Why is FAIR TRADE better than FREE TRADE?

[DrZoidberg]

The issue is still the power imbalance between individual workers and their employer, an imbalance that does not allow the average worker a market based share of the wealth that their work generates.

I still don't know what you mean. Whatever they get is what they're worth. That's how a market works and how we calculate worth. If you remove the term "market based share" then you might have a point. But your comment now makes no sense.

Workers are not getting market value for their labour, their share in the wealth their work helps to generate has been eroding away for decades. Wages are running at well below market value. The stats have been posted.

Employers don't raise wages according to market value, they try to keep costs down.

I think you have your terminology mixed up. It's the market that decideds what products and services in it are worth. If wages have gone down it means their market value has gone down. Except for some very specific cases, nobody can be paid below market value.

If we would compare a bunch of markets and they're all identical, except for one region where there's a cartell keeping wages down, then we can say that they are paid below market value. But if all markets, across the board, have lower wages, that means that that is the new market value.

A relative fall of wages is what we'd expect in a world increasingly automated. If relative wages wouldn't have been falling while we simultaneously invest heavily in IT systems that entire investement would have been wasted. The entire point of automation is to increasingly shift money towards the capitalist, ie owner of the IT system.

The greater the share of income being generated for the capitalist automatically the tougher the competition for each earned dollar, which should act to push down wages. Which is exactly what we're seeing. So if wages would have been a steady level or rising (relatively) they would have been paid above market value, and all that money invested into IT would have been wasted money.

Employers have always tried keeping costs down. There's nothing new here. If employers tried keeping cost down before and paid higher wages than now, it means that the market value of wages has gone down.

edit: It sounds to me like you just want workers to get more money. It certainly possible. While workers are being paid relatively lower wages, the entire economy is doing better than ever. We have an amazingly wealthy world today. It's never before been easier to skim money off the top and simply give to the poor. If that's what you want to do, just do that. Instead of trying to guilt employers for doing their jobs. They're not doing anything wrong. They're just following what the market dictates. A hot tip... don't fuck with the market. It tends to not work out.

 

[DBT]

Workers are not getting market value for their labour, their share in the wealth their work helps to generate has been eroding away for decades. Wages are running at well below market value. The stats have been posted.

Employers don't raise wages according to market value, they try to keep costs down.

I think you have your terminology mixed up. It's the market that decideds what products and services in it are worth. If wages have gone down it means their market value has gone down. Except for some very specific cases, nobody can be paid below market value.

If we would compare a bunch of markets and they're all identical, except for one region where there's a cartell keeping wages down, then we can say that they are paid below market value. But if all markets, across the board, have lower wages, that means that that is the new market value.

A relative fall of wages is what we'd expect in a world increasingly automated. If relative wages wouldn't have been falling while we simultaneously invest heavily in IT systems that entire investement would have been wasted. The entire point of automation is to increasingly shift money towards the capitalist, ie owner of the IT system.

The greater the share of income being generated for the capitalist automatically the tougher the competition for each earned dollar, which should act to push down wages. Which is exactly what we're seeing. So if wages would have been a steady level or rising (relatively) they would have been paid above market value, and all that money invested into IT would have been wasted money.

Employers have always tried keeping costs down. There's nothing new here. If employers tried keeping cost down before and paid higher wages than now, it means that the market value of wages has gone down.

edit: It sounds to me like you just want workers to get more money. It certainly possible. While workers are being paid relatively lower wages, the entire economy is doing better than ever. We have an amazingly wealthy world today. It's never before been easier to skim money off the top and simply give to the poor. If that's what you want to do, just do that. Instead of trying to guilt employers for doing their jobs. They're not doing anything wrong. They're just following what the market dictates. A hot tip... don't fuck with the market. It tends to not work out.

I have provided stats that show workers are not getting market value for their labour. That wages have been stagnating for decades, that workers are falling behind.

Therefore 'the market' has not worked.

The market has not maintained wages at their market value.

Meanwhile employers, CEO's, management, etc, have enjoyed increases in leaps and bounds, quite likely exceeding their market value.

A clear case of double standards. Seemingly limitless pay for the top end of town, but heaven forbid a modest pay rise for the average worker.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Propping up wages -- minimum wage increase -- to stimulate demand -- ALL THEORY, no evidence

Minimum wage is theory only, driven by pity toward workers (pandering to the majority of producers) and scapegoating employers.

There's no empirical evidence showing a net benefit to the whole economy.

Your only "fair trade" alternative is crybaby whining against the dirty capitalist pigs.

Considering the US is a wealthy nation, you present a narrow two dimensional picture, two despicable options where any number of possibilities exist.

But some desperate job-seekers choose the low-paying sweatshop job as the best possibility. How do you know their choice is wrong? They have searched for the other possibilities and decided this was their best option. If there's really any number of better possibilities than this, then why are they choosing this one?

Is it because they don't know Donald bring-back-the-factories Trump is offering incredible good-paying jobs to everyone? with incredible benefits, incredible health-care and pension, etc.? Are those the "any number of possibilities" you say exist but those desperate job-seekers don't know about? You're really sure all those wonderful "jobs! jobs! jobs!" are there? only pleasant choices?

It is in the interest of destitute people to be taken advantage of in order for business to maximize profits?

Yes, IF it makes them less destitute than they would be otherwise, which it does. Why shouldn't the business make profit while making that worker and all the consumers better off? Why is it that you have no answer except your pure HATE for the business making profit? Why do you have to HATE that business, when it's doing nothing wrong other than making a profit?

Can't you come up with an example of something BAD that business is doing? to anyone? to that worker? to consumers? Why is it that you have only your HATE and nothing more? Why can't you suggest anything positive, to improve that worker's condition? You offer nothing for that worker by just whining that the employer could do more, and yet you offer no alternative to help that worker you pretend to feel sorry for.

Don't you realize that there are millions more poor people who are worse off than that low-paid worker? And your demand that he must either be paid at a higher rate or his job must be eliminated is going to make him worse off. If you really care about that poor low-paid worker, why don't you offer something which would IMPROVE his life rather than something that will make him and other workers WORSE off?

A wage race to the bottom is a benefit to people who have no negotiating power, so . . .

Yes it's a "benefit" if it makes them better off than if there was no job at all offered to them. If something makes you a little better off, then isn't it a benefit? or at worst you reject it as not enough and so you're no worse off -- what's wrong with that?

. . . have no negotiating power, so are to be considered fair game?

Considered BY WHOM to be "fair game"? they themselves are making the choice. They can turn down that job offer if it's not good enough. Why shouldn't they be free to make that choice? Hate language like "fair game" doesn't offer them anything better. Those hate words express nothing but your rage against the dirty capitalists, and nothing more. Is that all you have? only hate language? You can only condemn them without identifying what the harm is that they're doing? You can't say how they're making anyone worse off?

Your idea of a society or an economy is not something any reasonable person would want to see . . .

It's not just an IDEA, but it's the REALITY, that these choices are being made. Desperate job-seekers are in fact offered low-paying jobs and they choose them as their best option.

Why wouldn't a reasonable person want there to be such choices rather than no choice at all? What's "unreasonable" about choosing something that makes things a little better? A small improvement is not reasonable? It's better to have no improvement at all?

. . . something any reasonable person would want to see develop.

Reasonable people are against a small improvement developing? You mean NO IMPROVEMENT at all is more reasonable? Why is that reasonable? Why is NO IMPROVEMENT more reasonable than gradual improvement? You're saying a WORSE condition is more reasonable than a BETTER condition. And that if a small improvement is attempted, it should be stamped out in favor of NO IMPROVEMENT. Why do you want people to be worse off? Why do you want to thwart them from making some improvement? such as they get when they take that low-paying job rather than having no job at all? Why do you think no job at all is better for them when they want to have that choice instead of the no-choice-at-all which you want to impose on them?

The US is already too far down that road.

The US and other developed countries have come far down that road for generations, even centuries, and as a result offer much better choices to the poor today than were offered to them 100 and 200 years ago when they had their children working in the factories for 14 hours a day. By making those difficult choices back then, and others later, we have all benefited through these generations and today have developed to where the choices now are better. But you condemn those difficult choices, and so would have prevented them from making that gradual improvement, because slow improvement is worse than no improvement at all. You agree with the Luddites in preferring the no improvement at all. You condemn those gradual improvements and progress (which eliminated jobs and made some workers worse off in the short term) as something no "reasonable person would want to see develop."

What is not "reasonable" about having gradual progress? down the road toward gradual improvement? as an alternative to no improvement?

Gradual improvement in wages rate is not in the interest of business.

It is when they need the workers and qualified ones are in short supply, or some of them are quitting and are difficult to replace.

Some wages do increase, even if most do not. When there's the need for them to increase, to get the labor needed, those employers do increase the wages (for those workers needed).

There's nothing logically necessary about all wages continually increasing, all the time, for all categories. Some workers lose value, as the demand for them decreases. Why shouldn't the wage decrease in the case of those workers who become less valuable? If the need for those particular workers decreases, why isn't it appropriate for their wage to decrease?

There has been wage stagnation for decades. The aim is to hold wage cost down in order to boost profits.

Not always. Sometimes the wage is increased in order to boost profits, but other times held down in order to boost profits.

The aim in all cases is to boost profits, so that when higher wages are needed to attract needed workers (and thus boost profits), then the company increases wages in order to attract the needed workers and thus improve the production and make more profit.

It's not true that higher profit always requires lowering the wages, or that higher wages always has to mean lower profit. The company is entitled to do whatever increases the profit, and this can mean sometimes to reduce wages, but also sometimes to keep the wages at the same level, and also at times to increase the wages because of the need for additional workers.

It is the extreme of Crybaby Economics to insist that higher profit always means lower wages, and higher wages always has to mean lower profit. GROW UP!!!! Take Economics 1A. Get off this constant whining! whining! whining! The company is there to make a profit serving consumers, not to provide jobs and incomes to crybabies. It uses the workers as an instrument, as needed, to serve consumers, paying them only according to its function to serve consumers, not according to the workers' need for a job or for income.

Once again, exploiting workers benefits the rich at the expense of the economy at large and the workers.

No, it benefits EMPLOYERS, rich and poor, competing to keep down their costs.

The "exploitation" (competition and cost-saving) benefits all consumers who buy the company's product, because the lower production cost translates into lower prices = lower cost of living = higher living standard.

The competition and lower production cost has a legitimate role in the economy. Just take Economics 1A. It's very clear that competition is always good for the economy, all competition, including competition between workers (wage competition). There are no producers who should not compete for the benefit of all consumers.

The reasons have been given numerous times.

The reasons companies try to save on labor cost (and other costs) is that this enables them to produce more and keep down their prices = good for consumers. It's OK for companies to profit as long as they serve consumers in the process, which always happens as a result of cost savings.

It is blatant exploitation that . . .

Calling it a name like "exploitation" doesn't change the fact that it's good for the economy, for consumers, by keeping down the prices. It's blatant profit-making and blatant serving consumers, which is what all producers/workers are supposed to do. The company is entitled to its reward for serving the interests of consumers, which is its obligation, not serving the workers.

. . . exploitation that takes advantage of the power imbalance between business and workers.

There's nothing wrong with using one's "power imbalance" over another. When you buy a product, you're often taking something which someone else also wants but cannot afford, so you're using your power imbalance over that other buyer who can't afford it. As long as there is wealth inequality, those who have more take advantage of that extra power. Everyone does it, including a poor person who has more than another poor person.

We're all better off that those who have more are able to use that "power imbalance" to hire someone. The one hired is never made worse off by it, as long as they're not coerced by a threat of violence from the employer. You can't name any case where it's wrong for someone to use their "power imbalance" to hire another at a competitive price, or choose the seller/worker who offers the same service at a lower price.

It is obscene.

What's obscene about people being made better off? which is what happens when the poor person freely chooses to work for a rich person?

It's to the benefit of everyone for the rich and poor to do transactions. You can't name one case, not even a hypothetical case, where it's wrong for the rich person to hire the poor one at a competitive price. As long as the one hired is free to say no without any retaliation from the employer.

The economy is growing but our paychecks are not.

All Crybaby Economics 1A.

Workers who are more competitive, more valuable, do get wage increases. But with automation and cheap labor, the value of the average wage-earner is stagnating. That's true. It's the marketplace. Everyone is better off letting the market supply-and-demand set the wages and prices, even though the less competitive don't do as well. Yet virtually all workers are better off if we let the market set the wages and prices rather than have outsiders interfere by imposing anything onto the buyers/employers and sellers/workers.

Whatever might be wrong in the economy, hurting many/most at the middle and lower levels, employer-bashing such as imposing higher wages is no solution. Many of those suffering bad times are themselves employers or independent contractors who would be made worse off by scapegoating all employers or all non-wage-earners.

''That’s because employers have, over decades, built a political apparatus to hold down pay.

No, this is just more Crybaby Economics. The only "apparatus" is the marketplace, in which some workers are less competitive than others, and this is what holds down their wage level. But if there are laws imposing wage limits, that violates the market supply-and-demand and is contrary to free trade, which requires all players to be free to make their choices with no outside interference to set their price/wage.

When unemployment goes down, wages are supposed to go up. That’s just supply and demand. Quite puzzlingly, though, this mechanism seems not to be working today.

This is just crybaby whining. Wages and prices do follow supply-and-demand, but many sellers tend to be impatient and whine that the wages/prices don't keep up. These are usually the less competitive sellers who think their price has to go up automatically without them having to do anything. If they just play the victim passively and expect the good economy to automatically sweep them upward, they're likely to be disappointed. The market still requires them to earn it, not just sit passively and enjoy the increasing economic growth numbers.

Unemployment stands at a modest 4%, but paychecks aren’t growing.

Which paychecks? Some are growing. Nothing says ALL paychecks must automatically grow just because there are some good economic numbers. Stop the whining and get to work to earn your higher income, if you really deserve it. You still have to deserve it, and earn it. It's not an automatic entitlement to every crybaby wage-earner.

Although today’s is the best-educated workforce in history, employers . . .

It's not evident that today's "workforce" is the best-educated ever. What we call "education" today no longer has the value it did 50 years ago. By any objective standard, such as can be measured by testing, the workforce, or the population available to be hired today, is probably less educated, less intelligent, less able to solve problems, less resourceful, less knowledgeable, than that of 50 years ago, or 100 years ago. However, those who are more valuable, smarter and more educated, etc., are paid more. It's just that this is a smaller percentage of the total available workforce today.

There probably is something wrong, causing work and business to not function as well today, and making "the American Dream" (or "the British Dream" or "the Australian Dream" etc.) to fall short of expectation. We should look for a possible explanation. But just crybaby whining that employers don't pay enough doesn't explain anything.

Although today’s is the best-educated workforce in history, employers just insist that workers need more training.

They are more easily replaceable, with increased automation and increased cheap foreign labor. So more specialization would help to increase their value. But also, often the employers are inundated with too many applicants, and they just say anything to get rid of half of them, because they need some artificial screening device to wack off a large number of them. And "not experienced enough" or "not enough training" is a simple cliché used to quickly reduce the number arbitrarily.

In other words, they’re gaslighting us.

Yes. If they were honest, they'd just say, "You're simply not worth paying the $15/hour plus benefits I'd have to pay you. I'm not here to provide charity -- sorry. I already have too many charity cases working here -- I can't afford any more. Or rather, I've hired my quota of charity workers, and I'm too selfish to keep hiring more of you. Go to some other company for your charity job. I've already hired my quota." Maybe this is what they should say, instead of lying and saying it's "lack of training" or "lack of experience" and other excuses. But then again, if they told the truth, they'd be accused of selfishness and have to put up with more preaching from ideologues who want to make them feel guilty.

Meanwhile, over decades, employers have built and maintained a massive collective political apparatus to hold down wages. To call it a conspiracy would be only slight embellishment.

It's childish paranoia. There's no evidence of any "apparatus" to hold down wages, other than the market supply-and-demand.

The symptoms of the problem are not hard to miss. In February, for example, the American economy posted its biggest one-month jobs gain in a couple years, but wage growth stayed stalled out.

There are many factors. And it's not true that there was no wage growth at all. Some jobs increased in value while others decreased due to more automation and more cheap labor. And there's also a lag, as employers will not increase wages until they really experience the shortage of labor and need more help. They also impose extra demands on their existing workers, increasing their hours, trying to meet the demand with as little cost increase as possible. Hiring new workers is costly at first, due to new paperwork, insurance, labor laws which impose more costs -- so they put it off as long as possible.

But workers of higher value do gain from the improved numbers. Those with higher value, a minority, are the first to experience the benefit of an upswing in the employment numbers.

For months, economists and financial journalists have been puzzling over the question, as Bloomberg put it, of “why the economy grows but your paycheck doesn’t”.

Not just for months, but years, decades. This is a very gradual trend, not something sudden, and it's a pattern emerging generations ago. It's partly the increase in automation, but also globalism and immigration and cheaper labor. There's nothing wrong with any of this. All the increased trade and commerce and mobility causes an increase in the total competition, and this makes it appear like something new and threatening is happening, but the truth is that the standard of living is increasing as a result. It's just that the competition has become tougher, so that many are frightened by it, as producers/workers. And also, maybe there's a pattern causing the increasing inequality, so that the rich benefit from the improved production more than the middle- and lower-class levels.

In any case, artificially propping up the wage level is no solution to anything.

Economists will tell you that wages generally increase with productivity – that you’re paid in line with the value of what you do.

This is mostly fiction as it relates to wage-earners. The truth is that it's not the wage-earners who have increased in value. Rather, it's new technology which causes the higher productivity, not the work done by wage-earners. Those factory workers are doing nothing more valuable, even though the output has increased in value. The workers are still pushing the buttons and switches, as always. The few who are more skilled are paid for it, so that their higher value is rewarded. But most of the wage-earners have not increased in value. It's only a minority who are more valuable, and those ones are being rewarded for their higher value, as the market always pays higher for those who are more competitive.

And the competition has become tougher, even for some of the skilled workers.

This was credible from the end of the second world war to the 1970s, when productivity and hourly wages rose almost perfectly in sync.

Perhaps -- you can crank out lots of numbers to prove whatever you want. But there's nothing which dictates that wage-earner value increases equally with new technology. That worker is not more valuable just because some engineers designed a better machine for him to operate. Labor unions were stronger back then and were able to force companies to SHARE the profits of higher production with the workers, even though the workers were not the ones causing the higher productivity. This SHARING did not last, as it was obvious that the company was experiencing improved production not due to the wage-earners, but rather to new technology produced by scientists and engineers, who are the real creators of the new value.

So the SHARING the profits with wage-earners was not permanent. The market is not stagnant in preserving something which inefficiently distributes the earnings. It's better to direct the proceeds/investments into whatever is more productive.

But according to research by the Economic Policy Institute, from the early 1970s to 2016 productivity went up 73.7%, and wages only 12.3%.

Those workers are very well paid compared to the poor making only $20,000 per year, or even less. And yet these very low-paid workers are probably just as valuable as those higher-paid workers whose wages went up 12.3%. And most of the higher-paid workers (whose wage went up "only" 12.3%) are more easily replaceable by cheap labor. The truth is that their value is decreasing as a percent of the total economy, and will probably continue to decrease -- regardless of the new technology or new machines they operate which they did not produce but were built by scientists and engineers, who are very well paid for their higher value.

How Does the Minimum Wage Impact the Economy?

Did you even bother to read this article? It gives as much evidence AGAINST minimum wage as in favor of it. It is slightly slanted toward giving minimum wage the benefit of the doubt, if it's set reasonably low, because of negative effects on employment and undue burden on some businesses.

And there's no clear evidence that minimum wage does produce the intended benefits. There's only one case where we have clear evidence -- proof -- of the effect of minimum wage, which is that of Samoa where Washington tried to impose the federal minimum wage, and it had to be rescinded later when the increased minimum wage ended up doing more harm than good. In this one case we know for sure that MW did harm, not benefit.

In 2007, Congress passed legislation to raise the territory's minimum wages, but subsequent legislation delayed or reduced these increases. The current schedule would raise all of the territory's minimum wages to the current federal level by 2036—although any increase to the federal minimum wage will delay this schedule. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-17-83

This case shows clearly that the MW increase did more harm than good, so that even those who originally favored it had to reverse themselves after the results were clear.

By May 2009 the third scheduled minimum wage increase in Samoa took effect, rising to $4.76 an hour and covering 69 percent of canning workers. This did not increase purchasing power, stimulate demand, and raise living standards, as many minimum wage proponents theorize. Instead StarKist-one of the two canneries then located in Samoa-laid off workers, cut hours and benefits, and froze hiring. The other cannery-Chicken of the Sea-shut down entirely in September 2009.

The Government Accountability Office reports that between 2006 and 2009 overall employment in American Samoa fell 14 percent and inflation-adjusted wages fell 11 percent. Employment in the tuna canning industry fell 55 percent. The GAO attributed much of these economic losses to the minimum wage hike.

The Democratic Governor of American Samoa, Togiola Tulafona, harshly criticized this GAO report for understating the damage done by the minimum wage hike. Testifying before Congress Gov. Tulafona objected that "this GAO report does not adequately, succinctly or clearly convey the magnitude of the worsening economic disaster in American Samoa that has resulted primarily from the imposition of the 2007 US minimum wage mandate." Gov. Tulafona pointed out that American Samoa's unemployment rate jumped from 5 percent before the last minimum wage hike to over 35 percent in 2009. He begged Congress to stop increasing the islands' minimum wage:

"We are watching our economy burn down. We know what to do to stop it. We need to bring the aggressive wage costs decreed by the Federal Government under control. But we are ordered not to interfere ...Our job market is being torched. Our businesses are being depressed. Our hope for growth has been driven away...Our question is this: How much does our government expect us to suffer, until we have to stand up for our survival?"

Samoan employers responded to higher labor costs the way economic theory predicts: by hiring fewer workers. Congress hurt the very workers it intended to help. Fortunately, Congress heeded the Governor's plea and suspended the future scheduled minimum wage increases.

https://www.cashmerevalleyrecord.com/minimum-wage-disaster-american-samoa

Subsequently the minimum wage increase in Samoa has been delayed or reversed:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/cong...ErvYnUIIC9ske3Krystx3YIRTnbF8q8HWJvHkpy1yiUgA

It's clear from these reports on the Samoa MW increases, that everyone agrees that the increase was too much and has to be rescinded. And yet many still favor MW in Samoa and want to make it equal to that in the 50 states. But this continually gets delayed, because everyone knows of the damage when companies have to cut back or shut down. So now they're thinking maybe Samoa will finally have the same MW as the U.S. by 2036, way off in the future. Everyone agrees on putting it off, delaying it, but also ideally they favor the MW idea, as a theory. But in actual practice, so far, it's not working.

Congress OKs American Samoa minimum wage freeze
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
JULY 19, 2012 1:35 PM
PAGO PAGO, American Samoa — Congress passed a bill this week to freeze American Samoa’s minimum wage, responding to employer concerns and a government financial report that suggest automatic increases were harming the U.S. territory’s economy.
American Samoa’s minimum pay was set to increase by 50 cents in September, but that now stands to be delayed until 2015.

Minimum wage in American Samoa varies from $4.18 to $5.59 per hour, depending on the industry. The lowest wage is for garment workers and the highest is for those in the shipping industry. Tuna canneries make up the largest private employer, where the rate is $4.76.

The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 provided for annual 50-cents per hour increases until the rate matched the rest of the U.S., where the minimum pay is $7.25 per hour.

Increases for 2010 and 2011 were previously delayed by another federal law. The last increase went into effect in 2009, the day after a tsunami killed 34 people in the territory and the same day a tuna cannery shut down.

The issue of pay has been the focus of an ongoing debate in the territory where a communal land system allows many people to live rent-free with their families. A majority of American Samoa land is communally owned by families. But everyday household items need to be shipped to the island, making them much more expensive than in most parts of the U.S.

A report last year by the U.S. Government Accountability Office said employment in American Samoa has declined because of the minimum wage increases that began in 2007. The 142-page report said the decrease in employment was a result of losing a tuna cannery in American Samoa. Employers blamed the minimum wage increase for layoffs, work hour reductions and hiring freezes.

America Samoa’s nonvoting delegate in the U.S. House of Representatives, Eni H. Faleomavaega, said the Senate bill was overwhelmingly approved Tuesday, 378-11.

While he supported it, “I take no happiness in the successful passage of this bill because I still stand for fair wages for American Samoa’s workers,” he said. “So between now and 2015, it will be up to the American Samoa government and our corporate partners, including StarKist and Tri-Marine, to find new ways of succeeding without further compromising the wages of our fish cleaners because I cannot promise that I will support any more delays after this.”

The measure now goes to the president, who is expected to sign it.

Three years ago, StarKist Co. announced the reduction of some 800 positions at StarKist Samoa, citing a competitive industry and higher labor costs. Spokeswoman Mary Sestric said the company is hopeful Congress will again delay the next scheduled increase.

StarKist workers on a morning shift Wednesday declined to comment on the delay.

American Samoa Gov. Togiola Tulafono has said the 2009 cannery closure led to unemployment reaching nearly 20 percent by 2010.

“Congress is to be thanked for preventing further economic calamity in American Samoa and preventing continual increases to the minimum wage which would have led to additional layoffs in our fragile economy,” said local Chamber of Commerce Chairman David Robinson.

It's not that the above parties are against MW -- making Samoa the same as the 50 states. They favor it, but for Samoa they know it has to be delayed, again and again, because the facts show that it doesn't work. Not yet. The hope is that ideally some day maybe it's possible.

So there's clear evidence that it failed in Samoa, at the level of increase everyone originally favored, based on the theory that it would increase the consumer spending power and boost the economy. The facts proved otherwise. This is not just another MW "study" theorizing that it might work. This is a proven case where MW increase failed, as recognized by everyone, not just MW-debunkers.

By contrast, there has been no clear case showing that the MW ever did more benefit than harm. In all the "studies" promoting the MW there is no evidence that it produces the net benefits intended. It obviously benefits certain workers whose incomes increase, but there is no measure of the negative results -- higher prices and higher unemployment numbers. These usually cannot be measured and are assumed to be small enough, but there is no way to determine whether the harm is greater or less than the benefits.

''Without a wage floor, employers would continue to pay less and less, destroying the purchasing power of the consumers who would make less money, Cooper said. The minimum wage then helps mitigate that imbalance of power between employers and low-wage workers.''

This only presents the rationale for minimum wage, without the author of the article agreeing with it. This only expresses the INTENT behind MW but not any argument that the intended results are achieved by it.

There are some references to economists like Krueger who says MW doesn't likely do harm to the employment numbers, but this is only so if the MW is kept low enough, below some threshold, and no one ever has explained what that threshold is, or given any evidence that a low-enough threshold has no negative effect. Rather, the only data on this is that the MW, as long as it's low enough, does only small damage to employment, hopefully none, but no study has ever shown that it does no damage at all. It's just that the damage is too small to measure. But the actual damage could well be greater than the benefit to the select workers enjoying a wage increase.

 

[DBT]

Minimum wage is theory only, driven by pity toward workers (pandering to the majority of producers) and scapegoating employers.

There's no empirical evidence showing a net benefit to the whole economy.

Your only "fair trade" alternative is crybaby whining against the dirty capitalist pigs.

But some desperate job-seekers choose the low-paying sweatshop job as the best possibility. How do you know their choice is wrong? They have searched for the other possibilities and decided this was their best option. If there's really any number of better possibilities than this, then why are they choosing this one?

Is it because they don't know Donald bring-back-the-factories Trump is offering incredible good-paying jobs to everyone? with incredible benefits, incredible health-care and pension, etc.? Are those the "any number of possibilities" you say exist but those desperate job-seekers don't know about? You're really sure all those wonderful "jobs! jobs! jobs!" are there? only pleasant choices?

It is in the interest of destitute people to be taken advantage of in order for business to maximize profits?

Yes, IF it makes them less destitute than they would be otherwise, which it does. Why shouldn't the business make profit while making that worker and all the consumers better off? Why is it that you have no answer except your pure HATE for the business making profit? Why do you have to HATE that business, when it's doing nothing wrong other than making a profit?

Can't you come up with an example of something BAD that business is doing? to anyone? to that worker? to consumers? Why is it that you have only your HATE and nothing more? Why can't you suggest anything positive, to improve that worker's condition? You offer nothing for that worker by just whining that the employer could do more, and yet you offer no alternative to help that worker you pretend to feel sorry for.

Don't you realize that there are millions more poor people who are worse off than that low-paid worker? And your demand that he must either be paid at a higher rate or his job must be eliminated is going to make him worse off. If you really care about that poor low-paid worker, why don't you offer something which would IMPROVE his life rather than something that will make him and other workers WORSE off?

A wage race to the bottom is a benefit to people who have no negotiating power, so . . .

Yes it's a "benefit" if it makes them better off than if there was no job at all offered to them. If something makes you a little better off, then isn't it a benefit? or at worst you reject it as not enough and so you're no worse off -- what's wrong with that?

. . . have no negotiating power, so are to be considered fair game?

Considered BY WHOM to be "fair game"? they themselves are making the choice. They can turn down that job offer if it's not good enough. Why shouldn't they be free to make that choice? Hate language like "fair game" doesn't offer them anything better. Those hate words express nothing but your rage against the dirty capitalists, and nothing more. Is that all you have? only hate language? You can only condemn them without identifying what the harm is that they're doing? You can't say how they're making anyone worse off?

Your idea of a society or an economy is not something any reasonable person would want to see . . .

It's not just an IDEA, but it's the REALITY, that these choices are being made. Desperate job-seekers are in fact offered low-paying jobs and they choose them as their best option.

Why wouldn't a reasonable person want there to be such choices rather than no choice at all? What's "unreasonable" about choosing something that makes things a little better? A small improvement is not reasonable? It's better to have no improvement at all?

. . . something any reasonable person would want to see develop.

Reasonable people are against a small improvement developing? You mean NO IMPROVEMENT at all is more reasonable? Why is that reasonable? Why is NO IMPROVEMENT more reasonable than gradual improvement? You're saying a WORSE condition is more reasonable than a BETTER condition. And that if a small improvement is attempted, it should be stamped out in favor of NO IMPROVEMENT. Why do you want people to be worse off? Why do you want to thwart them from making some improvement? such as they get when they take that low-paying job rather than having no job at all? Why do you think no job at all is better for them when they want to have that choice instead of the no-choice-at-all which you want to impose on them?

The US is already too far down that road.

The US and other developed countries have come far down that road for generations, even centuries, and as a result offer much better choices to the poor today than were offered to them 100 and 200 years ago when they had their children working in the factories for 14 hours a day. By making those difficult choices back then, and others later, we have all benefited through these generations and today have developed to where the choices now are better. But you condemn those difficult choices, and so would have prevented them from making that gradual improvement, because slow improvement is worse than no improvement at all. You agree with the Luddites in preferring the no improvement at all. You condemn those gradual improvements and progress (which eliminated jobs and made some workers worse off in the short term) as something no "reasonable person would want to see develop."

What is not "reasonable" about having gradual progress? down the road toward gradual improvement? as an alternative to no improvement?

Gradual improvement in wages rate is not in the interest of business.

It is when they need the workers and qualified ones are in short supply, or some of them are quitting and are difficult to replace.

Some wages do increase, even if most do not. When there's the need for them to increase, to get the labor needed, those employers do increase the wages (for those workers needed).

There's nothing logically necessary about all wages continually increasing, all the time, for all categories. Some workers lose value, as the demand for them decreases. Why shouldn't the wage decrease in the case of those workers who become less valuable? If the need for those particular workers decreases, why isn't it appropriate for their wage to decrease?

There has been wage stagnation for decades. The aim is to hold wage cost down in order to boost profits.

Not always. Sometimes the wage is increased in order to boost profits, but other times held down in order to boost profits.

The aim in all cases is to boost profits, so that when higher wages are needed to attract needed workers (and thus boost profits), then the company increases wages in order to attract the needed workers and thus improve the production and make more profit.

It's not true that higher profit always requires lowering the wages, or that higher wages always has to mean lower profit. The company is entitled to do whatever increases the profit, and this can mean sometimes to reduce wages, but also sometimes to keep the wages at the same level, and also at times to increase the wages because of the need for additional workers.

It is the extreme of Crybaby Economics to insist that higher profit always means lower wages, and higher wages always has to mean lower profit. GROW UP!!!! Take Economics 1A. Get off this constant whining! whining! whining! The company is there to make a profit serving consumers, not to provide jobs and incomes to crybabies. It uses the workers as an instrument, as needed, to serve consumers, paying them only according to its function to serve consumers, not according to the workers' need for a job or for income.

Once again, exploiting workers benefits the rich at the expense of the economy at large and the workers.

No, it benefits EMPLOYERS, rich and poor, competing to keep down their costs.

The "exploitation" (competition and cost-saving) benefits all consumers who buy the company's product, because the lower production cost translates into lower prices = lower cost of living = higher living standard.

The competition and lower production cost has a legitimate role in the economy. Just take Economics 1A. It's very clear that competition is always good for the economy, all competition, including competition between workers (wage competition). There are no producers who should not compete for the benefit of all consumers.

The reasons have been given numerous times.

The reasons companies try to save on labor cost (and other costs) is that this enables them to produce more and keep down their prices = good for consumers. It's OK for companies to profit as long as they serve consumers in the process, which always happens as a result of cost savings.

It is blatant exploitation that . . .

Calling it a name like "exploitation" doesn't change the fact that it's good for the economy, for consumers, by keeping down the prices. It's blatant profit-making and blatant serving consumers, which is what all producers/workers are supposed to do. The company is entitled to its reward for serving the interests of consumers, which is its obligation, not serving the workers.

. . . exploitation that takes advantage of the power imbalance between business and workers.

There's nothing wrong with using one's "power imbalance" over another. When you buy a product, you're often taking something which someone else also wants but cannot afford, so you're using your power imbalance over that other buyer who can't afford it. As long as there is wealth inequality, those who have more take advantage of that extra power. Everyone does it, including a poor person who has more than another poor person.

We're all better off that those who have more are able to use that "power imbalance" to hire someone. The one hired is never made worse off by it, as long as they're not coerced by a threat of violence from the employer. You can't name any case where it's wrong for someone to use their "power imbalance" to hire another at a competitive price, or choose the seller/worker who offers the same service at a lower price.

It is obscene.

What's obscene about people being made better off? which is what happens when the poor person freely chooses to work for a rich person?

It's to the benefit of everyone for the rich and poor to do transactions. You can't name one case, not even a hypothetical case, where it's wrong for the rich person to hire the poor one at a competitive price. As long as the one hired is free to say no without any retaliation from the employer.

The economy is growing but our paychecks are not.

All Crybaby Economics 1A.

Workers who are more competitive, more valuable, do get wage increases. But with automation and cheap labor, the value of the average wage-earner is stagnating. That's true. It's the marketplace. Everyone is better off letting the market supply-and-demand set the wages and prices, even though the less competitive don't do as well. Yet virtually all workers are better off if we let the market set the wages and prices rather than have outsiders interfere by imposing anything onto the buyers/employers and sellers/workers.

Whatever might be wrong in the economy, hurting many/most at the middle and lower levels, employer-bashing such as imposing higher wages is no solution. Many of those suffering bad times are themselves employers or independent contractors who would be made worse off by scapegoating all employers or all non-wage-earners.

''That’s because employers have, over decades, built a political apparatus to hold down pay.

No, this is just more Crybaby Economics. The only "apparatus" is the marketplace, in which some workers are less competitive than others, and this is what holds down their wage level. But if there are laws imposing wage limits, that violates the market supply-and-demand and is contrary to free trade, which requires all players to be free to make their choices with no outside interference to set their price/wage.

When unemployment goes down, wages are supposed to go up. That’s just supply and demand. Quite puzzlingly, though, this mechanism seems not to be working today.

This is just crybaby whining. Wages and prices do follow supply-and-demand, but many sellers tend to be impatient and whine that the wages/prices don't keep up. These are usually the less competitive sellers who think their price has to go up automatically without them having to do anything. If they just play the victim passively and expect the good economy to automatically sweep them upward, they're likely to be disappointed. The market still requires them to earn it, not just sit passively and enjoy the increasing economic growth numbers.

Unemployment stands at a modest 4%, but paychecks aren’t growing.

Which paychecks? Some are growing. Nothing says ALL paychecks must automatically grow just because there are some good economic numbers. Stop the whining and get to work to earn your higher income, if you really deserve it. You still have to deserve it, and earn it. It's not an automatic entitlement to every crybaby wage-earner.

Although today’s is the best-educated workforce in history, employers . . .

It's not evident that today's "workforce" is the best-educated ever. What we call "education" today no longer has the value it did 50 years ago. By any objective standard, such as can be measured by testing, the workforce, or the population available to be hired today, is probably less educated, less intelligent, less able to solve problems, less resourceful, less knowledgeable, than it was 50 years ago, or 100 years ago. However, those who are more valuable, smarter and more educated, etc., are paid more. It's just that this is a smaller percentage of the total available workforce today.

There probably is something wrong, causing work and business to not function as well today, and making "the American Dream" (or "the British Dream" or "the Australian Dream" etc.) to fall short of expectation. We should look for a possible explanation. But just crybaby whining that employers don't pay enough doesn't explain anything.

Although today’s is the best-educated workforce in history, employers just insist that workers need more training.

They are more easily replaceable, with increased automation and increased cheap foreign labor. So more specialization would help to increase their value. But also, often the employers are inundated with too many applicants, and they just say anything to get rid of half of them, because they need some artificial screening device to wack off a large number of them. And "not experienced enough" or "not enough training" is a simple cliché used to quickly reduce the number arbitrarily.

In other words, they’re gaslighting us.

Yes. If they were honest, they'd just say, "You're simply not worth paying the $15/hour plus benefits I'd have to pay you. I'm not here to provide charity -- sorry. I already have too many charity cases working here -- I can't afford any more. Or rather, I've hired my quote of charity workers, and I'm too selfish to keep hiring more of you. Go to some other company for your charity job. I've already hired my quota." Maybe this is what they should say, instead of lying and saying it's "lack of training" or "lack of experience" and other excuses. But then again, if they told the truth, they'd be accused of selfishness and have to put up with more preaching from ideologues who want to make them feel guilty.

Meanwhile, over decades, employers have built and maintained a massive collective political apparatus to hold down wages. To call it a conspiracy would be only slight embellishment.

It's childish paranoia. There's no evidence of any "apparatus" to hold down wages, other than the market supply-and-demand.

The symptoms of the problem are not hard to miss. In February, for example, the American economy posted its biggest one-month jobs gain in a couple years, but wage growth stayed stalled out.

There are many factors. And it's not true that there was no wage growth at all. Some jobs increased in value while others decreased due to more automation and more cheap labor. And there's also a lag, as employers will not increase wages until they really experience the shortage of labor and need more help. They also impose extra demands on their existing workers, increasing their hours, trying to meet the demand with as little cost increase as possible. Hiring new workers is costly at first, due to new paperwork, insurance, labor laws which impose more costs -- so they put it off as long as possible.

But workers of higher value do gain from the improved numbers. Those with higher value, a minority, are the first to experience the benefit of an upswing in the employment numbers.

For months, economists and financial journalists have been puzzling over the question, as Bloomberg put it, of “why the economy grows but your paycheck doesn’t”.

Not just for months, but years, decades. This is a very gradual trend, not something sudden, and it's a pattern emerging generations ago. It's partly the increase in automation, but also globalism and immigration and cheaper labor. There's nothing wrong with any of this. All the increased trade and commerce and mobility causes an increase in the total competition, and this makes it appear like something new and threatening is happening, but the truth is that the standard of living is increasing as a result. It's just that the competition has become tougher, so that many are frightened by it, as producers/workers. And also, there may be something that causes the increasing inequality, so that the rich benefit from it more than the middle- and lower-class levels.

In any case, artificially propping up the wage level is no solution to anything.

Economists will tell you that wages generally increase with productivity – that you’re paid in line with the value of what you do.

This is mostly fiction as it relates to wage-earners. The truth is that it's not the wage-earners who have increased in value. Rather, it's new technology which causes the higher productivity, not the work done by wage-earners. Those factory workers are doing nothing more valuable, even though the output has increased in value. The workers are still pushing the buttons and switches, as always. The few who are more skilled are paid for it, so that their higher value is rewarded. But most of the wage-earners have not increased in value. It's only a minority who are more valuable, and those ones are being rewarded for their higher value, as the market always pays higher for those who are more competitive.

And the competition has become tougher, even for some of the skilled workers.

This was credible from the end of the second world war to the 1970s, when productivity and hourly wages rose almost perfectly in sync.

Perhaps -- you can crank out lots of numbers to prove whatever you want. But there's nothing which dictates that wage-earner value increases equally with new technology. That worker is not more valuable just because some engineers designed a better machine for him to operate. Labor unions were stronger back then and were able to force companies to "share" the profits of higher production with the workers, even though the workers were not the ones causing the higher productivity. This "sharing" did not last, as it was obvious that the company was experiencing improved production not due to the wage-earners, but rather to new technology produced by scientists and engineers, who are the real creators of the new value.

So the "sharing" the profits with wage-earners was not permanent. The market is not stagnant in preserving something which inefficiently distributes the earnings. It's better to direct the proceeds/investments into whatever is more productive.

But according to research by the Economic Policy Institute, from the early 1970s to 2016 productivity went up 73.7%, and wages only 12.3%.

Those workers are very well paid compared to the poor making only $20,000 per year, or even less. And yet these very low-paid workers are probably just as valuable as those higher-paid workers whose wages went up 12.3%. And most of the higher-paid workers (whose wage went up "only" 12.3%) are more easily replaceable by cheap labor. The truth is that their value is decreasing as a percent of the total economy, and will probably continue to decrease -- regardless of the new technology or new machines they operate which they did not produce but were built by scientists and engineers, who are very well paid for their higher value.

How Does the Minimum Wage Impact the Economy?

Did you even bother to read this article? It gives as much evidence AGAINST minimum wage as in favor of it. It is slightly slanted toward giving minimum wage the benefit of the doubt, if it's set reasonably low, because of negative effects on employment and undue burden on some businesses.

And there's no clear evidence that minimum wage does produce the intended benefits. There's only one case where we have clear evidence -- proof -- of the effect of minimum wage, which is that of Samoa where Washington tried to impose the federal minimum wage, and it had to be rescinded later when the increased minimum wage ended up doing more harm than good. In this one case we know for sure that MW did harm, not benefit.

In 2007, Congress passed legislation to raise the territory's minimum wages, but subsequent legislation delayed or reduced these increases. The current schedule would raise all of the territory's minimum wages to the current federal level by 2036—although any increase to the federal minimum wage will delay this schedule. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-17-83

This case shows clearly that the MW increase did more harm than good, so that even those who originally favored it had to reverse themselves after the results were clear.

By May 2009 the third scheduled minimum wage increase in Samoa took effect, rising to $4.76 an hour and covering 69 percent of canning workers. This did not increase purchasing power, stimulate demand, and raise living standards, as many minimum wage proponents theorize. Instead StarKist-one of the two canneries then located in Samoa-laid off workers, cut hours and benefits, and froze hiring. The other cannery-Chicken of the Sea-shut down entirely in September 2009.

The Government Accountability Office reports that between 2006 and 2009 overall employment in American Samoa fell 14 percent and inflation-adjusted wages fell 11 percent. Employment in the tuna canning industry fell 55 percent. The GAO attributed much of these economic losses to the minimum wage hike.

The Democratic Governor of American Samoa, Togiola Tulafona, harshly criticized this GAO report for understating the damage done by the minimum wage hike. Testifying before Congress Gov. Tulafona objected that "this GAO report does not adequately, succinctly or clearly convey the magnitude of the worsening economic disaster in American Samoa that has resulted primarily from the imposition of the 2007 US minimum wage mandate." Gov. Tulafona pointed out that American Samoa's unemployment rate jumped from 5 percent before the last minimum wage hike to over 35 percent in 2009. He begged Congress to stop increasing the islands' minimum wage:

"We are watching our economy burn down. We know what to do to stop it. We need to bring the aggressive wage costs decreed by the Federal Government under control. But we are ordered not to interfere ...Our job market is being torched. Our businesses are being depressed. Our hope for growth has been driven away...Our question is this: How much does our government expect us to suffer, until we have to stand up for our survival?"

Samoan employers responded to higher labor costs the way economic theory predicts: by hiring fewer workers. Congress hurt the very workers it intended to help. Fortunately, Congress heeded the Governor's plea and suspended the future scheduled minimum wage increases.

https://www.cashmerevalleyrecord.com/minimum-wage-disaster-american-samoa

Subsequently the minimum wage increase in Samoa has been delayed or reversed:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/cong...ErvYnUIIC9ske3Krystx3YIRTnbF8q8HWJvHkpy1yiUgA

It's clear from these reports on the Samoa MW increases, that everyone agrees that the increase was too much and has to be rescinded. And yet many still favor MW in Samoa and want to make it equal to that in the 50 states. But this continually gets delayed, because everyone knows of the damage when companies have to cut back or shut down. So now they're thinking maybe Samoa will finally have the same MW as the U.S. by 2036, way off in the future. Everyone agrees on putting it off, delaying it, but also ideally they favor the MW idea, as a theory. But in actual practice, so far, it's not working.

Congress OKs American Samoa minimum wage freeze
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
JULY 19, 2012 1:35 PM
PAGO PAGO, American Samoa — Congress passed a bill this week to freeze American Samoa’s minimum wage, responding to employer concerns and a government financial report that suggest automatic increases were harming the U.S. territory’s economy.
American Samoa’s minimum pay was set to increase by 50 cents in September, but that now stands to be delayed until 2015.

Minimum wage in American Samoa varies from $4.18 to $5.59 per hour, depending on the industry. The lowest wage is for garment workers and the highest is for those in the shipping industry. Tuna canneries make up the largest private employer, where the rate is $4.76.

The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 provided for annual 50-cents per hour increases until the rate matched the rest of the U.S., where the minimum pay is $7.25 per hour.

Increases for 2010 and 2011 were previously delayed by another federal law. The last increase went into effect in 2009, the day after a tsunami killed 34 people in the territory and the same day a tuna cannery shut down.

The issue of pay has been the focus of an ongoing debate in the territory where a communal land system allows many people to live rent-free with their families. A majority of American Samoa land is communally owned by families. But everyday household items need to be shipped to the island, making them much more expensive than in most parts of the U.S.

A report last year by the U.S. Government Accountability Office said employment in American Samoa has declined because of the minimum wage increases that began in 2007. The 142-page report said the decrease in employment was a result of losing a tuna cannery in American Samoa. Employers blamed the minimum wage increase for layoffs, work hour reductions and hiring freezes.

America Samoa’s nonvoting delegate in the U.S. House of Representatives, Eni H. Faleomavaega, said the Senate bill was overwhelmingly approved Tuesday, 378-11.

While he supported it, “I take no happiness in the successful passage of this bill because I still stand for fair wages for American Samoa’s workers,” he said. “So between now and 2015, it will be up to the American Samoa government and our corporate partners, including StarKist and Tri-Marine, to find new ways of succeeding without further compromising the wages of our fish cleaners because I cannot promise that I will support any more delays after this.”

The measure now goes to the president, who is expected to sign it.

Three years ago, StarKist Co. announced the reduction of some 800 positions at StarKist Samoa, citing a competitive industry and higher labor costs. Spokeswoman Mary Sestric said the company is hopeful Congress will again delay the next scheduled increase.

StarKist workers on a morning shift Wednesday declined to comment on the delay.

American Samoa Gov. Togiola Tulafono has said the 2009 cannery closure led to unemployment reaching nearly 20 percent by 2010.

“Congress is to be thanked for preventing further economic calamity in American Samoa and preventing continual increases to the minimum wage which would have led to additional layoffs in our fragile economy,” said local Chamber of Commerce Chairman David Robinson.

It's not that the above parties are against MW -- making Samoa the same as the 50 states. They favor it, but for Samoa they know it has to be delayed, again and again, because the facts show that it doesn't work. Not yet. The hope is that ideally some day maybe it's possible.

So there's clear evidence that it failed in Samoa, at the level of increase everyone originally favored, based on the theory that it would increase the consumer spending power and boost the economy. The facts proved otherwise. This is not just another MW "study" theorizing that it might work. This is a proven case where MW increase failed, as recognized by everyone, not just MW-debunkers.

By contrast, there has been no clear case showing that the MW ever did more benefit than harm. In all the "studies" promoting the MW there is no evidence that it produces the net benefits intended. It obviously benefits certain workers whose incomes increase, but there is no measure of the negative results -- higher prices and higher unemployment numbers. These usually cannot be measured and are assumed to be small enough, but there is no way to determine whether the harm is greater or less than the benefits.

''Without a wage floor, employers would continue to pay less and less, destroying the purchasing power of the consumers who would make less money, Cooper said. The minimum wage then helps mitigate that imbalance of power between employers and low-wage workers.''

This only presents the rationale for minimum wage, without the author of the article agreeing with it. This only expresses the INTENT behind MW but not any argument that the intended results are achieved by it.

There are some references to economists like Krueger who says MW doesn't likely do harm to the employment numbers, but this is only so if the MW is kept low enough, below some threshold, and no one ever has explained what that threshold is, or given any evidence that a low-enough threshold has no negative effect. Rather, the only data on this is that the MW, as long as it's low enough, does only small damage to employment, hopefully none, but no study has ever shown that it does no damage at all. It's just that the damage is too small to measure.

Holy Crock....how long did you work on that post? A waste of time. A waste of time because it remains true that workers have been losing market share of the wealth their labour generates for decades.

Nothing has changed.

Your claims were wrong from the start.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Workers are not getting market value for their labour, their share in the wealth their work helps to generate has been eroding away for decades. Wages are running at well below market value. The stats have been posted.

Employers don't raise wages according to market value, they try to keep costs down.

I think you have your terminology mixed up. It's the market that decideds what products and services in it are worth. If wages have gone down it means their market value has gone down. Except for some very specific cases, nobody can be paid below market value.

If we would compare a bunch of markets and they're all identical, except for one region where there's a cartell keeping wages down, then we can say that they are paid below market value. But if all markets, across the board, have lower wages, that means that that is the new market value.

A relative fall of wages is what we'd expect in a world increasingly automated. If relative wages wouldn't have been falling while we simultaneously invest heavily in IT systems that entire investement would have been wasted. The entire point of automation is to increasingly shift money towards the capitalist, ie owner of the IT system.

The greater the share of income being generated for the capitalist automatically the tougher the competition for each earned dollar, which should act to push down wages. Which is exactly what we're seeing. So if wages would have been a steady level or rising (relatively) they would have been paid above market value, and all that money invested into IT would have been wasted money.

Employers have always tried keeping costs down. There's nothing new here. If employers tried keeping cost down before and paid higher wages than now, it means that the market value of wages has gone down.

edit: It sounds to me like you just want workers to get more money. It certainly possible. While workers are being paid relatively lower wages, the entire economy is doing better than ever. We have an amazingly wealthy world today. It's never before been easier to skim money off the top and simply give to the poor. If that's what you want to do, just do that. Instead of trying to guilt employers for doing their jobs. They're not doing anything wrong. They're just following what the market dictates. A hot tip... don't fuck with the market. It tends to not work out.

I have provided stats that show workers are not getting market value for their labour. That wages have been stagnating for decades, that workers are falling behind.

Therefore 'the market' has not worked.

The market has not maintained wages at their market value.

Meanwhile employers, CEO's, management, etc, have enjoyed increases in leaps and bounds, quite likely exceeding their market value.

A clear case of double standards. Seemingly limitless pay for the top end of town, but heaven forbid a modest pay rise for the average worker.

You have provided stats that shows that the market is doing exactly what would be expected considering the technological development the last decades. It would have been weird if it hadn't had that development.

You seem to suffer the illusion that the market has some sort of duty to provide for us all. Or that by just leaving the market alone, it'll magically redistribute money fairly. The market isn't fair. It's just a mechanic. Based on the context (technology, laws, culture and society) it will behave differently.

Reagan was only ever talking shit. Thatcher was also only talking shit. In England the trade unions were so powerful and dysfunctional that they were strangling the entire UK economy. They needed to be broken for the economy to work at all. But that's not the same thing as fairness being acheived.

CEO's getting a bigger share has to do with leverage. In an economy where automated systems increasingly pull in cash, designing those automated systems accurately increases in value. Therefore CEO salaries go up. It's simply a better investement today to pay for an ambitious overworked CEO rather than mildly motivated people further down the ladder. That's why CEO salaries have increased. I don't think it's double standards. The salaries of IT architects have also exploded. They're not CEO's. It's just an in demand job. That's why their salaries have gone up more than the average workers. The market providing salaries that are in accordence with how the market has developed looks completely legit to me.

Again... the market decides market value. If the market gives a group of people a certain salary, then that is the actual market value. You can argue that it isn't fair. But you can't argue they're not paid according to market value.

 

[rousseau]

I have provided stats that show workers are not getting market value for their labour. That wages have been stagnating for decades, that workers are falling behind.

Therefore 'the market' has not worked.

The market has not maintained wages at their market value.

Meanwhile employers, CEO's, management, etc, have enjoyed increases in leaps and bounds, quite likely exceeding their market value.

A clear case of double standards. Seemingly limitless pay for the top end of town, but heaven forbid a modest pay rise for the average worker.

You have provided stats that shows that the market is doing exactly what would be expected considering the technological development the last decades. It would have been weird if it hadn't had that development.

You seem to suffer the illusion that the market has some sort of duty to provide for us all. Or that by just leaving the market alone, it'll magically redistribute money fairly. The market isn't fair. It's just a mechanic. Based on the context (technology, laws, culture and society) it will behave differently.

Reagan was only ever talking shit. Thatcher was also only talking shit. In England the trade unions were so powerful and dysfunctional that they were strangling the entire UK economy. They needed to be broken for the economy to work at all. But that's not the same thing as fairness being acheived.

CEO's getting a bigger share has to do with leverage. In an economy where automated systems increasingly pull in cash, designing those automated systems accurately increases in value. Therefore CEO salaries go up. It's simply a better investement today to pay for an ambitious overworked CEO rather than mildly motivated people further down the ladder. That's why CEO salaries have increased. I don't think it's double standards. The salaries of IT architects have also exploded. They're not CEO's. It's just an in demand job. That's why their salaries have gone up more than the average workers. The market providing salaries that are in accordence with how the market has developed looks completely legit to me.

Again... the market decides market value. If the market gives a group of people a certain salary, then that is the actual market value. You can argue that it isn't fair. But you can't argue they're not paid according to market value.

I agree. I can sympathize with people who make low wages, and understand the argument to increase the standard of living of our poorest. But it does seem to be sacrilege on the left to admit what you're saying here.

From my perspective one of the biggest issues with wages today is that the twentieth century was so prosperous that we now have a glut of people, and not enough meaningful work for them to do. This is no different from the cycle of any other species - if food supply goes up in an area, the population goes up, and as the population goes up, the food supply goes back down. There is no reason why people shouldn't be subject to the same forces, and there is no reason why every person should have an excessive lifestyle, all the time.

These conversations over wages come up again and again but never move beyond superficial talking points and approach the heart of the issue - supply and demand of people and environmental resources. Many believe there is a kind of utopian system, just out of our reach, that can make everyone happy all the time. And yet the brunt of the system we already have is already accomplishing this - clean, hot running water, plenty of food and reliable housing for almost everyone. Don't get me wrong - we're definitely rough around the edges still - and the U.S. is a hot mess, but for the most part the system we have now works, besides true cost on the environment.

The other question those on the left seem unwilling to take seriously is individual responsibility. We have an enormous amount of people having kids recklessly without the ability to provide for them - at what point does it become the responsibility of a parent to ensure their kids are going to have a quality life, and not the corporations of their community? Surely the responsibility can be borne by both entities, but can we at least admit that maybe people who have 4 kids that they can't send to college bear some of the responsibility of their kids poverty?

I agree that there is some room to reduce inequality and increase fairness, especially in the U.S., but to me the idea that our current system is 'broken' economically is a bit over-stated.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I agree. I can sympathize with people who make low wages, and understand the argument to increase the standard of living of our poorest. But it does seem to be sacrilege on the left to admit what you're saying here.

I don't think it is. Karl Marx's inititial and fundamental point is that the end result of of industrialisation and capitalism will be all power concentrated in a tiny group of people. It didn't turn out that way exactly. But sort of that way. At least for now in the IT economy.

The Reaganomics trickle down economy is what the right argues for. Not the left.

Yes, it's true that as an economy expands and becomes more efficient, there will be more actual real value in a society, which will spread around a lot of wealth. But there's no mechanic which guarantees that the spread will perpetually rise or be fair. On the contrary. Free market capitalism pretty much guarnatees that it'll be unfair. It's the unfairness which motivates capitalists to take risks with their wealth, to help make it grow, which benefit all of society. Some more than others. And in today's society ever more reliant on robots for labour; good times to be a capitalist.

From my perspective one of the biggest issues with wages today is that the twentieth century was so prosperous that we now have a glut of people, and not enough meaningful work for them to do. This is no different from the cycle of any other species - if food supply goes up in an area, the population goes up, and as the population goes up, the food supply goes back down. There is no reason why people shouldn't be subject to the same forces, and there is no reason why every person should have an excessive lifestyle, all the time.

Nearly all jobs today are complete bullshit. Most products are complete bullshit. Nobody needs a hairdresser. Not really. You don't need a beer. Nobody ever has. Attend a concert? Watch a film? Have a TV? Live in your own house? Matching plates? There's very little we buy today that we actually need for our survival or even spiritual growth. Most of our needs today are artifical.

Humans create meaning. You can find meaning in any job. I have a friend who is an amazing pole dancer. It's her passion. She compeats. But what she really wants to do is strip tease. Occasionally she does strip tease at a local Copenhagen strip club. It's her dream job. But her real job is as a copyrighter. She is very successful and driven. As well as fluent in five languages and has mastered all. She's super smart. She only has her real job because working full time as a stripper is frowned upon in polite society. That's an example of finding meaning no matter what you do.

These conversations over wages come up again and again but never move beyond superficial talking points and approach the heart of the issue - supply and demand of people and environmental resources. Many believe there is a kind of utopian system, just out of our reach, that can make everyone happy all the time. And yet the brunt of the system we already have is already accomplishing this - clean, hot running water, plenty of food and reliable housing for almost everyone. Don't get me wrong - we're definitely rough around the edges still - and the U.S. is a hot mess, but for the most part the system we have now works, besides true cost on the environment.

I agree, its crazy.

The other question those on the left seem unwilling to take seriously is individual responsibility. We have an enormous amount of people having kids recklessly without the ability to provide for them - at what point does it become the responsibility of a parent to ensure their kids are going to have a quality life, and not the corporations of their community? Surely the responsibility can be borne by both entities, but can we at least admit that maybe people who have 4 kids that they can't send to college bear some of the responsibility of their kids poverty?

I agree that there is some room to reduce inequality and increase fairness, especially in the U.S., but to me the idea that our current system is 'broken' economically is a bit over-stated.

My impression that nobody gets kids for rational reasons. I think having kids is so much instinct, and so powerful, that it's unfair to demand from anybody to control it. I think we should remove responsibility from parents all together. Make the child the states responsibility. That's the system in Denmark and Sweden. I think it's a good system. Works great for us over here. Anyhoo... then you do away with the whole moral dilemma.

 

[rousseau]

I don't think it is. Karl Marx's inititial and fundamental point is that the end result of of industrialisation and capitalism will be all power concentrated in a tiny group of people. It didn't turn out that way exactly. But sort of that way. At least for now in the IT economy.

The Reaganomics trickle down economy is what the right argues for. Not the left.

Yes, it's true that as an economy expands and becomes more efficient, there will be more actual real value in a society, which will spread around a lot of wealth. But there's no mechanic which guarantees that the spread will perpetually rise or be fair. On the contrary. Free market capitalism pretty much guarnatees that it'll be unfair. It's the unfairness which motivates capitalists to take risks with their wealth, to help make it grow, which benefit all of society. Some more than others. And in today's society ever more reliant on robots for labour; good times to be a capitalist.

I think you may have misread my post. I was mentioning that the left is typically in denial of real market value. I can sympathize with the spirit of their argument, but I find the 'CEOs are overpaid' argument a bit tired and thoughtless.

Nearly all jobs today are complete bullshit. Most products are complete bullshit. Nobody needs a hairdresser. Not really. You don't need a beer. Nobody ever has. Attend a concert? Watch a film? Have a TV? Live in your own house? Matching plates? There's very little we buy today that we actually need for our survival or even spiritual growth. Most of our needs today are artifical.

Humans create meaning. You can find meaning in any job. I have a friend who is an amazing pole dancer. It's her passion. She compeats. But what she really wants to do is strip tease. Occasionally she does strip tease at a local Copenhagen strip club. It's her dream job. But her real job is as a copyrighter. She is very successful and driven. As well as fluent in five languages and has mastered all. She's super smart. She only has her real job because working full time as a stripper is frowned upon in polite society. That's an example of finding meaning no matter what you do.

Fair enough, but I'm not talking meaning, I'm talking economics, a completely separate point. Which is that one of the reasons wages are so low is because there are too many people, which drives down wages.

My impression that nobody gets kids for rational reasons. I think having kids is so much instinct, and so powerful, that it's unfair to demand from anybody to control it. I think we should remove responsibility from parents all together. Make the child the states responsibility. That's the system in Denmark and Sweden. I think it's a good system. Works great for us over here. Anyhoo... then you do away with the whole moral dilemma.

I agree, and that's partially my point. The left constantly argues that corporations aren't paying people enough money, but never mentions people having kids irresponsibly. No they can't and won't control it, but why this becomes the problem of someone else is a real question that needs to be taken seriously, if we're going to have a serious discussion about this topic. Just being on the side of human convenience and comfort doesn't make your argument correct, or tenable.

At what point do people need to face consequences for their actions? Should we build a society that tries to provide an excessive lifestyle for every human, all the time, forever? Is that even possible?

Basically what I think we're left with is that their are elements of both liberal and conservative thought that are valid, but if either is taken to the extreme the system breaks down. And so we want to approach both goals - maintaining a stable economy, and doing what we can for those in our community. But I think it would be worthwhile to let go of utopian ideas and try to see the reality of the world we live in.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think you may have misread my post. I was mentioning that the left is typically in denial of real market value. I can sympathize with the spirit of their argument, but I find the 'CEOs are overpaid' argument a bit tired and thoughtless.

Aha, yes. Sorry. Yeah, it's funny that anybody who ever climbed the corporate ladder realizes that no, CEO's aren't overpaid. They are paid what they are pulling into the company. They're extremely dependable people. They're paid for the fact that they are willing to sacrifice everything and anything for the job. A job they are also good at. That costs money. Most people are not willing to sacrifice what it takes.

Or to put it another way. If you are willing to sacrifice what it takes, you to can make that money. If you really want it. BTW, it's not worth it.

Fair enough, but I'm not talking meaning, I'm talking economics, a completely separate point. Which is that one of the reasons wages are so low is because there are too many people, which drives down wages.

Aha. Yes. Since the wheels of economy are spinning so efficiently, yes. Most people are unncessary. Just wait until the robot revolution kicks off in earnest and most service jobs disapear. That's just around the corner now.

My impression that nobody gets kids for rational reasons. I think having kids is so much instinct, and so powerful, that it's unfair to demand from anybody to control it. I think we should remove responsibility from parents all together. Make the child the states responsibility. That's the system in Denmark and Sweden. I think it's a good system. Works great for us over here. Anyhoo... then you do away with the whole moral dilemma.

I agree, and that's partially my point. The left constantly argues that corporations aren't paying people enough money, but never mentions people having kids irresponsibly. No they can't and won't control it, but why this becomes the problem of someone else is a real question that needs to be taken seriously, if we're going to have a serious discussion about this topic. Just being on the side of human convenience and comfort doesn't make your argument correct, or tenable.

At what point do people need to face consequences for their actions? Should we build a society that tries to provide an excessive lifestyle for every human, all the time, forever? Is that even possible?

Basically what I think we're left with is that their are elements of both liberal and conservative thought that are valid, but if either is taken to the extreme the system breaks down. And so we want to approach both goals - maintaining a stable economy, and doing what we can for those in our community. But I think it would be worthwhile to let go of utopian ideas and try to see the reality of the world we live in.

Even if the state takes responsibility for your child and pays for it throughout it's entire childhood, having kids is still a pain in the ass. Nobody is going to have children willy nilly, no matter how cheap it is.

Sweden and Denmark are two countries where parents don't have to face any consequences for their actions if they get kids. Fertility rates have still gone through the floor. We're having problems encouraging enough people to have kids, just to keep society going.

The basic state financed schools are fine. Private schools are pretty much the same. The only reason to put them there is so they grow up having rich friends. The schooling will be equivalent.

I think it's a non-issue.

I think it's the other way around. USA have designed a system to make it hard, on purpose, to raise kids to punish those who don't plan ahead and put money aside for them. For no real reason IMHO. I don't get it. If we have no problems paying for health insurance, which is sharing costs across a society, or fire fighting services, why not this as well? It's the same kind of product.

 

[rousseau]

Aha. Yes. Since the wheels of economy are spinning so efficiently, yes. Most people are unncessary. Just wait until the robot revolution kicks off in earnest and most service jobs disapear. That's just around the corner now.

I don't glean your point. I'm not arguing against supporting people, just pointing out that reality and market forces exist, as you mentioned yourself. There is no reason why we should see wages and quality of life stay static across time. It has been in perpetual flux for centuries, across most of the world.

We constantly hear the argument that wages are going down and cost of living is going up, as if this is some type of enlightened perspective, and that there is a man behind the curtain pulling levers. But the reality is that society evolves, population dynamics evolve, technology evolves. And the best we can do is trying to support a moving target.

Even if the state takes responsibility for your child and pays for it throughout it's entire childhood, having kids is still a pain in the ass. Nobody is going to have children willy nilly, no matter how cheap it is.

Sweden and Denmark are two countries where parents don't have to face any consequences for their actions if they get kids. Fertility rates have still gone through the floor. We're having problems encouraging enough people to have kids, just to keep society going.

The basic state financed schools are fine. Private schools are pretty much the same. The only reason to put them there is so they grow up having rich friends. The schooling will be equivalent.

I think it's a non-issue.

I think it's the other way around. USA have designed a system to make it hard, on purpose, to raise kids to punish those who don't plan ahead and put money aside for them. For no real reason IMHO. I don't get it. If we have no problems paying for health insurance, which is sharing costs across a society, or fire fighting services, why not this as well? It's the same kind of product.

Fertility rates are declining exactly because people can't find jobs to support kids, as we should expect. It's a cycle. When this leads to fewer people to fill jobs wages should increase to match heightened demand.

Of course automation is a significant factor that needs to be dealt with as well.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I have provided stats that show workers are not getting market value for their labour. That wages have been stagnating for decades, that workers are falling behind.

Therefore 'the market' has not worked.

The market has not maintained wages at their market value.

Meanwhile employers, CEO's, management, etc, have enjoyed increases in leaps and bounds, quite likely exceeding their market value.

A clear case of double standards. Seemingly limitless pay for the top end of town, but heaven forbid a modest pay rise for the average worker.

I have yet to see an analysis that realizes there are three pieces to the pie, not two. Any analysis that assumes two is hopelessly flawed.

 

[SimpleDon]

Aha, yes. Sorry. Yeah, it's funny that anybody who ever climbed the corporate ladder realizes that no, CEO's aren't overpaid. They are paid what they are pulling into the company. They're extremely dependable people. They're paid for the fact that they are willing to sacrifice everything and anything for the job. A job they are also good at. That costs money. Most people are not willing to sacrifice what it takes.

I climbed the corporate ladder to the executive board of directors in a German engineering and contractor ~1 billion euros in sales a year corporation. From what I saw in the board that I was on, the board that was responsible for the operation of the company, this is not anywhere close to being true.

As underpaid as I was as a hardworking engineer, project manager, and head of branch offices in Canada and the PRC, I was grossly overpaid as a board director in charge of R&D and long range planning.

Have you ever heard of the Peter Principle? I suggest that you do a search on it. In short, it says that in any organization, people tend to advance in the organization until they reach the first job that they are totally incompetent at doing. Most of the corporate executives are people in their Peter Principle jobs and always afraid that they will be found out and fired.

Or to put it another way. If you are willing to sacrifice what it takes, you to can make that money. If you really want it. BTW, it's not worth it.

Aha. Yes. Since the wheels of the economy are spinning so efficiently, yes. Most people are unncessary. Just wait until the robot revolution kicks off in earnest and most service jobs disapear. That's just around the corner now.

We know what has to be done to adapt to mechanization and automation because we have been doing it for the entire period of the industrial revolution. This is a welcome and a desirable feature of capitalism and the industrialization of it. We should do what we have always done in the past. We should shorten the workweek. Many companies have already reduced the workweek from 40 to 36 hours a week with no loss in productivity. We should lower the retirement age from 66 and whatever to 62. We should lengthen the time that people are in school and encourage national service to delay the age that people look to settle down and look for a job.

It is a mistake to believe that the market is efficient and always produces the best result. It is a mistake to believe that we have a perfect labor factor market that pays wages reflecting the contribution of a worker to the company. These ideas don't reflect our reality. They are part of a fantasy of what the economy would be if we could have a self-regulating free market, which has never happened in the history of man's civilizations.

My impression that nobody gets kids for rational reasons. I think having kids is so much instinct, and so powerful, that it's unfair to demand from anybody to control it. I think we should remove responsibility from parents all together. Make the child the states responsibility. That's the system in Denmark and Sweden. I think it's a good system. Works great for us over here. Anyhoo... then you do away with the whole moral dilemma.

I agree, and that's partially my point. The left constantly argues that corporations aren't paying people enough money, but never mentions people having kids irresponsibly. No they can't and won't control it, but why this becomes the problem of someone else is a real question that needs to be taken seriously, if we're going to have a serious discussion about this topic. Just being on the side of human convenience and comfort doesn't make your argument correct, or tenable.

At what point do people need to face consequences for their actions? Should we build a society that tries to provide an excessive lifestyle for every human, all the time, forever? Is that even possible?

Basically what I think we're left with is that their are elements of both liberal and conservative thought that are valid, but if either is taken to the extreme the system breaks down. And so we want to approach both goals - maintaining a stable economy, and doing what we can for those in our community. But I think it would be worthwhile to let go of utopian ideas and try to see the reality of the world we live in.

Even if the state takes responsibility for your child and pays for it throughout it's entire childhood, having kids is still a pain in the ass. Nobody is going to have children willy nilly, no matter how cheap it is.

Sweden and Denmark are two countries where parents don't have to face any consequences for their actions if they get kids. Fertility rates have still gone through the floor. We're having problems encouraging enough people to have kids, just to keep society going.

The basic state financed schools are fine. Private schools are pretty much the same. The only reason to put them there is so they grow up having rich friends. The schooling will be equivalent.

I think it's a non-issue.

I think it's the other way around. USA have designed a system to make it hard, on purpose, to raise kids to punish those who don't plan ahead and put money aside for them. For no real reason IMHO. I don't get it. If we have no problems paying for health insurance, which is sharing costs across a society, or fire fighting services, why not this as well? It's the same kind of product.

In the US the conservative line is that you have to be responsible for yourself and your family and by the way, we are going to suppress your wages so that the already rich can have more income in the form of profits distributed as capital gains on stocks so that the already rich can pay less tax on them. We will continue to push the falsehood that tax cuts for the rich is the best way to stimulate the economy, even though it never has, we will keep trying in the hope that some day it will.

The liberal line is that we can't be bothered with learning any economics, economics is so boring, so we are stuck with believing the fantasy that the labor market is a truly free market that reflects workers value to the company. Instead, we will create a bunch of government programs to subsidize the companies who pay substandard wages that no one can live on.

In addition, we will believe in the fantasy that free trade is beneficial even to the workers whose jobs are lost to the low labor cost countries because it lowers the cost of a tv set and ignore the easily proven fact that increasing the incomes of the already rich increases housing costs because the already rich save their money in real estate, driving the costs of real estate up along with rent. And that in the desire to maximize the incomes of the already rich we lowered the support for education, by lowering state and local taxes, increasing the costs of education, especially college tuition, wiping out the savings on that television and other consumer goods many times over.

In addition, we will block out the fact that in 1980 we changed the political economics that determines the economic policies of the government because it would force us to think that possibly this was the reason why so many things changed in the economy like the increase in the income inequality instead of automation or the economy rewarding the better-educated workers even though the main beneficiaries of the income inequality are the people selling securities to the already rich, which doesn't require a high level of education.

 

[ZiprHead]

I have provided stats that show workers are not getting market value for their labour. That wages have been stagnating for decades, that workers are falling behind.

Therefore 'the market' has not worked.

The market has not maintained wages at their market value.

Meanwhile employers, CEO's, management, etc, have enjoyed increases in leaps and bounds, quite likely exceeding their market value.

A clear case of double standards. Seemingly limitless pay for the top end of town, but heaven forbid a modest pay rise for the average worker.

I have yet to see an analysis that realizes there are three pieces to the pie, not two. Any analysis that assumes two is hopelessly flawed.

No one has denied there are three pieces to the pie. You continue to deny that the upper management/ceo piece of the pie is getting larger while the worker piece of the pie is getting smaller. And everytime this is pointed out to you you bring up your three pieces BS again.

 

[DBT]

Aha, yes. Sorry. Yeah, it's funny that anybody who ever climbed the corporate ladder realizes that no, CEO's aren't overpaid. They are paid what they are pulling into the company. They're extremely dependable people. They're paid for the fact that they are willing to sacrifice everything and anything for the job. A job they are also good at. That costs money. Most people are not willing to sacrifice what it takes.

Or to put it another way. If you are willing to sacrifice what it takes, you to can make that money. If you really want it. BTW, it's not worth it.



Aha. Yes. Since the wheels of economy are spinning so efficiently, yes. Most people are unncessary. Just wait until the robot revolution kicks off in earnest and most service jobs disapear. That's just around the corner now.

My impression that nobody gets kids for rational reasons. I think having kids is so much instinct, and so powerful, that it's unfair to demand from anybody to control it. I think we should remove responsibility from parents all together. Make the child the states responsibility. That's the system in Denmark and Sweden. I think it's a good system. Works great for us over here. Anyhoo... then you do away with the whole moral dilemma.

I agree, and that's partially my point. The left constantly argues that corporations aren't paying people enough money, but never mentions people having kids irresponsibly. No they can't and won't control it, but why this becomes the problem of someone else is a real question that needs to be taken seriously, if we're going to have a serious discussion about this topic. Just being on the side of human convenience and comfort doesn't make your argument correct, or tenable.

At what point do people need to face consequences for their actions? Should we build a society that tries to provide an excessive lifestyle for every human, all the time, forever? Is that even possible?

Basically what I think we're left with is that their are elements of both liberal and conservative thought that are valid, but if either is taken to the extreme the system breaks down. And so we want to approach both goals - maintaining a stable economy, and doing what we can for those in our community. But I think it would be worthwhile to let go of utopian ideas and try to see the reality of the world we live in.

Even if the state takes responsibility for your child and pays for it throughout it's entire childhood, having kids is still a pain in the ass. Nobody is going to have children willy nilly, no matter how cheap it is.

Sweden and Denmark are two countries where parents don't have to face any consequences for their actions if they get kids. Fertility rates have still gone through the floor. We're having problems encouraging enough people to have kids, just to keep society going.

The basic state financed schools are fine. Private schools are pretty much the same. The only reason to put them there is so they grow up having rich friends. The schooling will be equivalent.

I think it's a non-issue.

I think it's the other way around. USA have designed a system to make it hard, on purpose, to raise kids to punish those who don't plan ahead and put money aside for them. For no real reason IMHO. I don't get it. If we have no problems paying for health insurance, which is sharing costs across a society, or fire fighting services, why not this as well? It's the same kind of product.

Those climbing the corporate ladder are probably not in the best position to judge whether or not CEO's or board are overpaid. Given their ambition and self interest, they are biased.

The fact is that pay for CEO's was not always so high, the gap between management and worker pay was not so great....the gap has grown into a gulf.

That is the problem.

 

[DBT]

I have provided stats that show workers are not getting market value for their labour. That wages have been stagnating for decades, that workers are falling behind.

Therefore 'the market' has not worked.

The market has not maintained wages at their market value.

Meanwhile employers, CEO's, management, etc, have enjoyed increases in leaps and bounds, quite likely exceeding their market value.

A clear case of double standards. Seemingly limitless pay for the top end of town, but heaven forbid a modest pay rise for the average worker.

I have yet to see an analysis that realizes there are three pieces to the pie, not two. Any analysis that assumes two is hopelessly flawed.

Analysis has been provided. Worker wages have been stagnating for decades while CEO and executive salaries have increased in leaps and bounds, seemingly unlimited money at the top but not a dollar to spare for workers.

That's basically the situation, and you know it. It is unjustifiable.

 

[DBT]

A basic summary:

CEO compensation packages have so many moving parts that pay out over time. And different corporate actions, such as stock buybacks, or the use of different accounting methods, can change the very targets that CEOs are supposed to hit under their pay incentive plans.
Ferracone notes that attractive CEO candidates will be doing pay comparisons of their own before accepting a position. "It's a competitive market. CEOs will work for the company that pays them fairly for the job they're doing. They're no different than anyone else in that regard."

And when boards increase CEO pay at some companies, that can drive other companies to pay more because their peer group norms go up.

Sky-high compensation packages often drive critics to ask: Are CEOs really worth all the money they're paid?
"Don't confuse pay with what people are worth. No human being is worth $20 million, but many executives cost $20 million," said Swinford.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Fertility rates are declining exactly because people can't find jobs to support kids, as we should expect. It's a cycle. When this leads to fewer people to fill jobs wages should increase to match heightened demand.

Of course automation is a significant factor that needs to be dealt with as well.

If supporting your kid is a non-issue, like it is in Denmark and Sweden fertility rates should be through the roof. Yet, they're declining in Scandinavia more than elsewhere.

Your logic doesn't work. It's just instinct. People seem to want to have more kids when they feel insecure. During wars women have lots more children. No, it's not rape. People just think that's an awesome time to get pregnant.

So I think it's the exact other way around. The less personal economic stress the less kids. Because people are dumbass. That's why I don't like holding parents responsible for having children.

Also, evolutionarily. We haven't evolved to look after kids in nuclear families. We've evolved for the entire tribe helping out and raising kids together. For hunter gatherers it often makes no difference who's the father to what kid. So we've evolved for having children not being a personal burden. Which I think it's why people often are irresponsible about getting kids.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I climbed the corporate ladder to the executive board of directors in a German engineering and contractor ~1 billion euros in sales a year corporation. From what I saw in the board that I was on, the board that was responsible for the operation of the company, this is not anywhere close to being true.

As underpaid as I was as a hardworking engineer, project manager, and head of branch offices in Canada and the PRC, I was grossly overpaid as a board director in charge of R&D and long range planning.

Have you ever heard of the Peter Principle? I suggest that you do a search on it. In short, it says that in any organization, people tend to advance in the organization until they reach the first job that they are totally incompetent at doing. Most of the corporate executives are people in their Peter Principle jobs and always afraid that they will be found out and fired.

What I mean is that they're paid based on their relative importance in the company. Not based on competence.

We know what has to be done to adapt to mechanization and automation because we have been doing it for the entire period of the industrial revolution. This is a welcome and a desirable feature of capitalism and the industrialization of it. We should do what we have always done in the past. We should shorten the workweek. Many companies have already reduced the workweek from 40 to 36 hours a week with no loss in productivity. We should lower the retirement age from 66 and whatever to 62. We should lengthen the time that people are in school and encourage national service to delay the age that people look to settle down and look for a job.

The IT sector has perpetually had a shortage of labour. At this point reducing the work week for everybody will hit the IT sector hard, and force the rest of society to work more. Because they're the ones making the automated systems allowing the rest of society to slack off.

It is a mistake to believe that the market is efficient and always produces the best result. It is a mistake to believe that we have a perfect labor factor market that pays wages reflecting the contribution of a worker to the company. These ideas don't reflect our reality. They are part of a fantasy of what the economy would be if we could have a self-regulating free market, which has never happened in the history of man's civilizations.

I never said it does. I'm a socialist for that reason.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I have provided stats that show workers are not getting market value for their labour. That wages have been stagnating for decades, that workers are falling behind.

Therefore 'the market' has not worked.

The market has not maintained wages at their market value.

Meanwhile employers, CEO's, management, etc, have enjoyed increases in leaps and bounds, quite likely exceeding their market value.

A clear case of double standards. Seemingly limitless pay for the top end of town, but heaven forbid a modest pay rise for the average worker.

I have yet to see an analysis that realizes there are three pieces to the pie, not two. Any analysis that assumes two is hopelessly flawed.

No one has denied there are three pieces to the pie. You continue to deny that the upper management/ceo piece of the pie is getting larger while the worker piece of the pie is getting smaller. And everytime this is pointed out to you you bring up your three pieces BS again.

The data is looking at worker share and pretending the rest goes to the owners--de facto ignoring the third piece of the pie.

 

[DBT]

No one has denied there are three pieces to the pie. You continue to deny that the upper management/ceo piece of the pie is getting larger while the worker piece of the pie is getting smaller. And everytime this is pointed out to you you bring up your three pieces BS again.

The data is looking at worker share and pretending the rest goes to the owners--de facto ignoring the third piece of the pie.

The fact is that employers seek to keep running costs down. It is not in their interest to increase wage rates for any reason other than to attract and retain key staff.

It's not in the interest of a business to maintain market value incomes for workers and individual workers are most likely not in a position to ask for pay rises. CEO and executive salaries, of course, are a different matter. A double standard if ever there was one.