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

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

What a load of horse snip.

The FACT is people today are well compensated.

By wage or benefits.

Technology makes working today easier than AT ANY POINT in human civilization.

People have MORE STUFF, living in bigger homes, Eat more food than ever.

But that's not enough for some people.

The problem is the usual suspects are GD greedy.

originally posted by: ketsuko

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.

Oh, I know they do, and they are onerous. But your belief I think we need more is a fallacy. You people project your prejudices and biases too much into what you read. No one wants bigger government. You’ve just been told they do, and you use this to ridicule them. No one wants more regulations. And no one wants free stuff. But those are great lines for people who don’t want to engage in critical thought to beat other people over the head with. I’m guessing, from all the people on here telling me to manage my money better or start my own company, when that’s not even what it’s about, that a) there’s a serious lack of ability to read and understand and then to agree or disagree to a theory without personalizing it or b) people have become so self absorbed that they assume anyone criticizing aspects of society are complaining about their own situation.

Here’s the thing. I care about other people’s situations as well. I have posted about our involvement in Venezuela..... I’m not Venezuelan. I’ve posted on here about generational poverty..... I’m not impoverished. I’ve posted on here about police civil asset forfeiture..... the police have never stolen from me. But I have kids, family, friends, a community, and countrymen, so I criticize what I see as faults in the system that often have nothing to do with my personal satisfaction in my life.

a reply to: pexx421

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?

It is still supply and demand.

Think of it this way. Let's suppose I have a business where I make gadgets. I have to set a price for those gadgets that I am willing to sell them for. Let's say I start charging $5.00 for a gadget, and they are selling so fast I can't keep up with the orders. That means my price is too low; the market will pay more. So I raise the price to $10.00. Now I am still selling gadgets, but not nearly as many as before. I lower my price to $9.00 and my sales go up.

Somewhere there is a price where all that profit is maximized. Any lower and I may sell more gadgets, but I make less per gadget. Any higher and I make more per gadget but I sell less of them. That's supply and demand.

Now, if I decided instead to just sell them for whatever someone wanted to pay, I would likely go out of business, or at least never be able to make anywhere near the profit I should be able to make. One guy might pay me $7.00 for a gadget, but another one might only pay me $3.00. Obviously I can't do that! It would be silly! But workers do that all the time. Your labor has value, and you need to know what that value is worth, and sell it for what it is worth. If your job is important to a company, they will either pay for it or close down.

Your problem is not with the company... they are trying to get the most out of their money. Your problem is with the other workers. Back to my example, if I'm maximizing profit at $8.00 per gadget and someone comes along and starts selling the same gadgets for $4.00, I won't sell any gadgets! Not only that, but the guy who is cutting my throat isn't making nearly as much as he should! We both lose. That's how workers do... if there are ten people in the area willing to do a job and one of them will do the work for $10.00 an hour and the rest want $15.00 an hour, who do you think gets the job? The next company will also offer $10.00 an hour because they figure that's what this guy is doing it for, so that must be the fair market value. If the others then take that job for $10.00 an hour, it becomes the fair market value.

Your worth is what you say it is. Price it too high, of course, and you're unemployed. Price it too low and you're here complaining about how the company is shortchanging you. It's your time... you decide what you use it for. Even if unemployed, I would take a fast food job making minimum wage before I would take an engineering job making minimum wage, because I don't want to shortcut everyone else.

We need people to start understanding that. Taking a salary below your actual value is why wages are low. Capitalism is not a "kumbaya" thing... it is rough competition. Treat it otherwise and you get what we have.

TheRedneck

a reply to: pexx421

Well it's great that no one wants more of that stuff.

What would you do if I proposed deregulation of the market?

a reply to: pexx421

No one wants bigger government.

Say what?

So no one wants more pollution controls, higher minimum wage, forced insurance, more things outlawed or restricted, less additives in fuel, or lower carbon dioxide emissions? Did you really just say that?

Wow... I'm speechless. Is the sky rainbow colored where you live, too?

TheRedneck

Deregulation? No. Less regulation that’s actually enforced? Absolutely. Monopolies and oligopolies should be strictly regulated. And that includes all privatized infrastructure, toll roads, and utilities as these are natural monopolies. Telecommunications, isps and such as well, as these are largely oligopolies as well. And banks should be strictly regulated, back to glass steagall, as they should not be allowed to gamble with people’s money, only with their profits. And folks breaking those regulations should face jail time.

So all that requires bigger government? Those can’t be done at the same time as getting rid of many of the counterproductive regulations currently in place? They can’t be done while shrinking the waste and corruption? They can’t be done while getting rid of some of the intelligence agencies or downsizing the military?

Those can’t be done while ending corporate subsidies?

originally posted by: pexx421
Deregulation? No. Less regulation that’s actually enforced? Absolutely. Monopolies and oligopolies should be strictly regulated. And that includes all privatized infrastructure, toll roads, and utilities as these are natural monopolies. Telecommunications, isps and such as well, as these are largely oligopolies as well. And banks should be strictly regulated, back to glass steagall, as they should not be allowed to gamble with people’s money, only with their profits. And folks breaking those regulations should face jail time.

But I thought you wanted less government? Every regulation is more government, and no regulation is *just* for the big boys. It's for all business.

Do you know how many agencies stick their noses into a simple transfer of materials for my husband? It can sometimes be more than five. All of them have to be satisfied. Often, there is redundancy, but you can't just send copied of paperwork for one agency to another agency. It has to be sent out with copies to all of them and kept on file.

I just described a lot of labor on both ends. That's a lot of overhead just tied up in paperwork and record keeping alone.

If you are a small business looking to break in and compete ... how do you do that?

So again, what if I proposed market deregulation?

a reply to: ketsuko

Right, so every regulation we get rid of is less. As are the other options I stated. Is your husbands company a monopoly, or oligopoly? If so I think he should be penalized out of existence. If not, I think he should should be responsible for any mess he creates, and otherwise be free to create a good product, sell at a competitive price, and provide safe working conditions for his employees. Do five agencies need to be nosing in? Sounds like waste to me.

a reply to: pexx421

Monopolies and oligopolies should be strictly regulated. And that includes all privatized infrastructure, toll roads, and utilities as these are natural monopolies. Telecommunications, isps and such as well, as these are largely oligopolies as well. And banks should be strictly regulated, back to glass steagall, as they should not be allowed to gamble with people’s money, only with their profits.

Theoretically (and this is the one point I agree with), monopolies are not allowed to exist. It's the over-regulation that causes their existence to become "too big to fail" because no smaller business can handle all the regulation costs. "Too big to fail" should mean "too big to exist."

There are no toll roads which cannot be bypassed in the United States. It may be 40 miles out of the way, but there is a way around every single one. They are not monopolies.

Utilities are already regulated. They cannot change their rates without approval from the government agency that oversees them.

ISPs are not monopolies. There are multiple ways to access the Internet, even out here in the sticks. That said, they should be treated like utilities.

If you disallow banks from making anything off investing the deposits, you will force charges for banking accounts. No one is going to do anything without making a profit, and that is where and how banks make their profit. Take that away and the only people who will have bank accounts are those who will pay several hundred dollars a year for the privilege.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: pexx421
So all that requires bigger government? Those can’t be done at the same time as getting rid of many of the counterproductive regulations currently in place? They can’t be done while shrinking the waste and corruption? They can’t be done while getting rid of some of the intelligence agencies or downsizing the military?

It would be nice, sincerely, if it worked like that.

It never does and IMO never will.

a reply to: pexx421

That's what regulation does though.

He works for a multi-national. His currently works in a department called regulatory affairs because between the US and its craziness and all the other world markets they deal in and produce in, there is quite a bit of overlap and hoop-jumping that needs to take place for all the products they make.

Every facility that produces has to meet the specs for producing product for every regulatory of every market it will produce a product for. Every product produced and sold must meet the specs for every market it goes to. There are different rules governing shipment, supplies, and the production of those things depending on where they are sourced and what body governs those facilities, and what can and cannot be used in products for different markets, etc.

More rules are more complications, but it's been a good career, and he's very, very good at keeping it all straight.

How exactly do you think a nation with a deregulated market would look? What then would keep companies from controlling the market? How would businesses compete with monopoly powers? The market is not a natural thing. It’s man made, and at all times is either controlled by the government (which is controlled by the people in actual representative or democratic nations) or the wealthy businesses and business owners (which are usually he government in corrupt nations and oligarchies). Which of those do you think describe us? You want to deregulate the very people that cause all the problems and push all the legislation and regulation you say is the problem. Big business supports all the regulation that keeps small business from being competitive. And you want to free them to form the monopolies they’ve been drooling to be. The first thing they would do is buy out or price fix their competition out of existence.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: pexx421

Monopolies and oligopolies should be strictly regulated. And that includes all privatized infrastructure, toll roads, and utilities as these are natural monopolies. Telecommunications, isps and such as well, as these are largely oligopolies as well. And banks should be strictly regulated, back to glass steagall, as they should not be allowed to gamble with people’s money, only with their profits.

Theoretically (and this is the one point I agree with), monopolies are not allowed to exist. It's the over-regulation that causes their existence to become "too big to fail" because no smaller business can handle all the regulation costs. "Too big to fail" should mean "too big to exist."

There are no toll roads which cannot be bypassed in the United States. It may be 40 miles out of the way, but there is a way around every single one. They are not monopolies.

Utilities are already regulated. They cannot change their rates without approval from the government agency that oversees them.

ISPs are not monopolies. There are multiple ways to access the Internet, even out here in the sticks. That said, they should be treated like utilities.

If you disallow banks from making anything off investing the deposits, you will force charges for banking accounts. No one is going to do anything without making a profit, and that is where and how banks make their profit. Take that away and the only people who will have bank accounts are those who will pay several hundred dollars a year for the privilege.

TheRedneck

Banks don’t make money off of loans? Off of mortgages? Off of fees and penalties? Off of transactions? Off of credit cards?

a reply to: pexx421

I know one thing -- little kids could have lemonade stands again without being harassed about not having the proper permits.

Honestly, aside from a few, very specific instances, like breaking up monopolies for one, the federal government's job is to stay out of the markets.

In an unregulated market, you would see competition crop up to the very biggest in most cases. Look at cab companies for an example. When ride services like Uber and Lyft started and took off, the cab companies moved in a lobbied for them to be regulated under the same rules as cab companies are because they knew that those two companies' business models couldn't sustain it. It would knock them out of the market entirely, but it would also choke off the unwelcome competition.

Of course, for Uber and Lyft to compete against highly regulated cab companies without regulations was likely a bit unfair to cab companies. Remove a lot of those regulations and what happens?

We don't know. In some places, the cabbies got the two ride services blocked out, and in others, they did other things.

a reply to: pexx421

Banks don’t make money off of loans? Off of mortgages? Off of fees and penalties? Off of transactions? Off of credit cards?

Of course they make money from loans/mortgages. How do you think they get the money to lend? They get it from deposits! You suggested taking that primary source of profit away, which means the rest of the charges will increase exponentially to make up the difference.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: pexx421

Banks don’t make money off of loans? Off of mortgages? Off of fees and penalties? Off of transactions? Off of credit cards?

Of course they make money from loans/mortgages. How do you think they get the money to lend? They get it from deposits! You suggested taking that primary source of profit away, which means the rest of the charges will increase exponentially to make up the difference.

TheRedneck

You think that banks actually have deposits in vaults that they use to lend people? That’s how you think banks work???

Sorry redneck, you’re way off. The way a bank works is this. They have a mortgage on the books. Say a $200k home. That’s an asset for them. So the fed sees that and gives them leave to lend out $2 million more with that mortgage as the holding asset. That’s leveraging. The fed let’s them leverage at 10x the value. So they take that 2 million of created money, that only exists in the digital world, and go lend it out to other people, each time leveraging it again from the fed. The banks don’t actually take real money from other people’s accounts to lend, they create it. In fact, only about 5% of the actual money in circulation exists as real “cash”.

So in effect, the banks lend out money that they never had, and you then pay them for that privilege. Banks are only required to have 10% of the money that they actually have loaned out total, and honestly most of them don’t even have that.

originally posted by: pexx421
How exactly do you think a nation with a deregulated market would look? What then would keep companies from controlling the market? How would businesses compete with monopoly powers? The market is not a natural thing. It’s man made, and at all times is either controlled by the government (which is controlled by the people in actual representative or democratic nations) or the wealthy businesses and business owners (which are usually he government in corrupt nations and oligarchies). Which of those do you think describe us? You want to deregulate the very people that cause all the problems and push all the legislation and regulation you say is the problem. Big business supports all the regulation that keeps small business from being competitive. And you want to free them to form the monopolies they’ve been drooling to be. The first thing they would do is buy out or price fix their competition out of existence.

The market is a natural thing in the sense that it arises naturally from people engaged in exchange of goods and services.

Any institution with the ability to regulate the market will inevitably engage in regulatory capture, or crony capitalism. Deregulation would theoretically do the opposite.