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

[wonderpup]

What is openly espoused in threads like this is the acceptable face of prejudice. The guy that wears a suit to work and carries a briefcase is rewarded with a share of the profit he generates because assumptions are made about his intellect. Those same assumptions label the McDonald's worker a mindless cretin and as such people justify them not being given a share of the profit they generate.

I think this is the heart of it. They need there to exist two distinct classes of humans- an underclass whose value (or lack of it) is defined only in terms of their numbers, and an over class, whose value is defined in a more complex way that incudes things like entitlement to fair rewards for value created.

The underclass are conceived as mindless drones, upon whom additional wealth would be wasted anyway, since they lack the mental capacity to enjoy it. So well developed is this mythology that it's possible to come across employers who style themselves as 'providing' employement to the unfortunate underclass drones under their care

So you can see it's practicly the duty of the overclass to monopolise the wealth, since only they appreciate the finer things in life that money can buy- and, after all, the underclass would only 'waste it' on booze and fags.

[Authoritarian]

What is openly espoused in threads like this is the acceptable face of prejudice. The guy that wears a suit to work and carries a briefcase is rewarded with a share of the profit he generates because assumptions are made about his intellect. Those same assumptions label the McDonald's worker a mindless cretin and as such people justify them not being given a share of the profit they generate.

Do you know the difference between a manager and a shareholder? You appear to be conflating the two.

Shareholders deserve the profits because they run the risk of losing time and capital if the company they've invested in performs badly. You may not be happy with this arrangement but its their money at stake, the labourer on the other hand forgoes this risk for the stability of a regular wage. There's nothing to stop the labourer becoming the capitalist and vice versa under this system yet you've got it in your mind that the capitalist class have somehow monopolised the - recreatable - means of production.

If a Mcdonalds worker wants a share of the profits then s/he if free to puchase them from a stock broker, with all the risk attached.

Edited August 15, 2009 by chefdave

[Stars]

Of course this is true of commodities- but labour is different in a crucial respect. What you seem unable to grasp is that the value created by the action of a specific individual is not negated by the fact that a billion other individuals could have taken the same action.

You appear to accept my point but then you contradict it immediately

The value of the actions of a person to you, IS your inability to comfortably replace what they are doing

If you ask what the value of someone's work is, you are really asking how much sh!t and bother would you have to go through to get the same effects as his work or how much of a pain in the neck would losing his work be. When i say people should be rewarded for the value they add, i precisely mean that people should be paid for the bother and inconvenience they remove for other people with their work. That IS what value is. If you want to use another concept, you are going to have to explain it and i suggest we use another word so it isn't confused with the concept of value.

We reward people on the basis of the actions they have taken.

Because the actions are easily replaceable, a customer will not pay much for the extra added by them

An employer can't charge much for easily replaceable actions for the same reason an employee can't; because the market value of the actions and their results is low.

So, if you lost your cat and offered a reward for the finder, and a guy went out and found your cat, would you refuse to pay the reward on the basis that millions of other people could have done the same as he did? After all, he actualy found the cat, so he should be the one to get the reward right?

Again, you are trying to do the same thing as you did with the quicksand example and the drowning example; trap an action as a monopoly, so that it cannot be replaced. but most actions can be replaced.

But i think i have a better idea now as to what is driving the gargantuan mistake you are making:

A quick explanation of a concept

There are two barriers that limit price -

1) The cost of production (a price cannot fall below this)

2) The utility to the buyer (a price cannot go above this)

In markets generally, supply competition pushes price down towards the cost of production, except in the case of land, which has no cost of production and cannot be replaced; therefore land prices are always pushed up by competition towards the utility to the buyer.

I think you want the market in labour to be the same as the market in land, so that competition between employers pushes up the price of labour towards utility, in the same way that competition between producers pushes the price of land up to utility. This is unknowingly what the union movement tried in the seventies, by splitting workers up into regions of supply monopoly which meant an employer had to go through them to employ anyone. They were trying to give the union movement control of the supply of labour in a region in the same way that landowners have control over the supply of land in a region.

The problem with that plan is that the system can only support one major monopolistic parasite of that magnitude at a time and the landowner parasite is already installed.

To say that the entire workforce of McDonalds could be easily replaced does not negate the value they have created by their efforts does it? The value is real, and they created it.

If what they add is not scarce then it doesn't have a high value - - nobody will pay much for it and an employer cannot charge a customer much for it.

And if you believe that people should be rewarded on the basis of the wealth they create, then you must agree that they deserve to be paid accordingly.

Yes i do - the wealth they create is the scarcity they relieve..A person looks at someone's work and thinks how much is that worth to me and pays that amount for it (if the deal is done). How is that someone not being paid for the value they create?

You seem to want to say that because these people are easy to replace their labour has no value- if so, explain how McDonalds made a 4.3 Billion profit in 2008- clearly wealth is being created here- it's just not being shared with those who create it.

If that were really true, the people who really create the wealth could break off from mcdonalds and outcompete them.

If the value of a person is purely to be judged on their lack of scarcity, then I should be able to torture or kill someone with impunity, based on the fact that human beings are so commonplace as to be virtualy worthless, and so to destroy a single individual is a trivial act.

The value of a person's work - not the person themselves

Cripes, you must think i pull people to pieces in my cellar - i share all of your concerns about the value of humans. I am one.

Clearly lack of scarcity is not sufficiant in itself to justify treating people in immoral ways- except, it seems, when there is money to be made from doing so. Greed. then, trumps all other considerations?

It is not immoral to offer somebody something for their work

Edited August 15, 2009 by Stars

[Authoritarian]

I think this is the heart of it. They need there to exist two distinct classes of humans- an underclass whose value (or lack of it) is defined only in terms of their numbers, and an over class, whose value is defined in a more complex way that incudes things like entitlement to fair rewards for value created.

The underclass are conceived as mindless drones, upon whom additional wealth would be wasted anyway, since they lack the mental capacity to enjoy it. So well developed is this mythology that it's possible to come across employers who style themselves as 'providing' employement to the unfortunate underclass drones under their care

So you can see it's practicly the duty of the overclass to monopolise the wealth, since only they appreciate the finer things in life that money can buy- and, after all, the underclass would only 'waste it' on booze and fags.

I'm sure you'll agree that the biggest problem this country has experienced over the last decade is a misallocation of capital. If all the money that ended up in the housing market was instead used for productive enterprise the value of labour would have appreciated greatly due to increased demand from employers.

Ok you're not going to abolish completely the capitalists desire to keep costs to a minimum, but what I'm getting at is that essentially employers and employees have similar interests: the maximisation of productive capacity. I would much rather have a freer and more vibrant private sector than an increase in the dull, centrally commanded economy that this country is inevitably heading towards.

[Authoritarian]

Again, you are trying to do the same thing as you did with the quicksand example and the drowning example; trap an action as a monopoly, so that it cannot be replaced. but most actions can be replaced.

But i think i have a better idea now as to what is driving the gargantuan mistake you are making:

A quick explanation of a concept

There are two barriers that limit price -

1) The cost of production (a price cannot fall below this)

2) The utility to the buyer (a price cannot go above this)

In markets generally, supply competition pushes price down towards the cost of production, except in the case of land, which has no cost of production and cannot be replaced; therefore land prices are always pushed up by competition towards the utility to the buyer.

I think you want the market in labour to be the same as the market in land, so that competition between employers pushes up the price of labour towards utility, in the same way that competition between producers pushes the price of land up to utility. This is unknowingly what the union movement tried in the seventies, by splitting workers up into regions of supply monopoly which meant an employer had to go through them to employ anyone. They were trying to give the union movement exclusive ownership of labour in a region in the same way that landowners have exclusive ownership of land in a region.

The problem with that plan is that the system can only support one major monopolistic parasite of that magnitude at a time and the landowner parasite is already installed.

Seriously Stars, thats good stuff.

[Stars]

I think this is the heart of it. They need there to exist two distinct classes of humans- an underclass whose value (or lack of it) is defined only in terms of their numbers, and an over class, whose value is defined in a more complex way that incudes things like entitlement to fair rewards for value created.

Wondurpup, it is you and boom that insist on making class distinctions

I describe people trading their work, you and boom describe class distinctions and categories

Edited August 15, 2009 by Stars

[Guest BoomBoomCrash]

You appear to accept my point but then you contradict it immediately

The value of the actions of a person to you, IS your inability to comfortably replace what they are doing

If you ask what the value of someone's work is, you are really asking how much sh!t and bother would you have to go through to get the same effects as his work or how much of a pain in the neck would losing his work be. When i say people should be rewarded for the value they add, i precisely mean that people should be paid for the bother and inconvenience they remove for other people with their work. That IS what value is. If you want to use another concept, you are going to have to explain it and i suggest we use another word so it isn't confused with the concept of value.

Because the actions are easily replaceable, a customer will not pay much for the extra added by them

An employer can't charge much for easily replaceable actions for the same reason an employee can't; because the market value of the actions and their results is low.

Again, you are trying to do the same thing as you did with the quicksand example and the drowning example; trap an action as a monopoly, so that it cannot be replaced. but most actions can be replaced.

But i think i have a better idea now as to what is driving the gargantuan mistake you are making:

A quick explanation of a concept

There are two barriers that limit price -

1) The cost of production (a price cannot fall below this)

2) The utility to the buyer (a price cannot go above this)

In markets generally, supply competition pushes price down towards the cost of production, except in the case of land, which has no cost of production and cannot be replaced; therefore land prices are always pushed up by competition towards the utility to the buyer.

I think you want the market in labour to be the same as the market in land, so that competition between employers pushes up the price of labour towards utility, in the same way that competition between producers pushes the price of land up to utility. This is unknowingly what the union movement tried in the seventies, by splitting workers up into regions of supply monopoly which meant an employer had to go through them to employ anyone. They were trying to give the union movement control of the supply of labour in a region in the same way that landowners have control over the supply of land in a region.

The problem with that plan is that the system can only support one major monopolistic parasite of that magnitude at a time and the landowner parasite is already installed.

If what they add is not scarce then it doesn't have a high value - - nobody will pay much for it and an employer cannot charge a customer much for it.

Yes i do - the wealth they create is the scarcity they relieve..A person looks at someone's work and thinks how much is that worth to me and pays that amount for it (if the deal is done). How is that someone not being paid for the value they create?

If that were really true, the people who really create the wealth could break off from mcdonalds and outcompete them.

The value of a person's work - not the person themselves

Cripes, you must think i pull people to pieces in my cellar - i share all of your concerns about the value of humans. I am one.

It is not immoral to offer somebody something for their work

Your entire unlettered missive can be debunked by simply looking at McDonald's balance sheet. You say...

'If what they add is not scarce then it doesn't have a high value - - nobody will pay much for it and an employer cannot charge a customer much for it.'

How exactly does this equate with the billions of dollars profit McDonald staff are instrumental in generating?

Edited August 15, 2009 by BoomBoomCrash

[Stars]

Your entire unlettered missive can be debunked by simply looking at McDonald's balance sheet. You say...

'If what they add is not scarce then it doesn't have a high value - - nobody will pay much for it and an employer cannot charge a customer much for it.'

How exactly does this equate with the billions of dollars profit McDonald staff are instrumental in generating?

Imagine -

We are at a race track and i ask you to lend me a fiver for ten minutes on condition i give it back to you plus say 50p

I then take your fiver and bet on a horse and turn it into £500

I come back and give you your 5.50 as agreed

Have i exploited you?

Have i paid you less, than what you gave me?

If not, how is it there is £494.50 left over?

Edited August 15, 2009 by Stars

[Guest BoomBoomCrash]

Imagine -

We are at a race track and i ask you to lend me a fiver for ten minutes on condition i give it back to you plus say 50p

I then take your fiver and bet on a horse and turn it into £500

I come back and give you your 5.50 as agreed

Have i exploited you?

You are avoiding my question. How do you square McDonald's balance sheet with the assertion you made that I quoted?

[Stars]

You are avoiding my question. How do you square McDonald's balance sheet with the assertion you made that I quoted?

Mcdonalds are able to make better use of the employee's labour than the employees can so they pay the employees an amount which compensates them for their loss, but make better use of the work, and so return a profit

Just like i made better use of the fiver than you could in that race track example.

[wonderpup]

You appear to accept my point but then you contradict it immediately

The value of the actions of a person to you, IS your inability to comfortably replace what they are doing

If you ask what the value of someone's work is, you are really asking how much sh!t and bother would you have to go through to get the same effects as his work or how much of a pain in the neck would losing his work be. When i say people should be rewarded for the value they add, i precisely mean that people should be paid for the bother and inconvenience they remove for other people with their work. That IS what value is. If you want to use another concept, you are going to have to explain it and i suggest we use another word so it isn't confused with the concept of value.

Ok- so we can both agree that you employ an individual because they add some kind of value to your operation yes?

So, by performing the task you have hired them to perform, they add a given value- call this value 'X'. ( X being the value this task has to your operation.)

Does the fact that an infinate number of other people could theoreticly perform the same task instead of the individual who currently performs it alter the value of X in any way? The answer is no- the value of the task to your operation remains the same no matter how many other people there are who could replace the current person doing that task.

Remember that X is the value of the task to your operation- and this remains a constant no matter how replaceable the person that performs that task might be.

Because the actions are easily replaceable, a customer will not pay much for the extra added by them

Are actions easily replaceable? I don't think they are. What if we were to remove the burger flipping action from MDonalds, so that the burgers are sold raw and uncooked? Surely, by definition, if a job exists it's because that job needs to be done? Actions are not easily replacable- but in many cases the people performing those actions are.

An employer can't charge much for easily replaceable actions for the same reason an employee can't; because the market value of the actions and their results is low.

Mc Donalds generates it's huge profits on the back of mostly simple tasks performed by mostly unskilled people.

QUOTE (wonderpup @ Aug 15 2009, 03:20 PM)

So, if you lost your cat and offered a reward for the finder, and a guy went out and found your cat, would you refuse to pay the reward on the basis that millions of other people could have done the same as he did? After all, he actualy found the cat, so he should be the one to get the reward right?

Again, you are trying to do the same thing as you did with the quicksand example and the drowning example; trap an action as a monopoly, so that it cannot be replaced. but most actions can be replaced.

I'm not trying to do anything except clarify what should be very simple moral precept, which is that those who do a task should be rewarded for doing that task. What is your answer; would you refuse to pay the reward on the basis that millions of other people could also have found the cat (but did not actualy do so)?

I think you want the market in labour to be the same as the market in land, so that competition between employers pushes up the price of labour towards utility, in the same way that competition between producers pushes the price of land up to utility. This is unknowingly what the union movement tried in the seventies, by splitting workers up into regions of supply monopoly which meant an employer had to go through them to employ anyone. They were trying to give the union movement control of the supply of labour in a region in the same way that landowners have control over the supply of land in a region.

I completely accept the reality that the unskilled are unable to enforce higher pay due to their lack of scarcity- what I am questioning is the idea that their lack of scarcity negates the value their labour creates- the two are not the same thing.

If what they add is not scarce then it doesn't have a high value - - nobody will pay much for it and an employer cannot charge a customer much for it.

But you will agree that it has some value- and recognise that this value remains the same whoever is adding it?

A person looks at someone's work and thinks how much is that worth to me and pays that amount for it (if the deal is done). How is that someone not being paid for the value they create?

I hold a gun to your head and offer to buy your house for a pound- you agree. How is that someone not being paid for the value of their house?

If that were really true, the people who really create the wealth could break off from mcdonalds and outcompete them

When you say ' the people who really create the wealth' who do you have in mind exactly? Wealth is created by people working, doing stuff in the real world. The profits of McDonalds are a direct result of the work done by its staff- they created this wealth- and were not rewarded for doing so.

The value of a person's work - not the person themselves

So why do you keep insisting that the expendability of the people themselves negates the value of the work?

It is not immoral to offer somebody something for their work

No, but it is immoral to make huge profits from that work while paying those involved the bare minumum.

Here is a question I have yet to get a straight, non wriggly, answer to:

Two companies- A and B.

Company A employs mostly low skilled people, company B employs mostly high skilled people. Company A make huge profits, company B makes very small profits.

Which workforce should be taking home more money- and why?

Edited August 16, 2009 by wonderpup

[SNACR]

Ok- so we can both agree that you employ an individual because they add some kind of value to your operation yes?

So, by performing the task you have hired them to perform, they add a given value- call this value 'X'. ( X being the value this task has to your operation.)

Does the fact that an infinate number of other people could theoreticly perform the same task instead of the individual who currently performs it alter the value of X in any way? The answer is no- the value of the task to your operation remains the same no matter how many other people there are who could replace the current person doing that task.

Remember that X is the value of the task to your operation- and this remains a constant no matter how replaceable the person that performs that task might be.

X = to the base value of what any healthy average adult in this country with the most basic of training can do in one hour.

2 x X, 3 x X, 4 x X etc. is the value added by, for example, the person who comes up with the snappy ad campaign that makes people want to buy, the person who formulates the mouth-watering new recipes, the person who procures quality ingredients at best market price, the person responsible for ensuring the company complies with food standards regs etc.

These things are the value and are all some varying function of X.

I go back to my lead blocks that the alchemist buys off the block cutter example - which you didn't answer. Just assembling some grilled ground beef between two bits of bread is in itself pretty worthless. It's McDonalds that adds the value and creates demand by marketing them as Big Macs and retailing them from a convenient drive-thru restaurant.

It is only that you know they derive a large profit from this that it irks you.

Edited August 16, 2009 by Soon Not a Chain Retailer

[SNACR]

Here is a question I have yet to get a straight, non wriggly, answer to:

Two companies- A and B.

Company A employs mostly low skilled people, company B employs mostly high skilled people. Company A make huge profits, company B makes very small profits.

Which workforce should be taking home more money- and why?

Whichever can hand in their notice and command a similar salary from another employer.

[Stars]

Ok- so we can both agree that you employ an individual because they add some kind of value to your operation yes?

So, by performing the task you have hired them to perform, they add a given value- call this value 'X'. ( X being the value this task has to your operation.)

Does the fact that an infinate number of other people could theoreticly perform the same task instead of the individual who currently performs it alter the value of X in any way? The answer is no-

the value of the task to your operation remains the same no matter how many other people there are who could replace the current person doing that task.

Incorrect

i have been trying to explain to you why this is incorrect

If it is a task that a lot of people can replace easily, it's value to a customer will be small

Are actions easily replaceable? I don't think they are. What if we were to remove the burger flipping action from MDonalds, so that the burgers are sold raw and uncooked? Surely, by definition, if a job exists it's because that job needs to be done? Actions are not easily replacable- but in many cases the people performing those actions are.

The actions of the particular person are easily replaceable with the actions of another person - which is why they don't get paid much

Mc Donalds generates it's huge profits on the back of mostly simple tasks performed by mostly unskilled people.

They make better use of the employees work than the employee can

Imagine -

We are at a race track and i ask you to lend me a fiver for ten minutes on condition i give it back to you plus say 50p

I then take your fiver and bet on a horse and turn it into £500

I come back and give you your 5.50 as agreed

Have i exploited you? Have i paid you less, than what you gave me?

Nope and yet i have £494.50 profit

What i did with your fiver is what employers do with people's labour.

I'm not trying to do anything except clarify what should be very simple moral precept, which is that those who do a task should be rewarded for doing that task. What is your answer; would you refuse to pay the reward on the basis that millions of other people could also have found the cat (but did not actualy do so)?

No the service is not replaceable because this person has now got your one and only cat

I completely accept the reality that the unskilled are unable to enforce higher pay due to their lack of scarcity- what I am questioning is the idea that their lack of scarcity negates the value their labour creates- the two are not the same thing.

If something can be done easily then the price of the results of the work lowers

If everyone can do plumbing easily, then nobody can charge much for plumbing anymore

But you will agree that it has some value- and recognise that this value remains the same whoever is adding it?

The value is the same whoever adds it, it lowers if a lot of people can do it easily (it isn't as scarce)

I hold a gun to your head and offer to buy your house for a pound- you agree. How is that someone not being paid for the value of their house?

Employers don't do that (not legally in the uk, anyhow)

When you say ' the people who really create the wealth' who do you have in mind exactly? Wealth is created by people working, doing stuff in the real world. The profits of McDonalds are a direct result of the work done by its staff- they created this wealth- and were not rewarded for doing so.

They aren't the only ones who created the wealth

Lets look at this from another angle, from the perspective of the providers of capital

The providers of capital decide to take the same nonsense view as yourself; they argue that if it weren't for them McDonald's staff would be standing in fields, flipping burgers with sticks and trying their best to catch and slaughter wild cows with their bare hands. So, they argue, McDonald's would not have made a profit without them and so ALL the profits should go to them.

In reality, they don't take this view because they realise that what they gave McDonald's was replaceable; other people could have done it. As a result they were competed into accepting an agreed price for the use of their capital that took into account the fact that McDonald's could have gone elsewhere.

No, but it is immoral to make huge profits from that work while paying those involved the bare minumum.

Wrong!

It is never immoral to give people money; what is immoral is INFLICTING COSTS ON PEOPLE

People can not get by, because landlords and governments inflict huge costs on them and here you are trying to blame the only group that are actually giving them money rather than inflicting costs

Think about it!

Here is a question I have yet to get a straight, non wriggly, answer to:

Two companies- A and B.

Company A employs mostly low skilled people, company B employs mostly high skilled people. Company A make huge profits, company B makes very small profits.

Which workforce should be taking home more money- and why?

There is no should - it is like asking who should be paid the most for apples. The price always depends on the people transacting

You wont get an answer to this, because there isn't a logical answer

[Guest BoomBoomCrash]

Whichever can hand in their notice and command a similar salary from another employer.

Which does them no good due to the cartel of devaluation that exists. A massive percentage of our workforce has been condemned to penury because it has been decided that their efforts are not worthy of significant reward.

[Guest BoomBoomCrash]

Incorrect

i have been trying to explain to you why this is incorrect

If it is a task that a lot of people can replace easily, it's value to a customer will be small

The actions of the particular person are easily replaceable with the actions of another person - which is why they don't get paid much

They make better use of the employees work than the employee can

Imagine -

We are at a race track and i ask you to lend me a fiver for ten minutes on condition i give it back to you plus say 50p

I then take your fiver and bet on a horse and turn it into £500

I come back and give you your 5.50 as agreed

Have i exploited you? Have i paid you less, than what you gave me?

Nope and yet i have £494.50 profit

What i did with your fiver is what employers do with people's labour.

No the service is not replaceable because this person has now got your one and only cat

If something can be done easily then the price of the results of the work lowers

If everyone can do plumbing easily, then nobody can charge much for plumbing anymore

The value is the same whoever adds it, it lowers if a lot of people can do it easily (it isn't as scarce)

Employers don't do that (not legally in the uk, anyhow)

They aren't the only ones who created the wealth

Lets look at this from another angle, from the perspective of the providers of capital

The providers of capital decide to take the same nonsense view as yourself; they argue that if it weren't for them McDonald's staff would be standing in fields, flipping burgers with sticks and trying their best to catch and slaughter wild cows with their bare hands. So, they argue, McDonald's would not have made a profit without them and so ALL the profits should go to them.

In reality, they don't take this view because they realise that what they gave McDonald's was replaceable; other people could have done it. As a result they were competed into accepting an agreed price for the use of their capital that took into account the fact that McDonald's could have gone elsewhere.

Wrong!

It is never immoral to give people money; what is immoral is INFLICTING COSTS ON PEOPLE

People can not get by, because landlords and governments inflict huge costs on them and here you are trying to blame the only group that are actually giving them money rather than inflicting costs

Think about it!

There is no should - it is like asking who should be paid the most for apples. The price always depends on the people transacting

You wont get an answer to this, because there isn't a logical answer

This nonsense about taxation and landlords is a red herring. If tomorrow it was announced that income tax was abolished and average rents dropped to 1/5th of their previous levels, the very next day wages would be dropped to leave people no better of than they were before the change.

[Injin]

Which does them no good due to the cartel of devaluation that exists. A massive percentage of our workforce has been condemned to penury because it has been decided that their efforts are not worthy of significant reward.

Nope.

They are thus because the medium of exchange has been mandated at gunpoint and we live in a communtarian state.

Free markets work.

Lets have some, then!

[Stars]

This nonsense about taxation and landlords is a red herring. If tomorrow it was announced that income tax was abolished and average rents dropped to 1/5th of their previous levels, the very next day wages would be dropped to leave people no better of than they were before the change.

How could wages drop?

Workers would be able to command higher wages because their work would now be worth more to them

[Injin]

This nonsense about taxation and landlords is a red herring. If tomorrow it was announced that income tax was abolished and average rents dropped to 1/5th of their previous levels, the very next day wages would be dropped to leave people no better of than they were before the change.

Show the mechanisms behind your thinking please.

[Guest BoomBoomCrash]

How could wages drop?

Workers would be able to command higher wages because their work would now be worth more to them

Because for those living on very low wages (statistically over 1/3rd of the population) even if they had no income tax to pay at all they'd still be poor.

[Injin]

Because for those living on very low wages (statistically over 1/3rd of the population) even if they had no income tax to pay at all they'd still be poor.

Compared to what?

[Guest BoomBoomCrash]

Show the mechanisms behind your thinking please.

[Guest BoomBoomCrash]

Compared to what?

The prevailing cost of living.

[Injin]

The prevailing cost of living.

Self referencing loop.

[Guest BoomBoomCrash]

Self referencing loop.

Yep, the question is will you ever break out of it.