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

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I suspect the answer some might offer is that is that the market determines the value of work.

Value means more than one thing. An economic definition of value is what an individual will trade for something. Your value to an employer is what he is willing to give you to work for him. Your value in the workplace is the highest compensation you can get. I'm thinking of athletes being paid astronomical salaries, and teachers getting almost nothing. One can generate tremendous revenue for the employer, and the other can't.

But another definition relates to importance. If we lost all of our teachers and all of our actors, which would cause the greatest harm? What are these people worth from this perspective. This disparity was accentuated during the pandemic by the use of the term essential worker, often applied to people with low salaries.

Why is the idea of the market determining the value of work problematic?

It's not to me, assuming that the market is properly regulated. Capitalism is a villain in the eyes of many these days, but I'm not one of them if there are laws to prevent exploitation of people and despoiling the land. Absent these, one gets robber baron or Dickensian capitalism, but the mid-20th century model in America created a prosperous middle class and a lot of valuable innovation.

 

[Audie]

Value means more than one thing. An economic definition of value is what an individual will trade for something. Your value to an employer is what he is willing to give you to work for him. Your value in the workplace is the highest compensation you can get. I'm thinking of athletes being paid astronomical salaries, and teachers getting almost nothing. One can generate tremendous revenue for the employer, and the other can't.

But another definition relates to importance. If we lost all of our teachers and all of our actors, which would cause the greatest harm? What are these people worth from this perspective. This disparity was accentuated during the pandemic by the use of the term essential worker, often applied to people with low salaries.

It's not to me, assuming that the market is properly regulated. Capitalism is a villain in the eyes of many these days, but I'm not one of them if there are laws to prevent exploitation of people and despoiling the land. Absent these, one gets robber baron or Dickensian capitalism, but the mid-20th century model in America created a prosperous middle class and a lot of valuable innovation.

Absent controls no system is going
to turn out well.

 

[Audie]

Value means more than one thing. An economic definition of value is what an individual will trade for something. Your value to an employer is what he is willing to give you to work for him. Your value in the workplace is the highest compensation you can get. I'm thinking of athletes being paid astronomical salaries, and teachers getting almost nothing. One can generate tremendous revenue for the employer, and the other can't.

But another definition relates to importance. If we lost all of our teachers and all of our actors, which would cause the greatest harm? What are these people worth from this perspective. This disparity was accentuated during the pandemic by the use of the term essential worker, often applied to people with low salaries.

It's not to me, assuming that the market is properly regulated. Capitalism is a villain in the eyes of many these days, but I'm not one of them if there are laws to prevent exploitation of people and despoiling the land. Absent these, one gets robber baron or Dickensian capitalism, but the mid-20th century model in America created a prosperous middle class and a lot of valuable innovation.

Absent controls no system is going
to turn out well

 

[Aupmanyav]

I suppose it must have been pointed out. Worth of a person means how much money he/she has.

 

[metis]

Either extreme should be avoided, imo, and each country has to try and figure out what works best for them while keeping the well-being of other countries in mind as well.

 

[Kfox]

If they are working over time then by definition they are not getting anything for free.

So under your system, these shares are a part of their pay? I remember many years ago I worked for a company that had a profit charing program; each year we would get a percentage of the profits the company made, (usually several weeks pay) But this company paid only $7.50 per hr where as the competitor who did not have a profit sharing program paid $9.50 per hr. I quit the job and went to the competitor that paid $9.50 without profit sharing because I needed a steady paycheck rather than one based on chance

it doesn't matter whether employees could raise enough to purchase 21%. It would change how businesses grow, and other shareholders could side with employees over company decisions.

Don’t cha think this might have an effect on who I choose to hire? If I have a auto repair shop that specializes in domestic cars, and I need a mechanic, I might be hesitant to hire a mechanic who likes working on high performance cars because he might one day vote to change my business to one that specializes in high performance cars even though the location of my business is not conducive to that type of specialty, and such a change could cause me to lose money or even go out of business; even if this guy is the most qualified for the job! Don’t cha think?

Under this scenario if they are fired it depends upon which state in the union they are in, because each state has different laws.

Why would such a person with no interest, or perhaps even hostile towards the business still have a say on how the business is run? Suppose the competitor hires this fired, hostile ex employee in order to get him to use his vote to destroy the company he used to work for? Do you really think allowing fired employees to continue control is a good idea?

If they quit they definitely lose their votes. The total vote, however, will not decrease. Therefore other employees will absorb the vote that is lost.

So the more people who gets hired, the less your vote will count? So the current employees will have a vested interest in nobody else getting hired; don’t cha think?

 

[Kfox]

Unfortunately human beings are still at a very low degree of awareness.

And I think that instead of going forward, darwinistically speaking, we are going backward.
Because in the Nineteenth century, Marx and Bakunin (but also Darwin) were imagining that in the 21st century (that is now) man would be so evolved that workforce would depend on human beings' inner value.

Don't assume because Darwins predictions remain untrue that we are somehow on the wrong path. Darwin had some good ideas, but he also had some bad ones.

Yet human beings are still commodified. Any living being is commodified.

Commodified by who?

 

[Kfox]

If that were true, than people with equal productivity doing the same job same number of years would earn the same amount, but that isn't always the case.

People are paid what the person hiring them subjectively THINK they are worth. That's why doing the same job, the same amount of years does not result in the same pay.

 

[Kfox]

It's not to me, assuming that the market is properly regulated. Capitalism is a villain in the eyes of many these days, but I'm not one of them if there are laws to prevent exploitation of people and despoiling the land.

I doubt there are any pure capitalistic economics existing. The US is actually a “mixed economy” even though many incorrectly call it capitalist. Most countries people call capitalist are either mixed economies or market economies.

 

[Audie]

People are paid what the person hiring them subjectively THINK they are worth. That's why doing the same job, the same amount of years does not result in the same pay.

And " worth" varies, a lot! An obnoxious
but expert worker, say.

I pay our maid twice the going rate.
She doesnt work twice as hard and well.

I see her worth in her self sacrificing
help to others -she sends 99 percent of
her money home to her family.

She will get a nice bonus when she leaves.

 

[Audie]

I doubt there are any pure capitalistic economics existing. The US is actually a “mixed economy” even though many incorrectly call it capitalist. Most countries people call capitalist are either mixed economies or market economies.

Never has been or could be the
" unbridled" capitalism our socialist
so love to rant about.

 

[EconGuy]

People are paid what the person hiring them subjectively THINK they are worth. That's why doing the same job, the same amount of years does not result in the same pay.

I agree, but would you agree that there are people who are paid less than others who have similar productivity? There are even cases where people who are more productive who are paid less than others, but that is more the exception than the norm.
|
That said, the point of this thread is attempting to disprove the notion that people are "paid what they are worth", rather people are paid what they can get. I'd agree that what you can get is determined by a number of internal and external factors, but if that's true, and I believe it is, then there are some legitimate factors (skill, attitude, punctuality, appearance, associations) that can increase what you can get and there are other factors that we might want to correct for like sex, race, disability. I would argue that exploiting people who are desperate is also another factor to correct for, but that has deeper societal implications.

 

[robocop (actually)]

If that were true, than people with equal productivity doing the same job same number of years would earn the same amount, but that isn't always the case. So people aren't paid what their worth, they are paid whatever they can get. And if that's true, and I think it is, there are some interesting implications.

Not what they're worth... what they think they're worth.

 

[Pete in Panama]

...the notion that people are "paid what they are worth"...

This is a fantasy.

There is no heavenly judge of what everyone's labor is worth. What does exist in real life is that someone can agree to trade labor for money --provided someone else agrees to PAY the amount for the labor. We call it a "wage" and it's all that exists; any talk about what the labor is "worth" is meaningless.

 

[Estro Felino]

Commodified by who?

By the élites who egoistically determine the citizens' present and future.

 

[Kfox]

I agree, but would you agree that there are people who are paid less than others who have similar productivity? There are even cases where people who are more productive who are paid less than others, but that is more the exception than the

There is no way to determine how productive, reliable, fair, honest, ability to follow instructions, etc. a person is until they have been hired. So the manager posts a job based on what he thinks the job is worth, and people can choose to apply for it or not.

That said, the point of this thread is attempting to disprove the notion that people are "paid what they are worth", rather people are paid what they can get. I'd agree that what you can get is determined by a number of internal and external factors, but if that's true, and I believe it is, then there are some legitimate factors (skill, attitude, punctuality, appearance, associations) that can increase what you can get and there are other factors that we might want to correct for like sex, race, disability. I would argue that exploiting people who are desperate is also another factor to correct for, but that has deeper societal implications.

What do you mean by exploiting someone who is desperate?

 

[Kfox]

By the élites who egoistically determine the citizens' present and future.

Who are some of these elites that you speak of?

 

[Estro Felino]

Who are some of these elites that you speak of?

Let's go straight to the top.

The Meeting at Jekyll Island

Explore the Federal Reserve's history

www.federalreservehistory.org

 

[Brickjectivity]

So under your system, these shares are a part of their pay?

No. Benefits.

If I have a auto repair shop that specializes in domestic cars, and I need a mechanic, I might be hesitant to hire a mechanic who likes working on high performance cars because he might one day vote to change my business to one that specializes in high performance cars

Oh I feel so sorry for you if you might have to take into consideration the ideas of people working many years for your company. How awful for you.

Why would such a person with no interest, or perhaps even hostile towards the business still have a say on how the business is run? Suppose the competitor hires this fired, hostile ex employee in order to get him to use his vote to destroy the company he used to work for? Do you really think allowing fired employees to continue control is a good idea?

No interest? Hostility? Such people are everywhere, and they sue all the time, but I think its a good idea for a person working long for a company to retain a relationship with that company and vice versa. I think it will be up to each state to determine whether fired people retain their vote and for how long. Probably it won't be for long outside of CA.

So the more people who gets hired, the less your vote will count? So the current employees will have a vested interest in nobody else getting hired; don’t cha think?

No, the more other workers stay on long term the less competitive your vote is relative to them. The employees do not start out with a vote. It grows over time as they prove their interest in the company by staying with it.

 

[Pete in Panama]

Let's go straight to the top.

The Meeting at Jekyll Island

Explore the Federal Reserve's history

www.federalreservehistory.org

Somehow it's hard for me to imagine that the Fed is determining my present and future.