Getting specific on income/wealth inequality

[LoneLaugher]

Hey if you don't want people to respond to a post then get off the board.

How many times have you responded to one of my posts not directed at you?

I was trying to be nice. I don't want to take this specific point into another direction. You got offended. Sorry.

You cannot offend me because you are an anonymous twit on a message board.

Cool. Then you are OK. Glad to clear that up.

 

[zeke]

Maybe. Did you actually try to answer the question? Would you simply pay twice as much for the same thing? Or would you find a cheaper alternative, maybe cook your own dinner at home (the equivalent of the employer doing as you suggested and doing the job themselves)?

Hey hey, lots of labor intensive jobs have been filled by the employers with that "cheaper alternative" that you mentioned.

Some people call them "illegal immigrants".

I guess you call them "minimum wage busters".

Yep. Or they pay someone off the books. If they want to stay legal, they shift the work to people they're already paying above minimum and give them a raise to reflect the share of extra work they're taking on. Or they do it themselves. Or they drop whatever extra service the labor was offering their customers and give them a discount. The bottom line is that there are many different alternatives that aren't in denial of the real value of the labor involved.

Seems to me that we are allowing the illegal immigrants to dictate the wage scale for the lowest wage earners.

Don't see how this is good for actual Americans. Unless people don't mind that we here in the USA now have a declining standard of living for many, many people. Of course the illegals have a RISING standard of living. Hell maybe we'll become another Mexico.

Letting illegals dictate the cheapest labor is no better or possibly even worse, than letting a CEO friendly Board of Directors decide a CEO is worth 20 million a year.

Both ways do not serve the long term interests of this country.

 

[LoneLaugher]

On second look....I owe Skull an apology. I was out of line. I was trying to work DBlack into a little corner there........and didn't want to get derailed. Stupid of me.

The desire to work Dblack into a corner isn't healthy.....nor is my suggesting that Skull not intrude.

My bad.

 

[Redfish]

Instead of attacking successful people, how about showing one that you have something to offer so he will hire you?

you are pathetic "momma government has to give me money and free stuff because I am too stupid to find work and take care of myself" you make me sick

Been there done that... happily retired. You don't like it when I call out the truth. I owned my own business and I would never again stoop so low... so very low... as to work for some lousy jerk. Comprehend this?

you said that class warfare was going to increase, you said it in a thread about wealth inequality. The obvious implication is that you think wealth must be shared in order to prevent class warfare.

If thats not your point, what is it?

 

[Redfish]

[

horseshit. get off your lazy ass, stop whining, and do something. There are plenty of ways to get rich. But to your dismay, they all require brains, skills, and a work ethic---things that do not exist in the liberal mind.

Guy, it isn't about getting rich.

It's about making sure everyone gets a fair break.

What the fuck does "fair break" mean? People are never going to be equal in terms of intellect, athletic ability, looks, or family background. Government cannot make everyone equal. Most successful people make their own breaks through work, innovation, talent,etc. Not all will find equal success-------thats the way life is, deal with it and stop whining.

 

[Darkwind]

Frankly, I'd love to see them to a real-life calculation of the worth of employees and then pay them based on that.

That's idiotic. People are worth infinitely more than an hourly wage.

But that's what you don't get. Employers pay for the labor, not the person. They're not buying slaves, they're paying people for their services, and they pay what the services are worth to them and their customers. That has little to do with how much the person is worth.

what I get is that employers will cheat the fuck out of employees if they think they can get away with it.

which is why you need government and unions to make sure they don't.

Yet, never a word from you about the billions of dollars that employees cost employers....interesting how you have that blind spot.

 

[LoneLaugher]

That's idiotic. People are worth infinitely more than an hourly wage.

But that's what you don't get. Employers pay for the labor, not the person. They're not buying slaves, they're paying people for their services, and they pay what the services are worth to them and their customers. That has little to do with how much the person is worth.

what I get is that employers will cheat the fuck out of employees if they think they can get away with it.

which is why you need government and unions to make sure they don't.

Yet, never a word from you about the billions of dollars that employees cost employers....interesting how you have that blind spot.

Say what?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There seems to be too many ways to get around income taxes. It would be more practical in this information age to tax assets. There is ample public record of holdings, their assessed value, insured value etc.

More ways to dodge that than I can shake a stick at......

 

[dblack]

No. They pay them what they are worth to them and their customers OR LESS. They will pay less if permitted. In fact, they will be personally rewarded if they accomplish this. You want to permit them to. I don't.

That's right. But you won't acknowledge that. You'd rather see someone unemployed than work for less than what you think is acceptable. And I wonder, what makes you think your opinion is more worthy than the person actually doing the work?

It is a proven fact that unskilled laborers will work for less than they are worth to employers. They will compete for the job. If permitted by law, the one who is willing to work for the least will get the job.

And someone is committing a crime if they work for less than you think is 'minimal'? I just don't get that. If someone is wiling to do work for someone else, as long as there's not deception involved, it's no one else's business what compensation they arrange. That's my biggest beef with income tax - not that they take our money, but that they nose into our business and insist that we report to the government how we earn a living. I'd rather they just send goons around once a month and demand tribute, and stay the hell out of my personal life.

 

[asterism]

All work is worth a living wage if you are the one doing it. Set the minimum wage at a living wage. At present, $12.50 per hour with upward adjustment for geographic location would work.

Cash register duty at Home Depot is not worth a living wage. If the minimum wage is raised automated checkout will be the norm instead of the exception.

Here's the thing. Most people don't like the automated tellers unless they are buying one or two items. On the weekly VOC website, there will usually be one or two people complaining that there were not enough tellers and they didn't like the automated tellers. Then a snarky comment about how they were going to Menard's next time.

Also, the HD I was at, they had 30-40 employees in the store at any given time. ONly about four of them were tellers. The rest worked the aisles helping customers find things and get things down. That actually takes LESS skill than a cash register.

People don't like automated phone menus either, but the cost to only have people answering the phones raised beyond the worth to the business.

But please, carry on with your brilliant plans to help those on the lower end by pricing their skills out of the job market.

McDonald's hires 7,000 touch-screen cashiers - CNET

 

[asterism]

So, if the work they do isn't worth $12.50 an hour, they're not allowed to work?

Don't pop their liberal bubbles. What do they have to live for if not the make-believe world of liberal-land where reality is never to be found.

Asking them to ponder a person who produces $8 of value per hour being paid $15 per hour must makes them sad and weepy.

Frankly, I'd love to see them to a real-life calculation of the worth of employees and then pay them based on that.

My guess is you'd see a lot more $15.00 clerks and a lot less CEO's making eight figures.

Going back to the Home Depot example. The CEO of Home Depot, Frank Blake, made 10.8 million last year. What was he possibly doing that was worth 10.8 million?

He managed an enterprise that profited $5.3 Billion. That's something you couldn't do.

 

[asterism]

Frankly, I'd love to see them to a real-life calculation of the worth of employees and then pay them based on that.

That's idiotic. People are worth infinitely more than an hourly wage.

But that's what you don't get. Employers pay for the labor, not the person. They're not buying slaves, they're paying people for their services, and they pay what the services are worth to them and their customers. That has little to do with how much the person is worth.

what I get is that employers will cheat the fuck out of employees if they think they can get away with it.

which is why you need government and unions to make sure they don't.

I agree that the government has a proper role in maintaining fair labor practices. I wish unions would get back to that, but so far they are just trying to get their own piece of the pie.

Most employers do not "cheat the fuck out of employees" but you don't run in professional circles so you only have your warped bias informing you.

 

[asterism]

Frankly, I'd love to see them to a real-life calculation of the worth of employees and then pay them based on that.

That's idiotic. People are worth infinitely more than an hourly wage.

But that's what you don't get. Employers pay for the labor, not the person. They're not buying slaves, they're paying people for their services, and they pay what the services are worth to them and their customers. That has little to do with how much the person is worth.

No. They pay them what they are worth to them and their customers OR LESS. They will pay less if permitted. In fact, they will be personally rewarded if they accomplish this. You want to permit them to. I don't.

If that were the case there'd be way more than 2.5% of the workers earning minimum wage.

 

[Mac1958]

.

A corporation and its board have one (1) responsibility, one (1) task: To maximize shareholder value.

It's not to put food on your table, or to put your kid through school, or to pay your rent. That would be your responsibility. I can only imagine how crazy this sounds to some, but that's the way it works.

Now, as we continue our inexorable move towards a Euro-social democracy with an authoritarian central bureaucracy that will, no doubt, make life "fair" for everyone, we'll see several changes. I suspect Those Evil Corporations will have to place shareholder value on the back burner, for example. Don't be surprised to see that one within ten years.

Sure, shareholders include young families saving for retirement and senior citizens trying to live through retirement, but fuck them. Only "rich" people have retirement plans, and roads 'n bridges 'n stuff.

.

 

[Derideo_Te]

That's idiotic. People are worth infinitely more than an hourly wage.

But that's what you don't get. Employers pay for the labor, not the person. They're not buying slaves, they're paying people for their services, and they pay what the services are worth to them and their customers. That has little to do with how much the person is worth.

what I get is that employers will cheat the fuck out of employees if they think they can get away with it.

which is why you need government and unions to make sure they don't.

Yet, never a word from you about the billions of dollars that employees cost employers....interesting how you have that blind spot.

Seriously?

Employees are merely a drain on profits?

What is stopping corporations from firing them all?

Nothing at all, right?

Except then there would be nobody to do the work that generates the profits for the corporations in the first place!

Talk about a blind spot!



Employee labor generates wealth for corporations!

Corporations that don't understand this fact should not be allowed to remain in business IMO.

Corporations that exploit employees should be not be allowed to remain in business either.

Employees are more than just an overhead on a balance sheet. They are real people with homes and families and should be treated with respect by their employers. They are component that adds value to the corporation.

 

[Derideo_Te]

.

A corporation and its board have one (1) responsibility, one (1) task: To maximize shareholder value.

It's not to put food on your table, or to put your kid through school, or to pay your rent. That would be your responsibility. I can only imagine how crazy this sounds to some, but that's the way it works.

Now, as we continue our inexorable move towards a Euro-social democracy with an authoritarian central bureaucracy that will, no doubt, make life "fair" for everyone, we'll see several changes. I suspect Those Evil Corporations will have to place shareholder value on the back burner, for example. Don't be surprised to see that one within ten years.

Sure, shareholders include young families saving for retirement and senior citizens trying to live through retirement, but fuck them. Only "rich" people have retirement plans, and roads 'n bridges 'n stuff.

.

No one has explained why young families and retirees must have their retirement investments at the mercy of the Wall Street Casino bosses!

Given that it has become an abject failure for the majority of the Boomer generation the reintroduction of pension plans makes way more sense.

 

[Mac1958]

.

A corporation and its board have one (1) responsibility, one (1) task: To maximize shareholder value.

It's not to put food on your table, or to put your kid through school, or to pay your rent. That would be your responsibility. I can only imagine how crazy this sounds to some, but that's the way it works.

Now, as we continue our inexorable move towards a Euro-social democracy with an authoritarian central bureaucracy that will, no doubt, make life "fair" for everyone, we'll see several changes. I suspect Those Evil Corporations will have to place shareholder value on the back burner, for example. Don't be surprised to see that one within ten years.

Sure, shareholders include young families saving for retirement and senior citizens trying to live through retirement, but fuck them. Only "rich" people have retirement plans, and roads 'n bridges 'n stuff.

.

No one has explained why young families and retirees must have their retirement investments at the mercy of the Wall Street Casino bosses!

Given that it has become an abject failure for the majority of the Boomer generation the reintroduction of pension plans makes way more sense.

So on top of everything else, you also want your employer to provide for your retirement. Hey, why not.

Many people do just fine taking care of themselves and their retirement. Maybe we could promote the financial education of those who don't.

Again, I know that sounds crazy.

.

 

[Rikurzhen]

what I get is that employers will cheat the fuck out of employees if they think they can get away with it.

which is why you need government and unions to make sure they don't.

I'm going to use your standard here to argue the reverse. If government forced all employers to pay a minimum wage of $100 per hour, employees would be "cheating" the fuck out of employers every chance they could by providing labor with an economic value of $10 per hour or $25 per hour of $50 per hour and getting paid $100 per hour.

This cheating framework you're using isn't working in the argument.

Here's what is REALLY going on. Employers OFFER a wage. Employees ACCEPT OR REJECT that wage offer. It's a voluntary, and mutually acceptable transaction.

No. They pay them what they are worth to them and their customers OR LESS. They will pay less if permitted. In fact, they will be personally rewarded if they accomplish this. You want to permit them to. I don't.

Of course the employer pays an employee LESS than the value they create. There's no benefit to the employer to paying the employee FULL value of the economic value they create. Why bother having a business at all then? Where would the profit come from? Think about it. IF you're the Geek Squad and you send out your Geeks to fix people's computers and you charge out $50 per hour and the employee gets the entire $50 per hour of value that they deliver to the customer, what does the owner of Geek Squad make?

It is a proven fact that unskilled laborers will work for less than they are worth to employers. They will compete for the job. If permitted by law, the one who is willing to work for the least will get the job.

So why aren't you screaming bloody murder about those infiltrator kids, to have them immediately deported? Why aren't you screaming bloody murder about 20 million infiltrators in the labor market? Why aren't you screaming bloody murder about all the legal immigration, 1,000,000+ skilled immigrants entering the labor market?

All of these people are entering the labor market, adding to the labor surplus and driving down wages. You tell me that you see the problem, deportation and cessation of immigration are obvious solutions, so why aren't you screaming to have a solution implemented?

you said that class warfare was going to increase, you said it in a thread about wealth inequality. The obvious implication is that you think wealth must be shared in order to prevent class warfare.

If thats not your point, what is it?

National Income MUST be shared. That's how National Income is calculated. National Income is the value created by employing Capital and Labor. Wealth inequality is the measure, broadly speaking, the gap, the delta, between the two.

The share of NI going to Capital has been increasing since the 1970s reversing the trend of Labor capturing increasing shares which had existed for the past 50 years.

Here, let a picture to explain - look at the top graph:

I'm inferring that you were actually focused on wealth REDISTRIBUTION - an after the fact reallocation. Well, wealth, (AKA National Income) can be allocated by the market in a more equal measure, thus reducing the pressure bubbling under the class warfare bubble. The mechanism here is to reduce labor surpluses, thereby increasing the bargaining power of labor, allowing labor to use labor scarcity in the labor market to capture for itself a larger share of the value that it produces.

I think of this like a card game. Everyone who plays poker understands the rules and they accept the outcomes. However, class warfare, or a pissed off poker player, results when the players discover that the winner of the poker game has marked the cards. Well, employers are HUGE supporters of open immigration - when they flood the market with labor and create labor surpluses they're doing the equivalent of marking the cards. The cheating happens before the game starts and the game is played by the rules. The employers "cheat" before the bargaining starts and then they play by the rules of the labor market. This leads to class resentment and class warfare.

 

[Skull Pilot]

.

A corporation and its board have one (1) responsibility, one (1) task: To maximize shareholder value.

It's not to put food on your table, or to put your kid through school, or to pay your rent. That would be your responsibility. I can only imagine how crazy this sounds to some, but that's the way it works.

Now, as we continue our inexorable move towards a Euro-social democracy with an authoritarian central bureaucracy that will, no doubt, make life "fair" for everyone, we'll see several changes. I suspect Those Evil Corporations will have to place shareholder value on the back burner, for example. Don't be surprised to see that one within ten years.

Sure, shareholders include young families saving for retirement and senior citizens trying to live through retirement, but fuck them. Only "rich" people have retirement plans, and roads 'n bridges 'n stuff.

.

No one has explained why young families and retirees must have their retirement investments at the mercy of the Wall Street Casino bosses!

Given that it has become an abject failure for the majority of the Boomer generation the reintroduction of pension plans makes way more sense.

They don't. Most people have choices as to where to keep their money. In fact one can choose to keep all his retirement in a cash position if he wants.

You want to know who really screws retirees who have saved for decades?

The government. By taxing all the gains in a retirement as regular earnings the government is robbing retirees of years of income.

 

[Derideo_Te]

.

A corporation and its board have one (1) responsibility, one (1) task: To maximize shareholder value.

It's not to put food on your table, or to put your kid through school, or to pay your rent. That would be your responsibility. I can only imagine how crazy this sounds to some, but that's the way it works.

Now, as we continue our inexorable move towards a Euro-social democracy with an authoritarian central bureaucracy that will, no doubt, make life "fair" for everyone, we'll see several changes. I suspect Those Evil Corporations will have to place shareholder value on the back burner, for example. Don't be surprised to see that one within ten years.

Sure, shareholders include young families saving for retirement and senior citizens trying to live through retirement, but fuck them. Only "rich" people have retirement plans, and roads 'n bridges 'n stuff.

.

No one has explained why young families and retirees must have their retirement investments at the mercy of the Wall Street Casino bosses!

Given that it has become an abject failure for the majority of the Boomer generation the reintroduction of pension plans makes way more sense.

So on top of everything else, you also want your employer to provide for your retirement. Hey, why not.

Many people do just fine taking care of themselves and their retirement. Maybe we could promote the financial education of those who don't.

Again, I know that sounds crazy.

.

Define "many people" in hard numbers.