"Sorry we are closed nobody wants to work here anymore due to government handouts"

[Katchii]

So wait if you do equal amount of work and where production/revenue generation is on the same level....that hard working unskilled laborer deserves to be paid way less then the so called "skilled" laborer just because more people can do it?

If you can provide an example where the production/revenue is on the same level, we might be able to discuss more specifics about your example.

In general though, yes. A position that requires specialized training, certifications, experience and skill should get paid more than a position where none of those things are required. This means less people can do that job, and also means people had to spend a not insignificant amount of money and/or time to get those things.

That's supply and demand, applied to labor rather than goods.

[Zan15]

If you can provide an example where the production/revenue is on the same level, we might be able to discuss more specifics about your example.

In general though, yes. A position that requires specialized training, certifications, experience and skill should get paid more than a position where none of those things are required. This means less people can do that job, and also means people had to spend a not insignificant amount of money and/or time to get those things.

That's supply and demand, applied to labor rather than goods.

Our warehouse workers generate the same or more revenue/production then our office manager. He has a degree too!! Its not a job you can walk right into. Once you factor in the cost of training him vs a standard warehouse position it might even come to a short term lower #.

Our drivers too have a lower ROI/production then our warehouse workers.


Meanwhile if supply and demand were applied, based on today's market the warehouse workers would be making 2x the amount of middle management. Its almost impossible to find workers right now in general labor. Last time we posted for a "skilled" position we had more applicants then we had time to look through them all, and most of them being qualified (if not over qualified).

[Endus]

If you can provide an example where the production/revenue is on the same level, we might be able to discuss more specifics about your example.

In general though, yes. A position that requires specialized training, certifications, experience and skill should get paid more than a position where none of those things are required. This means less people can do that job, and also means people had to spend a not insignificant amount of money and/or time to get those things.

That's supply and demand, applied to labor rather than goods.

Except that's not really supply and demand; you're talking about supply in a limited sense, but not talking about demand at all.

Just as a for-instance; let's say there's 100 positions that need to be filled. 90 are unskilled, 10 are skilled. In the available job pool, you've got 90 applicants, 40 of whom have skill training, and 50 that don't.

The 40 skilled applicants vying for 10 job positions means 30 won't get what they want; the employers can short-change those job offers because there's an over-supply of labor. This can crater the value of that training to near-zero levels, if not completely zero.

And for the unskilled labor, you've got fewer people with appropriate training than there are positions; unless those skilled laborers are going to take the unskilled jobs, competition's gonna drive the value of that labor up, potentially outcompeting the value of the skilled labor itself (because if you're a fine woodworking craftsman specializing in custom furniture, say, you're probably not going to take a construction laborer job unless you're desperate; you'll keep looking.)

This is, frankly, why things like fine arts degrees are often seen as lacking value; there's a hell of a lot of training there, but the jobs available for people with a master's degree in English Lit or Philosophy are minimal, so a lot of graduates end up, say, working at Starbucks as a barista; an unskilled position (don't @ me; you're trained on the job and don't need those skills on application, is what I'm saying)

[Svifnymr]

UBI, as how the entire economy runs(from manufacturing to retail), couldn't work as too many gears would come to a grinding halt as we are a consumer economy and still need lots of people to make things. Robotics would have to advance a LOT more for that to be the case.

The biggest problem with UBI, and I've stated this in previous threads, is that there is no way to afford it from a cost standpoint. Even if you remove Social Security(UBI would remove it outright along with the overhead of it), unemployment and the like, the taxes taken in wouldn't be ANYWHERE near what is needed for a UBI, even a basic one. Lets do some math shall we.

The main issue with UBI is that you need to replace almost all entry level/ min-wage/ zero training jobs with automation/ self-service to reduce costs to the point that a UBI can maintain a level of lifestyle. Likewise, you need to reduce housing costs, which would mean shifting populations away from urban concentrations in limited areas. (Everyone can't live on the same little island/ valley, until you can increase capacity a lot more.)

The problem with all these discussions is the arbitrary assignment of some dollar amount. $15 is meaningless, businesses in middle of nowhere can't afford it and NYC it's not enough to survive on. Assigning some amount as UBI is meaningless, it's only in whether that amount can afford someone a living space and supplies to survive on. Then you get into how well or how many people such a thing should supply. I've seen plenty of articles decrying that someone can't feed their family of 4 on their minimum wage job, but should it? How much should UBI reward having children once those children are not needed for future productivity?

We're just not to the level of automation that will facilitate switching to a UBI, in my opinion, but I dont' set any policy anyway.

[Endus]

The main issue with UBI is that you need to replace almost all entry level/ min-wage/ zero training jobs with automation/ self-service to reduce costs to the point that a UBI can maintain a level of lifestyle.

What? No, you don't. Literally no test of that kind of system has suggested this. What propaganda hole are you digging this out from?

Likewise, you need to reduce housing costs, which would mean shifting populations away from urban concentrations in limited areas. (Everyone can't live on the same little island/ valley, until you can increase capacity a lot more.)

Again, categorically false and without any basis in reality.

I've seen plenty of articles decrying that someone can't feed their family of 4 on their minimum wage job, but should it? How much should UBI reward having children once those children are not needed for future productivity?

"The only purpose of human reproduction is to produce new workers for the machine."

Jesus Christ, dude.

[Katchii]

Our warehouse workers generate the same or more revenue/production then our office manager. He has a degree too!! Its not a job you can walk right into. Once you factor in the cost of training him vs a standard warehouse position it might even come to a short term lower #.

This is debatable, and is a much deeper discussion.

There are a lot of things managers do that don't directly generate revenue, but most of the time, without them there would be less revenue generated in total. Managing the people as well as the site itself, is absolutely integral to running a successful business and is therefore just as, if not more, important than the folks laboring inside.

This applies to many areas besides management, where the people don't directly affect the revenue, but have a profound impact on whether that revenue is made at all. I'd argue that every single "Quality" related position falls into this category. And they're exceedingly important for any business.

Our drivers too have a lower ROI/production then our warehouse workers.

Again, debatable. Without the drivers products wouldn't get delivered, and in my experience with some drivers, the demands required of them (as in what is asked of them in that position) are higher, more strenuous.

Meanwhile if supply and demand were applied, based on today's market the warehouse workers would be making 2x the amount of middle management. Its almost impossible to find workers right now in general labor. Last time we posted for a "skilled" position we had more applicants then we had time to look through them all, and most of them being qualified (if not over qualified).

Fair point about the supply and demand. Was more speaking to the position itself and not the number of people qualified to do it.

ie You might only need 1 manager for a site, but you need 10+ people to fill other roles that require less training or qualifications.

Except that's not really supply and demand; you're talking about supply in a limited sense, but not talking about demand at all.

Agreed. I oversimplified.

Just as a for-instance; let's say there's 100 positions that need to be filled. 90 are unskilled, 10 are skilled. In the available job pool, you've got 90 applicants, 40 of whom have skill training, and 50 that don't.

The 40 skilled applicants vying for 10 job positions means 30 won't get what they want; the employers can short-change those job offers because there's an over-supply of labor. This can crater the value of that training to near-zero levels, if not completely zero.

Agreed. I wasn't taking in all of the complexities when I made the statement. As you've already touched on it's a much more complex situation.

With that said, their training isn't worthless. It's just worthless in that particular situation/ position they're filling. They can still continue looking for a position that requires their more specialized training, whereas others who don't have that training can't even consider those jobs as an option.

If someone takes a position lower than they're qualified or trained for, that's a decision they've made. Granted there are a LOT of situations where people are forced to make that decision, but that doesn't change that it was their decision.

And for the unskilled labor, you've got fewer people with appropriate training than there are positions; unless those skilled laborers are going to take the unskilled jobs, competition's gonna drive the value of that labor up, potentially outcompeting the value of the skilled labor itself (because if you're a fine woodworking craftsman specializing in custom furniture, say, you're probably not going to take a construction laborer job unless you're desperate; you'll keep looking.)

Agreed.

This is, frankly, why things like fine arts degrees are often seen as lacking value; there's a hell of a lot of training there, but the jobs available for people with a master's degree in English Lit or Philosophy are minimal, so a lot of graduates end up, say, working at Starbucks as a barista; an unskilled position (don't @ me; you're trained on the job and don't need those skills on application, is what I'm saying)

Yeah, but training in what? If the training you receive doesn't equip you to actually perform a task or apply what you know to a scenario that can provide value to a company, then that training IS lacking value. There are some degrees that ARE worth less than others because of this exact situation, where the things they learn and the kinds of skills they learn have ambiguous tangible benefit. Philosophy is one of these.

[Zan15]

This is debatable, and is a much deeper discussion.

There are a lot of things managers do that don't directly generate revenue, but most of the time, without them there would be less revenue generated in total. Managing the people as well as the site itself, is absolutely integral to running a successful business and is therefore just as, if not more, important than the folks laboring inside.

This applies to many areas besides management, where the people don't directly affect the revenue, but have a profound impact on whether that revenue is made at all. I'd argue that every single "Quality" related position falls into this category. And they're exceedingly important for any business.


Again, debatable. Without the drivers products wouldn't get delivered, and in my experience with some drivers, the demands required of them (as in what is asked of them in that position) are higher, more strenuous.

.

Without the warehouse workers drivers would have nothing to drive, thus they would have no job. It goes both ways. Does not change the ROI.
Even if you include the non tangible benefits of a manager the ROI on the warehouse labor is substantially more than a manger.

[Katchii]

Without the warehouse workers drivers would have nothing to drive, thus they would have no job. It goes both ways. Does not change the ROI.

You're saying that you get higher ROI for warehouse labor than you do the drivers?

You're absolutely certain? You've seen or performed your own cost-benefit analysis? Because a company having their own delivery drivers is a HUGE investment, considering the existence of pick-up and delivery services. A company wouldn't do this unless it was to their benefit.

Also, most people can do warehouse labor. Not everyone can be a delivery driver, specifically, depending on the size of the vehicles they're driving, they at least need a commercial driver's license. Which not everybody has.

Even if you include the non tangible benefits of a manager the ROI on the warehouse labor is substantially more than a manger.

I honestly don't think this is true, not in most cases anyway. I'm not going to pretend there aren't some completely worthless managers out there, but successful companies don't get that way by making stupid decisions with their money and who they give it to.

I know one thing that many people severely underestimate is the "decision making" responsibility. It doesn't sound like a lot, but it absolutely is. The decisions made by managers can make or break a company, and having the ability to make good decisions and the skills needed in order to know what a good or bad decision is given certain situations absolutely cannot be underestimated. It may not seem like "work," but a LOT goes into it.

[Glorious Leader]

If you can provide an example where the production/revenue is on the same level, we might be able to discuss more specifics about your example.

In general though, yes. A position that requires specialized training, certifications, experience and skill should get paid more than a position where none of those things are required. This means less people can do that job, and also means people had to spend a not insignificant amount of money and/or time to get those things.

That's supply and demand, applied to labor rather than goods.

Labor also happens to be people, so applying the same market forces you would to people as iron ingots is quite dehumanizing. Von mises and the Austrians are right when they say labor markets would clear if labor would accept any wage, any working conditions, move wherever they had to, and never unionize. As Thorstein Veblen points out this view is accurate in so far as one view labor as a commodity and only a commodity. This is of course very problematic

[Svifnymr]

What? No, you don't. Literally no test of that kind of system has suggested this. What propaganda hole are you digging this out from?

For a UBI system to replace a welfare system, you have some basic requirements for the society to be able to function, rather than just printing more money as you keep raising UBI to keep up with the increasing costs. You can't just assign some arbitrary number and think it's going to work.

Again, categorically false and without any basis in reality.

So if you provide enough money for folks to afford $1000 a month in housing, does everyone just live on the streets in NYC, unable to afford housing, or do they instead have to move to cheaper areas to live in? Or do you adjust the UBI to localities, nullifying the Universal part? You can't just do UBI with payments, you need to control the expense side as well. Assuming you're going broad with it, of course.

"The only purpose of human reproduction is to produce new workers for the machine."

Jesus Christ, dude.

You really have no capacity to discuss things that you don't already agree with, do you? At what point does the System have the authority or need to manage the population? Better to simply shove your head in the sand and hope for the best? If the topic is so anathema to you that you cannot see it worth discussing, why bother discussing it?

[Endus]

For a UBI system to replace a welfare system, you have some basic requirements for the society to be able to function, rather than just printing more money as you keep raising UBI to keep up with the increasing costs. You can't just assign some arbitrary number and think it's going to work.

You understand that taxes exist, right?

You don't need to "print more money", at all. It's a weird claim and I have no idea where you got the impression that "printing money" would be required to make a UBI work, at least moreso than is already done to manage the money supply.

Edit: I also just noticed the "increasing costs" bit; a UBI does not contribute to inflation, directly. No study of tests of such systems has indicated it would. Inflation occurs, yes, but inflation is managed, as an intentional factor of monetary policy; it disincentivizes hoarding cash, as it decays in value if you do so. Why would inflation change at all due to a UBI?

So if you provide enough money for folks to afford $1000 a month in housing, does everyone just live on the streets in NYC, unable to afford a house, or do they instead have to move to cheaper areas to live in? Or do you adjust the UBI to localities, nullifying the Universal part? You can't just do UBI with payments, you need to control the expense side as well. Assuming you're going broad with it, of course.

Are people somehow unable to afford living in NYC today?

Why do you think they'll all have to be homeless if they're getting a UBI stipend in addition to wages?

Do you think a UBI will abolish the concept of affordable housing, or something?

You're skipping, like, 15 or 20 steps here. Show your work.

You really have no capacity to discuss things that you don't already agree with, do you? At what point does the System have the authority or need to manage the population?

I disagree that it should ever need that authority in the first place. And if population growth becomes a problem (it currently is not and there is no indication that it will become one, at current trend rates), incentive programs are likely more effective than restrictions, as China's found out.

Better to simply shove your head in the sand and hope for the best? If the topic is so anathema to you that you cannot see it worth discussing, why bother discussing it?

I'm perfectly willing to discuss it.

I'm not willing to accept empty claims predicated on no evidence or reasoning as "discussion", however.

[Katchii]

Labor also happens to be people, so applying the same market forces you would to people as iron ingots is quite dehumanizing. Von mises and the Austrians are right when they say labor markets would clear if labor would accept any wage, any working conditions, move wherever they had to, and never unionize. As Thorstein Veblen points out this view is accurate in so far as one view labor as a commodity and only a commodity. This is of course very problematic

Well, labor IS a commodity. But as with any other resource that's used within the manufacturing process, the labor needs to be well maintained and taken care of.

I agree with you that when the people doing the labor aren't treated right and taken care it is a bad thing. The issue, IMO, isn't that they treat labor like a commodity it's that they don't see the labor as a disposable/ replaceable commodity rather than something that needs proper maintenance and care. ie they don't treat people like people.

[Glorious Leader]

Well, labor IS a commodity. But as with any other resource that's used within the manufacturing process, the labor needs to be well maintained and taken care of.

I agree with you that when the people doing the labor aren't treated right and taken care it is a bad thing. The issue, IMO, isn't that they treat labor like a commodity it's that they don't see the labor as a disposable/ replaceable commodity rather than something that needs proper maintenance and care. ie they don't treat people like people.

See the problem with viewing labor as a commodity is that its a fairly huge step in commodifying literally everything to the point that nothing is sacred outside of market forces. If you do that then everything is subject to the logic of profit maximization and disposing people is much cheaper than care and maintenance. And like wtf they arent robots they don't need maintenance they need fucking dignity and esteem and a fucking standard of living. Yea no im sorry once you view labor as a commodity then your just on the road to viewing them as cogs in a wheel.

[Endus]

See the problem with viewing labor as a commodity is that its a fairly huge step in commodifying literally everything to the point that nothing is sacred outside of market forces. If you do that then everything is subject to the logic of profit maximization and disposing people is much cheaper than care and maintenance. And like wtf they arent robots they don't need maintenance they need fucking dignity and esteem and a fucking standard of living. Yea no im sorry once you view labor as a commodity then your just on the road to viewing them as cogs in a wheel.

I'd argue the central issue is conflating "labor as a commodity" with "people as human beings".

It's fine to commodify the former. Not the latter. But capitalists consistently push to blur those lines.

This is a big reason I push for a UBI; that covers the "people as human beings", freeing up labor for actual, free market negotiation as a commodity. Right now, the duress of surviving as a person heavily biases such negotiations in favor of employers, and it shouldn't.

[Katchii]

See the problem with viewing labor as a commodity is that its a fairly huge step in commodifying literally everything to the point that nothing is sacred outside of market forces.

The problem here is that labor is a measurable piece of the manufacturing machine. It's necessary, measurable, buy able, usable and sadly "disposable" in the sense that when you don't need it anymore you can "get rid of it."

Businesses care about and typically take care of their employees, but they only compensate them based on fair market value. The problem lies in what "fair" means. Because minimum wage is so abysmally low, the threshold for "fair" is so low that it's not enough to take care of people at the bottom of the pay scale. That is what needs fixing.

If you do that then everything is subject to the logic of profit maximization and disposing people is much cheaper than care and maintenance.

See above.

And like wtf they arent robots they don't need maintenance they need fucking dignity and esteem and a fucking standard of living.

I was using the terminology as a metaphor. Calm down. I agree with you on this.

Yea no im sorry once you view labor as a commodity then your just on the road to viewing them as cogs in a wheel.

They ARE cogs in the wheel, though. Let's not delude ourselves and believe that businesses that are almost entirely based on making money are going to grow a conscience and start treating their people as anything more than a means to their ends. I hope I get proven wrong here, but currently businesses have no reason to do anything different. Businesses are not the ones that we should be expecting to ensure our lives are good, it should be the government. Once the government steps up and starts taking THEIR job about taking care of it's citizens seriously, increasing minimum wage, implementing things like UBI, universal healthcare, etc... the businesses that live in that world will have to adjust and begin treating their employees accordingly or they'll lose them because at that point the citzens, and therefore employees and potential employees are not NEARLY as exploitable as they are now.

[Glorious Leader]

I'd argue the central issue is conflating "labor as a commodity" with "people as human beings".

It's fine to commodify the former. Not the latter. But capitalists consistently push to blur those lines.

This is a big reason I push for a UBI; that covers the "people as human beings", freeing up labor for actual, free market negotiation as a commodity. Right now, the duress of surviving as a person heavily biases such negotiations in favor of employers, and it shouldn't.

Well no see because trying to separate people from what people do for a living so you can justify depredation is a huge issue. The art advances while the artisan receedes. The issue is that we've precisely decided labor can be commodified and subject to profit maximization and hence divorced from being humanizing. Thats the market at work, its the great transformation.

- - - Updated - - -

Businesses care about and typically take care of their employees, but they only compensate them based on fair market value.

Excuse me but this incredible naive. The goal of any business is profit maximization full stop. They don't want to pay a fair market wage,hell if they could pay no wage they would and the most successful businesses would do exactly that if they could.

Again divorcing the concept of labor from the actual working man is exactly why we are in this boat. Because if you can simple reduce what a man does to a function of numbers then the moral weight of all the misery he is subject too vmeans very little because thats just the way it is. Somethings will never change. Don't embrace the commodification in one breath while attempting to decry it in another. We must reject the central premise that divorcing a man from what he does, alienating him from his labor is somehow just the way things are.

[Zan15]

You're saying that you get higher ROI for warehouse labor than you do the drivers?

You're absolutely certain? You've seen or performed your own cost-benefit analysis? Because a company having their own delivery drivers is a HUGE investment, considering the existence of pick-up and delivery services. A company wouldn't do this unless it was to their benefit.

Also, most people can do warehouse labor. Not everyone can be a delivery driver, specifically, depending on the size of the vehicles they're driving, they at least need a commercial driver's license. Which not everybody has.



I honestly don't think this is true, not in most cases anyway. I'm not going to pretend there aren't some completely worthless managers out there, but successful companies don't get that way by making stupid decisions with their money and who they give it to.

I know one thing that many people severely underestimate is the "decision making" responsibility. It doesn't sound like a lot, but it absolutely is. The decisions made by managers can make or break a company, and having the ability to make good decisions and the skills needed in order to know what a good or bad decision is given certain situations absolutely cannot be underestimated. It may not seem like "work," but a LOT goes into it.

Absolutly. i've been here for almost 10 years and previosuly i worked as a financial analysist in the health insurance industry where i did nothing but analyize contracts and their terms. I would crunch numbers all day to see the ROI on the contract and its competitive financial position vs other insurance carriers so we were ready for re-negotiation when the contract term was up.

Doing this for the warehouse is easy mode.

Once you factor in the cost of salary, equipment, maintence, support, etc etc the warehouse labor is a better ROI.

As far as managers i was more talking about the middle manager vs someone at the executive level. Its why they are always the first to be consolidated or laid off.

[Katchii]

Excuse me but this incredible naive. The goal of any business is profit maximization full stop. They don't want to pay a fair market wage,hell if they could pay no wage they would and the most successful businesses would do exactly that if they could.

How is it naive?

Granted, they'll pay as little as they can, but they still have to pay a wage the employee will accept, and legally allowed, otherwise they won't have any employees. They're greedy, they're not stupid.

Again divorcing the concept of labor from the actual working man is exactly why we are in this boat. Because if you can simple reduce what a man does to a function of numbers then the moral weight of all the misery he is subject too vmeans very little because thats just the way it is.

You literally just said the goal of any business is profit maximization. This falls exactly in line with that.

Somethings will never change. Don't embrace the commodification in one breath while attempting to decry it in another. We must reject the central premise that divorcing a man from what he does, alienating him from his labor is somehow just the way things are.

I'm accepting what businesses are. That's not going to change unless the system they're built on fundamentally changes. To a business (most of them), they'll always be a commodity, that doesn't mean they can't be treated like people if the system the businesses function in requires that.

- - - Updated - - -

Absolutly. i've been here for almost 10 years and previosuly i worked as a financial analysist in the health insurance industry where i did nothing but analyize contracts and their terms. I would crunch numbers all day to see the ROI on the contract and its competitive financial position vs other insurance carriers so we were ready for re-negotiation when the contract term was up.

Doing this for the warehouse is easy mode.

Once you factor in the cost of salary, equipment, maintence, support, etc etc the warehouse labor is a better ROI.

Good to know.

But better ROI doesn't mean there isn't an ROI at all. There has to be some benefit to the company that makes it worth keeping their own delivery services.

As far as managers i was more talking about the middle manager vs someone at the executive level. Its why they are always the first to be consolidated or laid off.

Oh yeah, no arguments here. In many, MANY, cases middle management is useless. Some companies or organizations are so large that they need them, though.

[Jtbrig7390]

Businesses care about and typically take care of their employees, but they only compensate them based on fair market value..

Ummm bullshit.

If that was the case over half of the adult working force wouldn't need government assistance. Businesses don't take care of shit, they only care about their bottom line and nothing more.

Please do tell me how Activision-Blizzard firing 800 people in a year where they was making record profits was them taking care of employee's.

But hey at least they gave the people this time around in the layoff's some bnet bucks...

but they still have to pay a wage the employee will accept

They have to accept it because the choice is food or death...

Not much of a choice.

[Katchii]

Ummm bullshit.

If that was the case over half of the adult working force wouldn't need government assistance. Businesses don't take care of shit, they only care about their bottom line and nothing more.

Please do tell me how Activision-Blizzard firing 800 people in a year where they was making record profits was them taking care of employee's.

But hey at least they gave the people this time around in the layoff's some bnet bucks...

Read the rest of the post. I did talk about how the current definition of "fair" is garbage, which is exactly the problem. I agree with you here.

I'll amend by statement by saying "the employees they keep."

They have to accept it because the choice is food or death...

Not much of a choice.

The concept I was talking about also extends to positions that aren't minimum wage jobs. A corporation wouldn't be able to offer an upper manager position, that would typically get paid 6 figures, minimum wage and expect anyone to even apply for it.

And while it's not much of a choice, it is still unfortunately their choice. That's exactly why this is such a huge problem because people accept these positions and those wages willingly (no one is literally forcing them to take these jobs), so businesses continue to offer them at that wage. And the cycle continues. The only way to break the cycle is by someone other than the business to step in and shake it up because no business is going to, out of the goodness of their heart, take a MASSIVE loss in earnings to suddenly give all of their exploited workers a livable wage.