Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Under Capitalism Nobody Is Paid What They are Worth

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Under Capitalism Nobody Is Paid What They are Worth

    A pretty little lie that capitalists like to tell themselves, and each other, is that, under a free market capitalist system, people are paid what they are worth, exactly what they deserve, according to market indicators. That's why we shouldn't have a minimum wage, much less raise that minimum wage to a living wage, after all! People, with or without a minimum wage, are going to be PAID WHAT THEY ARE WORTH! The market will ensure that!

    As a matter of fact, if the minimum wage kept up with worker productivity, the minimum wage would be over $20 per hour today. But somehow, "people are paid what they are worth."

    The truth of the matter, as Karl Marx recognized, is that, under a capitalist system, NOBODY is paid what they are worth. The vast majority of people, the working class, are actually paid FAR LESS than they are worth, and a relative handful of economic parasites, the capitalist/owner class, are paid FAR MORE than they are worth.

    The simple truth is that if a worker demanded to be paid exactly what he were worth, a capitalist employer would never hire him. Why? Because that means that, for the capitalist employer, it would be a wash. He wouldn't profit one red penny.

    The capitalist employer wants to maximize his profits, after all. This means that he wants to extract as much value from his employee as he can via revenue and pay out as little to his employee as he can get away with in terms of wages and benefits.

    This is why Karl Marx called capitalist employment "wage slavery." The employee works, but the employer, not the employee, reaps the benefits of his labor.

    It is under a socialist economy, not a capitalist economy, that workers would actually be paid what they are worth.

    Just saying.

  • #2
    More ignorance stupidity and lies. You have a sick mind.
    Last edited by Trump Gurl; February 26th, 2020, 12:02 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Traditio will never start his own small business because it would be too much work. He just wants to fill out an employment application and expect to make just as much money as the owner of the company. Socialists are lazy leeches.
      WARNING: Graphic video here.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Traditio View Post
        It is under a socialist economy, not a capitalist economy, that workers would actually be paid what they are worth.
        How do you determine what someone is "worth"?

        For example, I have 44 years of experience in the working world, doing a wide variety of jobs, from teaching to data analysis to toxicology research, etc etc. How does my "worth" compare to a student who has only a limited work experience?

        If that student and I are hired to do the same job, should I be paid vastly more then him? Should my experience factor into my "worth"?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Traditio View Post
          The capitalist employer wants to maximize his profits, after all. This means that he wants to extract as much value from his employee as he can ...
          I plan to employ a painter and a roofer this summer to do some jobs that I don't want to tackle, that I want to hire others to do. Is it wrong for me to want value for my money? Should I just offer each a blank check and tell them to write in whatever they think they're "worth"?

          Or do you find any problem with the approach I have taken, which is to do a market research analysis and see what the going rate is?
          Last edited by ok doser; February 26th, 2020, 06:17 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by ok doser View Post

            How do you determine what someone is "worth"?
            The same way that employers do.

            Productivity/projected increase in revenue.

            If you hire an employee to make pizzas for your pizza restaurant, and the employee generates x amount of profit (revenue - expenses (expenses other than employee wages, that is)), then that's what the employee is actually worth.

            That's not what he's getting paid, though.

            He's getting paid much less than x.

            Comment


            • #7
              Let me repeat this statistic:

              If the MINIMUM wage kept up with worker productivity, the minimum wage would be more than $20 per hour.

              Meanwhile, half of all wage earners are paid $30,000 per year or less (i.e., $15 per hour or less).

              Let that sink in.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Traditio View Post

                The same way that employers do.

                Productivity/projected increase in revenue.

                If you hire an employee to make pizzas for your pizza restaurant, and the employee generates x amount of profit (revenue - expenses (expenses other than employee wages, that is)), then that's what the employee is actually worth.

                That's not what he's getting paid, though.

                He's getting paid much less than x.
                I'm going to hire an employee to paint my porch

                I'm going to hire another employee to roof my house


                how do I determine what to pay them?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Traditio View Post
                  If you hire an employee to make pizzas for your pizza restaurant, and the employee generates x amount of profit (revenue - expenses (expenses other than employee wages, that is)), then that's what the employee is actually worth.
                  If I'm hired to make pizzas, there's no recognition of my 44 years of experience?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by ok doser View Post

                    I'm going to hire an employee to paint my porch

                    I'm going to hire another employee to roof my house

                    how do I determine what to pay them?
                    That's not the same thing. You aren't paying them wages to engage in productive labor that will turn you a profit. You are just engaging in a market exchange. Hiring someone to fix your roof is no different from going to the grocery store to purchase a gallon of milk.

                    That's not what is happening in the employer/employee relationship. There is no question in the employer's mind of the employee's worth. He is making a calculation before he even creates the job opening. "This position is going to generate x amount of revenue. Therefore, I need to hire someone who will accept substantially LESS than x in wages."

                    The employer isn't employing the pizza maker because he wants to eat pizza. He's employing the pizza maker because he has calculated that if he hires a pizza maker, the wages and benefits he pays out to the pizza maker is going to be LESS than the revenue that the pizza maker generates.

                    That's why Marx calls it wage slavery.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by ok doser View Post
                      If I'm hired to make pizzas, there's no recognition of my 44 years of experience?
                      The 44 years of experience is going to affect: 1. the employer's evaluation of how much revenue you will be able to generate and 2. your relative bargaining power.

                      But note, even if you are the best pizza maker in the industry and the pizza companies are clamoring to hire you, so much so that they are competing with each other to give you the most wages and benefits.

                      The highest bid is still going to be FAR less than what you are going to generate in revenue.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Traditio View Post

                        That's not the same thing. You aren't paying them wages to engage in productive labor that will turn you a profit. You are just engaging in a market exchange. Hiring someone to fix your roof is no different from going to the grocery store to purchase a gallon of milk.

                        That's not what is happening in the employer/employee relationship. There is no question in the employer's mind of the employee's worth. He is making a calculation before he even creates the job opening. "This position is going to generate x amount of revenue. Therefore, I need to hire someone who will accept substantially LESS than x in wages."

                        The employer isn't employing the pizza maker because he wants to eat pizza. He's employing the pizza maker because he has calculated that if he hires a pizza maker, the wages and benefits he pays out to the pizza maker is going to be LESS than the revenue that the pizza maker generates.

                        That's why Marx calls it wage slavery.
                        In each case, I'm dealing with a guy who has others working for him.

                        The painter has a crew that have agreed to work for him/with him for an agreed upon wage.

                        The roofer has a crew that have agreed to work for him/with him for an agreed upon wage.


                        and the roofer and the painter expect to make a profit, after providing all the infrastructure that they do.

                        are they practicing "wage slavery"?

                        should the workers revolt and demand that they be paid more?

                        should they recognize that, if they do, I will refuse to hire them and do the job myself?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Literally the only way that you are going to get wages that are roughly equal to the revenue you generate is if the pizza shop is a worker owned cooperative.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by ok doser View Post

                            In each case, I'm dealing with a guy who has others working for him.

                            The painter has a crew that have agreed to work for him/with him for an agreed upon wage.

                            The roofer has a crew that have agreed to work for him/with him for an agreed upon wage.

                            and the roofer and the painter expect to make a profit, after providing all the infrastructure that they do.

                            are they practicing "wage slavery"?
                            Think this through. Let's take the painter and crew.

                            Why does the painter have a crew? He has made the assessment that if he hires a crew, he will be able to generate more in profits than if he had worked alone.

                            Now think that through. Why is he going to be able to generate more in profits than if he had worked alone?

                            Because the crew are going to generate revenue, and he's getting a cut of it.

                            He is profiting, not off of his own labor, but off of the labor of his crew.

                            should the workers revolt and demand that they be paid more?
                            The entire working class should, in a sense, revolt (through a peaceful political/democratic process) and demand, not higher wages, but ownership of the means of production.

                            #SeizeTheMeansOfProduction

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Traditio View Post

                              Think this through. Let's take the painter and crew.

                              Why does the painter have a crew? He has made the assessment that if he hires a crew, he will be able to generate more in profits than if he had worked alone.

                              Now think that through. Why is he going to be able to generate more in profits than if he had worked alone?

                              Because the crew are going to generate revenue, and he's getting a cut of it.

                              He is profiting, not off of his own labor, but off of the labor of his crew

                              and his crew is profiting from his labor, from the work he does in seeking jobs, negotiating terms, providing equipment, transportation, employer benefits - workers comp coverage, payroll services, etc

                              otherwise, everybody would be out there working independently

                              not everybody wants to own the means of production, not everybody wants to do the boss work

                              most people are content to just bring home a paycheck and let someone else do all that

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X