Does Capitalism Inevitably Produce Inequalities? The answer is yes.

originally posted by: daskakik

What is a basic living standard? Didn't you ask something similar earlier in the thread?

Just surviving is a suckers deal. You sound like you expect people to be subservient. That is not capitalist at all.

I defined housing, want me to define others hehe

How much should I pay you to mow my lawn. Should that payment be on work done or some inflated wage? Don't be subservient, don't be doing jobs in your 30s that an 18 year old fresh out of high school would be doing, don't spend your life never improving your skills, don't be lazy... lots of don'ts to keep you out of that subservient type roll...

originally posted by: Xtrozero
I defined housing, want me to define others hehe

Not really. It is pointless. I would have thought that that was obvious by now.

How much should I pay you to mow my lawn. Should that payment be on work done or some inflated wage? Don't be subservient, don't be doing jobs in your 30s that an 18 year old fresh out of high school would be doing, don't spend your life never improving your skills, don't be lazy... lots of don'ts to keep you out of that subservient type roll...

Not really asking for tips. Just pointing out that people are not going to care about a job that doesn't pay what they think their work is worth.

Also, why only those two options? People can and do accept being payed less then the work done. Actually that is the usual arrangement.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: daskakik

Single living is a luxury? Who defines luxury? (Just had to)

We can call it a desire and desires are typically a luxury since they are not a requirement for basic living standards when you have other options too. We can say that most need some form of transportation for a basic living standard without suggesting it should be a corvette as a minimum.

You should make enough money to afford at least a percentage of rent and actually have a place to live that is somewhat clean and safe. If you can't do at least this then you are unable to afford housing and so would need subsistence of some kind or live on the streets.

What's the point then in touting a specific economic system as promoting a higher standard of living, when on average it's not available? Sure, if you make it to the 90th percentile you get a great standard of living, but only 1 in 10 people can do that. 5 in 10 people are at the 50th or worse and they need an adequate lifestyle too.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
I defined housing, want me to define others hehe

How much should I pay you to mow my lawn. Should that payment be on work done or some inflated wage? Don't be subservient, don't be doing jobs in your 30s that an 18 year old fresh out of high school would be doing, don't spend your life never improving your skills, don't be lazy... lots of don'ts to keep you out of that subservient type roll...

Someone has to do those jobs though. If we were all rocket scientists we would still need cashiers.

originally posted by: Aazadan

What's the point then in touting a specific economic system as promoting a higher standard of living, when on average it's not available? Sure, if you make it to the 90th percentile you get a great standard of living, but only 1 in 10 people can do that. 5 in 10 people are at the 50th or worse and they need an adequate lifestyle too.

I agree, the debate is what is a minimum living standard.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Aazadan

What's the point then in touting a specific economic system as promoting a higher standard of living, when on average it's not available? Sure, if you make it to the 90th percentile you get a great standard of living, but only 1 in 10 people can do that. 5 in 10 people are at the 50th or worse and they need an adequate lifestyle too.

I agree, the debate is what is a minimum living standard.

I'm not sure that's the right question to be asking because that's trying to define an endpoint, on an infinite scale. Instead the question should simply be if current conditions are enough, which the answer is a no.

If I had to give a number, I would say that it's enough when peoples budgets are again within reasonable tolerances, 20% rent, 10% food, 10% entertainment, 10% bills, 20% savings, etc. Modern day budgets do not look like that.

If you need some numbers on that, I currently pay $550/month for a 1 bedroom with all utilities included, plus internet. It's in a bad part of town, and spacious but not secure. True low end housing. To afford that comfortably I should be looking at that being no more than 30% of my income. So I should be pulling in $1850/month after taxes. That's $29,600/year, which works out to about $15/hour.

originally posted by: Aazadan

If I had to give a number, I would say that it's enough when peoples budgets are again within reasonable tolerances, 20% rent, 10% food, 10% entertainment, 10% bills, 20% savings, etc. Modern day budgets do not look like that.

If you need some numbers on that, I currently pay $550/month for a 1 bedroom with all utilities included, plus internet. It's in a bad part of town, and spacious but not secure. True low end housing. To afford that comfortably I should be looking at that being no more than 30% of my income. So I should be pulling in $1850/month after taxes. That's $29,600/year, which works out to about $15/hour.

Go back 40 years and there was no savings for low end jobs. The best you could do was to not build debt. Entertainment is a luxury that you may or may not afford. -30% and that would but a starting job at 11.5 per hour...about what it is today.

In the end you get paid what the value the job is to the company, if you flip burgers that value is not very much. It is your responsibility to build your skills to get better paying jobs, and to not have a life of bad decisions after another.

I say this with the lowest paid person who works for me makes 23 per hour, has free healthcare with low co-payments, 10k bonus per year and a matching 401k, but she is a valuable asset to my team, and not even a college grad.

a reply to: Xtrozero

That was 40 years ago. Things change.

In the end the company gets the workers it pays for.

originally posted by: daskakik

That was 40 years ago. Things change.

In the end the company gets the workers it pays for.

No, things have not changed with this.

Companies has always got the workers it paid for. Low pay consistently equates to crappy workers, but there are alot of jobs that it is OK for the worker to be crappy.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
No, things have not changed with this.

The need for those jobs to provide more has.

Companies has always got the workers it paid for. Low pay consistently equates to crappy workers, but there are alot of jobs that it is OK for the worker to be crappy.

I'm sure there is a limit there as well.

originally posted by: daskakik

The need for those jobs to provide more has.

It is not a need...it is a want, big difference.

I'm sure there is a limit there as well.

The requirement is to show up at work on time, not be high or drunk and actually come back after lunch to work... That is about all you need to be the best of the best for a minimum wage job.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
It is not a need...it is a want, big difference.

No it is a need. 40 years ago those jobs where not meant to support a family. Today they are.

Not to be confused with highschool kids just wanting to be able to buy the latest fad.

The requirement is to show up at work on time, not be high or drunk and actually come back after lunch to work... That is about all you need to be the best of the best for a minimum wage job.

Sorry, not buying it.

originally posted by: daskakik

No it is a need. 40 years ago those jobs where not meant to support a family. Today they are.

So you are saying that starting jobs need to now support families? Out of 80 million hourly wage jobs 700k get paid minimum wage. That is less than 1% lol

a reply to: Xtrozero

Where minimum wage is and where it is argued that it needs to be are not the same.

Bit of a strawman you set up there.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Go back 40 years and there was no savings for low end jobs. The best you could do was to not build debt. Entertainment is a luxury that you may or may not afford. -30% and that would but a starting job at 11.5 per hour...about what it is today.

There still isn't savings with low end jobs, that's why 67% of Americans have less than $400 in savings. Not only do the bottom 15% not have any savings, but the bottom 70% don't. Over 50% of Americans have zero.

And no, entertainment is not a luxury. Nor is it recommended to spend much on it. No sane financial planner will tell you to spend more than 10% on entertainment. A bit off from the 30% you're suggesting.

In the end you get paid what the value the job is to the company, if you flip burgers that value is not very much. It is your responsibility to build your skills to get better paying jobs, and to not have a life of bad decisions after another.

Wages and the value of your work have very little to do with each other. Negotiating leverage matters far more than work value, and that all happens before you do a single hour of work for a company.

I say this with the lowest paid person who works for me makes 23 per hour, has free healthcare with low co-payments, 10k bonus per year and a matching 401k, but she is a valuable asset to my team, and not even a college grad.

I'm the lowest paid person on my team, and the lowest ranking... I'm just an intern. I'm being paid $60/hour. The company has spent thousands on me so far, and before the summer is over they're going to spend thousands more. I've been at the company for 7 weeks and I'm already being offered a promotion and raise. I have not produced a single thing of value, all I've done is make VR software that looks cool, and that software isn't even finished... nor will it be finished before my internship is over. At best, all I've done is produce a toy.

What companies pay people has little to do with any sort of value.

originally posted by: Aazadan


There still isn't savings with low end jobs, that's why 67% of Americans have less than $400 in savings. Not only do the bottom 15% not have any savings, but the bottom 70% don't. Over 50% of Americans have zero.

There wasn't much savings 40 years ago either, but today is that lack of savings due to low pay or to a consumer based economy where people over spend their needs?

A bit off from the 30% you're suggesting.

The 30% was a combination of entertainment and savings... My point is that at first you really do not have saving and the best you can hope for is to live a debt free lifestyle.

Wages and the value of your work have very little to do with each other. Negotiating leverage matters far more than work value, and that all happens before you do a single hour of work for a company.

There is always a base range for a job, that range is normally created by industry standards. There isn't much negotiating going on and none outside the range set.

I'm the lowest paid person on my team, and the lowest ranking... I'm just an intern. I'm being paid $60/hour. The company has spent thousands on me so far, and before the summer is over they're going to spend thousands more. I've been at the company for 7 weeks and I'm already being offered a promotion and raise. I have not produced a single thing of value, all I've done is make VR software that looks cool, and that software isn't even finished... nor will it be finished before my internship is over. At best, all I've done is produce a toy.

What companies pay people has little to do with any sort of value.

An intern making 60.. Can I ask what do you do that others in the company can not? I work for a very high tech company with about 300 engineers...I think you are extremely lucky and the company you work for in their ignorance value your work well above its true value. You are not the norm by far...so great for you and bad for them. Who knows you might be a extremely talented programmer, in that case you will make a lot of money as you make the company, or your own company a lot of money.

Especially when it comes to engineers etc if they are not producing towards a direct charge code they will not be working very long for a company. At some point your work will need to pay off for the company, or you will go...

originally posted by: Xtrozero
There wasn't much savings 40 years ago either, but today is that lack of savings due to low pay or to a consumer based economy where people over spend their needs?

Maybe, I don't have any numbers to refute that, but the further back we go, the more the Great Depression had an effect on buying habits in the following decades. I suspect the lessons from that would have still been in place in the 60's, 70's, and 80's when the adult were really only 1 generation removed from those events. We're 3 generations away today.

An intern making 60.. Can I ask what do you do that others in the company can not? I work for a very high tech company with about 300 engineers...I think you are extremely lucky and the company you work for in their ignorance value your work well above its true value. You are not the norm by far...so great for you and bad for them. Who knows you might be a extremely talented programmer, in that case you will make a lot of money as you make the company, or your own company a lot of money.

Well, I'm the only person in our division, much less our project that knows anything about programming, they usually outsource it all (it's a fortune 500 company). I was basically hired because I know Unity well, and can do basically anything in it. They essentially want me to build a complete VR training simulation for a product, from the ground up, proof of concept as a better way to do things. But we start with 0 assets, 0 codebase.

So I 3d modeled the product based off of engineering drawings, built realistic textures, made it interactive, added a VR component, scripted a bunch of different training scenarios, scripted a bunch of testing questions, built a database to track user behavior, wrote queries to get information from that database, and I work as a coordinator so we don't step on each others toes (IT policy is a pain, and we can't get perforce, git, etc... fortunately it's a small team). I'm not 100% responsible for the project though, probably closer to 85%. We've got a project manager (my boss) who handles all the business stuff, and another person who can do some minor front end work.

Especially when it comes to engineers etc if they are not producing towards a direct charge code they will not be working very long for a company. At some point your work will need to pay off for the company, or you will go...

The stuff I'm building will never be sold, at best it's a cost savings measure. At current it's not even that. Hence, I have done literally nothing other than be a drain on the companies finances.

originally posted by: Aazadan

Well, I'm the only person in our division, much less our project that knows anything about programming, they usually outsource it all (it's a fortune 500 company). I was basically hired because I know Unity well, and can do basically anything in it. They essentially want me to build a complete VR training simulation for a product, from the ground up, proof of concept as a better way to do things. But we start with 0 assets, 0 codebase.

You are not doing intern work so your value is comparable to what they are paying you. I have people who I manage that do their job in the middle east and they make more than I do even though I'm a senior manager. There is value there to the company, or perceived value... scary about who leading there when they have all this perceived value while you say there is none...lol

The stuff I'm building will never be sold, at best it's a cost savings measure. At current it's not even that. Hence, I have done literally nothing other than be a drain on the companies finances.

As long as it pays off down the road with savings its all good...sounds like they are wasting they money and your time..

a reply to: Xtrozero

I don't know if you have noticed but your set of presumptions don't always apply.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
You are not doing intern work so your value is comparable to what they are paying you.

Maybe, maybe not. My classmates code circles around me. I am not a good programmer. My chain of management seems to like what I've produced though. Was even flown out to corporate HQ to show off to the CEO, CTO, etc... the company loves it, I just remain doubtful. The premise for our software is sound, aside from the fact that I'm the one making it. But... we're ahead of schedule and with more features than planned... so people are happy (until they see the massive load of technical debt I left them).

scary about who leading there when they have all this perceived value while you say there is none...lol

Just out of people I know at school I could name 20 or 25 people better suited to the job than me. They develop faster, code better, and are equally diverse. I was hired 100% on culture fit. Having known the team for a decade (it's full of a bunch of former professors of mine). Not on technical ability... which isn't to say I have none, but I'm certainly no expert in the field.

As long as it pays off down the road with savings its all good...

I've run the numbers on it, it's cost savings, but it's also doing so by putting people out of work. So I'm pretty sure that makes me the villain in this whole story.