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

[metis]

How does the government creating the system of wealth distribution create wealth?

Money moves around regardless of where it originated.

 

[EconGuy]

Your post sounds like you think the government keeps all the money.

The US Federal government doesn't have nor not have money.

Think about it like this. If you've ever been to Dave and Busters, you get a Power Card:

Where do the credits come from that they put on the cards? How many points does D&B have? If I had a card with 50,000 credits on it and I gave it back to D&B would D&B have anything they didn't already have?

If D&B put's credits on my card do they have to take those credits from someone else?

Government doesn't have not not have money, It has a capacity to spend that the ability to tax. There is a right amount for both once it is determined what it is as a society needs to be accomplished.

 

[EconGuy]

How does the government creating the system of wealth distribution create wealth?

Encouraging innovate by protecting inventions though patents, Limited Lability, regulating monopolies and the court system and the system of money and taxation. Without that, there would be less production. Do you disagree?

 

[Brickjectivity]

So the only value the stock has is the ability to vote, and that vote will never be a controlling percentage?

Yes, by itself. Therefore its real impact is to empower unions which the American public badly need.

I’m not saying the employee will intentionally run it into the ground, I’m saying employees are not managers and if given the ability to manage via voting, they will likely make bad decisions that they may think will be good ideas; resulting in bankruptcy. Then they gotta work, so they go elsewhere, and it all starts again with them trying to incorporate bad ideas that will never work and this new business gets in the same trouble as the last business.

Like the teamsters? They haven't killed UPS.

The reason bankruptcy has diddly to do with employees is because employees aren’t given the power you are suggesting they have. IMO, it’s hard enough to run a business as it is, we shouldn’t have a government that mandates policies that makes it even more difficult.

The hard part of running a business is getting started. The hard part of being a reliable employee is that companies have no loyalty and will gut you to save 5 cents. My plan is still in the idea phase, so thank you for your input. I hope that we can improve employee participation and interest in the welfare of companies. As it is shareholders have little or no reason to provide consistent employment, so they are not living up to their trickle down hype. This plan keeps the public supporting free enterprise, which is understandably losing political support as the boomers die. Doing nothing pushes us towards socialism.

 

[We Never Know]

Excellent example, but let's say there were three unemployed welders all capable of making the better of the two welds, but only 1 job remaining. Despite having several other welders in the business all paid $30hr for the better welds, if the last welder is paid $15 because there's only one job and three people. Is the last welder being paid what he's worth?

If not is the employer exploiting the welder?

If the welder can weld as good/better than the ones being paid $30, yes at $15 he is being underpaid IMO. Unless its a temp thing then the pay jumps up. Many jobs are that way.

Out of the three which one to pick if they all can weld equally.. I would go with most experience on that one.

 

[Kfox]

Yes, by itself. Therefore its real impact is to empower unions which the American public badly need.

Giving employees company stock doesn’t help Union membership; it may even hurt unions because unions are all about the workers even to the detriment of the company, giving workers company shares makes the workers more invested in the company

Like the teamsters? They haven't killed UPS.

Teamsters are a union they have nothing to do with management of companies

 

[Kfox]

Excellent example, but let's say there were three unemployed welders all capable of making the better of the two welds, but only 1 job remaining. Despite having several other welders in the business all paid $30hr for the better welds, if the last welder is paid $15 because there's only one job and three people. Is the last welder being paid what he's worth?

If not is the employer exploiting the welder?

When there are more workers than jobs available, the value of the workers goes down. When there are more jobs available than workers, the value of the worker goes up. In your scenario of more workers than jobs available, the welders are no longer worth $30 per hour so they are not being exploited when paid less

 

[EconGuy]

When there are more workers than jobs available, the value of the workers goes down.

Does the price of the good being sold go down too, or does more workers looking for fewer jobs just mean higher profits for owners?

If that's the case, it seems that the system is incentivized to create unemployment and exploitative.

When there are more jobs available than workers, the value of the worker goes up.

Which owners generally pass on to consumers.


Of course this is the system we have today, not the ideal of capitalism where more competitive markets are part of the system.

 

[robocop (actually)]

So this question usually comes up when discussing minimum wage. When people advocating increasing the wage some would argue that increasing the wage results in people being paid more than their worth.

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?

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

IMO that's problematic, but I'm curious what my fellow posters think.

It means the world will pay you largely what it thinks you are worth.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Giving employees company stock doesn’t help Union membership; it may even hurt unions because unions are all about the workers even to the detriment of the company, giving workers company shares makes the workers more invested in the company

First let me clarify that I say nothing about giving anything for free. I say they can earn a portion of voting control by working for their chosen company over time, and if they also purchase stock and combine their voting control with that of other employees they can have an oar among the many which steer the company. Rather than being detrimental this should stabilize companies and decrease turnover. Workers are part of business not a detriment any more than a contract is. Hiring someone should not be only for the purpose of benefiting the company but also for the purpose of benefiting the worker, or at least that is what every HR rep always claims. This plan allows for a new kind of union which need not rely upon strikes and which is interested in increasing overall compensation for all concerned. In addition a better paid worker is a better spender and a better customer, so this is good for the economy and for capitalist policies.

Teamsters are a union they have nothing to do with management of companies

You suggested that employees who could vote on company decisions would make bad decisions resulting in bankruptcy and then would go on to do the same at another company! That's actually the problem with shareholders and with certain CEO's. The teamsters are an example showing that workers seeking better compensation are not such a detriment to companies. Its the management that starts acting like a headless chicken which kills companies. Management gets stuck in doing things systematically and becomes unable to pivot, not just because the company is cash poor but because it gets stodgy. Workers are a company's eyes. They see what that headless chicken cannot. They also agitate for compensation and improvement, if they are allowed to. Usually they are not allowed to, and so the company keeps on doing what used to be profitable instead of what is.

 

[We Never Know]

Giving employees company stock doesn’t help Union membership; it may even hurt unions because unions are all about the workers even to the detriment of the company, giving workers company shares makes the workers more invested in the company

Teamsters are a union they have nothing to do with management of companies

Sadly IMO many people in the unions are over paid... paid more than they are worth.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Sadly IMO many people in the unions are over paid... paid more than they are worth.

Honestly, you might be right. However, it's kind of push-pull. I have seen jobs where the workers were treated poorly enough that a Union would have been beneficial.

 

[Kfox]

Does the price of the good being sold go down too, or does more workers looking for fewer jobs just mean higher profits for owners?

When wages are down, prices usually go down also because less people are able to afford products at current prices which usually result in an economic recession

 

[Stevicus]

Honestly, you might be right. However, it's kind of push-pull. I have seen jobs where the workers were treated poorly enough that a Union would have been beneficial.

I think unions - and the labor movement overall - were instrumental in bringing about many of the labor reforms which benefit all workers nowadays. Minimum wage laws, overtime, workmen's compensation, prohibitions on child labor, rules on worker safety - these were all non-existent before the rise of labor unions.

Of course, the right to form and organize labor unions was itself a hard-won right and did not come about automatically. I respect what they have done. But in more recent times, unions (or what used to be called "Big Labor") don't seem to have the same level of clout they once had. I remember the copper mine strikes here in Arizona - that was an ugly scene. One incident I recall was when a shot was fired into a home and killed the 4-year-old daughter of a supposed "scab" employee for the mines. Public opinion really turned against the miners at that point. The mining companies held strong, as they were already investing in mines in Mexico and Chile at that point. They didn't care.

Labor is cheaper overseas - a lot cheaper. It's so cheap that no U.S. citizen could survive on such meager wages.

One idea that appeals to me is that labor unions should be internationalized. If we have multi-national corporations, then we should be able to have multi-national labor unions. That should be a condition for any trade agreement we have with other countries. Worldwide labor unions operating on an international scale would have true bargaining power.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Sadly IMO many people in the unions are over paid... paid more than they are worth.

This thread started by asking how to determine what someone's worth was, and nobody was able to answer.

I worked as a temp at a partially unionized UPS. I saw how the union worked and how management interacted. With collective bargaining some will be probably worth less or more than others, yet all will get a similar compensation. This also happens without collective bargaining, since management chooses a target wage to aim everyone for. Again everyone gets about the same thing, yet some are worth less or more than others. The difference is that the target wage management chooses tends to be a lot less.

 

[We Never Know]

This thread started by asking how to determine what someone's worth was, and nobody was able to answer.

I worked as a temp at a partially unionized UPS. I saw how the union worked and how management interacted. With collective bargaining some will be probably worth less or more than others, yet all will get a similar compensation. This also happens without collective bargaining, since management chooses a target wage to aim everyone for. Again everyone gets about the same thing, yet some are worth less or more than others. The difference is that the target wage management chooses tends to be a lot less.

I gave a good example in post #92

 

[Kfox]

First let me clarify that I say nothing about giving anything for free. I say they can earn a portion of voting control by working for their chosen company over time,

If they are receiving these stock shares without having to pay for them, By definition, they’re getting them for free.

and if they also purchase stock and combine their voting control with that of other employees they can have an oar among the many which steer the company.

Under your scenario, what percentage of the voting stock should the company be required to give to employees? If it’s 30%, it is unlikely the employees could raise enough money to purchase 21% to add to their 30% in order to get a controlling ownership

You suggested that employees who could vote on company decisions would make bad decisions resulting in bankruptcy and then would go on to do the same at another company!

Not that they WOULD do this, just the possibility of this happening.

That's actually the problem with shareholders and with certain CEO's. The teamsters are an example showing that workers seeking better compensation are not such a detriment to companies.

I wasn’t talking about wages, or compensation, I was talking about the type of products the company produces. But that was also under the assumption that they could eventually gain a controlling share of stocks. You already said your scenario would have policies in place to make sure this would not allow this to happen.

Also under your scenario, I assume if someone quits or gets fired, they lose those shares; right?

 

[Brickjectivity]

If they are receiving these stock shares without having to pay for them, By definition, they’re getting them for free.

If they are working over time then by definition they are not getting anything for free. It is a matter of work, and the employees are not receiving dividends, either. Unless they are buying shares they are not getting any additional.

Under your scenario, what percentage of the voting stock should the company be required to give to employees? If it’s 30%, it is unlikely the employees could raise enough money to purchase 21% to add to their 30% in order to get a controlling ownership

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. The employees would become a factor. As I already have said: percentage to be determined but beginning at 0% and growing as employees spend time with the total employee control capped at some percentage maybe 30%. So we are talking about a slow increase in employee control as the business grows. It starts at zero, but by the time the business is very large they will have to be consulted about changes -- such as changes to their retirement plans.

I wasn’t talking about wages, or compensation, I was talking about the type of products the company produces. But that was also under the assumption that they could eventually gain a controlling share of stocks. You already said your scenario would have policies in place to make sure this would not allow this to happen.

Also under your scenario, I assume if someone quits or gets fired, they lose those shares; right?

Under this scenario if they are fired it depends upon which state in the union they are in, because each state has different laws. 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. The vote only increases over time until it reaches a cap, and employees with more time in hold a larger portion of that vote.

 

[Estro Felino]

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

 

[EconGuy]

It means the world will pay you largely what it thinks you are worth.

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.