• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"Paid What You're Worth" is a myth . . .

MaggieD

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,664
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Food for thought:

“Paid-what-you’re-worth” is a dangerous myth.Fifty years ago, when General Motors was the largest employer in America, the typical GM worker got paid $35 an hour in today’s dollars. Today, America’s largest employer is Walmart, and the typical Walmart workers earns $8.80 an hour.
Does this mean the typical GM employee a half-century ago was worth four times what today’s typical Walmart employee is worth? Not at all. Yes, that GM worker helped produce cars rather than retail sales. But he wasn’t much better educated or even that much more productive. He often hadn’t graduated from high school. And he worked on a slow-moving assembly line. Today’s Walmart worker is surrounded by digital gadgets — mobile inventory controls, instant checkout devices, retail search engines — making him or her quite productive.
The real difference is the GM worker a half-century ago had a strong union behind him that summoned the collective bargaining power of all autoworkers to get a substantial share of company revenues for its members. And because more than a third of workers across America belonged to a labor union, the bargains those unions struck with employers raised the wages and benefits of non-unionized workers as well. Non-union firms knew they’d be unionized if they didn’t come close to matching the union contracts.
Today’s Walmart workers don’t have a union to negotiate a better deal. They’re on their own. And because fewer than 7 percent of today’s private-sector workers are unionized, non-union employers across America don’t have to match union contracts. This puts unionized firms at a competitive disadvantage. The result has been a race to the bottom.
Click to expand...

This does make one stop and think . . .

I've never been against private sector unions. I think the unions themselves have lost site of the prize, so to speak, but who can deny the implications of the quote above?

Robert Reich: “Paid-what-you’re-worth” is a toxic myth - Salon.com
 
It's not just the "paid what you're worth" that is a myth. The whole "the free market is best" is also a myth

What works best is some of form of democracy with a mixed economy
 
If some people were paid what they were 'worth', they'd owe their employer money at the end of the week. :)
 
sangha said:
It's not just the "paid what you're worth" that is a myth. The whole "the free market is best" is also a myth

What works best is some of form of democracy with a mixed economy
Click to expand...

Some people really have an over inflated opinion of what they are worth, or more accurately what their work is worth. What they believe their work to be worth is totally immaterial anyway. It's what someone else will pay for their work that really counts. Your work is not worth a millions dollars an hour if no one is willing to pay that.

Why is this so hard for the left to understand this very simple concept? It's not what you demand, it's what other are willing to pay.

WCH said:
If some people were paid what they were 'worth', they'd owe their employer money at the end of the week. :)
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
Trying to compare a retailer and a manufacturer is bad enough but tyring to equate the salaries of industries with vastly different profit margins is even worse. When did retail workers make as much as manufacturing workers? The idea that every worker, in every industry, should get "comparable" pay is ridiculous. Just becuase a company is big does not mean that it can pay much better than its competition or those in other sectors of the economy. Wages are based mostly on what it takes to attract and retain a qualified worker - not what is "fair" or what some other job pays.

Car Prices Are Going Up, And So Are Automakers' Profits - Forbes

Wal-Mart Stores Profit Margin (Quarterly) (WMT)
 
MaggieD said:
This does make one stop and think . . .

I've never been against private sector unions. I think the unions themselves have lost site of the prize, so to speak, but who can deny the implications of the quote above?
Click to expand...

The problem is that the quote only covers half the equation. I'm the Union Steward for my Department, and as much as I agree that many Unions have lost sight of the prize, I would suggest that just as many Companies and Employers have done the same.

When the Company is willing to invest millions of dollars in systems and processes they ADMIT won't work in order to save on employee costs they've lost sight of the prize. When they're willing to cut 25% of their non-Union workforce because it's the only way to meet a promised dividend return to shareholders in a certain year because they've been hit with a massive fine for incompetence towards their customers, they've lost sight of the prize. When they come to us and say "We're willing to give you a certain amount of extra money on an hourly basis and new job titles to accept a continuation of a failed way of doing things just so we don't look as bad." they've lost sight of the prize.
 
More class warfare from the right.
 
MaggieD said:
Food for thought:



This does make one stop and think . . .

I've never been against private sector unions. I think the unions themselves have lost site of the prize, so to speak, but who can deny the implications of the quote above?

Robert Reich: “Paid-what-you’re-worth” is a toxic myth - Salon.com
Click to expand...

Yeah the problem I think is derived from the fact that not all labor markets are equal. Does a large segment of the labor market work according to the classical theory of labor? Pretty close. Low wage jobs (secondary job market) is a completely different beast and based on the job mix in the US more and more people are getting jobs that would fit into that secondary job market.

Overall....let's point out that people working lower skilled jobs are more educated/older/ and make up a larger segment of the population now than in decades. It still hasn't changed the dynamics of low skilled jobs.

Unions offset that lack of bargaining power by low skilled jobs and a lack of unions in the private sector have led to no upward pressure in wages.
 
What skews everything is companies can get 32 semi skilled workers overseas for what one minimum wage burger flipper here gets.

Its considering people commodities.

When someone finds a new mineral source, the PRICE of existing sources goes down. The mineral doesnt lose its basic utility. The existing boron isn't less effective, it just isn't "worth" as much.

Exploiting economic differentials in labor is NOT the same as exploiting differentials in raw materials. Raw materials don't have bills to pay in the LOCAL economy.
 
Well, value is subjective. Obviously General Motors viewed their employees as more valuable than Walmart views it's employees. The value of workers can be determined by time worked, effort put in, field of work, position, customer service abilities, speaking skills, etc. This is why central planning fails, because a bureaucrat in DC can hardly determine the value of every single worker in the country.
 
iliveonramen said:
Unions offset that lack of bargaining power by low skilled jobs and a lack of unions in the private sector have led to no upward pressure in wages.
Click to expand...

At the same time many of these Unions are prepared to cut their noses off to spite their own face. Take the Hostess issue of a year or two ago.... Union employees feeling it was better to LOSE THEIR JOBS than to renegotiate their wages and compensation. Where is the logic in that?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Trying to compare a retailer and a manufacturer is bad enough but tyring to equate the salaries of industries with vastly different profit margins is even worse. When did retail workers make as much as manufacturing workers? The idea that every worker, in every industry, should get "comparable" pay is ridiculous. Just becuase a company is big does not mean that it can pay much better than its competition or those in other sectors of the economy. Wages are based mostly on what it takes to attract and retain a qualified worker - not what is "fair" or what some other job pays.

Car Prices Are Going Up, And So Are Automakers' Profits - Forbes

Wal-Mart Stores Profit Margin (Quarterly) (WMT)
Click to expand...


It seems that the comparison between jobs is what the OP is trying to make, and perhaps the writer of the quoted material also is. However, the real point is lost whatever the author's point may be. That being: The largest employer in each example does indicate (whether the jobs are comparable or not) that the kind of jobs we are creating today are not going to sustain American prosperity and economic strength. I find it extremely frustrating when the same people who can't stand welfare also can't stand advocacy for decent incomes for the working poor. They/You act as though EVERYONE can go to college or become an entrepreneur. It really wouldn't work if everyone did. The free marketplace simply couldn't employ that many college educated individuals and that many entrepreneurs, and we really do need people to do these other jobs. Really. And the fact is that some people (through no fault of their own) are not fit for those favored occupations.

I feel very lucky indeed that I am fit for one of those occupations, but I don't pretend that it really was all my doing. Sure, I worked hard for it, but I also had the luck of the draw.

If we want to compete with China in the geopolitical game, we are going to need something reasonably prosperous for EVERYONE, every type of worker, to do. The arrogant sitting in judgement that conservatives do isn't going to preserve our place on the international stage.
 
Tigger said:
At the same time many of these Unions are prepared to cut their noses off to spite their own face. Take the Hostess issue of a year or two ago.... Union employees feeling it was better to LOSE THEIR JOBS than to renegotiate their wages and compensation. Where is the logic in that?
Click to expand...

Thats the thing never discussed. That BOTH sides of the "union equation" are at fault. Neither is willing to compromise in our adversarial system.

I like the German model we learned about during the Volkswagen episode. Where labor has a place on the board, is involved in the decision making process. Its my understanding that it works well, that it prevents management from inflicting chaos on the "doing" end due to ignorance and labor is aware and has a stake in the health of the company overall. They make it a "team" effort instead of a constant conflict of interests.
 
TeleKat said:
Well, value is subjective. Obviously General Motors viewed their employees as more valuable than Walmart views it's employees. The value of workers can be determined by time worked, effort put in, field of work, position, customer service abilities, speaking skills, etc. This is why central planning fails, because a bureaucrat in DC can hardly determine the value of every single worker in the country.
Click to expand...

Walmart values them more if they're dead. Which is why they hire employees, pay them ****, and then take life insurance policies out against them.

It's genius when you think about it. You lower the market value of these people, and then, when they can't afford to live any sort of healthy lifestyle, you make money on their deaths.
 
Unions materialized just like our government has morphed into - today. A great example is barrack obama, the celebrations he enjoys at the white house, the lavish vacations, travel and expenses we go to mirror that of a "king" and royalty which he expects. Union leaders did the same thing - got rich at the hands of the working person. Karl Marx wrote a theory in which every person in every job would be 100% equal and the flaw in that theory is that absolutely power corrupts absolutely; the fact is given the power people will take from others and give to themselves. Its the flaw in socialism, communism, and even in capitalism but at least in the later people are FREE to make their choices rather than have them made for the collective.

The $35 an hour GM employee decades ago set us apart from the world. It created a situation where we could not produce for the world but made it far more feasible for the world to produce for us - we reaped what we sowed.


MaggieD said:
Food for thought:



This does make one stop and think . . .

I've never been against private sector unions. I think the unions themselves have lost site of the prize, so to speak, but who can deny the implications of the quote above?

Robert Reich: “Paid-what-you’re-worth” is a toxic myth - Salon.com
Click to expand...
 
CalGun said:
Unions materialized just like our government has morphed into - today. A great example is barrack obama, the celebrations he enjoys at the white house, the lavish vacations, travel and expenses we go to mirror that of a "king" and royalty which he expects. Union leaders did the same thing - got rich at the hands of the working person. Karl Marx wrote a theory in which every person in every job would be 100% equal and the flaw in that theory is that absolutely power corrupts absolutely; the fact is given the power people will take from others and give to themselves. Its the flaw in socialism, communism, and even in capitalism but at least in the later people are FREE to make their choices rather than have them made for the collective.

The $35 an hour GM employee decades ago set us apart from the world. It created a situation where we could not produce for the world but made it far more feasible for the world to produce for us - we reaped what we sowed.
Click to expand...

I agree with what you're saying about times have changed. But I don't agree about Obama being such a lavish spender. Until there are comparisons that show tens of millions more spent in the Obama White House? I'll just chalk it up to misinformation.
 
What if...? said:
Thats the thing never discussed. That BOTH sides of the "union equation" are at fault. Neither is willing to compromise in our adversarial system.

I like the German model we learned about during the Volkswagen episode. Where labor has a place on the board, is involved in the decision making process. Its my understanding that it works well, that it prevents management from inflicting chaos on the "doing" end due to ignorance and labor is aware and has a stake in the health of the company overall. They make it a "team" effort instead of a constant conflict of interests.
Click to expand...

Having been involved in two sets of negotiations, I'm not sure that I'd be on board with that sort of process. It seems to me that it opens up the opportunity for a little TOO close of a relationship between the Company and the Union. I think the bigger things that have caused these issues are....

For Union employees.... Too many of them see themselves as employees of the Union, not the Company and see their allegiance as SOLELY to the Union. They don't see that without the Company there are no jobs and if the Company doesn't make money, they can't make money either.

For the Companies.... Too many people on the boards see the Union employees as a liability and an expense rather than an asset and an integral part of how the Company works. They don't get that without the employees, nothing gets done and that more often than not those employees know better what's going on with the business better than any auditor, supervisor, or manager.
 
WCH said:
If some people were paid what they were 'worth', they'd owe their employer money at the end of the week. :)
Click to expand...

It's completely unfair to bring politicians into the picture.
 
Tigger said:
At the same time many of these Unions are prepared to cut their noses off to spite their own face. Take the Hostess issue of a year or two ago.... Union employees feeling it was better to LOSE THEIR JOBS than to renegotiate their wages and compensation. Where is the logic in that?
Click to expand...

I don't think that's true. No one cares more about a company staying afloat as much as it's workers. Invest capital flows in and out of a company at the cost of a transaction fee. Upper management generally gets golden parachutes and typically move from company to company pretty easily. It's the workers who want to see the company last decades and provide them jobs for the long haul. They have the most to lose from it going under.

I want to point out Hostess employees took multiple cuts over time.

I want to point out I'm not pro-union in the way that I like how American unions are set up. There are other ways of ensuring collective bargaining without a 3rd party coming in.
 
TeleKat said:
Well, value is subjective. Obviously General Motors viewed their employees as more valuable than Walmart views it's employees. The value of workers can be determined by time worked, effort put in, field of work, position, customer service abilities, speaking skills, etc. This is why central planning fails, because a bureaucrat in DC can hardly determine the value of every single worker in the country.
Click to expand...

I don't think anybody is saying that wages should be set by Washington.
 
I don't know what obama's personal parties, golfing and travels cost the people vs any other president; its the appearance and the timing that are wrong. In a society where people are told to "sacrifice" for their government he should make a far greater appearance to sacrifice himself.

Calculating the costs would be like adding up the unemployed. We all know how that game can change routinely. All one has to do is dump an element of their cost off on the Secret Service budget and boom - you have numbers that look good. That is why I focus on the appearances not the dollar figures. The man had nerve to tell people to sacrifice, to begrudge the wealthy for their success and then use tax dollars to facilitate his own excesses.


MaggieD said:
I agree with what you're saying about times have changed. But I don't agree about Obama being such a lavish spender. Until there are comparisons that show tens of millions more spent in the Obama White House? I'll just chalk it up to misinformation.
Click to expand...
 
CalGun said:
I don't know what obama's personal parties, golfing and travels cost the people vs any other president; its the appearance and the timing that are wrong. In a society where people are told to "sacrifice" for their government he should make a far greater appearance to sacrifice himself.

Calculating the costs would be like adding up the unemployed. We all know how that game can change routinely. All one has to do is dump an element of their cost off on the Secret Service budget and boom - you have numbers that look good. That is why I focus on the appearances not the dollar figures. The man had nerve to tell people to sacrifice, to begrudge the wealthy for their success and then use tax dollars to facilitate his own excesses.
Click to expand...

I will grant you that "perception is reality," Cal. But who, other than the partisan right, is perceiving it that way?
 
Tigger said:
At the same time many of these Unions are prepared to cut their noses off to spite their own face. Take the Hostess issue of a year or two ago.... Union employees feeling it was better to LOSE THEIR JOBS than to renegotiate their wages and compensation. Where is the logic in that?
Click to expand...

I think it's the employees being sold a bill of goods by their union representatives. "We've got to get these guys to hold the line here, or we'll be in trouble at all the other companies." So they led them to their decision, perhaps telling them it was a bluff, for their own self-interests. (The union's, that is.)
 
iliveonramen said:
I don't think that's true. No one cares more about a company staying afloat as much as it's workers. Invest capital flows in and out of a company at the cost of a transaction fee. Upper management generally gets golden parachutes and typically move from company to company pretty easily. It's the workers who want to see the company last decades and provide them jobs for the long haul. They have the most to lose from it going under.
Click to expand...

I have to respectfully disagree with you. Most workers are loyal only to that piece of paper or direct deposit that shows up every week. They don't really care about the good of the company, only that the check doesn't bounce. They do have the most to lose from a company folding, but they're also the ones who all too often don't want to do what's necessary to keep the company running.

iliveonramen said:
I want to point out Hostess employees took multiple cuts over time.
Click to expand...

True, but the company was still not able to operate within the parameters that the company needed to survive financially. I have no idea what their contract looked like, but something tells me that neither side was really interested in making concessions to fix the problems.

iliveonramen said:
I want to point out I'm not pro-union in the way that I like how American unions are set up. There are other ways of ensuring collective bargaining without a 3rd party coming in.
Click to expand...

The Union isn't a 3rd Party in most cases. At least in the instances I'm familiar with. WE negotiate our own contract with the company. Our LOCAL Unions, with the assistance of the national body, sit with the Company and work out the deal. We don't just hand the reins over to someone who has no idea what's going on inside the doors to cut the deal THEY think we should get.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom