See What Tax Cuts For The Wealthy Has Caused:

[Dragon]

Why do you think workers here are underpaid by a third?

It follows logically from the idea that wages are derived from productivity. Productivity has dramatically increased over the last thirty years. Wages have not kept pace. The point here is not that workers are "underpaid" but that this calls into question the idea that wages follow productivity.

 

[Dragon]

You need to visit some local small businesses and tell them these ideas of yours.

Why? You're not suggesting that the skill set of business management is the same as the skill set of economics, are you? If not, why should I expect "local small businesses" to know jack diddly about all this?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You need to visit some local small businesses and tell them these ideas of yours.

Why? You're not suggesting that the skill set of business management is the same as the skill set of economics, are you? If not, why should I expect "local small businesses" to know jack diddly about all this?

I'm suggesting you don't know dick about how the real world works

 

[thereisnospoon]

Why do you think workers here are underpaid by a third?

It follows logically from the idea that wages are derived from productivity. Productivity has dramatically increased over the last thirty years. Wages have not kept pace. The point here is not that workers are "underpaid" but that this calls into question the idea that wages follow productivity.

Those charts you lefties keep digging up do not tell the whole story.
For example, they do not take into account use of machines to do work that was previously done by hand. The charts do not indicate a recognition of new technologies that allow for efficiency.
This appears to go to Obama's whining about ATM's.....Sure. the need for human bank tellers is reduced due to machines doing some of the work. That is an example of increased productivity and reduced labor cost.
BTW, the creators of these charts appear to have deftly left out the fact that the need for workers in certain jobs has been diminished by the use of technology. The charts make it appear as though wages have gone down while what is actually indicated is the cost of labor which is lower.
The pro labor people have made a point of wages vs productivity as one of the planks in the class envy platform.
In the world of organized labor productivity is a dirty word.
To union people, doing the job efficiently with the use of labor saving tools and devices threatens job security.
I went through this while working in a union paint shop back in the mid 80's.
Some of the prohibited tools...Any paint roller exceeding 9" in lengths. I had used 12" and 15" rollers on jobs I had done privately. Got it done quicker. On wall board finishing, the widest knife permitted by the union was 6"...I had always used a 10" knife for the final coat of mud..
To me this makes no sense.
The idea is to do the job as efficiently with the highest quality possible and hopefully come under the budget. Doing that makes the company a more attractive candidate for future jobs.
Unions have no concept of budgets. Their interest lies with keeping the union in business.
Unions stay in business by making work for the members.
This obviously inflates the cost of labor and thus makes it appear as though wages are keeping up with productivity. It's all a facade.

 

[The Rabbi]

Why do you think workers here are underpaid by a third?

It follows logically from the idea that wages are derived from productivity. Productivity has dramatically increased over the last thirty years. Wages have not kept pace. The point here is not that workers are "underpaid" but that this calls into question the idea that wages follow productivity.

Wages have increased over the last 30 years. At least you aren't pushing that 'stagnant middle class" bullshit.
There isnt a one to one correlation. Iv'e already said that. There is a tendency.

 

[Gadawg73]

The privilege is enjoyed by the workers at my business.

Oh, really? So all profits from the business go to your workers, as if they were the owners? How very enlightened of you!

You stated correctly in another post that supply and demand sets the wages and now you claim that greed sets it.

I did not claim that greed sets wages. I claimed that the desire to keep wages low amounts to greed. Can you see the difference?

Your claim that business owners lower the wages is absurd. Everyone knows:
YOU PAY PEANUTS YOU GET MONKEYS.

Move your operation to Bangladesh and the monkeys work for a lot less in the way of peanuts. That's one way business owners can lower wages. Get the government to look the other way while illegal immigrants flood the labor force; that's another. Get it to inadequately enforce the right to bargain collectively; that's yet another.

Your statement is incorrect as stated. It should say: "You pay peanuts compared to the competition you get monkeys." But when you can arrange for the cost of labor to lowered for everyone, yourself AND your competitors, that isn't a problem, is it?

Privilege is not sharing in the profits.
That is discretion.
Under your theory a business that loses $$ allocates that amongst the workers.
Show me a business where the workers work for free when the business loses $$$.
Where is that one?
The monkey works for less in Bangledesh because they can do a job a 12 year old uneducated fool did here demanding $30 an hour plus benefits.
So we "are losing the middle class worker" argument is a bogus one.
Jobs leave because uneducated workers can not compete.
No one ever arranges the cost of labor amongst competitors. Obviously, you have never owned or run a business. Skilled labor SETS THEIR OWN WAGE.
Keep your day job. You know nothing about the free market.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The privilege is enjoyed by the workers at my business.

Oh, really? So all profits from the business go to your workers, as if they were the owners? How very enlightened of you!



I did not claim that greed sets wages. I claimed that the desire to keep wages low amounts to greed. Can you see the difference?

Your claim that business owners lower the wages is absurd. Everyone knows:
YOU PAY PEANUTS YOU GET MONKEYS.

Move your operation to Bangladesh and the monkeys work for a lot less in the way of peanuts. That's one way business owners can lower wages. Get the government to look the other way while illegal immigrants flood the labor force; that's another. Get it to inadequately enforce the right to bargain collectively; that's yet another.

Your statement is incorrect as stated. It should say: "You pay peanuts compared to the competition you get monkeys." But when you can arrange for the cost of labor to lowered for everyone, yourself AND your competitors, that isn't a problem, is it?

Privilege is not sharing in the profits.
That is discretion.
Under your theory a business that loses $$ allocates that amongst the workers.
Show me a business where the workers work for free when the business loses $$$.
Where is that one?
The monkey works for less in Bangledesh because they can do a job a 12 year old uneducated fool did here demanding $30 an hour plus benefits.
So we "are losing the middle class worker" argument is a bogus one.
Jobs leave because uneducated workers can not compete.
No one ever arranges the cost of labor amongst competitors. Obviously, you have never owned or run a business. Skilled labor SETS THEIR OWN WAGE.
Keep your day job. You know nothing about the free market.

The Free Market....That's the rub. The Left wants the market to be controlled by government.

 

[Gadawg73]

Oh, really? So all profits from the business go to your workers, as if they were the owners? How very enlightened of you!



I did not claim that greed sets wages. I claimed that the desire to keep wages low amounts to greed. Can you see the difference?



Move your operation to Bangladesh and the monkeys work for a lot less in the way of peanuts. That's one way business owners can lower wages. Get the government to look the other way while illegal immigrants flood the labor force; that's another. Get it to inadequately enforce the right to bargain collectively; that's yet another.

Your statement is incorrect as stated. It should say: "You pay peanuts compared to the competition you get monkeys." But when you can arrange for the cost of labor to lowered for everyone, yourself AND your competitors, that isn't a problem, is it?

Privilege is not sharing in the profits.
That is discretion.
Under your theory a business that loses $$ allocates that amongst the workers.
Show me a business where the workers work for free when the business loses $$$.
Where is that one?
The monkey works for less in Bangledesh because they can do a job a 12 year old uneducated fool did here demanding $30 an hour plus benefits.
So we "are losing the middle class worker" argument is a bogus one.
Jobs leave because uneducated workers can not compete.
No one ever arranges the cost of labor amongst competitors. Obviously, you have never owned or run a business. Skilled labor SETS THEIR OWN WAGE.
Keep your day job. You know nothing about the free market.

The Free Market....That's the rub. The Left wants the market to be controlled by government.

They want the workers to share in the profit the owner makes.
When the workers have not one cent at risk, have not invested a penny in the business, can leave at any time, work a set schedule, have paid vacations, paid holidays, sick days when they get paid and extensive retirement health and other benefits.
NONE of which the owner has.
If the owner does not work he does not get paid.

 

[Dragon]

Privilege is not sharing in the profits.
That is discretion.
Under your theory a business that loses $$ allocates that amongst the workers.

You don't know what my theory is, as far as how a business SHOULD be organized. All I'm presenting here is an observation about the way it IS organized. The ownership of the products does not go to those who do the work. That is a fact.

The monkey works for less in Bangledesh because they can do a job a 12 year old uneducated fool did here demanding $30 an hour plus benefits.
So we "are losing the middle class worker" argument is a bogus one.
Jobs leave because uneducated workers can not compete.

Not exactly. The implication of that last sentence is that we have uneducated workers competing with educated ones. But we don't; we have uneducated workers competing with even less-educated ones. The reason they can't compete isn't a lack of education but an inability to work for what would be starvation wages in the U.S.

But the point, which you seem to have missed, is that collectively employers DO have some control over wages and some ability to push them down. A lot of that comes from the ability to manipulate the government.

No one ever arranges the cost of labor amongst competitors.

The government does. And business pulls the government's puppet-strings.

 

[Dragon]

You need to visit some local small businesses and tell them these ideas of yours.

Why? You're not suggesting that the skill set of business management is the same as the skill set of economics, are you? If not, why should I expect "local small businesses" to know jack diddly about all this?

I'm suggesting you don't know dick about how the real world works

Well, you can "suggest" anything you want, but without a sound argument to back up your "suggestion" it's so much piss in the wind.

And as I've "suggested" (and demonstrated) before, you're a liar anyway, so I have no reason to think you even believe what you're saying.

 

[Gadawg73]

Privilege is not sharing in the profits.
That is discretion.
Under your theory a business that loses $$ allocates that amongst the workers.

You don't know what my theory is, as far as how a business SHOULD be organized. All I'm presenting here is an observation about the way it IS organized. The ownership of the products does not go to those who do the work. That is a fact.

The monkey works for less in Bangledesh because they can do a job a 12 year old uneducated fool did here demanding $30 an hour plus benefits.
So we "are losing the middle class worker" argument is a bogus one.
Jobs leave because uneducated workers can not compete.

Not exactly. The implication of that last sentence is that we have uneducated workers competing with educated ones. But we don't; we have uneducated workers competing with even less-educated ones. The reason they can't compete isn't a lack of education but an inability to work for what would be starvation wages in the U.S.

But the point, which you seem to have missed, is that collectively employers DO have some control over wages and some ability to push them down. A lot of that comes from the ability to manipulate the government.

No one ever arranges the cost of labor amongst competitors.

The government does. And business pulls the government's puppet-strings.

Owners make the decision on what best fits their needs, wants, desires and whatever and that is what SHOULD happen all the time.
How can you make a blanket statement on how a business "should be organized" when you do not have a clue what that business does, hires or desires?
The minimum wage does more harm to lower wages than anything. Some folks are willing to work for LESS than the minimum wage and some folks ARE NOT WORTH the minimum wage.
There are plenty of skilled labor jobs available NOW: HVAC, plumbing, oil drilling equilment maintenance, natural gas exploration jobs, engineering jobs of all kinds, medical testing and maintenance jobs, tool and die, auto mechanics, small engine repair, computer repair.
Tens of millions of jobs.
And NO ONE that is unemployed wants to re-train to get them.

 

[Dragon]

How can you make a blanket statement on how a business "should be organized"

I haven't done so.

The minimum wage does more harm to lower wages than anything.

An absurd statement on the face of it, for which you offer no supporting evidence. It's an extraordinary claim and so requires extraordinary proof. You offer not a shred of even ordinary proof here.

There are plenty of skilled labor jobs available NOW

Since there are more unemployed than there are job openings, obviously there aren't "plenty" of ANY kind of job.

And NO ONE that is unemployed wants to re-train to get them.

What, never?

(Extra points for anyone who can get the theatrical reference.)

I'm reasonably certain that there are people who are willing to retrain to do that sort of work; however, in many cases it may not be feasible. However, I am even more certain that our economy makes it harder than it should be to achieve a middle-class income. It will always be possible for the best and most diligent to do so. But the harder it is, the fewer will succeed.

 

[Sundial]

Privilege is not sharing in the profits.
That is discretion.
Under your theory a business that loses $$ allocates that amongst the workers.
Show me a business where the workers work for free when the business loses $$$.
Where is that one?
The monkey works for less in Bangledesh because they can do a job a 12 year old uneducated fool did here demanding $30 an hour plus benefits.
So we "are losing the middle class worker" argument is a bogus one.
Jobs leave because uneducated workers can not compete.
No one ever arranges the cost of labor amongst competitors. Obviously, you have never owned or run a business. Skilled labor SETS THEIR OWN WAGE.
Keep your day job. You know nothing about the free market.

The Free Market....That's the rub. The Left wants the market to be controlled by government.

They want the workers to share in the profit the owner makes.
When the workers have not one cent at risk, have not invested a penny in the business, can leave at any time, work a set schedule, have paid vacations, paid holidays, sick days when they get paid and extensive retirement health and other benefits.
NONE of which the owner has.
If the owner does not work he does not get paid.

An owner has to work only if he's self-employed.

Someone who owns - say, a million shares of Exxon - gets paid whether he works or not.

 

[Sundial]

Privilege is not sharing in the profits.
That is discretion.
Under your theory a business that loses $$ allocates that amongst the workers.

You don't know what my theory is, as far as how a business SHOULD be organized. All I'm presenting here is an observation about the way it IS organized. The ownership of the products does not go to those who do the work. That is a fact.

The monkey works for less in Bangledesh because they can do a job a 12 year old uneducated fool did here demanding $30 an hour plus benefits.
So we "are losing the middle class worker" argument is a bogus one.
Jobs leave because uneducated workers can not compete.

Not exactly. The implication of that last sentence is that we have uneducated workers competing with educated ones. But we don't; we have uneducated workers competing with even less-educated ones. The reason they can't compete isn't a lack of education but an inability to work for what would be starvation wages in the U.S.

But the point, which you seem to have missed, is that collectively employers DO have some control over wages and some ability to push them down. A lot of that comes from the ability to manipulate the government.

No one ever arranges the cost of labor amongst competitors.

The government does. And business pulls the government's puppet-strings.

It's not true that American workers can't compete. They do, and they're among the best (most productive) workers in the world. America exports more goods and services than any other country in the world. (Germany and China are second and third.)

We have a trade deficit, of course - but not because Americans are lazy, or our products are uncompetitive. We have a trade deficit because foreigners want American dollars, and are willing to pay high prices to get them.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The Free Market....That's the rub. The Left wants the market to be controlled by government.

They want the workers to share in the profit the owner makes.
When the workers have not one cent at risk, have not invested a penny in the business, can leave at any time, work a set schedule, have paid vacations, paid holidays, sick days when they get paid and extensive retirement health and other benefits.
NONE of which the owner has.
If the owner does not work he does not get paid.

An owner has to work only if he's self-employed.

Someone who owns - say, a million shares of Exxon - gets paid whether he works or not.

So?

 

[Gadawg73]

The Free Market....That's the rub. The Left wants the market to be controlled by government.

They want the workers to share in the profit the owner makes.
When the workers have not one cent at risk, have not invested a penny in the business, can leave at any time, work a set schedule, have paid vacations, paid holidays, sick days when they get paid and extensive retirement health and other benefits.
NONE of which the owner has.
If the owner does not work he does not get paid.

An owner has to work only if he's self-employed.

Someone who owns - say, a million shares of Exxon - gets paid whether he works or not.

And they have nothing at risk owning those shares?
And everyone that owns shares in corporations does no work evaluating where and when to invest?
And what did they do to buy those shares?
The shares I own I worked hard to own them and continue to work hard evaluating where and what to invest in.
Few stockholders receive dividends. Most stocks pay no dividends as it is the gain of the price of the stock is what the investor is looking for.
Most investments require hard work. The myth is that ownership is "EASY".
No way.

 

[Gadawg73]

Privilege is not sharing in the profits.
That is discretion.
Under your theory a business that loses $$ allocates that amongst the workers.

You don't know what my theory is, as far as how a business SHOULD be organized. All I'm presenting here is an observation about the way it IS organized. The ownership of the products does not go to those who do the work. That is a fact.



Not exactly. The implication of that last sentence is that we have uneducated workers competing with educated ones. But we don't; we have uneducated workers competing with even less-educated ones. The reason they can't compete isn't a lack of education but an inability to work for what would be starvation wages in the U.S.

But the point, which you seem to have missed, is that collectively employers DO have some control over wages and some ability to push them down. A lot of that comes from the ability to manipulate the government.

No one ever arranges the cost of labor amongst competitors.

The government does. And business pulls the government's puppet-strings.

It's not true that American workers can't compete. They do, and they're among the best (most productive) workers in the world. America exports more goods and services than any other country in the world. (Germany and China are second and third.)

We have a trade deficit, of course - but not because Americans are lazy, or our products are uncompetitive. We have a trade deficit because foreigners want American dollars, and are willing to pay high prices to get them.

They want anyone's dollar and are willing TO WORK HARD to get them.
I agree with you on American productivity.
We have an unemployment problem because Americans are unwilling to train for what is available.
My 3 kids all work. Ages 18, 22 and 25-1 in college and 2 graduates.
We work.

 

[daveman]

Uh, dude, he's the one who said he hated them. Go back and look.

Don't care that much. I retract.

Why retract? I never said any such thing. Sundial accused me of it though. It will be fun watching him wriggle on his hook as he tries to avoid producing a quote.

I didn't really think you had. I just didn't want to go look.

 

[daveman]

Capital does not exist.

 

[The T]

Capital does not exist.

Funny as Hell to be sure as he types on a computer that can be considered a capital asset...

What a dope.