a worker provides value to his/her company. if he/she wants more income he/she needs to provide more value and then demand more pay (or work somewhere else where one can add more value). Again, the value the worker can provide is not finite.
You're still not understanding the point. You're accepting the construct of the marketplace as it fundamentally stands today as natural, when it isn't.
You said y has been increasing and z decreasing. But if you take out housing (which is included in y), that isn't the case. The relationshop between y and z is stable when you exclude housing. More here: http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/03/wealth-inequality "surging house prices are almost entirely responsible for growing returns on capital."
I believe you think the transactions/revenue between an employer and the customer should some how translate to the transaction/revenue between the employee and the employer. It does only in the sense that the employer can use it as proof of their value. Its folly to view the value provided to the customer as coming from both the employer and employee. as you are below The employer is the one taking the risk. If the customer sees no value in what the company produces, the employer takes the financial hit. Not the employee. I assume by capital you mean the financiers which are also the ones taking the risk not labor. Would they need more or less assistance from the tax payer if Walmart replaced them with a robot or even removed their job altogether (a greeter for example)?
The employee is doing the work. Do we value financial risk-taking over actual hard work? The balance between capital and labor is dependent on taxation. In the past, the two were taxed at relatively equal rates. Now we tax capital at a much lower rate than labor - so of course capital becomes a better way to generate money than labor. When they were treated equally, labor and capital shared the fruits of success. As it stands, investing money into someone else's business is rewarded more than investing time and energy into your own. Why does that create a good system? There's nothing market-oriented about it - it's purely the result of government decision making.
It is your fault for not being able to read and process information though. There's no indication that his post was in response to your question - so why would you assume that what he said indicated he couldn't read a chart? What he said was a perfectly accurate reading of the chart. The fact that it wasn't responding to you doesn't indicate anything at all.
Only if time and energy are infinite and opportunity cost is zero. Real estate developers and retail franchisees would need help as well, since you're basically describing a warehouse and dismissing the entire service and promotional parts of a value chain.
Can't find the article now, but read work awhile back regarding mechanization that the actual value of day's work from a textile worker was almost exactly the same as a day's labor by a doctor 150 years ago. Projecting this out is scary. A number of banks, for instance, are replacing tellers wilt "teller assist" ATM's. It's easy to project the future holds a handful of Warren Buffetts, thinks like doctors who require great educational specification, or news anchors and movie stars who require great "genetic specialization" and then a whole, whole lot of people "on the dole". I looked through some old genealogical data and found "railroad worker" and "clerk". There were decent office jobs for the B- types of society to earn what passed for a living. I can see a future where 100 kids reach for the stars, and 98 of them end up just like the bottomfeders who glide through life - either you get the A+ or your grouped with the rest of the "failures". Sorry if this is too far off topic. Even if you push up to 15-20% unemployment, things could get nasty. It appears to me that there are sectors of workers who will become surplus
You have to 1st make the case that the employees are already being compensated at a rate that is satisfactory to the value that they provide the companies. 1st let me know how much does Spacely Sprockets charge for his robots including upkeep/maintenance because humans could possibly be cheaper in addition to more realistic. Then you would have to calculate the hit they would take in their profits because a lot of people who work at Wal-Mart shop there I would need to know those things to answer your question. And btw, I believe a lot of those greeters are old folks. That's more of a mark on our society for treating old people so shytie...
no i don't. 'Value' is defined as what someone is willing to pay you. If an employee is not getting paid what they could on the open market then they should go to whomever would pay them their value. yea machines replacing humans at work is so far into future. what was i thinking....... if an employee was cheaper then they would keep the employee . whats your point? you just advocated raises the minimum wage in your previous post...... i dont even know how to respond to this. who is we? a customer values the product not where it comes from.
An amount, as of goods, services, or money, considered to be a fair and suitable equivalent for something else; a fair price or return. That is actually how value is defined ---> so yes you do... And a lot of these companies aren't giving their employees an equivalent wage for the value that they bring to the company. "The market" isn't that open to many people and you're just making the case that companies can F over people just because they can and the government allows them to do it. My point is that paying the human employees a few bucks more may be cheaper than buying robots. That's why I asked you how much these robots you speak of cost. And remember that we're talking about cheap azz companies like Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart preys on the poor. Taxpayer-funded social assistant programs are a significant part of their revenue and profits. Which means a lot of poor and or low income people shop there... People who work at places like Wal-Mart that you say could be replaced with robots. So those types of companies would essentially be firing a good portion of their customer base. Personally I think if the minimum wage goes up... Companies like Wal-Mart would close a lot of stores and work more off the internet. Which would be a good thing for small business owners.
There is a bunch more but of course I can't list it all. When they buy new companies or switch the benefits to theirs, they cash out your vacation under a gift tax which is about 40% of your money gone, and that includes the money you get (or don't ) get if you get severence. Every trick in the book to keep them from giving you fair due is used if they want. Not only that but depending on your job, they don't even give you the tools to effectively do your job. They'll have you in a poisition where you have to wait 2 or 3 days from someone in India to get back to you. They have blanket policies whether it works for your company, position, etc or not. Want to you use your phone for company email? You have to sign your personal phone over to them..yes that is correct. Otherwise use a company issued unit. Could be good or bad but you could be carrying around 2 phones Why is that significant? ... they have a running saying in the company that by giving you a company phone you end up doing more work after hours for free than you normally would on your regular work schedule. Some employees they relocate every 12-18 months so you hardly get to establish good relationships with people. Its littered with tons of red tape that does more harm than good IMO. You HAVE to make up goals that compliment your managers goals even if the jobs don't have similar interest. You have to have a written goal about how you are either saving or making the company money EVERY YEAR. Want to apply for a marketing job but you work in Leasing? Well you had better find some way to say leasing ties into marketings job description or you'll be looked over faster than you can apply, which = less pay = less of a raise if at all. They'll tell you only Martha Stewart gave good bonuses so don't complain. No lie Corporate america is greedy and remorseless about how they operate and always looking for more.
nope. value means what something would fetch on the open market. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/economic-value.asp Your definition says the same thing you just aren't reading it right. by 'fair and suitable' it means to the buyer. and every time you raise that minimum wage like you suggest you are ****ing over anyone whose skill set is valued below the minimum wage. nobody has done more for the poor than wal-mart. Almost all the poor shop there. Why? because their **** is cheaper and better than the competition. Walmart saves the poor money (tons of it). Not to mention the millions of jobs they create. Go ask the closest poor person how they would feel about closing the wal mart nearest to them. see what they say.
poor people make minimum wage. poor people spend alot of their money. spending money increases circulation velocity of money which is good for GDP. increasing GDP is good. increasing minimum wage sounds like a nice economy boost.
Because it isn't good for our economy for all of the economic gains to go to the top of the income distribution.
Well the value to the customer does come from some dynamic of employer and employee. But, no I'm not saying that employer and employee should share equally in the spoils. We use a market mechanism to determine how much each party should get, and I'm fine with that. But, we also set the rules of the market, and I'm asking people to recognize that we actually set the rules and that it's okay if we decide we want to change the rules. We do it all the time already - taxes, regulation, patent law, copyright law, labor law, tort law, and so on - it's just that some people don't want to admit that we do. The employer is taking one kind of financial risk. There are many risks taken by every party. It's naive to think that an employee isn't taking any risks when he accepts employment with a given employer. Besides his own idiosyncratic risks (like lack of advancement or injury), he takes on company risk if the company is struggling and can't pay what he's worth, or can't afford safety equipment and has him work in unsafe environments, or if the company goes bankrupt and leaves him suddenly unemployed and maybe without his paycheck. Companies push risks onto employees all the time. Sure, you can say this employee should quit and find more rewarding work. But, the market for employers isn't liquid like financial markets. A veteran coal miner, for example, who would have said he had a good job 30 years ago, finds that all the employers in his industry are financially strapped and put pressure on wages. None of them provide a safe work environment. And no one in another industry is willing to offer a better opportunity to a guy who knows only coal mining. Maybe he should have made better decisions in life, but the point of the example is that this market is not liquid. Capital is liquid. An owner of a coal mine can sell (at a loss nowadays) and buy stock in Google. It doesn't matter that he spent his whole life owning coal. Equity risk taken by capital-holders have the luxury of judiciously choosing among quantifiable risks, that on the whole and in the long run will produce additional wealth. So yeah, the employer here is taking a risk to the money he chooses to invest. It's a paltry risk in the grand scheme of things, but that's what he's compensated for. That our market rewards equity risk is itself a choice we've made. Again, the fact that equity risk is better rewarded than personal risk is a function of the relative bargaining strengths of the parties. The stronger party is going to get a favorable deal.
What are you talking about? Are you saying all companies do this? Is so, that is blatantly false. If you are saying your company does tho, then quit if you don't like it.
