You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
With some hesitation, after having reviewed some of the heated discussions which have appeared on this board, I am offering this topic, in hopes it will lead to fruitful guidance for forum readers who may have the opportunity to employ human beings to support commercial enterprise.
This post is intended to define the scope of the discussion.
Human beings are fallible, of course, but over a few decades of employment by others, I have accumulated enough experience to hold the opinion that fair compensation for labor is possible, but definitely not guaranteed.
The quandary, as I try to define the problem, is that what the employer regards as fair may not be sufficient to meet the employee's needs.
(th)
Offline
It's a complex issue involving economics, ethics, politics and sociology - and probably a few other ologies. There are some questions to ask and answer.
1. What is the relationship between labour and price? I think the relationship is a strong one and also that without labour you wouldn't have price. I recommend the thought experiment of there being a robot colony on the moon created by some rogue AI programme. On the moon there are robot manufacturing plants, robot miners, robot factory workers, and robot controlled rockets. The robots are programmed to be nice to humans. If you e mail them they will happily make you something and then fly it back to Earth orbit from which one of their robot drones safely delivers it to your door. The robot colony has no reason to charge you. Why would they need your money? They are happily following their programmes on the Moon just making and growing things for humans. When you think of it like that, you can see that it is human labour - and the very human demand for some fair recompense - that lies at the heart of price. There is only one other system: slavery and no one ever votes to be a slave.
2. What does fair mean in this context? Is absolute equality of earnings "fair"? Surely not if one person works 5 hours and another works 50 hours? Should all work be paid at the same rate for output or should there be an equal hourly rate? Both systems are used. But should a person working at weekends or nights be paid the same as someone working regular workdays or should they receive additional compensation for anti-social hours?
3. What determines the "correct" payment for work? In theory, in a free market, all the firms are competing on the price of their product or service and all the individual workers are competing in the labour market. The working of the free market is supposed to deliver the correct price of labour which will be the highest price the market can "afford". Over time as technology enhances productivity, we should see a general and continuing rise in real wages. In broad terms this does happen, it seems, in capitalist societies. However, perfect markets exist only in the imagination of economists. All markets are manipulated through various devices - cartels, trade associations, stockpiling, legal regulations, entry qualification, licensing, predatory pricing, trade union membership, special offers, advertising and so on. One thing though, in capitalist societies individuals are free to move job if they can find one. So if in one sector, say, a monopolist producer pays below average wages for certain skill sets, they will find their labour force over time drift to other sectors.
4. Should inventors enjoy patent protection? Why should an inventor claim 100% of the value of an invention? Did their childhood upbringing, their schooling, their further education, their conversations with friends and colleagues, their reading of relevant books not contribute to the invention?
5. How does land ownership sit with all this? Why should ownership of land which requires no talent and no effort and makes no real contribution to technology, inventions, productivity or anything else be rewarded with rent?
6. Is a minimum wage regime a distortion of fair wage setting? If you are concerned about low income levels, is it better to enhance income through the tax and benefits systems?
7. Should there be an upper limit on wages, income or wealth?
And what about Mars? How should the price of labour on Mars be dealt with in the context of general economic fairness?
One thing I would like to propose for Mars is a system of land control. Land on Mars can't be given over to freehold under the Outer Space Treaty but could be licensed for use by people for determined periods - maybe 10 years, 20 years, 50 years or 100 years. The licence would require that the land be put to productive purpose e.g. accommodation, farming, industrial production or whatever. Sub-licensing would be illegal. The licence fee income should be split 50-50 between the Mars government and all Mars citizens. So if there are a million citizens they should each receive one millionth of half of the total licence fee income.
I think there should be a debate about patent protection on Mars. I don't personally feel that patent protection should apply there.
The patent system has become discredited in my view and is often used as a way of manipulating markets.
I do favour minimum wage regimes (from an ethical point of view). But, with that exception, I think you want to try and create free markets in products, services and labour.
I don't favour an upper limit on labour price. However, I do favour an upper limit on personal wealth. Rather than have an income level ceiling, a wealth tax, or 100% income tax and dividend rates, I would prefer to have a system of Compulsory Personal Donation. So beyond a certain level of wealth, individuals would be legally required to divest the wealth above the statutory limit. They might divest to charities, public works, terraformation or whatever. Such divestment would have to be to bodies over which they have no control. I simply don't think it's healthy for society to have people able to wield mega wealth to influence public policy, manipulate markets and so on. Like all human arrangements this system will be imperfect but I think it's better than letting super-rich people give more and more wealthy. My personal wealth limit would be quite low - maybe something like $20 million.
With some hesitation, after having reviewed some of the heated discussions which have appeared on this board, I am offering this topic, in hopes it will lead to fruitful guidance for forum readers who may have the opportunity to employ human beings to support commercial enterprise.
This post is intended to define the scope of the discussion.
Human beings are fallible, of course, but over a few decades of employment by others, I have accumulated enough experience to hold the opinion that fair compensation for labor is possible, but definitely not guaranteed.
The quandary, as I try to define the problem, is that what the employer regards as fair may not be sufficient to meet the employee's needs.
(th)
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
To go with the above comments is Brain, Brawn and Responsibility which also dictate the wage or salary that one would earn and thats not covering safety as that is another insurance as in life beside health that we are are looking to have with regards to employment for others. Then again they are not looking to give you money for holidays, sick time or vacation either.
Add to this retirement pensions, IRA's contribution matching and so many other safe guards for you as an employee..
Offline
tahanson43206,
1. Fair compensation is dictated by what the markets will bear, as are prices. The prices are arbitrarily set, but by market forces which are driven by valuation of goods and services by consumers of those goods and services. If your competitor sells "Widget A" for $10 and you're selling a very similar "Widget B" for $12, then most of the time your potential customers are going to purchase "Widget A" and you're eventually going to go out of business unless you find a way to lower the price or provide a better widget. The same applies to labor. No company can afford labor prices above what the market will bear. The jobs will either be moved to places where the company can afford the labor rates or eventually the company goes out of business. No amount of government interference can stop that from happening, but it can create very perverse incentives with respect to compensation and prices.
2. If you choose to work for someone else, as most of us do, then you're necessarily selling your labor at a price below what you would be able to obtain in an open market where you sold your services as a contractor or consultant to the highest bidder or best bidder, as nearest as you can determine. If the cost of your labor created less profit for the company than what they would otherwise obtain from someone else or by not purchasing your labor, then why would they ever hire you? Basically, if they can't afford to pay you what you wish to be paid because they'll go out of business if they try, then why would they try to do that?
3. Government mandate is not an agreement between a customer and a manufacturer or supplier to exchange money for goods or services. There is no agreement at play. At the end of the day, all governments are force. They put a gun to your head and demand that you pay them. While accepting that some measure of "force" is necessary because we couldn't otherwise get millions of people to all agree on what every last cent was spent on to ensure the continued existence of a nation state, ideally we'd like as little of that as is practical. That means we keep as much of the fruits of our labor as we can. If one person out of 100 million would willing spend money to study cow farts, I object to putting a gun to everyone else's head to pay for that. If one person out of 100 million objects to having a military to defend the nation from attackers / invaders, then we use government to override their objection and put a gun to their head and demand payment for the military.
4. A good litmus test for whether or not the government should demand payment for services rendered should be if the service being provided is of general utility to everyone at most or all times. National defense is a good example of something that's applicable to everyone 24/7/365, else we are subject to the whims of hostile foreign invaders. Most of us have decided that we don't want any of that, but many of us would vehemently disagree about the best way to prevent that from happening, meaning making a determination on the best use of the money obtained from the general populace at gunpoint to prevent hostile takeover of our country by foreign invaders. If that seems kinda perverse, that's because it is, and I already stated that even the best governance methodologies and intents can and frequently do create perverse incentives. Refer back to why it is that we want as little of that as is practical while still providing reasonably good outcomes.
5. A good litmus test for where the accountability and responsibility lies is who ends up paying for mistakes- in governance, personal behavior, etc. Ultimately, the general populace is accountable and responsible for much of what goes on in their government. In a representative republic, which is what the US of A happens to be, the people are ultimately responsible for the actions / decisions of the people they choose to elect. Thus, the people have extreme influence over and extreme responsibility for the actions / decisions representatives, which mandates that they hold their representatives accountable for their representatives' actions / decisions made on behalf of the people. As of late, we've been failing miserably at that. There's a general lack of education, awareness, and due caution / care on the part of the people, with respect to who they choose to elect to office.
It's almost impossible to accurately answer your questions about compensation for labor without proper account for the totality of circumstances under which decisions are made. That's why we touched upon governance and the role it plays in economics.
Here in America, we're quite enamored with the adherence to the principle of fairness in action. However, we must also accept that life is not fair, nor will it ever be, and any attempt to make life fair for everyone inevitably means reducing life's possible outcomes to the lowest common human denominator amongst us. That is an inherently unfair and unproductive way of applying economic principles, which is why we don't do that. We allow people to accumulate as much wealth as they desire, or to invest as much as they make in whatever ventures they wish to pursue, and people are mostly free to pursue whatever ventures they believe are most worthwhile. However, we do have very detailed and very stringent rules. Some will argue that is not the case, but the sheer volume of laws, rules, and regulations that we have that attempt to define what is or isn't fair, in excruciating detail, would indicate otherwise.
These answers will probably not be satisfactory to you or anyone else, yet as near as I can tell this is how our governance principles were intended to work. That said, our governance methodologies demand informed consent and maximum participation in order to work as The Founders intended.
Offline
1. You are just putting forward "perfect market" theory. There is no perfect market in the real world. It's true no government can decree ALL real wages (as opposed to those at the lower end for instance ie via a minimum wage) to be higher than the technical capacity of your economy allows but that is not that same as "the market" since markets can be manipulated. You may not be aware of "lock outs". That used to be a common market manipulation tool of employers - preventing workers from working. Employers would know that while their profits suffered, workers would be reduced to starvation and so it was an effective tool.
2. Again this is "perfect market" theory that we never see in practice. In the UK Uber were pretending their employees were just self-employed contractors bidding for contracts...but of course that wasn't true - Uber were dictating that the "contractors" (ie the drivers) had to be available at certain times before they could bid.In effect Uber wanted their drivers to be like permanent employees but Uber didn't want to have to take on the legal responsibilities that follow.
3. So you want the state to take the least proportion of your income and expenditure in taxes? OK - can I recommend you relocate to Burkina Faso then...
4. You want the state to provide only services that are "of general utility to everyone at most or all times". That really perfectly describes the UK's National Health Service (NHS) which is very much a sacred cow in our polity. The NHS definitely meets your definition but I am guessing you would hate the idea of the NHS being applied to the USA.
5. There is differential impact of policies. A lot depends on who votes. If you're very poor there is always a high incentive to vote for whoever promises you additional benefits...you aren't going to be too concerned about the macro-economic effects.
tahanson43206,
1. Fair compensation is dictated by what the markets will bear, as are prices. The prices are arbitrarily set, but by market forces which are driven by valuation of goods and services by consumers of those goods and services. If your competitor sells "Widget A" for $10 and you're selling a very similar "Widget B" for $12, then most of the time your potential customers are going to purchase "Widget A" and you're eventually going to go out of business unless you find a way to lower the price or provide a better widget. The same applies to labor. No company can afford labor prices above what the market will bear. The jobs will either be moved to places where the company can afford the labor rates or eventually the company goes out of business. No amount of government interference can stop that from happening, but it can create very perverse incentives with respect to compensation and prices.
2. If you choose to work for someone else, as most of us do, then you're necessarily selling your labor at a price below what you would be able to obtain in an open market where you sold your services as a contractor or consultant to the highest bidder or best bidder, as nearest as you can determine. If the cost of your labor created less profit for the company than what they would otherwise obtain from someone else or by not purchasing your labor, then why would they ever hire you? Basically, if they can't afford to pay you what you wish to be paid because they'll go out of business if they try, then why would they try to do that?
3. Government mandate is not an agreement between a customer and a manufacturer or supplier to exchange money for goods or services. There is no agreement at play. At the end of the day, all governments are force. They put a gun to your head and demand that you pay them. While accepting that some measure of "force" is necessary because we couldn't otherwise get millions of people to all agree on what every last cent was spent on to ensure the continued existence of a nation state, ideally we'd like as little of that as is practical. That means we keep as much of the fruits of our labor as we can. If one person out of 100 million would willing spend money to study cow farts, I object to putting a gun to everyone else's head to pay for that. If one person out of 100 million objects to having a military to defend the nation from attackers / invaders, then we use government to override their objection and put a gun to their head and demand payment for the military.
4. A good litmus test for whether or not the government should demand payment for services rendered should be if the service being provided is of general utility to everyone at most or all times. National defense is a good example of something that's applicable to everyone 24/7/365, else we are subject to the whims of hostile foreign invaders. Most of us have decided that we don't want any of that, but many of us would vehemently disagree about the best way to prevent that from happening, meaning making a determination on the best use of the money obtained from the general populace at gunpoint to prevent hostile takeover of our country by foreign invaders. If that seems kinda perverse, that's because it is, and I already stated that even the best governance methodologies and intents can and frequently do create perverse incentives. Refer back to why it is that we want as little of that as is practical while still providing reasonably good outcomes.
5. A good litmus test for where the accountability and responsibility lies is who ends up paying for mistakes- in governance, personal behavior, etc. Ultimately, the general populace is accountable and responsible for much of what goes on in their government. In a representative republic, which is what the US of A happens to be, the people are ultimately responsible for the actions / decisions of the people they choose to elect. Thus, the people have extreme influence over and extreme responsibility for the actions / decisions representatives, which mandates that they hold their representatives accountable for their representatives' actions / decisions made on behalf of the people. As of late, we've been failing miserably at that. There's a general lack of education, awareness, and due caution / care on the part of the people, with respect to who they choose to elect to office.
It's almost impossible to accurately answer your questions about compensation for labor without proper account for the totality of circumstances under which decisions are made. That's why we touched upon governance and the role it plays in economics.
Here in America, we're quite enamored with the adherence to the principle of fairness in action. However, we must also accept that life is not fair, nor will it ever be, and any attempt to make life fair for everyone inevitably means reducing life's possible outcomes to the lowest common human denominator amongst us. That is an inherently unfair and unproductive way of applying economic principles, which is why we don't do that. We allow people to accumulate as much wealth as they desire, or to invest as much as they make in whatever ventures they wish to pursue, and people are mostly free to pursue whatever ventures they believe are most worthwhile. However, we do have very detailed and very stringent rules. Some will argue that is not the case, but the sheer volume of laws, rules, and regulations that we have that attempt to define what is or isn't fair, in excruciating detail, would indicate otherwise.
These answers will probably not be satisfactory to you or anyone else, yet as near as I can tell this is how our governance principles were intended to work. That said, our governance methodologies demand informed consent and maximum participation in order to work as The Founders intended.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Louis,
First things first. We're all big boys and big girls here. We don't need to parrot back entire posts to the people we're responding to. We can simply refer to the post numbers when responding. Anything I add or change in what I write on this forum I annotate to make it perfectly clear to all who read it.
Louis Post #5
<- That's as much information as we should ever have to parrot back to each other. You know who I'm responding to and you know what I'm responding to. Enough about that.
1. I never said that markets couldn't be manipulated. You won't find that at all in my remarks because it's not there. Ask yourself about what enables markets to be manipulated. Governments makes the rules, governments enforce the rules, and the more opportunities we provide to manipulate those rules or enforcement of the rules, the more the markets can and will be manipulated. Period. The government is supposed to be an impartial referee responsible for consideration of the micro and macro effects of decisions about what's permissible and what's not. Notice that I never claimed it would be completely impartial, but that is another truly excellent reason why we shouldn't have any more of it than we absolutely need for society to function at a high level. Furthermore, there will be no decisions that please everyone at all times.
2. When you sign a contract for employment, the terms of the contract are written down for future reference and agreed to by the employee as evidenced by the employee's and employer's signature on the contract. If you don't agree with the terms of the contract... THEN FOR GOODNESS SAKE, DON'T SIGN IT! Good grief, man. Basic logic should dictate that you don't sign your name to things you disagree with. If you can't read or understand what you're about to sign, then don't sign it without consultation from someone you trust who does understand it and has a fiduciary responsibility to look after your best financial interests.
3. I stated that the least amount of taxation that leads to an acceptable result is what we're after. That means acceptable to the majority, not every last person on the planet- just in case that wasn't already crystal clear. You know, that really was plain as day to me. I never said I was unwilling to part with any cent of my paycheck to fund our government. I did say that we appoint people to decide what we should spend money on and that the overwhelming majority have to be in agreement on what to spend money on, else there will be major problems. This is why we have so damned many lawyers writing contracts containing enough wood to build a sailing ship and enough ink to go swimming in. No common sense is applied to interpreting what people are stating, at all or ever anymore, sadly.
4. What I detest is the idea of robbing Peter to pay Paul when Paul has the means to pay, but has decided that he doesn't want to because he can get his government to put a gun to Peter's head by voting for someone promising to rob Peter. The people who should benefit from a taxation scheme are the people who pay into it. When that is not the case, once again, there will be major problems. I don't have any sacred cows. Quite frankly, nobody should. It means they're practicing religion, rather than good common sense.
The wonderful people of your NHS decided that the parents of a child would not be permitted to have their child treated by American doctors who had a viable treatment that could reverse his otherwise fatal medical condition, despite the fact that there were no alternatives but death and the treatment was provided by our people for F-R-E-E (meaning we paid for it, not your sacred cow NHS). That is what I will NEVER tolerate. That's the difference between being a subject and a citizen. I'm not completely beholden to the good nature of my government for my life or the lives of my children.
5. Thank you for reiterating why it is the case that education and informed consent are so vital to a well-functioning system of governance and economy. Unless we're being deliberately obtuse or deceptive with each other, and that has never been my intent or purpose, then I think the meaning behind what I wrote is clear enough.
Offline
For Louis and kbd512 ...
Thank you for giving this topic an impressive start.
Tomorrow (Earth time) I'll post the Letter to the Editor that inspired it.
The writer is (apparently) a hiring officer for a small business. I am hoping this topic will expand to include the point of view of the employer, as well as the point of view of the hired help.
(th)
Offline
All but for Mary was robbed when the venture capitalist and speculators got into the market to drive and dive prices every which way....
Offline
For SpaceNut ... re #8 ... Nice!
For Louis and kbd512 and all who may be interested in this topic ...
From Tuesday, April 30, 2919 (Earth time) local newspaper Letters to the Editor section:
Title: There are reasons for gender gap in pay
Critics who say both genders should be paid the same if they hold the same job title overlook real-life facts(...skip...)
I am a woman who has had to hire and fire people. If legislation passes that requires men and women be paid the same for the same job title, employers will find ways around it. All they have to do is add more job titles or issue merit pay each time the male is called upon to do something the female does not have to do.
Male or female, I believe that the person should be paid by how valuable they are to the organization and no one can determine that except the employer.
I found this letter to be thought provoking, and was inspired to toss the question of compensation for labor onto the forum for discussion.
I am looking for the discussion to move in the direction of guidance for employers, since otherwise it would tend to focus on the experience most people have, as employees who are not responsible for compensation decisions other than their own.
The kind of readers I am hoping to reach are those who are going to be building the companies and corporations in years ahead that will be involved in populating and supplying needs on Mars, the Moon and elsewhere.
(th)
Offline
Corporations rage at Biden, Democrats over tax hikes
https://nypost.com/2022/08/09/corporati … tax-hikes/
but maybe The globalization race to the bottom no longer continues?
Time to dump your stock in Deliveroo Holdings plc
It almost became a global network, lets them smoke that hookah shisha pipe or have a beer and then deliver food to the lazy, founded by Will Shu and Greg Orlowski in 2013 in Londonistan? it operates in places as far as Australia, Italy, Arab Emirates, Singapore, Hong Kong, France, and Kuwait. Perhaps you could compare it to a ghost kitchen, Food Truck service, virtual restaurants the quick delivery of Chuck E. Cheese or Denny's or Wingstop and preparation of Uber-Eats style delivery-only meals.
Deliveroo to exit Netherlands, loss widens in first-half
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/delive … 022-08-10/
Usually the drunkard stoned drug addicts stuck on the couch with a 'munchy' craving but too lazy to get off their butts would keep this business going, I guess it has come to an end
Offline
Pages: 1