It's a serious question. If the world tells you your work is worth $10/hour, but you think it should be $20...well, you're free to think that, but unless someone's going to pay you that willingly, you're kidding yourself.
Who should decide what your pay is worth? The boss who wants to pay you as little as possible so he can clear as much as possible? Or Should the market decide? and by market, I mean the overall revenue of the business not other CEOs who want to be as greedy as your boss.
Side tangent, but can non-Jewish people like....stop using the Holocaust as a win to win arguments, it's tiring. Not Jewish but I have a lot of friends who are tired of this, whether it's this, or weirdos holding Anne Frank up as a bisexual icon and yes, even us liberals who tossed the accusation onto every pre-Trump politician we hated.
Tricky, the Nazis are so useful as a historical lesson because they literally did all the bad things. And there's no innocent innocuous version of their beliefs and behaviors, so when you see a politician creeping into their zone, you had better perk up and pay attention. Dubyah may have been a lovable dope compared to Trump, but his cronies committed war crimes, and he let that shit happen.
Or you who who wants to get as much as possible? Hmmm. If only there were some way to resolve this dilemma... This is incoherent. But to answer your question: YES, absolutely. The market price for anything is the closest one can come to an objectively fair price. Why? Because it's the price both the buyer and the seller agree to. I didn't think I was winning an argument. I was giving an example of some fairly unreasonable work requirements.
Ideally it should be a mutual agreement and in my experience, it has been. Often times the market is one factor out of many that decides.
Paladin, you silly. Don't you know that salaries and therefore the value of labor should be imposed by government fiat, so that things are fair? But remember, progressive don't want centrally planned economies.
If you're referring to contracts and negotiating, then you fail. Because if you need a job and you think you are worth X, but I'm a major corporation and have power and 1000 other people applying for that same job, then no, the dilemma is not resolved. You still have one party with more power than the other. That does not even remotely come close the being "market value".
So, you agree that if a corporation makes billions of dollars, then the labor for that revenue should be compensated commensurately.
Oh, but it is. You're just too you-centric to realize it. If a business has 1000 other qualified people applying for a job who will do it for less than X, then you're not worth X to that business. Simple as that. Do you drive around town looking to pay more for some item that you could get cheaper at a local store? Of course not. Why would you? Similarly, why would a business pay you more if it has plenty of qualified applicants that will accept the job for less? You don't decide your worth (because you've got to price yourself at a level a business will accept). The business doesn't decide your worth (because they've still got to pay to get a qualified person in the role). Then I'm not sure what "market value" could mean in your world. You seem to think the business has the freedom to offer as little as it wants. Not so. It will get few qualified takers if it pays to little (and, for many positions, provide an opportunity for their competitors to snatch up qualified employees).
No. Each individual that works for that corporation or wants to work for that corporation needs to decide for themselves what they think their labor is worth and decide if they are being compensated properly for their labor. To distribute wages equally would sew discontent among the workforce and likely cause massive rollover.
So, basically, both of you think it's ok to fuck over the labor force. This is the problem. This is what we are telling you is wrong. The wealthy should not be deciding what is "good enough" for the middle class. If the CEO cannot run his/her business without labor, then labor deserves to be paid commensurate with the gross proceeds. This is not happening because the wealthy have power that the people do not. I seriously have no idea why you think what you just explained is justifiable in any sense of the word - except that those in power get to do what they want.
Agreements can really only be called "mutual" if both parties enter into the negotiation with relatively equivalent power.
I don't know who you're lumping together with this (yes, someone says "asshole" and my ears burn ), but my sole sticking point is this gleeful march to hand more power over the individual to some unaccountable alphabet agency, accepting on faith that it will never be abused to my detriment. That proposition will almost always get a heartfelt "fuck no" from me. And no, before some pedantic tater twat starts listing off all the laws I would see enforced, I am not and never have advocated for a total absence of government, laws or limitation on your ability to act. But we should always view that creeping expansion with the severest of skepticism.
That's why people form unions. Major League Baseball owners swore free agency would be just plain ruination if the players unionized, then they swore it'd be ruination if players were allowed free agency. Of course, ever since free agency happened the value of baseball franchises has skyrocketed. George Steinbrenner bought the Yankees for $10 million in 1973. Now the team is worth an estimated $5.5 billion. The players thought they were worth more than the owners were paying them, formed a union, won additional rights and higher salaries and everybody benefitted.
By that standard, nobody could ever apply for a job or get a loan. Or engage in a private transaction with someone in a significantly higher tax bracket. Or dozens of other things that happen every day in the really real world where we aren't ruled by fucking bumper sticker platitudes.
You need a job, the employer needs workers. They put out an add on indeed. You have a pretty general idea of what the going rate for that job is and you believe you meet the requirements for that job so you send your resume in. You get called in for an interview. The interview goes well and you're offered the job, but are asked about your salary requirements. You're smart enough to know to ask for more than what you're actually seeking because you know they probably won't agree to that number, but they likely will come close to the number you're actually seeking. They come close, so you agree to take the job because you've mutually decided on a salary that you're both reasonably happy with. You then proceed to prove yourself in the workplace for say, a year or so and ask for a raise that gets you exactly to the dollar amount you initially wanted. How hard is that to understand?
Engaging with a mentality that insists there is an intrinsic value to a person and their labor is an exercise in futility. "I'm worth what I feel is fair, even if nobody wants to pay it. " Fuck's sake.
I see you quoted my post for your remarks and not Lanz's. All I did was quote his post and change some words. So, if you're concerned about putting people in boxes, you took a giant leap over the post which you agree with. If your issue is with the word "asshole", then again, look at Lanz's post in which he uses the word 'progressive' in the same way. If your issue is with the lie Lanz stated, then you need to take that lie up with him. I'm not even going to respond to the lie, just the moronic words he posted.
I don't think he's lying. The modern implementation of social/economic "justice" is an obvious, naked grab for power.
This is where you - all of you - UA, Paladin, FF, fail. You are not listening. You have your own idea of what you think is being said so you flat out refuse to even attempt to understand what someone else is saying.
Oh. fuck. here we go again. All the "words" liberals use are wrong. And all the "words" conservatives use are right. No. You either accept all social buzzwords or you don't use any. Otherwise, you're a hypocrit.
To prevent people from transacting outside their tax bracket, to redistribute wealth until everyone is in the same bracket, or to entirely seize control over the terms of all agreements between all parties? I don't believe I can support any of that.
Yes. But, access doesn't do all the things I can do in Excel. Both have their advantages. But, what I need to do, I can't do in Access.
