|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Wealth Distribution in the USA | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member
|
One is that which the company values the job at, and that is the wage they offer for the job. Absolute nonsense. The wage offered for any job is the absolute lowest wage possible given the market for that particular job. Just like you will pay as little as you can for a bag of peas (remember those?) McDonald's is going to pay as little as they can for my labor. The value the company places on the job directly equals how much revenue (=benefit) they think the job brings in (however they arrive at that figure/estimate). This understanding of 'value' fits perfectly with all other concepts of value based on willingness to pay as a marker of perceived utilityi.e., the concepts of value that actual economists use. This also makes sense in the world where words have unambiguous meanings allowing for less-than-chaotic communication. There's simply no room for Percy's made up definition of 'value', and no need for it either, since we already have a word to describe the concept: wages. JonLove your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member
|
What about a minimum income paid for with a highly progressive income tax?
Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Increasing the wage-value for a job does not add to the bottom-line-value for the company. But according to Percy, only the first is the value of the job, and the second must never be mentioned for it is a Mystery. Or something, it's not actually clear what he thinks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Could I suggest that your need to cast the discussion into terms of good and evil, reinforced by the lack of objective supporting data for your position, indicates that you're not looking at this objectively? A question you should be asking yourself is, "Have I bought into this story just because it happens to confirm what I already believe, am I mistakenly condemning foreign investment because of inevitable instances of abuse, or is this what the data actually shows?"
To make your case you must show how foreign investment makes third world countries worse off. I just noticed yesterday that my jeans say "Made in Vietnam," a country that has benefited greatly from foreign investment. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Straggler writes: Like I said I think you are arguing against a straw man with regard to much of what you think other people are saying. The fact that these others keep telling you they don't mean what you keep telling them they do is something of a clue to this. Actually it looks more like an example of the Buzsaw syndrome. "Oh, what I said was ridiculous? In that case I meant something different."
Percy writes: The value of a job is the wage paid for that job. If you want to define the term "value" to suit your argument I will simply use the phrase "economic benefit" instead. No, the correct term is value, usually in units of a currency. The value of a job is the wage paid for that job, and the wage is set by the market, by supply/demand, which includes other relevant economic factors like minimum wage laws, unions, tariffs, etc.
Do you think that paying people at the bottom more at the expense of shareholder profits and/or executive salaries would be a good or bad outcome? I think anyone claiming they know the outcome is wrong, but I believe in the lessons of history, that the greater the disparity between haves and have nots the greater the likelihood of unrest and rebellion. I think we're in a bad place right now regarding the distribution of wealth, but I don't know the best way to fix it. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Percy writes: I think anyone claiming they know the outcome is wrong, but I believe in the lessons of history, that the greater the disparity between haves and have nots the greater the likelihood of unrest and rebellion. I think we're in a bad place right now regarding the distribution of wealth, but I don't know the best way to fix it. Well history has shown us that the tried and true method is bloody and messy. Revolution, disease, famine, starvation all have worked really well in the past and they are also the quickest solution. But if for some reason anyone wanted to try other means then education might work but only over time. As long as corporations are recognized in the US as individuals, as long as corporations are allowed to Lobby, I see little hope.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
One is that which the company values the job at, and that is the wage they offer for the job.
Absolute nonsense. The wage offered for any job is the absolute lowest wage possible given the market for that particular job. No, not for any job. Unless I misunderstanding what you mean by "given the market"? But companies can get competitive with finding employees. Too, if you were right, then how did we get these overpriced executives that are being complained about?
Just like you will pay as little as you can for a bag of peas (remember those?) McDonald's is going to pay as little as they can for my labor. Sure, but when I want a good steak, I don't go to the cheapest steakhouse in town. And I refuse to eat cheap sushi.
The value the company places on the job directly equals how much revenue (=benefit) they think the job brings in (however they arrive at that figure/estimate). How many people have you hired at the business you work for, Jon?
This understanding of 'value' fits perfectly with all other concepts of value based on willingness to pay as a marker of perceived utilityi.e., the concepts of value that actual economists use. Well, there also Job evaluation:
quote: That's pretty much exactly what we're saying.
There's simply no room for Percy's made up definition of 'value', and no need for it either, since we already have a word to describe the concept: wages. Well, it makes sense to me. It accurately describes the kind of process I went through for the last 4 or 5 QC lab techs that we hired.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Jon writes: One is that which the company values the job at, and that is the wage they offer for the job.
Absolute nonsense. The wage offered for any job is the absolute lowest wage possible given the market for that particular job. I don't think CS was trying to say anything different, though we have to make clear that your expression about "absolute lowest wage possible" must take various factors into account. A business might find that it has no trouble attracting workers at minimum wage but that there's corresponding high turnover at that wage, or that those willing to work at that wage are less reliable or competent.
The value the company places on the job directly equals how much revenue (=benefit) they think the job brings in (however they arrive at that figure/estimate). The contribution to revenue of most jobs isn't calculable. How much money does the night watchman or the receptionist bring in? Even for those working directly on product, their contribution to revenue isn't calculable. How much does the guy installing the instrument cluster of a car on an assembly line contribute to revenue? How much does his boss contribute to revenue? How much does the designer of the cluster layout contribute to revenue? How much does the manager of the instrument cluster design team contribute to revenue?
There's simply no room for Percy's made up definition of 'value', and no need for it either, since we already have a word to describe the concept: wages. You are seriously confused. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Do you now accept that businesses are able to estimate the economic benefits of filling specific positions and compare these to the cost of filling those positions? Or not? If not - How can they make economic arguments about hiring and firing people for specific positions?
Percy writes: Actually it looks more like an example of the Buzsaw syndrome. "Oh, what I said was ridiculous? In that case I meant something different." The whole idea that there is a formula for working out exactly an individual employees contribution to profit which that employee should then receive as a wage is a fiction entirely of your own creation as far as I can tell. I haven't seen anyone suggest this but this continues to be the position you are railing against at every available opportunity. I think you are confusing the things people are saying about relative rewards and benefits with this straw man. By relative rewards and benefits I mean (to take an extreme example for purposes of illustration) the following: Imagine an employee who provides little economic benefit to a business but who is by far the best paid member of that company. Now imagine an army of workers whose work is essential to that same company but whose combined starvation wage salaries total a mere fraction of the salary paid to the single employee mentioned above. Now you could just throw up your hands and say "market forces". Or you could seek to highlight the fact that the company in question would arguably barely miss the presence of the single highly paid employee but be utterly financially fucked in the absence of the poorly paid workforce generating the profits for the company. One could further suggest that in such situations the single highly paid employee is overpaid and that the starvation wage workforce are underpaid given the relative economic benefit they provide to the company in question. It's about recognsing that sometimes market forces result in injustices such as the above and implementing things like minimum wage legislation to rebalance things somewhat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Wiki on economic value:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
jar writes: But if for some reason anyone wanted to try other means then education might work but only over time. As long as corporations are recognized in the US as individuals, as long as corporations are allowed to Lobby, I see little hope. This makes a lot of sense. Improved education of course makes sense, but about corporations, I don't know how it would be done, but I would like to see the the political influence of corporations reduced, both in legislatures and elections. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Straggler writes: Do you now accept that businesses are able to estimate the economic benefits of filling specific positions and compare these to the cost of filling those positions? Or not? If not - How can they make economic arguments about hiring and firing people for specific positions? What part of "I agree" didn't you understand? As long as you aren't claiming that companies know how much a specific job contributes to revenues or profits then I'm fine with it.
The whole idea that there is a formula for working out exactly an individual employees contribution to profit which that employee should then receive as a wage is a fiction entirely of your own creation as far as I can tell. I haven't seen anyone suggest this but this continues to be the position you are railing against at every available opportunity. I think you are confusing the things people are saying about relative rewards and benefits with this straw man. I lived the discussion message by message and did not misunderstand. Tangle did not misunderstand, either. Look at what Jon just said in Message 256:
Jon writes: The value the company places on the job directly equals how much revenue (=benefit) they think the job brings in (however they arrive at that figure/estimate). So, no there's no misunderstanding. There's no strawman. There's just you making me explain over and over again that this began when I explained that the value of a job is the wages paid for that job and that market forces set the wages. "No, no," it was objected, "the value of the job is what it contributes to the company's value, and this is how wages are calculated." Which is wrong, of course. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Since I've never in this thread used the term "economic value" or "market price", I fail to see why you felt the need to point out the distinction. Are you trying to take the discussion to a more detailed level by introducing yet another factor that can't be calculated?
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes: Do you now accept that businesses are able to estimate the economic benefits of filling specific positions and compare these to the cost of filling those positions? Or not? If not - How can they make economic arguments about hiring and firing people for specific positions? Percy writes: What part of "I agree" didn't you understand? The part where you first agree that these economic benefits can be estimated before contradicting yourself by relentlessly proclaiming that the economic benefit an individual employee provides to a business is some sort of mysterious unquantifiable entity that requires some sort of non-existent formula to determine.
Percy quoting Jon writes: The value the company places on the job directly equals how much revenue (=benefit) they think the job brings in (however they arrive at that figure/estimate). Percy writes: So, no there's no misunderstanding. There's no strawman. Except that when Jon talks about value he isn't talking about the market price paid for the employee's labour as a wage is he? Wiki on economic value:
quote: When a company hires an employee they do so because they expect that employee to add more value to the business than it costs to hire them. This is what Jon is talking about. When you talk about "value" what are you talking about? More widely - What is being suggested here is that, where there are obvious and blatant discrepencies between wage received and economic benefit provided that market forces alone should not be blindly adhered to. Especially if those at the top are effectively rigging the market in their own favour at the expence of those at the bottom.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
I'm pointing out that when we talk about the value an individual employee provides to a business we aren't suggesting that this is what they should be paid. You seem incapable of separating the two things ajnd this is leading to vast amounts of miscommunication.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024