Under Capitalism Nobody Is Paid What They are Worth

[JudgeRightly]

A pretty little lie that capitalists like to tell themselves, and each other, is that, under a free market capitalist system, people are paid what they are worth, exactly what they deserve, according to market indicators. That's why we shouldn't have a minimum wage, much less raise that minimum wage to a living wage, after all! People, with or without a minimum wage, are going to be PAID WHAT THEY ARE WORTH! The market will ensure that!

The more I think about this, the more I think it's a red herring, if not a straw man.

You see, I'm of the position that in a truly capitalist economy, a worker will get paid based on 1) the kind of job he does, 2) the effort he puts into that job, and 3) what he and his employer agreed upon.

What he is "worth" has little relevance other than to inform the company of what he can do, and is, for the most part, subjective.

As a matter of fact, if the minimum wage kept up with worker productivity, the minimum wage would be over $20 per hour today. But somehow, "people are paid what they are worth."

Regarding minimum wage:

If a company makes X amount of money after one year of work (before calculating expenses), and they have Y number of employees, the maximum amount the company can pay the average employee is X divided by Y.

If the company wants to pay their employees more, they must either fire at a minimum one employee, or make more money next year. But in order to do that, the easiest way is to hire at least one more employee, to divide the workload further and help things run more efficiently.

But don't forget that this is all BEFORE they calculate expenses, such as the cost of the building they make payments on, taxes, travel costs, supplies, materials, and so much more.

All of that lowers the amount of X by Z amount. So, really, the equation for the maximum a company can pay the average employee looks more like:

(X - Z) / Y = maximum wage paid to average employee

Having a minimum wage prevents smaller companies from growing, because in order to pay their employees the minimum wage so they don't break the law, they are limited in how many employees they can hire, which limits how efficient they can become within the year.

In other words, having a minimum wage is counterproductive to employees getting paid more.

NOT ONLY THAT, but (and I'm pretty sure, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you're Catholic, so I'm not sure why you reject the following) Jesus told a parable about a man who wanted to hire some workers to accomplish a task, and then asked the people he told it to a single question which teaches the principle involved:

[JESUS]“For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard.Now when he had agreed with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard.And he went out about the third hour and saw others standing idle in the marketplace,and said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right I will give you.’ So they went.Again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did likewise.And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing idle, and said to them, ‘Why have you been standing here idle all day?’They said to him, ‘Because no one hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right you will receive.’“So when evening had come, the owner of the vineyard said to his steward, ‘Call the laborers and give them their wages, beginning with the last to the first.’And when those came who were hired about the eleventh hour, they each received a denarius.But when the first came, they supposed that they would receive more; and they likewise received each a denarius.And when they had received it, they complained against the landowner,saying, ‘These last men have worked only one hour, and you made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the heat of the day.’But he answered one of them and said, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius?Take what is yours and go your way. I wish to give to this last man the same as to you.Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things? Or is your eye evil because I am good?’[/JESUS] - Matthew 20:1-15 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew20:1-15&version=NKJV

In other words, Jesus is saying that, especially as an employer, one has the right to pay someone an agreed upon amount without any outside intervention, and to do what he wants with his own things (so long, of course, as it's not the commission of a crime).

So, let's say, for example, that I, as a truck driver, start my own trucking company, and one of my friends tells me he wants to work for me in the office, but knows I don't have a lot of experience or money to start with, so he agrees to only work for a fraction of the going rate for the position I hire him for, at least until my company can get on its feet and start earning money.

A minimum wage law would prevent me from hiring him, simply because I cannot pay him the amount defined by law.

Which means, until I can start turning a profit, I have to do all of the work of running the company, paying myself, keeping track of loads, and basically cannot hire anyone to help me do all that.

In other words, the law which you say will promote a healthier pay rate for people in fact prevents people from being hired in the first place, because it deters the creation of new businesses.

The truth of the matter, as Karl Marx recognized, is that, under a capitalist system, NOBODY is paid what they are worth. The vast majority of people, the working class, are actually paid FAR LESS than they are worth, and a relative handful of economic parasites, the capitalist/owner class, are paid FAR MORE than they are worth.

How much of that extra money that you seem to envy so much gets put back into the company to help it grow, and to increase the standard of living of the company owners and his employees?

The simple truth is that if a worker demanded to be paid exactly what he were worth, a capitalist employer would never hire him. Why? Because that means that, for the capitalist employer, it would be a wash. He wouldn't profit one red penny.

And why is that a bad thing?

The capitalist employer wants to maximize his profits, after all. This means that he wants to extract as much value from his employee as he can via revenue and pay out as little to his employee as he can get away with in terms of wages and benefits.

All while still paying his employee... the agreed-upon amount...

This is why Karl Marx called capitalist employment "wage slavery."

Marx was an idiot who thought that the way people were living after Christ's ascension was a good way to live, even though it was only supposed to be a temporary arrangement. It's where he got the idea for communism.

The employee works, but the employer, not the employee, reaps the benefits of his labor.

You're forgetting that the employee gets paid for his work, and usually for the agreed-upon amount, and not only that, but the employer also benefits from hiring the employee, and so both are usually satisfied, even though there may be some loss involved.

It is under a socialist economy, not a capitalist economy, that workers would actually be paid what they are worth.

On paper at least, but unfortunately, what works on paper doesn't always work in reality.

God commands men to "serve one another," which is how an economy works.

Here's What Makes the Economy Function: God commands men to "serve one another" (Galatians 5:13). If one man is alone for life on a desert island, there could be no "economy". (Even money itself would become meaningless, for money must be transferable.) If two or more people were shipwrecked on that island, and they refused to work with one another, and stayed isolated, they would not build an economy. On the other hand, as they attempted to survive, or even thrive, if they did begin providing goods and services to one another, then they would gradually build an economy. An economy grows as human beings increasingly serve one another. And an economy will grow most quickly if these men are free, for the Bible says that, "liberty" provides the "opportunity... [to] serve one another." However, if they began to keep to themselves, and stopped trading goods and services, their economy would sputter out and die. (And if all economic cooperation ceased permanently, any money that each had collected would lose its monetary value.) So an economy thrives when men serve one another.

https://kgov.com/money

If men are not free to serve one another how they see fit, the economy will start to break down and eventually cease to function.

 

[quip]

A pretty little lie that capitalists like to tell themselves, and each other, is that, under a free market capitalist system, people are paid what they are worth, exactly what they deserve, according to market indicators. That's why we shouldn't have a minimum wage, much less raise that minimum wage to a living wage, after all! People, with or without a minimum wage, are going to be PAID WHAT THEY ARE WORTH! The market will ensure that!

As a matter of fact, if the minimum wage kept up with worker productivity, the minimum wage would be over $20 per hour today. But somehow, "people are paid what they are worth."

The truth of the matter, as Karl Marx recognized, is that, under a capitalist system, NOBODY is paid what they are worth. The vast majority of people, the working class, are actually paid FAR LESS than they are worth, and a relative handful of economic parasites, the capitalist/owner class, are paid FAR MORE than they are worth.

The simple truth is that if a worker demanded to be paid exactly what he were worth, a capitalist employer would never hire him. Why? Because that means that, for the capitalist employer, it would be a wash. He wouldn't profit one red penny.

The capitalist employer wants to maximize his profits, after all. This means that he wants to extract as much value from his employee as he can via revenue and pay out as little to his employee as he can get away with in terms of wages and benefits.

This is why Karl Marx called capitalist employment "wage slavery." The employee works, but the employer, not the employee, reaps the benefits of his labor.

It is under a socialist economy, not a capitalist economy, that workers would actually be paid what they are worth.

Just saying.

Are you referring to Anarcho-syndicalism?

 

[The Berean]

Hey Trad, I was wondering do you work now? Did you ever complete your graduate degree in philosophy?

 

[Trump Gurl]

And that's why I call you Bernie.....baffon......get it....Bernie Bafoon is going to educate us all on the greatness of socialism and communism....

They say dope is for dopes. I agree.

So is socialism and communism.

 

[Trump Gurl]

 

[jgarden]

Under Capitalism Nobody Is Paid What They are Worth


As recently as 10 hears ago, who would have predicted that a gay man would receive the most electoral college seats from the Iowa Caucuses, and that a self-described "democratic socialist" would win the popular vote in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada?

Despite increases in the stock market, the average US worker hasn't received an actual increase in wages or in his/her standard of living for the last 50 years, while the American Dream has become just that, a Dream reserved for the 1%!

Donald Trump was elected because people had lost faith in the traditional political and economic models - conservatives would be naive to believe that this is only happening on their side of the political spectrum, there is every reason to believe that equally dramatic changes are currently taking place on the other side of the spectrum!

 

[ok doser]

As recently as 10 hears ago, who would have predicted that a gay man would receive the most electoral college seats from the Iowa Caucuses, and that a self-described "democratic socialist" would win the popular vote in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada?

You don't get it

All former norms for presidential elections went out the window when Obama ran as our first affirmative action candidate and won

Inexperienced and unqualified for the job, he was hired primarily because of the color of his skin.

And so, we get a reality TV star POTUS, facing off against a homo whose only executive experience has been as mayor of a small town in Podunk USA and a 94 year old weirdo who venerates Stalin and Hitler

 

[The Berean]

The same way that employers do.

Productivity/projected increase in revenue.

If you hire an employee to make pizzas for your pizza restaurant, and the employee generates x amount of profit (revenue - expenses (expenses other than employee wages, that is)), then that's what the employee is actually worth.

That's not what he's getting paid, though.

He's getting paid much less than x.

This definition of "worth" doesn't make sense.

In your pizza example how do you directly calculate the profit the pizza maker generates? Usually there is more than one person that helps make the pizza. One person may make the dough, another may cut the meat and vegetables, and another person may prep the the pizza oven. And how about the person at the register or the dishwasher?

And the pizza example is very simple. Lets try something way more complex. I spent 15 years designing and building these babies.

These geosynchrnous telecommunications satellites are incredibly complex in function, design, and assembly. Literally hundreds even thousands of people are involved directly or indirectly in creating the final product. How would we calculate each person's individual contribution? Just in engineering alone there are perhaps 45-50 engineers involved with one satellite. Then you have several dozen technicians who build and test the satellite. Then you have the production planners who work with vendors and manage all the components and parts and make sure the people on the manufacturing floor have their parts on time. And production planners never actually touch or help build the satellite with their hands. How about the managers who plan, coordinate, and schedule the design, building, and testing of the satellites? They spend most of their days in meetings using spreadsheets and planning software to plan the build and testing of the satellite? Then you have the logistics people who load the satellites in a truck or airplane and take it to various offsite testing facilities or launch bases. Then you have the IT guys who make sure everyone's computers are working properly so they can do their work. Then you have the marketing people who travel all over the world to meet with current customers and look for new customers. And these marketing people are not like marketing people who work for Nike or Apple, or JC Penny. Marketing people in the satellite industry are all engineers who must have thorough knowledge of satellite technology.

How would you calculate the "worth" of every person involved in creating a satellite?

The simple truth is that there is no objective "worth" in terms of salary/compensation. You are worth what you and your employer agree on. In my current job that I started just three months ago I asked for a salary in the mid six figures. I expected the company to come back with a counter offer. But they didn't. They agreed to my number. No doubt they thought I am worth what I asked for.

 

[jgarden]

You don't get it

All former norms for presidential elections went out the window when Obama ran as our first affirmative action candidate and won

Inexperienced and unqualified for the job, he was hired primarily because of the color of his skin.

And so, we get a reality TV star POTUS, facing off against a homo whose only executive experience has been as mayor of a small town in Podunk USA and a 94 year old weirdo who venerates Stalin and Hitler

The reality is that America "blacks" have a long history of voting for "white" candidates - unfortunately the same can't be said for their "white" counterparts!

With the possible exception of Harry Truman, former businessman have made notoriously bad presidents and Trump will be remembered as the worst of the lot!

Presidents who were former businessmen
************************************************
Warren Harding (1921-23) - former newspaper publisher
- ranked 42nd

Calvin Coolidge (1923-29) - former vice president of a bank
- ranked 27th

Jimmy Carter (1977-81) - peanut farmer (previously governor of Georgia)
- ranked 26th

GHW Bushesident (1989-93) - oil industry executive
- ranked 17th

GW Bush (2001-09) - former oil and gas executive, Major League Baseball team co-owner (Texas Rangers)
-ranked 35th

Herbert Hoover (1929-33) - former mining engineer and executive
- ranked 39th

https://www.bankrate.com/finance/pol...1.aspx#slide=8

 

[ok doser]

The reality is that America "blacks" have a long history of voting for "white" candidates - unfortunately the same can't be said for their "white" counterparts!

With the possible exception of Harry Truman, former businessman have made notoriously bad presidents and Trump will be remembered as the worst of the lot!

Presidents who were former businessmen
************************************************
Warren Harding - Former newspaper publisher
- ranked 42nd

Calvin Cooledge

Jimmy Carter

GHW Bush

GW Bush

Herbert Hoover

https://www.bankrate.com/finance/pol...1.aspx#slide=8

Historically, we have chosen as POTUS those candidates who have high level executive experience - primarily former Governors and former Vice Presidents - Bush2, Clinton, Bush1, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson. You have to go all the way back to JFK to find an exxception to this rule, and JFK came to the job with wartime executive miltary experience and 13 years of experience in Congress

Obama opened the door to novelty candidates

you have a similar situation in the north, with your former school teacher/leader struggling to deal with your society fraying at the seams

 

[Traditio]

This definition of "worth" doesn't make sense.

In your pizza example how do you directly calculate the profit the pizza maker generates?

Practically speaking, the question you are asking is a dumb question. Why is it a dumb question? Because the capitalist employer actually does that. Before he even advertises a job opening, he's doing a cost/benefit analysis to determine whether or not it's even worth it to hire someone.

And even if you were to say, "But Traditio, he's not calculating the ability of that one employee to generate revenue. He's calculating the ability of the entire team to generate revenue," my point still fundamentally stands.

You are worth what you and your employer agree on.

That's objectively not the case. In the capitalist employer/employee relationship, the employee is going to demand the highest wages and the best benefits and working conditions that the employer is willing to hand over. The employer is going to try to haggle him down to the lowest wages, least benefits and least expensive working conditions that the employee is willing to settle for.

But there is always going to be an upper limit to what the employer is willing to negotiate. If he's not profiting, you're not getting hired.

In my current job that I started just three months ago I asked for a salary in the mid six figures. I expected the company to come back with a counter offer. But they didn't. They agreed to my number. No doubt they thought I am worth what I asked for.

They didn't think that you are worth what you asked for. They thought that you are worth much more than what you asked for. If they didn't, they either wouldn't have hired you, or else, they would have given you a lower counteroffer. If they even thought it would be a WASH to hire you (they would neither gain nor lose anything), they wouldn't have hired you, or else, would have given you a lower counteroffer.

 

[Traditio]

For the record, this is why we are seeing the new trend towards automation.

Employers don't give employees jobs out of the kindness of their hearts.

They give employees jobs because they expect to get more in revenue than they pay out in wages and benefits.

If a capitalist employer could maximize profits by eliminating a job and buying a robot, he most certainly will.

That's also the reason for outsourcing and immigration.

If a capitalist employer could maximize revenues by shipping your jobs over to Mexico and China, or by hiring immigrants (legal or otherwise) for peanuts, then that's what he's going to do.

Capitalism is great for the owner class.

It's not so great for everyone else.

That's what's so significant about the Andrew Yang campaign. If you consider the natural orientation of capitalism, a UBI is the only way to save capitalism. Half of the jobs are projected to be automated away within the next 10 years, including truck driving and call center jobs. Unemployment is going to be a real problem.

A UBI (in effect, bread and circuses) would at least temporarily save capitalism by preventing a popular demand for an economic revolution.

But if capitalism needs saving in the first place, it's not worth saving.

We don't need reform. We need revolution.

We don't need to "fix" the system.

We need a different system.

#SeizeTheMeansOfProduction

 

[The Berean]

For the record, this is why we are seeing the new trend towards automation.

Employers don't give employees jobs out of the kindness of their hearts.

They give employees jobs because they expect to get more in revenue than they pay out in wages and benefits.

If a capitalist employer could maximize profits by eliminating a job and buying a robot, he most certainly will.

That's also the reason for outsourcing and automation.

If a capitalist employer could maximize revenues by shipping your jobs over to Mexico and China, or by hiring illegal immigrants for peanuts, then that's what he's going to do.

Capitalism is great for the owner class.

It's not so great for everyone else.

That's what's so significant about the Andrew Yang campaign. If you consider the natural orientation of capitalism, a UBI is the only way to save capitalism. Half of the jobs are projected to be automated away within the next 10 years, including truck driving and call center jobs. Unemployment is going to be a real problem.

A UBI (in effect, bread and circuses) would at least temporarily save capitalism by preventing a popular demand for an economic revolution.

But if capitalism needs saving in the first place, it's not worth saving.

We don't need reform. We need revolution.

We don't need to "fix" the system.

We need a different system.

#SeizeTheMeansOfProduction

So if the workers took control of the factories they would not use robots and automation?

 

[Traditio]

So if the workers took control of the factories they would not use robots and automation?

Of course they would. But instead of firing a bunch of people and having all of the profits go to the top, they would just work fewer hours and share in the revenue being generated.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Of course they would. But instead of firing a bunch of people and having all of the profits go to the top, they would just work fewer hours and share in the revenue being generated.

Working fewer hours results in less pay during a pay period.

Seems to be a good way to make less money, by working less...

What was it that Paul said?

Oh right!

"If a man does not work, he shall not eat."

:think:

 

[Traditio]

Working fewer hours results in less pay during a pay period.

Seems to be a good way to make less money, by working less...

I'll explain it the same way that Marxist economics professor Richard Wolff explains it:

Let us suppose we are talking about farming. We have a large farm that requires some 50 or so workers to man it.

But all of a sudden, we get a machine that makes it so that we only need 25 workers to produce the same output.

There's two possible results:

1. You can fire half of the workers and hand over more of the revenue to the owner.

2. You can get rid of the owner, have all of the workers work half as much, but pay them the same wages.

What was it that Paul said?

Oh right!

"If a man does not work, he shall not eat."

:think:

I agree with St. Paul

That's why I am an anti-capitalist. Under capitalism, the workers do not own, and the owners do not work.

In the words of Joseph Goebells, "socialism is a philosophy of work." Unlike capitalism.

"We are socialists because we see the social question as a matter of necessity and justice for the very existence of a state for our people, not a question of cheap pity or insulting sentimentality. The worker has a claim to a living standard that corresponds to what he produces. We have no intention of begging for that right… Since the political powers of the day are neither willing nor able to create such a situation, socialism must be fought for. It is a fighting slogan both inwardly and outwardly. It is aimed domestically at the bourgeois parties and Marxism at the same time, because both are sworn enemies of the coming workers’ state. It is directed abroad at all powers that threaten our national existence and thereby the possibility of the coming socialist national state" (Joseph Goebells, 1932).

"The worker in a capitalist state—and that is his deepest misfortune—is no longer a living human being, a creator, a maker. He has become a machine. A number, a cog in the machine without sense or understanding. He is alienated from what he produces" (Joseph Goebells, 1932).

 

[The Berean]

Practically speaking, the question you are asking is a dumb question. Why is it a dumb question? Because the capitalist employer actually does that. Before he even advertises a job opening, he's doing a cost/benefit analysis to determine whether or not it's even worth it to hire someone.

It's not a dumb question. You simply lack the understanding of what I am asking. From what I seen in my 20+years working in Silicon Valley is that employers hire when the the number of current employees cannot keep up with demand of their product.

That's objectively not the case. In the capitalist employer/employee relationship, the employee is going to demand the highest wages and the best benefits and working conditions that the employer is willing to hand over. The employer is going to try to haggle him down to the lowest wages, least benefits and least expensive working conditions that the employee is willing to settle for.

This is exactly what I said. Again it seems It seems you initial disagreed then your following sentences refuted you own initial statements.
But there is always going to be an upper limit to what the employer is willing to negotiate. If he's not profiting, you're not getting hired.

They didn't think that you are worth what you asked for. They thought that you are worth much more than what you asked for. If they didn't, they either wouldn't have hired you, or else, they would have given you a lower counteroffer.

Nonsense. You have no idea what my employer was willing to pay. Most likely they had a range and my salary request was within that range.

If they even thought it would be a WASH to hire you (they would neither gain nor lose anything), they wouldn't have hired you, or else, would have given you a lower counteroffer.

See my previous statement.

Also, why did you disregard my example of building a satellite? Please explain with literally thousands of people involved in building one satellite how does the employer determine how much revenue each employee produce?

 

[Traditio]

It's not a dumb question. You simply lack the understanding of what I am asking. From what I seen in my 20+years working in Silicon Valley is that employers hire when the the number of current employees cannot keep up with demand of their product.

Yeah, sure. And that's going to have a bullish effect on wages. But the capitalist employers are still doing a cost/benefit analysis every time they offer a job. If the profits that are generated by meeting the demand for their product does not EXCEED (not match, exceed) what it is going to cost to hire someone, they're not going to do it.

This is exactly what I said. Again it seems It seems you initial disagreed then your following sentences refuted you own initial statements
But there is always going to be an upper limit to what the employer is willing to negotiate. If he's not profiting, you're not getting hired.

Yeah. That upper limit is still less than what you are actually worth. You are actually worth your entire productive capacity. The profits that you generate? Either most of or all of the total amount that the capitalist employer expects for you to generate? That's what you are actually worth. That's not what you're getting paid, though.

Nonsense. You have no idea what my employer was willing to pay. Most likely they had a range and my salary request was within that range.

Yes. And the upper limit of that range is still LESS than the revenue that you are generating.

Also, why did you disregard my example of building a satellite? Please explain with literally thousands of people involved in building one satellite how does the employer determine how much revenue each employee produce?

He's presumably calculating the revenue produced by the entire team. He's making a cost/benefit analysis based on the revenue that the satellite is going to end up bringing in.

But there IS a cost/benefit analysis being made. That's my point. At the end of the day, the capitalist employer is not hiring ANY of those people unless the team is willing to work for less than what they are actually generating in revenue.

 

[The Berean]

Of course they would. But instead of firing a bunch of people and having all of the profits go to the top, they would just work fewer hours and share in the revenue being generated.

It's obvious you have never worked in a factory before. The workers would work the same or more hours with automation.

Tesla has one of the most advanced automation factories in the world. Tesla is infamous for workers their factory workers really hard. If the workers took over Tesla would they work less hours? If they did the company would go out of business.

 

[Traditio]

It's obvious you have never worked in a factory before. The workers would work the same or more hours with automation.

Tesla has one of the most advanced automation factories in the world. Tesla is infamous for workers their factory workers really hard.

OF COURSE THEY DO!

What part of this are you not getting?

The point of automation under capitalism is not to make life easier for the workers. It's to maximize revenue by decreasing labor costs. If you have an automated factory, you are still going to need workers. You're just going to need less of them, and you're going to try to maximize the revenues generated by the workers that you still have.

If the workers took over Tesla would they work less hours?

By hiring a few more people.

Basically, this is what you are doing.

We have a farm with 50 people. A machine comes around and makes it so that we only need 25 now. The capitalist employer fires half of his employees and works the remaining half to the bone.

You're looking at that and saying: "What, if the remaining 25 revolted against their employer and seized the farm, they would work less? The farm would go out of business!" Meanwhile, you're conveniently forgetting the fact that we started with 50 people, not 25.