Wealth Distribution in the USA

Then let me assist you.

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.

​

Value in the most basic sense can be referred to as "Real Value" or "Actual Value." This is the measure of worth that is based purely on the utility derived from the consumption of a product or service. Utility derived value allows products or services to be measured on outcome instead of demand or supply theories that have the inherent ability to be manipulated. Illustration: The real value of a book sold to a student who pays $50.00 at the cash register for the text and who earns no additional income from reading the book is essentially zero. However; the real value of the same text purchased in a thrift shop at a price of $0.25 and provides the reader with an insight that allows him or her to earn $100,000.00 in additional income is $100,000.00.

---

Wiki On Economic ValueCS — What is the ‘real value’ to the business of the labour being withheld by the striking workers?

Not in utility terms. All essential steps are required to derive any value at all in terms of utility from the good or service.

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.

​

Value in the most basic sense can be referred to as "Real Value" or "Actual Value." This is the measure of worth that is based purely on the utility derived from the consumption of a product or service. Utility derived value allows products or services to be measured on outcome instead of demand or supply theories that have the inherent ability to be manipulated. Illustration: The real value of a book sold to a student who pays $50.00 at the cash register for the text and who earns no additional income from reading the book is essentially zero. However; the real value of the same text purchased in a thrift shop at a price of $0.25 and provides the reader with an insight that allows him or her to earn $100,000.00 in additional income is $100,000.00.

---

Wiki On Economic ValueWhat is the ‘real value’ to the business of the labour that is being withheld by the striking workers? The book in the example above can be said to have utility worth of $100,000.00 not because the author, the book binder, the printer, the bookshop owner etc. etc. etc. each added a calculable percentage that adds up to 100. That isn't how utility works.Now of course this book example is different to a business deriving profit from labour in that the book example involves a one-off sale event rather than a continuous supply of labour from which profit is continuously derived. This is where the anology breaks down. Because the author, book binder et al don't have to depend on that one book for their ongoing livelihoods.What I am saying is that those who provide economic benefit to a business, those who perform a role in making the business operational and profitable, can at the very least expect to earn enough to feed, clothe and house themselves.

I have estimated the economic impact of that work not being undertaken. This is what I told you I meant by economic benefit. Effectively value in terms of utility. If you are defining economic benefit differently to me perhaps you could tell us what you mean? I'm not separating out individual contributions. That is your straw man. Remember our striking truckers? Let's for one crazy moment imagine that you are responsible for negotiating the pay deal for those workers. Do you think the fact that the company in question is losing millions per day might be relevant to your position in those negotiations? If you were the negotiator would you say "The number of people who can do the job that determines its value"....?Or would that stance be a dereliction of your duties as negotiator on behalf of the striking workers?Try and see things from more than one perspective Percy. That is the key here......

It helps by confirming that the workers in question are absolutely vital to the operational success and profitability of the business in question and that paying them a subsistence wage whilst making huge profits is thus unjustified.

In the real world it is perfectly legitimate to take positions such as the following based on the expectation that reward and the economic benefit provided should be coommensurate to some degree.1) At a shareholder meeting shareholders question the $10 million annual salary and benefit package of the CEO on the basis that he has failed to bring sufficient economic benefit to the role to justify that level of reward.2) A government minister makes a speech in which he states that those who provide considerable economic benefit to highly profitable multinational corporations can reasonably expect to earn enough to feed, clothe and house themselves.In such cases saying "market forces market foces" isn't the answer so much as the problem......

Why should that be the only factor taken into account? Let me put to you the same scenario I put to Percy.Remember our striking truckers? Let's imagine that you are responsible for negotiating the pay deal for those unionised workers. Do you think the fact that the economic impact of the truckers not undertaking that work results in losses that run into the millions might be relevant to your position in those negotiations? If you were the negotiator would you say "The number of people who can do the job that determines its value"....? Or would that stance be a dereliction of your duties as negotiator on behalf of the striking workers?In such a situation the economic benefit the workers provide, the value of their labour in terms of utility, is very much a relevant factor in wage negotiation and determination. Do you understand and accept this?The idea that value in terms of utility (aka economic benefit) be a factor in wage determination isn't the crazy-wild-eyed-naive-end-of-economics-as-we-know-it lunacy that you and Percy keep relentlessly insisting it is. It's a factor in any wage negotiation with any union. It's really rather common. And that's why we need something more.Can you see that the increasing exclusion of economic benefit as a factor in pay deals, the increasing reliance instead on pure supply and demand as the sole dictator of rewards, is a large part of the reason that wealth is distributed in the way that is the topic of this thread?Can you see that if one wants to change the wealth distribution that is the topic of this thread then factoring in economic benefit to reward (through unionisation at the bottom and increased shareholder power over executive pay at the top) is very arguably a major part of the way forwards.

It appears we are talking about different things.If you want to know what I am talking about see Message 424

I'm using the term "economic benefit" to describe the economic impact of the work in question not being done. That was the basis for my use of the term "economic benefit" when I was talking about the busniess case for a new network engineer position. That is the basis for my use of the term as applied to striking truckers.If you think there is a better term to describe the economic impact of the work in question not being done then I'd be happy to hear it. In terms of utility the value is the same. Yes. In order to make "economic benefit" as I have defined it a factor in wage negotiation. I'm not suggesting that the truckers can lay claim to some identifiable portion of the profit in terms of 'value added'. But all other things being equal this does mean that the truckers labour has considerable value in terms of utility. This isn't the same as saying they are responsible for X% of profit but is instead more an indication of their vital role to profitability as a whole. Other workers can of course lay similar claim. Indeed. I'm not suggesting that we can aportion some percentage of profit to truckers, some portion to network engineers, some portion to box stackers etc. etc. etc. I never have.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

If the market rate for certain types of labour doesn't supply a living wage should the state effectively subsidise those industries which rely on that labour by providing their employees with the shortfall?Should our taxes subsidise the employment costs of McDonalds Corp or Walmart or whoever because 'the market rate' they pay the employees on which their business depends is too low for those employees to actually live on?This situation is increasingly prevalent. It's an example of what effectively amounts to 'trickle-up' economics. The poorest get poorer. The middle get tax squeezed. The richest minimise costs, maximise profits and 'avoid' taxation. Thus wealth becomes more and more concentrated.

Wot...?You mean some alternative to markets rigged in favour of those those with the most wealth and power......?Surely not!!You socialist you. Indeed.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.