Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Guest BoomBoomCrash

It's Not Your Imagination, You Really Are Working Harder For Less Money.

Recommended Posts

It isn't new.

As soon as the powers that be decided to start lying about inflation and the interest rate it was a slow drip, drip decline regardless of boom or bust.

If most wages go up the same amount as CPI, but real inflation is higher the overall effect is a lowering of salaries.

So you work longer and harder for less and less money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I've been assured often on this very forum that everyone who works for low pay has freely chosen to do so and is equally free to walk away at any time, if they want to.

What they are less clear on is why anyone then 'freely chooses' to work for derisory sums of money- but no doubt there is an utterly convincing 'free market' explination of this that I must have missed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, even in minimum wage McJobs, workers get 'performance management appraisals'. There's no jobs you can just turn up to and pass the time these days - they expect 8 hours plus of hard graft and even when you've hit all the right targets they want more - often for the same money in the same number of hours.

As anyone knows, you can't just hammer away for eight hours without a bit of a skive, loads of trips to the drink machine, chit-chat, net-surfing, staring out the window, etc. Humans are creative individuals not cows on one of Stalin's farming co-ops splurting out production.

Edited by CrashedOutAndBurned

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I've been assured often on this very forum that everyone who works for low pay has freely chosen to do so and is equally free to walk away at any time, if they want to.

What they are less clear on is why anyone then 'freely chooses' to work for derisory sums of money- but no doubt there is an utterly convincing 'free market' explination of this that I must have missed.

You've been assured correctly.

In any case it's society not employers who place the value on unskilled jobs as you've often been informed as well. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BoomBoomCrash
You've been assured correctly.

In any case it's society not employers who place the value on unskilled jobs as you've often been informed as well. ;)

I thought we concluded that was a conceit used to justify low wages? A company making billions in profit should not have any staff working for derisory wages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought we concluded that was a conceit used to justify low wages? A company making billions in profit should not have any staff working for derisory wages.

No, you just learned the word conceit so put it in every other post.

In fact nobody concluded anything; the fact was lying around available to be picked up by anyone that wages are decided by supply and demand unless someone steps into rig the price, in which case jobs are destroyed.

Wonderpup supported the principle of supply/demand determining wage rates when he agreed that in a short-supply situation workers should act to push up the price of labour. I quite agree they should.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You've been assured correctly.

In any case it's society not employers who place the value on unskilled jobs as you've often been informed as well. ;)

The labour vs capital (i.e. wages vs profits) share of national income has been increasingly in capital's favour ever since the 1970s. I couldn't really tell you why, but I suspect weaker job protection, lower unemployment benefits, and weak bargaining power for labour have all contributed. Anyway, GDP has grown with improvements in productivity, but real wages have remained fairly stagnant. The growing difference is profits, many of which have ended up in the financial sector and contributed to this bubble. The economy is apparently full of 'slack' now, full of productive capacity and yet nobody is buying the goods. This is because the workers of the world do not earn enough to buy what they are producing. The equation will ultimately be balanced by real wage rises for labour and reduced income inequality (e.g. price deflation and stagnant wages). This is what happened in the last depression anyway, though of course it took many years to regain some kind of equilibrium.

rpi_gdp_earnings.PNG

post-21200-1250182191_thumb.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BoomBoomCrash
No, you just learned the word conceit so put it in every other post.

In fact nobody concluded anything; the fact was lying around available to be picked up by anyone that wages are decided by supply and demand unless someone steps into rig the price, in which case jobs are destroyed.

Wonderpup supported the principle of supply/demand determining wage rates when he agreed that in a short-supply situation workers should act to push up the price of labour. I quite agree they should.

The last time I used the word 'conceit' was the last time we discussed this very issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

aint this known as 'sweating the assets'

Making the workers increase productivity is not a new idea imo.

Recovereh is on the way though.

As for dossing about during work time, plenty of jobs for that! I should know, those are the only jobs i will do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I've been assured often on this very forum that everyone who works for low pay has freely chosen to do so and is equally free to walk away at any time, if they want to.

What they are less clear on is why anyone then 'freely chooses' to work for derisory sums of money- but no doubt there is an utterly convincing 'free market' explination of this that I must have missed.

I have explained to you why people agree to work for 'derisory' real wages -

A cartel in land presents a barrier between them and the value of their labour, so they can't access the value they could create without an employer, for free.

This is a concise, logical explanation, which is entirely in accordance with the principles of the market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You've been assured correctly.

Ok. so when do I get to see the utterly convicing explination of why all these 'free' individuals 'freely choose' to work for derisory wages, when they are in fact 'free' to walk away at any time? Are they all financial masochists?

Or could it just be that there is some teeny weeny bit of constraint involved in their behavior? Because if there is, they are not making a 'free' choice, are they?

Edited by wonderpup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are an employer and you get any form of grief from any employees at this time just get rid of them and quickly. Who do you think you are doing a favour for by keeping them on?

If you are keeping people on because they are not costing alot as they are lower paid remember they are still costing real money and will not be so proportionally badly off by getting government payments.

It is simple business suicide to put people on a 4 day week. It is not going to get better. If you don't need them for 5 you won't need them for 4 and maybe someone you really do need and for some politically correct reason you have put them on a 4 day week you should re-employ them properly, they may actually help save your business.

Now is not the time to get soft with staff. It is too tough out there. Business always comes first and dismiss any employee who doesnt fully commit or understand this.

Maybe, just maybe some of us might survive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have explained to you why people agree to work for 'derisory' real wages -

A cartel in land presents a barrier between them and the value of their labour, so they can't access the value they could create without an employer, for free.

This is a concise, logical explanation, which is entirely in accordance with the principles of the market.

right-so when you say people 'agree' to work for derisory wages, what you really mean is that they have no choice but to work for such wages- due to the land cartel situation you describe. Since when did a no choice option become a free choice option?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
right-so when you say people 'agree' to work for derisory wages, what you really mean is that they have no choice but to work for such wages- due to the land cartel situation you describe. Since when did a no choice option become a free choice option?

I never claimed that people in our present system are free - it is one of my big complaints that people are not free and i have always maintained that people not being free is what holds down wages.

The fact that some thug keeps stopping you working for yourself does not mean an employer is forcing you to work for derisory wages. It is a simple matter of attaching blame and cause to the right thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok. so when do I get to see the utterly convicing explination of why all these 'free' individuals 'freely choose' to work for derisory wages, when they are in fact 'free' to walk away at any time? Are they all financial masochists?

Or could it just be that there is some teeny weeny bit of constraint involved in their behavior? Because if there is, they are not making a 'free' choice, are they?

They have little to offer that anyone is prepared to pay for. They are, in the current climate, lucky to be able to work for any wages at all.

In a post-industrial society they have become economically worthless the wages they do receive are by government fiat higher than they could naturally attract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They have little to offer that anyone is prepared to pay for. They are, in the current climate, lucky to be able to work for any wages at all.

I think what brings down living conditions, is more the costs inflicted on people.

For instance, a corrupt tax system that penalises production so people can passively make money inflating the price of real estate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think what brings down living conditions, is more the costs inflicted on people.

For instance, a corrupt tax system that penalises production so people can passively make money inflating the price of real estate.

Certainly BTL and property were well rewarded and it wasn't a sector that in itself created any jobs. A plumber who employs and apprentice should be better rewarded than someone who just buys a house to rent out with debt and just expects to sit and watch it go up.

I can well imagine there being big incentives for those who actually employ people in future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BoomBoomCrash
They have little to offer that anyone is prepared to pay for. They are, in the current climate, lucky to be able to work for any wages at all.

In a post-industrial society they have become economically worthless the wages they do receive are by government fiat higher than they could naturally attract.

Yet without these people many companies would not be able to operate and make the massive profits they do. Seems to me you once again denigrate the efforts of people when it is expedient for you to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yet without these people many companies would not be able to operate and make the massive profits they do. Seems to me you once again denigrate the efforts of people when it is expedient for you to do so.

I'm not, in this instance denigrating, just stating the facts. Fast forward to the future and there are two branches of McDonalds one is staffed by spotty youths on minimum wage giving mediocre customer service. The other, just up the road, is operated by cyborgs who always give fast, efficient and hygenic service and the burgers there are always cooked perfectly and the price is cheaper as the cyborgs don't need paying.

It's not hard to guess which branch everyone will patronise. The fast efficient service will give them more time to ponder why they seem to be getting paid less all the time in their own jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its interesting to calculate wages in gold.

In 2001 as an IT contractor i was earning over 3 oz of gold a day (before tax).

Now if i was still in IT i wouldnt even be earning 1 oz a day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what the captive factory worker of the BRIC countries would make of that "article"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought we concluded that was a conceit used to justify low wages? A company making billions in profit should not have any staff working for derisory wages.

The two aren't connected. If they were turning over trillions, billions might be a small margin.

Edited by Greg Bowman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They have little to offer that anyone is prepared to pay for. They are, in the current climate, lucky to be able to work for any wages at all.

Right- so can we dispense once and for all with this 'free choice' nonsense. People are forced to work for low pay because that's the only 'choice' they have- which is no choice at all.

What's the difference between a 'free' market and just a market?

Answer, there is no difference- so why does the word 'free' get stuck in there all the time?

As you point out, it's not about choice and it's not about freedom. It's about power- who has it and who does not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   295 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.