Under Capitalism Nobody Is Paid What They are Worth

[Traditio]

A pretty little lie that capitalists like to tell themselves, and each other, is that, under a free market capitalist system, people are paid what they are worth, exactly what they deserve, according to market indicators. That's why we shouldn't have a minimum wage, much less raise that minimum wage to a living wage, after all! People, with or without a minimum wage, are going to be PAID WHAT THEY ARE WORTH! The market will ensure that!

As a matter of fact, if the minimum wage kept up with worker productivity, the minimum wage would be over $20 per hour today. But somehow, "people are paid what they are worth."

The truth of the matter, as Karl Marx recognized, is that, under a capitalist system, NOBODY is paid what they are worth. The vast majority of people, the working class, are actually paid FAR LESS than they are worth, and a relative handful of economic parasites, the capitalist/owner class, are paid FAR MORE than they are worth.

The simple truth is that if a worker demanded to be paid exactly what he were worth, a capitalist employer would never hire him. Why? Because that means that, for the capitalist employer, it would be a wash. He wouldn't profit one red penny.

The capitalist employer wants to maximize his profits, after all. This means that he wants to extract as much value from his employee as he can via revenue and pay out as little to his employee as he can get away with in terms of wages and benefits.

This is why Karl Marx called capitalist employment "wage slavery." The employee works, but the employer, not the employee, reaps the benefits of his labor.

It is under a socialist economy, not a capitalist economy, that workers would actually be paid what they are worth.

Just saying.

 

[Trump Gurl]

More ignorance stupidity and lies. You have a sick mind.

 

[Jefferson]

Traditio will never start his own small business because it would be too much work. He just wants to fill out an employment application and expect to make just as much money as the owner of the company. Socialists are lazy leeches.

 

[ok doser]

It is under a socialist economy, not a capitalist economy, that workers would actually be paid what they are worth.

How do you determine what someone is "worth"?

For example, I have 44 years of experience in the working world, doing a wide variety of jobs, from teaching to data analysis to toxicology research, etc etc. How does my "worth" compare to a student who has only a limited work experience?

If that student and I are hired to do the same job, should I be paid vastly more then him? Should my experience factor into my "worth"?

 

[ok doser]

The capitalist employer wants to maximize his profits, after all. This means that he wants to extract as much value from his employee as he can ...

I plan to employ a painter and a roofer this summer to do some jobs that I don't want to tackle, that I want to hire others to do. Is it wrong for me to want value for my money? Should I just offer each a blank check and tell them to write in whatever they think they're "worth"?

Or do you find any problem with the approach I have taken, which is to do a market research analysis and see what the going rate is?

 

[Traditio]

How do you determine what someone is "worth"?

The same way that employers do.

Productivity/projected increase in revenue.

If you hire an employee to make pizzas for your pizza restaurant, and the employee generates x amount of profit (revenue - expenses (expenses other than employee wages, that is)), then that's what the employee is actually worth.

That's not what he's getting paid, though.

He's getting paid much less than x.

 

[Traditio]

Let me repeat this statistic:

If the MINIMUM wage kept up with worker productivity, the minimum wage would be more than $20 per hour.

Meanwhile, half of all wage earners are paid $30,000 per year or less (i.e., $15 per hour or less).

Let that sink in.

 

[ok doser]

The same way that employers do.

Productivity/projected increase in revenue.

If you hire an employee to make pizzas for your pizza restaurant, and the employee generates x amount of profit (revenue - expenses (expenses other than employee wages, that is)), then that's what the employee is actually worth.

That's not what he's getting paid, though.

He's getting paid much less than x.

I'm going to hire an employee to paint my porch

I'm going to hire another employee to roof my house


how do I determine what to pay them?

 

[ok doser]

If you hire an employee to make pizzas for your pizza restaurant, and the employee generates x amount of profit (revenue - expenses (expenses other than employee wages, that is)), then that's what the employee is actually worth.

If I'm hired to make pizzas, there's no recognition of my 44 years of experience?

 

[Traditio]

I'm going to hire an employee to paint my porch

I'm going to hire another employee to roof my house

how do I determine what to pay them?

That's not the same thing. You aren't paying them wages to engage in productive labor that will turn you a profit. You are just engaging in a market exchange. Hiring someone to fix your roof is no different from going to the grocery store to purchase a gallon of milk.

That's not what is happening in the employer/employee relationship. There is no question in the employer's mind of the employee's worth. He is making a calculation before he even creates the job opening. "This position is going to generate x amount of revenue. Therefore, I need to hire someone who will accept substantially LESS than x in wages."

The employer isn't employing the pizza maker because he wants to eat pizza. He's employing the pizza maker because he has calculated that if he hires a pizza maker, the wages and benefits he pays out to the pizza maker is going to be LESS than the revenue that the pizza maker generates.

That's why Marx calls it wage slavery.

 

[Traditio]

If I'm hired to make pizzas, there's no recognition of my 44 years of experience?

The 44 years of experience is going to affect: 1. the employer's evaluation of how much revenue you will be able to generate and 2. your relative bargaining power.

But note, even if you are the best pizza maker in the industry and the pizza companies are clamoring to hire you, so much so that they are competing with each other to give you the most wages and benefits.

The highest bid is still going to be FAR less than what you are going to generate in revenue.

 

[ok doser]

That's not the same thing. You aren't paying them wages to engage in productive labor that will turn you a profit. You are just engaging in a market exchange. Hiring someone to fix your roof is no different from going to the grocery store to purchase a gallon of milk.

That's not what is happening in the employer/employee relationship. There is no question in the employer's mind of the employee's worth. He is making a calculation before he even creates the job opening. "This position is going to generate x amount of revenue. Therefore, I need to hire someone who will accept substantially LESS than x in wages."

The employer isn't employing the pizza maker because he wants to eat pizza. He's employing the pizza maker because he has calculated that if he hires a pizza maker, the wages and benefits he pays out to the pizza maker is going to be LESS than the revenue that the pizza maker generates.

That's why Marx calls it wage slavery.

In each case, I'm dealing with a guy who has others working for him.

The painter has a crew that have agreed to work for him/with him for an agreed upon wage.

The roofer has a crew that have agreed to work for him/with him for an agreed upon wage.


and the roofer and the painter expect to make a profit, after providing all the infrastructure that they do.

are they practicing "wage slavery"?

should the workers revolt and demand that they be paid more?

should they recognize that, if they do, I will refuse to hire them and do the job myself?

 

[Traditio]

Literally the only way that you are going to get wages that are roughly equal to the revenue you generate is if the pizza shop is a worker owned cooperative.

 

[Traditio]

In each case, I'm dealing with a guy who has others working for him.

The painter has a crew that have agreed to work for him/with him for an agreed upon wage.

The roofer has a crew that have agreed to work for him/with him for an agreed upon wage.

and the roofer and the painter expect to make a profit, after providing all the infrastructure that they do.

are they practicing "wage slavery"?

Think this through. Let's take the painter and crew.

Why does the painter have a crew? He has made the assessment that if he hires a crew, he will be able to generate more in profits than if he had worked alone.

Now think that through. Why is he going to be able to generate more in profits than if he had worked alone?

Because the crew are going to generate revenue, and he's getting a cut of it.

He is profiting, not off of his own labor, but off of the labor of his crew.

should the workers revolt and demand that they be paid more?

The entire working class should, in a sense, revolt (through a peaceful political/democratic process) and demand, not higher wages, but ownership of the means of production.

#SeizeTheMeansOfProduction

 

[ok doser]

Think this through. Let's take the painter and crew.

Why does the painter have a crew? He has made the assessment that if he hires a crew, he will be able to generate more in profits than if he had worked alone.

Now think that through. Why is he going to be able to generate more in profits than if he had worked alone?

Because the crew are going to generate revenue, and he's getting a cut of it.

He is profiting, not off of his own labor, but off of the labor of his crew

and his crew is profiting from his labor, from the work he does in seeking jobs, negotiating terms, providing equipment, transportation, employer benefits - workers comp coverage, payroll services, etc

otherwise, everybody would be out there working independently

not everybody wants to own the means of production, not everybody wants to do the boss work

most people are content to just bring home a paycheck and let someone else do all that

 

[Traditio]

and his crew is profiting from his labor, from the work he does in seeking jobs, negotiating terms, providing equipment, transportation, employer benefits - workers comp coverage, payroll services, etc

To be sure, and for the record, nobody is going to claim that the manager and the person who sweeps up should be paid exactly the same. Even in worker owned cooperatives, there is going to be a level of pay inequality. In the Mondragon corporation, the wage disparity ranges from 5:1 to 9:1.

But you don't need capitalism or capitalist employers and capitalist employees to get the sorts of things that you are talking about.

And, furthermore, even when you take all of that into account, corporate CEOs who make millions of dollars a year are not working THAT much harder than the person who sweeps up, and if the workers of the corporation had a democratic say on the matter, there's no way that they would agree to that.

Much less handing over massive amounts of the profits to members of the Walton family simply because they own most of the stock.

not everybody wants to own the means of production, not everybody wants to do the boss work

"Boss work." Let's replace that with "managerial, etc." work.

And even in a worker owned cooperative, you can still have managers, marketers, etc. You don't need capitalist employers and capitalist employees for that.

 

[ok doser]

To be sure, and for the record, nobody is going to claim that the manager and the person who sweeps up should be paid exactly the same.

why?

in each case they each gave exactly what all of us have to give, that which all of us have in limited supply - their time

why should a manager's eight hours be valued higher than a janitor's eight hours?

"Boss work." Let's replace that with "managerial, etc." work.

so you'd agree that my painter/manager deserves to profit from the labor of his work crew?

 

[Traditio]

why?

in each case they each gave exactly what all of us have to give, that which all of us have in limited supply - their time

why should a manager's eight hours be valued higher than a janitor's eight hours?

Their time doesn't equally contribute to the overall productivity/generation of revenue.

so you'd agree that my painter/manager deserves to profit from the labor of his work crew?

What I agree to is that the painter/manager deserves to be compensated unequally because of his unequal contribution to the overall productivity/generation of revenue of the enterprise.

Not because he owns the enterprise.

 

[ok doser]

What I agree to is that the painter/manager deserves to be compensated unequally because of his unequal contribution to the overall productivity/generation of revenue of the enterprise.

Not because he owns the enterprise.

so you want to insert another layer of management above him - government?

 

[drbrumley]

That's why Marx calls it wage slavery.

And that's why I call you Bernie.....baffon......get it....Bernie Bafoon is going to educate us all on the greatness of socialism and communism....