The "Job Creators" Fantasy Is A Malignant Myth The Rich Use To Squeeze The Working Class

[georgephillip]

And who provides jobs for the working class?

HINT: It ain't the poor

Here's a bigger HINT:

It ain't shareholders.

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly

"Today, our worldview has a bias – that stockholders are to be paid as much as possible, while employees are to be paid as little as possible.

"'Income for one group is declared good, and income for another group is declared bad.'

"Nowhere is this more clear than in our financial statements. Here’s the basic formula you’ll find on financial statements..."

 

[dblack]

And who provides jobs for the working class?

HINT: It ain't the poor

The government, duh. Ask and you shall receive.

 

[georgephillip]

The government, duh. Ask and you shall receive.

How did that work when for-profit capitalism crashed the global economy in 1929?

New Deal - Wikipedia

"Major federal programs and agencies included the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), the Civil Works Administration (CWA), the Farm Security Administration (FSA), the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 (NIRA) and the Social Security Administration (SSA). They provided support for farmers, the unemployed, youth and the elderly."

 

[dblack]

How did that work when for-profit capitalism crashed the global economy in 1929?

It was terrible. So terrible. Only government can save us!

 

[Uncensored2008]

The government, duh. Ask and you shall receive.

There's a word for that, government as the single "employer."

That's right, "Slavery."

 

[georgephillip]

t was terrible. So terrible. Only government can save us!

No jobs.
No Unemployment Insurance.
No Social Security.
No trade.

Only capitalism can save us

 

[Blues Man]

Here's a bigger HINT:

It ain't shareholders.

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly

"Today, our worldview has a bias – that stockholders are to be paid as much as possible, while employees are to be paid as little as possible.

"'Income for one group is declared good, and income for another group is declared bad.'

"Nowhere is this more clear than in our financial statements. Here’s the basic formula you’ll find on financial statements..."

What a company pays their employees is none of my business.

If you don't like your job you are free to find another.

If you want to get paid more you are free to find an employer who will pay more or you can do something to make yourself more valuable to your current employer.

This is the way the world has always worked.

 

[georgephillip]

What a company pays their employees is none of my business.

Is it part of society's business?
Are minimum wage laws an example of "...how the world has always worked"

 

[dblack]

Is it part of society's business?

No

Are minimum wage laws an example of "...how the world has always worked"

No

 

[Uncensored2008]

Is it part of society's business?

No.

Even less your business than what people do in their bedrooms.

Are minimum wage laws an example of "...how the world has always worked"

Minimum wage is a bit of stupidity enacted by mindless social planners and would be dictators.

 

[Blues Man]

Is it part of society's business?
Are minimum wage laws an example of "...how the world has always worked"

No.

Wages are negotiated between the employee and the employer are in fact a private contract and those contracts are not the concern of any other party

And there really is no need for a minimum wage as no employer would ever attract any employees if they paid too little.

IMO minimum wage hurts employees more than it helps them.

 

[Richard-H]

As opposed to what? Hiring people to be less profitable?

Of course, the worker makes less than the owner. The worker assumes no risk. This is common sense.

Weird the way you and Nostra think that I made some judgement about this. I didn't. I just stated a fact with no opinion at all.

Feeling guilty about underpaying employees perhaps?

 

[Richard-H]

Obviously, employers only hire people when it's profitable to do so.

However, there should be some controls whereby when profits hit a certain amount, workers should benefit. Equally, employees should be willing to absorb some of the losses in bad times.

Perhaps mandatory profit sharing should be a federal law.

 

[DBA]

Perhaps mandatory profit sharing should be a federal law.

Yikes...

What happens when the company is not doing well? Do employees who participate want to have their cake and eat it too?

I was going to include my list of reasons why this would not work but this guy from Quora summed it up quite nicely.

1. In a free market you don't demand, but negotiate
2. Not all companies make a profit all the time. Since employee expenses, like mortgage/rent and food are predictable it makes more sense to have their income be predictable as well.
3. Diluting ownership of corporations, including owners' claims on profits would cause stock market to crash as foreign (and domestic) investors exited the market in favor of foreign stocks. This would crater workers 401(k) and pension plans.
4. It sets up a perverse incentive, where money-losing companies can have lower labor expenses than successful companies, and marginally successful companies would have lower labor expenses than very successful ones. So we essentially reward failure. It is not hard to imagine the manufacture of paper losses in order to drive down government mandated profit sharing payments. Or even just increase executive compensation.
5. It gives an incentive for greater investment in capital equipment than would be warranted by economic considerations.
6. Generally, it would have similar effects to a corporate tax raise. Since the United States already has the highest tax rate in the developed world, the results would be familiar, namely encouraging investment in foreign companies.

 

[Richard-H]

Yikes...

What happens when the company is not doing well? Do employees who participate want to have their cake and eat it too?

I was going to include my list of reasons why this would not work but this guy from Quora summed it up quite nicely.

1. In a free market you don't demand, but negotiate
2. Not all companies make a profit all the time. Since employee expenses, like mortgage/rent and food are predictable it makes more sense to have their income be predictable as well.
3. Diluting ownership of corporations, including owners' claims on profits would cause stock market to crash as foreign (and domestic) investors exited the market in favor of foreign stocks. This would crater workers 401(k) and pension plans.
4. It sets up a perverse incentive, where money-losing companies can have lower labor expenses than successful companies, and marginally successful companies would have lower labor expenses than very successful ones. So we essentially reward failure. It is not hard to imagine the manufacture of paper losses in order to drive down government mandated profit sharing payments. Or even just increase executive compensation.
5. It gives an incentive for greater investment in capital equipment than would be warranted by economic considerations.
6. Generally, it would have similar effects to a corporate tax raise. Since the United States already has the highest tax rate in the developed world, the results would be familiar, namely encouraging investment in foreign companies.

If all employees get profit sharing, their profits go down when the company doesn't do well.

1. "Free Markets" are mostly extortion based, negotiations happen only when there's no choice.

2. Employers expenses are just as predictable as employees.

3. There are plenty of companies that have profit sharing for their employees. It's already proven to work well for employers, employees and the stock market.

4. This is only a matter of extending profit sharing to lower level employees.

 

[dblack]

If all employees get profit sharing, their profits go down when the company doesn't do well.

Exactly why I want no part of profit sharing. Because it's also loss sharing. I'll negotiate for a predictable wage or salary and let the employer take the risks.

 

[dblack]

Obviously, employers only hire people when it's profitable to do so.

However, there should be some controls whereby when profits hit a certain amount, workers should benefit. Equally, employees should be willing to absorb some of the losses in bad times.

Perhaps mandatory profit sharing should be a federal law.

No. See previous reply. And stop being such a statist. We don't need any more mandates.

 

[Richard-H]

Exactly why I want no part of profit sharing. Because it's also loss sharing. I'll negotiate for a predictable wage or salary and let the employer take the risks.

Not getting a profit does not mean that you take a loss. Employees that have profit sharing (like myself), get a regular salary as well.

Profit sharing is usually paid as company stocks, so when the company is losing money, your stock is worth less. But you still get your salary.

 

[Richard-H]

No. See previous reply. And stop being such a statist. We don't need any more mandates.

If left to people like you, there wouldn't be a minimum wage, Social Security, medicare or a 40 hour work week.

Workers would be starving.

Grow a brain dipshit!

 

[dblack]

Not getting a profit does not mean that you take a loss.

It can (and always does, in practice). I worked at a company that restructured it's wage and salary schedule. Our base salary was reduced by 20% and we were "gifted" with a generous profit sharing plan. The first year, the owner's wife blew all company profits on a vanity project - zero profits.

You'd likely get a pay raise if the profit sharing plan were canceled (assuming you generate profits).

All profit sharing amounts to is employers pushing risk onto their employees. If the employer fuck's up and doesn't make any profits, they get a break because they won't have to pay employees as much.

The bottom line is - I don't want to accept risk for decisions I'm not making.