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

[Guest eight]

If I wasn't happy with what I was getting paid in the shop I worked for the money I was being paid, I guess I'd just have to save my pennies and open my own shop.

I have asked you this before on another thread SNACR but must have missed the reply.

Where did you get your capital from to start your current business?

eight

[dredwerker]

In some cases, the employer can make better use of the employees work than the employee can and so is able to pay the employee more for his labour than the employee can pay himself. In some cases the employee is just missing a trick and hasn't figured out how much his labour might be worth to him.

Also companies find the work. I never mind paying someone for finding me work or letting them take a cut.

[Nickolarge]

can you give say two.

One is that he has not included all the costs involved in providing the cooked burger to the customer at the counter.

Another is that he has not considered the differing 'value' of the guy who can do 100 in an hour compared to the guy who can do only 80.

He has not considered the fact that I can prepare my own burger at home and a large part of my £3 is willingly paid because someone else has done that for me. If he put his unprepared burgers on a tray at the side of the road he would not get £3 for them. Most of them would get stolen!

I could go on but there is no point.

Most analogies don't work because the person who creates them always over simplifies the example to suit their own argument.

[PopGun]

Remember that all non-banking enterprises must operate using a means of exchange that is almost all borrowed at interest from the profit-motivated commercial banking system.

The non-banking sector as a whole is forced to pay ever increasing amounts of interest to the non-productive banking sector, and everyone in it feels that cost to some extent.

Are we to consider only how this burden should be distributed across the non-banking sector - between owners and workers, employers and employees alike? Sure, there are gross imbalances between owners and workers within the non-banking sector, but let us all first be clear about the nature of the common greater oppressor.

Why not change the whole parasitic money system rather than fight endlessly only for a larger share of less and less?

+1

We're all in cages, and the golden ones have the hardest locks to pick!! If employers/capitalists/pretenders actually stopped congratulating themselves long enough to realise this, we may be able to move forward.

Before it was just the landowners, now we also have bankers representing another layer of parasite.

[Stars]

One is that he has not included all the costs involved in providing the cooked burger to the customer at the counter.

Another is that he has not considered the differing 'value' of the guy who can do 100 in an hour compared to the guy who can do only 80.

He has not considered the fact that I can prepare my own burger at home and a large part of my £3 is willingly paid because someone else has done that for me. If he put his unprepared burgers on a tray at the side of the road he would not get £3 for them. Most of them would get stolen!

All irelevant

The point was that the buns have one price at step A (unasembled) and another at step B (assembled)

The value of assembling the buns can only be B - A, the employer can't pay more then B - A to assemble the buns

[The Spaniard]

+1

We're all in cages, and the golden ones have the hardest locks to pick!! If employers/capitalists/pretenders actually stopped congratulating themselves long enough to realise this, we may be able to move forward.

Before it was just the landowners, now we also have bankers representing another layer of parasite.

Thanks for the bump, it's refreshing to see the bigger cage recognized.

Part of the reason for my somewhat pretentious avatar is that the enterprises that make up the non-banking sector, forced as they are to compete with one another in an "arena" defined and controlled by the money system, are analogous to gladiators.

There are some spectacular winners among them but as a group they are controlled and exploited by a privileged over-class that itself is exempted from the bloody competition.

Edited August 14, 2009 by The Spaniard

[Stars]

Thanks for the bump, it's refreshing to see the bigger cage recognized.

Part of the reason for my somewhat pretentious avatar is that the enterprises that make up the non-banking sector, forced as they are to compete with one another in an "arena" defined and controlled by the money system, are analogous to gladiators.

There are some spectacular winners among them but as a group they are controlled and exploited by a privileged over-class that itself is exempted from the bloody competition.

Which is why banks never go bust

[wonderpup]

The value it adds the operation IS the value you can sell the service for.

An employer can only sell the value of a stacked shelf for its market price

I keep saying this, and you keep ignoring me

The problem is that the value added by any essential operation is theoreticly infinate- to the degree that without that operation being done there would be no value at all- so to say that the guy who assembles the burger adds a negligable value is arbitrary, since an unassembled burger is not a sellable commodity.

The point I keep makeing and which you keep ignoring is a simple one- if you belive that people should be rewarded relative to the value they create, and if you accept that McDonalds workforce creates a huge profit- then surely you must agree that they should be rewarded on the basis of that huge profit.

I fully accept your point that a business can only pay what it's profitability allows it to pay- so in a case where company profits are low, then pay is low. But When I advance the simple inversion of this concept, that when company profits are high then pay should reflect that, you suddenly back way and introduce all sorts of subjective criteria about 'non value added work' or the exependability of those doing the work.

The truth seems to be that the wealthy sincerely believe in rewards for the efforts of the wealthy, but when it comes to rewarding those at the bottom for their wealth creating activites, all manner of caveats and objections are spawned. The entire edifice of 'free market' economics turns out to be little more than a smokescreen employed to conceal the wholesale looting of the wealth of the nation by a small group at the top- who are too dumb to grasp the fact that the more they succeed in impoverishing the population, the more they destroy the markets for the goods and services they sell.

[Stars]

The problem is that the value added by any essential operation is theoreticly infinate- to the degree that without that operation being done there would be no value at all- so to say that the guy who assembles the burger adds a negligable value is arbitrary, since an unassembled burger is not a sellable commodity.

You are coming to this conclusion because you don't fully understand the concept of value

If there were only one of everything and everything were essential to every purpose and every purpose were equally necessary then everything would have equal infinite value and we could, as a result have no concept of value because we could not compare not having one thing to not having another and see any difference that would highlight the dimension of value. The concept of value relies on the notion of one thing being replaceable with another (as it is in the universe we inhabit) Without that notion, the concept of value is entirely meaningless.

So you are premising your discussion of value with a notion that things cannot or should not be replaced, a notion that makes value itself a meaningless concept.

The point I keep makeing and which you keep ignoring is a simple one- if you belive that people should be rewarded relative to the value they create, and if you accept that McDonalds workforce creates a huge profit- then surely you must agree that they should be rewarded on the basis of that huge profit.

McDonald's workforce are not the only people helping to make value for McDonald's

What about the people who make the electricity, the ovens, the buildings, the light bulbs and other services and capital that McDonald's uses to make it's profits? Shouldn't they get to share as well? The answer is in a way they do, they get paid for a contribution.

I fully accept your point that a business can only pay what it's profitability allows it to pay- so in a case where company profits are low, then pay is low.

That's not what i said - a worker is paid an agreed rate for the work they do, just as a plumber is paid an agreed rate to fix your pipes. How would you feel if, after fixing your pipes and being paid the agreed amount, a plumber insisted that you still owed him money because you made a lot of money and he should share in your profits because he contributed to them? It's moral nonesense unless both sides have agreed to that arrangment.

The payment for a task comes from the extra value added by the task to a customer. if the task can be done easily by many poeple then the value of doing this task for a customer is low...a customer wont pay much for it.

But When I advance the simple inversion of this concept, that when company profits are high then pay should reflect that, you suddenly back way and introduce all sorts of subjective criteria about 'non value added work' or the exependability of those doing the work.

'Non value added work' doesn't make much sense to me either

What you don't seem to get is that the expend-ability or replace-ability of something IS its value (the inverse concept)

If i value a chair, i figure how much unpleasantness or discomfort i would have to go through to replace it.

Edited August 14, 2009 by Stars

[Guest BoomBoomCrash]

You are coming to this conclusion because you don't fully understand the concept of value

If there were only one of everything and everything were essential to every purpose and every purpose were equally necessary then everything would have equal infinite value and we could, as a result have no concept of value because we could not compare not having one thing to not having another and see any difference that would highlight the dimension of value. The concept of value relies on the notion of one thing being replaceable with another (as it is in the universe we inhabit) Without that notion, the concept of value is entirely meaningless.

So you are premising your discussion of value with a notion that things cannot or should not be replaced, a notion that makes value itself a meaningless concept.

McDonald's workforce are not the only people helping to make value for McDonald's

What about the people who make the electricity, the ovens, the buildings, the light bulbs and other services and capital that McDonald's uses to make it's profits? Shouldn't they get to share as well? The answer is in a way they do, they get paid for a contribution.

That's not what i said - a worker is paid an agreed rate for the work they do, just as a plumber is paid an agreed rate to fix your pipes. How would you feel if, after fixing your pipes and being paid the agreed amount, a plumber insisted that you still owed him money because you made a lot of money and he should share in your profits because he contributed to them? It's moral nonesense unless both sides have agreed to that arrangment.

The payment for a task comes from the extra value added by the task to a customer. if the task can be done easily by many poeple then the value of doing this task for a customer is low...a customer wont pay much for it.

'Non value added work' doesn't make much sense to me either

What you don't seem to get is that the expend-ability or replace-ability of something IS its value (the inverse concept)

If i value a chair, i figure how much unpleasantness or discomfort i would have to go through to replace it.

So in essence no matter how much value an easily replaceable worker produces they should never expect more than a pittance in return. Glad we cleared that up.

[Stars]

So in essence no matter how much value an easily replaceable worker produces they should never expect more than a pittance in return. Glad we cleared that up.

Not true

The employer has to compete with other employers for labour that adds value - and ultimately the employer has to compete with the employee's own ability to create value for himself with his own labour. Whatever arrangement the employer offers it has to be a better deal than the employee using his own labour to create value for himself (in order to be accepted)

UNLESS -and this is the biggie -

There are costs that press upon labour, which mean that the worker has to pay someone else to access the value of his own labour.

Edited August 14, 2009 by Stars

[Stars]

I would like to add a concept to my previous post -

Imagine if everyone owned a plot of land which meant that with 8 hours work a day they could gain £50 a day - now, the effective minimum wage is £50 a day for eight hours work, because nobody would agree to work in employment for less than they can make for themselves with their own work. You would, in this theoretical, scenario have a minimum wage and zero unemployment without any need for any rules or restrictions governing employment or trade. Obviously, this literal physical arrangement is impractical, but its effects can be imitated with simple tax reforms that would lower(or even eliminate entirely) the tax load on both employers and employees.

Edited August 14, 2009 by Stars

[Guest BoomBoomCrash]

This really isn't a technical argument in the end, rather a moral one. On one side of the divide we have those that require state guidance to balance their lack of moral rectitude, and on the other those that think that just because you can do something does not necessarily mean that you should. Paying derisory wages is a moral judgement. In most cases businesses look at their profits and greed wins over fairness. All this other nonsense is just pontification intended to divert the argument from the foundation upon which it rests. Employers hold great power over those in their employ, they can choose to pay them well or they can choose to pay them poorly. The market has no say in how a business chooses to use its profits, that's just more blather trying to make excuses for the moral bankruptcy of low pay.

Edited August 14, 2009 by BoomBoomCrash

[Sheer Heart Attack]

This really isn't a technical argument in the end, rather a moral one. On one side of the divide we have those that require state guidance to balance their lack of moral rectitude, and on the other those that think that just because you can do something does not necessarily mean that you should. Paying derisory wages is a moral judgement. In most cases businesses look at their profits and greed wins over fairness. All this other nonsense is just pontification intended to divert the argument from the foundation upon which it rests. Employers hold great power over those in their employ, they can choose to pay them well or they can choose to pay them poorly. The market has no say in how a business chooses to use its profits, that's just more blather trying to make excuses for the moral bankruptcy of low pay.

Out of interest, it if costs a company £5,000 a week to run itself, what would you consider a fair return on that money?

[ZeroSumGame]

This really isn't a technical argument in the end, rather a moral one. On one side of the divide we have those that require state guidance to balance their lack of moral rectitude, and on the other those that think that just because you can do something does not necessarily mean that you should. Paying derisory wages is a moral judgement. In most cases businesses look at their profits and greed wins over fairness. All this other nonsense is just pontification intended to divert the argument from the foundation upon which it rests. Employers hold great power over those in their employ, they can choose to pay them well or they can choose to pay them poorly. The market has no say in how a business chooses to use its profits, that's just more blather trying to make excuses for the moral bankruptcy of low pay.

Although you make lots of sound moral points - you singularly fail to recognise that a public business exists to maximise its return to shareholders and has legal duty to do so !

[Guest BoomBoomCrash]

Out of interest, it if costs a company £5,000 a week to run itself, what would you consider a fair return on that money?

Depends on an awful lot of factors.

[ElPapasito]

A cartel in land presents a barrier between them and the value of their labour...

so much said in so few words

as significant and obvious (now, not then) as "all men are created equal"

[Guest BoomBoomCrash]

Although you make lots of sound moral points - you singularly fail to recognise that a public business exists to maximise its return to shareholders and has legal duty to do so !

2 points

1. Low pay is hardly confined to Plc's

2. Clearly ther eis room for manoeuvre as many Plc's do pay more than minimum wage for jobs that they could easily get away paying that rate for.

[Sheer Heart Attack]

Depends on an awful lot of factors.

Would you mind setting out those factors?

The reason I ask is that my business costs £5,250 a week to run - there are 13 of us including 2 directors, me included, who own 50% of the company each.

As I am risking £5,250 of money each week, what constitutes a moral return and what would be immoral?

I am not trying to be argumentative. I have a lot of sympathy for the socialist point of view (although it's not my bag personally), so I'd be interested in getting your thoughts as someone who, in his/her heart, believes it passionately.

[Guest BoomBoomCrash]

Would you mind setting out those factors?

The reason I ask is that my business costs £5,250 a week to run - there are 13 of us including 2 directors, me included, who own 50% of the company each.

As I am risking £5,250 of money each week, what constitutes a moral return and what would be immoral?

I am not trying to be argumentative. I have a lot of sympathy for the socialist point of view (although it's not my bag personally), so I'd be interested in getting your thoughts as someone who, in his/her heart, believes it passionately.

A reasonable return is a matter for you and your conscience. If you are going to suggest that many businesses pay poor wages because they cannot afford to do otherwise all I will say is that the business in question should fail, and probably will before too long. You say 'risking' the money, but without an assessment of the degree of risk it is impossible to even give an idea of what would be a reasonable expectation profit wise.

Edited August 14, 2009 by BoomBoomCrash

[Stars]

This really isn't a technical argument in the end, rather a moral one. On one side of the divide we have those that require state guidance to balance their lack of moral rectitude, and on the other those that think that just because you can do something does not necessarily mean that you should.

It's a moral problem, but the moral problem doesn't lie where you think it does. The moral deficiency isn't in the employer simply employing people for wages they accept (you yourself make the same kind of transaction every day when you pay for goods), it is within people who may be perhaps well meaning but cannot summon the intellectual courage and honesty to think the problem through to the end and apprehend exactly why the employee is cornered into accepting the deals he does and with that understanding call for reform which is rational and productive rather than irrational and destructive.

By forcing the employer to pay more you simply make it less easy to employ people and this creates unemployment and in the end lowers wages. However, if instead you reduce the costs to the worker of working, you provide an actual benefit to workers.

Edited August 14, 2009 by Stars

[Sheer Heart Attack]

A reasonable return is a matter for you and your conscience. If you are going to suggest that many businesses pay poor wages because they cannot afford to do otherwise all I will say is that the business in question should fail, and probably will before too long. You say 'risking' the money, but without an assessment of the degree of risk it is impossible to even give an idea of what would be a reasonable expectation profit wise.

It's a difficult question to answer.

Let's say I wanted to make 30% a week from a staff member's wage during the good times of the year, would that be immoral.

For example, I pay someone £301.88 after NI Employer's Contribution a week. When the other costs are considered, I have to pay £500 a week to employ them. If I wanted to make a 30% profit from their labour every week, meaning they must make the company £650 a week, is that exploitative?

[Guest BoomBoomCrash]

It's a moral problem, but the moral problem doesn't lie where you think it does. The moral deficiency isn't in the employer simply employing people for wages they accept (you yourself make the same kind of transaction every day when you pay for goods), it is within people who may be perhaps well meaning but cannot summon the intellectual courage and honesty to think the problem through to the end and apprehend exactly why the employee is cornered into accepting the deals he does and with that understanding call for reform which is rational and productive rather than irrational and destructive.

By forcing the employer to pay more you simply make it less easy to employ people and this creates unemployment and in the end lowers wages. However, if instead you reduce the costs to the worker of working, you provide an actual benefit to workers.

You persist in conflating someone purchasing something in a shop with an employee selling their time to an employer. Your free market fundamentalism just can't grasp that the employee is not free, not by any stretch of the imagination. People pretend employees are free because the true is rather too unpalatable and probably hugely damaging to the ego.

[Guest BoomBoomCrash]

It's a difficult question to answer.

Let's say I wanted to make 30% a week from a staff member's wage during the good times of the year, would that be immoral.

For example, I pay someone £301.88 after NI Employer's Contribution a week. When the other costs are considered, I have to pay £500 a week to employ them. If I wanted to make a 30% profit from their labour every week, meaning they must make the company £650 a week, is that exploitative?

What is the extra £200 paying for? You renting office space in Canary Wharf?

[thecrashingisles]

People pretend employees are free because the true is rather too unpalatable and probably hugely damaging to the ego.

We have nothing to lose but our chains?