babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » labour and consumption   » A Fair Wage

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: A Fair Wage
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 16 January 2005 05:45 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
A lot of people feel that they don't get paid what they're "worth." Many of us complain that others get paid more than they're "worth."

What do wages really mean in terms of how we're valued, as workers or even as human beings? What is a "fair wage" and how should it be determined?


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 16 January 2005 06:21 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Let me be a free marketeer's advocate and make a baseline claim that a fair wage is whatever the market will pay you and there is no further content to the notion than that.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 16 January 2005 06:30 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Despite how some feel, any successful company will realize that it's people are it's greatest asset. Sure I mean that in the most cold and impersonal way. They may as well had be considered units as far as the top is concerned in many companies.

The bottom line though is the balance sheet. If a company staffs itself with subgrade workers hoping to save a buck, they are simply asking for failure. They have to compete thus will generally determine the line between spending too much and retaining good workers.

Training is expensive as are errors made by underqualified workers. Merit will be determined by the market.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 16 January 2005 06:44 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What exactly is this "market" of which you speak? Who all participates in it? Is it the same "market" where I buy bread, or automobiles for that matter, or is it something different?

[ 16 January 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 16 January 2005 06:54 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
OK I will specify. I meant labor market which varies from field to field.

I am an independent contractor so I pretty much look at myself as a commodity. What I get paid depends on how many other qualified people are vying for the contract. There is no law stating that the company that I am currently working for has to pay more than $8 per hour or so (not sure what the minimum is in NWT). Rest assured though, they would be rather short of field cartographers if they offered any less than $60 per hour. They may scrounge one up for $40 or so, but they know that they would get what they paid for.

One has to look at what skills they have, and market themselves. If they can't market what they have, then perhaps they should re-evauate their skills.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Américain Égalitaire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7911

posted 16 January 2005 06:57 PM      Profile for Américain Égalitaire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by C.Morgan:
Despite how some feel, any successful company will realize that it's people are it's greatest asset. Sure I mean that in the most cold and impersonal way. They may as well had be considered units as far as the top is concerned in many companies.

The bottom line though is the balance sheet. If a company staffs itself with subgrade workers hoping to save a buck, they are simply asking for failure. They have to compete thus will generally determine the line between spending too much and retaining good workers.

Training is expensive as are errors made by underqualified workers. Merit will be determined by the market.


In a world in which companies behaved rationally,I would agree with you. However, this statistic from the PBS Frontline documentary:

quote:
600,000: The number of new employees Wal-Mart hires each year. The company's turnover rate is 44 percent -- close to the retail industry average.

Seems to belie your assumption unless there's something I don't get here. I find it amazing that a company can be in a continuous training mode. Why not try to pay people a living wage (for the local market) and make it so they WANT to stay with you? But it doesn't work that way. WalMart seems no different than many other retailers in this. They simply do not care that they have this constant turmoil of turnover and that, at some point, that HAS to affect customer service.

BUT, my sense is that most people don't expect decent service in retail anymore and have come to expect this constant turnover of barely interested employees who don't know the product line and don't care, as a fact of life. And I think companies understand this and use it to their advantage.

I also remember reading this article and marvelling about its implied conclusions:

Costco's Dilemma: Is Treating Employees Well Unacceptable for a Public Corporation?

quote:
Costco says its higher pay boosts loyalty: Its employee turnover rate is 24% a year. Wal-Mart's overall employee turnover rate is 50%, about in line with the retail-industry average. Wal-Mart doesn't break out turnover rates at Sam's Club. High turnover creates added expense for retailers because new workers have to be trained and are not as efficient.

Some critics still aren't convinced that lower turnover is worth what it costs Costco in higher wages and benefits. "Their benefits are amazing, but shareholders get frustrated from a stock perspective," says Emme Kozloff, a retail analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein LLC.



From: Chardon, Ohio USA | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 16 January 2005 07:02 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That would be because it generally only takes a limitted amount of training to work at Wal-Mart.

People have the option not to work there, and clearly many choose it.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 16 January 2005 07:03 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
By market, I'm under the impression that the ideological free marketeers actually do mean the same market in which you buy bread. For them, selling your time is no different from selling bread, since the bread also, in a sense, contains the value of your time as well.

Therefore the "market" just means "whoever you can find to pay for it."


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 16 January 2005 07:07 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Seems like a fair enough analogy to me. A commodity is a commodity.
From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
kuri
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4202

posted 16 January 2005 07:07 PM      Profile for kuri   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by C.Morgan:
One has to look at what skills they have, and market themselves. If they can't market what they have, then perhaps they should re-evauate their skills.

I think you're assuming that everyone has "marketing" skills.... they may in fact *have* a lot but not have the ability to "market" it, in the way that employers expect, because they've read some HR manuel telling them to ask questions like, "If you were a tree, what kind would be?"

As for the main topic, a fair wage, is, IMO, a living wage, regardless of the job. The best example I can think of for an absolutely essential (but completely unskilled job) is that of a garbage collecter. It requires no advanced skills, but urban life would be totally unbearable without them. The same is true for the vast majority of jobs that exist right now. They wouldn't exist if they weren't needed.


From: an employer more progressive than rabble.ca | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 16 January 2005 07:11 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The garbage man example is a good one and points out another aspect I didnt point out.

Regardless of a particular skill, there is value in what a person is willing or able to deal with in their line of work.

Handling garbage all day can't be that pleasant and I suspect that they would get few takers for that job at minimum wage.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 16 January 2005 07:53 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Therefore the "market" just means "whoever you can find to pay for it."

Why do we bother with things like "minimum wages," then? Suppose I am willing to work for 3 cents an hour. Or suppose I don't have anything to offer than anyone is willing to pay more than 3 cents an hour for. An employer and I could work something out "under the table," I suppose, and many undocumented/marginal workers find themselves in precisely such a situation. But it is at least ostensibly illegal.


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 16 January 2005 07:56 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's ostensibly legal, but in defense of Property Rights, which are the Unquestionable Cornerstone of Liberty, minimum wage laws are an intolerable (and allegedly inefficient) intervention into the proper function of the market, which, unimpeded, will automatically set wages to what will most efficiently distribute well-being.

In this scenario, many people will suffer from low wages, but the price won't be artificially set so that it is too expensive to hire some people, thus requiring unemployment insurance, and thus requiring that ultimate evil, taxes.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Américain Égalitaire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7911

posted 16 January 2005 08:09 PM      Profile for Américain Égalitaire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
SO the constant turnover in retail isn't an issue because its easy to train people for the job? I don't quite believe its easy but I'm sure time spent training is time consuming and with Wal-Mart's emphasis on "time theft" (i.e. employees spending too much time talking to each other which is seen as "stealing" from the sainted Capitalist masters) that the biggest time theft is having to constantly train people.

The greater point is that I will never see people as someone's "economic unit." Capitalism as it is increasingly being practiced in North American is dehumanizing. Capital must always make way for people, not the other way around. If you ever read "Nickled and Dimed: On Not Getting By in America" by Barbara Ehrenreich, you might understand more about the working poor and what they have to put up with. We all pay for the shitty wages and benefits offered by the big box retailers throught social service costs paid for these folks.

The human toll may not be readily apparent to those who are comfortable. But every day the bill is coming due and it is growing.


From: Chardon, Ohio USA | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 16 January 2005 08:22 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by robbie_dee:

Why do we bother with things like "minimum wages," then? Suppose I am willing to work for 3 cents an hour. Or suppose I don't have anything to offer than anyone is willing to pay more than 3 cents an hour for. An employer and I could work something out "under the table," I suppose, and many undocumented/marginal workers find themselves in precisely such a situation. But it is at least ostensibly illegal.



If you are willing to work for 3 cents an hour, by all means be my guest.

If the value of your services does not break that amount, then I must assume that you are differently abled or something. In that case, that is a matter for our social services.

One aspect of high turnover places such as Wal Mart is the better opportunity for advancement. If one can endure the first year, they have lost 44% of their competition for the next step up the ladder. Longevity and proven reliablity are assets as well.

I began my working life as a furniture mover for $6.50 per hour. I didnt care for the work or the income so I bettered myself instead of thinking that the world owed me a better wage.

Unless we are legally madated to remain working at any particular spot, there is little reason to madate the wages.

Raising minumum wage to fight poverty is akin to printing off money to pay the debt anyway. It just doesnt work.

Many cry and moan, yet really do not want to shed their minimum wage positions.

Here is a tip for the 'underemployed'. Veritas geophysical is hiring helpers for the current program that I am working on. The starting wage works out to around $4000 per month with no experience. It grows quickly as well.

They are having trouble filling those positions. Why? Because a person has to work their ass off for it. Simple as that.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 16 January 2005 09:08 PM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
What do wages really mean in terms of how we're valued, as workers or even as human beings?

They don't mean everything. If someone is working in an un-skilled job that can be easily filled by someone else then they don't 'deserve' to make a large wage. Now if said person (or group) can manipulate the situation to their advantage and get a large wage then all the power to them. But there's a reason the market doesn't pay top dollar for your av. fast-food employee, it's not an easy job, but most anyone can do it plus a lot of people do it therefore the wages will be low.

As a human being they deserve to be treated with respect by customers (ie: don't freak out when your burger had a pickle on it) and even more importantly their co-workers and especially those who have power over them. This can be achieved by having worker standards and decent benefits negotiated per case and government regulations. This is more important imo. Once someone achieves a certain 'skill' (via education/training) that is 'in demand' then it seems logical that they get paid more (and more) money.

quote:
What is a "fair wage" and how should it be determined?

A "fair wage" is dependent upon the situation of the person receiving it.

A 16 year old high school student can get by with say 7-9$/hr (minimum wage) in a service industry job if they live at home and aren't expected to take care of the family is getting a fair wage. Whereas a 26-year-old single mother working full time at the same wage, could probably not afford all their families basic necessities thus the wage would be 'unfair'.

So this issue is complex if someone wants to I think they should be given reasonable support by the government while they upgrade their skills thus their labour market worth. With low tuition rates, more grants than loans and things like cheap daycare (at least for those that qualify).

So a fair wage is dependent upon the situation determined by all relevant parties. I believe there should be a minimum wage to prevent exploitation of any worker enforced by the government but that wage should stay where it is with periodic raises indexed to inflation. I believe that Unions/professional organizations are important to pool the collective bargaining power of workers in the worker/employer relationship, voluntary yes -- but there shouldn't be deliberate attempts to undermine this right. And I believe that individuals with no skills wanting to improve their skills via some sort of education should be given the opportunity to do so.

(To repeat) The point is that a fair wage depends on the situation.

quote:
Originally Posted by C.Morgan: I began my working life as a furniture mover for $6.50 per hour. I didnt care for the work or the income so I bettered myself instead of thinking that the world owed me a better wage.

You obviously had the opportunity to do so. So do you think that people like the 26 year old single-mother I cited earlier should have a real opportunity to do so. That means if the person has the wear withal should the goverment provide them with loans, grants and other reasonable supports?

[ 16 January 2005: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 16 January 2005 09:23 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There already is a student loan system. Grants? Nope afraid not.

The single parent has more challenges than some others there is no doubt there. There are very man though who have overcome those obsticals.

Personal responsibility is another issue. I know that we all make errors in judgement (especially when we are young) but I think that a great deal more people need to examine their fiscal capacity before they decide to breed.

That being said, one factor that would help tose with dependents would be bringing back the tax excemptions that we used to have. Taxing a single parent's income when they make anything less than $20,000 per year is nothing less than a joke.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 16 January 2005 10:06 PM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
See I always find the right-wing thinking on this bizarre. Since these people are going to be making more money anyways they'll be paying back these grants via their higher levels of taxation (thus they will be 'worth' more and be contributing more). Yet of course the general rule on the right is that this is some sort of welfare or free gift. All of the bureaucracy created from Student Loans would be lessened somewhat with a grant system that isn’t obsessed with perusal of large payments. Yeah my numbers scenario could take longer to work out should X person not find work quick enough, or start out lower -- but in the long run society will be better off for them returning to school. Therefore there should be less emphasis on loans.

Even though the simple formula of (say) X person making 14,000$/yr before college paying 1000$/taxes in taxes goes back to school gets 12,000$/4yr's in grants and then starts making 60,000$/yr and paying 12,000$/yr in taxes meaning voila those grants are paid back. Besides it’s not as if the grants can’t be biased towards the latter years of finishing a degree -- thus making sure that they will be allocated in the proper way.

Of course there's a certain amount of personal responsibility in all of this. But taking the effort to go to school, and actually doing well thus being marketable is not a vacation from work. It's an upgrade for the economy in general. And yeah people should think before they do, but the fact is that a lot of people do not. Therefore one should ask themselves whether or not they think it’s not only moral but logical to consign X person to mediocrity when X person could contribute far more if given the opportunity to do so.


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 16 January 2005 10:19 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm having a hard time understanding what 'worth' means in this context.

The reason why someone is paid a wage in the first place is to persuade him/her to do something s/he wouldn't do otherwise. Suppose that I wouldn't accept a certain job for anything less than (say) $50k/yr. (I can be bought, but I'm not cheap). Suppose also that there's someone else who is equally qualified (but not, of course, anywhere near as smart as I am ) and who is willing to take the job for $30k.

It's pretty clear that the other guy is going to get the job. Now suppose that he's paid $40k (the employer doesn't know that he'd work for less).

What is the job 'worth'? The $50k that I would have demanded (but which no-one would give me)? The $30k that the other guy would have taken? Or the $40k that he ended up getting?


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 16 January 2005 10:19 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
My problem with grants is that too many people tend to come out with degrees in philosophy or woman's studies and such. Hardly gets us a bang for our buck. There are only so many government and lobby positions available.

Somebody who knows that they will have to pay it back eventually generally will keep a more practical eye open on what courses they choose to take.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 16 January 2005 10:27 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oliver Cromwell:
I'm having a hard time understanding what 'worth' means in this context.

The reason why someone is paid a wage in the first place is to persuade him/her to do something s/he wouldn't do otherwise. Suppose that I wouldn't accept a certain job for anything less than (say) $50k/yr. (I can be bought, but I'm not cheap). Suppose also that there's someone else who is equally qualified (but not, of course, anywhere near as smart as I am ) and who is willing to take the job for $30k.

It's pretty clear that the other guy is going to get the job. Now suppose that he's paid $40k (the employer doesn't know that he'd work for less).

What is the job 'worth'? The $50k that I would have demanded (but which no-one would give me)? The $30k that the other guy would have taken? Or the $40k that he ended up getting?



The job is worth whatever a competent individual is willing to do it for.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
v michel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7879

posted 19 January 2005 04:43 PM      Profile for v michel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
A fair wage doesn't just involve fairness to the employee, it involves fairness to the greater society. It is not fair for an employer to pay employees such a low wage that they are required to use emergency services for health care, for example [Walmart, anyone?]. The company benefits and all other members of society (who pay the extra taxes for the extra emergency services) suffer. The corporation needs workers who have food, shelter, and transportation. I do not think it is right for the corporation to assume that government and charities will chip in to make sure that those needs are met for their employees. They are necessary for the running of the corporation itself, and the corporation should pay a fair enough wage that those needs can be met. Not because the corporation has a social or charitable obligation, but because the corporation requires live employees who can get to work for business to run as normal.

This all sounds more conservative than I mean. I may not care about the plight of that worker, but I care a whole lot that I have to pay those extra taxes so that Walmart can function. An unfair wage isn't unjust for the worker, it is unjust for all of us who need to pick up the slack.

So to my way of thinking, the value of a position may be determined by the individual worker's marketability but the fair wage for a position is determined by what the corporation requires of the employee in order to be able to function without being unduly burdensome on society.


From: a protected valley in the middle of nothing | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 19 January 2005 04:54 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Nickled and Dimed: On Not Getting By in America" by Barbara Ehrenreich

Ohh good book EA, its the one that started me on the lefty path and away from the rightwing place I once was.

Theres another good one jsut out called white collar slavery or something like that. I bought it at a american airport waiting for a flight. I'll have to get the correct title for you


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
angrymonkey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5769

posted 19 January 2005 08:08 PM      Profile for angrymonkey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I really liked Ehrenreich's book as well.

It all seems so simple by what some posters are implying. Pick the "right" career, study hard, work hard and poof- you're earning tons of money. And if you aren't-you must have made some pretty dumb choices, or maybe you're just inept in your field. In any case, you deserve it.
Give me a break.


From: the cold | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 19 January 2005 08:13 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The concept that work is inherently "worth" something, but at the same time that what it's "worth" is precisely the lowest amount anyone qualified would be willing to do it for is incoherent.
The thing about labour "markets" is that they depend on the relative power of the buyer and seller. Now, some people are arguing as if the sole determinant of that power is the skills of the seller--but that's clearly not true. Unionization changes things, for instance. Where there's a strong union, the price everyone's willing to accept for the labour in question becomes much higher--they feel that they won't be "undersold" by competitors because they have an agreement with the other sellers. Does that mean the labour in question is suddenly "worth" much more?

If you're going to define the worth of labour in such terms, you end up with a situation where the worth of any particular kind or piece of labour is defined solely by the relative power of buyer and seller, bounded by two limits. On one end, the ability of the buyer of labour to depress wages is bounded by the ability of workers not to starve to death or die of exposure while working for that wage. On the other end, the ability of the sellers of labour to jack up prices given sufficient political clout is bounded by the ability of the buyers to pay without going under. Sufficiently high wages begin to depress profits and reduce slack for ludicrous executive salaries and perks; go much further and businesses begin to operate at a loss--then the *business* in effect starves. Everything in between is about power. Part of that is often defined by skill-scarcity, to be sure--but look at, for instance, outsourcing of skilled jobs to India. There you have the accessing of a new pool of people with the relevant skills, who live under different conditions with different costs of living; as a result, various technical jobs which commanded a high price in North America suddenly lose "worth". And this change did not just happen, it is something that capital actively hunted down, a way they found to alter the bargaining power balance in their favour. Workers should do so as well.

Ultimately though, the whole bargaining thing is for the birds. The fair wage for a given task is the wage it would draw if the enterprise were owned co-operatively by the workers and they could decide for themselves what to pay themselves and what they needed to set aside for modernization, operating expenses etc.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 19 January 2005 08:54 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Again, I'm having a hard time taking the question very seriously. Not without a meaningful definition of 'worth', anyway.
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 19 January 2005 09:04 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That would determine the price. Not the same thing, but at least it's something we can observe.

[edited to add:]

Hey! I'm *sure* I saw Rufus post something - wha' happened?

[edited again to add:]

Oh - it was robbie_dee. But I did, I DID taw another post!

[ 19 January 2005: Message edited by: Oliver Cromwell ]

[ 19 January 2005: Message edited by: Oliver Cromwell ]


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 19 January 2005 09:05 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Whoops, accidentally deleted the post in between. What I asked Oliver was how he defined "worth" I.e. was it the marginal product of labour?
From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 19 January 2005 09:07 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And I guess what I was getting at was that "labour" was the only factor of production that had a subjective as well as objective sense of its own value. I.e. a lump of coal doesn't care how much you pay for it (although the owner of the coal mine might).
From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 19 January 2005 09:22 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree with Oliver. The cost to society for producing a widget or a service are not equal to labour and capital. Capitalists tend to choose labour within a highly developed society moreso now than at any time in history. If this were not the case, then Wall and Bay Streets would be investing in Guatemala or Haiti.

But who can blame the millionaire and billionaire investment crowd for wanting profit margins over and above inflation ?. The super-rich have to put caviar on the table and buy that seventh summer home on the Riviera, too. How much is enough for them and at what cost to society which makes it all possible in the first place ?. We need a proper accounting of it all.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 19 January 2005 09:27 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The marginal product of labour is what the firm is willing to pay. But the other side of the equilibrium is the marginal rate of subsitution (consumption goods vs leisure) on the part of the worker.

If the worker thought that the 'objective' value - i.e., the wage - was less than her subjective evaluation, she wouldn't take the job.

[edited to correct a brain fart]

[ 19 January 2005: Message edited by: Oliver Cromwell ]


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 19 January 2005 09:38 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh yes, and the more task oriented and tedious the job becomes, all the more efficiency and profit can be wrung out on the backs of the working poor and their slightly more skilled middle class cousins. Division of labour and a minimum of ten percent unemployment is required for capitalism to work, for the capitalists that is,
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Anonymous
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4813

posted 24 January 2005 05:21 AM      Profile for Mr. Anonymous     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I believe Adam Smith (the economist) said that a fair wage is one that does not get one looked down upon by his or her fellow citizens.

I think that a decent wage can be determined by the amount of value the person in the position brings to the table, not just how little you can get away with paying him or her for.

For example, take Wal-Mart (yeah, everyone picks on them, but with good reason). For a fair wage of front-line staff, determine what degree of the company's profit they are responsible for, perhaps by determining the effect on profit with a smaller percentages of people in the position than required over the long term. Determine how much each sector (front line, warehouse, various levels of management) of the company in question contributes, divide by the total profit of the company, divide again by the number of people in the position, and you have a good estimate.

If you want to know the fair wage of a labourer doing landscaping work for a new guest house, for example, determine the extra revenue that will be brought in by the landscaping work minus any work needed by others to make the venture a success (and perhaps factor in a little to account for the risk taken and benefit to society of having the work done), and you have a decent estimate of a fair wage. This valuation may be far above the the price someone in the southern US can get a mexican labourer (for example) to work for, but is intrinsically much fairer than the "fair market value" as determined stictly by (manipulated, see link above) supply and demand as it may exist at any given time and place. Not absolutely perfect, but much closer to a fair accounting than the race to the bottom seen by so many corperate players today.

For many retail places that are guaranteed to succeed by simple virtue of having a very logical business plan (like Wal Mart, which was founded by a man who respected his staff much more than the current management does), front-line staff are most likely getting less than they rightfully deserve. Managers may be getting more or less than they deserve (perhaps less considering the stresses involved), but the main illegitimate gainers in most big ventures are the shareholders, who get paid simply by holding stocks that have little relevance to the profit of the company at large, especially as most hold too little to effect any change in the company should they desire to do so.

The irony is that it is exacty these wealthy shareholders (who hold this incredible wealth while things like child poverty and hunger are still in existence) who are most likely to loudly lecture those who would fill these positions (and see http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=12&t=000460&p= for the main reason behind the majority of unemployment in the US or Canada (sorry, forgot how to short-link those)) on "hard work", "being determined", "bettering themselves through living through tough times", etc. are exactly the ones who can live exclusively off these "investments" without any real need for the hard work they so gladly champion. I doubt they have to face anything like the challenges that those having difficulty in finding decent work do overall, or have any legitimate understanding of these factors while contributing to those groups who would undermine social programs while giving tax breaks to the wealthiest groups of society. With due respect to those belonging to those groups, they are all too happy to abandon these principals when their companies are having economic trouble (aka. corperate socialism), as one can see any number of aerospace, military, or auto companies in the US past or present. They will do this while picking on poor single mothers, the mentally ill, and poorer members of society which their right-wing policies have so strongly contributed to.

This is not to say that these people don't deserve acknowledement for legitimate good they have done (contributing to legitimate economic growth, innovation, and the like), just that our economic system(s) as they exist today are unballanced in a way that benefits them greatly to the detriment of much larger numbers of people, and that the very wealthy minority should recognize this and try to rebalance it instead of profiting from the fear and ignorance of those who would elect governments who would allow the system to carry on as-is (or go further down the corperatist path).


From: Somewhere out there... Hey, why are you logging my IP address? | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Anonymous
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4813

posted 24 January 2005 05:36 AM      Profile for Mr. Anonymous     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
As for the value of treating employees well, might I suggest the book "The Customer Comes Second" by Hal Rosenbluth and Diane McFerrin Peters. It is the story of the leading travel management company in the US who got there by treating staff as well as they could, and is one of the few books on Amazon.com recieving full 5 star reviews by all reviewers (11 at the time of this post).

Just as some psychologists suggest most people only utilize 15 percent of their brains, so to do some theorize that businesses only get about 15% of the potential out of their workers. The ideas in the book could help increase this number considerably.


From: Somewhere out there... Hey, why are you logging my IP address? | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Anonymous
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4813

posted 24 January 2005 05:48 AM      Profile for Mr. Anonymous     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I believe Adam Smith (the economist) said that a fair wage is one that does not get one looked down upon by his or her fellow citizens.

I think that a decent wage can be determined by the amount of value the person in the position brings to the table, not just how little you can get away with paying him or her for.

For example, take Wal-Mart (yeah, everyone picks on them, but with good reason). For a fair wage of front-line staff, determine what degree of the company's profit they are responsible for, perhaps by determining the effect on profit with a smaller percentages of people in the position than required over the long term. Determine how much each sector (front line, warehouse, various levels of management) of the company in question contributes, divide by the total profit of the company, divide again by the number of people in the position, and you have a good estimate.

If you want to know the fair wage of a labourer doing landscaping work for a new guest house, for example, determine the extra revenue that will be brought in by the landscaping work minus any work needed by others to make the venture a success (and perhaps factor in a little to account for the risk taken and benefit to society of having the work done), and you have a decent estimate of a fair wage. This valuation may be far above the the price someone in the southern US can get a mexican labourer (for example) to work for, but is intrinsically much fairer than the "fair market value" as determined stictly by (manipulated, see link above) supply and demand as it may exist at any given time and place. Not absolutely perfect, but much closer to a fair accounting than the race to the bottom seen by so many corperate players today.

For many retail places that are guaranteed to succeed by simple virtue of having a very logical business plan (like Wal Mart, which was founded by a man who respected his staff much more than the current management does), front-line staff are most likely getting less than they rightfully deserve. Managers may be getting more or less than they deserve (perhaps less considering the stresses involved), but the main illegitimate gainers in most big ventures are the shareholders, who get paid simply by holding stocks that have little relevance to the profit of the company at large, especially as most hold too little to effect any change in the company should they desire to do so.

The irony is that it is exacty these wealthy shareholders (who hold this incredible wealth while things like child poverty and hunger are still in existence) who are most likely to loudly lecture those who would fill these positions (and see http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=12&t=000460&p= for the main reason behind the majority of unemployment in the US or Canada (sorry, forgot how to short-link those)) on "hard work", "being determined", "bettering themselves through living through tough times", etc. are exactly the ones who can live exclusively off these "investments" without any real need for the hard work they so gladly champion. I doubt they have to face anything like the challenges that those having difficulty in finding decent work do overall, or have any legitimate understanding of these factors while contributing to those groups who would undermine social programs while giving tax breaks to the wealthiest groups of society. With due respect to those belonging to those groups, they are all too happy to abandon these principals when their companies are having economic trouble (aka. corperate socialism), as one can see any number of aerospace, military, or auto companies in the US past or present. They will do this while picking on poor single mothers, the mentally ill, and poorer members of society which their right-wing policies have so strongly contributed to.

This is not to say that these people don't deserve acknowledement for legitimate good they have done (contributing to legitimate economic growth, innovation, and the like), just that our economic system(s) as they exist today are unballanced in a way that benefits them greatly to the detriment of much larger numbers of people, and that the very wealthy minority should recognize this and try to rebalance it instead of profiting from the fear and ignorance of those who would elect governments who would allow the system to carry on as-is (or go further down the corperatist path).


From: Somewhere out there... Hey, why are you logging my IP address? | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca