The realities, lies, and hypocrisy of compensation and wages.

So, I wanted to discuss the variance and hypocrisy of compensation and pay in today’s narratives. The idea is we live in a meritocracy. This is obviously incorrect to anyone who pays the slightest bit of attention or has any modicum of critical thinking.

The wealthy, ceos, and businesses are often defended by the narrative that they earned it. That they produced a product or service, made lots of money for their company, and thereby deserve exorbitant bonuses and salaries.
But the narrative and reality is completely different for workers.

What creates wages for workers? People often attribute it to their level of skill, they are getting paid what they are worth. But how is that worth quantified? For instance, I work in a specific field.....and I do pretty well. I’m comfortably middle class. However, there are people in my field in other areas, where the cost of living is higher, that make much more than me. And this is usually the narrative I’m given for my salary range and annual raise. Well, that and the company can not afford to give us higher raises this year.
But a quick perusal of the facts show that this holds no water. On the first issue, there are plenty areas where the cost of living is the same as here, and yet their salaries are higher than where I am. Also, there are places where the cost of living is lower, and the people get paid higher than here as well. As to the second issue, it’s disproved by the facts that the companies I’ve worked for continually post record annual profits, yet we continue to get raises at half the rate we used to a decade ago.

These demonstrate that our wages are not tied to the reasons given. In fact, I’d venture to say wages are mostly dictated by 2 things. Levels of poverty in an area leaving people more desperate and willing to work for less. And 2) lack of organized workers rights advocacy or collective bargaining power.

So here we have the extremely unequal and unfair narratives of two separate classes. Owners, ceos and executives who get paid based upon how much money and profit a company makes, or how their shares are doing, and justify their gains by their obvious success in their position. Meanwhile we have another group whose pay is based on how low the first group can justify paying them. Further, the first group is incentivized to pay them as little as possible in order to get bigger bonuses and salaries, so the workers not only have their salaries pushed as low as possible, but they often are also taxed with extra work as coworkers and ancillary positions are eliminated to streamline labor costs, leaving them to do the work of several people many times, with the compensation for those erased positions going to the execs as more bonuses, and the company as more profit.

And then the public narrative is right there, saying how the owners and executives earned that money by downsizing labor etc, but the workers are the greedy ones for wanting higher pay based upon increased workload, etc.
And NO ONE wants to talk about actually paying workers based on the real value they actually create for the company, as they supposedly do for execs and management, because that would obviously make no sense at all.

This system is exploitative and ludicrous, no?

a reply to: pexx421

Then perhaps you should start your own company offering the same service.

Or move to an area where you are making more with the same cost of living.

You have options that you are not addressing but instead are unhappy with the business owner.

So change it... you are not a slave to a single company.

Like they used to say in the Soviet Union..."they pretend to pay us, we pretend to work"

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: pexx421

Then perhaps you should start your own company offering the same service.

Or move to an area where you are making more with the same cost of living.

You have options that you are not addressing but instead are unhappy with the business owner.

So change it... you are not a slave to a single company.

What does that have to do with my description of the inequities of the system? Sadly you miss the point.

I suppose this is part of the problem. People today no longer engage in intelligent debate. It’s really devolved to identity politics, name calling, slander and personal attacks.

What I am presenting is an observation of the systematic suppression of wages, and the double standards of justifying wages and salaries at the top based upon productivity, but having working class wages completely isolated from productivity.

Then you come in and make it about me.

I hear you loud and clear. Some people in my field(water treatment/distribution and sewer collection/distribution) make more but they have to live in places that are extremely rural or even isolated. They have to pay more to get you to even consider living there. People in my field make less in the big city because there are more of them and often their duties only pertain to one of the fields such as just water distribution or just sewer collection. I live in the middle, kind of a Goldie Lox zone. No one really wants to live here but it’s not all that isolated. They can’t afford to hire large teams of people so they go for higher quality people that have multiple disciplines.

So I think I might kind of be getting what you are asking for? But my line of work is public and not a private business., we provide essential service to the people and are payed by the government.

Got a raise for getting my power engineering so that was nice. I some times wish it was privately owned but I doubt I would be payed as well or get the same benefits. No one wants to live in cold as hell no where so I guess they gotta pay up to get you here.



a reply to: pexx421

Yes, the system is exploitative. Yes, sometimes it seems ludicrous. But it works.

The problem is, you're not looking at your time and abilities as a product, which, economically, they are. You are selling your time and abilities. The value of that time and those abilities is determined by how much people are willing to pay for them. It's the same way with everything. The market decides the value, not the owner. if there were few people available to do what you do, the value would be higher; if there were many, the value would be lower. That's the law of supply and demand.

It sounds like there is a lot of unemployment in your area. That means all wages will be depressed, because people get desperate to find work.

TheRedneck

a reply to: pexx421

How does overhead and taxes fit into your analysis?

a reply to: pexx421

This system is exploitative and ludicrous, no?

Yes, it is. The system empowers the corporation via crony capitalism, creating obstacles to competition, especially from the workers themselves... those who actually get the job done. Many people would market their own skills and work for themselves -- or start a small business -- if the laws and regulations and requirements to do so were not such a burden -- by design!!!

The solution is to empower the individual -- both by reducing/eliminating obstacles and burdens to marketing their own skills, and by providing training and education to provide marketable skills. People who are self-sufficient and free to provide for themselves don't have to depend on government for handouts nor corporations for jobs. We need a level playing field where employees have real options, requiring corporations to make it worth the individual's while to exchange their autonomy for a steady paycheck and/or other benefits.

Market based wages are for those that do the bare minimum within their rights, terms and conditions.

I am a firm believer that get what your give and if someone can do more than me for less then that's my problem, not theirs.

originally posted by: pexx421

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: pexx421

Then perhaps you should start your own company offering the same service.

Or move to an area where you are making more with the same cost of living.

You have options that you are not addressing but instead are unhappy with the business owner.

So change it... you are not a slave to a single company.

What does that have to do with my description of the inequities of the system? Sadly you miss the point.

As a business owner who was once a worker bee, I don't feel I missed the point at all.

You are complaining about the inequalities of a system that you can fix yourself.

So no, it isn't about the system.

It is about your seeming inability to work within the system for your own personal gain.

An opinion from someone who has been there.

Take it for what's it's worth.

First of all, what does cost of living have to do with wages paid. That means that people who live in more lucritive areas get more money and everyone in that area is making more money. People buying those services ore products are paying more because someone in that high priced area is getting more money, often the cost of living is less in the area where people are buying the overpriced product. I am all for standardizing wages nationwide, everyone gets the same for the same kind of work and people who screw the dog should get fired.

I can see a construction worker getting paid more than a worker at McDs, the work is much harder on the body. But I cannot see a big construction job paid by the government in California paying double what the rate is in Rural America where cost of living is lower and so are the wages. A person in California could buy way more from Amazon than a person in say Ohio because they are making fifty percent more. I would bet Amazon and internet shopping is hurting people working in California. Now I do not agree that everyone should get paid the same at all, a miner who has a lot more health risk should make more money than a sales clerk, a person driving a snowplow should make more than a janitor....although a janitor's job is sometimes hard too. But a Janitor in California should receive the same wage as one in Michigan. That cost of living clause is evil.

Many people know Cuba and North Korea and Laos have these problems under full control 😎

originally posted by: pexx421
So, I wanted to discuss the variance and hypocrisy of compensation and pay in today’s narratives. The idea is we live in a meritocracy. This is obviously incorrect to anyone who pays the slightest bit of attention or has any modicum of critical thinking.

The wealthy, ceos, and businesses are often defended by the narrative that they earned it. That they produced a product or service, made lots of money for their company, and thereby deserve exorbitant bonuses and salaries.
But the narrative and reality is completely different for workers.

What creates wages for workers? People often attribute it to their level of skill, they are getting paid what they are worth. But how is that worth quantified? For instance, I work in a specific field.....and I do pretty well. I’m comfortably middle class. However, there are people in my field in other areas, where the cost of living is higher, that make much more than me. And this is usually the narrative I’m given for my salary range and annual raise. Well, that and the company can not afford to give us higher raises this year.
But a quick perusal of the facts show that this holds no water. On the first issue, there are plenty areas where the cost of living is the same as here, and yet their salaries are higher than where I am. Also, there are places where the cost of living is lower, and the people get paid higher than here as well. As to the second issue, it’s disproved by the facts that the companies I’ve worked for continually post record annual profits, yet we continue to get raises at half the rate we used to a decade ago.

These demonstrate that our wages are not tied to the reasons given. In fact, I’d venture to say wages are mostly dictated by 2 things. Levels of poverty in an area leaving people more desperate and willing to work for less. And 2) lack of organized workers rights advocacy or collective bargaining power.

So here we have the extremely unequal and unfair narratives of two separate classes. Owners, ceos and executives who get paid based upon how much money and profit a company makes, or how their shares are doing, and justify their gains by their obvious success in their position. Meanwhile we have another group whose pay is based on how low the first group can justify paying them. Further, the first group is incentivized to pay them as little as possible in order to get bigger bonuses and salaries, so the workers not only have their salaries pushed as low as possible, but they often are also taxed with extra work as coworkers and ancillary positions are eliminated to streamline labor costs, leaving them to do the work of several people many times, with the compensation for those erased positions going to the execs as more bonuses, and the company as more profit.

And then the public narrative is right there, saying how the owners and executives earned that money by downsizing labor etc, but the workers are the greedy ones for wanting higher pay based upon increased workload, etc.
And NO ONE wants to talk about actually paying workers based on the real value they actually create for the company, as they supposedly do for execs and management, because that would obviously make no sense at all.

This system is exploitative and ludicrous, no?

This is why the means of production should be owned by those who actually generates that value

a reply to: pexx421

How does overhead fit into your analysis? There are many costs, both financial and personal, that go into starting, owning and operating a business.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Many people know Cuba and North Korea and Laos have these problems under full control 😎

Been following your posts for a while, do you have ANYTHING to contribute to ANY of the subjects you respond to?

Or is it always "cool" one-liners, that you know generates stars?

My question to you: have you ever re-evaluated your beliefs?

originally posted by: pexx421
So, I wanted to discuss the variance and hypocrisy of compensation and pay in today’s narratives. The idea is we live in a meritocracy. This is obviously incorrect to anyone who pays the slightest bit of attention or has any modicum of critical thinking.

The wealthy, ceos, and businesses are often defended by the narrative that they earned it. That they produced a product or service, made lots of money for their company, and thereby deserve exorbitant bonuses and salaries.
But the narrative and reality is completely different for workers.

What creates wages for workers? People often attribute it to their level of skill, they are getting paid what they are worth. But how is that worth quantified? For instance, I work in a specific field.....and I do pretty well. I’m comfortably middle class. However, there are people in my field in other areas, where the cost of living is higher, that make much more than me. And this is usually the narrative I’m given for my salary range and annual raise. Well, that and the company can not afford to give us higher raises this year.
But a quick perusal of the facts show that this holds no water. On the first issue, there are plenty areas where the cost of living is the same as here, and yet their salaries are higher than where I am. Also, there are places where the cost of living is lower, and the people get paid higher than here as well. As to the second issue, it’s disproved by the facts that the companies I’ve worked for continually post record annual profits, yet we continue to get raises at half the rate we used to a decade ago.

These demonstrate that our wages are not tied to the reasons given. In fact, I’d venture to say wages are mostly dictated by 2 things. Levels of poverty in an area leaving people more desperate and willing to work for less. And 2) lack of organized workers rights advocacy or collective bargaining power.

So here we have the extremely unequal and unfair narratives of two separate classes. Owners, ceos and executives who get paid based upon how much money and profit a company makes, or how their shares are doing, and justify their gains by their obvious success in their position. Meanwhile we have another group whose pay is based on how low the first group can justify paying them. Further, the first group is incentivized to pay them as little as possible in order to get bigger bonuses and salaries, so the workers not only have their salaries pushed as low as possible, but they often are also taxed with extra work as coworkers and ancillary positions are eliminated to streamline labor costs, leaving them to do the work of several people many times, with the compensation for those erased positions going to the execs as more bonuses, and the company as more profit.

And then the public narrative is right there, saying how the owners and executives earned that money by downsizing labor etc, but the workers are the greedy ones for wanting higher pay based upon increased workload, etc.
And NO ONE wants to talk about actually paying workers based on the real value they actually create for the company, as they supposedly do for execs and management, because that would obviously make no sense at all.

This system is exploitative and ludicrous, no?

Wages are driven by supply and demand. Nothing more. You can try to manipulate it, unionize, cry, bitch moan, and complain that life is not fair. However, at the end of the day, market forces always win out.

If you have a skill in high demand and very people around who can do it, you make a lot of money. If you have a skill that a ton of people have, you will not make as much because you are easily replaceable. It really is that simple.

CEOs make a lot because most of their compensation is derived from stock options. Board of Directors want them to "have skin in the game" as their job is to increase shareholder value. Many actors and athletes make a lot because they have rare skill sets and so if you want them on your team or in your movie, you have to pay a lot to get them. However, they generate many times more than their exorbidant salaries so it is worth it.

Business owners make a lot because they risk a lot. If their companies are successful, then they reap the benefit. However, it is the owner's who wind up in bankruptcy if it fails. If worker bee employees want to reap the rewards then they need to invest in the company and take on personal risk.

Guys on Wall Street and other positions make a lot of money because they bring in a lot of money. They are revenue generators to the business, not cost centers.

Stop worrying about other people's pockets and focus on your own life.

originally posted by: pexx421

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: pexx421

Then perhaps you should start your own company offering the same service.

Or move to an area where you are making more with the same cost of living.

You have options that you are not addressing but instead are unhappy with the business owner.

So change it... you are not a slave to a single company.

What does that have to do with my description of the inequities of the system? Sadly you miss the point.

The only inequity you have pointed out is that you are dissatisfied with your salary. You have presented no evidence at all, just generalities we must accept at face value. Your critique is completely self-serving. And yet here you are passively bitching instead of taking charge of your own situation and making a change. I realize you are a legend in your own mind, but perhaps your employer thinks you are a jerk. It's possible that is the reason for your so-called "inequity." If your initial rant and the way you are treating people here is any indication, I'm thinking we're getting close to the truth. It's all about you.

a reply to: Boadicea

Many people would market their own skills and work for themselves -- or start a small business -- if the laws and regulations and requirements to do so were not such a burden -- by design!!!

TRUE!

That's why I and many others are so fervent over regulation reform. Those regulations are the biggest impediment to opening a small business. The costs of compliance are so high that only large, well-established companies can comply, which means the little guy is stuck working for them.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: MadLad
a reply to: pexx421

How does overhead and taxes fit into your analysis?

How does overhead and taxes fit into my assessment that workers aren’t paid according to the money they make for the company?? It’s doesnt. Taxes and overhead are irrelevant. If my actual labor produces say 600k for my company this year, that’s after costs. Taxes and overhead are part of costs, in this scenario. I’ll get a 2% raise. And then say next year, my actual labor produces 1.2 million in profit for my company. After costs, tax, and overhead. I did twice as much work. My company makes a ton of money without having done more work. My manager gets a bigger bonus without having had to do more work. I’ll get another 2% raise.