to be paid less than me for the same work, cool. That may even depress wages for what I do, and oh well. I can accept those trends and stick with my industry, or I can go do something else I find more "fair", since I work voluntarily, same as everyone else.
"Fair" is a destructive word when applied to a collective and defined by same. If the individual agrees t it of their own volition, it is inherently fair. Everything beyond that is some level of collective force applied to individuals in order to force them to behave according the whims of tyranny.
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri
We have a lot of problems in the USA and one of them is that workers cannot even start to keep up - when folks like are promoting for them to sell their labor fo1/2 or 1/3 of what it was in the 1970's. Doesn't seem like a setup to Make America Better. IMHO, anyway.
I never advocated anyone should or must sell their labor for anything other than what they wish to sell it for. All I said is nobody should be forced to sell that labor for a price SOMEONE ELSE DECIDED FOR THEM.
If sweet old guy comes to my store and just needs something to get him out of the house and fund a minor dog track habit, and I don't really need his labor, but have a heart, why should he and I be denied an opportunity to benefit from trade. Maybe I give him a broom and he sweeps up, arranges shelves a bit, says hi to customers, etc, and maybe end of the days he does this I flip him $20-30 because that's all he asked for. He really just wants out of the house and some play money his wife doesn't know about, and $20-30 does him solid. Why should you deny that arrangement because it does not meet your definition of fair?
When I tutor math, science, college boards, etc, friends, colleagues and family get that $50-100/hr service for free. At least I charge nothing. But I get a free dinner here, a bottle of scotch there, a gift card somewhere else, etc. I happily trade my labor for less than the minimum wage. I get compensated, but when I do, it is seriously undercutting what other tutors charge. My labor, my choice. Who are you to decide what I must charge?
When I build computers, I charge exactly the same fee every single time - a bottle of Lagavulin. My normal amount of labor for a proper gaming PC build is ~20 hours for build, test, burn in, and delivery. My "fee" works out to around $4.50/hr. I am happy with the arrangement, my customers are THRILLED with the arrangement (what they pay me is much less than what I save them with building), and everyone received benefit from the trade. WHO ARE YOU TO TELL US WE CANNOT MAKE THAT TRADE AT THAT WAGE?
Fair, once more for the cheap seats, is baked right into voluntary agreements. If you think something is unfair...DON'T AGREE TO IT.
Last edited by Ibginnie; 10-04-2018 at 06:38 PM..
Reason: deleted quoted post
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.
