same job, same pay, worldwide
Wal-Mart Warms to the State
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr
Thanks once again to Fred for his inspiring me with his post.
Reading Charlotte's Web by E. B. White, I got a good laugh. Trying to save Wilbur from a pig's usual fate, she spins into her web "some pig." The crowds gather round and repeat, "some pig." Only the farmer's wife bothered to say, "I think it's some spider."
Wal-Mart advocating for raising the minimum wage to stifle their competition, and the cry I hear is "...the rise of business regulation, including intervention in market wages, was pushed by large companies for one main reason: to impose higher costs on smaller competitors...Regulation is thus a violent method of competition."
So I guess, if we just got rid of government regulation, then those companies would all behave? And if they didn't, why then the conusmer would stop supporting them? That doesn't fit my understanding of human nature. I do believe that unscrupulous businessmen would monopolize resources, buy up whole towns, and call all the shots. And if you didn't like it, they'd hire thugs to thump your head until you saw it their way. And if you aren't the same color or religion as them, then they'd thump your head even if you did like it.
I'm not buying the theory that "the rise of business regulation...was pushed by large companies for one main reason: to impose higher costs on smaller competitors." I believe that regulation, such as child labor laws, were initiated by genuine public concern. Then large companies pervert regulation to their advantage, because they can exercise undue influence because of wealth on the political process. They call it lobbying in the front room, and bribery in the back room.
Libertarians point their finger at government as the source of the problem. You're looking at the pig, when you should be seeing the spider. Government is riddled with problems because of unhealthy desires. Try thinking of Government like chemotherapy. It's sickening and harsh, but without it, the cancer will kill us for sure. Cancer adjusts to chemo, so we need to change chemo regiments, but stopping chemo altogether, that's a really bad idea. We need to make some serious changes to our Government, but giving big business free reign is not one of them. Now deregulating small business, say companies under 10 employees, that I could get behind.
As for big business and minimum wage? One solution is same job, same pay, worldwide. That would stop the what Ross Perot called a "big sucking sound."
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr
Thanks once again to Fred for his inspiring me with his post.
Reading Charlotte's Web by E. B. White, I got a good laugh. Trying to save Wilbur from a pig's usual fate, she spins into her web "some pig." The crowds gather round and repeat, "some pig." Only the farmer's wife bothered to say, "I think it's some spider."
Wal-Mart advocating for raising the minimum wage to stifle their competition, and the cry I hear is "...the rise of business regulation, including intervention in market wages, was pushed by large companies for one main reason: to impose higher costs on smaller competitors...Regulation is thus a violent method of competition."
So I guess, if we just got rid of government regulation, then those companies would all behave? And if they didn't, why then the conusmer would stop supporting them? That doesn't fit my understanding of human nature. I do believe that unscrupulous businessmen would monopolize resources, buy up whole towns, and call all the shots. And if you didn't like it, they'd hire thugs to thump your head until you saw it their way. And if you aren't the same color or religion as them, then they'd thump your head even if you did like it.
I'm not buying the theory that "the rise of business regulation...was pushed by large companies for one main reason: to impose higher costs on smaller competitors." I believe that regulation, such as child labor laws, were initiated by genuine public concern. Then large companies pervert regulation to their advantage, because they can exercise undue influence because of wealth on the political process. They call it lobbying in the front room, and bribery in the back room.
Libertarians point their finger at government as the source of the problem. You're looking at the pig, when you should be seeing the spider. Government is riddled with problems because of unhealthy desires. Try thinking of Government like chemotherapy. It's sickening and harsh, but without it, the cancer will kill us for sure. Cancer adjusts to chemo, so we need to change chemo regiments, but stopping chemo altogether, that's a really bad idea. We need to make some serious changes to our Government, but giving big business free reign is not one of them. Now deregulating small business, say companies under 10 employees, that I could get behind.
As for big business and minimum wage? One solution is same job, same pay, worldwide. That would stop the what Ross Perot called a "big sucking sound."
posted by Jeff Kelley at 7:13 AM
27 Comments:
So...truck drivers in Iraq, North Korea, Cuba, and Idaho would all get the same pay? Would this also apply to professional sports?
I hope you are kidding.
Yes, they would get the same pay. Same standard of living world wide. I'm not kidding, I'm dreaming. Imagine if all the working class of the world had a basic level of needs met: housing, sufficient nutrition, clean water, basic medical care, safe neighborhoods. Tell me how this doesn't make sense?
To understand my point of view, it would help you know an underlying belief I have. I believe that a small perentage of the world's humans, a group within the wealthiest 5%, manipulate the politics of third world countries to keep the price of production low. Wages are low in India because of centuries of imperialism. I also believe that for huge numbers of workers in the world, working conditions and living conditions are deplorable. I don't value an American life more than the life of a human in another country.
I refer often to Guatemala in 1954, and I don't believe that is an isolated event.
Ok, it does make sense, if it is a dream. It is called Utopia.
I agree, Guatemala was probably not isolated.
What about the pro sports? Same pay, or does the idea only fit blue collar labor?
Yes, it's a utopian ideal, enriching to think and write about. I'm willing to work for more pragmatic accomplishments.
Well, sports are harder it's to quantify. Does the 1st string quarter back do the same job as the third string defensive linebacker?
The question is, does the 3rd string quarterback do the same job as the 1st string QB?
Ok, that's it. I've had enough, so I ran your blog thru this neat online tool to find out how much it's worth and it came back a big fat zero.
I ran mine thru it and mine's worth $3387.24 so I got you beat. I'm right and you're wrong. I'll have to admit,though, I have no idea what makes my blog worth that much money.
See if you can figure it out at
http://www.business-opportunities.biz/projects/how-much-is-your-blog-worth/
Well, in both cases, no.
But does one guy need to make $6 million while another makes $50k? And what about the people in the third world sewing those $50 - $100 fan apparal that helps pay those salaries? Are they really only worth a dollar a day?
Well, Fred, if you've been following my line of reasoning, you should see that being worth more money makes you more wrong than me. Money is the root you know.
wink wink.
You didn't answer the question.
The question is, does the 3rd string quarterback do the same job as the 1st string QB?
And you also blew it on my post: You think everyone should get the same wage for the same labor?
We've often heard it quoted, from the Left, that workers in third world countries only get paid twenty five cents an hour.
What isn't mentioned is that twenty five cents buys a lot more in those countries, than it does here. Monetary values differ around the globe.
I read recently that the average salary for some Iraqis is between $150 to $200 a year. Things are cheaper there, at this point, than they are in this country.
Your idea of equal salaries, worldwide, doesn't hold water.
Of course, that's easy for a government employee to say, Jeff.
I suggest you get a copy of "Atlas Shrugged", written by Ayn Rand. The first chapter's a bitch, but the book is awesome. I've read it twice, albeit more than twenty years ago. Good stuff, although it still begs real answers in the real world, as you allude to.
The point I was getting at was that even though both quarterbacks have the same job, they don't do the same job, which is why one may get paid more or less than the other. Just like worker "A" may produce more or less widgets (or touchdown passes) than "B".
My original question was about truck drivers, by geography. Those are all the same job in the sense that they 'drive trucks', but I believe it is a different experience (job) driving a truck in North Korea vs Idaho. Plus, each driver has a different set of skills that may be more or less valuable to different people depending on a ton of variables. And we're only talking about truck drivers here.
This does not even take into account Fred's post about the differing economies. We have huge economic variances right here in the U.S. Try buying a house in Humboldt County. $250,000 gets you a dumpy fixer on a city lot. Now look at Arkansas and the same dumpy fixer is on 250 acres...only problem is, you have to work at Wal Mart. And who wants to live in Arkansas?
Even if wages for the 'same job' were the same (if you could actually define that), certain areas would be more or less desirable (expensive)and the same truck driver would be richer or poorer, depending on where he/she lived.
Ya'll make some good points. As I stated, the same job, same pay, worldwide is utopian ideal, bumper sticker logic.
Fred, why is it that the economies of different nations are so different? I can certainly understand the resources of a country, soil fertility, mineral deposits, work ethic of the population. But what role do you think racism and other such attitudes play? What role does imperialism play in the economic disparity? This is what I'm trying to point at with the bumper sticker quote.
Even adjusting for the cost of living, I suspect that many of the factory laborers are making significantly less. I don't know, for certain, because it's possible that a few of the worse cases of labor abuse are documented, and then presented as if it were the rule instead of the exception. But I really doubt it. Knowing the depravity that humans are capable of, especially when money/power is involved, I tend to believe the reports of virtual slave labor sewing our walmart garments.
Yes it is easy for me, a union represented government employee to say these things. It also makes it easy that I'm a white male in the United States. But isn't that just a fallacy of distraction? Ad homenim or the one about pointing out the arguers circumstances? What is the relevance of our circumstances to the idea of improving working conditions worldwide?
Neither of you addressed this question: "Imagine if all the working class of the world had a basic level of needs met: housing, sufficient nutrition, clean water, basic medical care, safe neighborhoods. Tell me how this doesn't make sense?"
You both are addressing the economic logistics of an idealisitc quote. What about the moral issue of how we treat each other as human beings?
I heard a quote from the curator of the Steinbeck musuem. Something along the lines of Steinbeck couldn't keep them (the farm owners exploiting the victims of the dustbowl era) from making their money, but he made them feel guilty about it. Steinbeck's hometown of Salinas didn't open a musuem for him until the '90's because they were angry at him for exposing their exploitation. I doubt I'm going to change working conditions worldwide, but I'm pointing out that we here in the land of wealth/power didn't get this way playing fair.
Now please allow me to offend your economic sensibilities once again. Here's my other bumper sticker:
Abolish the minimum wage. Establish a maximum wage.
Allow me to make the first arugment. Without incentive, innovation wouldn't happen.
Anon, I thought I answered your question when I said: "Well, in both cases, no."
This was answer to your question: "The question is, does the 3rd string quarterback do the same job as the 1st string QB?"
I'm not sure why I said in both cases. But no, two quarterbacks don't do the same job. Quantifying stardom is a bit tricky. Who's jersey sells better is part of how pay is determined, is it not?
"I read recently that the average salary for some Iraqis is between $150 to $200 a year. Things are cheaper there, at this point, than they are in this country."
Was that the arithmetic mean, or the median?
$200 is about 0.7% of what I make a year. Are things that much cheaper in Iraq?
I agree that the idea makes sense (basic needs met), but how you get there (Utopia) from here (Reality) is complicated, unless you accept that a mixed capitalist economy would solve the world's problems. America hasn't worked out all the bugs, but it's a lot better than everywhere else.
I agree with axing the minimum wage, but why would you want a maximum wage? Who would pay all the taxes? I'm sure you're aware that the top wage earners contribute the lion's share of the income taxes. They also own the expensive houses and properties that contribute so much to our educational system (via property taxes).
Capping their wages would probably at least double the 'middle class' tax burden and then we would have to start taxing the poor on more than just gas, cigarettes, and alcohol.
Except a maximum wage would lower the cost of everything, just like a minimum wage raises the cost.
But again, it's bumper sticker logic, meant to point at an idea. How's about linked pay, like ben and jerry's did. The highest paid employee couldn't earn more than let's say 20 times the lowest.
As for ours being the best system, are you sure it is? Are people in Spain, Switzerland, Sweden, Holland, France, etc. really less fortunate than us? And to what extent is our wealth the result of our economic system, vs. our imperialism?
I accept the necessity of capitalism. It does seem to be the best way to have a modern culture given that we will continue to exploit each other. I won't pretend that it's righteous though. Capitalism is based on ugly truths of the human condition. What I'm hoping for is improvement of the living and working conditions of the working class worldwide. A good step would be increasing awareness of the effects our consumerism has on the workers who produce the goods. Does "always low prices" mean always low wages? I don't know, I'm actually asking.
I don't know that prices would come down, but taxes would surely go up. Why would you want to cap the wages that pay the bills? An executive making an $800,000 annual salary probably pays around $230,000 in Federal income taxes. That is double the amount that 32 $25,000 per year people would pay in taxes for the same amount of wages. We need those rich people to continue to pay the share of the poor.
There is just something so wrong with the idea that if there weren't the ultra wealthy, there wouldn't be enough to go around. Don't forget that money is a completely artificial construct.
We have to have the rich so there's somebody to tax? The resources would still be there without individuals worth a billion dollars or more. There would still be the same number of people to do the work.
The idea I'm pointing at is the disparity of wealth. Why does one guy need to get paid millions a year, and then close factories and lay off thousands of employees? Excutives will get bonuses in the same year they lay off thousands. Doesn't that strike you as wrong?
Not if the layoffs keep the company from going bankrupt - and therefore losing all of the jobs.
Sure, we do need the really wealthy to pay the bills, that's how the progressive tax system works, the more you make, the more you pay, and at a higher rate. I don't agree with it. I would prefer a flat tax, personally.
But if the company is at risk of going bankrupt, why give the executives raises, but fire the employees?
If the salaries of executives were limited, but the company still made the same profits, wouldn't the stock holders (which would hopefully be the employees) make a larger profit on dividends, and have a larger tax liability to make up the difference?
That is something you came up with, and probably not too likely, unless the board of directors hired a 'turn around' executive, whose job it was to save the company.
If the salaries were limited, why in the hell would anybody good want to work there? That's probably what's wrong our government (limited salaries).
Well, yeah, that's the utopian part. It relies on human beings caring about other human beings instead of just themselves and their immediate family. The greatest good for the greatest number.
As for executives getting bonuses while laying off employees? No, that has happened on more than one occasion. That was the crux of Roger and Me, that GM laid off employees while experiencing record profits and giving bonuses to the execs. I can try and look up more instances if you need more proof.
No, I don't need proof, but I believe things are very complicated in big business, and it's not as simple as they make it sound in the news.
I doubt those decisions are made lightly, and for the purpose of lining ones own pocket (although I'm sure it happens). That would be extremely short-sighted, the workers, after all, produce the goods and services. 25 executives in an office don't build a car, and the good ones know that.
It is not a fun job, to fire or lay people off. It is probably one of the worst feelings you can have (at work).
You have been focusing on the bad deeds of the managers, but what about the workers? Fraudulent Comp claims, pilfering, taking cash 'under the table' while on unemployment. Those things also happen. What about the lazy people, who collect the same check as the rest and spend most of their time getting out of work? Isn't that stealing?
Oh absolutely it's stealing. One of the worst impacts of unions is that they protect lousy workers. When I say same job, same pay, I mean same productivity, and that means productivity without bitching moaning and complaining. I had another bumper sticker saying that I bounced around for a while. The problems of the world are caused by Greed, and its slave, Ignorance. If the masses weren't so slothful and ignorant (the popularity of fear factor is evidence of this), then the greedy executives would never get away with exploitation. I write in these blogs because I enjoy the act of writing, and it helps me to cope with the intensity of the human condition. People suck, and not in a good way. So I dream of better things and spew them out in half thought out entries in blogs and comments. Thanks for writing back, because if nobody else says anything, I lose the inpiration to speak. And I can get in some pretty dangerous funks if I'm not careful. Thank goodness for music.
I just don't understand why some people have more money than they could spend in a lifetime, and other people die for lack of food, clean water, and basic medicine. What is wrong with our species? What is wrong with me that all I do about it is write these almost pointless blogs?
That's just the way it is. It is terrible that some people starve while others have chefs on staff. It is a struggle. Those really wealthy people, many are truly not happy, especially the ones who didn't work for it. I guess you have to stuggle to appreciate. Thanks for the opinions, keep writing, it is nice to disagree and not have somebody flip out. Some people don't understand that differences of opinion are not personal. Some people might say it's healthy.
What can you do? Pay your taxes, do some volunteer work, help somebody who's down sometime. Or, start another Microsoft like Bill Gates and try to get rid of Malaria. Either way, I'm, sure the world will be better for it.
http://www.gatesfoundation.org
Oh yea, and vote republican.
Everything but the vote republican. Republicans haven't had a decent candidate since Abraham Lincoln.
Post a Comment
<< Home