Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Under Capitalism Nobody Is Paid What They are Worth

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by ok doser View Post


    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
    To be sure, and for the record, nobody is going to claim that the manager and the person who sweeps up should be paid exactly the same. Even in worker owned cooperatives, there is going to be a level of pay inequality. In the Mondragon corporation, the wage disparity ranges from 5:1 to 9:1.

    But you don't need capitalism or capitalist employers and capitalist employees to get the sorts of things that you are talking about.

    And, furthermore, even when you take all of that into account, corporate CEOs who make millions of dollars a year are not working THAT much harder than the person who sweeps up, and if the workers of the corporation had a democratic say on the matter, there's no way that they would agree to that.

    Much less handing over massive amounts of the profits to members of the Walton family simply because they own most of the stock.

    not everybody wants to own the means of production, not everybody wants to do the boss work
    "Boss work." Let's replace that with "managerial, etc." work.

    And even in a worker owned cooperative, you can still have managers, marketers, etc. You don't need capitalist employers and capitalist employees for that.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Traditio View Post

      To be sure, and for the record, nobody is going to claim that the manager and the person who sweeps up should be paid exactly the same.
      why?

      in each case they each gave exactly what all of us have to give, that which all of us have in limited supply - their time

      why should a manager's eight hours be valued higher than a janitor's eight hours?




      "Boss work." Let's replace that with "managerial, etc." work.
      so you'd agree that my painter/manager deserves to profit from the labor of his work crew?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by ok doser View Post
        why?

        in each case they each gave exactly what all of us have to give, that which all of us have in limited supply - their time

        why should a manager's eight hours be valued higher than a janitor's eight hours?
        Their time doesn't equally contribute to the overall productivity/generation of revenue.

        so you'd agree that my painter/manager deserves to profit from the labor of his work crew?
        What I agree to is that the painter/manager deserves to be compensated unequally because of his unequal contribution to the overall productivity/generation of revenue of the enterprise.

        Not because he owns the enterprise.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Traditio View Post

          What I agree to is that the painter/manager deserves to be compensated unequally because of his unequal contribution to the overall productivity/generation of revenue of the enterprise.

          Not because he owns the enterprise.
          so you want to insert another layer of management above him - government?

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Traditio View Post

            That's why Marx calls it wage slavery.
            And that's why I call you Bernie.....baffon......get it....Bernie Bafoon is going to educate us all on the greatness of socialism and communism....
            The state — whatever its particular forms — always expresses itself as a collective form of property ownership. All political systems are socialistic, in that they are premised upon the subservience of individual interests to collective authority. Communism, fascism, lesser forms of state socialism, and welfarism, are all premised upon the state’s usurpation of privately-owned property. Whether one chooses to be aligned with the political "Left," "Right," or "Middle," comes down to nothing more than a preference for a particular franchise of state socialism.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Traditio View Post
              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!
              The more I think about this, the more I think it's a red herring, if not a straw man.

              You see, I'm of the position that in a truly capitalist economy, a worker will get paid based on 1) the kind of job he does, 2) the effort he puts into that job, and 3) what he and his employer agreed upon.

              What he is "worth" has little relevance other than to inform the company of what he can do, and is, for the most part, subjective.

              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."
              Regarding minimum wage:

              If a company makes X amount of money after one year of work (before calculating expenses), and they have Y number of employees, the maximum amount the company can pay the average employee is X divided by Y.

              If the company wants to pay their employees more, they must either fire at a minimum one employee, or make more money next year. But in order to do that, the easiest way is to hire at least one more employee, to divide the workload further and help things run more efficiently.

              But don't forget that this is all BEFORE they calculate expenses, such as the cost of the building they make payments on, taxes, travel costs, supplies, materials, and so much more.

              All of that lowers the amount of X by Z amount. So, really, the equation for the maximum a company can pay the average employee looks more like:

              (X - Z) / Y = maximum wage paid to average employee

              Having a minimum wage prevents smaller companies from growing, because in order to pay their employees the minimum wage so they don't break the law, they are limited in how many employees they can hire, which limits how efficient they can become within the year.

              In other words, having a minimum wage is counterproductive to employees getting paid more.

              NOT ONLY THAT, but (and I'm pretty sure, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you're Catholic, so I'm not sure why you reject the following) Jesus told a parable about a man who wanted to hire some workers to accomplish a task, and then asked the people he told it to a single question which teaches the principle involved:


              “For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard.Now when he had agreed with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard.And he went out about the third hour and saw others standing idle in the marketplace,and said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right I will give you.’ So they went.Again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did likewise.And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing idle, and said to them, ‘Why have you been standing here idle all day?’They said to him, ‘Because no one hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right you will receive.’“So when evening had come, the owner of the vineyard said to his steward, ‘Call the laborers and give them their wages, beginning with the last to the first.’And when those came who were hired about the eleventh hour, they each received a denarius.But when the first came, they supposed that they would receive more; and they likewise received each a denarius.And when they had received it, they complained against the landowner,saying, ‘These last men have worked only one hour, and you made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the heat of the day.’But he answered one of them and said, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius?Take what is yours and go your way. I wish to give to this last man the same as to you.Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things? Or is your eye evil because I am good?’ - Matthew 20:1-15 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...p;version=NKJV



              In other words, Jesus is saying that, especially as an employer, one has the right to pay someone an agreed upon amount without any outside intervention, and to do what he wants with his own things (so long, of course, as it's not the commission of a crime).

              So, let's say, for example, that I, as a truck driver, start my own trucking company, and one of my friends tells me he wants to work for me in the office, but knows I don't have a lot of experience or money to start with, so he agrees to only work for a fraction of the going rate for the position I hire him for, at least until my company can get on its feet and start earning money.

              A minimum wage law would prevent me from hiring him, simply because I cannot pay him the amount defined by law.

              Which means, until I can start turning a profit, I have to do all of the work of running the company, paying myself, keeping track of loads, and basically cannot hire anyone to help me do all that.

              In other words, the law which you say will promote a healthier pay rate for people in fact prevents people from being hired in the first place, because it deters the creation of new businesses.

              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.
              How much of that extra money that you seem to envy so much gets put back into the company to help it grow, and to increase the standard of living of the company owners and his employees?

              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.
              And why is that a bad thing?

              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.
              All while still paying his employee... the agreed-upon amount...

              This is why Karl Marx called capitalist employment "wage slavery."
              Marx was an idiot who thought that the way people were living after Christ's ascension was a good way to live, even though it was only supposed to be a temporary arrangement. It's where he got the idea for communism.

              The employee works, but the employer, not the employee, reaps the benefits of his labor.
              You're forgetting that the employee gets paid for his work, and usually for the agreed-upon amount, and not only that, but the employer also benefits from hiring the employee, and so both are usually satisfied, even though there may be some loss involved.

              It is under a socialist economy, not a capitalist economy, that workers would actually be paid what they are worth.
              On paper at least, but unfortunately, what works on paper doesn't always work in reality.

              God commands men to "serve one another," which is how an economy works.


              Here's What Makes the Economy Function: God commands men to "serve one another" (Galatians 5:13). If one man is alone for life on a desert island, there could be no "economy". (Even money itself would become meaningless, for money must be transferable.) If two or more people were shipwrecked on that island, and they refused to work with one another, and stayed isolated, they would not build an economy. On the other hand, as they attempted to survive, or even thrive, if they did begin providing goods and services to one another, then they would gradually build an economy. An economy grows as human beings increasingly serve one another. And an economy will grow most quickly if these men are free, for the Bible says that, "liberty" provides the "opportunity... [to] serve one another." However, if they began to keep to themselves, and stopped trading goods and services, their economy would sputter out and die. (And if all economic cooperation ceased permanently, any money that each had collected would lose its monetary value.) So an economy thrives when men serve one another.


              https://kgov.com/money

              If men are not free to serve one another how they see fit, the economy will start to break down and eventually cease to function.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Traditio View Post
                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.
                Are you referring to Anarcho-syndicalism?
                _/\_

                Christians: "I - a stranger and afraid - in a world I never made.." -- Houseman

                Comment


                • #23
                  Hey Trad, I was wondering do you work now? Did you ever complete your graduate degree in philosophy?
                  Your problem is not technology. The problem is YOU. You lack the will to change...You treat this planet as you treat each other. - Klaatu

                  What are you talking about? There is no such thing as the "Mafia"......it doesn't exist. Just a bunch of lies told to defame honest hardworking Italians like myself. - TomO

                  I will do you, let's see, goofy, wacky, and to the left side of the bell curve
                  . -Ktoyou

                  I'm white. I'm not black. I can't convert to being black. It doesn't matter how much I want to become black. I could listen to rap and date fat white women all day; for all that, I'll still remain white.- Traditio

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by drbrumley View Post

                    And that's why I call you Bernie.....baffon......get it....Bernie Bafoon is going to educate us all on the greatness of socialism and communism....

                    They say dope is for dopes. I agree.

                    So is socialism and communism.


                    Comment


                    • #25

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Under Capitalism Nobody Is Paid What They are Worth


                        As recently as 10 hears ago, who would have predicted that a gay man would receive the most electoral college seats from the Iowa Caucuses, and that a self-described "democratic socialist" would win the popular vote in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada?

                        Despite increases in the stock market, the average US worker hasn't received an actual increase in wages or in his/her standard of living for the last 50 years, while the American Dream has become just that, a Dream reserved for the 1%!

                        Donald Trump was elected because people had lost faith in the traditional political and economic models - conservatives would be naive to believe that this is only happening on their side of the political spectrum, there is every reason to believe that equally dramatic changes are currently taking place on the other side of the spectrum!
                        Last edited by jgarden; February 28th, 2020, 02:51 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by jgarden View Post
                          As recently as 10 hears ago, who would have predicted that a gay man would receive the most electoral college seats from the Iowa Caucuses, and that a self-described "democratic socialist" would win the popular vote in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada?
                          You don't get it

                          All former norms for presidential elections went out the window when Obama ran as our first affirmative action candidate and won

                          Inexperienced and unqualified for the job, he was hired primarily because of the color of his skin.

                          And so, we get a reality TV star POTUS, facing off against a homo whose only executive experience has been as mayor of a small town in Podunk USA and a 94 year old weirdo who venerates Stalin and Hitler

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            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.
                            This definition of "worth" doesn't make sense.

                            In your pizza example how do you directly calculate the profit the pizza maker generates? Usually there is more than one person that helps make the pizza. One person may make the dough, another may cut the meat and vegetables, and another person may prep the the pizza oven. And how about the person at the register or the dishwasher?

                            And the pizza example is very simple. Lets try something way more complex. I spent 15 years designing and building these babies.



                            These geosynchrnous telecommunications satellites are incredibly complex in function, design, and assembly. Literally hundreds even thousands of people are involved directly or indirectly in creating the final product. How would we calculate each person's individual contribution? Just in engineering alone there are perhaps 45-50 engineers involved with one satellite. Then you have several dozen technicians who build and test the satellite. Then you have the production planners who work with vendors and manage all the components and parts and make sure the people on the manufacturing floor have their parts on time. And production planners never actually touch or help build the satellite with their hands. How about the managers who plan, coordinate, and schedule the design, building, and testing of the satellites? They spend most of their days in meetings using spreadsheets and planning software to plan the build and testing of the satellite? Then you have the logistics people who load the satellites in a truck or airplane and take it to various offsite testing facilities or launch bases. Then you have the IT guys who make sure everyone's computers are working properly so they can do their work. Then you have the marketing people who travel all over the world to meet with current customers and look for new customers. And these marketing people are not like marketing people who work for Nike or Apple, or JC Penny. Marketing people in the satellite industry are all engineers who must have thorough knowledge of satellite technology.

                            How would you calculate the "worth" of every person involved in creating a satellite?

                            The simple truth is that there is no objective "worth" in terms of salary/compensation. You are worth what you and your employer agree on. In my current job that I started just three months ago I asked for a salary in the mid six figures. I expected the company to come back with a counter offer. But they didn't. They agreed to my number. No doubt they thought I am worth what I asked for.
                            Last edited by The Berean; February 28th, 2020, 09:18 AM.
                            Your problem is not technology. The problem is YOU. You lack the will to change...You treat this planet as you treat each other. - Klaatu

                            What are you talking about? There is no such thing as the "Mafia"......it doesn't exist. Just a bunch of lies told to defame honest hardworking Italians like myself. - TomO

                            I will do you, let's see, goofy, wacky, and to the left side of the bell curve
                            . -Ktoyou

                            I'm white. I'm not black. I can't convert to being black. It doesn't matter how much I want to become black. I could listen to rap and date fat white women all day; for all that, I'll still remain white.- Traditio

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by ok doser View Post

                              You don't get it

                              All former norms for presidential elections went out the window when Obama ran as our first affirmative action candidate and won

                              Inexperienced and unqualified for the job, he was hired primarily because of the color of his skin.

                              And so, we get a reality TV star POTUS, facing off against a homo whose only executive experience has been as mayor of a small town in Podunk USA and a 94 year old weirdo who venerates Stalin and Hitler
                              The reality is that America "blacks" have a long history of voting for "white" candidates - unfortunately the same can't be said for their "white" counterparts!

                              With the possible exception of Harry Truman, former businessman have made notoriously bad presidents and Trump will be remembered as the worst of the lot!

                              Presidents who were former businessmen
                              ************************************************
                              Warren Harding (1921-23) - former newspaper publisher
                              - ranked 42nd

                              Calvin Coolidge (1923-29) - former vice president of a bank
                              - ranked 27th

                              Jimmy Carter (1977-81) - peanut farmer (previously governor of Georgia)
                              - ranked 26th

                              GHW Bushesident (1989-93) - oil industry executive
                              - ranked 17th

                              GW Bush (2001-09) - former oil and gas executive, Major League Baseball team co-owner (Texas Rangers)
                              -ranked 35th

                              Herbert Hoover (1929-33) - former mining engineer and executive
                              - ranked 39th

                              https://www.bankrate.com/finance/pol...1.aspx#slide=8
                              Last edited by jgarden; February 28th, 2020, 03:31 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by jgarden View Post
                                The reality is that America "blacks" have a long history of voting for "white" candidates - unfortunately the same can't be said for their "white" counterparts!

                                With the possible exception of Harry Truman, former businessman have made notoriously bad presidents and Trump will be remembered as the worst of the lot!

                                Presidents who were former businessmen
                                ************************************************
                                Warren Harding - Former newspaper publisher
                                - ranked 42nd

                                Calvin Cooledge

                                Jimmy Carter

                                GHW Bush

                                GW Bush

                                Herbert Hoover

                                https://www.bankrate.com/finance/pol...1.aspx#slide=8
                                Historically, we have chosen as POTUS those candidates who have high level executive experience - primarily former Governors and former Vice Presidents - Bush2, Clinton, Bush1, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson. You have to go all the way back to JFK to find an exxception to this rule, and JFK came to the job with wartime executive miltary experience and 13 years of experience in Congress

                                Obama opened the door to novelty candidates

                                you have a similar situation in the north, with your former school teacher/leader struggling to deal with your society fraying at the seams

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X