People Power

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

How hard someone works is almost irrelevant unless they are on a piecework arrangement.

---

Why? If I get paid hourly, and I slack, there is less production, therefore less profit, therefore less money availible for raises, therefore less motivation for work, it's all a big downward spiral.

However, if there is a reward for me (as an hourly worker) to work harder, I'll get more production out, the company will be more profitable, there will be more money availible for raises, I'll get payed more, maybe in a year or so my hard work will be noticed, I'll get a promotion, make even more money, it's all a big upward spiral.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Labour like any other commodity is subject to market forces with respect to price. It has different statutory requirements and different cost drivers but it's still a commodity largely determined by the price mechanism.

---

Somewhat. But if you want something of good quality, wether it's a commodity or labor, you need to pay more. You get what you pay for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

I'm sure for instance that a worker in a furniture factory probably works far harder than an investment banker but because of the price mechanism a higher price is paid for the labour of investment bankers than workers in a furniture factory.

---

Harder actual work, you're probably right. However, who has more at risk (at least in a world without bailouts)?, who has invested more to get where he/she is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

And?

If I was the employer and I told everyone in the firm that I was giving everyone a pay increase in line with CPI, then that's my business. If you don't happen to like it then you are free to take your labour elsewhere.

---

Yes that is your business as an employer. However, you shouldn't be surprised when the quality of work your labor force puts out starts to slide. And yes I am free to take my labor elsewhere if I don't like my pay structure at my current company. That was the point I was making with Eki a while ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

In that case, you must see some of the 'golden handshakes' for members of senior management who leave their employer under a cloud and be disgusted, surely?

---

Sure, I don't think those "golden handshakes" are a good idea. That is really one of the big issues I had with the bailouts. If a company declares bankruptcy, contracts become null-and-void. Those guys would not have been "rewarded" for destroying companies. However, since the government stepped in and bailed them out, the company is not bankrupt, contracts have force of law, the jerks that drove the companies into the ground were able to word their contracts well enough that they still got bonuses etc., so they still got paid their millions.

It's unfortunate, but it is what it is. That is unless you suggest that governments should be allowed to step in and re-negotiate private contracts whenever they fell like it? Boy-howdy, that would be a horrible idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Does this not indicate, then, that for far too many people work is not a sufficiently pleasurable experience to want to do it for reasons other than the money?

---

How many people do you think would find it pleasurable to pump out septic tanks (for one example)? Yet that needs to be done. What motivation other than profit do you suggest to incentivise people to take on that rather sh!tty job? :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

As I've already said, I'm raising a concern, not making a proposal. As income falls for 20% of the population it somehow rises by a massive amount for just 1% at the top. Why is that?

---

There are a myriad of reasons that could possibly be happening. Why is it a concern to you? Shouldn't there be some personal responsiblity taken on by those 20% of people to improve their situation? Or perhaps those 20% have made a concious decision to allow their income to fall? I don't know. And honestly I don't see how it's any of my business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Would you argue that it's just those with the drive and determination reaping the rewards of their hard work, and there's nothing to prevent those among the 20% from doing the same?

---

Pretty much, yes. Now I'm sure there are specific cases of actual discrimination and such, and those should be addressed, but I don't honestly think those are the majority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

What do I want to see in society? A less selfish "I'm alright Jack" mentality would be a good start.

---

Sure I think that would be great, if people consiously make that choice for themselves. But to get back to the Occupy Wall Street original point. That is not what those people seem to be advocating. They seem to be advocating for governmental FORCED redistribution of wealth. I am totally against that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

I ask you, is that fair?

---

Let's assume for a second that my answer is "no", it's not fair? What do you propose to do about it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

However, if there is a reward for me (as an hourly worker) to work harder, I'll get more production out, the company will be more profitable, there will be more money availible for raises, I'll get payed more, maybe in a year or so my hard work will be noticed, I'll get a promotion, make even more money, it's all a big upward spiral.

---

Except the evidence suggests it has not been "big upward spiral" unless you happen to be in the top 1%. Based on that evidence what is the incentive for a worker to work harder and help create profit for the company they work for?

The assumption seems to be that business should be free to create profit and use that profit in a way they deem appropriate, including rewarding employees disproportionaltely. I see that argument, but it assumes that businesses will act in the interests of employees and the wider community.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Why is it a concern to you? Shouldn't there be some personal responsiblity taken on by those 20% of people to improve their situation? Or perhaps those 20% have made a concious decision to allow their income to fall? I don't know. And honestly I don't see how it's any of my business.

---

It's a concern to me simply because I don't live on an island...Well, the UK is an island :p ...but in the sense of "no man is an island". One way or another inequality, such as has been illustrated in this thread, affects us all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

It's a concern to me simply because I don't live on an island...Well, the UK is an island :p ...but in the sense of "no man is an island". One way or another inequality, such as has been illustrated in this thread, affects us all.

---

Surely you do not deny that there are slackers out there that just don't care about working etc.? The income gap between those people and highly motivated people tends to be huge. What do you propose to do to close the income gap between the slackers and the motivated?

I'm seeing on the "telly" today (November 9, 2011) how "people power" is expressing itself in London with the students protesting in the streets close to the financial sector. I see a lot of young people in the streets. Good for them! - and in my opinion, good for us. Hopefully violence will be minimal - I say this because there is the chance of the radical fringe waiting for their chance to express themselves in their particular style . . . .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Except the evidence suggests it has not been "big upward spiral" unless you happen to be in the top 1%. Based on that evidence what is the incentive for a worker to work harder and help create profit for the company they work for?

---

A large part of the reason behind there not being a big upward spiral is that pay and benefits have been pushed downwards in most Western countries in the hunt for productivity across entire industrial sectors. There is not a lot a bit of hard work can do to counteract forces of that magnitude.