Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
37 online now:
Heathen, jar, kjsimons, Percy (Admin) (4 members, 33 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Upcoming Birthdays: Anish
Post Volume: Total: 863,366 Year: 18,402/19,786 Month: 822/1,705 Week: 74/518 Day: 0/74 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Labor Pains In Colorado
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 166 (656874)
03-22-2012 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by hooah212002
03-22-2012 3:12 PM


Re: Assumptions a plenty inbound
If, as you say, it is based on needs, who determines who needs what?

We already have systems in place that determine eligibility for need-based government assistance. So this would hardly be a sticking point for what I've proposed.

So the minimum would be fine for a single person, but once that person has children, they're fucked? How easy is it for a single parent to a) go back to school or b) learn a new trade that produces a viable income? I am a single parent and I'll tell you right now: it ain't goddamed easy.

Remember: If a minimum exists at all in the system I've proposed, it will still only be a part of the package.

How, exactly, would this system be implemeted?

There are many ways to implement it.

The pay out could be in the form of monthly checks (which is already done under Social Security and cash assistance); or it could be paid out yearly (which is already done with tax refunds).

There are already many frameworks in place that could carry the extra duties of ensuring basic incomes for the poor, and many such programs already exist (rental assistance, energy assistance, food stamps, education grants, healthcare—some states—, etc.). All of these programs are 'basic income' programs, with the caveat that the income granted is required to be used toward the purchase of certain goods.

So I'm a little baffled that people see this as something so radical. The system I'm proposing already exists; I'm just proposing to make it better.

Jon


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by hooah212002, posted 03-22-2012 3:12 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by hooah212002, posted 03-22-2012 7:14 PM Jon has responded

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 166 (656875)
03-22-2012 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Perdition
03-22-2012 6:30 PM


So, if someone is instrumental in bringing in a $300,000,000 deal, he should be paid close to that amount?

No; not necessarily. Chances are that many people played a part in bringing in that deal, and many other company resources were devoted to the task as well. So an individual laborer cannot claim credit for the whole amount.


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Perdition, posted 03-22-2012 6:30 PM Perdition has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Perdition, posted 03-22-2012 7:43 PM Jon has responded

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 166 (656876)
03-22-2012 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by NoNukes
03-22-2012 6:36 PM


And have you analyzed the worth of grocery baggers based on this criteria to determine that the value of bagging is less than min. wage?

I have not. But many have, which is why there are very few establishments that still offer grocery bagging service for every customer.

For the majority of stores, grocery bagging is not a service that can generate more income for the store than $7.25/hour. And so the position goes unfilled. Just like for elevator operators, gas attendants, by-hand grain threshers, and any other number of jobs that no longer exist because the income they generate is less than the cost of the labor performing the service.

Jon


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by NoNukes, posted 03-22-2012 6:36 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by NoNukes, posted 03-22-2012 7:39 PM Jon has responded

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 104 days)
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 109 of 166 (656881)
03-22-2012 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Jon
03-22-2012 6:39 PM


Re: Assumptions a plenty inbound
which is already done with tax refunds

tax refunds aren't government programs to help people. That money belongs to you because you paid too much in taxes. It's the government giving YOU money BACK to you, not giving you money.

So I'm a little baffled that people see this as something so radical. The system I'm proposing already exists; I'm just proposing to make it better.

Where would the money come from? I don't think your sounds like a bad plan at all, but the likelihood that it ever gets even remotely implemented is pretty far fetched, while at the same time minimum wage IS being bandied about as something that may well be disposed of.


"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Jon, posted 03-22-2012 6:39 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Jon, posted 03-22-2012 7:49 PM hooah212002 has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 110 of 166 (656884)
03-22-2012 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Jon
03-22-2012 6:47 PM


For the majority of stores, grocery bagging is not a service that can generate more income for the store than $7.25/hour.

Your analysis is far too simplistic. If grocery bagging generated a break or an even better return on investment, hiring baggers might still be a bad bet for a capitalist, because the investor might do better by having more cashiers and operating more registers.

Further, no person is completely responsible for even one penny of revenue coming into the grocery store.

by-hand grain threshers

Who wants unthreshed grain?


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Jon, posted 03-22-2012 6:47 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Jon, posted 03-22-2012 7:54 PM NoNukes has responded

Perdition
Member (Idle past 1520 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 111 of 166 (656886)
03-22-2012 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Jon
03-22-2012 6:41 PM


No; not necessarily. Chances are that many people played a part in bringing in that deal, and many other company resources were devoted to the task as well. So an individual laborer cannot claim credit for the whole amount.

Well, a few years ago, I was responsible for creating the quotes, contacting the customer and getting ordered a deal worth $1,000,000. The rest of the process was automated, so you could subtract the cost of the servers and a percentage for the web development for the programs. Even if all of that comes to $250,000, which seems a mite high, I should have gotten a pretty substantial payday from that.

The fact of the matter is, people aren't paid based on what the company makes due to their contribution. They're paid the least amount that the comapny can get away with. That's why minimum wages need to be in place, to make sure the companies aren't gouging workers.

The question then becomes, how should we determine the minimum? I think a reasonable place is the cost of a single parent raising a single child. Some will still fall through the cracks (a single parent raising more than one child, for instance), but those can be helped with other programs like the ones you mentioned.

Otherwise, the minimum seems quite arbitrary.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Jon, posted 03-22-2012 6:41 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Jon, posted 03-22-2012 7:51 PM Perdition has not yet responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 166 (656888)
03-22-2012 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by hooah212002
03-22-2012 7:14 PM


Re: Assumptions a plenty inbound
tax refunds aren't government programs to help people. That money belongs to you because you paid too much in taxes. It's the government giving YOU money BACK to you, not giving you money.

Many poor people get their tax liability reduced to $0.

I don't think your sounds like a bad plan at all, but the likelihood that it ever gets even remotely implemented is pretty far fetched, while at the same time minimum wage IS being bandied about as something that may well be disposed of.

Sure, because we live in a nation of people who actually entertain the thought of someone like Sarah Palin being a capable president.


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by hooah212002, posted 03-22-2012 7:14 PM hooah212002 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by NoNukes, posted 03-22-2012 11:39 PM Jon has responded
 Message 117 by Thugpreacha, posted 03-23-2012 12:52 AM Jon has responded
 Message 121 by Taq, posted 03-23-2012 11:54 AM Jon has responded

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 113 of 166 (656889)
03-22-2012 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Perdition
03-22-2012 7:43 PM


The fact of the matter is, people aren't paid based on what the company makes due to their contribution. They're paid the least amount that the comapny can get away with.

Sure, but my point is that whatever someone is paid it cannot be more than the income they generate.


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Perdition, posted 03-22-2012 7:43 PM Perdition has not yet responded

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 114 of 166 (656890)
03-22-2012 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by NoNukes
03-22-2012 7:39 PM


Who wants unthreshed grain?

Nobody. But nobody wants to pay someone to do it by hand either.

Your analysis is far too simplistic. If grocery bagging generated a break or an even better return on investment, hiring baggers might still be a bad bet for a capitalist, because the investor might do better by having more cashiers and operating more registers.

Sure. The business will evaluate all of the things it can do based on the return they provide and then do the things that provide the most return. And offering customer services that cost more money than they bring in will not be on that list of options.

Jon

Edited by Jon, : No reason given.


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by NoNukes, posted 03-22-2012 7:39 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by NoNukes, posted 03-22-2012 11:36 PM Jon has responded

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 166 (656899)
03-22-2012 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Jon
03-22-2012 7:54 PM


Nobody. But nobody wants to pay someone to do it by hand either.

Yes, but that does not mean that a profit cannot be made by hand threshing. It may mean that a larger profit can be made using hand threshing.

Sure. The business will evaluate all of the things it can do based on the return they provide and then do the things that provide the most return. And offering customer services that cost more money than they bring in will not be on that list of options.

True, but if your only observation is that businesses don't use baggers then you haven't show which of those distinct possibilities rules out businesses employing baggers. And only one of those possibilities is based on your simplistic method of valuing labor.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Jon, posted 03-22-2012 7:54 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Jon, posted 03-23-2012 1:11 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 166 (656900)
03-22-2012 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Jon
03-22-2012 7:49 PM


Re: Assumptions a plenty inbound
Many poor people get their tax liability reduced to zero

Which means that the government does not take their money.

A tax refund is not income. Anyone can adjust their withholding so that they get a minimal tax refund without affecting their tax liability in any way.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Jon, posted 03-22-2012 7:49 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Jon, posted 03-23-2012 1:17 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12958
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


(1)
Message 117 of 166 (656904)
03-23-2012 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Jon
03-22-2012 7:49 PM


Re: Assumptions a plenty inbound
Perdition writes:

The fact of the matter is, people aren't paid based on what the company makes due to their contribution. They're paid the least amount that the company can get away with. That's why minimum wages need to be in place, to make sure the companies aren't gouging workers.

I agree totally. This whole idea that a company will pay any more than they can get away with is fantasy for the most part.

As far as the income generated by the employee, keep in mind that not all employees generate income directly. Take a custodian for example. People expect clean bathrooms, right? If they are not clean, customer dissatisfaction rises.

How can the income generated by any given employee be calculated?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Jon, posted 03-22-2012 7:49 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Jon, posted 03-23-2012 1:13 AM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 118 of 166 (656906)
03-23-2012 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by NoNukes
03-22-2012 11:36 PM


And only one of those possibilities is based on your simplistic method of valuing labor.

If the cost of performing the labor is greater than the income the labor generates, then the labor will not get performed.

It may mean that a larger profit can be made using hand threshing.

Which is why so many modern farming operations thresh the grain manually.

True, but if your only observation is that businesses don't use baggers then you haven't show which of those distinct possibilities rules out businesses employing baggers.

Whatever the case may be, it is clear that bagging groceries does not bring in the required income to justify payment to the employees doing the work. And everyone who has mentioned baggers so far has supported this claim by pointing out that when bagging is offered it is only one of many duties performed as part of a multi-duty job position.

My point is, and has been, that certain jobs only produce so much income and this limits the amount of money that can be earned by a laborer performing those jobs. In some cases, that limit is less than the minimum wage (currently and certainly less than any minimum that might be based on what it takes to support a family).

Jon


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by NoNukes, posted 03-22-2012 11:36 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 166 (656907)
03-23-2012 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Thugpreacha
03-23-2012 12:52 AM


Re: Assumptions a plenty inbound
How can the income generated by any given employee be calculated?

Get rid of the employee and leave their job duties unperformed. Measure changes in company incomes.


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Thugpreacha, posted 03-23-2012 12:52 AM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 120 of 166 (656908)
03-23-2012 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by NoNukes
03-22-2012 11:39 PM


Re: Assumptions a plenty inbound
Which means that the government does not take their money.

A tax refund is not income. Anyone can adjust their withholding so that they get a minimal tax refund without affecting their tax liability in any way.

And that isn't at all what I was talking about. What I was talking about is that tax refunds already represent a system by which the government cuts checks to people on a yearly basis.

Jon


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by NoNukes, posted 03-22-2012 11:39 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019