Ah, the labor theory of value. Just a few potential problems with your statements above. First, does labor to create an object thereby give the object value? In other words, is an object valuable because someone labored to make the object? You can labor all day to make something, anything, but this does not make what you have made "valuable" and neither does the labor you expended to make the object render the object as having "value" or "valuable."
Now, by mentioning CEOs and corporate owners, you seemingly suggest that you are at least referencing something made, a product/object for sale, toys, cars, tables, chairs, clothing, etcetera. Those objects are then sold in the market place and the worker is paid a wage for their labor. Your statements possibly hint to this notion the CEOs and corporate owners are "taking" the value of an object when and where the worker does not receive the entirety or close to the entirety of what the object sold for in the market place. The value of their labor is not necessarily equivalent to what the object is sold for in the market place. There is a difference between exchange value and the labor theory of value. Hence, the CEOs and corporate owners are not "taking the value created by the worker."
Of course, it is rather difficult to discern, with any reliability or confidence, the nuance of your position as you essentially provided no rationale, philosophy, or theory to support your conclusion. So maybe you are not suggesting the workers are entitled to more or all money made by the sale of an object, an object they created, in the market place.
This isn't a new topic of discussion, simply brought up again as a new thread. I've provided data on this position in the past. Labor productivity is up, corporate earnings are up, CEO and executive pay is up disproportionately high to earnings, and labor pay has been relatively stagnant.
The business owner and management definitely have the right to some of the worker's productivity. The business owner isn't offering people jobs solely out of the goodness of their heart, rather as a means to increase their profit. However, what we've seen in the last 30+ years, the workers are retaining a smaller percent of their labor value as earnings.
I would agree, that in a case by case basis, it is often hard to truly identify what the exact value add by the worker is, therefore it is hard to determine what percentage of their productivity the worker retains and what percentage the employee takes. What we do know that worker productivity by most standard measures is up relative to worker compensation, therefore, on the whole, workers are retaining less of their productivity in terms of wages.
"When you look at the relationship between worker wages and worker productivity, there's a significant and, many believe, problematic, gap that has arisen in the past several decades. Though
productivity (defined as the output of goods and services per hours worked) grew by about 74 percent between 1973 and 2013, compensation for workers grew at a
much slower rate of only 9 percent during the same time period, according to data from the
Economic Policy Institute. "
http://www.theatlantic.com/business...ay-and-productivity-is-so-problematic/385931/
At any rate, they are paid a wage for their labor and you have assumed, without demonstrating, the wage paid is not commensurate with the labor performed and also assume the wage does not satisfactorily meet the "value" the labor created.
See above. I've cited other data in the past. Over the last 30 years, wages as a percentage of productivity has decreased for workers, and increased for executives/CEOs.
Unfortunately, you have allowed your bias and own ideological beliefs permeate your reading of the opening post, and thereby leading to an incorrect understanding of the comments in the opening post. You do realize the opening posts comments are not exclusively applicable to owners and executives? The opening posts comments are equally applicable to those who do not own a business and who are not executives, everyday ordinary people who are by no means rich but make a decent living, such many people in the middle class.
The OP was trying to assert that the poor are trying to confiscate the "earned" money of the wealthy through government redistribution. The OP was an ideologically driven statement, and has several assumptions which are false. It makes the claim that the poor are trying to steal the fruits of labor of the rich, but the reality is, they're trying to get back some of those fruits that the rich have already stolen from the poor.
Most who receive benefits from government redistribution are workers. Their productivity has already been "redistributed" from themselves to the owners/CEOs. Higher taxes on those with high incomes and more services for those with low incomes help to balance that out, but by and large, the redistribution that is happening the most is the owners are taking productivity from workers, despite the assertion of the OP.
The opening posts comments are applicable to the accountant who works for a business and makes $60,000/year with a wife and child but has a portion of their income taken and redistributed to the less fortunate to pay for Food Stamps, public housing, welfare, etcetera. The opening posts remarks are applicable to the manager at some factory or store, say Toyota, Home Depot, who makes $65,000/year, with a wife, and has a portion of his income taken and redistributed to pay for a plethora of social welfare programs. There are educators at public schools, private schools, professors, and so forth making a decent living, who do not own any business, who are not corporate owners, but having their income taken and redistributed.
What your retort ignores is the opening posts' commentary is applicable to the many millions of American who are relatively financially successful but are not corporate owners, who do not own businesses, who work for someone else, and make a decent living. Of course, you read the opening post through the lens of class warfare and through the optics of the rich corporate and business owners and the workers they exploit.
I suggest you re-read the opening post again, perhaps with the lens of being more objective and less of reading your ideological bias into the prose.
The opening post itself is a statement of class warfare, attempting to demonize the working poor. Class warfare is part of the American economic system, with capitalists/owners (who have the power) attempting to leverage their wealth to exploit the worker, and workers attempting to utilize means they have available (government and unions) to prevent exploitation from occurring. There's a reason unions were formed, and it wasn't because the already well compensated workers were trying to extort the business, rather it was to help prevent unfair labor practices. Like all man-made institutions, as unions grew in power, they, too became corrupt.
Power corrupts.
FYI, i am one of the many Americans who is doing well for myself as a worker. I have no qualms about my taxes being used to help out those less fortunate than i. Many of those who receive that help also work hard, but don't have leverage to secure an income that puts them above the threshold of qualifying for government assistance.
While i acknowledge that i have certain skills and a strong work ethic that help put me in a position to command a higher income in the market place, i also acknowledge that a portion of my success was due to coming from a family that valued education, and provided me with the opportunity to get an education which helped develop those skills. Additionally, i am well aware that the market exploits a large segment of the population. If those workers were compensated properly by their respective employers, there would be less need for my income to subsidize their labor.