Wealth Distribution in the USA

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.Jon

What about a minimum income paid for with a highly progressive income tax?

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.

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

Actually it looks more like an example of the Buzsaw syndrome. "Oh, what I said was ridiculous? In that case I meant something different." 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. 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

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.

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? 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. How many people have you hired at the business you work for, Jon? Well, there also Job evaluation:

quote:

---

A job evaluation is a systematic way of determining the value/worth of a job in relation to other jobs in an organization. It tries to make a systematic comparison between jobs to assess their relative worth for the purpose of establishing a rational pay structure.

---

That's pretty much exactly what we're saying. 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.

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 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? You are seriously confused.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

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? 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.

Wiki on economic value:

quote:

---

Note that economic value is not the same as market price. If a consumer is willing to buy a good, it implies that the customer places a higher value on the good than the market price. The difference between the value to the consumer and the market price is called "consumer surplus". It is easy to see situations where the actual value is considerably larger than the market price: purchase of drinking water is one example.

---

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

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. 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: 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

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

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. 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:

---

Note that economic value is not the same as market price. If a consumer is willing to buy a good, it implies that the customer places a higher value on the good than the market price. The difference between the value to the consumer and the market price is called "consumer surplus". It is easy to see situations where the actual value is considerably larger than the market price: purchase of drinking water is one example.

---

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.

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.