The 99/% need a raise

[Tigger]

Deserve according to who ... you???

According to what the average worker is putting out in the way of a profitable product compared to what the employer is already paying for them.

The American productivity has gone up exponentially ...

Only because we've mechanized and/or automated many of the processes. The average worker is doing considerably less work, less skilled work, and requires more supervision to do it than probably ever before in the history of this nation.

What the average american "deserves" is arbitrary and has nothing to do with the capitalist system.

It's not arbitrary at all. It's a function of the amount of work you do, the amount of skill and education required to do it, and the ability to do it properly the first time without continuous oversight and supervision. None of which the average worker in this country has any interest in these days. Our cahiers require a machine to make basic change. Our service station attendants don't even pump your gas or wash your windows anymore. I could go on, but I'm pretty sure you know what I'm talking about.

 

[Dragonfly]

Never ceases to amaze me how many will rabidly defend the hyper-elite while simultaneously condemning the less-fortunate.

Especially considering they're most likely much closer to being aligned with the less-fortunate in every way.

 

[RGacky3]

According to what the average worker is putting out in the way of a profitable product compared to what the employer is already paying for them.

The worker deserves 100% of the value he's creating ... which would mean quite a bit looking at the profitability of capitalist enterprises that use minimum wage workers.

Only because we've mechanized and/or automated many of the processes. The average worker is doing considerably less work, less skilled work, and requires more supervision to do it than probably ever before in the history of this nation.

So what .... The value they are producing is still more.

It's not arbitrary at all. It's a function of the amount of work you do, the amount of skill and education required to do it, and the ability to do it properly the first time without continuous oversight and supervision. None of which the average worker in this country has any interest in these days. Our cahiers require a machine to make basic change. Our service station attendants don't even pump your gas or wash your windows anymore. I could go on, but I'm pretty sure you know what I'm talking about.

No, in Capitalism you are paid what the worker can get away with paying you .... they'd pay everyone the lowest wage possible if they could.

Also you have NO IDEA what the average worker is interested in, you also don't take into consideration the personal fulfillment of the job or enjoyability.

Either way, workers should get the highest pay they are able to get.

The best way to do that is to band together and take over the institions that make those decisions.

 

[Fletch]

What the average american "deserves" is arbitrary and has nothing to do with the capitalist system.

But it isnot arbitrary, though. Your wage is based upon a number of factors--the skill required to do the job, the availability of employees, your personal ability, wages paid for similar work-- none of them arbitrary.

Well, depends on what the workers threaten you with ...

The only legitimate threat my employees can muster is to demand a higher wage or leave my employment. But that option has been open to them from the start.

No ... we don't .... in the system now, our freedom and our say is only as much as our bank account.

Freedom, or liberty, refers to the political realm. It is freedom from coercision or the rue by physical force. You, and he left, always move freedom from the political to the economic. That a person is poor does not mean he has less freedom, it means he has ess wealth. Freedom is in the ability to acquire wealth, which every American possesses.

Historically it has, and it always will require government to exist ... Without government Capitalism would have collapsed decades ago.

Cpitalism is just you and me exchanging value for value. That sort of thing exists in Somalia (no government) and to a lesser degree in North Korea (tyrannical government). You dont enact capitalism, you grant people their rightful liberty and capitalism is the result. Capitalism, properly understood, is just human liberty in the field of economics. Government is necessary to act as a facilitator and a guarantor of rights, which makes capitalism flourish.

 

[RGacky3]

But it isnot arbitrary, though. Your wage is based upon a number of factors--the skill required to do the job, the availability of employees, your personal ability, wages paid for similar work-- none of them arbitrary.

Thats what is paid ... not what is deserved ....

Thats why a Bus Driver in bangladesh and Sweden are paid much different wages.

The only legitimate threat my employees can muster is to demand a higher wage or leave my employment. But that option has been open to them from the start.

Or strike, or sitdown strike, or just takeover the workplace, when workers get together there's a lot they can do.

Freedom, or liberty, refers to the political realm. It is freedom from coercision or the rue by physical force. You, and he left, always move freedom from the political to the economic. That a person is poor does not mean he has less freedom, it means he has ess wealth. Freedom is in the ability to acquire wealth, which every American possesses.

Well I am coerced by physical force to respect property laws I don't agree with, property laws that are by definition exclusionary and have nothing to do with individual rights.

And yeah, I move freedom to the economic because theoretical freedom is worthless without practical freedom.

And no, not every American has the ability to aquire wealth in this system, you need money to make money.

Cpitalism is just you and me exchanging value for value. That sort of thing exists in Somalia (no government) and to a lesser degree in North Korea (tyrannical government). You dont enact capitalism, you grant people their rightful liberty and capitalism is the result. Capitalism, properly understood, is just human liberty in the field of economics. Government is necessary to act as a facilitator and a guarantor of rights, which makes capitalism flourish.

No trade is not Capitalism, capitalism started after feudalism, its profit (value extraction), the cpaitalist mode of production, and absolute private property.

If you want to re-define Capitalism as just stuff without government then communism, collectivism and everything is capitalism ....

But eitherway, Capitalism as defined by almost everyone, requires a government, as a system of running an economy.

 

[tessaesque]

Most minimum wage jobs are in fast food and lower-level retail. Does the guy at the fryer really need to make $10 an hour to pour fries into a basket and hit a button? Is that job really worth $10 an hour?

That's the problem with the minimum wage. It takes jobs that aren't worth the mandated minimum wage and forces those jobs to be paid that minimum. It thereby drives up costs and leads to price increases that effect everybody, including that minimum wage guy. Milk would STILL take 30 minutes to earn because the price would go up in response to wages.

What we need to do is stop focusing on the minimum wage as some sort of saving grace and start using minimum wage jobs as they were intended to be used: by those still in school or seeking supplemental income. Then we can focus on educating our society so grown ass men with kids to feed aren't working the fryer at McDonald's expecting to survive.

 

[Tigger]

The worker deserves 100% of the value he's creating ... which would mean quite a bit looking at the profitability of capitalist enterprises that use minimum wage workers.

True.... minus the pro-rated cost of the materials, equipment, and facilities that their employer allows them to use in order to create that value. The worker at the Toyota factory may produce $500,000 worth of automobiles in a shift, but they are utilizing millions of dollars of materials, equipment, and facilities which they are not supplying, to do it. Those additional costs need to be factored into the equation, as do any additional benefits (vacation, health insurance, etc....) that the employer pays for.

So what .... The value they are producing is still more.

Yes, mostly because they are being removed from the equation. Sam Colt and Henry Ford didn't come up with the ideas of interchangeable parts and the assembly line because they had nothing better to do. They came up with these things so that you could get more production out of a less skilled workforce. That is magnified exponentially nowadays with the addition of the computer and automation/robotics doing many of the tasks a human had to do as recently as a decade ago. Who is really investing their "capital" (time, money, ingenuity, etc...) in these products? I would suggest it's the employer much more than the employee most of the time.

No, in Capitalism you are paid what the worker can get away with paying you .... they'd pay everyone the lowest wage possible if they could.

Yes, and they do. For most of the employees I see these days, that's exactly what they deserve. I wouldn't hire most minimum wage employees to dig a post hole for me these days. I could likely do it quicker, easier, and more effeciently myself even though I do not care to engage in that type of labor. It wouldn't be cost effective for me to do that.

Also you have NO IDEA what the average worker is interested in, you also don't take into consideration the personal fulfillment of the job or enjoyability.

LOL. Personal fulfillment and/or job enjoyability? Thanks. I needed that laugh. I work because I get paid. If I don't get paid, I don't work. It's that simple. Personal fulfillment and job enjoyability have nothing to do with it. Paying my bills has everything to do with it. Back in January the company I work for had an accounting issue and we didn't get paid on a particular Thursday. The money still wasn't there on Friday. The Union informed the company that if the money wasn't there on Saturday morning they were instructing all employees to walk off the job. ALMOST NOBODY in this country who doesn't work for themselves works for personal fulfillment or job enjoyabilitiy.

Either way, workers should get the highest pay they are able to get. The best way to do that is to band together and take over the institions that make those decisions.

No. The best way to do that is to make themselves irreplacable to the employer by providing a high-quality, skilled and professional service which is indespendible to the company, and to do it at a FAIR rate. One of the ways to do that is by organizing and unionizing in the appropriate settings. Another is to ensure that you are providing an invaluable service to your employer and looking out for their best interests as much as possible.

 

[Tigger]

What we need to do is stop focusing on the minimum wage as some sort of saving grace and start using minimum wage jobs as they were intended to be used: by those still in school or seeking supplemental income. Then we can focus on educating our society so grown ass men with kids to feed aren't working the fryer at McDonald's expecting to survive.

Exactly. Minimum Wage was never intended to be a wage that you supported yourself on, nevermind trying to support a family on.

 

[Fletch]

Thats what is paid ... not what is deserved ....

Thats why a Bus Driver in bangladesh and Sweden are paid much different wages.

Do you wish your wages to be determined by those paid in Bangladesh?

Or strike, or sitdown strike, or just takeover the workplace, when workers get together there's a lot they can do.

And I can fire the lot of them for doing so. But I must add that "takeover the workplace" can only be done through physical force. YOu would have to explain where you and your fellow employees get the right to do that to me and my property. You must no oppose me taking over your home or "livingplace" by that standard.

Well I am coerced by physical force to respect property laws I don't agree with, property laws that are by definition exclusionary and have nothing to do with individual rights.

My individual rights include the acquisition of property.

And yeah, I move freedom to the economic because theoretical freedom is worthless without practical freedom.

Try practical freedom without property rights and let me know how that works out.

And no, not every American has the ability to aquire wealth in this system, you need money to make money.]/quote]No, you can make money through labor. In fact, that is exactly what we are discussing.

No trade is not Capitalism, capitalism started after feudalism, its profit (value extraction), the cpaitalist mode of production, and absolute private property.

If you want to re-define Capitalism as just stuff without government then communism, collectivism and everything is capitalism ....

But eitherway, Capitalism as defined by almost everyone, requires a government, as a system of running an economy.

Government running the economy is the opposite of capitalism. So if that is how 'almost everyone' defines it, almost everyone is wrong. Capitalism is the free market, a theoretically unregulated or lassaize faire environment, not a government controlled one.

 

[Tucker Case]

The lesson here?

Buy a couple of goats.

 

[RGacky3]

True.... minus the pro-rated cost of the materials, equipment, and facilities that their employer allows them to use in order to create that value. The worker at the Toyota factory may produce $500,000 worth of automobiles in a shift, but they are utilizing millions of dollars of materials, equipment, and facilities which they are not supplying, to do it. Those additional costs need to be factored into the equation, as do any additional benefits (vacation, health insurance, etc....) that the employer pays for.

Yeah, the employer pays for with wealth created by the workers, and he buys it from other capitalists who have it because the workers created it.

Yes, mostly because they are being removed from the equation. Sam Colt and Henry Ford didn't come up with the ideas of interchangeable parts and the assembly line because they had nothing better to do. They came up with these things so that you could get more production out of a less skilled workforce. That is magnified exponentially nowadays with the addition of the computer and automation/robotics doing many of the tasks a human had to do as recently as a decade ago. Who is really investing their "capital" (time, money, ingenuity, etc...) in these products? I would suggest it's the employer much more than the employee most of the time.

When I say Capitalist I mean people who make money from money, people can be both workers and capitalists at the same time in different forms.

Even if they ARE using technology, in a decent economy everyone would benefit from that economy (most of which actually comes from the state sector).

Yes, and they do. For most of the employees I see these days, that's exactly what they deserve. I wouldn't hire most minimum wage employees to dig a post hole for me these days. I could likely do it quicker, easier, and more effeciently myself even though I do not care to engage in that type of labor. It wouldn't be cost effective for me to do that.

Ok ... But the minimum wage workeres created most things you have in your house right now ...

Anyway, if all the workers got together and changed the system, it woudl be better for them, so they absolutely should.

LOL. Personal fulfillment and/or job enjoyability? Thanks. I needed that laugh. I work because I get paid. If I don't get paid, I don't work. It's that simple. Personal fulfillment and job enjoyability have nothing to do with it. Paying my bills has everything to do with it. Back in January the company I work for had an accounting issue and we didn't get paid on a particular Thursday. The money still wasn't there on Friday. The Union informed the company that if the money wasn't there on Saturday morning they were instructing all employees to walk off the job. ALMOST NOBODY in this country who doesn't work for themselves works for personal fulfillment or job enjoyabilitiy.

Really? You don't think an architect enjoys his job more than a guy in a sweatshop??? Or a teacher???

There have been studies on this BTW, so its not speculation.

BTW, I'm assuming your rich, since you think that compensation has only to do with personal worthiness ...

Interesting story about the Union, just shows what workers can do if they get together and fight for something.

No. The best way to do that is to make themselves irreplacable to the employer by providing a high-quality, skilled and professional service which is indespendible to the company, and to do it at a FAIR rate. One of the ways to do that is by organizing and unionizing in the appropriate settings. Another is to ensure that you are providing an invaluable service to your employer and looking out for their best interests as much as possible.

Personal improvement is good no matter what ... But that doesn't change systemic problems.

In addition to that one should fight to change the power structure within a company.

Also a FAIR rate, is whatever you can get ...

Do you wish your wages to be determined by those paid in Bangladesh?

.... No ... I'd rather Sweden ... my point is there is no objective measure of what labor something is "worth" in Capitalism.

And I can fire the lot of them for doing so. But I must add that "takeover the workplace" can only be done through physical force. YOu would have to explain where you and your fellow employees get the right to do that to me and my property. You must no oppose me taking over your home or "livingplace" by that standard.

Good luck with firing all your workforce and having a company.

Also the takeover the workplace doesn't requrie physical force, all it requres is no longer taking instructions from the boss and keeping the value of their labor.

I don't consider Capitalist property to be valid property, I do consider housing and other personal possessions to be.

My individual rights include the acquisition of property.

According to you, According to me rights include having a say over the things that directly affect you.

Try practical freedom without property rights and let me know how that works out.

See Anarchist Catelonia ... It worked out pretty fine.

BTW, I'm not against all property rights.

No, you can make money through labor. In fact, that is exactly what we are discussing.

For most people not enough to aquire workable capital to start a buisienss and handle the risk.

Government running the economy is the opposite of capitalism. So if that is how 'almost everyone' defines it, almost everyone is wrong. Capitalism is the free market, a theoretically unregulated or lassaize faire environment, not a government controlled one.

No its not, there is no opposite of capitalism.

You can have a government running an economy that runs as a for profit entity and using the capital/labor relationship and acts like a private capitalist, thats capitalism.

Almost everyone cannot be wrong because thats how definitions work ....

Before governments there was no Capitalism ...

 

[imagep]

Here is what you can do: start your own business, cut your own pay and give all of your employees raises. Though I do get that it is much easier to demand that others do it.

As for whether or not you wish government to compel this sort of thing by force, of course you do. Socialists want to impose their vision not have it voluntarily agreed to. Besides, who else but the state can "introduce Workfare" which is nothing more than taking the possession of some and giving it to others.

Did most top level CEO's start the business that they receive multimillion dollar salaries from? I didn't know that.

 

[imagep]

I REALLY don't like socialism, but...

The worker deserves 100% of the value he's creating ... which would mean quite a bit looking at the profitability of capitalist enterprises that use minimum wage workers.

Yes, I have to agree that people should reap the rewards of what they produce, no more and no less.

 

[RGacky3]

Yes, I have to agree that people should reap the rewards of what they produce, no more and no less.

Then your basically a socialist ...

 

[choiceone]

The only legitimate threat my employees can muster is to demand a higher wage or leave my employment. But that option has been open to them from the start.

Excuse me. I thought you were the person who said that capitalism did not depend on government. If so, it cannot depend on the notion of legitimate threat. In capitalism in the state of nature, your employees could kill you, kill your family, take over your company and property, and institute a democratic rule in the company that would determine pay based first on the cost of living and only secondarily upon other considerations. So I think you underestimate just how much you owe the government.

 

[imagep]

Most minimum wage jobs are in fast food and lower-level retail. Does the guy at the fryer really need to make $10 an hour to pour fries into a basket and hit a button? Is that job really worth $10 an hour?

If the last CEO of GM was worth $7,211 an hour, and he was a terrible CEO loosing billions for GM, then most certainly a french fry cook who is producing hundreds of dollars worth of food per hour is work ten bucks an hour.

That's the problem with the minimum wage. It takes jobs that aren't worth the mandated minimum wage and forces those jobs to be paid that minimum.

When the average gdp per worker is well over $100k/yr, I scarcely see how you think that most minimum wage workers arn't producing at least $7.25/hr.

It thereby drives up costs and leads to price increases that effect everybody, including that minimum wage guy. Milk would STILL take 30 minutes to earn because the price would go up in response to wages.

Not to the minimum wage worker. The price of products produced by minimum wage worker contains only a small amount of "labor cost". I was once a manager at McDonalds, we spend about 15% of sales on labor. If we were to double minimum wage today, we would likely only see a one time inflationary event of few percent, and even then it would only be for products that are produced by companies that primarally pay minimum wage. A higher minimum wage wouldn't budge the price of a car, or the loan rates at the bank, or the price of a house, or the cost of jewerly, or the price of gas.

Believe me, the price of milk wouldn't double from doubling minimum wage.

 

[Dragonfly]

I would like to know why people that make south of (possibly significantly south of) $100,000 a year would vehemently defend the rights of the hyper-wealthy to make tens-of-millions a year plus stock options and signing bonuses and golden parachutes?

Why do the people that have to struggle to pay for education, rent, transportation, heat and ac, children, food, health care, retirement, and a vast laundry list of other expenses, also become fighting mad when any mention is made of cutting back the salaries of those that make, in one year, what many struggle to make in a lifetime?

Why do people think the hyper-rich NEED defending???

 

[choiceone]

LOL. Personal fulfillment and/or job enjoyability? Thanks. I needed that laugh. I work because I get paid. If I don't get paid, I don't work. It's that simple. Personal fulfillment and job enjoyability have nothing to do with it. Paying my bills has everything to do with it. Back in January the company I work for had an accounting issue and we didn't get paid on a particular Thursday. The money still wasn't there on Friday. The Union informed the company that if the money wasn't there on Saturday morning they were instructing all employees to walk off the job. ALMOST NOBODY in this country who doesn't work for themselves works for personal fulfillment or job enjoyabilitiy.

No professor, no lawyer, no doctor, no person with an interesting research job in engineering would say that. When you have work in your chosen field of study and you entered that field because you loved studying and practicing it, you do it for personal fulfillment, not just money. You don't want to retire and go do something else. You are talking about the vast majority, but that is because most of the work that is now available is not fulfilling work.

 

[imagep]

Then your basically a socialist ...

No, not at all. I believe that we can have fair salaries in a free market. It may require some legislation to do that, but legislation is not the same thing as socialism. I believe in a free market directed economy.

Title holders are entitled to a fair amount of compensation for the value (rental) of the title. Holding title and providing capital does has some value (although I do tend to agree with you that such value is minimal).

Managers and entrapanure types are certainly entitled to compensation for their labors. If a business owner creates value, then he should be compensated for such value created.

The difference between a normal managerial job and the job of the overpaid top corporate executive is that they normal manager is easily worth the $30k or $60k or even $150k that he makes, while no such justification can be made for the CEO making $15,000,000. The vast majority of workers earn their money, but a very large percent of people with salaries in excess $400k or so are recieving such income at the expense of others (directly or indirectly).

 

[Thunder]

the 99% includes folks who make $275,000 or less.

NO, not all of those people need a raise.

 

[imagep]

I would like to know why people that make south of (possibly significantly south of) $100,000 a year would vehemently defend the rights of the hyper-wealthy to make tens-of-millions a year plus stock options and signing bonuses and golden parachutes?

Why do the people that have to struggle to pay for education, rent, transportation, heat and ac, children, food, health care, retirement, and a vast laundry list of other expenses, also become fighting mad when any mention is made of cutting back the salaries of those that make, in one year, what many struggle to make in a lifetime?

Why do people think the hyper-rich NEED defending???

1) It is the macho viewpoint. Praise those who are financially successful, and scold those who are not.
2) Because they hold the dillusion that they will one day be rich.
3) Because they can not comprehend the difference between the figures. $1000 or 10000000 what the difference?

 

[choiceone]

But I must add that "takeover the workplace" can only be done through physical force. YOu would have to explain where you and your fellow employees get the right to do that to me and my property. You must no oppose me taking over your home or "livingplace" by that standard.
My individual rights include the acquisition of property.

Try practical freedom without property rights and let me know how that works out. . . .
Government running the economy is the opposite of capitalism. So if that is how 'almost everyone' defines it, almost everyone is wrong. Capitalism is the free market, a theoretically unregulated or lassaize faire environment, not a government controlled one.

Here again is your contradiction. If capitalism is truly free and does not depend on government, who's going to recognize and enforce your property rights? Certainly not your employees, because you do not have enough highly paid employees to keep the rest from killing you and your family and taking over your property and redistributing it among the employees.

 

[Fletch]

Excuse me. I thought you were the person who said that capitalism did not depend on government. If so, it cannot depend on the notion of legitimate threat. In capitalism in the state of nature, your employees could kill you, kill your family, take over your company and property, and institute a democratic rule in the company that would determine pay based first on the cost of living and only secondarily upon other considerations. So I think you underestimate just how much you owe the government.

Actually, I was clear on what role government plays. What you are descibing are rights violations, which it is the proper role of government to address.

 

[Dragonfly]

the 99% includes folks who make $275,000 or less.

NO, not all of those people need a raise.

Do any of the 1% that's left need a raise?

Which group would you prefer to get a raise?

 

[choiceone]

I would like to know why people that make south of (possibly significantly south of) $100,000 a year would vehemently defend the rights of the hyper-wealthy to make tens-of-millions a year plus stock options and signing bonuses and golden parachutes?

Why do the people that have to struggle to pay for education, rent, transportation, heat and ac, children, food, health care, retirement, and a vast laundry list of other expenses, also become fighting mad when any mention is made of cutting back the salaries of those that make, in one year, what many struggle to make in a lifetime?

Why do people think the hyper-rich NEED defending???

If you're referring to TEA PARTY types, it may be that they are secretly getting paid for their verbal support.