[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
orion wrote:
If however unions keep the price of labor high this shift does not happen and lots of people remain unemployed while does in the union have a cushy job.
Funny I have a career with a union backing me and I don’t consider my job “cushy”…[/quote]
Compared to what?
[quote]orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Unaware wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
What I find pretty funny is we expect a raise every year, no matter what we did in the previous year, but get mad when a company is looking at for their best interest. Did you do anything above and beyond this year to deserve a raise or a bonus? IMO, if I owned a business, I wouldn’t give raises to employees that just show up and do their job. If they went above and beyond then I would absolutely reward them, but in today’s world people expect to get more than they deserve for less.
Honestly just look back a few decades and you will see workers today have many more rights then in the past. Companies are required to pay time and a half, for example, if an employee works over 40 hours. Another example is minimum wage up to $7 something this year. Hell look at unemployment, there is a possibility this rights will be extended again because of the recession.
Remember a company is taking all the risk, especially if it isn’t a corporation, and has to continue to invest in the company to stay competitive. We just have to collect our check and look for another job if the company goes belly up. A partnership could go into millions of dollars of debt if they run their business poorly while we have no liability what so ever.
There is a labor market, it is a commodity. If labor does not force the employers to recognize their value, they will never make more money. Most people that labor do not even stay current with inflation
So why do most places pay over minimum wage after you’ve worked there a while? I didn’t have to “force” my employer to pay me more than minimum wage.
Supply and Demand
Ahhhhh!
So it seems that capitalists are competing when it comes to qualified workers?
Yes to a degree, I would say the more education your job requires the more value you have. When I say education I use the term loosely.
It is your labor positions where you have a lot more workers than you have positions. That needs organized labor
That would mean that the amount of positions is fixed.
Alas, it is not.
Human labor is a means of production and competes with others. If it becomes cheaper the market shifts to using less capital and more human labor.
If however unions keep the price of labor high this shift does not happen and lots of people remain unemployed while does in the union have a cushy job.
[/quote]
You and I have had this discussion before, I know you can create a new angle to generate income but the way to create wealth in America is to export goods and services and quit
exporting our money, we need to import every body elseâ??s money
I know having no union is what is best for the bottom line; another option would be tighter regulation
The American Governments is supposed to work for the people not Corporations. I am not against Business; I do think we should restructure the CORP.
I think if you want cheap labor you should go to Vietnam and pay a tariff to import your goods the tariff could be avoided if you want to pay your Vietnamese workers a fair wage.
If you want to see Business at its core goes to one of these third word countries and watch how they will squabble with an employee for a penny when the product in America sells for a HUNDRED DOLLARS.
They go to these countries to exploit their workers, and I know you think we should embrace being exploited
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
It means no such thing. Generally higher wages (or the knowledge that better work will lead to better wages) means better/more work. It also equals more buying power.
Only a libertarian could make high wages bad and parasitic profit rates good.
[/quote]
The goal is not to have to work more but rather to work less – capitalism provides that ability by capital accumulation. Capital goods become more abundant than labor so then wages must rise. Under this model people can actually retire.
Socialism is the exact opposite because it creates work that is not necessary and thus consumes capital. As a result everyone is worse off and no one can really retire unless they have slaves to take care of them – i.e., social security.
Buying power comes from being productive. The more goods created the cheaper they must become. Really, you do not even understand something as simple as supply and demand
Higher wages means less employment for the marginally productive – why pay more for some laborer who only pushes a broom? An employer will only pay someone to only push a broom if his business is profitable.
Without profits workers would not receive higher wages year after year. Do you not understand that a raise can only happen if a company is profitable first. If it is not a business owner must take out a loan to pay his employees. Some people will lose their jobs. Paying higher wages does not make the workers work more – it just makes them more expensive and less productive by definition – goods produced per unit cost. And again less goods mean more expensive goods and more people are thus worse off.
It is simple logic and you lack any ability with it.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
it benefits the masses
How?
The masses including the skilled laborer makes more money
But how can the masses be better off if raising wages leads to less productivity which by necessity it must? Less productivity means higher consumer prices. Are not consumers also part of the “masses”. So laborers make a marginally higher wage but they must ultimately pay higher prices for the same goods they produce.
So again, how does organized labor benefit the masses?
We are talking about workers being better off, the companies probably take a hit and the consumer takes a hit that goes to the worker. But the down side is that a strong union breeds sloth. We are talking about workers being better off, the companies probably take a hit and the consumer takes a hit that goes to the worker. But the down side is that a strong union breeds sloth. [/quote]
You said the “masses” would be better off. I am just pointing out only the laborers would be better off and everyone else is worse off – so therefore you are wrong.
Though, in the long run marginally productive laborers would be worse off because fewer of them would even be able to find work.
[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:
the basis for capitalism is maximizing profit. if a company could, it would still make use of slavery because zero wages means higher profits. as long as capitalism exists the interest of the companies will be adverse to that of the employees. to a company, a human being is just a commodity. they dont have a column for the suffereing a laid off worker goes through on their stat sheet.[/quote]
You are wrong. Slavery makes people less productive. No business owner would choose to be less productive because he would not be as profitable as he otherwise could. Plus, it takes too much effort to take care of slaves. It is backward and capitalism actually made it understood that slavery cannot work to advance society.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
it benefits the masses
How?
The masses including the skilled laborer makes more money
But how can the masses be better off if raising wages leads to less productivity which by necessity it must? Less productivity means higher consumer prices. Are not consumers also part of the “masses”. So laborers make a marginally higher wage but they must ultimately pay higher prices for the same goods they produce.
So again, how does organized labor benefit the masses?
We are talking about workers being better off, the companies probably take a hit and the consumer takes a hit that goes to the worker. But the down side is that a strong union breeds sloth. We are talking about workers being better off, the companies probably take a hit and the consumer takes a hit that goes to the worker. But the down side is that a strong union breeds sloth.
You said the “masses” would be better off. I am just pointing out only the laborers would be better off and everyone else is worse off – so therefore you are wrong.
Though, in the long run marginally productive laborers would be worse off because fewer of them would even be able to find work.[/quote]
I am pointing out that the consumers are the only one making out when the employers dictate the wages, And there would be a lot more consumption if everyone made a livable wage SO YOU ARE WRONG 
I do not think that actually but you are the one that is into only one way mentality
[quote]orion wrote:What are “high” wages?
What profits are “parasitic”?
Both are market signals without any intrinsic emotional connotation.[/quote]
Neither term I used contains any “emotional” connotation. “High” wages would be “high relative to similar positions,” or what have you. Wall Street bonuses would certainly be an example of “parasitic” rates of profit. As some others have noted, it’s getting to the point where the management is butting heads with shareholders, parties whose interests are supposed to roughly coincide.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
it benefits the masses
How?
The masses including the skilled laborer makes more money
But how can the masses be better off if raising wages leads to less productivity which by necessity it must? Less productivity means higher consumer prices. Are not consumers also part of the “masses”. So laborers make a marginally higher wage but they must ultimately pay higher prices for the same goods they produce.
So again, how does organized labor benefit the masses?
We are talking about workers being better off, the companies probably take a hit and the consumer takes a hit that goes to the worker. But the down side is that a strong union breeds sloth. We are talking about workers being better off, the companies probably take a hit and the consumer takes a hit that goes to the worker. But the down side is that a strong union breeds sloth.
You said the “masses” would be better off. I am just pointing out only the laborers would be better off and everyone else is worse off – so therefore you are wrong.
Though, in the long run marginally productive laborers would be worse off because fewer of them would even be able to find work.
I am pointing out that the consumers are the only one making out when the employers dictate the wages, And there would be a lot more consumption if everyone made a livable wage SO YOU ARE WRONG I do not think that actually but you are the one that is into only one way mentality[/quote]
But workers ARE consumers too! Everyone! is a consumer.
Markets dictate wages not employers.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:What are “high” wages?
What profits are “parasitic”?
Both are market signals without any intrinsic emotional connotation.
Neither term I used contains any “emotional” connotation. “High” wages would be “high relative to similar positions,” or what have you. Wall Street bonuses would certainly be an example of “parasitic” rates of profit. As some others have noted, it’s getting to the point where the management is butting heads with shareholders, parties whose interests are supposed to roughly coincide.
[/quote]
There is no butting heads-there never will be.
If shareholders do not want to pay said wages anymore they no longer will.
As long as they are willing to do that they expect to get even more than themselves out of it.
So, as long as the shareholder pay their salaries, as high as they may be, it is worth it to the shareholder who are incidentally the ones who also pay it.
Since value is strictly subjective this is really all that matters and those salaries cannot be “parasitic”. The host expects to benefit. The word is “symbiotic”.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:The goal is not to have to work more but rather to work less – capitalism provides that ability by capital accumulation. Capital goods become more abundant than labor so then wages must rise. Under this model people can actually retire.
Socialism is the exact opposite because it creates work that is not necessary and thus consumes capital. As a result everyone is worse off and no one can really retire unless they have slaves to take care of them – i.e., social security.[/quote]
As I thought, you have no idea what the goals of socialism are. No wonder you’re so vehemently against it; you have a wrong idea of it. The goal in socialism is also to work less. In fact, I believe it was a lot of socialistic individuals, not capitalists, that secured the 10, then the 8 hour workday. It is the socialists who propose the 30-hour workweek.
Of course, and higher wages more often than not spell higher productivity, as Adam Smith noted.
First, the employee might be more productive if he knew there was a strong possibility he would be liberally rewarded for better work. Isn’t that the whole idea behind capitalism? Why do you deny this opportunity to workers? It is the knowledge that better work is rarely rewarded in a commensurable manner that gives rise to this “laziness.” Bad work for bad wages. Labor is this person’s only real asset. Why should he not seek to dispose of it under terms as favorable to him as possible? Is this not what you laud capitalists for?
Profits, in the proper sense (revenues-expenses) have nothing to do with wages. Wages are paid before profits are taken. We can see then, that profit is by no means essential, or even connected with higher wages. They both proceed from the same thing. Higher revenues are necessary for both, but once that revenue is collected, we need not distribute any of it in the form of profits. Wages are sufficient. Of course management, etc. needs to be rewarded for their work, but no convincing argument can be made that this should be done any differently than other forms of work. Pay them well, but pay them a wage.
Even if this were true, wages in the US at least, have not even matched productivity. Even when productivity goes up, wages do not. Something is clearly wrong when a worker is not rewarded for higher productivity, and the management gains the additional reward made possible by his labor, and this is seen as good and natural.
A pity–you’ve occupied your libertarian fantasy world so long, you’ve forgotten what logic is.
Oh, so those articles I’ve read with shareholders complaining about excessive executive compensation are just made up, or something?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
it benefits the masses
How?
The masses including the skilled laborer makes more money
But how can the masses be better off if raising wages leads to less productivity which by necessity it must? Less productivity means higher consumer prices. Are not consumers also part of the “masses”. So laborers make a marginally higher wage but they must ultimately pay higher prices for the same goods they produce.
So again, how does organized labor benefit the masses?
We are talking about workers being better off, the companies probably take a hit and the consumer takes a hit that goes to the worker. But the down side is that a strong union breeds sloth. We are talking about workers being better off, the companies probably take a hit and the consumer takes a hit that goes to the worker. But the down side is that a strong union breeds sloth.
You said the “masses” would be better off. I am just pointing out only the laborers would be better off and everyone else is worse off – so therefore you are wrong.
Though, in the long run marginally productive laborers would be worse off because fewer of them would even be able to find work.
I am pointing out that the consumers are the only one making out when the employers dictate the wages, And there would be a lot more consumption if everyone made a livable wage SO YOU ARE WRONG I do not think that actually but you are the one that is into only one way mentality
But workers ARE consumers too! Everyone! is a consumer.
Markets dictate wages not employers.[/quote]
If you do not think that employers do not pay attention to what other employers of the same industry are payingâ?? we are wasting our time, if everybody has a raise in a certain industry then everybody will have to charge more money or the employers will have to make less profit, no worse than the employees making less money.
[quote]orion wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:What are “high” wages?
What profits are “parasitic”?
Both are market signals without any intrinsic emotional connotation.
Neither term I used contains any “emotional” connotation. “High” wages would be “high relative to similar positions,” or what have you. Wall Street bonuses would certainly be an example of “parasitic” rates of profit. As some others have noted, it’s getting to the point where the management is butting heads with shareholders, parties whose interests are supposed to roughly coincide.
There is no butting heads-there never will be.
If shareholders do not want to pay said wages anymore they no longer will.
As long as they are willing to do that they expect to get even more than themselves out of it.
So, as long as the shareholder pay their salaries, as high as they may be, it is worth it to the shareholder who are incidentally the ones who also pay it.
Since value is strictly subjective this is really all that matters and those salaries cannot be “parasitic”. The host expects to benefit. The word is “symbiotic”.
[/quote]
Share holders have very lttle power, The ones in power want to remain so.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:There is no butting heads-there never will be.
Oh, so those articles I’ve read with shareholders complaining about excessive executive compensation are just made up, or something?
[/quote]
They can complain all the want as long as they keep their money in the company they obviously prefer it to the alternatives available to them.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:What are “high” wages?
What profits are “parasitic”?
Both are market signals without any intrinsic emotional connotation.
Neither term I used contains any “emotional” connotation. “High” wages would be “high relative to similar positions,” or what have you. Wall Street bonuses would certainly be an example of “parasitic” rates of profit. As some others have noted, it’s getting to the point where the management is butting heads with shareholders, parties whose interests are supposed to roughly coincide.
There is no butting heads-there never will be.
If shareholders do not want to pay said wages anymore they no longer will.
As long as they are willing to do that they expect to get even more than themselves out of it.
So, as long as the shareholder pay their salaries, as high as they may be, it is worth it to the shareholder who are incidentally the ones who also pay it.
Since value is strictly subjective this is really all that matters and those salaries cannot be “parasitic”. The host expects to benefit. The word is “symbiotic”.
Share holders have very lttle power, The ones in power want to remain so. [/quote]
They can always walk away.
You more collectivist oriented types never seem to get how important that is.
[quote]orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:What are “high” wages?
What profits are “parasitic”?
Both are market signals without any intrinsic emotional connotation.
Neither term I used contains any “emotional” connotation. “High” wages would be “high relative to similar positions,” or what have you. Wall Street bonuses would certainly be an example of “parasitic” rates of profit. As some others have noted, it’s getting to the point where the management is butting heads with shareholders, parties whose interests are supposed to roughly coincide.
There is no butting heads-there never will be.
If shareholders do not want to pay said wages anymore they no longer will.
As long as they are willing to do that they expect to get even more than themselves out of it.
So, as long as the shareholder pay their salaries, as high as they may be, it is worth it to the shareholder who are incidentally the ones who also pay it.
Since value is strictly subjective this is really all that matters and those salaries cannot be “parasitic”. The host expects to benefit. The word is “symbiotic”.
Share holders have very lttle power, The ones in power want to remain so.
They can always walk away.
You more collectivist oriented types never seem to get how important that is.
[/quote]
You cannot walk away if you want to maximize your investments, do you have any money in the market ?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:What are “high” wages?
What profits are “parasitic”?
Both are market signals without any intrinsic emotional connotation.
Neither term I used contains any “emotional” connotation. “High” wages would be “high relative to similar positions,” or what have you. Wall Street bonuses would certainly be an example of “parasitic” rates of profit. As some others have noted, it’s getting to the point where the management is butting heads with shareholders, parties whose interests are supposed to roughly coincide.
There is no butting heads-there never will be.
If shareholders do not want to pay said wages anymore they no longer will.
As long as they are willing to do that they expect to get even more than themselves out of it.
So, as long as the shareholder pay their salaries, as high as they may be, it is worth it to the shareholder who are incidentally the ones who also pay it.
Since value is strictly subjective this is really all that matters and those salaries cannot be “parasitic”. The host expects to benefit. The word is “symbiotic”.
Share holders have very lttle power, The ones in power want to remain so.
They can always walk away.
You more collectivist oriented types never seem to get how important that is.
You cannot walk away if you want to maximize your investments, do you have any money in the market ?[/quote]
So if you want the best outcome you stay in them?
Um yeah, they are your best bet now.
But you do not welcome the save haven, you think they charge too high a fee?
Then turn your boat around and face the stormy seas.
[quote]orion wrote:
lanchefan1 wrote:
orion wrote:
If however unions keep the price of labor high this shift does not happen and lots of people remain unemployed while does in the union have a cushy job.
Funny I have a career with a union backing me and I don’t consider my job “cushy”…
Compared to what?
[/quote]
What I did previously in an office job where I sat on my ass all day, set my own schedule and could work from home whenever I felt like. If you think all union jobs are cushy you are very misguided.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:The goal is not to have to work more but rather to work less – capitalism provides that ability by capital accumulation. Capital goods become more abundant than labor so then wages must rise. Under this model people can actually retire.
Socialism is the exact opposite because it creates work that is not necessary and thus consumes capital. As a result everyone is worse off and no one can really retire unless they have slaves to take care of them – i.e., social security.
As I thought, you have no idea what the goals of socialism are. No wonder you’re so vehemently against it; you have a wrong idea of it. The goal in socialism is also to work less. In fact, I believe it was a lot of socialistic individuals, not capitalists, that secured the 10, then the 8 hour workday. It is the socialists who propose the 30-hour workweek.[/quote]
How can socialism create less work if it requires planners? Do you not see that THAT will cause more work? You cannot command how much work people should or should not do. Only wealth creation can determine that. Obviously the more stuff one has the less they have to work. If I have to hire some middle man that requires stuff to live off of and he does not replace that stuff then I have to work more to support him. I am actually less wealthy because of the parasites under socialism.
I know exactly what socialism is. It is government largess and inefficiency.
[quote]
Buying power comes from being productive. The more goods created the cheaper they must become. Really, you do not even understand something as simple as supply and demand
Of course, and higher wages more often than not spell higher productivity, as Adam Smith noted.[/quote]
How? Please explain why someone would necessarily be more productive because they are paid more. How much more should he be paid? Who determines that?
[quote]
Higher wages means less employment for the marginally productive – why pay more for some laborer who only pushes a broom? An employer will only pay someone to only push a broom if his business is profitable.
First, the employee might be more productive if he knew there was a strong possibility he would be liberally rewarded for better work. Isn’t that the whole idea behind capitalism? Why do you deny this opportunity to workers? It is the knowledge that better work is rarely rewarded in a commensurable manner that gives rise to this “laziness.” Bad work for bad wages. Labor is this person’s only real asset. Why should he not seek to dispose of it under terms as favorable to him as possible? Is this not what you laud capitalists for?[/quote]
Workers have to be produvtive first and then be rewarded. As it is the employer does not get paid until there is a profit how can he pay workers more than a market wage and stay in business? Once the company is profitable he can increase wages marginally and not until then. If he does not then that worker is free to find other work.
[quote]
Without profits workers would not receive higher wages year after year. Do you not understand that a raise can only happen if a company is profitable first. If it is not a business owner must take out a loan to pay his employees. Some people will lose their jobs. Paying higher wages does not make the workers work more – it just makes them more expensive and less productive by definition – goods produced per unit cost. And again less goods mean more expensive goods and more people are thus worse off.
Profits, in the proper sense (revenues-expenses) have nothing to do with wages. Wages are paid before profits are taken. We can see then, that profit is by no means essential, or even connected with higher wages. They both proceed from the same thing. Higher revenues are necessary for both, but once that revenue is collected, we need not distribute any of it in the form of profits. Wages are sufficient. Of course management, etc. needs to be rewarded for their work, but no convincing argument can be made that this should be done any differently than other forms of work. Pay them well, but pay them a wage.[/quote]
Yes wages are paid first but why should an employee pay more than the market rate? Would he not go out of business? The owner bears all the risk and no reward if he is punished by paying higher than market rates. He would not even enter into competition if this were the case.
[quote]
Paying higher wages does not make the workers work more – it just makes them more expensive and less productive by definition
Even if this were true, wages in the US at least, have not even matched productivity. Even when productivity goes up, wages do not. Something is clearly wrong when a worker is not rewarded for higher productivity, and the management gains the additional reward made possible by his labor, and this is seen as good and natural.[/quote]
It is true. And you have yet to explain any of your hand waving.
Where are workers in the US not rewarded for their productivity? I think it is you who lives in fantasy land.
Value is subjective and you do not even have a way to measure what a “reward” is. Is it 3%, 5%, 7.7%, 10%…15%…20%?
What magical number is it? Who gets to decide in your socialist utopia? The “People”?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
If you do not think that employers do not pay attention to what other employers of the same industry are payingâ??[/quote]
That is the market. Workers also pay attention to what other employers are paying too. That is how competition works.
Yes, you are wasting my time.