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

a reply to: pexx421

Dude, it's the same where my husband works, and do you know what they do? If it really bothers them all that much, they transfer within the company by getting a job in one of those higher cost of living areas. If they're any good at what they do, that's pretty easy to do. Then they move there, and the company pays them at that pay scale. Of course, things aren't any easier financially because of cost of living, but they pay their dues for a few years and then they start looking to transfer back within the company. If they're any good at what they do, landing a new job back where they were at to begin with (or a similar low cost of living site) is also no problem. Now the company doesn't take their money away when they move back.

Easy peasey although it does take some years to put into action.

a reply to: Athetos

That's how the private market works though.

If they need someone out there, they offer incentive to get someone out there. At that point, it's less about what the skills are and more about getting someone with the skills who will live out in the boonies. Since, as you explain yourself, no one wants to live there, or more likely someone who moves there will need to compensated as a sole breadwinner for his or her family as jobs in the boonies are hard to come by, they offer more for the work where they don't need to offer as much to get someone to do it in the city.

It's supply and demand. Same work? Yes, same supply of people willing to do it? No. Higher demand for labor in the boonies means they have to pay more to get the job filled.

a reply to: SoundOfZilvah

Then you become a small business owner and your problem is solved.

originally posted by: pexx421

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.

I'm questioning your figures.

If you want to be compensated for what you produce, then go work in sales. I work in banking. Guys doing the same exact job can make anywhere from $30k/yr to more than $2 million as your income is based on your ability to produce.

You could quit your job right now and go be a Realtor and probably making $100k/yr in less than two years if you have even an average amount of hustle and drive. Top Realtors can make well into 7 figures. However, it is up to YOU to make the most of it. Eat what you kill.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Athetos

That's how the private market works though.

If they need someone out there, they offer incentive to get someone out there. At that point, it's less about what the skills are and more about getting someone with the skills who will live out in the boonies. Since, as you explain yourself, no one wants to live there, or more likely someone who moves there will need to compensated as a sole breadwinner for his or her family as jobs in the boonies are hard to come by, they offer more for the work where they don't need to offer as much to get someone to do it in the city.

It's supply and demand. Same work? Yes, same supply of people willing to do it? No. Higher demand for labor in the boonies means they have to pay more to get the job filled.

You actually see this in the medical field. Doctors who work in rural areas make more than those in urban centers. It is a lot harder to find a doctor to work in bumblestank middle America than it is downtown Chicago.

originally posted by: schuyler

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.

Interesting. Making it about be again, with added snide personal attacks. Who would have thought. Where in my statements did I ever complain about my own salary? Or about my own situation? I actually have a pretty damn good job, it’s moderately enjoyable, quite interesting, pays damn well and not a lot of people can do it. Debate the topic is fine, this isn’t about me. It’s about our society and the hypocrisy of the narrative.

a reply to: pexx421

Your post was about doing the same job as a bunch of other people for the same company, but all of you being paid at different rates in different regions. You call that unfair. So you aren't happy.

a reply to: TheRedneck

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

I'm with you! My sister sold her business last year because it was becoming so difficult to keep up with paperwork and regs... my brother is considering selling his machine shop, which has been in business since before WWII and during WWII retooled to serve the war effort. My friend designs and sells jewelry, very successfully, and says she could not do today what she did then to become successful -- basically starting out at her dining room table and expanding from there.

When my kids were young, we're talking +/- 30 years ago now, I would make things and sell them at craft fairs during the holidays. I usually made a few hundred dollars, one year I broke a thousand and I was absolutely thrilled. The fair costs were minimal -- maybe $25 for a booth or space, sometimes a token percentage of your sales. It wasn't much, but it was something I could do on my time and budget, and help give us a little nicer Christmas and whatnot. I checked into it again a couple years ago, and it would cost me a couple thousand just to satisfy all the tax and licensing regs... before I even made one pretty penny.

It's just not right, or practical, or efficient. These onerous regulations destroy productivity, creativity and innovation. People have the absolute right to provide for themselves and their families without being beholden or obligated to anyone -- especially not first!

originally posted by: TheRedneck
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

See, but you are incorrect. It’s not supply and demand or market value. It would be those things without market manipulation, but it’s actually all market manipulation. From oligopolies to price fixing, to outsourcing, to undocumented workers. To business trying to limit workers discussing salaries, to a completely opaque system of who gets compensated what and why. Why in the world would anyone’s pay be based off of anything other than how good they are at their job, how much money they make for the company?

At any rate, you say it’s market value, and the market cannot be manipulated. I say it’s completely manipulated, and supply and demand have nothing to do with it.

a reply to: Boadicea

But see, I'm sure people like the OP are also in the "there oughta be a law" crowd the rears its ugly head every time something happens that they perceive as a great injustice. And when that happens, we get "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help" by making sure we have more little rules and fees and licenses and everything else to help keep people like the OP safe from predatory businesses that all those little things help create more of.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: pexx421

Your post was about doing the same job as a bunch of other people for the same company, but all of you being paid at different rates in different regions. You call that unfair. So you aren't happy.

It was a hypothetical for an example of how the whole system works. It was an example explicitly to show that wages are not tied to cost of living in an area as most people seem to believe. Extrapolate here, people. I’m complaining about a system, not a specific job or industry.

originally posted by: pexx421

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: pexx421

Your post was about doing the same job as a bunch of other people for the same company, but all of you being paid at different rates in different regions. You call that unfair. So you aren't happy.

It was a hypothetical for an example of how the whole system works. It was an example explicitly to show that wages are not tied to cost of living in an area as most people seem to believe. Extrapolate here, people. I’m complaining about a system, not a specific job or industry.

Cost of living is just one factor. There are some jobs that pay more in rural areas and some pay more in urban areas. At the end of the day, it still all boils down to supply and demand driving market wages.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Boadicea

But see, I'm sure people like the OP are also in the "there oughta be a law" crowd the rears its ugly head every time something happens that they perceive as a great injustice. And when that happens, we get "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help" by making sure we have more little rules and fees and licenses and everything else to help keep people like the OP safe from predatory businesses that all those little things help create more of.

Nah, I’m actually strongly against all the minor barrier to entry regulations. I am, however, for “clean up your mess” regulations, and if your company makes a big mess, you’re responsible to clean up your mess, or go to jail. I also think corporate heads should face jail time when their companies are found guilty of fraud and such.

a reply to: pexx421

You have to make money work for you. Use your money to buy assets and not liabilities. Generate passive income through these assets, get a portfolio, these are ways of generating tax free income, you get taxed on your labor as does anyone who works for money.

The rich don't work for money money works for them, you wanna become wealthy and or rich change the way you look at money.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: pexx421

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: pexx421

Your post was about doing the same job as a bunch of other people for the same company, but all of you being paid at different rates in different regions. You call that unfair. So you aren't happy.

It was a hypothetical for an example of how the whole system works. It was an example explicitly to show that wages are not tied to cost of living in an area as most people seem to believe. Extrapolate here, people. I’m complaining about a system, not a specific job or industry.

Cost of living is just one factor. There are some jobs that pay more in rural areas and some pay more in urban areas. At the end of the day, it still all boils down to supply and demand driving market wages.

How is it supply and demand when company’s conspire to fix wages? When they create artificial surplus through outsourcing and lobbying for lax immigration laws and enforcement? Isn’t a manipulated market the opposite of supply and demand?

originally posted by: pexx421

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: pexx421

Your post was about doing the same job as a bunch of other people for the same company, but all of you being paid at different rates in different regions. You call that unfair. So you aren't happy.

It was a hypothetical for an example of how the whole system works. It was an example explicitly to show that wages are not tied to cost of living in an area as most people seem to believe. Extrapolate here, people. I’m complaining about a system, not a specific job or industry.

What you are offered for what you do depends on exactly how many other people in your area can be found to also do what you do as well as on prevailing economic conditions.

If you are looking for a job building widgets, and there a lot of people who can do that because you're seeking work in a place that also features a widget training school, no matter what other factors are in play, no one will likely pay you a lot to build widgets because just about everyone else in town can also do it and is looking for widget building jobs.

But maybe in Podunk Junction, Stank State, the poorest town in the poorest state in the union, they need a widget builder very badly, so they're offering you two, even three times the amount you could make in the first town because NO ONE wants to move there and live. It sucks. So in order to try to lure in even 1 sub-par widget builder, they have to offer more than what even really good widget builders would get in your first location. There just is no labor supply of widget builders. They'd even offer more, but they just can't afford it.

And on the West Coast, you can make a ton, but since it costs a ton to live, you are really barely making an average widget building salary because they don't have much trouble attracting the widget builders they need.

originally posted by: pexx421

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: pexx421

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: pexx421

Your post was about doing the same job as a bunch of other people for the same company, but all of you being paid at different rates in different regions. You call that unfair. So you aren't happy.

It was a hypothetical for an example of how the whole system works. It was an example explicitly to show that wages are not tied to cost of living in an area as most people seem to believe. Extrapolate here, people. I’m complaining about a system, not a specific job or industry.

Cost of living is just one factor. There are some jobs that pay more in rural areas and some pay more in urban areas. At the end of the day, it still all boils down to supply and demand driving market wages.

How is it supply and demand when company’s conspire to fix wages? When they create artificial surplus through outsourcing and lobbying for lax immigration laws and enforcement? Isn’t a manipulated market the opposite of supply and demand?

Yes it is, capitalism works well only when there is competition in the market, in this current state of monopolies/oligopolies is messy and starves competition which in turn these corps can limit the supply and force up the price of products artificially, and this is all okayed by government while they take underhanded payments.

originally posted by: pexx421

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Boadicea

But see, I'm sure people like the OP are also in the "there oughta be a law" crowd the rears its ugly head every time something happens that they perceive as a great injustice. And when that happens, we get "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help" by making sure we have more little rules and fees and licenses and everything else to help keep people like the OP safe from predatory businesses that all those little things help create more of.

Nah, I’m actually strongly against all the minor barrier to entry regulations. I am, however, for “clean up your mess” regulations, and if your company makes a big mess, you’re responsible to clean up your mess, or go to jail. I also think corporate heads should face jail time when their companies are found guilty of fraud and such.

That's just it though, regulations target everyone, top to bottom, and they cost everyone, top to bottom.

The more of them there are are, the more expensive it is to run a business, big to small, so that eventually only the very large survive. It's not enough to say you just favor "clean up your mess" regulations because how do we know if you've made a mess? Oh ... you get inspected. That involved lots of paperwork and added costs of compliance to make sure you don't make a mess. I mean, we have to know what not making a mess looks like in business, right? It's not enough to just assume no one will make a mess until they do. We also have to make sure we go out of our way to make sure we all try to avoid it, etc.

Trust me. I've been married to someone whose career has been made by regulations and compliance and making sure one of the very biggest is meeting and exceeding them. It's not small money and it's a growing department, sadly. But where his company can afford to do that and have entire departments to meet the growing regulatory demands of the various governments they do business with, most small businesses cannot.

But still, people think more is the answer.

originally posted by: pexx421

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.

If it's irrelevant, then that's your problem. Only the owner is on the hook to investors, tax collectors, regulators, etc. Only the owner has to keep everyone employed.

On the other hand, workers need not worry about those costs, and they need not worry about managing the schedules, hiring, advertising, salaries, benefits, human resources of themselves or their fellow employees. They don't need to worry about bankruptcy or startup capital, meeting with investors, developers, city hall. They just have to show up and do the job they were hired to do, at the rate they agreed to, or go find another job, or even go start a company of their own.

a reply to: ketsuko

You forgot "it's for the children!!!" And I'm only half-joking.

You make a good point though. People have become soft and gullible and too easily impressed, then blame everyone but themselves, demand everyone else fix it for them, and never look at what they could have and should have done better. And, sadly, therefore, never do better.

These days, caveat emptor is an archaic term. The old adage, "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is," has gone the way of the dinosaurs. And people know the price of everything but the value of nothing.