Message 16 of 135 (746686) 01-09-2015 10:24 AM

Reply to: Message 15 by Minnemooseus 01-09-2015 12:47 AM

And what about the person who earns $10,000 but is paid $8,000? Are they not being robbed by the company?

This is the average pay for a woman compared to a man for doing the same work ... and you can also compare pay rates by race (which ties us to the Are you Racist? Homophobic? etc thread and unconscious racist\bias\bigotry).

And I still have not seen anyone answer the question of what makes 1 hour of one person's life more valuable than 1 hour of another's life.

Enjoy

Message 17 of 135 (746689) 01-09-2015 10:33 AM

Reply to: Message 16 by RAZD 01-09-2015 10:24 AM

From the company's perspective, its how much they contribute to the bottom line.

Message 18 of 135 (746694) 01-09-2015 10:45 AM

Reply to: Message 17 by New Cat's Eye 01-09-2015 10:33 AM

Curiously that does not answer the question, does it.

Take a production line -- every person contributes a task that is essential to the final product. The bottom line is determined by how much that product sells for versus the cost of producing it. Is not every second spent on the production line tasks of same value to the bottom line?

How does the floor manager fit in? Does he contribute to the production lines essential tasks? How does the secretary fit in? The boss?

When you actually look at the bottom line you see that the way to maximize it involves minimizing payment to workers regardless of their real value, that the ruling paradigm is greed and what you can steal from workers value for their time.

You can pay everyone the same rate, sell the product for the same value and still operate a company.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : last P

Message 19 of 135 (746700) 01-09-2015 11:03 AM

Reply to: Message 18 by RAZD 01-09-2015 10:45 AM

Sure it does: An hour of one person's life is worth more to the company than another person's when that hour adds more to the bottom line than the others does.

Not everyone's hour adds the same to the bottom line. The people's hours that add more are worth more.

No, it isn't. Some jobs contribute more to the production than others.

Some individuals work harder and produce more than others. Some people are more experienced and produce more.

Nobody contributes the exact same amount.

There are about 100 people working 10 production lines about 100 feet to my right as I type this.

Last time I talked to you about how we run things here you called it a fantasy.

ABE:

Heh, you wanna talk about greed and stealing:

They're out there making the products we sell and I'm in here dicking around on the internet.

And I make way more money than they do.

Edited by Cat Sci, : No reason given.

Message 20 of 135 (746713) 01-09-2015 11:34 AM

Reply to: Message 17 by New Cat's Eye 01-09-2015 10:33 AM

So how do you determine what I "should" be paid?

Message 21 of 135 (746726) 01-09-2015 12:06 PM

Reply to: Message 19 by New Cat's Eye 01-09-2015 11:03 AM

No because you haven't explained how one person adds more value than another for the same increment of time.

This does not explain how this is measured. Taking money away from a worker adds to the bottom line, so the person who does this adds more to the bottom line ... is that how it works?

So the job is more important than the person doing it -- anyone could do the "more valuable job" or the "less valuable" job ... but both jobs are valuable to the completion of the product -- if one of them is not complete the task as a whole is not complete and it cannot add to the bottom line.

So experience is a factor. Does that add up year by year? Does training help?

Yet when one is missing they all suffer, yes?

So why do you get paid more per hour than they do? What are you doing? Typing on a non-work website? Do the line operators have that opportunity?

Curiously I was a designer for a company with several production lines. I designed new product AND how the lines were set up for the new product. I worked with the line leaders and workers to maximize production with ergonomics and part flow and how they actually worked. Some jobs were better done by left-handers, and some by tall people. Fitting people was as important as the tools provided and the training in using the tools.

Does the value of the work change if a person is left-handed or tall?

Indeed. Capitalism is the fantasy that you can steal life value from people to line your pockets and that this is a good system, good for society, good for general happiness.

Which begs the question of what value you provide to the bottom line that pays your more and lets you slack off.

The appeal to the bottom line is just a way to rationalize the feudal system that is endemic to corporate business based on greed and stealing.

Consider this: a secretary can be replaced by people writing their own letters, answering their own phones, making their own schedules, etc etc etc. -- does that not mean that the value of one hour of secretary time is the same value as one hour of time for these other people? According to the bottom line?

Or a janitor in the plant. The other workers could sweep the floors at the end of each shift and take their waste barrels to the dumpster, etc etc etc ... but that takes away from production time ... does that not mean that the value of one hour of janitor time is the same value as one hour of time for the workers? According to the bottom line?

So if the secretary is faster at typing letters, quicker at answering the phones, makes fewer mistakes, etc. etc. etc ... shouldn't they be paid more per hour than those others? According to the bottom line?

And if the janitor is faster and more thorough at cleaning, more efficient at getting all the waste to the dumpster etc etc etc ... shouldn't they be paid more per hour than those others? According to the bottom line?

What you really have is a bunch of people working together for a common cause -- the production, sale and distribution of product, the time spent by each person contributes to the bottom line. The difference is in how that work is valued not in the value of the work.

Enjoy.

Message 22 of 135 (746727) 01-09-2015 12:06 PM

Reply to: Message 20 by ringo 01-09-2015 11:34 AM

You can't.

The actual contribution to the bottom line is too complicated to calculate.

So the company just offers a wage that they know is less than the contribution they figure.

Or, you figure out a wage for the whole group, determine how much overhead that adds, and see if you can add that cost to what your charging for your product. If the market will only allow for so much, then you base your wage on what you can afford. If that's $9/hour, then you gotta find people who are willing to do the work for that wage.

It doesn't have to be direct to be a contribution.

Message 24 of 135 (746739) 01-09-2015 12:49 PM

Reply to: Message 21 by RAZD 01-09-2015 12:06 PM

Yes I did: It adds more to the bottom line.

You didn't ask how it was measured. But it isn't really measured all that much. Mostly its just estimated.

No, worker 1 produces more product than worker 2 does.

Worker 1 added more to the bottom line than worker 2 did.

But the number of dollars that they contributed isn't directly calculated.

Of course it is.

No, some jobs require a higher skill set than others.

Not always. Some jobs are rather ancillary. Like a second checker. If the first checker is really awesome then the second checker doesn't really do that much.

But not by the same amount. If the line operator is missing then the whole thing falls apart.

But if the second checker is missing they can still get the job done.

Of course not. We don't even allow cellphones in the plant.

Well, if the owner of this company wasn't stealing all of our life values, then none of us would be working here.

I'm glad he's stealing my life value and paying me a decent salary. Otherwise I couldn't afford my house.

I'm happy to sell my life value, that's what I signed up for.

Its working for me. I foresaw what corporate america was like and prepared myself to succeed.

There's more to it. The secretary doesn't have to take responsibility for making business decisions.

And the janitor isn't responsible for the quality of the product.

Those responsibilities add risk to the job, and you have to compensate people for that.

Sort of, but not really. A lot of us in the office care a lot about the success of this company, our livelihoods depend on it. We're on salaries and our jobs are a significant aspect of our life.

Many of the plant workers couldn't care less about this place. They're just clocking in for a paycheck. If they're not working in this plant they'd just go work in the one down the road.

I'm pretty much married to this place and I really do care. The owner realizes that, he even gave me a nice Christmas bonus.

Message 25 of 135 (746740) 01-09-2015 12:50 PM

Reply to: Message 22 by New Cat's Eye 01-09-2015 12:06 PM

So workers contribute to the bottom line by being underpaid and undervalued ...

And how are wages for management ceo salaries determined? How do you know they are not overpaid and overvalued and that their cost detracts from the bottom line?

Enjoy

Message 26 of 135 (746741) 01-09-2015 12:53 PM

Reply to: Message 23 by ringo 01-09-2015 12:10 PM

Not at all.

Message 27 of 135 (746742) 01-09-2015 12:56 PM

Reply to: Message 25 by RAZD 01-09-2015 12:50 PM

If you paid them what they contributed then the company wouldn't make any money off them.

We're not a charity. We're for-profit.

I'm sure they're overpaid for what they contribute.

But they're the ones who make those decisions, so its up to them.

If they fuck it up then the company fails and we're all out of a job.

Message 28 of 135 (746748) 01-09-2015 1:31 PM

Reply to: Message 24 by New Cat's Eye 01-09-2015 12:49 PM

So it "adds more to the bottom line" by a metric that "isn't really measured all that much."

Fascinating.

So the real value of the worker's contribution to the bottom line is just an uninformed guess.

Could you take the CEO and put him on the line and have him show how is salary is justified by his ability to produce ... at a rate proportional to his salary?

Wouldn't that be a metric that you could compare workers to and arrive at a system of valuing the work based on the time it frees up for the CEO to do other tasks?

Of course it isn't. Take that person away and the job is not done.

So the second worker would need training to do the first worker job and then would be able to do it. How long does that training take? Wouldn't training workers to do more complicated jobs improve the bottom line?

So the company is wasting his time? We trained line leaders to be first checkers ...

Increasing the possibility that faulty product is shipped, which can cost more than the value of the second checker's time. If that isn't critical then the second checker isn't needed at all.

So you have a position of privilege and feel entitled to waste company time justifying it.

This is your assumption. You could take the gross profits from production, sales - costs, and divide by number of people and the company would still make a profit and pay people.

That's the myth of corporate work -- that you are being paid well for your actual value because somebody else is being paid less.

And you measure your success based on other people making less, rather than on what your real value is.

When a CEO takes 400 times what the line worker makes and you make twice as much as the line worker, the difference between you and the line worker is insignificant.

Because they are incapable of making business decisions? Or because they are not allowed to make business decisions? Who determines who is capable of making good decisions?

The company I worked for was bought up by a major corporation and given to the CEO's daughter to run. It was bankrupt in two years. All the workers paid for that bad decision. The salary of the CEO wasn't even dented. So he wasn't paid to risk bad decisions was he?

No, he is responsible for the quality of the work environment.

That responsibility adds to the safety and efficiency of the work environment and you need to compensate people for that.

Because they are undervalued and underpaid, while you think you are justly valued and justly paid. That's the con of wage disparity.

and I'm betting this is a non-union shop.

The white collar slave looking down on the blue collar slaves. As long as you don't look up you won't see how far down you are.

Was it a share in the company stock? Or was it less than a week of your salary? What was it in terms of the annual net profits? the Owner's salary?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : union

Message 29 of 135 (746754) 01-09-2015 1:43 PM

Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler 01-08-2012 6:50 PM

Executive pay is a good example of how capitalism is not a synonym for western democracy. Stealing from Churchill, capitalism is the worst type of economy, except for all of the others. For all of its injustices and inequalities, it is still better than the other economic systems, at least in practice.

What we have in western style first world nations is a very interesting interplay between our democratic ideals and the inherent injustices of capitalism. We say that all men are equal, but then we don't pay them equally. What we do instead is use regulation to rein in capitalism in the name of social justice. With regulation, too much and you risk killing the benefits that a capitalist economy brings. Too little regulation and you see disparities that lead to civil unrest. You have to find that balance between injustice and benefit.

On the spectrum of injustices, exec pay is probably an evil that is worth living with. What we need to get over is the idea that the level of salaries reflect an exec's merit. It doesn't. It is unfair. It is unjust. We need to get over it since trying to fix the injustice will probably do more harm than good.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Message 30 of 135 (746756) 01-09-2015 1:46 PM

Reply to: Message 29 by Taq 01-09-2015 1:43 PM

Why not go back to the Eisenhower years? - tax like 1955 again.