What does it mean to be paid "what your worth"?

[EconGuy]

Could you state the question that no one is answering more clearly?

There have been a number of answers I have yet to review after your response, but the question I'm asking is simple, if people are "paid what their worth" as opposed to simply setting something like a minimum pay for social reasons, how would you determine the value of a persons work product.

For myself, I don't think that the vast majority of people at the lowest income levels are pai4d what their worth because I think other factors come into play.

don't know what "rhino" means as you are using it.

I'm not aware I ever used this term unless my phone auto corrected and I didn't proofread.

 

[Stevicus]

If you hire someone to do a job, they have value because they can do that job. (It's why you hired them.) And they deserve a livable wage in return for doing it. Any business that cannot pay all the people engaged in it a living wage or better is a failed business enterprise and should not be engaged in.

Every human being that provides their labor deserves to be provided a livable wage in return. Otherwise the enterprise they are laboring at is not worth the effort. We humans need to stop wasting our efforts at tasks that only make a few people rich while keeping other in poverty. By definition these are failed and exploitive enterprises that do not serve humanity, but only the greed of a few.

This, I think, is the most salient point here. The bottom line is that, at least in the Western world (particularly over the past 70-80 years), we have recognized that all human beings have rights and that all human life has value. They are not machines nor commodities to be bought and sold in the marketplace where their "value" is determined subjectively and arbitrarily. This is non-negotiable, and it's not something that can be argued within the framework of economics. It's a human rights issue. It's a moral issue.

Of course, if society moves in a certain direction, we might end up reverting back to more primitive ways of doing things - like we did back in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Some political factions seem to hint at previous times in our history when we were "great" (but not because of our human rights record). That's the main problem here, even if we discount the billions in the world living in poverty and the rage against organized thieves keeping countless billions in offshore accounts. Even if there are those who want to be hard-nosed about it and say "business is business" and see it as "just" in an amoral, "natural" sense - like the lion devouring its prey - there will still be negative consequences for embracing that kind of mindset. We've already seen it before in history.

 

[EconGuy]

Experience
Education
Position worked
How much you were paid at previous jobs
Ability to market one's self and negotiation skills
Ability to socialize
Ability to grasp concepts
Intelligence
Emotional intelligence
Whether you have a skill others don't or know some machine others can't operate (that can sometimes factor into raises, I think)
Etc.

So yeah, I'm going out on a limb and taking the stance there are criteria.

Decent list, I'll only take issue with one of them. I asked the value of a persons productivity. So for instance if the job in question was to carry bricks. How does my ability to negotiate affect my value to the business? In other words, of there were two people who in any reasonable metric carried about the same amount of bricks in a day, how would their ability negotiate make them more valuable?

In fact, your example leads to an interesting question.

Let's say one person is paid $10hr to carry bricks and the other $8hr. Would you say the person making $8hr is a bad negotiator or the person making $10 is a good negotiator?

If the person making $8 is a bad negotiator, then the owner of the business is stealing his value (assuming the owner keeps the value as increased profit for himself.

I'm arguing that negotiating is a skill that is used to determine how much you will get paid, but if thousands of people are equal in their ability to carry bricks, their output and work product are the same, but the amount they are paid are different. So then, it can't really be said that people are paid what they are worth, rather people are paid whatever they can get, right?

And, your list is good one, as I said, I might be able to think of a few more, but just using your list, if two people carried the same amount of bricks, how much do you think those things on your list would come into play?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Average CEO pay is $178,000 per year; and much of that is bonus by the company reaching certain goals. Though a lot of money, it is nowhere near the average NFL pay of nearly $3 million.

Top Executives

Top executives plan strategies and policies to ensure that an organization meets its goals.

www.bls.gov

I was talking in terms of generating money for the company.

 

[SalixIncendium]

So, my question to those who believe that minimum wages can result in paying people more than their worth, can you enlighten me, how is the value of a persons work determined?

As a soon-to-be former employer, one's work is based on the position one is applying for, their experience in that position, and their employment history.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Decent list, I'll only take issue with one of them. I asked the value of a persons productivity. So for instance if the job in question was to carry bricks. How does my ability to negotiate affect my value to the business?

It doesn't affect your actual value really, it affects the perception of your value.

Let's say one person is paid $10hr to carry bricks and the other $8hr. Would you say the person making $8hr is a bad negotiator or the person making $10 is a good negotiator?

That could be. Or there could be other reasons, too. After all, I posted a whole list.

I'm arguing that negotiating is a skill that is used to determine how much you will get paid, but if thousands of people are equal in their ability to carry bricks, their output and work product are the same, but the amount they are paid are different. So then, it can't really be said that people are paid what they are worth, rather people are paid whatever they can get, right?

I'll have to think about that. I do agree that saying people are paid "what they're worth" might need revised as a statement / definition.

And, your list is good one, as I said, I might be able to think of a few more, but just using your list, if two people carried the same amount of bricks, how much do you think those things on your list would come into play?

I honestly think they would come into play to some pretty decent extent.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

As a soon-to-be former employer, one's work is based on the position one is applying for, their experience in that position, and their employment history.

There was one job I worked where they did it a bit differently than that. They have a list of things they look for. One item on that list, for example, was whether the person being interviewed noted that they had previous experience with such a position. Anyway, you needed 2 things from the long list in order to get hired there. And if you had 3 or more things from the list, which didn't happen too often, they could pay you a few more dollars an hour.

 

[EconGuy]

As a soon-to-be former employer, one's work is based on the position one is applying for, their experience in that position, and their employment history.

So then, do you think that people who are equally capable should be paid the same amount? And if one is being paid less (because let's be honest, employers don't overpay, generally speaking), is that person having their productivity stolen?

 

[Kfox]

I was talking in terms of generating money for the company.

I remember the public outrage a few years back when CEO's would run the company into the ground, then leave the company with the millions he negotiated upon hire (golden parachute). After that it became popular to have much of CEO pay based on performance; giving bonuses when they meet certain objectives and goals.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I remember the public outrage a few years back when CEO's would run the company into the ground, then leave the company with the millions he negotiated upon hire (golden parachute). After that it became popular to have much of CEO pay based on performance; giving bonuses when they meet certain objectives and goals.

True. But I'd say that some companies still haven't learned about that.

 

[SalixIncendium]

So then, do you think that people who are equally capable should be paid the same amount?

Only if they perform equally.

And if one is being paid less (because let's be honest, employers don't overpay, generally speaking), is that person having their productivity stolen?

Not if that person is an underperformer.

 

[Alien826]

I'm not aware I ever used this term [rhino] unless my phone auto corrected and I didn't proofread.

I assumed it was a typo, but it made me think about any possible meaning other than a slang term for rhinoceros. The only example I could come up with (without googling it) was a long ago slang term for "money". My father used to sing this silly song ....

Where does the rhinoceros (pronounce rhino-sos-erus) get his r-h-i-n-o)?
Why does the hippopotamus never lay an egg like the ostrich does?
Why does the camel growl and grunt, and who plays the dromedary's drum?
And why does the baby elephant have one tail behind and another one at the front?

He had a large connection of silly songs like that. He's long gone, but my sister thinks they were music hall songs.

 

[Kfox]

Decent list, I'll only take issue with one of them. I asked the value of a persons productivity. So for instance if the job in question was to carry bricks. How does my ability to negotiate affect my value to the business? In other words, of there were two people who in any reasonable metric carried about the same amount of bricks in a day, how would their ability negotiate make them more valuable?

Your ability to negotiate has no effect on your value to the business, it only convinces the employer of your value to the business.

In fact, your example leads to an interesting question.

Let's say one person is paid $10hr to carry bricks and the other $8hr. Would you say the person making $8hr is a bad negotiator or the person making $10 is a good negotiator?

If the person making $8 is a bad negotiator, then the owner of the business is stealing his value (assuming the owner keeps the value as increased profit for himself.

Or….. think of it this way; perhaps the ability to carry bricks is only worth $5 but nobody is willing to carry bricks for $5 so the owner has to pay $8 or even $10 just to get somebody to do the work! Are these people stealing from the business owner?

 

[Kfox]

So then, do you think that people who are equally capable should be paid the same amount? And if one is being paid less (because let's be honest, employers don't overpay, generally speaking), is that person having their productivity stolen?

If I agree to give you something, by definition; you did not steal it.

 

[Alien826]

This, I think, is the most salient point here. The bottom line is that, at least in the Western world (particularly over the past 70-80 years), we have recognized that all human beings have rights and that all human life has value. They are not machines nor commodities to be bought and sold in the marketplace where their "value" is determined subjectively and arbitrarily. This is non-negotiable, and it's not something that can be argued within the framework of economics. It's a human rights issue. It's a moral issue.

Of course, if society moves in a certain direction, we might end up reverting back to more primitive ways of doing things - like we did back in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Some political factions seem to hint at previous times in our history when we were "great" (but not because of our human rights record). That's the main problem here, even if we discount the billions in the world living in poverty and the rage against organized thieves keeping countless billions in offshore accounts. Even if there are those who want to be hard-nosed about it and say "business is business" and see it as "just" in an amoral, "natural" sense - like the lion devouring its prey - there will still be negative consequences for embracing that kind of mindset. We've already seen it before in history.

I read through to the end, planning to post something like this. I can't say it better, so I'll just say I agree totally.

I'll ask you what you think about this though. As machines do more and more of our work for us, eventually there will come a time when most jobs simply aren't needed. How will we handle this? The current form of capitalism won't work, as a few people will own the machines and the the rest of us will be unemployed. Who will have money to buy the products that the machines produce? My feeling is that we should simply give the stuff to everyone, and the first thing that will have to go is the "protestant work ethic".

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I read through to the end, planning to post something like this. I can't say it better, so I'll just say I agree totally.

I'll ask you what you think about this though. As machines do more and more of our work for us, eventually there will come a time when most jobs simply aren't needed. How will we handle this? The current form of capitalism won't work, as a few people will own the machines and the the rest of us will be unemployed. Who will have money to buy the products that the machines produce? My feeling is that we should simply give the stuff to everyone, and the first thing that will have to go is the "protestant work ethic".

I definitely see there being a point where Universal Basic Income may be both needed and practical.

 

[Kfox]

A few years back, I started a similar thread asking if anyone could justify the "worth" of CEOs, considering how much they make - even in cases where the company is losing money. I couldn't really get much of an answer from anyone. I wanted someone to show me a mathematical equation, showing their work, justifying CEO salaries and the disparity between the front line employees.

Sounds like you were looking for an objective answer to a question based on subjectivity. Everybody thinks they are being under paid....... except for the guy paying them; who thinks they are over paid.

 

[Stevicus]

Sounds like you were looking for an objective answer to a question based on subjectivity. Everybody thinks they are being under paid....... except for the guy paying them; who thinks they are over paid.

I was looking for capitalists to support their insinuations that economics is an exact science just like mathematics.

 

[Alien826]

Sounds like you were looking for an objective answer to a question based on subjectivity. Everybody thinks they are being under paid....... except for the guy paying them; who thinks they are over paid.

I'd like to see a rule where the person paying the wages is forced to live on that amount of money for a month or so, and no using existing possessions.

Quite impractical of course.

 

[Stevicus]

I read through to the end, planning to post something like this. I can't say it better, so I'll just say I agree totally.

I'll ask you what you think about this though. As machines do more and more of our work for us, eventually there will come a time when most jobs simply aren't needed. How will we handle this? The current form of capitalism won't work, as a few people will own the machines and the the rest of us will be unemployed. Who will have money to buy the products that the machines produce? My feeling is that we should simply give the stuff to everyone, and the first thing that will have to go is the "protestant work ethic".

I think if machines can produce everything needed for humans to survive, then I can't see any reason why people would need to work. The machines would have to be owned collectively, of course.