Is it moral to pay someone less than 50% of the immediate take on a venture?

[Kharakov]

Say that you charge someone 35$ an hour for a laborer, and you go hire someone off the street to do the work for 15$ an hour. You know this person is only working for you for that little because they are in a very bad financial position, and they need money to pay bills. You also know that any healthy individual can do the labor with absolutely no training.


Is it moral?

Are there laws against this happening in any society?

Does allowing this to happen promote the building of healthy societies?

 

[Bronzeage]

Say that you charge someone 35$ an hour for a laborer, and you go hire someone off the street to do the work for 15$ an hour. You know this person is only working for you for that little because they are in a very bad financial position, and they need money to pay bills. You also know that any healthy individual can do the labor with absolutely no training.


Is it moral?

Are there laws against this happening in any society?

Does allowing this to happen promote the building of healthy societies?

The laws of economics cannot be repealed. In the example cited, the worker is getting an incredible deal. His employer is going to go broke and they'll both be out of work.

The answer depends upon a number known as "gross labor profit." This is the revenue paid for the labor, less the cost of delivering the labor to the customer. This can be a slippery number, because it's not always clear which costs should be included. If the contractor has to rent a bus to get his workers to the job site, that's a cost. If he requires his workers to show up at the gate, he's transferred that cost to the worker. Anything from hand soap to safety equipment can be a cost which takes away gross labor profit.

The best deal I ever had in my life was 50% commission. Whatever the customer paid for my labor, I got half of it. This was once the standard deal for most skilled workers, whose labor was sold directly to the public and was most common for auto mechanics. In the early 1900's, capital investment for a auto repair shop was fairly low. As technology progressed and cars became more complex, the required investment in big money tools and machines increased. The grease pit, a hole in the shop floor where a man could stand to work under a vehicle, was replaced by the grease rack, which lifted the car into the air. Each improvement which made the job easier and saved labor, came at a cost. When I was a working auto mechanic, in the 80's, my employer bought an electronic engine analyser machine which included an oscilloscope.This kind of machine had been around for a long time, but this one contained a real computer and cost $35,000. That was 30 years ago. Today the same job is done with about $5,000 worth of electronics. I didn't pay for any of it, at least not out of pocket.

Gross labor profit is so slippery, it's possible for it to be a negative number. This is a real danger in an operation which requires workers with various skill levels. There are usually more low skilled and lower paid workers, than high paid, high skill workers. The man who changes and balances tires all day long is paid less than the man who replaces piston rings. Wages tend to rise with longevity. Even the tire changer expects some kind of raise from time to time. Worker turnover tends to be highest among the lower paid employees, so as a crew ages, the average wage creeps up. As the average rises, gross labor profit decreases and can cross over into a loss. This puts the employer in the strange position of the more revenue that is brought in, the more money he loses.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There has to be some reason they hire you at $35/hr rather than the guy off the street at $18/hr. You must be providing some value beyond simply doing the labor. Without looking at what value you are providing it's impossible to determine if it's abusive or not.

Bronzeage discussed tools which is one form of added value you might be providing. At my former employer the equipment costs and the labor costs were similar--which automatically meant that paying the workers more than 50% of the sale price would be impossible. In practice there were also material costs which were also in the same ballpark--even 1/3 of the value to the workers would merely be breakeven.

In addition to that there is the matter of risk. You can't charge the employee for what he damages. A bad hire can turn out to be expensive. (For example, we had a bad hire of an installer. We got the bill for the water damage because he put a screw off target. The water wasn't turned on when he did it so the problem wasn't discovered until later.)

There is also a matter of vetting. You said the job could be done without training, you didn't specify that there were no security implications to the job. Could something disappear into the guy's pockets?

 

[Kharakov]

Their overhead was <200$, they had 3 guys + them working for 35$ an hour, for 10+ hours (I say 10 because, well, that's a generous low end- they probably charged for 11, we all worked for 12).

1400-200 overhead=1200. If they gave each guy 260, they would take home 420, which is plenty, considering they would probably have taken home far more (I'm underestimating hours and overestimating overhead). They actually made far more, because they had an additional 210+ from the other day (at least 6 man hours of prep work).

Yes, they worked for over a year creating connections, being handed a really easy way to make connections in the business, so they have the connections. Of course, this is what they told me, but they're more than willing to take advantage of socioeconomically disadvantaged people, so I don't trust what they say one bit.

They even said I'd ruin their business if I told their client that they hired me to drive their truck, knowing I didn't have a valid driver's license. So my question is this: should I tell their client or not? Their client

Show

Guninder Singh Bhalla (the yogurt prince)

's wife is involved in various humanitarian efforts, so might be pissed off that they are taking advantage of people. Of course, I don't know their client's position... which might be built on the exploitation of the weak. So.... there you go. Their client might be pissed that they are willing to risk their valuables with an unlicensed driver.

They are young, exploiting day laborers that need money and have no way of getting steady work except through them. They don't pay fair wages, to day laborers who have worked far longer and harder than them, but don't have their privileged position in society. Is it all right for them to exploit us?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They are young, exploiting day laborers that need money and have no way of getting steady work except through them. They don't pay fair wages, to day laborers who have worked far longer and harder than them, but don't have their privileged position in society. Is it all right for them to exploit us?

And why can't the day laborers get steady work?

 

[Kharakov]

They are young, exploiting day laborers that need money and have no way of getting steady work except through them. They don't pay fair wages, to day laborers who have worked far longer and harder than them, but don't have their privileged position in society. Is it all right for them to exploit us?

And why can't the day laborers get steady work?

Because they have to be kept in need of money so they can be paid low wages. The ones who have a lot of money only work for large amounts of money- say that it's not worth it to take the low paying gigs. They've told me not to work for as little as I do, but I have bills to pay, so take wages I shouldn't because I need the money.

I suppose I'm sort of like a union scab, and should just starve to death rather than continue to work. Everyone calls me back (well, one guy didn't) after I work for them, wanting me to do more work. Although they probably have their heart set on squeezing a few more bucks out of me like I'm a fucking robot, instead of a human.


Of course, I'm the exploited, I don't see it from the side of the line where there is such a comfy buffer of socioeconomic lies that you think you deserve what you have....

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And why can't the day laborers get steady work?

Because they have to be kept in need of money so they can be paid low wages. The ones who have a lot of money only work for large amounts of money- say that it's not worth it to take the low paying gigs. They've told me not to work for as little as I do, but I have bills to pay, so take wages I shouldn't because I need the money.

I suppose I'm sort of like a union scab, and should just starve to death rather than continue to work. Everyone calls me back (well, one guy didn't) after I work for them, wanting me to do more work. Although they probably have their heart set on squeezing a few more bucks out of me like I'm a fucking robot, instead of a human.


Of course, I'm the exploited, I don't see it from the side of the line where there is such a comfy buffer of socioeconomic lies that you think you deserve what you have....

No. The question is what is stopping them from getting a steady job, not why the powers that be don't want them to have a steady job.

 

[untermensche]

Morality in terms of distribution of funds is determined by the morality of the system that decides them.

If they are the result of dictatorial fiat they are immoral.

If they are the result of true negotiation between equal parties they are moral.

The key is "equal". That can only be accomplished in a democratic power system where all parties have equal votes.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Morality in terms of distribution of funds is determined by the morality of the system that decides them.

If they are the result of dictatorial fiat they are immoral.

If they are the result of true negotiation between equal parties they are moral.

The key is "equal". That can only be accomplished in a democratic power system where all parties have equal votes.

A democratic power system where all parties have equal votes can still have a tyranny of the majority problem.

It also has a serious problem with uninformed voters.

 

[untermensche]

Morality in terms of distribution of funds is determined by the morality of the system that decides them.

If they are the result of dictatorial fiat they are immoral.

If they are the result of true negotiation between equal parties they are moral.

The key is "equal". That can only be accomplished in a democratic power system where all parties have equal votes.

A democratic power system where all parties have equal votes can still have a tyranny of the majority problem.

It also has a serious problem with uninformed voters.

What majority are you talking about?

You have people involved in some enterprise.

Who are the tyrants?

Your tyrants are as imaginary as Saddam Hussein's WMD.

 

[Bronzeage]

Their overhead was <200$, they had 3 guys + them working for 35$ an hour, for 10+ hours (I say 10 because, well, that's a generous low end- they probably charged for 11, we all worked for 12).

1400-200 overhead=1200. If they gave each guy 260, they would take home 420, which is plenty, considering they would probably have taken home far more (I'm underestimating hours and overestimating overhead). They actually made far more, because they had an additional 210+ from the other day (at least 6 man hours of prep work).

Yes, they worked for over a year creating connections, being handed a really easy way to make connections in the business, so they have the connections. Of course, this is what they told me, but they're more than willing to take advantage of socioeconomically disadvantaged people, so I don't trust what they say one bit.

They even said I'd ruin their business if I told their client that they hired me to drive their truck, knowing I didn't have a valid driver's license. So my question is this: should I tell their client or not? Their client

Show

Guninder Singh Bhalla (the yogurt prince)

's wife is involved in various humanitarian efforts, so might be pissed off that they are taking advantage of people. Of course, I don't know their client's position... which might be built on the exploitation of the weak. So.... there you go. Their client might be pissed that they are willing to risk their valuables with an unlicensed driver.

They are young, exploiting day laborers that need money and have no way of getting steady work except through them. They don't pay fair wages, to day laborers who have worked far longer and harder than them, but don't have their privileged position in society. Is it all right for them to exploit us?

Here's a question to consider. Suppose the client doesn't pay, but the work has been done. Does the company owner still owe full wages to his workers?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A democratic power system where all parties have equal votes can still have a tyranny of the majority problem.

It also has a serious problem with uninformed voters.

What majority are you talking about?

You have people involved in some enterprise.

Who are the tyrants?

Your tyrants are as imaginary as Saddam Hussein's WMD.

Sticking your head in the sand doesn't make the problem go away.

Suppose 100 Muslims and 10 Jews vote to execute the Jews. Completely democratic, you ok with that?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They even said I'd ruin their business if I told their client that they hired me to drive their truck, knowing I didn't have a valid driver's license. So my question is this: should I tell their client or not? Their client

Show

Guninder Singh Bhalla (the yogurt prince)

's wife is involved in various humanitarian efforts, so might be pissed off that they are taking advantage of people. Of course, I don't know their client's position... which might be built on the exploitation of the weak. So.... there you go. Their client might be pissed that they are willing to risk their valuables with an unlicensed driver.

They are young, exploiting day laborers that need money and have no way of getting steady work except through them. They don't pay fair wages, to day laborers who have worked far longer and harder than them, but don't have their privileged position in society. Is it all right for them to exploit us?

In other words, they took a huge risk for the profit they made. Had anything gone wrong it would have cost them far more than they were being paid. There was no exploitation here.

 

[untermensche]

What majority are you talking about?

You have people involved in some enterprise.

Who are the tyrants?

Your tyrants are as imaginary as Saddam Hussein's WMD.

Sticking your head in the sand doesn't make the problem go away.

Suppose 100 Muslims and 10 Jews vote to execute the Jews. Completely democratic, you ok with that?

This is some fantasy.

You cannot legally vote within a business to break the law.

That is not a valid vote.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Sticking your head in the sand doesn't make the problem go away.

Suppose 100 Muslims and 10 Jews vote to execute the Jews. Completely democratic, you ok with that?

This is some fantasy.

You cannot legally vote within a business to break the law.

That is not a valid vote.

But the vote determines the law.

 

[untermensche]

This is some fantasy.

You cannot legally vote within a business to break the law.

That is not a valid vote.

But the vote determines the law.

Not everybody voting for the laws is in the same business.

Right now we have a system where a lot of laws are being enacted because of tiny special corporate interests with inordinate power in the Congress.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But the vote determines the law.

Not everybody voting for the laws is in the same business.

Right now we have a system where a lot of laws are being enacted because of tiny special corporate interests with inordinate power in the Congress.

You're not rebutting my point. Imagine the vote (to execute all Jews) in a place like Syria. How would it go?

 

[Kharakov]

Here's a question to consider. Suppose the client doesn't pay, but the work has been done. Does the company owner still owe full wages to his workers?

These clients aren't going to not pay.

 

[Kharakov]

They even said I'd ruin their business if I told their client that they hired me to drive their truck, knowing I didn't have a valid driver's license. So my question is this: should I tell their client or not? Their client

Show

Guninder Singh Bhalla (the yogurt prince)

's wife is involved in various humanitarian efforts, so might be pissed off that they are taking advantage of people. Of course, I don't know their client's position... which might be built on the exploitation of the weak. So.... there you go. Their client might be pissed that they are willing to risk their valuables with an unlicensed driver.

They are young, exploiting day laborers that need money and have no way of getting steady work except through them. They don't pay fair wages, to day laborers who have worked far longer and harder than them, but don't have their privileged position in society. Is it all right for them to exploit us?

In other words, they took a huge risk for the profit they made. Had anything gone wrong it would have cost them far more than they were being paid. There was no exploitation here.

Bull shit. They didn't care about the risk. If I hadn't driven, someone else would have. The other guys didn't want to drive.

 

[Kharakov]

No. The question is what is stopping them from getting a steady job, not why the powers that be don't want them to have a steady job.

I can't speak for them. I can speak for myself- I've been offered a full time job, have to name my price (was taking 18$, so have to figure out something close to that), but I know for a fact that I won't get the job.

You know why? Because I don't have a driver's license (and it's not within reach), and it's required for the job.