A
aspawloski4th
Guest
Thats where printing money out of thin air comes in!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
C
cynic
Guest
The socialists among us might say the minimum cost of living depending for a given area, including rent on a room, groceries, travel costs, plus basic insurance for one individual, divided by around 45 hours.
However…
Most true blue libertarians on these forums would say "as little as you can get away with before they look elsewhere " ie. the market decides.
Of course to reduce the chances that they will look elsewhere or try to bargain for better conditions, you need to make sure that semi-skilled feel sufficiently inadequate about their status and lack of success in life. Remind them daily that the real work is done only by educated white collar professionals or self-employed entreprenuerial types, that they’re lucky to have a job at all.
With enough of your fellow employers doing the same, they’ll be a long-term suppression of wages for the low paid, resulting in reduced labour costs.
However…
Most true blue libertarians on these forums would say "as little as you can get away with before they look elsewhere " ie. the market decides.
Of course to reduce the chances that they will look elsewhere or try to bargain for better conditions, you need to make sure that semi-skilled feel sufficiently inadequate about their status and lack of success in life. Remind them daily that the real work is done only by educated white collar professionals or self-employed entreprenuerial types, that they’re lucky to have a job at all.
With enough of your fellow employers doing the same, they’ll be a long-term suppression of wages for the low paid, resulting in reduced labour costs.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
This seems to make the assumption that there is no inherent value in non-professional, non-entreprenurial labor; an assumption I would dispute. Granted, there is presently a recession going on, and some areas are devastated. But around here, at least, capable industrial workers with a good record are highly sought. Reasonably fit, fairly skilled workers with no criminal record, who can read, write and cipher can go from job to job with ease if they want to do it. They have to be well incentivized to stay where they are. That has been the case for many years.Most true blue libertarians on these forums would say "as little as you can get away with before they look elsewhere " ie. the market decides.
Of course to reduce the chances that they will look elsewhere or try to bargain for better conditions, you need to make sure that semi-skilled feel sufficiently inadequate about their status and lack of success in life. Remind them daily that the real work is done only by educated white collar professionals or self-employed entreprenuerial types, that they’re lucky to have a job at all.
With enough of your fellow employers doing the same, they’ll be a long-term suppression of wages for the low paid, resulting in reduced labour costs.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Perhaps I should add that I’m not a libertarian. I will say, however, that it’s very difficult for an employer to adjust an individual worker’s wage to his/her needs, regardless of the motivation of the employer in doing it. “Discrimination” has become so embedded in the consciousness of the public as the ultimate social evil, that “favorable discrimination” is virtually impossible, no matter what the basis of it might be. Since anti-discrimination laws of all sorts find “guilt” based on “patterns”, employers have been forced to adopt all kinds of complicated rules to ensure that they don’t inadvertently create what might be interpreted as a “pattern” of discrimination based on some forbidden basis. If you create a “pattern” that can be interpreted as discriminatory in some forbidden way, it will be presumed that the forbidden discrimination is the motive.
M
MumboJumbo
Guest
A just wage is what the employer would demand if he had to perform the labor.The Church teaches that wages should not be determined just by the market. It is wrong to pay people less than what their work is really worth. But if we aren’t using the market to determine what work is worth, how do we calculate it?
- Based on how much the person needs to live? Does this mean it’s okay to pay a single person less than a parent for the same job? Do we have to pay a person even more if they have lots of kids? If so, is it wrong to intentionally hire only single people?
- Based on how much profit the employer makes from their work? Does that mean that a company that does poorly is justified in paying its employees less for the same work they could do elsewhere?
- Some other criteria?
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
That, of course, is a purely subjective measure, and doesn’t really aid in determining what a “just wage” might be, objectively.A just wage is what the employer would demand if he had to perform the labor.
A
aspawloski4th
Guest
In my family eos and eons ago was an atutobody shop owned by my greatgrandfather. He started it in 1921 with only a quarter in his pocket and his business management degree he had just earned. Granted autobodyshops were a new concept with lots of growth potential. But he eventually made a good enough living to live like the richh owners of large luxery car dealerships. Until this auto manufacturer went out of business his was the only bodyshop in the county good enough to do Packard work. One thing that sticks with me this day The body shop was in Grand Rapids Michigan. He had a worker who’s job was mainly a frame straightener< back in the 1930’s and 1940’s. The frame straightening guy lived about 50 miles north of Grand Rapids. For that guy to drive that far to work back in those days he had to have been paid very well, people just didn’t drive that far to work back then, they couldn’t aford it. I find it very sad that attitude twardss employee wages doesn’t really exist much of anywhere anymore.
E
Ender
Guest
I reject the entire concept that there is such a thing as a just wage.
What there are are unjust practices that may be manifested in low wages but low wages themselves are not necessarily unjust. Nothing can be said about the “justness” of a salary solely from the amount of the pay itself; there are always other criteria that have to be considered before any reasonable judgment can be made about whether the worker is being fairly or unfairly treated. Since the wage in and of itself is neither just nor unjust there cannot be a generic just wage.
Ender
What there are are unjust practices that may be manifested in low wages but low wages themselves are not necessarily unjust. Nothing can be said about the “justness” of a salary solely from the amount of the pay itself; there are always other criteria that have to be considered before any reasonable judgment can be made about whether the worker is being fairly or unfairly treated. Since the wage in and of itself is neither just nor unjust there cannot be a generic just wage.
Ender
F
fultonfish
Guest
A couple of additional discussion points:
When the government takes more than 40% of people’s income, then the economy stagnates and the number of children declines. People just cannot afford to raise families because after taxes, there is relatively little money left.
There has also been an inflation of expectations. People just cannot live without granite countertops and three bathrooms. Those and many other amenities are extremely expensive and just drag the family down with the continuing incremental cost of one additional luxury after another.
The writings by the Church on just wages also state that the worker has an obligation to live /spend carefully and frugally, to live within his means. What we often see however are people who purchase houses and cars that are so expensive that there is no way they can make the payments. For a while, there was a thought process that if you bought the largest house you possibly could, then you would be able to profit from inflation and sell the house for a huge percentage increase over the purchase price. Unfortunately, that “model” did not allow for unforeseen situations and when any little glitch came along, they were unable to make the payments and they lost everything.
If you look at the size of the houses people lived in when they had six or ten children, you would marvel because the houses were so tiny and had almost no amenities. Barely cottages.
When the government takes more than 40% of people’s income, then the economy stagnates and the number of children declines. People just cannot afford to raise families because after taxes, there is relatively little money left.
There has also been an inflation of expectations. People just cannot live without granite countertops and three bathrooms. Those and many other amenities are extremely expensive and just drag the family down with the continuing incremental cost of one additional luxury after another.
The writings by the Church on just wages also state that the worker has an obligation to live /spend carefully and frugally, to live within his means. What we often see however are people who purchase houses and cars that are so expensive that there is no way they can make the payments. For a while, there was a thought process that if you bought the largest house you possibly could, then you would be able to profit from inflation and sell the house for a huge percentage increase over the purchase price. Unfortunately, that “model” did not allow for unforeseen situations and when any little glitch came along, they were unable to make the payments and they lost everything.
If you look at the size of the houses people lived in when they had six or ten children, you would marvel because the houses were so tiny and had almost no amenities. Barely cottages.
A
aspawloski4th
Guest
Most people live somewhere between the extremes you mention. being the oldest of 8 myself, I wouldn’t want to go to the oldays extreme. But I’m not so greedy to go to the materialistic extreme. Moderation.A couple of additional discussion points:
When the government takes more than 40% of people’s income, then the economy stagnates and the number of children declines. People just cannot afford to raise families because after taxes, there is relatively little money left.
There has also been an inflation of expectations. People just cannot live without granite countertops and three bathrooms. Those and many other amenities are extremely expensive and just drag the family down with the continuing incremental cost of one additional luxury after another.
The writings by the Church on just wages also state that the worker has an obligation to live /spend carefully and frugally, to live within his means. What we often see however are people who purchase houses and cars that are so expensive that there is no way they can make the payments. For a while, there was a thought process that if you bought the largest house you possibly could, then you would be able to profit from inflation and sell the house for a huge percentage increase over the purchase price. Unfortunately, that “model” did not allow for unforeseen situations and when any little glitch came along, they were unable to make the payments and they lost everything.
If you look at the size of the houses people lived in when they had six or ten children, you would marvel because the houses were so tiny and had almost no amenities. Barely cottages.
F
fultonfish
Guest
What is so extreme about living within your means?Most people live somewhere between the extremes you mention. being the oldest of 8 myself, I wouldn’t want to go to the oldays extreme. But I’m not so greedy to go to the materialistic extreme. Moderation.
R
royal_archer
Guest
a prerequisite to a discussion on a just wage should probably be a discussion on what is a minimum to survive and what is a luxury. After in a barracks I’d say a one bedroom house is a luxury.What is so extreme about living within your means?
F
fultonfish
Guest
I know people who REFUSE to even consider buying a used car, or using a car until it collapses from age, or as an adult using a bicycle for transportation.
A
aspawloski4th
Guest
Riding a bike in the snow isn’t practical. But my cars always have been beaters.I know people who REFUSE to even consider buying a used car, or using a car until it collapses from age, or as an adult using a bicycle for transportation.
A
aspawloski4th
Guest
Survival only is extreme simplicity.What is so extreme about living within your means?
A
aspawloski4th
Guest
One reason for less children that many forget here is people marry later in life thesedays. Often there is just less time on the ole biological clock to have children.A couple of additional discussion points:
When the government takes more than 40% of people’s income, then the economy stagnates and the number of children declines. People just cannot afford to raise families because after taxes, there is relatively little money left.
There has also been an inflation of expectations. People just cannot live without granite countertops and three bathrooms. Those and many other amenities are extremely expensive and just drag the family down with the continuing incremental cost of one additional luxury after another.
The writings by the Church on just wages also state that the worker has an obligation to live /spend carefully and frugally, to live within his means. What we often see however are people who purchase houses and cars that are so expensive that there is no way they can make the payments. For a while, there was a thought process that if you bought the largest house you possibly could, then you would be able to profit from inflation and sell the house for a huge percentage increase over the purchase price. Unfortunately, that “model” did not allow for unforeseen situations and when any little glitch came along, they were unable to make the payments and they lost everything.
If you look at the size of the houses people lived in when they had six or ten children, you would marvel because the houses were so tiny and had almost no amenities. Barely cottages.
C
cynic
Guest
being able to rent a room in a flat (with others) is not a luxury.a prerequisite to a discussion on a just wage should probably be a discussion on what is a minimum to survive and what is a luxury. After in a barracks I’d say a one bedroom house is a luxury.
R
royal_archer
Guest
People can survive living in one bedroom buildings with 20+ people so therefore anythning more than that is a luxury.being able to rent a room in a flat (with others) is not a luxury.
A
aspawloski4th
Guest
With that lack of concern for privacy I know you arent German, or if you are it didn’t play a role in your upbringing.People can survive living in one bedroom buildings with 20+ people so therefore anythning more than that is a luxury.
N
Newbie2
Guest
That’s a very good point.I reject the entire concept that there is such a thing as a just wage.
What there are are unjust practices that may be manifested in low wages but low wages themselves are not necessarily unjust. Nothing can be said about the “justness” of a salary solely from the amount of the pay itself; there are always other criteria that have to be considered before any reasonable judgment can be made about whether the worker is being fairly or unfairly treated. Since the wage in and of itself is neither just nor unjust there cannot be a generic just wage.
Ender
I’d maintain that the ‘justness’ of a wage is relative to the economic conditions and intent of the employer.
As an example, in Detroit there are two similar business in operation; they make the same widgets and employ roughly the same number of people. One pays $8 an hour; all that they can afford to pay their workers and keep them all employed. The other business is more efficient, they could pay their workers $10 and hour for the same work, but decide to pay them the same $8 an hour. They know that they’ll be able to do so since work is so scarce in the Detroit area.
Which wage is more ‘just’?
A similar business in Chicago, where the times are not as bad, pays workers $11 an hour for the same work under the same conditions; they have to, as they have trouble finding anyone to work for $8 an hour. (Let’s assume that the cost of living in certain parts of Detroit and certain parts of Chicago is roughly the same)
How does the ‘justness’ of the Chicago wage compare to the other two?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.