• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Connected Wages

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Society fits that just fine. Government need not apply.

There's no society without government...if you had even a fleeting example of one you'd have presented it.



And the Brits were proven wrong when less than 33% of the colonies supported the cause for revolution.

Who promptly formed a government. This is getting silly.



If there were no malice, there'd be no worry for anything.

You need water so you live near a river. The millions organized upstream pollute it. No malice, but you're dead anyway. Congrats.



Nope, I do not. I simply do not assume a collective is anything more than what it's people are.

Then what's wrong with the collective making rules for you as well? If you're no more competent than they are...it shouldn't be an issue. The real problem is you do think you're somehow better.



You're the one that believes government exists underneath everything else.

Well all of human history demonstrates what I've said...anarchy has been rejected since before we climbed out of trees.

I honestly can't believe you're quoting Tom Clancy and you expect me to take you seriously. Your heavy reliance on the words of smarter men adds a touch of sweet irony to this conversation.

In turn, I would suggest that it is you who needs to leave. That with the cause of America being in liberty, you need to leave back to Europe where you can enjoy your governments so much more. After all, it's not like Europe doesn't have a government fit for your ilk, and my ancestors as well as those of most Americans who migrated here before America was a thing and even after America became a thing fleed because of people such as yourself. (Not to mention, all of the greatest inventions of the world were invented by self-interested individuals laboring in freedom...)

What would that solve? You'd still be living in a government...there's no going backwards kiddo. Not unless you want to speed about the end of the world.
 
Upvote 0

Vyrzaharak

Active Member
Jul 8, 2017
201
52
41
Sol System, Milky Way Galaxy
✟26,238.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
There's no society without government...if you had even a fleeting example of one you'd have presented it.

I've just been lazy, actually.

http://www.clearsay.net/law_without_government.asp
Without Government, Warlords Would Take Over at ClearSay.net
The Town that Privatized Everything - Joe Kent - Liberty.me
Portland, OR: Anarchists Are Fixing Potholes On City Streets - It's Going Down
The Decline and Fall of Private Law in Iceland
Privatization, Viking Style: Model or Misfortune?
Anarchy - Never Been Tried Part 1
Anarchy Never Been Tried Part 2: Emerald Anarchy
Anarchy - Never Been Tried? Part III - Fire and Ice
Anarchy – Never Been Tried? Part IV: In The Beginning
Anarchy: Never Been Tried? Part V: Anarchy in the U.S.A.???
Anarchy - Never Been Tried? Part VI: The Living Anti-Nation - The Art of Not Being Governed
Introducing the Tarahumara
Stateless Societies: Ancient Ireland
Government Can Be Prevented! Repelling States: Evidence from Upland Southeast Asia
The Decline and Fall

(Yes, two of those are duplicate links, and the reason being that I've had complaints of 404.)

Then what's wrong with the collective making rules for you as well? If you're no more competent than they are...it shouldn't be an issue. The real problem is you do think you're somehow better.

I'm not against a collective making rules. I'm against the monopolization of authority.

I honestly can't believe you're quoting Tom Clancy and you expect me to take you seriously. Your heavy reliance on the words of smarter men adds a touch of sweet irony to this conversation.

I don't consider myself the smartest man alive. I also have quoted no one out of authority.

What would that solve? You'd still be living in a government...there's no going backwards kiddo. Not unless you want to speed about the end of the world.

Says you, a beneficiary of government. Just like one who robs from Paul to pay Peter...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
D

And which of those would you like to discuss?



I'm not against a collective making rules. I'm against the monopolization of authority.

What's the difference in your eyes? Or maybe a better question would be "what good are rules if no one enforces them?"



I don't consider myself the smartest man alive. I also have quoted no one out of authority.

Then why keep quoting racists like Mencken?



Says you, a beneficiary of government. Just like one who robs from Paul to pay Peter...

We're all beneficiaries of government...even if we're too proud to admit it.
 
Upvote 0

Vyrzaharak

Active Member
Jul 8, 2017
201
52
41
Sol System, Milky Way Galaxy
✟26,238.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
And which of those would you like to discuss?

You can discuss whichever you like.

What's the difference in your eyes? Or maybe a better question would be "what good are rules if no one enforces them?"

What good are rules if no one follows them? What good are rules if they result in increased subversion? For every increase in government power, there is a direct, exponential increase in the black market. (Just two of the finest examples of this in modern history include the Prohibition & War on Drugs, and another great example includes modern-day piracy.)

Then why keep quoting racists like Mencken?

For the points they make. If you think I'll stop reading or quoting someone because you believe he's some sort of devil, think again; I have no problem quoting even the literal devil, so long as there's a point to be made. In fact, several of my favorite quotes come from men that I hate and otherwise disagree with (at least two of which I used in this very thread, Mikhail Bakunin & Pierre-Joseph Proudhon being that they were both anti-property anarchists).

We're all beneficiaries of government...even if we're too proud to admit it.

Just because one is a beneficiary does not require advocacy. The point is, anyone who robs Paul to pay Peter can generally count on the support of Peter to justify robbing Paul, and that Paul will generally see no alternatives because he's been crippled into depending on it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
You can discuss whichever you like.

It's dealer's choice. We can talk about why the theoretical garbage on the first link is just that...why privatization of public needs is a big mistake...or what ancient Viking life was really like and their form of government.


What good are rules if no one follows them? What good are rules if they result in increased subversion? For every increase in government power, there is a direct, exponential increase in the black market. (Just two of the finest examples of this in modern history include the Prohibition & War on Drugs, and another great example includes modern-day piracy.)

Oh yeah...I remember back when the government started regulating meat...there was that huge spike in black market meat that could've been anything from dolphins to orphans....remember that? Oh yeah, didn't happen. Where do you get this stuff? Do you actually look beyond anarchist propaganda to see if any of it fits with reality?




For the points they make. If you think I'll stop reading or quoting someone because you believe he's some sort of devil, think again; I have no problem quoting even the literal devil, so long as there's a point to be made. In fact, several of my favorite quotes come from men that I hate and otherwise disagree with (at least two of which I used in this very thread, Mikhail Bakunin & Pierre-Joseph Proudhon being that they were both anti-property anarchists).

I don't care who you quote, but some appreciation for who they were and the circumstances of their time would be useful.



Just because one is a beneficiary does not require advocacy. The point is, anyone who robs Paul to pay Peter can generally count on the support of Peter to justify robbing Paul, and that Paul will generally see no alternatives because he's been crippled into depending on it.

I have no idea who Peter and Paul are supposed to refer to here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gene2memE
Upvote 0

Paradoxum

Liberty, Equality, Solidarity!
Sep 16, 2011
10,712
654
✟35,688.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Simple math.

Product prices are set by adding up all production costs + a profit margin.
The wages of workers are production costs.

X + Y = Z

If you increase X, Z is going to increase as well.

It's not simple maths. There is no necessary conclusion.

Anyway, profit should decrease, if it means standard of living increases. The point of economics is to improve lives, not money for monies sake.
 
Upvote 0

Paradoxum

Liberty, Equality, Solidarity!
Sep 16, 2011
10,712
654
✟35,688.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
And then the employer will still have more money then the workers and people like you again will start complaining about that.

That's the point of capitalism. That employers gain, and employees demand more.

That is literally how how system is supposed to work. It's not supposed to be slaves and slave masters.
 
Upvote 0

Paradoxum

Liberty, Equality, Solidarity!
Sep 16, 2011
10,712
654
✟35,688.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
I could pay more for my employees also.
In fact, I "could" take my full wage, cut it up and give it all to my employees.

Why would I?

If you were a crazy person? Maybe this isn't aimed at all companies?

I took the jump in the dark hole of building this company. I'm the one that took all the risks. I'm the one that's up every night, working till i-don't-know-how-late. I'm the one that does 80-hour weeks and then some during the weekend.

Is it okay with you that I reap the benefits of my hard labour and pay myself 5-fold what I would earn in a 9 to 5 job where I get to only be responsible for the assignments given to me personally and where I don't have to care about it between 5 and 9?

I don't think anyone would be much against that. No one is saying that those at the top shouldn't be paid more.
 
Upvote 0

Paradoxum

Liberty, Equality, Solidarity!
Sep 16, 2011
10,712
654
✟35,688.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Except that it is. At my previous job, a software consultancy firm, we were with around 30-ish software engineers. We earned less then our peers in other firms. We asked for raises and some of us received it, but they were peanuts. After a few weeks / months of discussions and semi-fights, 10 of them simply left in a timespan of 4 months.

People don't tend to make such impactfull decisions for a couple 10s of dollars. But if as an employer you push it to far, your workforce WILL leave.

It's just like a free market. Do a good job, treat people well, and you'll reap respect and loyalty. Treat them badly or worse then the competition, and they'll leave for other and better jobs.

Perhaps that means something to professionals, but to a lot of people, if they are paid badly they wont be offered a better job. Lower paid workers.
 
Upvote 0

Paradoxum

Liberty, Equality, Solidarity!
Sep 16, 2011
10,712
654
✟35,688.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
A free labor market is part of a free society.

A totally free market reduces freedom of the people. Business, like government, is authoritarian.

You are addressing the whole, but the 'whole' of a free society is composed of individuals who exercise their freedom of choice in many areas, including the workplace.

We actually don't have enough information to make informed decisions regarding the wages of workers.

As a general point, none of this counters what I said. The richest's wage should rise more than the lowest.

Secondarily, people aren't free. They are driven by need, and exploited by greed.
 
Upvote 0

Paradoxum

Liberty, Equality, Solidarity!
Sep 16, 2011
10,712
654
✟35,688.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
In reading all of your many posts on this topic, it appears you don't have an understanding of business and where this money comes from to pay these higher wages. Also, you are single focused on the wages of the average worker, with zero regard for the business and how it is impacted.

Productivity has increased, but wages haven't. Therefore companies can afford wage increases. These wage increase would benefit companies.

As a general rule, employees are paid a wage, that correlates with the following:

-the skill required to perform the job
-what the available employment pool is that can perform the job
-how important that specific employee has become to the employer and how hard they would be to replace

I'm not sure that's true, but okay, what's your point. Maybe they should pay more.
 
Upvote 0

Paradoxum

Liberty, Equality, Solidarity!
Sep 16, 2011
10,712
654
✟35,688.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
If your question is purely economic...I think this system could force an astonishing number of people into poverty or homelessness. Imagine if a struggling business had its highest paid earners take a 50% pay cut....it's lowest paid might not be able to even put food on the table at 50% less pay.

Why would anyone take a pay cut, from the post you are quoting?
 
Upvote 0

Paradoxum

Liberty, Equality, Solidarity!
Sep 16, 2011
10,712
654
✟35,688.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
I'm not sure I understand the question...

Are you asking why this isn't the way we do things?

Is this a question about the morality of doing things this way? It looks like you're asking about morality since you said "shouldn't"....

What if it's a question of practicality and political principle?
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Productivity has increased, but wages haven't. Therefore companies can afford wage increases. These wage increase would benefit companies.



I'm not sure that's true, but okay, what's your point. Maybe they should pay more.

My point is crystal clear, employee wages are driven by those obvious factors. It is like selling your house. You may have in your mind a dollar amount you want for your house, but your house is worth what someone is willing to pay for it, based on market demand.

And productivity may have gone up, but employer costs have also gone up in a number of areas; healthcare, cost to modernize, etc etc.
 
Upvote 0

Gene2memE

Newbie
Oct 22, 2013
4,628
7,163
✟339,339.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Wage stagnation and wage inequality are two of the biggest economic issues in the US, and have been for a good 30 years now.

Real wages and productivity growth matched each other in the US in the post WW2 boom from 1945 to about 1970. So, the average American worker was producing about 95% more real economic value in 1970 than they were in 1945, but they were also earning about 90% more.

Since 1972, productivity has gone up a further 75%, and average real wages have only gone up by about 10-15%. There are a multiplicity of reasons - automation, offshoring, roll-back of protectionism, the rise of 'dividend investors' - but the biggest one is the concentration of earnings growth in the ownership and managerial ranks, and the incentivisation by investors of wage suppression (on the grounds that it improves profitability).

If you look at where the wage gains have gone since the late 1970s. The top 1% of wage earners have seen their compensation increase ~140%, while wages of the bottom 90% of wage earners have grown just 15%. If wages had grown evenly, then the wages of the bottom 90% of earners would have grown by 32%. That's more than double the actual growth.

Want to know something scary? This inequality is only going to get worse.

If you look at the starting salaries of four year degree college graduates, they've fallen 9% since 2000, and that decline is accelerating.

The wage inequality seen in the blue collar and lower tier white collar wage earners is creeping upwards into the wages of the middle tier wage earners.

So, when Millennials complain about not being able to earn a living wage - this is why. On a real wage basis, adjusted for the economic value they produce, someone born between 1985 and 1995 is earning almost 45% less than their parents did.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Paulos23
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Why would anyone take a pay cut, from the post you are quoting?

The same reason anyone takes a pay cut...business is struggling. Or were you suggesting that they only be connected when wages increase? And do you see the problem in that?
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
What if it's a question of practicality and political principle?

Well as general rule, less complicated systems require less complicated systems. If you're speaking of a political principle, I'd need to know what that is.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,976
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,212.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
A totally free market reduces freedom of the people. Business, like government, is authoritarian.



As a general point, none of this counters what I said. The richest's wage should rise more than the lowest.

Secondarily, people aren't free. They are driven by need, and exploited by greed.

I have this same argument with my very liberal daughter. I tell her that anyone (any one person) can succeed in America. She hears everyone should succeed. Not the same.

There is much more new 'old money' in our economy as businesses mature and their wealth increases. This money isn't idle, it continues to purchase more and more assets, right out from under the noses of most people. For example,

I bought an apartment building in 1994, paid it off in ten years, and could have leveraged the equity to buy several more buildings on the same street (I didn't as I only needed one to provide for my later retirement). If I had been a younger man I would now own every apartment building on that street, and be one that you are criticizing, with net worth in the millions.

Those other buildings have been bought by other investors, who had prepared themselves for ownership by saving money over the years, or by leveraging assets already owned. Something that anyone can do. My building was bought by a Korean fellow who along with his wife had amassed $100,000 for that purpose, and waited for a 'down' market to look for an investment (I sold below what I wanted but I wanted out. I also had bought the building in a down market).

I have a friend who over the past ten years has bought fully twenty distressed 8 and 16 unit apartment buildings in a troubled neighborhood. He is a carpenter and along with one other employee does virtually all the maintenance work. His Latina wife does the books and the renting, mostly to Mexican families, who both they and I have found to be very good tenants overall. He already has a net worth in the $millions from these properties.

Just to flesh out this story. My friend learned basic carpentry and masonry skills working for a friend who started a small "sunroom addition" business (that has since flourished). Seeing that an ordinary man could do these things he bought an old country school building and along with his wife remodeled it into their first home. He later sold it for a modest profit and moved into a small apartment (they had no children). He then bought a beautiful wooded country hillside lot and over a period of five years or so built a beautiful 3000 sq. ft. home. As soon as the roof was on they moved into it and pitched a tent on the main floor and slept in sleeping bags until the house was insulated and the furnace was installed. He leveraged the equity in that house to buy the first of those 20 apartment buildings.

In the meantime his wife had started a successful house cleaning business that she only gave up when the rental business needed her full time. Both drove older vehicles for years, she a VW Beetle, he an older pickup truck, while they were building up these businesses.

Now that his rental business is running well he has branched out again, buying a farm, actually farming it, and collecting and restoring vintage tractors, of which he has about two dozen. He is building a large pole building to house his 'tractor museum' (shades of Jay Leno).

That is one way you get rich in America (and although he is not religious the value of a dedicated 'helpmeet' isn't lost on him either).

Of course my point is that anyone, any one person, who had saved enough money could have purchase one or more of these properties and started down the path to substantial wealth. Sadly (or happily for my friend) no one came forward to compete with his bids (the banks were more than happy to get rid of those foreclosed properties). Not surprising at all. Few want to do the work needed to make such an enterprise successful.

Most people won't accumulate wealth working one job for current wages. They need some kind of investment apart from their job, but most just won't make the sacrifices needed to do this. They plod along on just wages while at the same time enriching others by buying every shiny new widget that comes down the pike. It is the failure of workers to make the sacrifices needed to become wealthier, not the supposed injustices of the economic system.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 381465
Upvote 0

Dave-W

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2014
30,522
16,853
Maryland - just north of D.C.
Visit site
✟772,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I have this same argument with my very liberal daughter. I tell her that anyone (any one person) can succeed in America. She hears everyone should succeed. Not the same.
No - not the same at all.
 
Upvote 0

Paradoxum

Liberty, Equality, Solidarity!
Sep 16, 2011
10,712
654
✟35,688.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
The same reason anyone takes a pay cut...business is struggling. Or were you suggesting that they only be connected when wages increase? And do you see the problem in that?

I'm not sure the highest pai would ever take a pay cut without the lowest taking a pay cut anyway.

But if it were true, yes, the could be disconnected. But in such a situation a company should be free to lower the pay of other as well.
 
Upvote 0