What's Wrong With A Living Wage?

[ksen]

lol, like there's equal pay for equal work now.

It's a lot closer now--underpay a worker and you'll find him working for your competitor instead.

Unless you've colluded with your competitors not to hire away each other's workers which I'm sure never happens in a free market.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Again, while you can make a system that relates them you can't make it fair.

And I note you neglected the management and capital costs.

Management is just an ordinary labor cost. This whole current division between labor and management is a residue of feudalism. We don't need a lot of it. A lot of management is nothing but a power structure to make sure dictates from the top are carried out.

This is not to say that some management isn't necessary. But it can be lateral management, not top down management.

And I said explicitly that only some money would be available for labor.

What you mean is "perfect fairness" will never be achieved.

We have a system now that is basically a system of institutional and widespread theft from workers.

And you complain that I don't replace it with perfect fairness? Get real.

- - - Updated - - -

That's completely vague. The very essence of vague.

It in effect says labor has no intrinsic value. Some boss must agree it has value before it does.

Labor has no intrinsic value. It's laborious to write these posts, but doesn't mean somebody will pay for it. Moving works is laborious, but moving it 3 feet there and back doesn't mean anything.

I assume if you are sitting there writing and not getting paid as I am you are getting something out of it.

I assume your labor has some value to you.

To me, yes, but I think it's worth a million dollars an hour...but nobody else does, so why shouldn't I get a million an hour for writing these posts?

- - - Updated - - -

Again, while you can make a system that relates them you can't make it fair.

And I note you neglected the management and capital costs.

Management is just an ordinary labor cost. This whole current division between labor and management is a residue of feudalism. We don't need a lot of it. A lot of management is nothing but a power structure to make sure dictates from the top are carried out.

This is not to say that some management isn't necessary. But it can be lateral management, not top down management.

And I said explicitly that only some money would be available for labor.

What you mean is "perfect fairness" will never be achieved.

We have a system now that is basically a system of institutional and widespread theft from workers.

And you complain that I don't replace it with perfect fairness? Get real.

- - - Updated - - -

That's completely vague. The very essence of vague.

It in effect says labor has no intrinsic value. Some boss must agree it has value before it does.

Labor has no intrinsic value. It's laborious to write these posts, but doesn't mean somebody will pay for it. Moving works is laborious, but moving it 3 feet there and back doesn't mean anything.

I assume if you are sitting there writing and not getting paid as I am you are getting something out of it.

I assume your labor has some value to you.

and as a said before, the top down structure has it's pros and cons.

 

[untermensche]

To me, yes, but I think it's worth a million dollars an hour...but nobody else does, so why shouldn't I get a million an hour for writing these posts?

But if you got a million it would be your labor that got it for you.

Just like when a company brings in money it is the labor of everybody in that company that earned it. The real value of labor has some relation to the money brought in. It has no relation what-so-ever to a market wage.

and as a said before, the top down structure has it's pros and cons.

Would we say the same for other human institutions, like government?

Would we say that sometimes dictatorship is better than democracy? Would we say it in public?

 

[coloradoatheist]

But if you got a million it would be your labor that got it for you.

Just like when a company brings in money it is the labor of everybody in that company that earned it. The real value of labor has some relation to the money brought in. It has no relation what-so-ever to a market wage.

and as a said before, the top down structure has it's pros and cons.

Would we say the same for other human institutions, like government?

Would we say that sometimes dictatorship is better than democracy? Would we say it in public?

It wouldn't just be my labor though. Whomever paid for the the infrastructure has parts too. The servers and databases add value. So if it brought in a million how much was me, how much the server, how much the advertising for this site.

The issue with government is the choice. Allow people to move easily within countries to decide if they want to live under a monarchy or a democracy and you can say it's okay.

 

[Trausti]

We have a system now that is basically a system of institutional and widespread theft from workers.

And you complain that I don't replace it with perfect fairness? Get real.

I'm sure this has be raised by others before, but I'd emphasize that if the workers thought there was theft they'd: (1) get a lawyer to sue for unpaid wages; (2) leave and work for another employer; or (3) start their own business/co-op/associate/partnership/etc. There is an extraordinary amount of liberty in the present system. You are free to move, change jobs, or get training/education in whatever you like. Most anyone of average competence can start a business. It's quite easy, just fill out the forms available on Secretary of State's website and pay a small fee. Voilà, you're a business. Apple was started by two people in a garage. Jeff Bezos did the garage thing, too. Richard Branson's first business was at age 16.

I think the problem some of us have with the "we need a better system" cabal is that, fitting the leftist stereotype, the vague solutions always require someone else's money. They prefer to force others to risk their capital to run the "economic justice" experiment, rather than take such capital risks themselves to prove that their ideology has merit. If they do not think it appropriate to risk their own capital, calls for others to incur capital risk for the "economic justice" hypotheses ought to be ignored.

 

[untermensche]

But if you got a million it would be your labor that got it for you.

Just like when a company brings in money it is the labor of everybody in that company that earned it. The real value of labor has some relation to the money brought in. It has no relation what-so-ever to a market wage.

Would we say the same for other human institutions, like government?

Would we say that sometimes dictatorship is better than democracy? Would we say it in public?

It wouldn't just be my labor though. Whomever paid for the the infrastructure has parts too. The servers and databases add value. So if it brought in a million how much was me, how much the server, how much the advertising for this site.

You are not involved in an enterprise with the programmers of the servers. You've made no commitment to work for a common goal.

The issue with government is the choice. Allow people to move easily within countries to decide if they want to live under a monarchy or a democracy and you can say it's okay.

So you think people would freely to live in a dictatorship?

When has this happened in history? When have people flocked from democracies to dictatorships?

 

[untermensche]

We have a system now that is basically a system of institutional and widespread theft from workers.

And you complain that I don't replace it with perfect fairness? Get real.

I'm sure this has be raised by others before, but I'd emphasize that if the workers thought there was theft they'd: (1) get a lawyer to sue for unpaid wages; (2) leave and work for another employer; or (3) start their own business/co-op/associate/partnership/etc. There is an extraordinary amount of liberty in the present system. You are free to move, change jobs, or get training/education in whatever you like. Most anyone of average competence can start a business. It's quite easy, just fill out the forms available on Secretary of State's website and pay a small fee. Voilà, you're a business. Apple was started by two people in a garage. Jeff Bezos did the garage thing, too. Richard Branson's first business was at age 16.

I think the problem some of us have with the "we need a better system" cabal is that, fitting the leftist stereotype, the vague solutions always require someone else's money. They prefer to force others to risk their capital to run the "economic justice" experiment, rather than take such capital risks themselves to prove that their ideology has merit. If they do not think it appropriate to risk their own capital, calls for others to incur capital risk for the "economic justice" hypotheses ought to be ignored.

The theft is as I said, institutionalized.

That is why when unions arose it was the police beating up union strikers. The whole thing is institutionalized. In the justice system and in the courts. The theft is recognized as legitimate.

That doesn't make it so. Since as I said no discussion of worker justice exists in capitalism.

 

[coloradoatheist]

It wouldn't just be my labor though. Whomever paid for the the infrastructure has parts too. The servers and databases add value. So if it brought in a million how much was me, how much the server, how much the advertising for this site.

You are not involved in an enterprise with the programmers of the servers. You've made no commitment to work for a common goal.

The issue with government is the choice. Allow people to move easily within countries to decide if they want to live under a monarchy or a democracy and you can say it's okay.

So you think people would freely to live in a dictatorship?

When has this happened in history? When have people flocked from democracies to dictatorships?

It's funny since you are equating corporations as dictatorships and then say people don't move to them. People move to and from corporations all the time. Countries have never been great at letting everyone in and out. People move to Cuba. Other people move to Venezuela. But those systems don't normally allow people out easily. Does a corporation not allow people to leave?

And to your first question. I'm not paid to write these posts. But the owners of this board could at any time come to me and say we'll pay you $5 a post, 3 cents a word, or $100 a day or anything in between
and I would decide if it was worth it. The owners may be making a hundred million dollars of each of my posts or it could be costing them 100 million. It's up to them to decide if they want to pay me or you. There's nothing to say that my post writing is worth $3/hr or $30/hr.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I'm sure this has be raised by others before, but I'd emphasize that if the workers thought there was theft they'd: (1) get a lawyer to sue for unpaid wages; (2) leave and work for another employer; or (3) start their own business/co-op/associate/partnership/etc. There is an extraordinary amount of liberty in the present system. You are free to move, change jobs, or get training/education in whatever you like. Most anyone of average competence can start a business. It's quite easy, just fill out the forms available on Secretary of State's website and pay a small fee. Voilà, you're a business. Apple was started by two people in a garage. Jeff Bezos did the garage thing, too. Richard Branson's first business was at age 16.

I think the problem some of us have with the "we need a better system" cabal is that, fitting the leftist stereotype, the vague solutions always require someone else's money. They prefer to force others to risk their capital to run the "economic justice" experiment, rather than take such capital risks themselves to prove that their ideology has merit. If they do not think it appropriate to risk their own capital, calls for others to incur capital risk for the "economic justice" hypotheses ought to be ignored.

The theft is as I said, institutionalized.

That is why when unions arose it was the police beating up union strikers. The whole thing is institutionalized. In the justice system and in the courts. The theft is recognized as legitimate.

That doesn't make it so. Since as I said no discussion of worker justice exists in capitalism.

Except it's only a few people who consider it theft, most of the population says no. Can a employee be considered to be a thief if they value they provide is actually less than what they are paid?

 

[Trausti]

Except it's only a few people who consider it theft, most of the population says no. Can a employee be considered to be a thief if they value they provide is actually less than what they are paid?

What about employees who spend their "work" day on internet forums! Is that employee theft?

 

[bilby]

It's a lot closer now--underpay a worker and you'll find him working for your competitor instead.

Unless you've colluded with your competitors not to hire away each other's workers which I'm sure never happens in a free market.

Or unless there is widespread unemployment.

The labour market might, given full employment, work in the way Loren implies. In the real world, a worker who is underpaid has the choice of 'take it or leave it'.

If Walmart pay is so awful, why don't workers go and work for Costco instead? Because Costco ain't hiring. Quit your job, and you are not freed to look for a better one - unless there is a better one out there.

A free market in wages would probably work, if unemployment was zero (or very, very low). But when unemployment is high, the 'natural' level of wages for low-skilled work is one penny more than the LOWEST amount of welfare provided to the unemployed - so unless we are happy to see the streets filled with the rotting corpses of those who have starved to death, SOMETHING has to be done. One of those 'somethings' is to provide welfare to ALL unemployed persons that is sufficient to live. Another is to place a floor under wages, to debar corportations from indulging in a race to the bottom.

The fact is that many people do not have an economic value, right now, that is sufficient to keep them alive. By treating economic value as the only (or primary) way of assessing a person's worth, we reach the rational, logical, and completely unacceptable conclusion that people should simply be allowed to starve. That's a good conclusion if you are a psychopath; but for non-psychopathic individuals, it is a clear indication that the premises of the argument are flawed - we are reaching the right answer to the wrong question.

I don't give a fuck whether somebodies labour is sufficiently valuable to a potential employer as to ensure that employing him will increase profits; as a whole, our society can afford to feed everyone, and if economics won't lead to that result, then it is necessary to impose a solution using something other than economics. That something is government redistribution of wealth. The rich must be taxed, such that the poor can be fed. The details are less important - you can tax to fund welfare; or you can tax to fund the provision of 'make-work' government jobs - ie paying people more than they are 'worth' economically, do do something productive, but not necessarily profitable; or you can set up soup kitchens paid for through taxation; or you can do something else; or a combination of several of these things. Taxes can be in the form of income taxes or sales taxes, or value added taxes, or something else; the rich must pay, not because of some ideological dislike for their success, but because they are the only ones who can. And contrary to popular myth, sufficient taxation to prevent abject poverty need not prevent the amassing of huge wealth.

At the end of the day, wealth inequality isn't even a problem - it seems to be a good way to drive an economy - but there must be a humanitarian floor. Billionaires are not a problem; but billionaires while people go hungry, or unclothed, or homeless are. Not only is this a problem, it is an embarrassment, and a sign of moral bankruptcy on the part of the people who allow such a system to persist. People should be free to become rich - but not at the cost of allowing others to starve.

Life isn't all about economics, and it is a disgrace that we have allowed those who gain by pretending that it is, to hoodwink us into thinking that economics is the be all and end all of our system. Fuck that. Economics is one tool in the box. Throwing out all the others was a major error, and we need to correct it starting yesterday, if not sooner.

 

[untermensche]

The theft is as I said, institutionalized.

That is why when unions arose it was the police beating up union strikers. The whole thing is institutionalized. In the justice system and in the courts. The theft is recognized as legitimate.

That doesn't make it so. Since as I said no discussion of worker justice exists in capitalism.

Except it's only a few people who consider it theft, most of the population says no. Can a employee be considered to be a thief if they value they provide is actually less than what they are paid?

People don't think about it. They know thinking about it doesn't help. They are trapped. They have to try to make the best of it.

But to a person paying a wage a market wage is exactly the same as lowest wage possible. It is funny that the value of all labor in a market is the lowest possible price. This fact is very helpful. For some.

And all progress begins with a few seeing a problem that most don't see. That is how we moved from monarchy to democracy.

 

[untermensche]

It's funny since you are equating corporations as dictatorships and then say people don't move to them.

I said people don't move freely to them.

They have no choice. They have to eat. They want to work, not recreate the social order.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

But EMPLOYER-BASHING is no solution to the problem.

It's not a matter of 'whining complaints' - a substandard income simply does not allow MW workers much leeway to improve their position. That's just the fact of it.

And the fact is that this is not the employer's fault because the employer has no obligation to pay the worker anymore than s/he is worth. That low-value worker was a low-value worker BEFORE working for that employer. The employer did not turn that worker into a low-value worker.

And that worker is WHINING if s/he demands more than s/he is worth from that employer. That worker must figure out how to deal with his/her problem without imposing a burden onto others. If you're having a rough life it doesn't entitle you to impose costs onto others and make their lives worse. Find a way to improve your condition without being destructive to others.

As for ''why should employers be forced to pay more'' - the question is: why should a worker have to provide the company with their own time and skill for a substandard remuneration?

And I will answer this question a 2nd time: However low the remuneration is, the reason the worker is working for that low remuneration is because it is in his/her interest to do so and it makes that worker better off, and that worker would be worse off if s/he did NOT do that work.

Do you want the worker to be better off or worse off? If you say this worker may not work at that remuneration, then you are saying s/he should be worse off. Or you are saying s/he should be paid more than s/he is worth.

The worker is not entitled to be paid more than the work is worth. If you call it "substandard" then it is only because that worker is "substandard" and is entitled only to a remuneration that reflects his/her "substandard" value.

A low-value product in a store has to be priced low to reflect its low value, and the same is true of a low-value worker. The employer has no obligation to pay a higher price for the labor than it is worth, anymore than a customer in a store is obligated to pay the store higher than the value of the product.

What is 'worth' in terms of human lives?

The price/wage is too high -- i.e., the worker is not "worth" it -- if that work can get accomplished at a lower price, or lower cost than what that worker has to be paid.

Whenever anything is done at a higher cost than necessary to get it done, there is a net harm inflicted onto everyone, so that the total net suffering in the world increases, or the total net benefit or good to everyone decreases.

There is a net increase in total damage inflicted onto all human lives whenever a higher cost is imposed onto anything -- i.e., higher than necessary to get that thing accomplished.

If a 'market' economy cannot provide a reasonable income for all of its productive members, I'd say there's something seriously wrong with that economy.

Perhaps, however, if your remedy is one which drives up the cost of anything higher than necessary to get that thing accomplished, then what you are doing is making that economy even worse, or INcreasing the wrong in that economy, not decreasing it.

Find a way to fix the economy without making it worse. E.g., a way that does not artificially drive up the price/cost of anything. The damage to all those who have to pay that higher cost is greater than the benefit to the whining one you are trying to help.

Most likely in its wealth distribution structures.

Possibly. But it does not follow that therefore we must crack down on employers and drive up their costs, because this does overall net injury to everyone, including all consumers. Employers are not to blame simply because they pay workers only what the workers are worth.

No limit in scale for some, millions of dollars per annum, but those in lower end of the scale need to tighten their belts because the 'economy' only allows them a few lousy dollars....and 'why should a company be forced to pay more,' eh?

Punishing employers makes us all worse off. Those at the lower end are also made worse off if employers are selectively singled out for punishment. Scapegoating a target group in the society, like employers, just because they are high-profile or because most producers are wage-earners or for whatever arbitrary impulsive knee-jerk reason, is not going to improve the economy but only make it worse.

We have to get away from the impulsive emotionalism of employer-bashing and find real solutions based on improving the performance of producers. Or also possibly improving the distribution or whatever, but not by means of scapegoating and punishing employers as a class simply because they are an easy target.

 

[ksen]

good lord

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Where does the impulse for a "living wage" law come from? Is there a "living wage" hormone that some of us have and others don't?

The "worth" of a job depends the social valuation of the output.

You are hoping an employer would pay $15/hr even though that person in that job is only worth $7.

The only thing I am hoping is that you understand the problem with this discussion. You are using traditional economic theory which makes assumptions about the factors determining the market wage. The argument for a living wage is not based on the assumptions you are using. The living wage argument has, at least, one additional assumption: that a living wage ought to be included in the factors determining the market wage.

But there is a flaw in this assumption: it ignores the cost to consumers. This "living wage" which "ought to be included in the factors" contains a premise about a person's worth just for being alive, and being alive is a quality that applies to more than just wage-earners, because the consumers are also alive and have this same worth. So the cost to consumers has to be factored into the wage level, so that protecting consumers requires a reduction in the wage level in order to safeguard all consumers, many of whom are poor and struggling to survive.

If we must protect ALL wage-earners, because of their inherent worth just for being alive, or all low-wage workers, then we must also protect all consumers, or all low-income consumers, who also have this same inherent worth, and this means a system that keeps down the wage level and other business costs, so that consumers can have the lowest possible prices possible along with the highest quality possible.

It isn't theory, it's what a business does. It takes in money and pays it's employees. If it doesn't take in enough money to cover the cost of paying someone, they won't.

My hope is waning. What business "does" is a social phenomena. What business takes in or pays out depends on the valuation the relevant people place on those activities. You are making assumptions about those valuations that are different than the valuations those who argue for a living wage are making.

Except the issue is that there is always competing interests and sides view the economy in different ways. One side sees the economy as providing jobs, and one sees the economy as providing the goods and services for the end consumer. And they are different.

And the correct view or "valuation" is the latter, that "the economy" should provide goods and services for consumers, and that "jobs" are only a means to this end, and the cost of the jobs should be minimized, just as any other cost of business should be minimized, in order that the service to consumers can be made as efficient as possible.

Those crusading for the "living wage" have the wrong valuation, i.e., that the economy's function is to provide "jobs" for crybabies (of course they don't use this blunt language, but that's what it comes down to), whereas the other side wants the economy to serve consumers, which is everyone including the wage-earners, and even most of the wage-earners themselves are better off, because they are also consumers, in an economy that is structured to serve all consumers and pressures all producers to serve consumers as efficiently and inexpensively as possible.

And that economy is not one which singles out employers for punishment by imposing unnecessary costs onto them and obstructing them from their function of serving consumers.

What are the "valuations those who argue for a living wage are making"? employer-bashing? paying workers out of pity instead of for their performance? pandering to opinion polls or to the mob? whatever feels good at the moment? instant gratification?

 

[DBT]

And the fact is that this is not the employer's fault because the employer has no obligation to pay the worker anymore than s/he is worth. That low-value worker was a low-value worker BEFORE working for that employer. The employer did not turn that worker into a low-value worker.

And that worker is WHINING if s/he demands more than s/he is worth from that employer. That worker must figure out how to deal with his/her problem without imposing a burden onto others. If you're having a rough life it doesn't entitle you to impose costs onto others and make their lives worse. Find a way to improve your condition without being destructive to others.

As for ''why should employers be forced to pay more'' - the question is: why should a worker have to provide the company with their own time and skill for a substandard remuneration?

And I will answer this question a 2nd time: However low the remuneration is, the reason the worker is working for that low remuneration is because it is in his/her interest to do so and it makes that worker better off, and that worker would be worse off if s/he did NOT do that work.

Do you want the worker to be better off or worse off? If you say this worker may not work at that remuneration, then you are saying s/he should be worse off. Or you are saying s/he should be paid more than s/he is worth.

The worker is not entitled to be paid more than the work is worth. If you call it "substandard" then it is only because that worker is "substandard" and is entitled only to a remuneration that reflects his/her "substandard" value.

A low-value product in a store has to be priced low to reflect its low value, and the same is true of a low-value worker. The employer has no obligation to pay a higher price for the labor than it is worth, anymore than a customer in a store is obligated to pay the store higher than the value of the product.

What is 'worth' in terms of human lives?

The price/wage is too high -- i.e., the worker is not "worth" it -- if that work can get accomplished at a lower price, or lower cost than what that worker has to be paid.

Whenever anything is done at a higher cost than necessary to get it done, there is a net harm inflicted onto everyone, so that the total net suffering in the world increases, or the total net benefit or good to everyone decreases.

There is a net increase in total damage inflicted onto all human lives whenever a higher cost is imposed onto anything -- i.e., higher than necessary to get that thing accomplished.

If a 'market' economy cannot provide a reasonable income for all of its productive members, I'd say there's something seriously wrong with that economy.

Perhaps, however, if your remedy is one which drives up the cost of anything higher than necessary to get that thing accomplished, then what you are doing is making that economy even worse, or INcreasing the wrong in that economy, not decreasing it.

Find a way to fix the economy without making it worse. E.g., a way that does not artificially drive up the price/cost of anything. The damage to all those who have to pay that higher cost is greater than the benefit to the whining one you are trying to help.

Most likely in its wealth distribution structures.

Possibly. But it does not follow that therefore we must crack down on employers and drive up their costs, because this does overall net injury to everyone, including all consumers. Employers are not to blame simply because they pay workers only what the workers are worth.

No limit in scale for some, millions of dollars per annum, but those in lower end of the scale need to tighten their belts because the 'economy' only allows them a few lousy dollars....and 'why should a company be forced to pay more,' eh?

Punishing employers makes us all worse off. Those at the lower end are also made worse off if employers are selectively singled out for punishment. Scapegoating a target group in the society, like employers, just because they are high-profile or because most producers are wage-earners or for whatever arbitrary impulsive knee-jerk reason, is not going to improve the economy but only make it worse.

We have to get away from the impulsive emotionalism of employer-bashing and find real solutions based on improving the performance of producers. Or also possibly improving the distribution or whatever, but not by means of scapegoating and punishing employers as a class simply because they are an easy target.

But it's not employers that are being punished. There happens to be an imbalance of power, and it's weighed heavily in favour of the employer...unless there happens to be a labour shortage (not being common) like the mining boom in Australia (while it lasted), or the employees are a part of a strong union and are able to negotiate collectively.

MW workers are not usually in that position. The employer holds the cards and dictates terms and conditions - ''take it or leave it.'' It is the job applicant who is disadvantaged. The employer sits in the position of power. The power to hire or decline.

So this 'poor employer' line just does represent the job market, not in Australia, nor the US, as far as I can tell. The idea of business is to maximize profits, so if an employer sees no need to pay their employees a higher rate, they won't.

It's this lack of individual bargaining power of employees that's reflected in the extremely low pay of MW workers. It is not the employer who suffers the consequences of barely being able to make ends meet despite working full time in productive work, but the employee. It is not the employee who profits from a business which is paying as little as possible for service rendered, but the owner or shareholders.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Again, while you can make a system that relates them you can't make it fair.

And I note you neglected the management and capital costs.

Management is just an ordinary labor cost. This whole current division between labor and management is a residue of feudalism. We don't need a lot of it. A lot of management is nothing but a power structure to make sure dictates from the top are carried out.

This is not to say that some management isn't necessary. But it can be lateral management, not top down management.

And I said explicitly that only some money would be available for labor.

What you mean is "perfect fairness" will never be achieved.

We have a system now that is basically a system of institutional and widespread theft from workers.

Check the profit margins of most business. They're not all that great. I don't see the widespread theft you claim.

- - - Updated - - -

It's a lot closer now--underpay a worker and you'll find him working for your competitor instead.

Unless you've colluded with your competitors not to hire away each other's workers which I'm sure never happens in a free market.

Note what's happening to the guys who tried that approach.

 

[RavenSky]

And what happens in that case where they don't have the skills to justify that living wage? Is it better for them to work and try and learn some new skills or not to work?

Who decides what "skills" are requisite for a living wage? It seems to me that if they are doing the job they have the skills to be making - at minimum - a living wage. If they are incapable of working, that is what the social safety net is for.

 

[ZiprHead]

Management is just an ordinary labor cost. This whole current division between labor and management is a residue of feudalism. We don't need a lot of it. A lot of management is nothing but a power structure to make sure dictates from the top are carried out.

This is not to say that some management isn't necessary. But it can be lateral management, not top down management.

And I said explicitly that only some money would be available for labor.

What you mean is "perfect fairness" will never be achieved.

We have a system now that is basically a system of institutional and widespread theft from workers.

Check the profit margins of most business. They're not all that great. I don't see the widespread theft you claim.

corporate-profits-just-hit-an-all-time-high-wages-just-hit-an-all-time-low

Corporate Profits Grow and Wages Slide

Companies' Offshore Profits Keep Piling Up

Jesus, Loren. Do you just say shit and hope it sticks to the wall?