Wealth Distribution in the USA

Of course they are not equal. Capitalism would not work if that were so. I think that valuation is demonstrably wrong. A worker who only adds value equal to his wages will soon be out of a job because nothing he does would add to the bottom line. I am puzzled by your repetition of this assessment of value in the same post in which you acknowledge that a diamond cutter adds value in excess of his wages. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

It wasn't a rebuttal, just an explanation for my saying 'yes, more or less'. But whose talking about removing the employer? The fact that you can see that leaving it to the market can (and indeed does) lead to unfair consequences should answer your question of

quote:

---

Why shouldn't wages be set by the market?

---

It's not about demanding a job be worth anything. It's about acknowledging that the power to set wages primarily lies in the hands of the employer and that without intervention, employers, in order to maximise their profits, will pay the minimum they possibly can. This minimum will essentially be the least amount anyone would be willing to do that job for, and as such that can, and does, lead to impoverished workers who end up trying to outbid each other on lower and lower wages.It's not considered desirable, to some, to have an impoverished working class. Some think that if the working class had some spending power that would be better economically and would mean a better quality of life for more people which is a moral victory too.We invented the notion of self-regulating markets because supply/demand mechanics sound so neat and tidy. It's all rather swell, and I confess to understanding only some of it. But nevertheless, I think it would be foolish to enslave ourselves to the 'will' of an inhuman mechanic.We might define the value of a job in an auction sense as being the least amount of money anybody who can perform the job will perform the job. That is, let market forces set a value. But I think human labour should have a minimum price on the market. I think you agree that $0/hour + living expenses is below minimum (eg., slavery, indentured servitude); I see no reason the government can't then make a calculation about living expenses and say that wages for a full working week must pay at least necessary living expenses. We don't want the working class to be worse off than slaves, right? Yes, yes, they get to pick who their masters are - but there were forms of consensual slavery historically too. And markets do indeed influence wages. Which is why CEOs of large corporations can command such lucrative salaries, while the cleaners do not. Because there may well be a surplus of people willing to clean for money, the market would almost certainly set the wage at below the minimum required for comfortable living. This is evident in the number overseas departments global companies use solely due to the fact that they can pay lower wages.As such, although we allow the market to set wages for the middling jobs and above, for the lowest paid jobs there should be government regulations to prevent rampant labour exploitation at the expense of the citizens. We, quite rightly, set a minimum wage below which it would be both unfair and illegal to pay someone for a day's work.And that's why, in short, we don't let the markets decide. The market is amoral and blind of social consequences. Thus we add regulations to avoid the market running too far in undesirable directions.

The value of a worker's labor is one thing, his contribution to his company is another. Consider the diamond cutter again. His company pays him $500 for a days work during which he transforms a $1000 rough diamond into a $10,000 cut diamond. The value of his labor is $500. His contribution to the company's value is $9000.Your side in this discussion has a completely unworkable notion of the value of labor. I used the diamond cutter as an example because it is so easy to understand how much he is paid and how much the value of the diamond increases, but most contributions to a company's value are not clear. What is the contribution to a company's value of the night watchman, the delivery truck mechanic or the computer repair guy? You just have no idea. Even the companies themselves can't break it down with any reliability.But we do know the value of the employee's labor - it's equal to their wages, and wages are largely set by market forces.--Percy

You're largely responding to a position I do not hold, but about this: Independent of social legislation and labor unions and any other factors affecting compensation, a job is worth what someone is willing to pay. If the minimum wage rises to $20/hour and McDonald's is willing to pay burger flippers $20/hour, then that's what the job is worth, though more likely tons of jobs just disappear.This is why as much as some people might like to think that market forces can't be allowed to set wages, market forces are what set wages.--Percy

Which for the most part was a $2.48/day sweatshop or near starving on the street which is why ... You are correct. This level of voluntary servitude where the alternatives are no better, except the ones involving dying of starvation, cannot technically be called slavery even though in practical human terms there is little if any difference.So does this make it acceptable to abuse people?Does this make it acceptable for Wal-Mart, Adidas and others to say, "Your safety, your life, is not worth the few pennies in per share value our millionaire shareholders might suffer if we treated you with the respect due a real human being"?

Interesting how in your view, higher wages are a form of abuse.--Percy

I am all for higher wages for developing peoples, but not at the expense of my own modest wages...the keyword in all of this is competition.I am paid $17.00 an hour which is not too high and not too low in my opinion...but if the market sets my wage i may be forced to provide more value than I provided previously...even though in my mind i'm working just about as hard as I can.

Yes, this is why people feel that allowing markets (which are affected by the regulatory climate and other factors such as minimum wage laws, unions, etc.) to set wage levels is unfair. Modulous said the same thing at greater length. And I agree, it is unfair. But it's also reality. It would be incredibly obtuse to conclude, "Because allowing markets to set wage levels would be unfair, therefore markets don't set wage levels."--Percy

Well, this is confusing and equivocal. Perhaps instead of saying "the value of the employee's labor", you could say "the value of the employee's labor to the employee". Or better yet, since you apparently wish to refer to his wages, you could use the word "wages", reserving the word "value" for the concept "value".

The video shows that the gap between the most and least wealthy is wide and widening. It also shows that the majority believe that it is very far from what would be fair and equitable.I doubt many here would argue against the creation of a fair society, that seems to be the goal of all democracies.We know that those countries that have the least gap between the highest and lowest wealth are the happiest and that having an awful lot of money doesn't actually create happiness.It seems to me that happiness is being sacrificed to the God of Capitalism: Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

But it does create freedom. There are probably multitudes of unhappy billionaires. But the gobshites continue to accumulate wealth and have the leisure to pursue other interest. Rather than spend their days toiling for crumbs.

No, they are not different. A laborer's contribution to the company is his value to the company. Which makes the calculation difficult at least in the case of the night watchman. But it is not all that difficult to figure out the value added or subtracted by having onsite mechanics and repair people.

Yes, they are different. Go back to the diamond cutter example and explain how the diamond cutter's wage and the diamond cutter's contribution to the company are the same. You're dreaming.AbE: Maybe this is just a terminology issue. In my lingo, the value of a worker's labor is what someone is willing to pay, which is his wages. The value contributed to a company by a worker's labor is not his wages but something different. Again, the diamond cutter example makes clear the distinction.--PercyEdited by Percy, : AbE.

Should a society have the right to determine what areas should fall under capitalistic rules and policies and which should be outside?Is there some reason other than greed that we must open all areas to capitalism?Why should health care, education or utilities be market driven?

In my lingo, we call that his wages.