First off I would like to state things which may make my opinion biased. While I am not at the bottom of the proverbial barrel, I'm still in the barrel. I live in an area of the US where the "middle class" is practically non-existent. The mass majority of my town lives in poverty, the minority live in mansions. That's all the bias I can think of, so buckle your brains in because here I go.
The modern day economic structure is more akin to feudalism than to free enterprise. The mass majority of people in this world work for someone else and recieve an extremely percentile of the gross revenue for it. I want you to really think about this. What percentage of your employers gross revenue (which they aquired from your efforts) do you think they actually give back to the labor force?
Let's create an imaginary situation everyone can understand. Let's pretend we're kids again. Our friend sets up a lemonade stand on the sidewalk. He asks you to run it for him he goes to get some more lemons. Let us say the stand is a hit. While he is gone you sell 100 glasses of lemonade at a $1 each. When he returns he gives you ten bucks for your troubles. How would you feel about your friends "generosity" ?
This is the way of the world. Employers provide the substance to make money. You utilize the resources to make money with your skills. The employer takes the vast amount of the net profit and gives you the crumbs. Why is this acceptable in our modern society?
I will pause here for comment. Much more rant to come. 😉
- Joined
- 20 Feb 02
- Moves
- 58336
Originally posted by OmnislashIt is acceptable for a number of reasons...
[b]The employer takes the vast amount of the net profit and gives you the crumbs. Why is this acceptable in our modern society? b]
You do the work of your own free will, you choose to work in this way for a wage rather than...
a) turining to crime
b) doing nothing and living off the state
c) setting up your own company and being the employer yourself.
d) entering the political arena to change the system
e) offer an alternative system that is viable
The emplyer would not be able to get the labour he needs to exploit his land, capital and enterprise unless...
a) he offered a wage people were willing to undertake the task for
b) offered equivalent conditions to other employers
c) showed he had the enterprise to put together land, labour and capital to make profit to emply his staff.
So I would say it does not always seem fair, but it is acceptable. That raises the point that an acceptable system is not necessarily a fair system - what is fair, and who it is fair to is a question of perspective.
If you were one of the fat cats I am sure your perspective would change, that is why people are generally left wing when they are younger and grow more right wing as they become older, have families, become richer and become more insular.
Anyway, just a different view, which in no way is any more wromg or right than yours since it is just a different perspective 😀
Andrew
i work in a bank. and am a lowly employee. its a public liability company. and we did really well last year. so all permanent staff got a big pay increase and bumper bonus and a % of annual salery as well...all last month - which is why i have not been around recently - was trying to figure out how to spend all my money!!😀
- Joined
- 26 May 02
- Moves
- 72546
I think your imaginary friend has been quite generous! How many kids get the chance to earn $10 for handing out a few glasses of lemonade?
On a more serious note, if you think it’s so easy to set up a business, run it at a vast profit, while paying your employee’s peanuts – go ahead and do it.
In your scenario, the friend seemed to be making easy money from a lemonade stand.
But suppose he had to obtain permission from the authorities, pay rent on the stand, various taxes and other overheads. He had to buy his stock. He has to pay the stall-minders wages. Perhaps each glass of lemonade cost him 30 cents to produce, and his overheads accounted for another 50 cents. That would leave a profit of only 20 cents a glass, out of which he would pay tax. In a days trading he might only make a small amount of money, maybe enough to pay himself a reasonable wage, but no more.
Also your friend is the one taking all the risks. He has to invest a lost of time, money and effort to set up his business. If it doesn’t work out, he could lose everything. Whereas the people he hires to run the stand can walk away- at worse losing their wages for the week.
So, why is this unfair?
😕
Dave
I agree, Dave. Recently in this country there has been an outcryk about the cost of healthcare. For example if you go to a hospital and receive an aspirin or tylenol, it will cost say $5-8 dollars per pill. Basically what a whole bottle should cost. On face value that sounds rediculous. But the hospital corporation must provide many other services that do not make money. The parking deck for example. or say the chaplain's salary. Oh, now we're getting close to home! Kirk, who's grateful to have a job and be part of the middle class.
Very good points. My thanks to all of you.
Latex Bishop pointed out that for someone to willing work under an employer, that employer would have to offer something of an equivalent to other employers. This is both quite correct and half the problem. Greed is not an uncommon thing.
Mr. Banker, I congragulate you on your success. My best wishes for continued good fortune. Please remeber how great it was for you at this time later in your life if you become one of the big cheeses.
David Tebb pointed out that the lemonade scenario was quite unrealistic. He is 100% correct. I should clarify that the example was only to show what a business might pay for labor out of the gross revenue. The actual percentage will of course vary from business to business, with a large factor being what industry the business is in. A fast food restaurants labor expenditures would take up a much larger percentage of their costs of doing business than an upscale restaurant.
I have to disagree with Mr. Tebb on the risk taking though. Whereas a business owner controlls the entirety of their destiny with the given exceptions of the market and other uncontrollable events, most of your manual labor employees enter into what is called a "free will" agreement with their employer (here's that so called free will again). In most free will contracts it clearly states, "either the employee or the employer may terminate the contract at any time, with or without notice, and with or without reason." If you ask me, to lose your means of existence at the drop of a hat just for the hell of it is quite a risk. I doubt the employer lives in such fear.
To clarify, any singular business which pays any one of its employees an unlivable wage is not the problem. The problem is the massive number of them that do this. Let's try cause and effect here:
Joe works a low paying job.
Joes quality of life is obviously poor.
Joe is overburdened with financial obligations.
Joes inability to live decently affects him negatively.
I think you can imagince what roads this leads to. Those in poverty have the greatest reason to lash out, both at themselves and at society. Untill those in power accept their responsibilty to their fellow man, I must hold that atleast a significant portion of societys troubles can be traced to a poor standard of living, usually due to the selfish greed of the few.
Legality and morality are from seperate worlds. It is truly a pity the two can't meet.
Originally posted by Black LungBlack Lung, your name got me to thinking about perhaps a related ethical problem. Tobacco. Tobacco causes cancer. But tobacco also begins a chain of many economic events that profit many. It creates not only farm related jobs, but also healthcare, drycleaning, legal, funeral home industry ( a quicker turnover), real estate transactions, and also keeps farm land from being developed. Many a tobacco farmer put their kids through school with tobacco money. Sorry, tomatos don't pay as much.🙁 For the record I don't smoke. Kirk
those devoid of ambition shall be expoited by those who recognise the potential of the resource that is being wasted.slave and master psyche.it's part of human society.ain't goin away.
Originally posted by OmnislashOmnislash,
Very good points. My thanks to all of you.
Latex Bishop pointed out that for someone to willing work under an employer, that employer would have to offer something of an equivalent to other employers. This is both quite correct and half the problem. Greed is not an uncommon thing.
Mr. Banker, I congragulate you on your success. My best wishes for ...[text shortened]...
Legality and morality are from seperate worlds. It is truly a pity the two can't meet.
While I agree that you have some valid points, again you have to consider the employment situation from the perspective of the employer as well as the employee. First off, the contract that you described is very restrictive, and while I'm in no position to say that it's unusual since I don't know, I would imagine that a large-scale employer may run into legal trouble or union trouble by forcing their employees to adhere to such a restrictive contract, waiving any rights they have that prevents the employer from firing them without cause.
That being said, a contract is a two-way agreement, and it's the obligation of the signee to have completely read and understood the contract before entering into this agreement with their employer. If they don't like it, they can try to change it, work without a contract, or find another job.
But back to the issue that I brought up initially. Even under the terms of that contract that allow the employer to fire the employee under any circumstances and without warning, in practice it's extremely difficult to do so. Most states in the US have laws that prevent employers from doing this under the auspices of 'wrongful termination of employment.' Even if an employee has entered into this kind of contract, there is legal precedent for the employee being able to successfully sue their employer for wrongful termination. Even if the employee does not think they can win the case, lawyers are available on a contingency fee basis (meaning they're basically free, you only pay if you win) and can generate enough negative publicity for the business owner that it ends up costing him less to simply pay a settlement to the employee than it would in loss of business to continue a legal battle and win.
In addition, even if a contract states that an employee must give a certain amount of notice before leaving the job, in practice this is unenforcable. The 13th amendment makes forced labor, which is making an employee work when they don't want to unconstitutional, so when an employee wants to leave, they can effectively leave right that second without fear of legal recourse. In practicality, it is almost never worthwhile to sue an employee who leaves, except to set an example, because the type of employee who will simply walk out in the middle of a job or not show usually does not have enough money or assets to get any recompense. And the business owner is left in a difficult situation - if the employee leaves and the owner does not have anyone there who can replace that employee immediately it can significantly hurt the business itself. The employee does not have reciprocal concerns, because of the legal situation which I have described.
The point is, I think the analogy to a feudal system is an oversimplification. Feudal systems were dependent on hereditary title and nobility, and complete ownership of all of the means of production, with effectively no possibility of movement between socioeconomic strata. In the US and much of the rest of the world, certain aspects of this system still remain, but fundamentally it is different both in the notions of ownership and socioeconomic mobility.
-mike
Originally posted by David TebbHit the nail on the head Dave!i couldnt agree more.Luckily I read your post before "duplicating" it.😉
I think your imaginary friend has been quite generous! How many kids get the chance to earn $10 for handing out a few glasses of lemonade?
On a more serious note, if you think it’s so easy to set up a business, run it at a vast profit, while paying your employee’s peanuts – go ahead and do it.
In your scenario, the friend seemed to be making easy ...[text shortened]... can walk away- at worse losing their wages for the week.
So, why is this unfair?
😕
Dave
Originally posted by Dr. BrainI think Dave's post is right on when it comes to the small business model. Omnislash's thought experiment used the example of a ridiculously small business, but I think his point applies more broadly. Would Dave's points still apply if we were talking about Nike utilizing child labor? What about Wal-Mart paying an unlivable wage and punishing attempts at unionization? Many posts in this thread seem to invoke the same image, that of an autonomous worker entering into a contract that can then be left at will. But when you're born poor, without access to health-care, or have a family to support and no time to spend looking for another job (not to mention engage in a lawsuit without access to shild-care), slave-wages cannot merely be walked away from. Is it fair for a company to pay 'what the market will support' when the same interests behind the company are lobbying to roll-back the social safety net.
Hit the nail on the head Dave!i couldnt agree more.Luckily I read your post before "duplicating" it.😉
Originally posted by kirksey957On the other hand, those who smoke have that much less disposable income to spend on other things. Also, do the poor smoke proportionately less or more than the rich on average? In the end the money goes in circles, but the damage to health caused by tobacco is a drain on the system.
Black Lung, your name got me to thinking about perhaps a related ethical problem. Tobacco. Tobacco causes cancer. But tobacco also begins a chain of many economic events that profit many. It creates not only farm related jobs, but also healthcare, drycleaning, legal, funeral home industry ( a quicker turnover), real estate transactions, and also keeps ...[text shortened]... l with tobacco money. Sorry, tomatos don't pay as much.🙁 For the record I don't smoke. Kirk
Originally posted by OmnislashLet's break this down...
Joe works a low paying job.
Joes quality of life is obviously poor.
Joe is overburdened with financial obligations.
Joes inability to live decently affects him negatively.
I think you can imagince what roads this leads to. Those in poverty have the greatest reason to lash out, both at themselves and at society. Untill those in power accept their resp ...[text shortened]... roubles can be traced to a poor standard of living, usually due to the selfish greed of the few.
1. Joe works a low paying job. OK, so maybe he's not a braintrust and has to settle for a low paying job.
2.Joes quality of life is obviously poor. WRONG! Why are you passing judgement on his quality of life? Obviously to you MONEY = HAPPINESS. What a shame. Joe could have a wonderful life with a wife a kids on a low paying job. Why is it up to you to say that he is unhappy?
3. Joe is overburdened with financial obligations. This is 100% his doing. Not society. If you wants to live above his means then yes he will possibly be overburdened. Why is society the responsible party for this self inflicted prison? We have some of the largest debt to income levels in the world. But who's fault is that? People can be very disciplined and live very well on what you may call 'low pay'.
4. Joes inability to live decently affects him negatively. Only if he 'expects' life to give him what he wants. Once again you equate money to happiness and I totally disagree. If you want to blame other people for your position in life then it would support your argument, but those who accept what has been handed them and strive to make their lives a success - seperate from income- CAN do so in this society.
5. LOW INCOME = LICENSE TO PURSUE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY ?!?! That's what you are saying in your closing statement. Once again, if 'WE" don't give you what you want then you can lash out at those who have it. Thinking like this is why we are in trouble today. I equate this to my 14 month old who throws a temper tantrum when I say no.
Solution: It is not the 'haves' that cause problems for the 'have nots'. What America needs is for parents to love and teach their kids how to function in society. Parents of today do not instill moral values into their kids like the previous generations. Kids grow up expecting everything to be given to them and when it doesn't happen it's definately NOT their fault. If people continue to blame others this country will continue to spiral downward. If they accept responsibility and work hard with the talents they have they can have a meaningful life.
It is assumed in several spots in this thread that the labor contract between "Joe" and his employer is a contract between equals, which both parties have agreed to without constraint. This is not the case in actual practice. Joe (who has nothing to offer but his labor) is at a considerable disadvantage in his relationship with his employer (who controls the entire means of production). Unfortunately for Joe, full employment is not possible in a Capitalist system, and meaningful employment even rarer. Therefore, there is a host of other people waiting in line for the same job he is seeking. If Joe thinks the labor contract is unfair, the employer has the luxury of going down the line and finding someone else who is more subservient. Joe is therefore free to choose between the terms offered by the employer, or poverty. That isn't much of a choice. While it is true that Joe could be happy in spite of his poverty (as has also been suggested), I think it is extremely unlikely, and ultimately irrelevant. That is like suggesting there might have been some happy slaves on the plantation. Perhaps there were, but that doesn't justify slavery.
It has also been suggested that Joe could join a union to gain redress for his grievances. This has been largely true for much of the 20th century. The labor unions did advance Joe's standard of living and give him some collective bargaining power. But except for a few industries, that power has largely been marginalized, as only about 13% of the labor force in the US is unionized these days. That's about one out of eight workers. Once again, Joe has found himself on his own.
Others have said that Joe should somehow try to improve his situation, or his education, or start his own business. Of course all these things are theoretically true. Some industrious, or lucky people will do just that, with a resulting decrease in their poverty. But a vast majority of people will lack either the means, or the education to embark on such adventures. Many people will be condemned to a life of financial or intellectual poverty, and menial or unsatisfactory employment (or none at all), knowing all the time that if they had been given a better opportunity, they could have done something with their lives. I do not generally think that people are poor because they are lazy. I think most of them would like to do something with their lives, but the odds against them are so great that many give up any real hope of anything better and just try to cope with their lot in life as best they can.
Upon review, I think my focus seems to have shifted in that last paragraph. Oh well, that's why I'm an artist and not a writer.