In reply to GameboyRMH :
Why would you be entitled to any company profits as a paid employee? You have zero skin in the game. You're being compensated for your skills, that it. That's the entire transaction.
In reply to GameboyRMH :
Why would you be entitled to any company profits as a paid employee? You have zero skin in the game. You're being compensated for your skills, that it. That's the entire transaction.
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
No wages should not be stagnant or constant. We should not be relying on technological advancement to attempt to deliver some intangible non-economic value that is only apparent in comparisons to the past. Whether it's delivering an improved standard of living overall against less affordable housing and education is also questionable. If we're all more productive, which the economic data shows that we are, we should all gain more from that productivity, not just a small fraction at the top. Pay did go up and wasn't constant or stagnant for many decades, and that's what created the most substantial increase in people's standards of living, by actually increasing their purchasing power. This previous healthy trend is why constant wages are referred to as stagnant.
Government spending alone affects inflation but it can't account for the stagnant or constant purchasing power - we can see money the government's taken stated plainly on our taxes and fairly easily measure inflation overall.
In reply to Steve_Jones :
Do executives and upper management have any more skin in the game? These are most of the people making all the money that the lower 91%+ isn't, and they're employees too. Often the worst career fallout an executive can suffer is a golden parachute to a retirement beyond the most stellar worker's wildest dreams.
Nokia employees helplessly watched Steve Elop take a sledgehammer to their company over the course of a few years, costing many of them their own jobs in the process, and for this miserable performance he was still paid a king's ransom.
GameboyRMH said:Government spending alone affects inflation but it can't account for the stagnant or constant purchasing power - we can see money the government's taken stated plainly on our taxes and fairly easily measure inflation overall.
Is that last paragraph really what you meant to say?
That seems like a pretty dramatic oversimplification since there are multiple influences on inflation, and government spending is just part of the equation.
It's the equivalent of stating that tire contact patch doesn't matter because surface area was ignored when learning about friction and only the coefficient of friction and normal force were used to calculate friction forces.
Sometimes things are presented in a simplified manner to make them easier to understand the concept, but to perform an accurate analysis you need to consider many more factors.
In reply to GameboyRMH :
They're getting compensated for the skills they bring to the table, just like any other employee. You might not think they're worth it, but someone there does, or they wouldn't get hired. An employee is an expense to the business. Profit is what's left after expenses. They're not getting "part of the profits and lower paid employees are not". Do you have any clue on how a business works?
I'll ask again, why does anyone deserve over market value for the skills they have? Why would someone pay you more vs the others with your skill set?
In reply to Steve_Jones :
People deserve over "market value" for the skills they have because the "market value" of their skills is in effect being artificially suppressed through inter-company board-level collusion. It's not exactly price-fixing scheme for wages, but practically all publicly-traded companies have decided to take productivity gains since the '70s off the table for most employees and essentially pay them inflation-adjusted disco-era wages out of what's left, and smaller companies who don't have a board either can't afford to pay better or are happy to go along with the same wage scales, so the effect is the same.
I don't think I suggested that any one employee should be paid more than others with the same skill set.
In reply to GameboyRMH :
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
No wages should not be stagnant or constant. We should not be relying on technological advancement to attempt to deliver some intangible non-economic value that is only apparent in comparisons to the past. Whether it's delivering an improved standard of living overall against less affordable housing and education is also questionable. If we're all more productive, which the economic data shows that we are, we should all gain more from that productivity, not just a small fraction at the top. Pay did go up and wasn't constant or stagnant for many decades, and that's what created the most substantial increase in people's standards of living, by actually increasing their purchasing power. This previous healthy trend is why constant wages are referred to as stagnant.
Government spending alone affects inflation but it can't account for the stagnant or constant purchasing power - we can see money the government's taken stated plainly on our taxes and fairly easily measure inflation overall.
Why should the same labor become more valuable over time? The value of labor depends on the supply and demand of that skill. If neither of those have changed, why should compensation change? You keep claiming workers are more productive. As someone who has decades of experience managing people, I'll tell you point blank that the average person today is not more productive, and not harder working than in decades past. Production has gone up due to technology, not because people are doing more for less. Those same technological advancements also result in a higher quality of life. Businesses are more productive. That's great. But the consumers also demand more. Great for the consumers, but it negates much of the increase in production. Businesses HAVE to be more productive than they were in the past, otherwise they fail. That is why you see long time businesses fail every day.
The worst car on sale today is better in every objective way than the best car built in the 70's. None of your charts will show that, but it's a real, tangible improvement to today's quality of life. You can find examples like that throughout your life. Can you not see that?
Government spending has another effect. The government is also the largest consumer, competing for goods and services, which drives up prices. In my industry, we are still dealing with hyper inflated prices and long waits. The recent spending bills have really wrecked any chance of getting back to normal any time soon.
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
Production has gone up because people are doing more in less time using technology which requires new skills. Making use of the technology tends to require more education. Doing more in less time makes the job more intense and more mentally exhausting. That's why productivity has increased and that's why the labor has become more valuable over time. It's not the same labor, over time it almost never is, unless perhaps you're a blacksmith re-enactor at a historical museum village.
In reply to GameboyRMH :
People deserve over "market value" for the skills they have because the "market value" of their skills is in effect being artificially suppressed through inter-company board-level collusion. It's not exactly price-fixing scheme for wages, but practically all publicly-traded companies have decided to take productivity gains since the '70s off the table for most employees and essentially pay them inflation-adjusted disco-era wages out of what's left, and smaller companies who don't have a board either can't afford to pay better or are happy to go along with the same wage scales, so the effect is the same.
I don't think I suggested that any one employee should be paid more than others with the same skill set.
Where did you get that idea? Do you have any real world examples? In my experience, if a company pays under what an employee is "worth," they risk losing that employee to a competitor. Competitors often try to poach employees from each other from each other by offering higher wages. One of the best known ways to increase your income is to shop your skills with other companies. You either get a better offer elsewhere, or your company pays you more to stay. If what you said was true, that wouldn't exist.
I work for a publicly traded company. My company is more than happy to pay me for my productivity. I have a salary of $0, I am full commission. There is no limit to how much I can make. The more money I make, the happier my company is. Many of my coworkers have the same option available to them, but few take it. Despite the math showing that they could make more than their salary + commission, they are not comfortable with the risk, or the work required.
A few posts ago, you said Oracle was ripping off it's employees. This made me scratch my head, because you work in IT, and they employ a few people in your position. What they pay is widely posted on line. They appear to pay well. I think if you worked for Oracle, we might not be having this discussion.
In reply to GameboyRMH :
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
Production has gone up because people are doing more in less time using technology which requires new skills. Making use of the technology tends to require more education. Doing more in less time makes the job more intense and more mentally exhausting. That's why productivity has increased and that's why the labor has become more valuable over time. It's not the same labor, over time it almost never is, unless perhaps you're a blacksmith re-enactor at a historical museum village.
Yes, (aside from the labor being more valuable) and your reward for that is that society as a whole also progressed. You get more for your dollar on the other end too. You don't get to keep the dollars and get the better society, that unbalances the equation. Your fellow citizens have already decided this for you, it doesn't matter if you aren't happy with the trade off. 1975 doesn't exist anymore, and the vast majority of people wouldn't want to go back even if they could. Technology has allowed us to trade a lot of physical labor for mental labor. There are plenty of physical labor jobs out there, and they pay very well, because a lot of people have transitioned to more mental labor.
The labor you mentioned is not more valuable. The amount of goods produced per unit of labor has increased, because technology has reduced the need for the same quantity of labor per good produced. The difference is largely passed on to the consumer, as explained above.
In reply to GameboyRMH :
Companies don't set the market value of Labor. If you think a job should pay $100k a year, but others will do it for $60k, those people have set the market, not the employer. As I said earlier people are paid for work at a rate they decide is worth getting out of bed for, no one else can decide that for you.
Steve_Jones said:In reply to GameboyRMH :
Companies don't set the market value of Labor. If you think a job should pay $100k a year, but others will do it for $60k, those people have set the market, not the employer. As I said earlier people are paid for work at a rate they decide is worth getting out of bed for, no one else can decide that for you.
To add to this:
Nearly half (46%) of my companies expenses are related to wages and benefits. While we value our employees' contributions, offering wages significantly above market rate can put us at a competitive disadvantage on pricing. We strive to find a balance between attracting and retaining top talent while maintaining competitive pricing.
Another thought process to the whole topic is the globalized economy and the impact on all of us.
"Globalization has dealt a double blow to unskilled wages in developed countries. Firstly, it creates fierce competition from a global labor pool, allowing companies to relocate jobs or hire foreign workers for less. This weakens the bargaining power of unskilled workers domestically, as companies have more options. Secondly, globalization fuels automation as companies seek efficiency, further displacing unskilled workers and limiting their wage growth potential."
We are all greedy. We want more for less.
But dork boy, (I mean Elon) just said that after AI (also known as Skynet) takes over, we won't have to work and it will pay us to do nothing out of the goodness of its heart.
AI might be what wipes out humanity, but it could also create a utopia where no one needs to work and everybody is paid a “universal high income,” according to Elon Musk.
In reply to VolvoHeretic :
I'm sure by "us" he meant his tiny peer group.
When I was in my 20s, I lived with a bunch of deadbeat roommates. Not going anywhere, just working enough to get by.
Then I ended up with a boss who made it his career to move into companies and make them successful. One thing he always said was: "you are the average of the 5 people you hang out with".
When I divorced a bunch of my "friends" who did nothing but sit around, blaming someone else for their problems and waiting for a handout, I started doing a lot better.
If everywhere you are, there's a problem. Well....
Steve_Jones said:In reply to GameboyRMH :
Companies don't set the market value of Labor. If you think a job should pay $100k a year, but others will do it for $60k, those people have set the market, not the employer. As I said earlier people are paid for work at a rate they decide is worth getting out of bed for, no one else can decide that for you.
And that's why employers benefit from a bad economy. If unemployment is high, they can pay you peanuts and you can be thankful to get even that because there's another guy who might do the job for the husks.
People keep saying oh, this is bad, this is worse than 2008. I remember 2008. I remember restaurants posting an opening in b.f. nowhere and getting 350 applicants. That's an employers market. The people saying it's bad are the people who are angry that they can't exploit people like the good old days.
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
Gameboy seems to have written the entire concept of human advancement off as actual value.
Don't forget. We live in a 1st world country.
In spite of it's faults, we're all wealthier than 91% of the world.
The default setting for humans is poor, hungry and enslaved.
In reply to Duke :
Yes. The concept of being asked to start accepting "human advancement" in lieu of an economic share of increased productivity, and to ignore the fact that all the gains of increased productivity are going to a few at the top at the same time, is a new and silly idea. In the past people got human advancement and economic advancement at the same time, and without an ever-increasing share of it going to the top too. There wasn't and still isn't any hint of some mechanism that would produce a tradeoff between the two. Where on earth did the idea that there should be some "balance" between having access to new technology or a modern society and increased pay come from? It seems like a flimsy excuse for a robbery in progress.
What a load of BS. Another thread bites the dust.
In reply to SV reX :
Heck, this is getting good! I am waiting for the rest of the conspiracy theories to be explained, how is the man keeping us down. Inquiring minds want to know. LOL
In reply to tester (Forum Supporter) :
The closest thing to any conspiracy theory involved is the idea that it's being orchestrated at the board level. This is where CEOs vote each other's pay up ad infinitum, this is where upper management hiring and compensation decisions are made, the net result is that this is where the fruits of the last half-century of productivity gains are taken off the table for ordinary worker pay and diverted to the top 5~9%. The individual facts are all publicly available, the cause and effect just aren't plainly spelled out for us. So if you're in for conspiracy theories, you've already seen the best you're going to get.
In reply to GameboyRMH :
Every corporate board on the planet is colluding ... that is one heck of a conspiracy. LOL
In reply to tester (Forum Supporter) :
Distributed forms of collusion by actors working independently with the same general goal can work quite well. See also RealPage YieldStar and Amazon's Project Nessie.
SV reX said:What a load of BS. Another thread bites the dust.
It never changes. The "oh poor me the man is conspiring against me!" Shtick got old about 4 threads back. If you don't engage maybe it'll go away? Because we know he's not going to look at facts. It's easier to just make up crap and ignore reality.
You'll need to log in to post.
