A living profit

[DBT]

The profit margin of a business is not so much the problem (it may be for consumers), but what it pays its employees (especially those at the bottom of the pay scale), regardless of how high its profit margin may be.

 

[ZiprHead]

Before answering your question, do you also believe that workers should share in any losses?

You're not suggesting that they don't?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Before answering your question, do you also believe that workers should share in any losses?

You're not suggesting that they don't?

By definition, they don't. If you are suggesting that when a company loses money (which is the majority of US companies) that they are less generous with their salaries and workers benefits, then is not the reverse true? In my experience, the more profitable a company is, the greater benefits and wages that are paid to it's employees.

But to answer your question, profits (or lack thereof) are shared by shareholders.

 

[Duke Leto]

This thread is more amusing on several levels if you choose to believe that "profit" is a misspelling of "prophet".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But that's not what you're asking for.

Presently we have a few who's work is overvalued with the work of most undervalued. The best way to undervalue labor is to determine the price of labor in a market. That is how you get the lowest possible price for labor.

By your standards. Who made you god?

There is X amount of dollars to pay all workers in an enterprise. Or X amount of stock to give to all workers.

Presently we have a situation where most workers are paid as little as possible. They must compete in some inhumane market as if they are a bushel of corn.

And we also have a situation where some are paid astronomical sums that have no relation to anything except insane egos.

Most are stolen from so a tiny few can massage their egos. It is a thoroughly corrupt system with only a connection to oligarchical dreams.

Just because you don't understand the value of mental effort doesn't mean it's not there.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Before answering your question, do you also believe that workers should share in any losses?

You're not suggesting that they don't?

He's asking for a share of the profits. If you're going to do that it should be the same when the profits are negative.

 

[ksen]

But that's not what you're asking for.

Presently we have a few who's work is overvalued with the work of most undervalued. The best way to undervalue labor is to determine the price of labor in a market. That is how you get the lowest possible price for labor.

By your standards. Who made you god?

There is X amount of dollars to pay all workers in an enterprise. Or X amount of stock to give to all workers.

Presently we have a situation where most workers are paid as little as possible. They must compete in some inhumane market as if they are a bushel of corn.

And we also have a situation where some are paid astronomical sums that have no relation to anything except insane egos.

Most are stolen from so a tiny few can massage their egos. It is a thoroughly corrupt system with only a connection to oligarchical dreams.

Just because you don't understand the value of mental effort doesn't mean it's not there.

Based on the mental effort you put into this post, and this topic in general, you owe me $36.

 

[ZiprHead]

You're not suggesting that they don't?

By definition, they don't. If you are suggesting that when a company loses money (which is the majority of US companies) that they are less generous with their salaries and workers benefits, then is not the reverse true? In my experience, the more profitable a company is, the greater benefits and wages that are paid to it's employees.

But to answer your question, profits (or lack thereof) are shared by shareholders.

Employees don't get laid off? Don't get their pay cut? Aren't expected to produce more with fewer workers?

 

[Canard DuJour]

You could, theoretically, define excessive profits by some mathematical equation that shows a ratio of expenses, revenue, and profits, and say "a certain percentage in this ratio qualifies".

Maybe but they wouldn't yield the arbitrary $ cut-offs conservolibertarians keep asking for. They'd remain crude strawmen.

Personally I think the real reason it is undefined is so that if perchance you get profit limits or higher bottom wages you can still press for more, and more, and more, and more........

So conservatives have been saying since forever, with Libertarians lately joining the chorus. Hence conservolibertrian.

You deliberately cannot reach your goal.

We cannot sensibly reach your goal.

 

[untermensche]

But that's not what you're asking for.

Presently we have a few who's work is overvalued with the work of most undervalued. The best way to undervalue labor is to determine the price of labor in a market. That is how you get the lowest possible price for labor.

By your standards. Who made you god?

There is X amount of dollars to pay all workers in an enterprise. Or X amount of stock to give to all workers.

Presently we have a situation where most workers are paid as little as possible. They must compete in some inhumane market as if they are a bushel of corn.

And we also have a situation where some are paid astronomical sums that have no relation to anything except insane egos.

Most are stolen from so a tiny few can massage their egos. It is a thoroughly corrupt system with only a connection to oligarchical dreams.

Just because you don't understand the value of mental effort doesn't mean it's not there.

No human is millions of times smarter than other humans.

Average human intelligence varies a little but not much. The truly gifted are very rare.

People are being paid astronomical sums only because those with power choose to do so. It is a game. There is no correlation between astronomical pay and performance. A game played poorly.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No human is millions of times smarter than other humans.

Average human intelligence varies a little but not much. The truly gifted are very rare.

People are being paid astronomical sums only because those with power choose to do so. It is a game. There is no correlation between astronomical pay and performance. A game played poorly.

But the value contributed isn't linear based on intelligence.

Consider my field: Programming. (I'm picking it because it's highly sensitive to ability and because it's more measurable than most, not to mention that I can give numbers without having to look them up.) The best programmer is certainly millions of times more productive than the worst programmer. Even looking at the top guys vs the average ones the ratio is at least 10:1 yet the pay does not reflect this--the top guys are being underpaid, not overpaid.

 

[untermensche]

No human is millions of times smarter than other humans.

Average human intelligence varies a little but not much. The truly gifted are very rare.

People are being paid astronomical sums only because those with power choose to do so. It is a game. There is no correlation between astronomical pay and performance. A game played poorly.

But the value contributed isn't linear based on intelligence.

Consider my field: Programming. (I'm picking it because it's highly sensitive to ability and because it's more measurable than most, not to mention that I can give numbers without having to look them up.) The best programmer is certainly millions of times more productive than the worst programmer. Even looking at the top guys vs the average ones the ratio is at least 10:1 yet the pay does not reflect this--the top guys are being underpaid, not overpaid.

Pulling numbers out of your ass is not an argument.

 

[Kharakov]

Pulling numbers out of your ass is not an argument.

It might hurt too. A lot of numbers are pointy or have hook shapes.

 

[DBT]

As for workers sharing the loss. Often they do share in the loss. If a company goes under, the workers may not only lose their livelihood for a time (which they may not be able to afford), but if the company doesn't have sufficient funds after the bank or creditors take what's owed to them, they may lose accrued leave, long service leave, sickness benefits, etc. A struggling company is not in the interest of workers. Most would not expect pay increases, bonuses and perks under those conditions...that's just for the CEO's and Board of Directors.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But the value contributed isn't linear based on intelligence.

Consider my field: Programming. (I'm picking it because it's highly sensitive to ability and because it's more measurable than most, not to mention that I can give numbers without having to look them up.) The best programmer is certainly millions of times more productive than the worst programmer. Even looking at the top guys vs the average ones the ratio is at least 10:1 yet the pay does not reflect this--the top guys are being underpaid, not overpaid.

Pulling numbers out of your ass is not an argument.

I'm not pulling them out of my ass--this is my field. Just because you don't like them doesn't make them not true. I realize you can't imagine how those numbers can be but the answer is simple: Mistakes.

The worst guy makes enough of them that his productivity is zero (if alone) or negative (if part of a team.)

I'm not going to even try to provide a source here as this is the sort of stuff one finds in the professional literature and linking a book that's going to go over your head isn't going to help matters.

 

[untermensche]

One way to determine the value of work is to try to determine the scarcity of a human trait.

Suppose there is a trait we determine shows up in one out of one million people.

Then we would say that theoretically a fair approximation of value of that skill would be one million times as much as the lowest pay.

If people want to say they have rare skills and want to be paid a lot the best way to raise it would be to raise the lowest pay since their pay would be based on it. For every dollar they raised the pay of some low skilled worker they would get one million.

 

[untermensche]

Pulling numbers out of your ass is not an argument.

I'm not pulling them out of my ass--this is my field. Just because you don't like them doesn't make them not true. I realize you can't imagine how those numbers can be but the answer is simple: Mistakes.

The worst guy makes enough of them that his productivity is zero (if alone) or negative (if part of a team.)

I'm not going to even try to provide a source here as this is the sort of stuff one finds in the professional literature and linking a book that's going to go over your head isn't going to help matters.

Saying somebody is a million times more productive is just pulling numbers from thin air.

But you seem to think that I would place no value on mental skills.

That is nonsense. I would value them highly. But I would value the expenditure of physical energy highly as well.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm not pulling them out of my ass--this is my field. Just because you don't like them doesn't make them not true. I realize you can't imagine how those numbers can be but the answer is simple: Mistakes.

The worst guy makes enough of them that his productivity is zero (if alone) or negative (if part of a team.)

I'm not going to even try to provide a source here as this is the sort of stuff one finds in the professional literature and linking a book that's going to go over your head isn't going to help matters.

Saying somebody is a million times more productive is just pulling numbers from thin air.

But you seem to think that I would place no value on mental skills.

That is nonsense. I would value them highly. But I would value the expenditure of physical energy highly as well.

It's not hard to be a million times as productive as zero. I just used the millions because the post I was replying to did--the actual ratio is infinite.

 

[untermensche]

It's not hard to be a million times as productive as zero. I just used the millions because the post I was replying to did--the actual ratio is infinite.

I don't think anyone is proposing we pay programmers who have zero productivity.

The question is; How productive is someone with average abilities? Then from there we can see how productive someone with advanced skills compares.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's not hard to be a million times as productive as zero. I just used the millions because the post I was replying to did--the actual ratio is infinite.

I don't think anyone is proposing we pay programmers who have zero productivity.

Unfortunately the only way we can see that is observing the number of errors they make.

The question is; How productive is someone with average abilities? Then from there we can see how productive someone with advanced skills compares.

I gave those numbers also--the ratio is about 10:1. And it's not so much advanced skills as lower error rates. The reality is that us programmers spend more time fixing errors than writing. The fewer errors you make the less time you'll spend fixing them.