What is a PROPER wage? Based on your output being worth 100$ per hour.

Ok.

 

You'd be an imbecile.

 

Some snowflakes get touchy when you use the word "worth" in relation to a person. I simply prefer more impersonal terms. YMMV.

 

So what is a retired person "worth"? What is a disabled person "worth"? What is a child "worth"?

This "worth" thing is MAJORLY skewed, as it includes assumptions that have NOTHING to do with building a solid, functioning nation of humans.

 

The thread is about wages, not worth.

The correct wage for any person is the wage for which he agrees to work.

 

Worth is the amount you receive for the value you contribute to the economy.

This isn't hard.

 

I understand segmentation theory very well. I only advertise that the conclusions that you are reaching is flawed and I'm merely pointing them out at each opportunity.

You're welcome.

I can't; not because there aren't any examples but because that was never my contention in the first place. And perhaps that was a failure of communication on my part, but if I left that impression, I apologize.

But this is not always correct, as recent literature would suggest. I've already cited the examples; feel free to review on your own time

See reply above.

See reply above.

Deflection continues...

I've already stated the following:

Segmentation is the building blocks for analysis in labor economic; if you haven't defined the market you are attempting to analyze then you can't effectively define meaningless characteristics.

I never used it as an argument, I merely said it was helpful for understanding the characteristics of monopsony and employee wages. And of course, I said very little because that is really all I need to say.

I really don't know what you're talking about here. It's not a matter of understanding or a need to respond. I understand what you are saying; however, it doesn't address the point I have made. Therefore, it is not necessary for me to respond.

And as mentioned previously, this isn't contingent upon whether or not I agree or disagree. If anything, I agree with what you have stated in bold.

Ad hominem noted.

Okay. So do it.

 

All I hear is "worth" - that's the word being used.

Our economy is tunable. We don't have to have the kind of stupendous compensation gap that we have today.

In fact, when people have more money to spend, economies expand. Paying a wage that people can not live on is DETRIMENTAL to us all, not just the family living in a tent while they work.

 

Then why doesn't the firm that employs me pay me $0.01 per hour?

 

Not from me.

So you're upset with the one person that will actually hire this person over whom you are so concerned? What about everyone else who wouldn't even hire the person?

 

First of all that's totally without moral value.

Second, the fact that someone ends up working for less does NOT necessarily mean they are contributing less to the economy.

It does mean that individual has less to spend, and that doesn't help the economy.

But, it doesn't mean that the shareholders are taking less profit.

After the Bush crash, most manufacturing was back at full steam after 2 years. But, massive numbers of workers were on the streets, taking support and NOT hired back for YEARS.

So, your suggestion is that those workers became "worthless" overnight!!

Sorry dude. You really crapped out in the game of forming a decent society.

 

Yes, not from you. But, I wasn't responding to you, either.

And, I never suggested anything even vaguely similar to what you're accusing me of.

 

You have a twisted and skewed view of society.

 

You: "Paying a wage that people can not live on is DETRIMENTAL to us all, not just the family living in a tent while they work."

Why are you upset with the one person willing to pay that wage? Who else is paying more?

 

I think having a view of society is important.

The US middle class and below isn't here for the sole purpose of propping up share prices for the wealthy.

We actually do need to think about our society.

 

I'm not. Why would you think that I am??? When the heck did I ever accuse an employer of anything?

This isn't a case of "evil employers". That's too bad, as it would be a lot easier to solve if that were the problem.

 

Then they shouldn't prop them up. They should shun them.

Yes, we should think about the rights of our neighbors.

 

Ah, so you have no issue with employers paying a wage that people can't live on.

I thought that's what you said, but if not, then I apologize.

 

If a company only generating 100 dollars an hour from your labor then that company will soon fold.

 

A company should net 1000 dollars per day per employee to be considered profitable.

 

I think we need some solutions that augment our economy, ensure a living wage and don't include "shunning" employers - whatever you meant by that.

Numerous relatively small changes in our laws have moved us toward allowing gigantic benefit for those on top (like me) while being supported by people working for too little to rent an apartment.

Our society can be better judged by how our middle class and those struggling to get to the middle class are living.

And, today our society needs to improve that. And, yes it IS up to our society - not to some corporation, not some wealthy guy, and absolutely not some guy working while living in a tent with essentially zero political power.

 

I meant that if one doesn't like what someone is doing one can simply refuse to interact with that person.

We need to allow people to build apartments wherever they wish. More apartments will bring down apartment rents.

We need to give our middle class smart phones. Oh. Wait. They already have them.

 

Yes, more apartments help. Our building program here in Seattle has caught up to some extent, so apartment rates aren't continuing to skyrocket at nation beating rates. However, that still doesn't solve the need for low income housing. Apartment builders aren't interested in building low income housing - obviously.

An individual simply refusing to work for someone doesn't do squat, so if that's what you meant, it's a part of capitalism, but it's not a solution.

I have NO idea what you're talking about with smartphones. Phones do make a huge difference in a job search, and there are very few public phones anymore. It's even more important for hourly work that is irregular as being without contact means losing work hours. But, ...

 

The primary problems in Washington state are do to environmental regulation and modernization and changes in the timber industry.

And the complete collapse of the fishing industry.

 

It does do squat. It prevents that individual from working for less than he wants to. Thus, he is happier.