$15 Minimum Wage Battle Moves To Other Industries

[GoBills808]

 

Looks like we have to agree to disagree. I do not believe that an employee deserves anything more than what than what they agreed was a fair wage, regardless of how much profit a company may make. If a company wants to reward an employee further, then that's their prerogative.

 

As an aside, when it comes to people advocating for employees sharing in company profits, I have yet to hear anyone suggest that it would be fair to reduce an employee's pay if the company under-performs and fails to hit their projected profits.

Nor will you from me, but then I am a man of the people.

 

And even they don't. They do it because they get something out of it, even if it's just personal fulfillment.

 

Everyone acts out of self-interest, all the time.

I agree with this, but I think we're starting to conflate self interest with profit and they don't necessarily mean the same thing.

[Azalin]

Nor will you from me, but then I am a man of the people.

 

 

So fairness only works one way? If an employee stands to earn a windfall from company profits, it doesn't stand to reason that they should also share in the losses?

[Nanker]

 

But the capitalists' capital is paid for by labor. With hammers.

 

 

I thought it was bicycles, but yes.

If someone else builds an Ikea, they will come.

[Rob's House]

Educate yourself before trying to educate others.

 

Here's a good starting point:

 

https://youtu.be/dQiBD-crrvA

 

You're welcome.

[GoBills808]

 

So fairness only works one way? If an employee stands to earn a windfall from company profits, it doesn't stand to reason that they should also share in the losses?

Employees can be laid off or lose their jobs entirely when the company fails to perform. I think that obligation is implicit in capitalism.

[unbillievable]

Employees can be laid off or lose their jobs entirely when the company fails to perform. I think that obligation is implicit in capitalism.

That's not a loss. Nothing is taken away. They just aren't able to GAIN more wages.

 

The only reason an employee should be given a share of the profit is if they risk their own capital in building the company. Like investing in the stock.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Employees can be laid off or lose their jobs entirely when the company fails to perform. I think that obligation is implicit in capitalism.

And ownership can lose their entire investment, and all of their capital. And as the above poster mentions, employees incur no actual loss.

 

You're giving excuses.

Edited April 4, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker

[Azalin]

Employees can be laid off or lose their jobs entirely when the company fails to perform. I think that obligation is implicit in capitalism.

 

But I'm not talking about layoffs or job loss, I'm specifically addressing the notion that if an employee should gain extra income when the company reaps a windfall, why should they be insulated from monetary loss if the company performs poorly? The logic is that if the company did better than expected, then the employees were a part of that success and should get part of the excess as reward - that's a common argument used against companies and corporations. The problem is that literally nobody who supports that philosophy will ever support an hourly employee sharing in the loss if the company comes up short. Organized labor and "men of the people" would lose their collective minds if that was even suggested, and that reaction indicates that those people are not actually interested in fairness as much as they are in vilifying business.

[GoBills808]

 

But I'm not talking about layoffs or job loss, I'm specifically addressing the notion that if an employee should gain extra income when the company reaps a windfall, why should they be insulated from monetary loss if the company performs poorly? The logic is that if the company did better than expected, then the employees were a part of that success and should get part of the excess as reward - that's a common argument used against companies and corporations. The problem is that literally nobody who supports that philosophy will ever support an hourly employee sharing in the loss if the company comes up short. Organized labor and "men of the people" would lose their collective minds if that was even suggested, and that reaction indicates that those people are not actually interested in fairness as much as they are in vilifying business.

I'm not trying to vilify business, and you raise an important point. If fairness is what we're after, at all levels, then employees SHOULD be required to pay into losses as well as reap benefits. You're absolutely correct.

 

But if fairness is truly on the table, we probably need to examine why there are such discrepancies between what employees earn versus what upper management (you'd probably roll your eyes if I said proletariat and bourgeoisie ) does. You could think of insulating employees from buying into losses (which is probably just as likely to be due to poor management as ineffective labor) as rectifying the inherent imbalance in wages between those who perform the labor and those who control the means of production.

[TakeYouToTasker]

I'm not trying to vilify business, and you raise an important point. If fairness is what we're after, at all levels, then employees SHOULD be required to pay into losses as well as reap benefits. You're absolutely correct.

 

But if fairness is truly on the table, we probably need to examine why there are such discrepancies between what employees earn versus what upper management (you'd probably roll your eyes if I said proletariat and bourgeoisie ) does. You could think of insulating employees from buying into losses (which is probably just as likely to be due to poor management as ineffective labor) as rectifying the inherent imbalance in wages between those who perform the labor and those who control the means of production.

 

The reason for the disparity in compensation is the disparity in replacement value.

 

The guy with the floor mop doesn't have a valuable skill set that sets him apart. Anyone can mop a floor, which means that while the demand for 1 floor mopper is one labor unit, the supply of floor moppers is over 7 billion labor units.

 

There are far fewer individuals with the skill set to run a business, and manage hundreds of individuals effectively relative to the markets demand for them, so they get paid more.

[Azalin]

I'm not trying to vilify business, and you raise an important point. If fairness is what we're after, at all levels, then employees SHOULD be required to pay into losses as well as reap benefits. You're absolutely correct.

 

But if fairness is truly on the table, we probably need to examine why there are such discrepancies between what employees earn versus what upper management (you'd probably roll your eyes if I said proletariat and bourgeoisie ) does. You could think of insulating employees from buying into losses (which is probably just as likely to be due to poor management as ineffective labor) as rectifying the inherent imbalance in wages between those who perform the labor and those who control the means of production.

 

I think that everyone should be paid what they're worth - nothing more, nothing less. Management, especially upper-level management, is answerable for the performance of entire teams or departments, as well as how efficiently they interface with the rest of the company. They do not have the luxury of a 40 hour work week - they're usually working, in one fashion or another, for 24 hours a day, every day. Their success is tied directly to the company's success, as well as to stockholders (if there are any). It takes skill that many people do not have to shoulder that kind of responsibility in a successful manner. That will naturally pay much better than what rank and file earn.

 

And by the way - I'm not actually advocating for employees to earn less money if the company takes a loss, I was playing devil's advocate with regard to paying hourly employees above and beyond if the company experiences a windfall. In my opinion, a good employer will often reward extra-efforts that yield a bonus for the company. Thus, the concept of profit-sharing.

[GoBills808]

I MUST quote Bellamy here: '...when a horse pulled a heavier load than a goat, I suppose you rewarded him. Now, we should have whipped him soundly if he had not, on the ground that, being much stronger, he ought to.'

[Joe Miner]

I MUST quote Bellamy here: '...when a horse pulled a heavier load than a goat, I suppose you rewarded him. Now, we should have whipped him soundly if he had not, on the ground that, being much stronger, he ought to.'

You realize that quote doesn't relate to how a business really works at all right?

[GoBills808]

You realize that quote doesn't relate to how a business really works at all right?

Sure it does, just not the way we usually think of business.

[Azalin]

I MUST quote Bellamy here: '...when a horse pulled a heavier load than a goat, I suppose you rewarded him. Now, we should have whipped him soundly if he had not, on the ground that, being much stronger, he ought to.'

 

Really?

 

Feel free to start a business and pay the goats a $15/hour minimum wage then. We'll see how long you stay in business.

[GoBills808]

 

Really?

 

Feel free to start a business and pay the goats a $15/hour minimum wage then. We'll see how long you stay in business.

Doing just fine, actually! My guys get paid well above prevailing wages and production is up.

[Azalin]

Doing just fine, actually! My guys get paid well above prevailing wages and production is up.

 

That's good. I hope it remains that way.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Doing just fine, actually! My guys get paid well above prevailing wages and production is up.

You're running a business without a profit motivation? With employees?

[DC Tom]

You're running a business without a profit motivation? With employees?

 

Completely different. His profit motivation is angelic, wholesome, and pure as the driven snow.

[GG]

Sure it does, just not the way we usually think of business.

 

Not really. In a real business, you wouldn't expect a goat to do a horse's job, or vice versa. So whoever came up with that quote is an unmitigated moron.