|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Wealth Distribution in the USA | |||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
You may now apologise for the relentless straw man that you have been persistently pursuing. And then you later write:
quote:
If you want to roughly estimate what economic benefit your box stackers bring then I suggest you estimate the cost to the business of your box stackers successfully going on strike. It would cost us practically nothing. There's a whole line of people at the temp service waiting for a job that could be here in less than an hour. I bet some of them would even be willing to take the current persons job from them at a lower wage if we'd be willing to do that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
If you want to know the economic benefit different roles provide think of the economic effects of that labour being successfully witheld.
Really? That's gotta be one of the dumbest things I've ever seen you type.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
you'll see that estimating the economic benefit a business derives from different roles can be estimated by assessing the economic impact of that work not being done. No, I can't imagine any way for that to be correct.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
What is the ‘real value’ to the business of the labour being withheld by the striking workers? All of the jobs are necessary for the business to function, so the 'real value' of every job would be the gross profit of the company. I don't see how that helps with anything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
But people are willing to take those jobs at those wages.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
CS writes:
Why should that be the only factor taken into account? But people are willing to take those jobs at those wages. It shouldn't, but you were talking about justification.
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? Sure, but that would be threatening the employer into coughing up the wage rather than obtaining the wage by showing that the truckers deserve it because of all the value they are adding.
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? If there were another group of truckers who were willing to take all the jobs for the current pay, then there wouldn't be anything I could do to eliminate that fact. And your argument on all the money that would be lost if my truckers striked would instantly vanish.
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. But if there are other people who will provide the same utility at the lower wage, then they are going to win the job and your argument about how much utility is being provided loses all its weight.
Do you understand and accept this? I think I get it, its just that it doesn't happen for the vast majority of jobs. There's plenty of people to do the jobs so the market forces end up dominating. You can't argue about how much money the company is going to lose if you don't do your job when there's somebody standing outside who's willing to take over.
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. You're not getting what we're saying. Your ideal just isn't realistic, that's all.
It's a factor in any wage negotiation with any union. It's really rather common. How common?
quote: .
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? No, not really. It never really was there to begin with so it isn't being excluded. Its just not the way the real world works. You can't bring the economic benefit of your employment into argument when there's another person willing to sell the same benefit for a lower price. None of your arguments matter anymore at that point. That being said, I suppose that if you could somehow begin including the economic benefit as a factor in pay deals then the distribution of wealth might be able to be spread out a bit. Wait... I thought the idea that wage should be linked to economic benefit was just a strawman?
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. I'm not convinced its a major part, nor do I see how its very possible in the real world.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I also said earlier that sales people are notorious for selling stuff at any price - they quite often sell at a loss. (Below cost of sales - ie direct costs). Yeah, that's why manufacturers use rebates. You can sell a widget to a distributor for $100, but if they buy 100, then you give them $1000 rebate. The salesman only sees that the widget was bought for $100, so when he gives his buddy a super tremendous deal and sells the widget at cost for $100, then the company is still making money.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
What does he say in the video?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
For one 'If you give tax cuts to the rich, there are more jobs' is a lie is one big one. And if you 'If you shrink government, you cause jobs' Clear as mud!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I'll make it very clear for you: more productive workers will benefit everyone, while more government parasites are a drain on the economy. Again, who are the parasites? Everytime I fly i see a bunch of these folks standing around accomplishing nothing:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Well, I would agree that the TSA and War on Drugs are pretty much a stupid idea BUT drain? Do they not spend money in the economy, pay taxes? I'm sure there's ways the $7.6 billion budget they got last year could have been better used to improve economy. They spent a billion dollars gathering intelligence. How does that help the economy? Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I'm sure there are alternatives to most everything. And when a thing adds less to the economy than the alternative, can we not call it a drain?
BUT, TSA in particular seems to be just another way for private companies to divert funds from the government to private industry. I don't know what you mean. Why don't you use the quote function?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
TSA spent money on things. That money went into the economy. How much of the one billion dollars that they spent on "gathering intelligence" do you think went into the economy?
All governmental expenditures go into the economy... Don't some governmental expenditures go into foreign economies?
...EXCEPT were private industry siphons off profits that are not returned to the economy. How are profits not returned to the economy? Do you mean like Scrooge McDuck style:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
What makes the middle class so easy to fool?
Religion. Hmm. If religion is what made the man so easy to fool, then how was he so easily fooled into religion?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
If religion is what made the man so easy to fool, then how was he so easily fooled into religion?
The parts of that sentence have nothing do with each other. The premise and conclusion are faulty. Logically it is flawed and has no meaning. But it was a question
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024