Mutually Beneficial Relationships

Discussion in 'Economics & Trade' started by Shiva_TD, May 11, 2015.

  1. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Doesn't Bo Derek live in Cottonwood??!!

    Locke is too much of an idealist and short on reality. We have an economic system across the world today and there is no way to buck this. Right or wrong, good or bad, it is what it is. Very small tweaks can be made to the status quo but nothing to the extent dreamed by Locke.

    So back to reality...if Company A wishes to compete with Company B, they must hold expenses below income. Whatever this dictates regarding wages, etc., and whatever labor will agree to, is what determines the viability of the business and the employee. In this system neither the business or the employee has any rights to anything. If all the pieces don't work well for the business or the employee then the business and employment is not viable.

    Company A competes with Company B, and Company C across the USA and Company D across the world. The ONLY way to have viable business in the US is for the company to compete on the cost of doing business and earn profits. None of these Company's can arbitrarily change their cost of doing business, like raising wages, without having an economic impact. This system barely works in the private sector but when government forces crap on the private sector, remaining competitive becomes even more tenable!
     
  2. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not to my knowledge and it doesn't matter. She's an old woman now and there are hotties living here (although I'm too old to really care - LOL)

    Yes, Locke was an idealist and described a utopian world based logic and reason related to establishing a right of property to the natural resources of the earth and utopia is never attainable but that doesn't imply it's not a goal to strive for. Like you I'm a pragmatist and there are, of course, numerous small tweaks can be done that would take us futher down the road towards the unattainable utopia Locke idealistically describes. We will address just one in response to your following comments.

    In a real sense you're arguing exactly what Locke argued. Locke proposes that all natural resources (weath) belonged to the "common" (all people) and that the natural right of property was established by the labor of the person that entitled them to their support and comfort and that no one should take from nature more than they could possibly use while leaving others with less than necessary for their support and comfort.

    Today less than 1% of the people acquire over 30% of the annual wealth creation while over 40% don't receive enough of the wealth they create to provide for their basic support and comfort. Something is wrong with this picture.

    Simple tweak. Require a "living wage" (enough compensation in wages and benefits to provide for the basic support and comfort of the employee) for all enterprises because that doesn't place any enterprise at a disadvantage. If every enterprise must, at a minimum, meet this expense then none are disadvantaged by it. They can find other ways to secure a cost advantage such as elimination of "non-value-added" work being performed by the employees. Of course companies don't compete on cost alone. They also compete based upon quality so the enterprise can increase quality to obtain a competitive advantage.

    The problem is in believing that only wages affect the costs to the enterprise and that's far from the truth. A poor business plan that misuses the labor of the employees is far more costly than the cost of compensation for the employees. We can also note that Company A and B don't have a competitive disadvantage if both are required to provide the same minimum compensation in wages and benefits.

    Both Company A and B could have a competitive disadvantage with Company C that is a foreign enterprise but there's a caveat to this. Company A and B must compete based upon our values as a nation and not based upon the values of the nation where Company C resides. For example we don't allow forced labor in the United States but many countries still do. We limit enviromental destruction (to some degree in some cases) while other nations often disregard this destruction. We cannot abandon our principles simply to compete with companies in those countries.
     
  3. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ouch on Bo Derek...she's a fox even in her late 50's!

    Yes it's always good to strive for the best, the most but need to keep reality in mind because if the goals appear insurmountable people will shy away from them.

    I don't argue that wealth needs to be dispersed to everyone. I simply believe whether it's wealth or anything for that matter, each person will find a place which is commensurate with their interests, focus, investment, luck, capabilities, limitations, effort, etc. That each person makes 100% of their decisions in life, therefore, if a person does not like the status quo, then that person alone needs to take steps to change something.

    I have no problem with the math about 1% and 30% and 40% etc. since this simply shows the diversity of our achievements and interest.

    I don't agree with a so-called living wage solving any problem whatsoever. No matter the amount of income from minimum to maximum, those who perform at the minimum will always have the same issues. It is impossible for everyone to perform, or be compensated, or to achieve, at the same rate, therefore, there will always be people in the lower rungs and they will struggle compared to others.

    You can't force or legislate a 'living wage' on business. If I was told I must pay a minimum of $35K to all workers, I would simply go offshore and take all the business from my competitors because I have lower costs. The same applies to any forced cost to business which puts them at a competitive disadvantage...they will find alternatives or close the doors.

    Either we compete with the global marketplace or we do not. In the cases where we do not we either accept this loss or replace the loss with something else. So far we are not good at replacing the jobs and economy caused by outsourcing...
     
  4. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    20,296
    Likes Received:
    7,744
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That old argument that is rooted in a fantasy world that does not exist. That is, if you are no happy with the pay from employer X, you can do your skill for employer Y who will pay more. That is an ideal that hardly exists at all. For instance in the real world that I owned a manufacturing business in, for almost 50 years, wages were determined by what the owners liked to call, the "industry average". And this is what allowed all in my sector to pay the same wages for the same jobs. But here was the rub. Those industry averages in my manufacturing sector, were working poor wages. So, leaving and going to another who might pay more just did not exist....except for my own factory. I did it differently and paid living wages to my employees, not the industry average. But I could hardly employ all of my competitor's workers, although I did get a few of them over the years as my business grew quite a bit and I had to add workers. So this argument you used is moot. For it seldom happens in reality, and if you owned a business, you know that to be the fact.


    But boy oh boy did my competitors come after me, paying my employees what I paid, for it made their own workers pissed off and disgruntled. They even banded together, these business owners and tried to ruin my business by spreading rumors that I was gay, then a wife swapper when that didn't work, and other lies. For I was causing them problems, with my rate of pay which was not the industry average, but middle class wages. Do you know how I was able to do that? It is the simplest thing in the world. I was not greedy, and kept less of the income pie created by the workers, for myself. My competitors lived in multimillion dollar homes, had all of those bells and whistles that tells other that they had arrived, they had the good life. I lived in a modest home, a great home, but sized for my family. I did not buy new cars for my kids, nor did I get a new car for myself and my wife each year just so I looked wealthy to others. I never took multiple vacations to the hot spots, that tell others there, that I am wealthy just like them. I never spend the kind of money they spent on clothes either. But my workers earned a living wage, saved up for their old age, and my turnover was zero, except a couple that retired. But I had names from my competitors workers in by back pocket, their really good people, and so my workforce was the best their was, which means they never called in sick to go fishing, they never wasted materials which drives up the COGS, and the morale was wonderful.

    And all I had to do to be decent to people, was to keep less for me, which allowed me to pay them enough to thrive on. Greed is a horrible thing in business. It exploits working people.
     
  5. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No argument.

    They can't. Statistics show that roughly 40% of the employment doesn't pay enough for the person to live on. That statistic will not change regardless of what individuals do. If every person in American went to college and obtained a PhD then we'd simply have people with PhD's working at McDonalds for $9/hr and collecting welfare benefits.

    I do have a problem with over 40% of households requiring welfare assistance just to meet their monthly expenses. There is something seriously wrong when the average hourly wage in the United States is only $10.55/hr because few households can meet even the most essential costs of living with that wage. Now if you have no problem with the huge financial (tax) burden it places on society when 40% of the households don't have enough income to even meet their basic monthly expenditures that's one way to address it but personally I don't believe that a person should have to "beg for bread" after working all day for someone that's "eating lobster for dinner."

    No, they won't have the same issues. They won't have to beg for welfare assistance after getting off from work.

    One problem we have is that the middle class, that provided rungs up the economic ladder, is disappearing based upon right-wing economic policies. We have more people at the bottom of the ladder and fewer rungs for them to climb up to get out of poverty than we did in the 1950's and 1960's. We're developing what's being called a "bar bell" economy of the rich and the poor with few opportunities in between.

    Income inequality between the wealthy and the average household is a real problem and it's getting worse every day. Real wages declined by 5% since 2008 and the number of households qualifying (based upon criteria established in 2003) for SNAP assistance quadrupled from about 10 million to 40 million.

    Can we afford the ever increasing costs of welfare assistance because more and more Americans can't earn a living by working? If we do nothing to address this then the number of households requiring government welfare assistance is going to continue to increase. Is that what you advocate or should we take action so that these households won't require the government welfare assistance just to put food on the table, pay their electric bill, and/or make that monthly rent payment?

    So you own an Jiffy-Lube shop and you're just going to pack up and move it outside the country? You own a McDonalds franchise and you're going to move it to another country? If you solely owned Walmart you'd close all of the US stores and move them to other countries? You know you're going to lose your American customers when you make the move.

    The lowest paying jobs in America are typically service sector jobs and they can't be exported. The maid service for a hotel cannot be exported. The bank teller's job cannot be exported. The sales clerk's job at the local retail store cannot be exported. The grape pickers job cannot be exported.

    Of course you are probably referring to a manufacturing job but manufacturing jobs are some of the highest paying jobs, generally twice the average hourly wage or far more and the US doesn't have any real problem competing with foreign countries when it comes to manufacturing in spite of what the politicians say. Manufacturing jobs in the US have declined by about 40% (per capita) since 1970 but they've also declined by roughly the same amount world wide. US manufacturing jobs haven't really been exported but instead they've been eliminated by artificial intelligence and technology (robots). I worked in manufacturing, predomonately aerospace, for my entire career and I watched this happen between 1970 and 2014.

    You believe that we can't mandate a liveable wage when, in fact, we can and it won't actually harm us economically. What it will do is dramatically reduce the necessity for welfare assistance to mitigate the effects of poverty. The final choice really comes down to whether the employers carry the costs of the workers or do the taxpayers because ultimately the necessary expenditures have to be funded from somewhere.

    In truth the United States does not need a global economy. We have abundant natural resources and could be self-sustaining if we wanted to be. We could even survive and even flourish economically on our own oil supply if we wanted to by simply changing our habits when it comes to the use of that natural resource. But I degress because there's lot's of profit for the wealthy when it comes to profiteering from the low costs of labor in foreign countries but how about this change in foreign policy.

    Why don't we address poverty wages in foreign countries as a human rights issue that benefits mankind in general as opposed to an economic issue that only benefits the super-wealthy?
     
  6. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I said, "If a person is dissatisfied with the money he makes by working for one employer, he can 1) switch employers or 2) use his own labor to earn an income." Like you did. You went into business for yourself.
     
  7. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
     
  8. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Every expert on personal finances unanimously state that people with low incomes cannot live on that income. This expert evaluation comes from both conservatve and liberal economists. In fact MIT, a university with an impeccable reputation for intellectual excellence, has even created a "Living Wage Calculator" that provides an accurate definition of what the minimum costs of living are throughout the United States.

    http://livingwage.mit.edu/

    One of the greatest myths being propagated is that the poor waste their limited income and it's simply not true. They don't live in luxurious apartments and don't drive new cars. Simpley use the MIT "living wage calculator" to see what they have to spend their money on.They live in low cost (slum) apartments and generally don't own a car at all. They don't eat steak and instead eat Top Ramen (that has virtually no nutritional value) or they often go hungry. An anecdotal story exemplifies the problem. I was watching a news show on SNAP benefits and a couple with a child, both working full time, alternated which days they ate on so that they could feed their child daily while waiting for the SNAP benefits to be approved. Only eating every other day is the slow road to a death from starvation.

    You talk about millions living on Social Security alone but there are some facts related to these people. Often they had good careers and own their home outright so they pay no rent. Millions had high income jobs so they often receive maximum Social Security benefits that can pay $28,000/yr or more (equal to about $13.50/hr) and they often have a spouse on Social Security increasing their monthly income. They also receive Medicare benefits (a welfare program for seniors) worth over $15,000/yr/person.

    The person that earned a low wage all of their life, living in poverty, is going to receive minimum Social Security benefits and they will be doing the same thing they did when they worked. They're going to be relying on other government welfare programs. They don't live on Social Security alone because no one can actually afford to live on an income at or below the "poverty level" that only addresses the ability of a person to buy food if they don't have other necessary expenditures such as electricity, water/sewer, transportation expenses, clothing, medical expenses, etc..

    That is true but the difference is whether they have to rely on additional income from welfare/charity or not. If they can't afford to live on the income they receive from employment then they have to "beg" for assistance and that places a financial burden on society, regardless of whether it's privately or publically funded, to provide the extra income (in dollars or benefits) necessary for them to survive. Remember one fact as well, Even "publically" funded welfare assistance is "privately" funded through taxation.

    I also grew up in the "Golden Age" of the middle class in America and was able to advance my working career because there were jobs available for me. I also had the advantage of middle income so when I got into financial trouble they bailed me out. Additionally I was white and never faced racial discrimination when I applied for a job and I'm sure that there were more qualified blacks that didn't get the job I applied for in more than one instance.

    The problem today is that the number of middle income jobs per capita has declined significantly when compared to the 1970's when I made my major gains in working my way up the economic ladder. We have more and more people competing for fewer and fewer higher paying jobs and that results in lower compensation for those jobs. The middle income class has been gutted leaving few steps on the economic ladder for an ever increasing number of people trying to climb that ladder.

    A person can only reduce spending so much and when you've already cut every possible expenditures then there's nothing more left to cut.

    Employees are not generally paid based upon performance but instead are paid based upon market rate and improving one's value to the enterprise only results in increased income if there's a position open for the employee. Hours are determined by the employer, not the employee, and even then a person cannot work for more than about 50 hrs/wk (been there, done that, and above 50 hrs/wk a person suffers physically over the long term). Many people are limited by other factors, such as raising a child, where they can't afford to work more hours because the cost of child care exceeds to income derived from the additional hours worked. A woman raising a child alone may only be able to work between 8-3 when her child is in school and that also limits what type of job she can hold typically to low paying jobs. She has no time to go to school to improve her education either because she's working every free minute she has already just to be able to live in poverty.

    The private sector is already carrying the costs. Every dollar of government funding for welfare is derived from the private sector through taxation. Only by reducing poverty do we reduce the costs necessary to mitigate poverty. Poverty reduces American competitiveness and the costs of poverty are always imposed one way or another on the private sector. By not imposing the costs directly on the enterprise for the working poor we actually increase the costs to society because of "frictional loss" as the money changes hands from the enterprise, to the employee that pays taxes, to the government, and finally to the working person that requires the financial assistance. If the money goes directly from the enterprise to the worker all of the "frictional costs" are eliminated. Instead of providing the "dollar" directly to the worker the frictional costs of the transfer of the money between numerous entities the final cost can be double that.

    You actually express the real problem. The employer doesn't care if their under-compensation to their employees requires the employee to obtain government welfare assistance that costs the taxpayers of America over $500 billion annually so long as they can drive that new Mercedes. They don't care if their business plan sucks so that their employees don't generate enough income to the enterprise so that the employees can be paid a liveable wage as long as they can eat lobster and fly off to Hawaii for their annual vacation. The frigging employers simply don't care as long as they live the life of luxury. It's all about the personal greed of the employer that simply doesn't give a damn about the consequences of their incompetence as business managers. As long as they personally profit then "To hell with everyone else."

    A good question. In the 1960's, prior to the age of ATM's, if you wanted cash from your bank account you had to go to the bank to get it and a teller handled that transaction. Back then, as I recall, there were about 8 tellers at the Bank of America branch I used. Today when I go into the bank there's probably two tellers. Anecdotally we could say that ATM's have reduced the number of tellers required by 75%. Of course there are just as many people per capita seeking work as bank tellers so the compensation for bank tellers has also declined based upon the supply and demand for labor to fill the position of bank teller.

    We could also "do the math" related to the number of bank teller jobs lost due to ATM's. If it takes one minute for a bank teller to handle a transaction then every 60 ATM transactions eliminates one bank teller job.

    In point of fact artificial intelligence and technology can eliminate virtually all jobs and there lies a problem that few are willing to address. I've read that artificial intelligence will know more that all of the accumulated knowledge of mankind by about 2045 and a robot can do virtually anything a person can do. Eventually virtually every job, with the possible exception of the artist and the philosopher, can be replaced by a computer and a robot making human labor obsolete. The engineer, the doctor, and the lawyer can all be replaced by computers and robots. The burger-flipper and ditch digger jobs are already being replaced by robots and computers. Even the US military is transitioning from human combat forces to robots and drones and the law enforcement officer can also be replaced.

    So what are we going to do when we have 150-200 million households where the people need a job but all of the work being done is by robot and computer and there are no jobs for anyone? Our economy relies on human labor but human labor is becoming obsolete as computers and robots are removing jobs at an alarming rate. We've seen that in manufacturing but it's spread far beyond the manufacturing sector. As you pointed out even the bank teller job has all but disappeared in America today.

    I was actually involved as a contractor on the 787 program and you fail to mention one important factor. The 787 has been plagued with problems in design, manufacture and supply. Of course Boeing is also paying more by contracting out the work as opposed to doing the work itself. I was involved in the re-design and re-manufacture of 787 transportation tooling where the original contractor failed completely and produced very expensive pieces of junk. Boeing had to pay over twice as much for that tooling than it would have paid if it did the work in-house and the delays caused to production were extensive.

    Remember that every one of those contracted entities also has to pay the costs of operation as well as making a profit and Boeing's customers pay for all of the costs plus the profit to every one of these enterprises. So where are the savings? The savings are found in the artificial intelligence and technology that has reduced the human labor required to design and build the 787. In short the savings are a result of reduced employement and compensation.

    No, all wages do not need to increase proportionately. As a business owner the cost of compensation is the same regardless of whether I have three employees where one is paid $10/hr, one $20/hr and one $30/hr or if I pay one $15/hr, one $20/hr, and one $25/hr because the average cost will be $20/hr in both cases. The employer, not the employee, establishes the compensation levels and with fewer jobs in virtually all professions than the number of people qualified and willing to work in those professions the employer can pretty much dictate whatever wages they want today.

    If the minimum wage increases then the logical response by the employer is to flatten the compensation across all levels of employment to maintain the same average compensation for the enterprise. Or, of course, the owner of the enterprise can also change the business plan to increase gross sales and/or to improve the results of the tasks assigned to the employee (e.g. eliminate non-value-added tasks).

    Insisting on human rights in other nations is not a protectionist economy nor does it advocate economic isolationism.

    Yes, I believe if there is a demand for a product that isn't obtained from a foreign source that the US is fully capable of producing that product. Most of our clothing, for example, is produced overseas today but to believe that the US can't re-establish the garment industry in America is absurd. Americans are just as capable of making a pair of pants as someone in China.

    Owners of enterprise, as was pointed out, don't give a damn about the safety or welfare of the workers so long as they can buy a new Mercedes, eat lobster, and vacation in Hawaii. Greed is more important than human beings in society and therein lies the problem.

    But all of this is nothing but details and I would address the foundation for my beliefs in the following post.
     
  9. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As a libertarian I find myself mid-way between the economic philosophies of the right and the left.

    The right supports a belief that the economy is really about unlimited wealth for the wealthy. It's solely about greed where the few profit at the expense of the many.

    The left supports a belief that takes the wealth of the wealthy to provide for the masses. It about forced "altruism" where the government takes from the greedy and gives it to the poor.

    I find myself in the middle based upon John Locke's arguments for the "natural (inalienable) right of property" where a person's labor provides for their basic support and comfort and where unlimited wealth represents the violation of the "natural (inalienable) right of property" of the people as a whole. For me a person should always be able to provide for their basic support and comfort with their labor. An employer, by the very act of employment, is responsble for ensuring that all of their employees have compensation (wages and benefits) that provide for the basic support and comfort of the employee.

    The employee is responsible for performing the tasks assigned and the employer is responsible for ensuring that those tasks provide enough revenue to the enterprise to provide for the "support and comfort" of the employee plus a little left over for the employer.

    I hold both the employee and the employer responsible in the employment contract as each has a different responsibility to fulfill.

    If both the employer and the employee fulfill their individual responsibilities then there is a mutually beneficial relationship and the enterprise is a success.
     
  10. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
     
  11. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No offense but I have no use for labels, like 'right' and 'left' and 'libertarian' and 'poverty' etc. For example, if all you know about me is that I'm OldManOnFire then you are required to keep an open mind when dealing with me. However, if I'm known as a 'liberal', then the mind becomes shut as the assumptions lay the ground work for who another 'thinks' I am...not only that I must be like all liberals but I must be like the liberals uniquely defined by the other person. This creates immediate conflict and division. If you have noticed over the years I refuse to discuss anything about labels. I just try to find the bottom line, the root, how this impacts most people, and what the potential for change might be.

    Regarding the wealthy, and the masses, and the poor, and profits, and corporations, and taxation, etc. how does each lead us to problem solve? Wealthy is relative to each person so this is meaningless. The masses are diverse so this is meaningless. Poor is subjective. Profits are necessary. Corporations are necessary. Taxation is necessary but everyone hates taxes. Etc.

    I always say we have three separate entities; Government, society, and the private economy. Of course they overlap but each has it's own mutually exclusive and conflicting goals. The private economy produces stuff, creates jobs, earns profits, pays taxes. The government is a service to society and the economy and collects taxes to pay for these services. Society is people and cultures, both of which want to participate in the economy, demand government services. Depending on one's needs and perspective, the priority of these three entities will change. One person demands jobs, another more business, another more profits, another affordable housing, another more government support, etc. to the extent we don't have any consensus to what truly benefits the collective we.

    One reason for a complete lack of consensus in the USA is our government is rudderless! No one knows the true goals and mission of the USA. If we don't know what it is we desire then it is unlikely we can achieve much to benefit the majority. Yet this very government is costing every man, woman and child in the USA about $12,500 per year! If perhaps 60-70% or more of working adults cannot afford to pay $12,500 per year in just federal taxation, what does this say about the government we have created? Go to 75 million working Americans earning at or below the median wage and tell them they owe $12,500 in federal taxes and they will jab out your eyes! Logic says if 90-100 million can't afford to fund the government they demand, then how can they be involved in an objective fashion when discussing how to improve the government...oh...one way is to talk about the wealthy and evil corporations who earn profits, etc.?

    IMO we are so far off path today, both individually and in government, that there is little that can be done about our ineptness! We lack goals and don't understand complex things and feel helpless yet we're supposed to come up with solid answers. Labels and politics can't help...
     
  12. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wealth (assets minus liabilities) is relative to each person but it always requires more income than necessary (involuntary) expenditures. While a person can spend more than is necessary, which results in negative wealth, no person can have wealth if they don't have enough income to cover the necessary expenditures. A person without enough income to fund necessary expenditures (involuntary financial obligations) can never be "wealthy" because they start out with more liabilities (involuntary financial obligations) than assets (income).

    This is where many from the Austrian School of Economics fail. They ignore the involuntary financial obligations, such as basic rent, utilities, food, medical care, transportation, retirement (a person can't work forever), and attempt to argue that these involuntary financial obligations are subjective but they're not. They're quantifiable expenditures which is why MIT was able to create the "living wage calculator" that I've provided a link to. If a person does not have enough income to fund the involuntary financial obligations then they always have "negative" wealth.

    So while we talk about "wealth" in general we're really talking about involuntary "negative wealth" v "positive wealth" in society.

    You mention "profit" and it's far more important than simply "enterprise profit" because the individual must also realize "profit" in their personal life. Profit has a real simpy criteria. It is income in excess of necessary expenditures. Even an enterprise can spend more than it earns and "waste" it's actual profits but if it has more income than basic expenditures (i.e. the actual cost of providing a product and/or service) then it is profiting. A person has the same criteria when it comes to "profit" from their labor. Either their labor provides enough income to meet their basic expenditures (i.e. the basic cost of living) or it doesn't. If their income exceeds the basic cost of living then they have a "profit" from their labor. If not then they are "operating at a loss" based upon their labor.

    My proposition is that both the enterprise and the employee must profit because it's wrong for one to profit while the other does not. Of paramount importance in this is that the owner of the enterprise is solely responsible for ensuring that both the enterprise and the employee "profit" from the products/services provided for by the enterprise. The employee's responsibility is limited to performing the tasks assigned to them by the employer.

    Of note "corporations" aren't really necessary. A corporation is merely a partnership, often with a lot of owners, where the owners (stockholders) of the enterprise are exempted by law from personal liability for the actions of the enterprise. Fundamentally our corporate laws allow the owners of an enterprise (the stockholders) to violate the rights of others through the actions of the company they own while not being held accountable. I find this an affront to the libertarian philosophy where people are held accountable for their actions that violate the rights of others.

    Yes, taxes are necessary but the taxes should be used for the defined purpose of government. The United States government is based upon the proposition that all people have (natural) inalienable rights and the primary purpose of government is to protect those rights. Unfortunately, when it comes to the natural (inalienable) right of property, best established by John Locke in his Second Treatise of Civil Government, Chapter 5, the United States government has never based our "laws of property" on the "natural right of property" as defined.

    So many instances of where this isn't happening can be cited that it would take a book to cover but let me just address one case. Under the "natural (inalienable) right of property" if a person doesn't literally use the land for their benefit which benefits society they lose the "right of property" to it. Every vacant lot that isn't being used no longer "belongs" to the person that holds title to the land. Every farm that is no longer farming the land belongs to the "common" and not the person that holds title to the land. Every "ranch" that no longer has cattle belongs to the "common" and not to the person that holds title to it.

    Our laws of property are based upon the "divine right of kings" and are not based upon the "natural (inalienable) right of property" and there in lies a huge problem that isn't being addressed. Our government is failing to protect our "natural (inalienable) right of property" in the United States today.

    So how does this relate to employment you might ask. Every person has a "natural (inalienable) right of property" based upon their labor and no other person has a right to their labor. That individual has the "natural (inalienable) right of property" to provide for their own "support and comfort" with their physical labor and if another person (i.e. an employer) wants to use that individual's labor for profit (i.e. employ the person) then they must ensure that the compensation they provide is enough to provide for the "support and comfort" of the employee. The employee has a right to that "support and comfort" based upon their labor that the "employer" has no right to their labor if they don't, as a minimum, ensure the basic support and comfort (i.e. provide enough compensation in wages and benefits to fund the involuntary expenditures of the worker).

    Bottom line, for me, inadequate compensation is a violation of the "natural (inalienable) right of property" of the person and our government is mandated by charter to protect the inalienable rights of the person. I have no problem paying taxes to fund the protections of the Rights of the Person by our government.
     
  13. Deckel

    Deckel Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2014
    Messages:
    17,608
    Likes Received:
    2,043
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Inadequate compensation" is as worthless a phrase as "living wage". If compensation is not what was agreed upon, then it is inadequate. If compensation is not what you wish it were, then move along.
     
  14. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
     
  15. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This opinion reflect little consideration for reality so let's start by defining "living wage" because it's not a subjective opinion. A "living wage" represents the minimum compensation in wages and benefits to meet the involuntary expenditures necessary for a person to survive without external assistance (i.e. welfare). It is a quantifiable number as the MIT "Living Wage Calculator" ( http://livingwage.mit.edu/ ) reflects although I believe MIT omitted some mandatory expenditures as well as underestimating others.

    "Inadequate Compensation" is also quantifiable because it exists whenever the compensation (wages and benefits) don't meet the involuntary expenditures necessary for survival. Simply subtract the "living wage" from the "compensation" and if the result is negative then inadequate compensation exists.

    The claim that inadequate compensation only exists when the agreed upon (contracted) compensation is not met fails logically based upon the "law of contract" and that probably requires an explanation for those unfamiliar with the laws of contract.

    No person would logically open a business where the expectation was that it would always operate at a loss (i.e. have income less than necessary expenditures) but tens of millions of individuals do accept employment where their compensation is less than their necessary (involuntary) expenditures. Why is that is the question that needs to be asked.

    The answer is really very simple. Compensation is driven by "market forces" and so the compensation they receive is not voluntary for them but instead is imposed by the forces of the market. The "law of contract" establishes that if the contract is involuntary for a party to the contract because of force or coercion forces them to accept a condition then the contract is invalid. Market forces that require a person to accept employment for less than is necessary for them to survive on violates the law of contract and that's why tens of millions of people are working for less compensation than is necessary for them to fund their necessary and involuntary expenditures. They are being forced into "operating at a loss" that no business owner would ever logically do.

    Both the employer (owner) and the employee (worker) need to realize a "profit" from the contract. The contract must be mutually beneficial without any force or coercion existing for either party to the contract. If force or coercion exists where it forces either to operate at a loss then it's not a voluntary contract and is invalid under the laws of contract.
     
  16. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because the issue isn't "wealth" (i.e. more financial assets than liabilitie) but instead the issue is debt. Should any person be forced into debt?

    I'm reminded of the lyrics from an old song,

    "You load sixteen tons, what do you get
    Another day older and deeper in debt
    Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
    I owe my soul to the company store"


    This song was about the old coal mining towns where the miners were housed in company lodging, charged their monthly purchases at the company store, and then were paid in company script but their wages were never enough to pay for the necessary goods they purchased at the company store every month. They were "economic slaves" to the mining company and could never escape from that economic slavery.

    Tens of millions of American households are living in economic slavery because their jobs don't pay enough for them to live on. They are forced into debt because of the "market forces" that have driven compensation to below what is necessary for them to live on. They "owe their soul to the company store" and there is no escape for them just like the coal miners of old.

    So the discussion is not about wealth, it's really about debt. Should any working person be forced into debt by the "market" in our society.

    PS The miners eventually escaped this plight that the mining companies created by forming unions that could negotiate more than "market" wages and compensation. Today legislation has effectively destroyed the unions leaving no counter-acting force to the market in compensation. There is no escape for the tens of millions of workers that, because of market pressure, are forced into accepting compensation that drives them deeper and deeper into debt.
     
  17. Deckel

    Deckel Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2014
    Messages:
    17,608
    Likes Received:
    2,043
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So your proof is that you rely upon something that you admit is flawed? Market forces exist when people volunteer to work for a given wage. That we don't have millions of people starving to death in the street is evidence that the basis for these alleged living wages, which are wholly not uniform in the face of market uniformity throughout regions. To change wages would necessarily change the wage required because of the affect of wage changes on the underlying quantifiers as well. It is further impossible to extract "welfare" from the equation because the PPACA is a giant welfare program that forces people to buy insurance and receive subsidies at levels at and above the US median income.
     
  18. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This confuses "statutory title" that was established under the Divine Right of Kings with "right of property" as established by the writings of John Locke. Statutory title establishes "ownership" but not a "right of ownership" of property. Never confuse a "right" with a "law" because they aren't necessarily the same. Many laws, such as our statutory laws of property, often violate the natural (inalienable) rights of the person.
     
  19. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is NO SOLUTION whatsoever to solve your problem of "Tens of millions of American households are living in economic slavery because their jobs don't pay enough for them to live on.". You can contrive political solutions, and ideological solutions, but there are no real life solutions for this problem! The ONLY thing that can be done is for people to live within their means no matter what their means might be. To not live within one's means is arrogance and stupidity and entitlement! If one does not like the level of their means then they need to take steps to increase their means.

    Unions and forcing higher wages has only exacerbated the need for business to seek lower cost labor and materials. Unions and their members think they can force this but over time if the higher cost of doing business is untenable the business will seek alternatives.

    Debt is created by conscious decisions by the consumer. Some debt is necessary in emergency situations, however, debt must be minimized or removed and not used as SOP. People must live within their means...this could not be any more simple...
     
  20. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Never confuse ideology with laws...no matter what you think, no matter what I think, no matter what others think, the laws we have in the books are the laws which govern this nation. In our economic system today, both in the USA and across the world, we must pay for whatever it is we need. How we get our money, and how much we get, and how we spend it, is 100% up to each of us...and we are not entitled to anything that we cannot afford...
     
  21. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Rent, food, clothing, utility bills (e.g, electricity, water, sewer, ect.), transportation expenses, health care, and even retirement planning all represent "debt" and not just loans and/or credit card balances. There are daily, monthly, annual, and lifetime mandatory expenditures that all represent "debt" and while this debt can be minimized that only goes so far. Yes, a person can eat Top Ramen for a single meal reducing food costs but they can't survive eating Top Ramen alone. There is a basic cost for enough food to live on and that is an involuntary expenditure (debt) and not voluntary debt. A person can live in the least expensive apartment they can find and that is an involuntary expenditure (debt) and not voluntary debt. When we address the "minimum cost of living" we're addressing the "involuntary expenditures" (debt) that a person must fund with the compensation from employment. It is not a question of choice but instead is a matter of necessity.

    In disparaging unions you ignore economic history. The per capita membership in unions peaked in the early 1950's while total membership in unions peaked in 1979 and that corresponds to the vast growth of the middle class in America. Business was basically booming and people were getting ahead financially as they moved up the economic ladder. So what changed since then that has resulted in the decline of the middle class and the dramatic increase in poverty in the United State?

    Well, we had the union busting legislation that started in the 1970's and by the 1980's it began to take it's toll. Union membership declined and the influence of organized labor on compensation, counter-acting the market influences that push compensation down, diminished. Additionally we established government policies of "trickle-down economics" where more of the wealth was being funneled to the very wealthy in the false belief that this would result in the economic growth of low and middle income households. History has shown that both of these factors contributed to a decline in the middle class and an increase in income inequality between the wealthy and the rest of Americans.

    One of the organizations most critical of unions is the right-wing (Austrian School) CATO Institute and it misleads people in it's arguments.

    First of all it bases conclusions on "all labor being unionized" when that was never the case, is not the case, nor will it ever be the case.

    In reality unions have a postive influence on not just the compensation for the union shops but also for the non-union shops. I worked for Northrop on the B-2 bomber and (at least at the time) it was a non-union shop while it's competitors, Lockheed and Boeing, were union shops. Northrop ensured that it would remain non-union by offering compensation equalt to or superior to the compensation offered by Boeing and Lockheed. The union shops at Boeing and Lockheed increased the compensation package at Northrop, a non-union shop.

    Next is the false belief, propagated by the CATO Institute, that unions want to "bust the bank" or "kill the golden goose" by unreasonable demands for compensation. A union is very concerned about ensuring that the enterprise remains highly competitive. If the enterprise isn't competitive then it results in a loss of union jobs as the business moves to the non-union competitors. No union is going to demand compensation that decreases the competifiveness of the enterprise because it's against the best interests of the union. They're just as concerned with the "bottom line" as the owners of the enterprise. What unions seek is a more equitable distribution of the revenue that the enterprise generates, Nothing less and nothing more. Unions do not harm the economy or the competitiveness of the enterprise and that is a false belief propagated by right-wing (Austrian School) economists like those at the CATO Institute.

    In truth unions improve the ecomony because the increased compensation, fully within the ability of the enterprise to fund, increases consumption because the union workers have more income and increased consumption improves the economy. History documents this based upon the growth of the economy between the 1950's and the 1970's. Think about it. The last time we really had GDP growth of over 4% was during the LBJ years of the late 1960's when the unions were basically at their peak in influencing the US economy.

    Of course we can do something about the income inequality that's generating an increase in poverty in the United States. Simply raising the minimum wage takes money from the wealthy, that statistically have too much income today, and distributes it to the workers that are actually generating the income for the wealthy. Does it mean that the wealthy would have a reduced slice of the economic pie? Absolutely but they're still going be raking in trillions of dollars in profits even if there are no price changes because of higher compensation costs. Instead of the very wealthy 1% receiving 20% to 30% of all income they might only receive 10% to 15% of all income but they already have far more wealth than they could ever rationally use.

    A higher minimum wage is not "re-distribution of wealth" where it's taken from the wealthy but instead reflects "fair distribution of the wealth" that is being created by the workers while to owners don't create any wealth. Of course there are "owner/workers" but as workers they're not entitled to any more income than an employee that would perform the same tasks for the enterprise.

    A last point that many seem to ignore. Many claim that productivity needs to increase if higher compensation is to be paid without increasing prices but they ignore the fact that productivity has already increased without a corresponding increase in compensation since the 1970's. Increasing compensation today is merely paying for the past increases in the productivity. It was the increase in worker productivity without equitable compensation since the 1970's that has lead to the increase in income inequality today. More net revenue based upon productivity increases but that revenue went to the owners and not to those responsible for the increased productivity.
     
  22. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't make that mistake but that doesn't imply we should be ignorant. Our laws of property in the United States are based upon the economic ideology of the "Divine Right of Kings" and an economy based upon the "Divine Right of Kings" is an economy based upon theft.

    As a libertarian I inherently oppose theft as the foundation for the laws of property.
     
  23. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When two parties engage in a trade, neither party has any obligation other than to deliver his side of the trade. Nobody owes his neighbor a living.
     
  24. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    20,296
    Likes Received:
    7,744
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You would have to not allow offshoring, by taking away free access to our markets for those that offshore. The offshored companies now have to have access to our markets for they do not pay their workers enough in those places to buy what they are making.

    And then there is the inconvenient fact, that the only way a nation can employ the max number of its own people is to allow those people to make what they consume in goods and services, for every job we have in the private sector is making or supplying goods and services. And when you do not allow your own people to make what they consume, you will have high levels of unemployment. This drives up debt from social safety net spending which cannot be sustained. But if you do not feed the displaced people society implodes. And of course our brilliant politicians to allowed offshoring were unable to think long term. Kinda makes them idiots. Or guilty of treason.
     
  25. Sir Thaddeus

    Sir Thaddeus Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2008
    Messages:
    5,302
    Likes Received:
    91
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Can you provide one example where, over time and considering opportunity costs, an artificial pricing mechanism has been more adequate in the creation of real wealth than a natural one?
     

Share This Page