Wealth Distribution in the USA

I've asked that same question to many people, and no-one has an answer.In the UK we privatised our railways because they were costing the government too much money.But if a private company can make it profitable, why can't the government?
If the answer to that is "Government departments are useless" then surely the solution is to fix the government departments.As it is, the government now subsidises the companies that run the railways!Before privatisation, any income was spent on running costs.
After privatisation, any income is spent on running costs AND shareholders.
Unsurprisingly, that didn't lead to lower fares.But, this is probably off-topic.
Rant over.

Why would we consider things independently of labour unions? Why consider only one side of the bargaining process when determining wages? As I said, market forces do set wages. But there are good reasons to not allow market forces be the sole determining force, and to legislate for a minimum price for human labour as I have previously described.

It seems to be a little bit more than that at least to you. Otherwise, you would have dropped the issue when I made clear that by value I mean 'value to the company'. Apparently even that phraseology does not sit well with you.As Dr. Adequate has pointed out, the employee's wages are his wages. The employees value is something else. The fact that the value is, in some cases, difficult to calculate does not mean that the valuation does not work. As you're example points out, often we can make a calculation. At a minimum we can estimate the impact of the downtime avoided by having onsite repair people. We can make those estimates both for preventative maintence and repairs performed by onsite people. In addition we can compare the difference in costs between having repairs done by wage earners rather than contractors.

Yes.And in civilized countries, that's pretty much what we do. The poor are subsidized in many ways: free healthcare, low-income housing, welfare.Unfortunately, the rich are getting richer by moving their oppression to uncivilised countries. It's the new imperialism.

I guess you'd have to ask someone who was actually arguing for this point of view. You might be assuming that because I hold one particular viewpoint that I must also share other viewpoints that you consider closely related.The key point is that the effects of minimum wage laws and union labor contracts and so forth don't have any effect on the value contributed to a company by any particular job. If a job's wage rises above the perceived value contributed to the company then the job will fall under pressure to either change or disappear. Not a point I was making, but yes, I agree, though I view minimum wage laws as a kind of blunt force instrument. Here in the US, applying the same minimum wage in both Missoula and San Jose is obviously crazy, but that's what we do, and over the years they've had the side effect of gradually pricing younger teens out of the job market. And in the pre-teen age group jobs are gone. Newspaper delivery boys are a thing of the past.--Percy

Let's be clear about what you're really saying: you want a worker's compensation to equal his contribution to a company's value, which you claim you can calculate. The diamond cutter example clearly falsifies this idea.In reality a job is worth what employers are willing to pay versus what employees are willing to accept. In other words, it is driven by market forces.--Percy

I'm asking you why would we consider wages independent unions as that is what you called upon me to do. Well, when minimum wage rises, the spending power of the poor workers rises, as does the cost of services and products. So unless a business is somehow compelled to not increase their prices to reflect their larger overheads, they shouldn't need to discard jobs as a result. The question you asked is why don't we just let the market decide wages. I'm happy to see that we have some agreement over why we don't. I couldn't really comment on that situation.Here in the UK a minimum wage and standard working week gets you about 12,000/year. You'd pay 1,100 in income tax and NI. You might be paying about 6-7,000 in rent, 3-4,000 on food, and oh, that's it. You're done spending for the year. Good look with your utilities. Thus the tax payers, not the businesses that profit from the workers labour, have to make up the difference in housing benefits and the like.I'm pretty sure we're glad that the market isn't allowed to make that situation any worse, even if it isn't compelled to currently make it any better.

No argument. Government must act as a guarantor of some minimum level of health, subsistence and safety, while somehow not encouraging folly. And here we part company.--Percy

Stop trying to put words in my mouth. I've already said that such a system would not work.

The reason businesses cannot do this is because their prices should already be set as high as the market will allow. Raising prices when overhead increases should result in fewer sales.

This assumes that there is an equal amount of money out there willing to be spent on the good or service. But if we've just increased the minimum wage that assumption doesn't hold and more work needs to be done before we can reach concrete conclusions about the effects.abe: This evidenced by the fact that businesses are regularly increasing the prices of their goods and services as the cost of acquiring the materials or of the labour to process them changes.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

So redistribution of wealth is definitely the way to go. The only question is where it should begin and end. Some people seem to think that treating people humanely should stop at the border.

Let's be clear about what NoNukes is really saying. He's really saying something different from the stuff you've made up. As one can find out by reading his posts, where he really says the things that he's really saying.

There are many such examples in use all over the world and even in the US until the Reagan-Christian Right coup.Why should healthcare be a profit center? Education? Utilities? Fire & Police departments?When the utilities in the US were run as a regulated monopoly they served several functions. They brought electricity and phone service to areas where it was not profitable to extend service. Second, since their rate structure was based on a guaranteed return on investment, their infrastructure was treated as an asset instead of a liability. Third, they provided a stable safe investment that assured millions of Americans a retirement. Fourth, it provided a stable job environment that was relatively isolated from the overall market.

Actually you set it in a different context, the context of the bargaining process, additionally asking why I only wanted to consider one side. You'll have to find someone making that argument if you want an answer. Oh, gee, so simple! Maybe it wasn't in replies to you, but I've several times said things like, "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.)..."Companies still won't pay more than a job is worth to them. Lets take your minimum wage figure of 12,000/year and say that government has declared that this amount is sufficient and fair for both employers and employees. The problem is that government declaring something so doesn't have any effect on reality. It doesn't make 12,000/year sufficient and fair, and it doesn't make every single full time job worth 12,000/year. Jobs worth less than that will come under pressure to change or will disappear. Raising the minimum wage can have the completely expected effect of reducing employment, something in great evidence right now in both Europe and the US as the least skilled (the youngest) are having the greatest difficulty finding employment.I'm not making an argument against government sponsored social engineering. My key point is that markets set what a job is worth (wages), which is what someone is willing to pay and what someone else is willing to accept. Where you thought I differed with you is over things like government's and unions influence on wages, but I don't.Also important whenever government is involved is the law of unintended consequences. Western governments are big and powerful (i.e., they represent significant proportions of national economies), and they have a tendency to think their wisdom commensurate with their power, but obviously it's not.--Percy