I am not even sure that the people, the working class of people, are even as good off as "sharecroppers". A sharecropper was paid a certain percentage of the profit. The American worker is not.
I assume he is paid a certain percentage of the costs. Getting paid is getting paid. How you semantically account for it, makes little difference.
if you look it up you find people are happier in Arkansas than France. Odd to American liberals, the French have the near perfect Nanny state yet they are miserable and poor.
American workers own 130 million iphones, 290 million flat screens, and spend 600 billion a year on pets.
with 130 million smart phone super computer toys in their pockets and suffering from too much to eat rather then too little.
good point 10,000 businesses go bankrupt each month in the USA with owners often losing their homes while workers lose nothing.
No doubt there are many who don't understand business owners face incredible risks to get businesses going while workers simply lose jobs. There's a reason owners also earn more and retain profits as part of the deal. Everyone isn't willing to take that risk, so those who have sometimes do win. Others go out of business, either to try again or reenter the job market as an employee. My wife is a small business owner and people assume wealth because she owns a business. They don't realize she's competitive so her profits aren't as steep as many, making her "keep" from the profits very modest. Most don't understand the overhead costs just to stay operational.
They also make more profit by underpaying their workers. This isn't based on any notion of Marxist theory. Its accepted in modern economics (e.g. see http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/0895330027300)
That fits in the common sense column though. Of course the less you pay workers, the more you profit, assuming you ignore the impacts of a low wage workforce, which would include higher turnover, lower skill levels, and less incentive to perform. Businesses in tighter labor markets cannot achieve sustainable, long term profits if they severely undercut wages. That's a short term fix only.
Not quite true! We'd actually expect greater underpayment in apparently more competitive industries. The impact of wage making power is ironically more problematic where there are more SMEs
yes and 4 out of 5 fail during the first 5 years. Let those who complain save every penny for 5 years and invest it in a business with an 80% chance to fail and then complain how unfair it is to workers
not true of course, if there was underpayment workers would go to overpayment industries until there was balance. Econ 101. This is called supply and demand.
Aint no wage-making power. In the real world, there is competition in the labor markets and labor is not fungible.
That's exactly the opposite of what happens. Competitive environments of any kind tend to drive prices lower, but for tight labor periods wages are generally faced with upward pressure as companies incentivize current workers to some degree and more so for new workers, particularly when employees are being lured away by better pay and benefits elsewhere. A good example would be to sign up for GM Marketplace Live, which is a multi-week simulation where groups create a business from the ground up, faced with establishing locations, production levels, product varieties, advertising, worker benefits, manager and executive benefits, pay levels, pay raises, etc. It touches nearly every aspect a manager needs to understand within a business, yet the group competes against other groups over the same period of time with real-world type results based on the quality of decisions made by the teams. Salary is a key ingredient in tight markets, as are other benefits like medical costs and vacation. Here's the link, but you'd have to pay to use it. https://game.ilsworld.com/marketplace-live/
Modern economics shows otherwise. There's no point in having a tantrum about it. It isn't just supply and demand theory. Its also backed up by the empirical evidence.
16 million new cars a year!! thats not bad for sharecroppers. Our sharecroppers drive cars with heated seats and rear hatches that open when you move your foot under the bumper.
wrong of course supply and demand theory equalizes wages in overpayment industries. Sorry to rock your world.
And three billionaires own more wealth that the bottom 50% of the population. Now, what is your point?
The evidence shows otherwise. We know, for example, wages are lower in smaller companies. This is predicted by job search analysis that finds firm competition doesn't actually remove underpayment. You're confusing issues here. There are general gains in labour bargaining power as unemployment falls (that's predicted all the way back to the likes of Adam Smith and classical economics). However, I've referred to industry level analysis that concludes- where there is more firm competition- there is also greater underpayment. This just reflects supply & demand, with firms securing wage making power
if you want the poor to have even more smart phones cars pets etc get the liberal crippling nanny state off their backs; don't steal from the rich for even more crippling welfare
LOL, one out of 180 million so obviously what I said must be wrong. You probably work for a non-profit, your employer is the director of the program, and he takes home a wage 10 times that of yours.
And people are happier in Denmark then the US where the taxes are at 54%, there is a guaranteed wage, and very little income inequality.
