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

Quadhole specifically suggested curtailing the profit of the owner to no more than 10x that of the lowest employee.

 

I did not suggest that. I said the number YOU proposed is nonsensicle.

Having wages drop below the cost of living for any segment is a serious problem that has to be addressed by the general population through some combination of regulations (on employment, housing, ??), social safetynet features, individual giving, public investment, etc.

 

I merely said that the amount of money that your neighbor owes you is exactly $0.00 per hour. Nobody owes any of us anything. No person is our slave.

 

Reducing regulation would result in competitors reducing their prices, too. I'm not so sure that changes proit.

Also, polluted rivers and employees who aren't making a living are both examples of costs to society that businesses don't want to cover.

But, those costs are paid for by our society in general. They aren't free. We still have to have water. We still have to keep our citizens alive.

 

Doing some rough calculations regarding making a living.

Average male requires 2500 cal per per day to make a living.

A 50-lb bag of pinto beans contains 79,370 calories ($40.00). A 50-lb bag of rice contains 29,570 calories ($19.00). Total calories 108,949. Total cost ($59.00). Given that the average male requires 2,500 calories per day, that amount of food will last roughly 43 days, for a 43 day cost of $59.00.

So an average male can satisfy his calorie requirement (i.e. make a living) for 43 days at a cost of 9 hrs of work at the minimum wage of $7.45 per hour (9 * $7.45 = $67.05, more than enough to cover $59). So in 9 days, a minimum wage worker can earn 43 days of living. What are they going to do with the other 34 days of income?

 

In public corporations (Amazon, Disney, etc.) the owners are the shareholders.

I would pitch this more as putting in place some regulations concerning how much the top executives make.

I would also propose that our tax system should not have holes it it so large that hugely profitable major corporations pay ZERO taxes. We (as a nation) decided the corporations should have the rights of humans - an absolutely absured bit of nonsense. Then, we (as a nation) decided that those corporations making GIGANTIC profits should pay no income tax.

This is not a healthy distribution of costs and benefits. It is a twisting of both democacy and capitalism in order to fabulously benefit the top tiny fraction - while there are so many who are working hard and still needing help.

Remember I got involved when you started suggesting wages of $0. And, I mentioned that there are serious societal problms with that.

 

Oh, good lord. Surely you know WAY better than that.

And, if you don't there are calculations of cost of living for the various cities throughout the nation. And, those people actually understand the issue - while you even overlook stuff such as RENT!!!

 

Um, I didn't suggest wages of zero. I said the only amount of money your fellow man owes you is zero. Nobody is your slave, and nobody owes you anything.

And when the US puts limits on what a corporation may pay it's top executives, and then that corporation can't afford proper top executives, and then that corporation gets beat by the competition who was allowed to hire the best top executives, what happens to the workers who now no longer have an employer?

 

Are you saying I have an error in my caloric requirement. If so, please feel free to point them out.

I used Amazon as my cost, so that cost applies anywhere in the several states.

 

This thread is like the"who's who" of banned people.

 

As far as rent goes. I would think that pretty much every municipality would have several hundred spare acres (parkland, open-space, county parks) that they could devote to establishing habitations for their wards. Tents or semi-permanent cabins. Possibly with communal cooking areas. These living arrangements could even be provided free of charge to the wards possibly through a combination of state and private funds.

 

You are not countering anything I said about wages and your $0 comments.

When the US puts limits on top executive compensation it does so to all companies. The competition for top executives is still fair. If anything, it allows more competition for top executives, because the giant corporations can not simply outspend all the growing businesses.

Competition is not a bad thing. Capitalism depends on it.

 

So, are you a communist?

You certainly are NOT an American.

 

All companies in the US. Investors will simply sell their US stocks and choose to own companies in more friendly countries.

Capitalism depends upon both competition and cooperation.

 

Me? A communist? You can't even be serious with that question.

What are you really getting at?

 

But the revenue has.

That is the part that labor never considers when posing questions like in the OP.

How much should labor make for a wage when that labor is billed at $100. Great.

What should that labor make for a wage when that labor is billed at $0?

 

Billing labor at $0 is artificial nonsense.

How corporations price their products is a marketing decision. If they choose to offer free maintenance, installation, or whatever, it doesn't somehow justify not paying those employees.

 

Printing money doesn't create wealth.

 

Your not getting it.

In my business, I bill labor at an average rate of $115 per hour. Our average labor cost is about $28. The question I the OP was, if I am billing at $100, what is a fair wage for the employee.

There have been a lot of responses, but none of them consider that my cost for that employee is still $28 even if we don't have billable projects for them to work on. In that case, we are paying $28 with $0 revenue.

 

Your only problem is that about half the country disagrees with you. So, it's just not going to happen.

So sorry.

 

I'm afraid I don't understand the question. Is it about the employer getting $100 gross revenue from an employee then subtracting costs and overhead????

 

It's impossible to say because of far too many variables, like how much down time there is, and all the other costs that go into maintaining your business. How much you can make by selling the business off in bits and investing it somewhere else, how difficult it is to get good employees, etc. etc. etc.

I think the point of the OP is in trying to nail the socialists down to a specific number, then work from there to find out just what kinda business outside of the mafia or government can work on such a small profit margin.

 

It's worse than that. The employers also pays a portion of taxes on the employee, has other costs of carrying an employee (recruitment, management, accounting, etc.).

As pointed out, you could be billing those hours at a rate that covers the cost of production of the related equipment. Verticle solutions can get sold this way. A solution contract could show zero dollars for the required computer systems, but a lot for the continuing on-site support.

Or, a product could be sold for a lot, with a contract including a few years of $0/hr for support.

Does that mean that someone in that support position should either get a whole bunch of money (in the first case) or $0 in that second case?

Of curse not.

 

Is it "socialism" when an employee is paid so little that they depend on support payments from the goverrnment?

Is it "socialism" when an employer has to pay a living wage?

 

No, that would be an early version of communism. Socialism is about the workers owning the means of production. The problem with socialism is that not many socialists own the means.

You guys have fun, but it's going to have to be without most of us.