Income Inequality?

[Sam]

There are so many variables here it does not look like a very useful calculation.

It's a pretty standard measurement, used by economists of all shapes, sizes and political affiliations. Modeling the economy ain't easy but that doesn't mean such models are useless. Nobody is arguing that productivity has not increased over time and nobody is arguing that minimum wage, adjusted for inflation, has decreased over time. Those are the two factors at issue.

[Darth Executor]

It's a pretty standard measurement, used by economists of all shapes, sizes and political affiliations. Modeling the economy ain't easy but that doesn't mean such models are useless. Nobody is arguing that productivity has not increased over time and nobody is arguing that minimum wage, adjusted for inflation, has decreased over time. Those are the two factors at issue.

Productivity is useless for making your case though since it's not dependent on worker skill and has increased largely due to factors outside of their direct control (tech improvements and globalization). Basically, you think people should be paid more for doing the same thing (or less).

[Tassman]

An ironic complaint coming from someone who has no objective basis for his moral code...

You're the one who was claiming that since America is a 'Christian country' but violent etc etc there must be a problem with Christianity -

not important, because the statistics say otherwise.

yet now you're saying that Christianity is too diverse to be clearly defined in terms of moral outcomes. Enjoy shooting yourself in the foot much?

Which is it: is Christian moral behaviour pretty much clear in the Bible - yet not practiced by most 'professed Christians'; or is Christian moral behaviour so open to a wide range of interpretations that we can't say who is or isn't truly following it?

Jump the gun much? You have to show that (1) a significant majority of Americans are practicing biblical Christians, and that (2) their doing this has had no positive impact on what their society would be like if they were secularists instead.

The vast majority of Americans claim to be active, believing Christians regardless of whether you

[Cow Poke]

Productivity is useless for making your case though since it's not dependent on worker skill and has increased largely due to factors outside of their direct control (tech improvements and globalization). Basically, you think people should be paid more for doing the same thing (or less).

It's no different than the "everybody gets a trophy" crap.

[Sparko]

Let's say that you know for a fact that you don't bring in $15/hour in revenue for this fast-food restaurant: it is quite clear that you are being offered more than what your work is worth on a strictly financial level. Is there another reason your boss might think it just to pay you $15/hour?

Why would he offer to pay me (and I assume others) a rate that would cause him to lose money and possibly his business?

Don't you think the owner of a business has the right to pay someone what he wants to pay them and if the worker agrees then they have a deal. If the worker does not agree he can go elsewhere, right? But does the worker have the right to make a deal for something he doesn't like and then later demand the owner pay him more? Shouldn't that be the owner's decision?

Matthew 20:
20 “For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. 2 He agreed to pay them a denarius[a] for the day and sent them into his vineyard.

3 “About nine in the morning he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4 He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ 5 So they went.

“He went out again about noon and about three in the afternoon and did the same thing. 6 About five in the afternoon he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?’

7 “‘Because no one has hired us,’ they answered.

“He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.’

8 “When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’

9 “The workers who were hired about five in the afternoon came and each received a denarius. 10 So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11 When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12 ‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’

13 “But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? 14 Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15 Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’

[Sparko]

There are so many variables here it does not look like a very useful calculation.

you can make statistics and graphs say pretty much whatever you want to if you "massage" the data just the right way. Tweak this value, adjust this one, add in a sprinkling of "averaged for inflation" dust, etc.

[Littlejoe]

It's no different than the "everybody gets a trophy" crap.

Seriously? You think that? You never got a raise at your last company for doing the same job?

[Cow Poke]

Seriously? You think that? You never got a raise at your last company for doing the same job?

Laughing... yeah, but I have the joy of knowing I EARNED it. It wasn't because EVERYBODY got the same raise.

[Littlejoe]

Laughing... yeah, but I have the joy of knowing I EARNED it. It wasn't because EVERYBODY got the same raise.

Ok, but you posted that in response to this:

Productivity is useless for making your case though since it's not dependent on worker skill and has increased largely due to factors outside of their direct control (tech improvements and globalization). Basically, you think people should be paid more for doing the same thing (or less).

Oh, OK. To me, that's not the same thing. I thought you were meaning something different I guess.

American workers are more productive...whether by automation or otherwise. I like to think that most Americans (but certainly by NO means ALL) have the pride and drive that causes them to excel. Look at the place I currently work. 10 years ago, this site supported 1000 computers, 15-20 servers, multiple switches and the phone system. There were 12 tech's doing that job. Now, with literally the same users, same servers and switches, this site is manned by 3 tech's (but now we have a VOIP phone system instead of the Analog one but the 3 of us still supported it until last year). Our CEO just recently (in response to multiple questions about the health of our Company) announced that our company posted a net profit of $100 million dollars last year. Meanwhile, we are going on our 4th year of wage freezes, and our benefits have been cut...again. Am I looking for another job? You BET I am...but I haven't been successful. So, just up an leaving a job for a better paying one, doesn't always work. Meanwhile, my house payment has risen $250/ month because of increase to my taxes and insurance, nothing is getting cheaper and I make less money than I did 10 yrs ago...so, tell me what's fair about that?

ETA: And I'll bet you a dime to a donut hole that our CEO isn't worrying about how he's going to make the mortgage pmt while continuing to send his daughter to college...

[Spartacus]

Why would he offer to pay me (and I assume others) a rate that would cause him to lose money and possibly his business?

That's the question I'm asking you. What possible reason might he have for doing so and for thinking that doing so is just and/or fitting?

Don't you think the owner of a business has the right to pay someone what he wants to pay them and if the worker agrees then they have a deal. If the worker does not agree he can go elsewhere, right? But does the worker have the right to make a deal for something he doesn't like and then later demand the owner pay him more? Shouldn't that be the owner's decision?

The owner is the one who makes the judgment, but he must make the judgment in accordance with virtue, not simply whatever he can get his workers to agree to. That shouldn't be a difficult concept.

The key element of this story that you're missing is that every worker walked away with the daily wage-- which was, for the worker, enough to sustain him for another day. They weren't about to save up for retirement on that wage (that's what your kids were for), but they (and their families, including elderly parents and young children) could get through another day.

[Sparko]

Ok, but you posted that in response to this:
Oh, OK. To me, that's not the same thing. I thought you were meaning something different I guess.

American workers are more productive...whether by automation or otherwise. I like to think that most Americans (but certainly by NO means ALL) have the pride and drive that causes them to excel. Look at the place I currently work. 10 years ago, this site supported 1000 computers, 15-20 servers, multiple switches and the phone system. There were 12 tech's doing that job. Now, with literally the same users, same servers and switches, this site is manned by 3 tech's (but now we have a VOIP phone system instead of the Analog one but the 3 of us still supported it until last year). Our CEO just recently (in response to multiple questions about the health of our Company) announced that our company posted a net profit of $100 million dollars last year. Meanwhile, we are going on our 4th year of wage freezes, and our benefits have been cut...again. Am I looking for another job? You BET I am...but I haven't been successful. So, just up an leaving a job for a better paying one, doesn't always work. Meanwhile, my house payment has risen $250/ month because of increase to my taxes and insurance, nothing is getting cheaper and I make less money than I did 10 yrs ago...so, tell me what's fair about that?

check out Geico. seriously. They saved me 50% on my home owner's insurance.

--

Yeah sometimes it takes a while to get a new job. But as long as you are working where you are, you have an implicit agreement with your employer that your work is worth your pay. You can try to talk them into more money, or do something to move up in the company, or just sit there and do the job and take the pay. You do have some say in the matter.

[Littlejoe]

check out Geico. seriously. They saved me 50% on my home owner's insurance.

Yeah, just went through all that...TX Farm Bureau has the best rate for me, everywhere I checked, (including Geico) the prices were higher than I'm currently paying.

--

Yeah sometimes it takes a while to get a new job. But as long as you are working where you are, you have an implicit agreement with your employer that your work is worth your pay. You can try to talk them into more money, or do something to move up in the company, or just sit there and do the job and take the pay. You do have some say in the matter.

LOL! You obviously don't know my company...I have been offered "Promotions", when asked about a raise, their answer is...OH, no, it doesn't come with a raise...

[Sam]

check out Geico. seriously. They saved me 50% on my home owner's insurance.

--

Yeah sometimes it takes a while to get a new job. But as long as you are working where you are, you have an implicit agreement with your employer that your work is worth your pay. You can try to talk them into more money, or do something to move up in the company, or just sit there and do the job and take the pay. You do have some say in the matter.

This seems an almost axiomatic claim that work is worth only as much as an employer wants to pay. That is to say that an employer can never undervalue work and that exploitation of wage is impossible. If Littlejoe's company is pulling in big profits and shareholders are receiving increasing ROI, his question was is it fair that his labor is not being similarly valued? Does the company need to freeze his wages while it's pulling in $100m in profit? Is it right for the company to do that if it is not necessary?

[Sparko]

This seems an almost axiomatic claim that work is worth only as much as an employer wants to pay. That is to say that an employer can never undervalue work and that exploitation of wage is impossible. If Littlejoe's company is pulling in big profits and shareholders are receiving increasing ROI, his question was is it fair that his labor is not being similarly valued? Does the company need to freeze his wages while it's pulling in $100m in profit? Is it right for the company to do that if it is not necessary?

I would say that LJ was not being treated fairly. That his company is taking advantage of its workers. I never claimed that doesn't happen. But as long as LJ remains working there, he is giving his agreement to do the work for the pay they are giving him. He said he is looking for other work. Which is what he should be doing. If a good percentage of the employees go to work at the competition, or leave the company, then the company will be forced to re-evaluate their pay structure and either start paying a fair wage or go out of business. It is how the market works.

[Sam]

I would say that LJ was not being treated fairly. That his company is taking advantage of its workers. I never claimed that doesn't happen. But as long as LJ remains working there, he is giving his agreement to do the work for the pay they are giving him. He said he is looking for other work. Which is what he should be doing. If a good percentage of the employees go to work at the competition, or leave the company, then the company will be forced to re-evaluate their pay structure and either start paying a fair wage or go out of business. It is how the market works.

It's how the market works ideally. But say these companies agree, explicitly or implicitly, that they will all sacrifice wages for increased ROI. Then you'd start to see wages stagnate while executives and investors continued to increase their wealth. You might even see wages decline while the top 1% (which holds the most investment) increased their wealth. The market can and has worked like that, too. And it's exactly the trend we've seen over the past few decades and is, indeed, the driving force behind increasing economic inequality.