Wealth Distribution in the USA

Now you're just spouting the same nonsense you're claiming hasn't been present throughout this thread. The simplest counterexample to this is when a company lays off workers to reduce expenses and their stock goes up. In retrospect were the laid off workers making a negative contribution to this "economic benefit" you've made up? I'm not suggesting there's no such thing as "economic benefit," just objecting to the way you're using the term as if were some kind of magic that explains anything you want it to explain. Ah, now we've finally dug down to the true reason you're pursuing me about this. You believe, despite your denials and just like the others I've been arguing with, that wages are not set as high as they should be because those jobs provide a "economic benefit" to the company in excess of the wages. I am again obliged to point out that this "economic benefit" is not calculable, and any claims made about a number that can't be calculated are as fictional as the number itself.So much for your claims that no one is making this argument. You all differ on the details a bit, but it's basically the same argument. And it's wrong.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Yes, I know it isn't being suggested that the whole amount of this "economic benefit" (that can't be calculated) belongs to the employee. Yes, I know that's what you're suggesting. And you're wrong. The "economic benefit" (which I put in quotes to highlight the vagueness that is part and parcel of arguments like yours) belongs to the shareholders.Where do you guys come up with these crazy ideas? Reduce it down to something simple and look at it. A farmer hires someone to help him harvest his wheat. Do you really believe that worker now has some kind of claim on a portion of the "economic benefit" of the farmer's crop? No, he does not. He has a claim on the wages the farmer agreed to pay him.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Again, the answer is pretty simple; education. Stop educating kids to be productive workers; educate the kids to be productive citizens.The problem is that the US decided to reject that solution back in 1966 when they elected Reagan governor of California.Education is slow, generational, but effective. Unfortunately the US has spent the last half century or so trying to educate workers instead of citizens. It's likely too late for any hope of non-bloody solutions, but then people almost never chose the non-bloody solutions anyway.

You may attempt to compartmentalize the argument but . . .I, and the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly on 10 December 1948 believe the worker does have minimal claims that would affect the profitability.Though the usa has been silently backpeddling away from most of its human rights protections since it was adopted, none the less, the laws and rules ARE there. Check out Article 23, 24 and 25 below:

quote:

---

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 10 December 1948.

​

It represents the universal recognition that basic rights and fundamental freedoms are inherent to all human beings, inalienable and equally applicable to everyone, and that every one of us is born free and equal in dignity and rights. Whatever our nationality, place of residence, gender, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status, the international community on December 10 1948 made a commitment to upholding dignity and justice for all of us.

​

Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

​

Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

​

Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services

​

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/history.shtml

---

Edited by dronester, : clarity

Or you are tarring me with the same brush that you have falsely tarred numerous others with in this thread? If the cost of employment exceeds the estimated economic benefits a particular role brings to a business then there is a business case for making that position redundant. This scenario holds no problem for anything I have said in this thread. If the costs of employment outweigh the economic benefits of employment then the value assigned to that role is negative and there is a business case for making the position redundant. The position is of negative value to the business at that time. In effect the answer to you quesion is - Yes (although I think you have the terminology slightly confused) I suggest you go back and look at how the economic benefits of hiring a network engineer are estimated at my company. Estimated for both hiring new staff in times of growth and reducing staff numbers in times of contraction. I can assure you that if I mentioned "magic" in my business cases they wouldn't get very far..... Message 267Which part of your contradictory position are you failing to see as contradictory here? Not exactly. I believe that if market forces (especially in rigged markets) result in some being blatantly over-rewarded for their contribution to wealth creation and some being blatantly under-rewarded then it is up to government to tackle such discrepencies through the implementation of things like minmum wage policies.Where Adam Smith's invisible hand results in outcomes which threaten the both the stability of the economy and social cohesion I believe governments have a duty to intervene rather than simply thrown their hands in the air and proclaim that market forces shall prevail come what may.

I will point out two things:1) I have provided you with a specific non-vague example of how the economic benefit of hiring a real network engineer is determined at a real company.2) Profits are what belong to shareholders. Profits are determined after wages are paid. Meanwhile over here ---> We have the economic benefit of hiring for a position which is an estimation of the value to the company of the work that employee will do as compared to that work not getting done. Again - It's all in the network engineer example I walked you through earlier.

The analysis in the video shows that there is vastly unequal distribution of wealth in the USA. It also says that it's not what the majority of US citizens feel is fair. The goal therefore would be to distribute wealth more fairly. In those industries that do not require skilled workforces - of which there are many - there is a downward pressure on wages, the minimum wage at least provides protection for the most vulnerable to this activity. The first step really must be to crack down on off-shore accounting which allows mega companies like Google, Amazon, Starbucks and the like to pay very little corporation tax on their profits. This actually damages competition by creating uneven playing fields (eg the UK company Costa Coffee pays full UK tax whilst Starbucks pays nothing yet their shops compete side by side on the high street.)Then you need progressive personal taxation that allows individuals to get wealthy but also to be taxed proportionally. And again - cut out all the artificial tax avoidance schemes that the wealthy are able to use to get out of paying their dues.Others would go further:http://dnwssx4l7gl7s.cloudfront.net/...-/files/The_Ratio.pdfThe Ratio
Common Sense Controls For Executive
Pay And Revitalising UK Business

Oh, please, you flatter me, I'm as dust on your heels compared to your attempt to frame the debate in terms of human rights. Could you guys give it a break? This discussion is not a battle between good and evil. It's a discussion about a flaw in some peoples' argument.Companies and their revenues and their expenses and their debts and their profits and their losses belong to shareholders. Pointing that out is not wrong and it's not an argument in favor of exploitation or human rights abuses.What's wrong is arguments that the contributions a job makes to a company's balance sheet belong to some degree to the jobholder. They do not. They belong to the shareholders. The fallacy of such arguments should be blatantly obvious to everyone. If when things are going well on the balance sheet some of it belongs to jobholders in terms of higher salaries, then when things aren't going well some of that belongs to jobholders too in terms of lower salaries.But it doesn't work that way. If there's nothing in an employment contract about a share of profits or revenues, then employment does not convey any sharing of them with the jobholder. Period.--Percy

You tar yourself. You believe that there is an "economic benefit" that can be calculated for a job. You'll waver from time to time and say "within an order of magnitude" and other similar weaseling, but then you're right back to it, as we see here: You still believe the "economic benefit" of individual jobs can be calculated. They can't. Incredibly you're calling your business case for a network engineer a successful fulfillment of calculating this number. Please. Not even close. It even included the phrase "finger wave."What your business case includes is how the company's business would benefit if a given job were added. It includes no calculation nor even estimate of the contribution of that job to the company's revenue or profits. You can make a business case saying something like, "If we add a network engineer then we finish the project on time and escape late penalties of one million dollars," but you can't say that network engineering job is worth one million dollars. That would be ridiculous. So maybe you'll say that job is worth a proportion of the one million dollars, but what proportion? Any proportion you choose is just made up. Any other ideas you have will also just be made up stuff. The number isn't calculable.I've said this all before (and before and before), but you've ignored it before and I expect you'll ignore it again.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix quote.

Message 267Estimated. And I thought you had agreed that this was the case. What exactly is it that you agreed to previously if not that? Can you at least see why your position here appears to be contradictory? Again - Estimate. If the economic benefits of filling particular positions cannot be estimated how can economic arguments be made for hiring and firing people for specific positions? This is not a rhetorical question. It shows how an assessment is made of employing someone for a given position Vs not filling that position. It works for both hiring and firing. But - Again - It's an estimate. So what? Most of the cost benefit analysis for a network engineer involves estimating the economic consequences of letting your network infrastructure fall into disrepair. You can however say that the economic benefit to the company of hiring that engineer Vs not doing so is likely to far exceed the cost of hiring that engineer. I'd simply say that the economic benefit of filling that post is estimated to far exceed the costs of employing that engineer. This ultimately is what those reading a business case want to know. But the cost Vs economic benefit is indispuably able to be estimated. I know this because I have had to do it for real positions in real companies. So stop denying reality. Why are you so obsessed with some one-size-fits-all formula leading to some sort of mathematically proved result? Businesses make hiring and firing decisions based on inexact cost beneit estimations all the time. I haven't ignored anything but I am utterly perplexed as to why you think the economic benefit of a particular role in a company is some sort of mysterious and wholly unquantifiable thing that nobody in their right mind would ever even try to consider.I estimate the costs and benefits of hiring IT infrastructure staff on a regular basis. Some might say I even do this reasonably successfully.....(or at least convincingly)Edited by Straggler, : Spelling and typos.

Sorry, no. Corporations don't exist in a bubble. The workers and the rest of earth's inhabitants are partners in the stewardship of Earth's future too. If you mean, that this is the current global economic model that corporations practice through exploitation, safety deregulation, tax evasion, war-criminal conduct, stealing of pensions, corporate welfare, government corporatism, poisoning the environment, and outright stealing in bailouts, I guess you are correct. and it's not an argument AGAINST exploitation or human rights either. Yes, I am quite sure that Walmart's owners and nearly all other corporations would argue that idea. It seems that would be an argument for corporations to be masters of men.For me, I'd prefer Walmart to be subservient to human interests. But that's just me . . .

quote:

---

After 1,300 Die In Bangladesh Walmart Refuses To Sign Safer Factory Agreement
Walmart, the third largest public corporation and mega retail chain in the world, has refused to sign an agreement with other retail chains that will improve safety and working conditions for factory workers overseas.
zcommunications.org - zcommunications Resources and Information.

---

Edited by dronester, : clarity

What portion of the economic benefit to the company to you give to the engineer as his wage? Is it a fair amount or not?

Who said they exist in a bubble? Those are your words. Corporations have to follow laws and regulations and pay taxes just like everyone else, and they even donate to charities just like everyone else.You're arguing against the principle of ownership, that some people somehow have rights to what other people own. I believe the foremost implementation of the philosophy you're espousing collapsed around 1989. A destitute offspring lingers on off our southeastern coast. It is governments that serve the interests of the people. Corporations and people then follow the laws that were supposedly designed to serve those interests.You posted a picture of the collapsed building in Bangladesh. What's that supposed to show, that people who believe in property ownership favor practices that kill people? Any other ridiculously inappropriate moralistic appeals you'd like to post? Starving children, perhaps? Maybe even dead babies? Come on, show us just how shamelessly and unabashedly brazen your righteousness can be.Do you have anything objective, or even better, factually correct to say?--Percy

I'm not sure that needs to be done, but okay. I agree. I think that should be illegal. I consider it immoral. How much taxes do the wealthy pay?Take a look at the report from the Congressional Budget Office.

Oh for fuck's sake. Really? You want to do that?