If All The Wealth In The U.S. Were Divided Up Equally ...

So working for a low-paying job under capitalism is slavery, but being forced to work for low pay under communism is utopia, yeah!

 

The form of economic government has nothing to do with if something is or is not slave labor. Nor does it matter if its voluntary or involuntary. Slave labor is when your cost of living exceeds 100% of a full day's work.

 

I thought you were smart enough to understand a linguistic shortcut. Forgive me for assuming you were.

They don't need one. They don't exist for that purpose. That's like saying automobiles have zero consent to represent the will and interests of bus passengers. True, they don't, but that's not what they were created for.

Wouldn't that be telling. But why elitist? I took sociology, psychology, and statistics in college, I know when a study doesn't say what you think it says.

 

So when I spent all day cleaning the garage, that was slave labor because I didn't get paid and my cost of living exceeded my income.

I guess President Donald J. Trump is also a slave because he doesn't take the salary for being president.

 

Don't forget the welfare bums and war mongers that are the military industrial complex. 15 years of war under false pretenses have really been good for business. Eisenhower would not be surprised.

 

The minimum value of a product/service is the cost to provide the product/service in a capitalistic economy.

That cost includes all of the minimum mandatory direct and indirect overhead expenditures imposed upon the provider of the product/service plus a reasonable profit margin. This applies to commercial enterprises and individuals providing the service of labor to enterprises.

The enterprise inherently attempts to minimize costs, tracks and estimates those expenditures, and as the supplier establishes the prices for the product/service provided. Based upon the price the buyers create demand in the market and the supply adjusts to fill the market demand. The enterprise is never forced by to price the product/service below cost because the enterprise can simply choose to not provide the product/service at a loss. It can offer other products/services or the owners can simply close the business to avoid the personal financial loss.

The individual typically doesn't track and estimate the minimum mandatory costs. That does not imply that the costs are subjective. The costs are real and have been quantified by the MIT Living Wage Calculator. The inherent problem is that unlike the enterprise the individual as the supplier of labor does not establish the "price" (compensation) for the labor they provide. The enterprise establishes the "price" and does not use the quantified minimum mandatory "costs" (plus reasonable profit) in establishment of the "price" for the labor. The supply of individual labor does not adjust to the market based upon demand and the financial requirement exists for the individual to sell their service at the rate established by enterprise even if it's at a loss.

The free market, with supply and demand as a driving force, works for enterprise but it can and does fail for the individual in a free market economy because the criteria for establishing the pricing (compensation) based upon the minimum value of the labor of the person does not exist for the individuals at the bottom of the economic pyramid. It is for that reason that government must intervene by establishing the minimum mandatory "price" for labor that ensures that the minimum value of labor is compensated for. Part of that value that must be included in the "price" is the cost of the health care that the individual must fund.

 

Then your employment did not provide the compensation equal to your value because if it did then the compensation from employment. would have covered the overhead costs of your labor being used to clean the garage. Overhead costs are an indirect cost (i.e. not directly related to the product/service provided) that must be covered by every "enterprise" (commercial business or individual) under capitalism. An enterprise includes the cost of the janitor that cleans the restroom in it's price for the product/services it provides and that cost is funded by the buyer.

These overhead costs are not directly funded but instead they're indirectly funded because the compensation for a limited number of hours is more than enough to cover the uncompensated labor being expended upon the indirect time and labor being expended by the person. This the same for an enterprise that produces widgets. The price for the widget includes the direct costs of labor and materials to produce the widget plus enough to cover the indirect overhead costs of the office workers that aren't producing widgets.

The individual that cleans their garage or their bathroom is entitled to compensation for that same overhead expenditure and it needs to be covered by the "price" (compensation) for providing the service of labor and it must be paid for by the buyer (their employer).

We can go down the list and those overhead costs to the enterprise that are included in the price that the buyer pays are virtually the same as the overhead costs to the person and that the buyer of their service (labor) should be paying for. Energy, transportation, facilities that provide shelter from the elements, disposable goods, contracted services, etc. are the same categories of overhead expenditures that must be included as a component of the price for the product/service being provided.

 

First of all, Trump does take a salary for being President and I can assure you he is living well below his income. As for cleaning up you own garage goes, do you also expect to receive an income for washing your own-backside, and if so, by whom? What about when you wash your dishes, do your laundry, mow your lawn? Are you sure you're not still home living with mom and dad? A real job is when someone else pays you to do something for them, that they want. It's not just when you have to drag yourself away from a video game long enough to pick up after yourself.

 

So your definition is wrong. Thank you.

 

The people who make up the corporation represent their will and their interest just as you represent yours either singularly or through groups to which you associate.

 

We've determined you have no idea if these costs area accurate; as such, you tout them in a fallacious argumentum ad verecundiam.
In the -very- least, it has been demonstrated that they rely on invalid assumptions and set a arbitrary and subjective standard of living to define their guesses on costs.
But please - continue squawking like these points haven't been raised.

Rightly so, and for perfectly sound reasons.

You fail to recognize the supply of labor is global, and the "mandatory costs" you drone on about are far lower elsewhere.
Thus, people elsewhere can "afford" to wok for less, and so employers can pay those lower rates while meeting your supposed requirements.

 

How typical I post a simple inquiry and get of gibberish about some economic nonsense.
You said

Yes like you cannot pay more than the value of the labor yes or no?[/QUOTE]

 

How is my definition wrong? I just proved you didn't know what you were talking about, and you apparently still don't. Now get up to your room and get to cleaning or no dinner tonight for you young man.

 

It is my contention that wages are a function of supply and demand and that Government ( and by extension lobbyists) has nothing to do with this calculation, OTHER than setting an artificial price floor ( minimum wage). It is apparent from your words that it is YOUR sincere belief that without a minimum wage everything would shut down, anarchy would ensue, and neither the police or the military could stop the impending crash of the economy and subsequent shutting down of our water supply. Your description sounds a lot like one of the Mad Max sci fi movies.

What we have is two COMPLETELY divergent opinions. Mine is based on sound economic theory that is taught in every economics class in this country relating to what creates an efficient market, and yours is based on pure baseless hysteria, especially considering that only about 4% of workers are employed at minimum wage. I feel rather confident that I have the FAR more sensible argument.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/08/who-makes-minimum-wage/

 

Who said anything about wages being connected to sales?

On another note, supply of jobs is related to demand for jobs, and follows the exact same principles as the supply of goods relative to the demand for goods. This is taught in every business school in the country. It is obvious that you have not attended any such business school.

 

Wow, ya know, come to think of it, even fewer, only a tiny, tiny fraction I bet, still work for the measly 25 cents/hour where the first federal minimum wage was set. Hmm, so I guess no one really needs it. Well done. Once again, Orwellian logic wills its way out!

 

Non sequitur much ?

 

Asked and answered, the linked definition being still there for you to read, right behind the word.

 

You sure do.

 

I started my first enterprise at age 15, pulled in $800 net profit an hour. I did it without any overhead and minimal risk. Then I got a work permit, tried the legal way for a change, working for somebody else as a dish washer at $3.75 an hour (plus tips if people felt like leaving one). That came out to about $35 a day, but I had to buy three company shirts (at $15 a pop), a few khaki pants (I don't even remember what that cost me), round-trip bus fare ($1 a day), and pay their full price for my lunch ($7.50 a day).

Now I wanted to do honest work, but their was little incentive to work for someone else. So at age 18 I opened my own publishing company. Marketing killed me before I ever turned a profit. So I went back to work for someone else that was already established (this time at $5.50 an hour) with the same overhead as before. I was practically paying for the privilege of working despite ever job I worked at they considered me their most valuable employee. Some companies I worked for even laid off a handful of their employees and expected me to do those jobs also without any extra compensation. Other companies promoted me into management positions (on salary) where I ended up working longer hours with more responsibility and earned less per hour than minimum wage workers that were under me. Then came the day where I was finally given the ability to hire & fire, interview, set pay-rates, manage reviews; everything changed. Suddenly the slackers stopped slacking. The workers hourly workers were still making more than I was but I doubled the company revenue and payroll, and I did it by treating workers with qualified respect. My boss (the owner) didn't like it, he put someone under me for me to train as my replacement (I knew what was happening). After I was replaced the company failed. This was in 2008 (in case you remember that year), I had to moon-light between 4 other companies to make ends meet, and I was more knowledgeable than every CEO I worked for so they gave me all the work orders.

Then an old friend of mine called me up one day to come out and help him with his new start-up company. He was really good in the industry he was competing in but lacked the business sense. So he built the products, handled all the marketing, and picked up all the buyers. Many other companies had several similar products that we were offering but their products couldn't compete in quality or packaging against our products. Then I noticed that we were way behind the curve on what we were charging next to our inferior competitors products. They were charging 5 to 60 times as much as we were. So I sat down to see if I'd missed something in overhead manufacturing cost (I hadn't). Per unit, one of our products that we charged $10 for (compared to our competitors similar product that was selling for $50 to $60) only cost us 18 cent to build. The difference was our competitors didn't know what they were doing, the had a poor business model with way too much overhead and were selling a crappier product. But when consumers came in and saw our product was so much cheaper they assumed that our product was inferior. That is when my friend decided to up our prices to match our competitors (because he got greedy). I left the company (because I didn't agree with that) and his company failed. So I am retired now (still doing just fine) and my friend is working seven days a week for someone else at minimum pay. So you get back to me when you college professor (that teaches because he cannot do) figures out how on my own (without a business degree) was more successful than know it all CEOs with those degrees.

 

Hmmmm............Okaaaay.

 

I will take you at your word and assume that everything above is completely true. What's your point as it relates to our conversation about supply and demand setting wages?

 

You said "wages were connected to sales" when you started talking about supply and demand determines pay rates. You're right, I have attended no business schools, because while you were sitting in a classroom trying to remember what the text book said the right answers would be on a test, I was out in the real world finding out what those "right answers" were and why. Go start up your own company sometime and maybe you'll learn something useful. And you might learn it for a lot less than current college tuition rates (now that's a smart business plan).

 

Funny how you oppose this, but support the welfare state.