Originally posted by Sleepyguy
Originally posted by bill718
[b]Does that include the 7 and 8 figure a year CEO's...

Yes, of course.

or is that something we're not supposed to discuss?

Knock yourself out. Explain how mandating a certain wage, for a CEO or otherwise, increases the actual value of a person's labor to the employer.[/b]

You're missing the point here. I don't give a hoot what the CEO's make, the point is if these multi billion dollar companies can afford these massive executive wages, they can afford to pay their minimum wage folks a few more dollars an hour. It's sickening to watch some PR lacky on TV from a fortune 500 company crying boo hoo hoo, whenever a bunch of minimum wage employees ask for a small raise. Get it? Duhhhh. 😴

Originally posted by bill718
You're missing the point here. I don't give a hoot what the CEO's make, the point is if these multi billion dollar companies can afford these massive executive wages, they can afford to pay their minimum wage folks a few more dollars an hour. It's sickening to watch some PR lacky on TV from a fortune 500 company crying boo hoo hoo, whenever a bunch of minimum wage employees ask for a small raise. Get it? Duhhhh. 😴

And what about the small businesses Bill? If your argument were just that some CEO's are overpaid I'd agree. But what about the mom and pops where there is no rich fat cat for you to hate on?

Originally posted by bill718
You're missing the point here. I don't give a hoot what the CEO's make, the point is if these multi billion dollar companies can afford these massive executive wages, they can afford to pay their minimum wage folks a few more dollars an hour. It's sickening to watch some PR lacky on TV from a fortune 500 company crying boo hoo hoo, whenever a bunch of minimum wage employees ask for a small raise. Get it? Duhhhh. 😴

Wages are not set by what the employer can afford to pay but by what the service that the employee offers are worth to the employer. You can rail against and hate on that cold hard fact all you like, but you aren't going to change it.

Originally posted by sh76
Wages are not set by what the employer can afford to pay but by what the service that the employee offers are worth to the employer. You can rail against and hate on that cold hard fact all you like, but you aren't going to change it.

Right you are, it's so much easier to hide behind industry stats, than to do what's right. We'll just blame their poverty for not working hard enough. I've got mine, to hell with them. That's's the American way. By God, old Ronnie Reagan would be so proud! 😏

Originally posted by sh76
Wages are not set by what the employer can afford to pay but by what the service that the employee offers are worth to the employer. You can rail against and hate on that cold hard fact all you like, but you aren't going to change it.

Very rarely can an employer make an accurate assessment of an employee's productivity. In certain small businesses, maybe.

Originally posted by sh76
Wages are not set by what the employer can afford to pay but by what the service that the employee offers are worth to the employer. You can rail against and hate on that cold hard fact all you like, but you aren't going to change it.

Yes even if that service is nothing more than being one of the good old boys.

Originally posted by sh76
Wages are not set by what the employer can afford to pay but by what the service that the employee offers are worth to the employer. You can rail against and hate on that cold hard fact all you like, but you aren't going to change it.

That is false. It is true that a wise employer will not set an employees wages higher than what that employees service is worth, (or he will make a loss), but in general an employer wants to make a profit, so he will set wages as low as he possibly can without causing the employee to leave or his services to suffer beyond what the employer is willing to accept.

Whether or not an employee will leave has to do with supply and demand ie what other jobs might be on offer. Wages in different countries for the exact same services are often wildly different. This is often related to things like the strength of unions and other collective action or the availability of other high paying jobs.
Even within countries there are differences. For example in the US where there is booming oil or gas business, even the bartenders are paid more because if they are not, they will change jobs.

In general there is a very weak relationship between what an employees services are worth and what he actually gets paid.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That is false. It is true that a wise employer will not set an employees wages higher than what that employees service is worth, (or he will make a loss), but in general an employer wants to make a profit, so he will set wages as low as he possibly can without causing the employee to leave or his services to suffer beyond what the employer is willing to a ...[text shortened]... y weak relationship between what an employees services are worth and what he actually gets paid.

Yes of course, there are the two sides what an employee is worth to an employer and what an employer is worth to an employee. I don't believe 'strength of unions' is a factor, extremely militant unions may drive up the price of labor but only temporarily until the market takes over and the high paying jobs start disappearing, it's happening right now in Aus,

Originally posted by Wajoma
I don't believe 'strength of unions' is a factor, extremely militant unions may drive up the price of labor but only temporarily until the market takes over and the high paying jobs start disappearing, it's happening right now in Aus,

Well maybe Aus's unions are weakening. The fact remains that Aus used to have strong unions and it did drive up the wages.
Here in SA we have strong unions and wages are significantly higher as a result. There are major strikes here every single year.
You say 'the market takes over' but 'the market' is determined by the prevailing wages and the strength of the unions. It is a fact that there is no perfect 'market price' for labour.
In fact it is common practice here in SA to keep wages secret and pay employees what they think they are worth. That way you can pay some employees far less than others simply because they don't demand as much.
Wages are negotiated - and unions aid in that negotiation very significantly.

The fact remains that the value of an employees services has very little to do with an employee's wages. In fact it is usually the case that wages increase with seniority, (in management) and this has more to do with the fact that management decide the wages than any real value in their services.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That is false. It is true that a wise employer will not set an employees wages higher than what that employees service is worth, (or he will make a loss), but in general an employer wants to make a profit, so he will set wages as low as he possibly can without causing the employee to leave or his services to suffer beyond what the employer is willing to a ...[text shortened]... y weak relationship between what an employees services are worth and what he actually gets paid.

I meant what the employee's services are worth to the employer, not in a vacuum of course. I mean it in the same sense that you'll buy a car for what it's worth to you. Of course you'd love to find a deal and pay much less than it's worth to you, but there are market forces (i.e., the profit motive of the seller) driving the car's price higher to counteract the market forces that drive the prices lower (i.e., competition and the desire of the consumer to get a good deal). The same basic principles apply to wages. Supply, demand and market forces dictate the price of labor just as they dictate any other commodity.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Very rarely can an employer make an accurate assessment of an employee's productivity. In certain small businesses, maybe.

The individual employer can't make the assessment, but the market does. The market sets the going rate for everything, including labor.

Sure government fiat can (and should) regulate the price of labor to some extent, but fundamentally, wages are going to be set by the market, not by some high minded morality of what they ought to be paid.

Originally posted by bill718
Does that include the 7 and 8 figure a year CEO's...or is that something we're not supposed to discuss?? 🙄

If you were qualified to lead a multinational corporation, would you not try to bargain for the largest payoff you could negotiate?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well maybe Aus's unions are weakening. The fact remains that Aus used to have strong unions and it did drive up the wages.
Here in SA we have strong unions and wages are significantly higher as a result. There are major strikes here every single year.
You say 'the market takes over' but 'the market' is determined by the prevailing wages and the strength ...[text shortened]... more to do with the fact that management decide the wages than any real value in their services.

The main strength of Unions is that by their relationship with government, they can bargain from a position of strength which at times in entirely extralegal, and immoral.

I have no problem with the idea of withholding labor (striking), so long as the other party enjoys the same power (locking out employees). When government unbalances the bargaining, bad things happen. In the US, the domestic auto industry is made up of debt zombies, due to union wages and protections against termination so strong that government has repeatedly had to bail out the three survivors. During the same period, cars and trucks have outstripped everything except health care in inflationary increases in prices.

It was a boom time for many auto workers, who without education made huge money for their time. At the same time the auto manufacturers became "too big to fail", and many other workers fell behind the lead of those who benefited by government favoritism to unions.

Originally posted by sh76
The individual employer can't make the assessment, but the market does. The market sets the going rate for everything, including labor.

Sure government fiat can (and should) regulate the price of labor to some extent, but fundamentally, wages are going to be set by the market, not by some high minded morality of what they ought to be paid.

I profoundly disagree. If the individual employers can't judge, nobody can. The smaller and simpler the operation, the easier it is, but you can bet employers know who is pulling their weight.

If you employ paralegals in your practice, you pretty much know which ones are worth their paycheck.

In your second paragraph, "Sure government fiat can (and should) regulate the price of labor to some extent," this is wrong. At the bottom, it denies people the chance to bid lower to win work, and if wages at the top are limited it at some point has to limit incentive and opportunity for a few. If the rest of your statement is true, the government regulation is at best unnecessary, and at worst destructive.