In The News Today...

Quote: pew

Labor is a commodity, nothing more. People get paid exactly what they're worth according to free market forces.

If that was true, there would always be a direct correlation between a companies profits and employee wages.

Quote: rxwine

If that was true, there would always be a direct correlation between a companies profits and employee wages.

Not really. Labor could have a high price but the company's product is awful.

ALL WEALTH COMES FROM PAYING LABOR LESS THAN IT IS WORTH

Surely you understand this basic fact!

Quote: AZDuffman

Not really. Labor could have a high price but the company's product is awful.

We are talking free market, not some bogus made up idea where someone overpays labor under free market forces. Free market involves no labor union forces IMO.

So no, you're wrong. Anyway the answer to that situation will be forthcoming in the company failure. .

Quote: rxwine

We are talking free market, not some bogus made up idea where someone overpays labor under free market forces. Free market involves no labor union forces IMO.

So no, you're wrong. Anyway the answer to that situation will be forthcoming in the company failure. .

No, I am not wrong at all. Labor skills and end product price are not always related. One industry can cause a shortage of labor in unrelated industries. For example, price of oil goes up and takes many available welders so the union-free car plant has to pay more. But car sales are in a slump with no pricing power.

That is free market.

Quote: pew

Labor is a commodity, nothing more. People get paid exactly what they're worth according to free market forces.

Actually, no employer would pay an employee exactly what that employee's worth, because then there would be no profit in the action. In fact, doing so would entail a loss, because of tax and other liabilities. The employer would be better off not employing that person at all.

In order to survive, the worker must sell his labor at a discount from its true worth--the economic benefit that his employer derives from it. The only reason the system works at all is that economies of scale make that worth greater for the employer than it would be for the self-employed worker doing the same tasks.

Quote: AZDuffman

No, I am not wrong at all. Labor skills and end product price are not always related. One industry can cause a shortage of labor in unrelated industries. For example, price of oil goes up and takes many available welders so the union-free car plant has to pay more. But car sales are in a slump with no pricing power.

That is free market.

Okay, for the sake of argument let's pretend it is all balanced out and workers have been in just a strong a position as companies because they can sometimes demand more money.

So, who has more to show for it collectively? Is it the wage earning workers? (not from the arguments from the very same Trump voters)

In bizarro world you may think so, but it's not reality. If we were paid what we were worth, all pockets would become fuller on the success of a company. Not just the plutocracy.

Hint: it's always who controls the paychecks, and that usually ain't the workers.

All you guys who been watchin' Naked and Afraid for the personal interdynamics will be happy to know that Google Brain has found a way to easily de-pixell TV signals.
Ratings about to increase I'm sure.

Early on, the Ford Motor Company faced a lot of turnover. This added to their costs, as training new workers took time and slowed production. Henry Ford's solution was to increase wages, to make it more attractive for workers to stay.

This is rather rare, and we're a long ways away from the early experiments on the production line...

One solution would be to set aside a portion of profits to be shared with all employees. This is actually the law in Mexico, with the money distributed in part by average salary and the rest by hours or days worked in the year.

Of course, if there are no profits nothing gets shared. And of course employers go to great lengths to minimize this share, or resort to legal tricks to minimize what each employee gets.

Quote: Nareed

Early on, the Ford Motor Company faced a lot of turnover. This added to their costs, as training new workers took time and slowed production. Henry Ford's solution was to increase wages, to make it more attractive for workers to stay.

This is rather rare, and we're a long ways away from the early experiments on the production line...

One solution would be to set aside a portion of profits to be shared with all employees. This is actually the law in Mexico, with the money distributed in part by average salary and the rest by hours or days worked in the year.

Of course, if there are no profits nothing gets shared. And of course employers go to great lengths to minimize this share, or resort to legal tricks to minimize what each employee gets.

I'm not much interested in communism, or socialism (except for socialism on a somewhat limited basis) but I'd opt for a Constitution that wrote in profit sharing in some form as everyone's constitutional right. See now, I think it would be great in a SIMS environment, to experiment with various forms of profit sharing if you could do such.

I'm almost positive it would have to be tweaked several times -- rarely is anything easy.

edit, I accidently typed solecism instead of socialism. Then I had to look it up, and it was fine joke played on me to find out what it meant.

(maybe I once knew solecism without looking it up, but I think I may have reached the age where I have completely lost some information, I once learned_)