Why is FAIR TRADE better than FREE TRADE?

[DBT]

It's the ratio, considering that within the given period productivity, goods and services, rose by 64% per hour worked while wages only grew by 6% it is clear that pay rate for many workers have stagnated or fallen in value during that period, therefore workers are not getting their market share of the wealth they help to produce.

Ratio of what? How are you measuring productivity? Since we are dealing with a wide and changing variety of things it's probably measured in dollars--and thus should be inflation-adjusted.

Why would you ask? You can take GDP if you like.

Basically;

''GDP is measured by taking the quantities of all goods and services produced, multiplying them by their prices, and summing the total. GDP can be measured either by the sum of what is purchased in the economy or by what is produced. Demand can be divided into consumption, investment, government, exports, and imports''.

The numbers are large, but the task is straightforward:

Step 1: Take the quantity of everything produced.

Step 2: Multiply it by the price at which each product sold.

Step 3: Add up the total.

In 2014, the GDP of the United States totaled $17.4 trillion, the largest GDP in the world.

 

[DBT]

It's the ratio, considering that within the given period productivity, goods and services, rose by 64% per hour worked while wages only grew by 6% it is clear that pay rate for many workers have stagnated or fallen in value during that period, therefore workers are not getting their market share of the wealth they help to produce.

Ratio of what? How are you measuring productivity?

He already said how he's measuring productivity: "our nation’s output of goods and services per hour worked (productivity, net of depreciation)". DBT and the Economic Policy Institute are simply taking the total production, dividing it by the number of hours worked, and labeling the result "productivity". I.e., they are not making any attempt at all to investigate the extent to which wage-earners are productive. They are simply taking it for granted that managers and owners don't contribute anything to production, and deducing that all of production can be legitimately attributed just to the wage-earners. It's the Labor Theory of Value, once again carelessly letting its mask slip down to its chin.

Factors such as owner input is taken into account. Hours worked is given a ratio in any given given business, mechanics, hairdressers, construction, etc. Motor vehicle repairs, for instance, require skilled mechanics, panel beaters, etc, without which there is no business. Owner has a workshop, supplies tools, runs the business while paying staff the going rate for the required skills.

The point being that workers have seen stagnant or declining value in income in the last three or four decades for the given reasons.

Production is up but wages have failed to keep up with increased production.

According to the metrics, workers are falling behind. Workers are not getting their market value.

 

[Bomb#20]

Owner has a workshop, supplies tools, runs the business while paying staff the going rate for the required skills. ...

Production is up but wages have failed to keep up with increased production.

According to the metrics, workers are falling behind. Workers are not getting their market value.

Huh? What is it you think "market value" refers to, if not "the going rate for the required skills"? If the labor market is paying $20/hour for work that would have been paid $30/hour if wages had kept up with increased production and that you think should be paid $30/hour, that's "Workers are not getting their DBT value." $20/hour is their market value. That's what "market value" means.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's the ratio, considering that within the given period productivity, goods and services, rose by 64% per hour worked while wages only grew by 6% it is clear that pay rate for many workers have stagnated or fallen in value during that period, therefore workers are not getting their market share of the wealth they help to produce.

Ratio of what? How are you measuring productivity?

He already said how he's measuring productivity: "our nation’s output of goods and services per hour worked (productivity, net of depreciation)". DBT and the Economic Policy Institute are simply taking the total production, dividing it by the number of hours worked, and labeling the result "productivity". I.e., they are not making any attempt at all to investigate the extent to which wage-earners are productive. They are simply taking it for granted that managers and owners don't contribute anything to production, and deducing that all of production can be legitimately attributed just to the wage-earners. It's the Labor Theory of Value, once again carelessly letting its mask slip down to its chin.

But the issue is what are the units? The logical unit is dollars--and that requires adjusting for inflation.

 

[DBT]

Owner has a workshop, supplies tools, runs the business while paying staff the going rate for the required skills. ...

Production is up but wages have failed to keep up with increased production.

According to the metrics, workers are falling behind. Workers are not getting their market value.

Huh? What is it you think "market value" refers to, if not "the going rate for the required skills"? If the labor market is paying $20/hour for work that would have been paid $30/hour if wages had kept up with increased production and that you think should be paid $30/hour, that's "Workers are not getting their DBT value." $20/hour is their market value. That's what "market value" means.

Huh? Market value as in wealth created. Market value has more than one meaning, In this instance the role that workers play in creating wealth and net profit for the companies they work for. Profit that flows freely into the pockets of the upper echelon....who pretend that even a few extra dollars per hour is too much for low income earners to ask for.....or else the whole fucking economy might collapse.

Who would defend this level of exploitation? It's just a matter of leverage. The tiers have the longest levers and the biggest hammers. That's all. A matter of power and position.

As it has always been; be it Emperors, Lords, Robber Barons, Wall street bankers, CEO's, Managers, Board of directors.....just a matter of power and position, line ones own pockets first and foremost.

 

[ZiprHead]

Why doesn't market value apply to the CEO class?

 

[Bomb#20]

Why doesn't market value apply to the CEO class?

Come again? Who says it doesn't? I haven't seen a whole lot of CEOs being paid more than whatever boards of directors are willing to buy their services for.

 

[Bomb#20]

Owner has a workshop, supplies tools, runs the business while paying staff the going rate for the required skills. ... Production is up but wages have failed to keep up with increased production.

According to the metrics, workers are falling behind. Workers are not getting their market value.

Huh? What is it you think "market value" refers to, if not "the going rate for the required skills"? ...

Huh? Market value as in wealth created.

Ah, so you meant "Workers are not getting the wealth created.". I.e., like I said earlier, you appear to be taking it for granted that managers and owners don't contribute anything to production and deducing that all of production can be legitimately attributed just to the wage-earners. Sure, you say "Factors such as owner input is taken into account." and "Owner has a workshop, supplies tools, runs the business"; but you pass up every opportunity to actually take that into account. As soon as it stops being a matter of saying what your premises are and becomes a matter of drawing conclusions, with you it's always the workers who create the wealth.

Market value has more than one meaning, In this instance the role that workers play in creating wealth and net profit for the companies they work for. Profit that flows freely into the pockets of the upper echelon. ... Who would defend this level of exploitation?

Now let's start taking owner input into account. Owners also play a role in creating wealth and net wage for the workers who work for them, wages that flow freely into the pockets of the lower echelon. Production is synergy; everybody involved helps make it happen. Consequently, employers are not getting the wealth created. So by symmetrical reasoning to yours, it follows that the workers are exploiting the owners.

If playing a role in creating wealth really meant you're exploited unless you get all the wealth you help create, it would follow that the only non-exploitive system would have to be one that delivers all the wealth to the workers and also delivers all the wealth to the employers, so the wealth would be spoken for twice over. (Actually three times over: let's not forget the customers.)

It's just a matter of leverage. The tiers have the longest levers and the biggest hammers. That's all. A matter of power and position.

As it has always been; be it Emperors, Lords, Robber Barons, Wall street bankers, CEO's, Managers, Board of directors.....just a matter of power and position, line ones own pockets first and foremost.

As do the workers, who are very happy to increase their wages when they can while reducing the managers' salaries and the owners' profits -- with you cheering them on!. The whole point of unionization is to get more leverage. You appear to be expressing moral outrage because your outgroup has the unmitigated gall to behave exactly the way you prefer your ingroup to behave. A double standard for what's moral for ingroup and outgroup is the calling card of tribal thinking.

 

[ZiprHead]

Why doesn't market value apply to the CEO class?

Come again? Who says it doesn't? I haven't seen a whole lot of CEOs being paid more than whatever boards of directors are willing to buy their services for.

The CEOs sit on each other's boards. They scratch each other's backs, so to speak.

 

[DBT]

Huh? Market value as in wealth created.

Ah, so you meant "Workers are not getting the wealth created.". I.e., like I said earlier, you appear to be taking it for granted that managers and owners don't contribute anything to production and deducing that all of production can be legitimately attributed just to the wage-earners. Sure, you say "Factors such as owner input is taken into account." and "Owner has a workshop, supplies tools, runs the business"; but you pass up every opportunity to actually take that into account. As soon as it stops being a matter of saying what your premises are and becomes a matter of drawing conclusions, with you it's always the workers who create the wealth.

Market value has more than one meaning, In this instance the role that workers play in creating wealth and net profit for the companies they work for. Profit that flows freely into the pockets of the upper echelon. ... Who would defend this level of exploitation?

Now let's start taking owner input into account. Owners also play a role in creating wealth and net wage for the workers who work for them, wages that flow freely into the pockets of the lower echelon. Production is synergy; everybody involved helps make it happen. Consequently, employers are not getting the wealth created. So by symmetrical reasoning to yours, it follows that the workers are exploiting the owners.

If playing a role in creating wealth really meant you're exploited unless you get all the wealth you help create, it would follow that the only non-exploitive system would have to be one that delivers all the wealth to the workers and also delivers all the wealth to the employers, so the wealth would be spoken for twice over. (Actually three times over: let's not forget the customers.)

It's just a matter of leverage. The tiers have the longest levers and the biggest hammers. That's all. A matter of power and position.

As it has always been; be it Emperors, Lords, Robber Barons, Wall street bankers, CEO's, Managers, Board of directors.....just a matter of power and position, line ones own pockets first and foremost.

As do the workers, who are very happy to increase their wages when they can while reducing the managers' salaries and the owners' profits -- with you cheering them on!. The whole point of unionization is to get more leverage. You appear to be expressing moral outrage because your outgroup has the unmitigated gall to behave exactly the way you prefer your ingroup to behave. A double standard for what's moral for ingroup and outgroup is the calling card of tribal thinking.

You are imposing your own rules and conditions. At no point did I say or suggest that owners do not contribute to production. I refer to the role of workers in production because that is the issue.

The same with any article I quoted, which deals with the problem of wealth distribution and the poor leverage that individual workers have in negotiating a better deal for themselves.....a virtually non existent problem for those in the upper echelons of business and society, where money is quite plentiful.

That is the issue.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why doesn't market value apply to the CEO class?

And why do you think it doesn't? Just because the numbers aren't what you think they should be doesn't mean they aren't market-based numbers.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You are imposing your own rules and conditions. At no point did I say or suggest that owners do not contribute to production. I refer to the role of workers in production because that is the issue.

The same with any article I quoted, which deals with the problem of wealth distribution and the poor leverage that individual workers have in negotiating a better deal for themselves.....a virtually non existent problem for those in the upper echelons of business and society, where money is quite plentiful.

That is the issue.

But you pretend to know how much value they contribute.

 

[DBT]

You are imposing your own rules and conditions. At no point did I say or suggest that owners do not contribute to production. I refer to the role of workers in production because that is the issue.

The same with any article I quoted, which deals with the problem of wealth distribution and the poor leverage that individual workers have in negotiating a better deal for themselves.....a virtually non existent problem for those in the upper echelons of business and society, where money is quite plentiful.

That is the issue.

But you pretend to know how much value they contribute.

No pretense needed. The problem is that you don't even consider the basics, ignoring or misrepresenting whatever is said or quoted. Your remarks have no substance, being designed to dismiss rather than refute, providing no valid arguments of your own.

Basically, as pointed out numerous times, the wealth/profit being generated by the work the employee does. It may get complicated with functions like cleaning which is necessary but not easy to calculate.

For instance:
''Below are the principle factors that must be taken into account to determine employee value to the employer. When all the employee costs are subtracted from the employee's assets, the remainder is the employee's value.''

Employee Assets and Value Productivity
A common way to calculate an employee's worth, to a company, is to divide the firm's net income by the number of employees. But, this method produces only an average number for the worth of all employees, and not by individual worth.

A more accurate method would be to calculate an employee's productivity – an easy task if the employee works on an assembly line and turns out 100 widgets per hour, which the company sells at a net profit of 10 cents per widget. The employee's productivity can be quantified, and all expenses, direct and incidental, attributable to this employee are deducted to arrive at a net worth. Salary and benefits, as mentioned previously, will most often be the top expenses for the employer.

A sales person's worth to the company may also be similarly calculated. The formula is net value of sales minus expenses.

For other employees, such as information technology employees, accountants, graphic artists, human resources personnel and other knowledge workers, the calculation is more difficult because the productivity of these employees cannot be given a specific, accurate number. Arbitrary productivity values must be assigned to each such employee.''

Then of course it falls on the management to determine how far they willing to forego profit in relation to wage or salary cost, pass the cost onto consumers or absorb it through reduced profit margins.

 

[DBT]

Why doesn't market value apply to the CEO class?

And why do you think it doesn't? Just because the numbers aren't what you think they should be doesn't mean they aren't market-based numbers.

During the 2007 GFC, CEO's were enjoying multi million salary packages and collecting bonuses even while their companies collapsed around them. Ya gotta love that market value....

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You are imposing your own rules and conditions. At no point did I say or suggest that owners do not contribute to production. I refer to the role of workers in production because that is the issue.

The same with any article I quoted, which deals with the problem of wealth distribution and the poor leverage that individual workers have in negotiating a better deal for themselves.....a virtually non existent problem for those in the upper echelons of business and society, where money is quite plentiful.

That is the issue.

But you pretend to know how much value they contribute.

No pretense needed. The problem is that you don't even consider the basics, ignoring or misrepresenting whatever is said or quoted. Your remarks have no substance, being designed to dismiss rather than refute, providing no valid arguments of your own.

Basically, as pointed out numerous times, the wealth/profit being generated by the work the employee does. It may get complicated with functions like cleaning which is necessary but not easy to calculate.

For instance:
''Below are the principle factors that must be taken into account to determine employee value to the employer. When all the employee costs are subtracted from the employee's assets, the remainder is the employee's value.''

Employee Assets and Value Productivity
A common way to calculate an employee's worth, to a company, is to divide the firm's net income by the number of employees. But, this method produces only an average number for the worth of all employees, and not by individual worth.

A more accurate method would be to calculate an employee's productivity – an easy task if the employee works on an assembly line and turns out 100 widgets per hour, which the company sells at a net profit of 10 cents per widget. The employee's productivity can be quantified, and all expenses, direct and incidental, attributable to this employee are deducted to arrive at a net worth. Salary and benefits, as mentioned previously, will most often be the top expenses for the employer.

A sales person's worth to the company may also be similarly calculated. The formula is net value of sales minus expenses.

For other employees, such as information technology employees, accountants, graphic artists, human resources personnel and other knowledge workers, the calculation is more difficult because the productivity of these employees cannot be given a specific, accurate number. Arbitrary productivity values must be assigned to each such employee.''

Then of course it falls on the management to determine how far they willing to forego profit in relation to wage or salary cost, pass the cost onto consumers or absorb it through reduced profit margins.

In other words, I have produced no value in the last 30 years. Everything I have done has been to make others more productive, the only things I have produced that went out the door have been notification messages. If I produce nothing why have I been hired? Obviously your yardstick is wrong.

In the real world companies do many things that improve worker productivity, looking at the capital expenses doesn't show the whole picture. Company A has 100 employees and produces $20 million worth of widgets. Company B has 50 employees and produces $20 million worth of widgets. Are B's workers really worth twice as much as A's? No--that extra value is almost certainly due to capital and/or management.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why doesn't market value apply to the CEO class?

And why do you think it doesn't? Just because the numbers aren't what you think they should be doesn't mean they aren't market-based numbers.

During the 2007 GFC, CEO's were enjoying multi million salary packages and collecting bonuses even while their companies collapsed around them. Ya gotta love that market value....

1) Inertia. Pay doesn't suddenly get cut when things turn down. If anything CEO pay gets cut more than worker pay as generally a lot their income is bonuses tied to corporate performance.

2) You are assuming it's the fault of the CEOs. When whole industries got hammered you can't blame the CEO for the company's downturn and there's no reason to think they are suddenly producing less value.

 

[ZiprHead]

Trump Permits Decert's in 45 days
New NLRB rule makes it impossible to win a union election

While most non-essential services are shut down, union elections are suspended, and most of America is working from home worrying about a global pandemic, Trump’s National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) was passing a rule to make it harder to win a union election.

The proposed rule was published on April 1 and contains several anti-union changes. The new rule would eliminate the NLRB's "blocking charge policy," which permits the delay of union election results if the employer is accused of union-busting or coercion. It would also allow a decertification campaign to start just 45 days after an election and with as few as 30% of the workforce supporting a decertification effort.

This would give bosses much more power over a union election. They could union-bust without fear of an election being delayed and without the union getting a chance to inoculate the workers against the illegal activity. If the boss loses the election, they then can start organizing a minority of the workforce to file for a quick decertification further slowing down the bargaining process.

“The Trump NLRB takes this moment to publish a rule that will make it harder both for workers to unionize and to keep unions they have," tweeted Heidi Shierholz, a labor economist at the Economic Policy Institute (EPI). "Shameful does not even begin to describe this."

The new rule will be in place starting May 31st.

This is the second time that the Trump administration has used the coronavirus pandemic as cover for changing labor law. At the end of February, Trump’s Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) announced that federal employees would now be able to opt-out of their union whenever they wanted instead of during a limited window during the year.

 

[DBT]

1) Inertia. Pay doesn't suddenly get cut when things turn down. If anything CEO pay gets cut more than worker pay as generally a lot their income is bonuses tied to corporate performance.

2) You are assuming it's the fault of the CEOs. When whole industries got hammered you can't blame the CEO for the company's downturn and there's no reason to think they are suddenly producing less value.

You miss the point. I don't know whether it's deliberate or a matter of unable to see other possibilities. Believe what you like. The issue of income stagnation and wealth accumulating at the upper echelons of society has been thoroughly explained. It's obvious that you'll never get it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1) Inertia. Pay doesn't suddenly get cut when things turn down. If anything CEO pay gets cut more than worker pay as generally a lot their income is bonuses tied to corporate performance.

2) You are assuming it's the fault of the CEOs. When whole industries got hammered you can't blame the CEO for the company's downturn and there's no reason to think they are suddenly producing less value.

You miss the point. I don't know whether it's deliberate or a matter of unable to see other possibilities. Believe what you like. The issue of income stagnation and wealth accumulating at the upper echelons of society has been thoroughly explained. It's obvious that you'll never get it.

In other words, your argument was wrong in the first place.

 

[DBT]

1) Inertia. Pay doesn't suddenly get cut when things turn down. If anything CEO pay gets cut more than worker pay as generally a lot their income is bonuses tied to corporate performance.

2) You are assuming it's the fault of the CEOs. When whole industries got hammered you can't blame the CEO for the company's downturn and there's no reason to think they are suddenly producing less value.

You miss the point. I don't know whether it's deliberate or a matter of unable to see other possibilities. Believe what you like. The issue of income stagnation and wealth accumulating at the upper echelons of society has been thoroughly explained. It's obvious that you'll never get it.

In other words, your argument was wrong in the first place.

You say whatever you need to in defense of the super rich.

Here's another term for it;

Excessive wealth disorder.

The U.S. is suffering from excessive wealth disorder.

''This isn’t your parents’ inequality influenza, but a more virulent strain of extreme disparities of income, wealth, and opportunity.

Just 400 billionaires have as much wealth as nearly two-thirds of American households combined. And just three individuals — Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett, and Bill Gates — have as much wealth as half of all U.S. households put together.

It’s at this point we see the telltale signs of excessive wealth disorder. Despite being already comfortable beyond measure, segments of this 0.1 percent will often invest their wealth to rig the political rules to get even more wealth and power.

Since the economic meltdown of 2008, the lion’s share of income and wealth growth hasn’t gone just to the top 1 percent — it’s gone to the richest one-tenth of 1 percent. This 0.1 percent includes households with annual incomes starting at $2.2 million and wealth over $20 million.''