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.
For most of the U.S.'s history, the country had no minimum wage.
Were you about to point out the mass starvation and/or armed revolution in the U.S. this caused?
...takes care of that fallacy...
The end result of the current trend in wealth redistribution is armed revolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn
Back to the subject:
When you hire someone, you are no more "responsible" for his and his family's well-being, than he is for yours. Socialist wishful thinking notwithstanding, HE is responsible for himself and his family. Part of that responsibility, is making sure he can support them. If he can't, it's not the fault of whoever hired him to sweep the floor and paid him to do it.
Individually that argument is correct. That is a micro economic argument. On a macro economic scale the problem is different. Concepts like social justice and fair wages play on a macro economic scale. Also wealth redistribution plays on a macro scale. People dismiss wealth redistribution as envy. The problems associated with envy are real.
I will pay you a wage for doing work for me.
OK how much?
Not enough to feed an clothe your family.
Enough to feed but not clothe them?
Yes
OK.
You need to eat today. Clothes you can worry about tomorrow.
People are getting laid off from good paying jobs and finding less well paying jobs to replace them with. The floor of this is the minimum wage. It is at about 25% of the average wage. It peaked at about 55% of the average wage in the 1950's.
The conclusion is becoming more clear with each post. NO ONE can find any reason for blaming employers for the fact that the people they hired are poor. Apparently all they can do, is point out that the employees don't make very much, and somehow jump to the conclusion that it's not their fault. And then jump even further to the conslusion that it is somehow the employer's fault. No proof or reasoning behind the "connection" at all.
If there was any truth to these bizarre assertions, the socialists would have come up with it by now. But despite endless opportunities, these confused people have zip, nada, nothing.
This indicates that you've never received a shareholder voting packet before. Corporations mail these out to all shareholders, no matter how small their holdings are, who use it to vote on things like an appointment of someone into the board of directors. It's kind of like the election packet you receive for government elections; not everyone is informed on the issues, but the right is available to them nonetheless.
You are assuming all capital structures and companies are created equal
1. There are companies that have DISTINCT classes of shares. Some have absolutely no voting rights whatsoever. Additionally, most companies have a handful of people or institutions that own huge swaths of stock, and virtually control companies by proxy. Average shareholder who owns .00000001% of the company can hardly even be considered a stake holder.
2. There are companies that have board appointees, not electorates. They are oddly appointed usually by the CEO, which is ironic and a complete conflict of interest, because the board is who sets the CEO's pay and compensation package. They also can be appointed by companies or investors who "bought" chairs as part of a capital agreement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinsanity
And being appointed to whatever management team you establish to run the company is a huge responsibility; I would want the company run by somebody who can focus as much of their effort as they can into it, which then means that 1. you'll have to pay them more money, and 2. they won't be as involved in the actual labor process.
You are assuming that all people are completely motivated by money, and that is not the case at all.
The conclusion is becoming more clear with each post. NO ONE can find any reason for blaming employers for the fact that the people they hired are poor. Apparently all they can do, is point out that the employees don't make very much, and somehow jump to the conclusion that it's not their fault. And then jump even further to the conslusion that it is somehow the employer's fault. No proof or reasoning behind the "connection" at all.
If there was any truth to these bizarre assertions, the socialists would have come up with it by now. But despite endless opportunities, these confused people have zip, nada, nothing.
Better luck next time, lefties.
You must have clearly ignored my hundreds of posts about labor value. While its not always the fault of the employer that his employee is poor, it is ALWAYS the fault of the employer that the employee is not receiving his labor value.
The conclusion is becoming more clear with each post. NO ONE can find any reason for blaming employers for the fact that the people they hired are poor.
http://www.sustainablemiddleclass.com/Income-inequality.html The reason that the people that they are hiring are poor and not middle class is wealth redistribution. It is not going at a very fast rate but if you look at it the wealth distribution will be the same as it is in Mexico in about 2023. Gini-Coefficient The article said 2040 is but there was a policy change in 1981 so looking at the trend from there forwards it is a very different slope indeed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn
Apparently all they can do, is point out that the employees don't make very much, and somehow jump to the conclusion that it's not their fault. And then jump even further to the conslusion that it is somehow the employer's fault. No proof or reasoning behind the "connection" at all.
The dynamics of how the economy grows or dies is a function of public policies and what everyone does in the economy. Jobs going over to China and India? What replaces them here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn
If there was any truth to these bizarre assertions, the socialists would have come up with it by now. But despite endless opportunities, these confused people have zip, nada, nothing.
The truth is very subtle. An increase in the FICA tax and a cut to the income tax. The growth in income from 1981 forwards has been in the top end. The bottom end has seen an income decline.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn
Better luck next time, lefties.
I'm not a lefty but I don't need your luck the center is where it is at and that has been left wide open.
"Economic Duress": A misleading term invented by socialists who would like you to believe that your natural need for food, shelter, etc. is somehow someone else's fault, and therefore they are responsible for fulfilling those needs for you.
No, economic duress is not misleading at all, nor is it defined as such.
Economic duress is a situation in which a person is compelled to accept substandard working conditions or wages, because the job and wage is worth more to him, then the job he does is to the employer.
In other words, most "labor" does not, exactly, willingly enter in to a labor agreement at all. They do so because the alternative is to go in debt to a capitalist, starve, sell drugs or other illegal vice, or steal. Therefore, most people are compelled to accept a wage far below what they are "worth", and its one of the bigger reasons there is no company loyalty.
That is funny because most of the people I see working in retail stores and restauratnts are adults. Who do you think works when kids go to school? Teenagers can only work a certain amount of hours by law thus most of the work done is by adults.
Funny, I remember when I was a kid walking with another person my age who was running a paper route. He did this every morning before school. I remember plenty of kids who had jobs mowing lawns, shoveling snow from sidewalks on a consistent basis, etc.
I guess according to you, my reality did not happen. It was a figment of my imagination that teenagers actually once had part time jobs after school or during summer. <shrug> OK, keep revising history...
You are assuming that all people are completely motivated by money, and that is not the case at all.
Maybe not cash in the specific sense, but there has to be motivation for the company to do well. The board appointees should be paid for their contribution to the company just like the laborer. This is why, as you pointed out earlier, stock options are a popular form of compensation among upper management. If you have a high degree of responsibility for the performance of the company, then a corresponding degree of ownership of said company is meant to ensure that the two parties have mutual interests at stake.
You must have clearly ignored my hundreds of posts about labor value. While its not always the fault of the employer that his employee is poor, it is ALWAYS the fault of the employer that the employee is not receiving his labor value.
You are assuming that all people are completely motivated by money, and that is not the case at all.
Then why does even the most altruistic non-profits always complain about not having more money? Why do non-profit fund raising exist, under your society model? If they don't need money, what are they complaining about then?
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.
