+- Twitist Forums (http://twitist.com)
+-- Forum: General Social Media & Marketing Forums (/forum-8.html)
+--- Forum: Social Marketing (/forum-10.html)
+--- Thread: Don't you understand that your value to an employer and to yourself concerning your work is your wage? (/thread-59209.html)
Pages: 1 2
Don't you understand that your value to an employer and to yourself concerning your work is your wage? - RockIt - 01-31-2013 07:24 AM
You are worth exactly what you and your employer agree to for your labor. Not a penny more, not a penny less.
And should you get a better job with better pay, then that is exactly what you are worth, and should it be less, than that's a reflection of you and your employer's perception of value, I don't care what your skills, credentials, or experience say about you.
You are worth exactly what you agree to work for. Nobody puts a gun to someone's head and says "work!", especially in Obama's America with a handout waiting for you.
If you think you are worth more? PROVE IT. Find an employer who says so with a better wage.
@American noodle: No, I want you to prove your worth in a capitalist competitive society. So, if you deserve more, then prove it, go get it. Why is that man next to you worth more than you? Answer: Because he and his employer agreed.
@logan: Maybe I as an employer don't place economic value on you being the best employee ever at pushing a mop. Be the best Chief Financial Officer and make us millions of dollars bettering the lives of 1000s of people in this company and I will agree to pay you more for you contribution EVEN IF YOU ARE A LOUSY EMPLOYEE.
Liv: That's not true. The economy isn't transacted in wage. I can employ 100 fools who agree to work for pennies and yet make a huge profit on them. They are happy and so am I. There is always room for profit because profit is tied to perception of value of assets, goods, services, artistry, etc. things unrelated to "wage"
@Diest: Then why aren't you CREATING DECENT JOBS? And if not you, then WHO? A magic daddy in the sky that just pulls decent jobs out its butt??
AREN'T YOU SICK OF PEOPLE CLAIMING THEY ARE WORTH MORE THAN THEY ARE PAID.
@Dangerous Mr: So, if you think you are worth more, and you value that thought, LEAVE FLORIDA. And if it mildly irritates you, then take your crap wage and pout and let the hungry guy for a better future next to you jump ahead of you instead.
@Robert T: Pay attention. The context is employer-employee. Not other contexts where you may or may not be right. Lady Gaga or any other artist isn't worth economic sh^t until someone gave her a contract to perform for money. Then, she was worth exactly what she was paid no more no less no matter how good a show she performs or CD she makes.
@Ashley: I tend to believe they are not worth more.
But, the context is America, a capitalist system, a competitive system, a system where individuals seek work, not a different system. This question does not necessarily apply to other economic models like a communist or barter based tribal system
@Pragamatism: So who should arbitrate what technology is useful and which is not useful to labor, since technology is nothing but an extension of man as a tool maker. We make tools to do things better, if not, we would be still sharpening our stone spears. And who should arbitrate when technology has gone far enough? Should we have stopped at the Gutenberg press, the cotton gin, maybe after a cure for cancer is found?
And look at the third world benefit from all that technological advancement. You seem to only want to consider the benefits to American workers, not the child now connected to the internet in Chad.
Any answer but the marketplace is wrong. Not in America. Not in a competitive capitalist system
@VoteVote: He is worth exactly what he gets from being CEO whether he is any good or not, works or not, or sits on his a$$ in a coma in the hospital. Because until someone else is CEO, he is the man in the seat worth not one dime more and not one less.
@VoteVote...: There are teachers in rubber rooms in NYC who don't teach anymore because they've been removed from the school. But, the contracts call for them to be paid. It seems to not make sense, dozens of teachers for years and years show up in a room every day and collect a paycheck.
THIS IS WHAT THE EMPLOYER: THE NYC SCHOOL DISTRICT HAS DECIDED THEIR VALUE IS FOR THEIR EFFORT.
That no child learns a thing from these awful despicable degenerates, IS IMMATERIAL.
- Brian - 01-31-2013 07:32 AM
I do, but I also took Econ in college instead of Art History. So....
- AverageJoe - 01-31-2013 07:32 AM
The Party will decide what each worker will receive from the crimnal bourgsouie pigs...comrade.
- Max Hoopla - 01-31-2013 07:32 AM
I see you missed the lesson about when macroeconomics and microeconomics coincide for the best overall result.
- gintable - 01-31-2013 07:32 AM
Yes.
And that is precisely why I am against raising minimum wage. All it does, is cut off the bottom rungs of the ladder so that no one can climb it.
- American Noodle - 01-31-2013 07:32 AM
OOOOH! you want Americans to be slaves?
if you don't like the US market.... you are welcome to move to Africa or China.... please! I can do the burning of your US citizenship
- Logan - 01-31-2013 07:32 AM
Rarely is there a choice in jobs now a days and unless you belong to a union you have no choice in how much you are paid.
A person can be the greatest employee ever, work all the time and give %200...the boss can still be a jerk and never agree to a raise.
To say that things are this black and white is ridiculous. Do you guys all live in an alter universe or something? Somewhere where things are optimal and perfect and always works out for the best and how you want?
- Liv - 01-31-2013 07:32 AM
If we were all worth our wage, then there'd be no such thing as profit. Becasue there would be no surplus remaining to be converted into capital.
Back to Econ 101 with thee!
EDIT: But you're saying that "value" equates to "happiness" or possibly "consent." These concepts aren't even tangentally related...you asked about VALUE....but you are defining value as "the lack of EXPLOITATION."
By that definition....since I am not forcing you to be on this website...there is some monetizable value produced from our interaction.
You understand that that is incorrect, don't you?
You seem to be mixing economics, political economy, moral philosophy, and legal theory together.
But value is something produced....in most cases by enhancing utility...and usually the application of labor is the only means of enhancing utility.
And you completely dodged the fact that: Just because someone accepts a deal...it doesn't mean they are happy with the deal....in fact, I know business owners who express very vocal discontent about paying minimum wage....as well as employees equally vocal about having to accept minimum wage. So neither side is happy...but legally there was no exploitation by either side. Were does your theory stand on this....is there any value there? Or not?
- tallsail860 - 01-31-2013 07:32 AM
I guess that means that Mitt Romney considers certain people worthless - since he's said he likes to fire people. The only worth some workers have is their unions' pension funds - which he had no problem raiding, and then firing the people who worked for it - deposited the cash in a Grand Cayman bank, fired the workers, and then left taxpayers on the hook to make up the money due to the laid-off employees.
I guess you would prefer that sociopath to be occupying the White House.
- Pragmatism Please - 01-31-2013 07:32 AM
Given the mighty power of corporations to supress wages regardless of profits, I like to refer back to Adam Smith, the father of Capitalism. He believed that labor and capital should find equilibium, just like buyer and seller. Thus far, you and I are in agreement. Smith clearly understood that labor must be allowed to organize or capital will enslave labor.
Some unions became too strong during the '70s which is why the big anti-union push through the '80s. Today, the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction. Labor is getting its butt kicked. "Right to Work" is a cleaver way to help corporations divide and conquer.
In an even playing field, capital against labor (Management against union,) your true worth as an employee is negotiated more accurately. One guy sitting in the human services office waiting for his job interview has no power at all.
EDIT
A recent Washington Post story (11/20/2012) reveals a legitimate challenge. From 1995 to 2005, domestic manufacturing represented 37% of our growth in GDP. During that same period, they managed this with 24% less labor. Technology, in this case automation, can have an adverse effect on capital/labor equilibrium. In the Preamble of our Constitution, we find the phrase "promote the general welfare." That's pretty generic but could it mean that the government can and should identify bumps in the road of equilibrium and step in to smoothe the transition?