Whats the real value of a job?

I hear and read people say that the jobs value is only determined by the actual skill of the job being performed. Rarely does anyone think that the support is valuable for the skilled work. The people who clean and do menial labor and are not worth anything because their jobs dont require skill even though what they do is essential to the overall success of the operation. They dont factor in the value of a persons time, which i think in and of itself is worthy of a decent pay alone. We all live in a finite world and our existence here will come to an end for some sooner than later. That i think is whats actually worth the most. Now, the second thing i would factor in after that is the actual worth of what you do.

Now here is where it gets real screwy. From a strictly capitalist perspective the things i look for in the worth of my employee are growth potential as the #1 factor in determining someones worth. If you cant grow anymore then you are already at the most i will pay you to do the job, no matter what. If you have the potential to grow and increase my companies portfolio or net worth in some way or contribute to the success of the company then i will give you performance based incentive increases determined by what your actually doing vs what your goals are for that week.

All of these things play a roll.

Now on the other hand we all have a moral responsibility to our community and to the financial well being of the people we employee. So lets look at it from a strictly moral perspective. My first rule still applies here, someones time is actually a valuable commodity and should have a base net worth no matter what the skillset is. What are some other determining factors that would fall into the moral category?

Can you guys help me think through this issue?

Now after that how do you morally justify paying someone less then what they need to survive to work a full weeks paycheck?

a reply to: onequestion

You are making the assumption that we are actually in a free market society. We are not in a capitalistic society or a free market society.

The current corporations are simply appendages of the state. You have to think of things in terms of their relation to the state(in this case the worker's relation to state).

So what is a state?

Well a state is a group of people or groups of people(cartels) that have a monopoly on the regulation of other people's bodies through various means. So you could say that your body is only worth as much as your relation to the other people around you. That would also be flawed because as the state grows(or corporations, which are the states's mistresses) your value stops having less and less to do with how skilled you are and has more to do with how skilled you are at manipulating and exploiting other people's skills(think of how many managers of large corporations are complete and utter idiots, compared to a manager at a successful small business).

So as the state grows it will matter less and less how good you are at performing a task. The good workers are not rewarded as much those who are good at seeming like they are good(great skills for working in government..cough..corporations).

So what is the moral obligation of these users and abusers to adequately compensate those they are abusing?

Well I dunno...

None.

originally posted by: onequestion
I hear and read people say that the jobs value is only determined by the actual skill of the job being performed. Rarely does anyone think that the support is valuable for the skilled work. The people who clean and do menial labor and are not worth anything because their jobs dont require skill even though what they do is essential to the overall success of the operation. They dont factor in the value of a persons time, which i think in and of itself is worthy of a decent pay alone. We all live in a finite world and our existence here will come to an end for some sooner than later. That i think is whats actually worth the most. Now, the second thing i would factor in after that is the actual worth of what you do.

Now here is where it gets real screwy. From a strictly capitalist perspective the things i look for in the worth of my employee are growth potential as the #1 factor in determining someones worth. If you cant grow anymore then you are already at the most i will pay you to do the job, no matter what. If you have the potential to grow and increase my companies portfolio or net worth in some way or contribute to the success of the company then i will give you performance based incentive increases determined by what your actually doing vs what your goals are for that week.

All of these things play a roll.

Now on the other hand we all have a moral responsibility to our community and to the financial well being of the people we employee. So lets look at it from a strictly moral perspective. My first rule still applies here, someones time is actually a valuable commodity and should have a base net worth no matter what the skillset is. What are some other determining factors that would fall into the moral category?

Can you guys help me think through this issue?

Now after that how do you morally justify paying someone less then what they need to survive to work a full weeks paycheck?

Businesses don't exist to give people jobs. There is no morality involved as it isn't a moral issue. A job is only worth what a business is willing to pay to have the work performed and what the employee is willing to accept as compensation. Nothing more and nothing less. In a free market, both employees and employers choose what the are willing to accept.

There are some jobs that don't pay a living wage because they job itself is not worth a living wage. These jobs are not designed to be careers nor are people expected to try to raise a family or "live" on these jobs. If the company was forced to pay more than the job is worth based on supply and demand then that job will simply be eliminated or the cost of good sold to consumers will need to increase.

With that said, some businesses pay more than others as part of their overall strategy to attract better talent than their competitors or because they may have found long term benefits associated with hiring higher quality employees. However, this is an individual business decision, not something that should be forced.

The work janitors do is valuable. However, janitors are easily replaced and the skill it takes to be a janitor is not that high. Therefore, the salaries are low despite the job being hard or providing value to said employer.

a reply to: Edumakated

No I totally disagree with you based on a single axiom.

The fact that you think there's no moral obligation to treat people who work for you fairly.

Nothing you do or say will change my stance on that.

Rise from the ashes called crap, and finding a better one.

Double post

I'll just leave this here:

It's hard to raise yourself up by your bootstraps when you don't own a pair of boots.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

The problem with starting at the bottom these days is that the cost of living has outgrown what the bottom pays.

I have a part time janitorial job available, it pays $8 an hour for 20 hours a week. I pay $160 to the person doing that job. Thus ends my moral obligation. When I can't find somebody to do that job for $8 I will raise that to $9.
That has nothing to do with the value of a person only the value of the labor I need preformed.

a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

Your not placing any fundamental value on human life and existence which is where you logic is flawed.

What your doing is looking at this concept through the perspective that humans dont matter only the job and or the company matters thus your profits are the only thing that matters.

I'm basing my stance on the fundamental axiom that human time and lives are the most valuable part of the equation and the the task that they perform is actually worth less.

The issue is that people are desperate enough to do these jobs for low pay. If people started demanding more and not working as a whole than the pay would increase.

However the people are desperate and scared and are willing to do even the worst jobs for barely anything. Just the way businesses like it.

a reply to: onequestion

You still have to have a balance. A business that does not focus on making a profit is not going to be in business long. Ask the employees of radio shack how confident they are in their future with the shack.
I would love to double they pay scale, but that just is not in the cards.

When you have people who actually do a job that means something like making homes or growing food, you know , the kind of things that people need to survive, and these people don't make as much money as the bastard that sits behind a desk on the top floor of the bank trying to figure out new ways to screw people out of their hard earned money who gets a bonus that is more than most people make in years, on top of his already huge salary. How do you put a value on that? OK you figured out a way for us to make many millions of dollars for doing nothing but using other people's money so here is a million dollars for a bonus.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Edumakated

No I totally disagree with you based on a single axiom.

The fact that you think there's no moral obligation to treat people who work for you fairly.

Nothing you do or say will change my stance on that.

The problem with your position is that you think you are the arbiter of determining what is fair. You moral givings don't change the laws of economics. Further, nothing is stopping you from starting your own business and paying whatever exorbitant wages you feel are necessary to your employees. Put up or shut up. Invest your time and capital in starting a company and pay the so called living wage that you believe every employee deserves. No one is stopping you.

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
I have a part time janitorial job available, it pays $8 an hour for 20 hours a week. I pay $160 to the person doing that job. Thus ends my moral obligation. When I can't find somebody to do that job for $8 I will raise that to $9.
That has nothing to do with the value of a person only the value of the labor I need preformed.

Therein lies the crux of the matter......
Corporate manipulation of the value......
Money is NOT the ultimate......
All lives matter equally.....

Not everyone can be brain surgeons,musicstars,game players,rocket scientists, or national leaders. why? everyone has a different personal skill set. Why should a trash collector or burger flipper be entitled to less than a doctor or the owner of a company? they are all doing something.. shouldn't the reward of doing the job and contributing to humanity as a whole be the incentive?

a reply to: JHumm

I know man your telling me. I'm just a loser construction worker myself. I have to actually skillfully install hardwood and tile floors something any monkey with a wrench can do.

originally posted by: EyesOpenMouthShut
Not everyone can be brain surgeons,musicstars,game players,rocket scientists, or national leaders. why? everyone has a different personal skill set. Why should a trash collector or burger flipper be entitled to less than a doctor or the owner of a company? they are all doing something.. shouldn't the reward of doing the job and contributing to humanity as a whole be the incentive?

They are entitled to something, just not as much as the brain surgeon. There are far fewer brain surgeons than there are garbage collectors and the salaries reflect this fact. Just like how not everyone can make tens of millions being a top athlete or an actor or even a CEO. Whether we like it or not, everyone is not equal when it comes to wages.

Wages are just where supply and demand curves meet. when supply is tight (not a lot of people available) at certain wages, then wages must go up. When there are a lot of people with said skill set, wages go down.

No one is arguing that people who don't make a lot of money are inferior as humans.

originally posted by: EyesOpenMouthShut
Not everyone can be brain surgeons,musicstars,game players,rocket scientists, or national leaders. why? everyone has a different personal skill set. Why should a trash collector or burger flipper be entitled to less than a doctor or the owner of a company? they are all doing something.. shouldn't the reward of doing the job and contributing to humanity as a whole be the incentive?

Couldnt agree more. We all need each other to survive and live good lives so we dont we start acting like it?

a reply to: Edumakated

Your not understanding your looking at what were saying from a business perspective only, the bottom line, you only care about the numbers not the people.

What about the people, do you disagree with the idea that everyone should be able to live fulfilling lives while they are here or do you only care about money?