What is your work worth?

If this has been done before then please direct me to the appropriate thread.

Thanks,

I think the work of a man should be judged by exactly how much it is worth. For example, if you sell your corn for $5, the work is worth 5$. This is just a baseline for wages. If an occupation is much harder more can be paid.

Agreed.

Is it ok for the "owner" of the cornfield to take for his/herself the difference between what the purchaser paid and what the cornfield worker gets paid? Isn't the cornfield worker entitled to the full value? There would be no corn without the workers efforts.

The owner of the soil, owns the produce of the soil. The laborer is paid the least amount the owner can negotiate. The difference between the cost of owning the soil, the seed, machinery, taxes and other overhead plus the cost of paying the laborer is the owner's profit. If there is no profit, the farmer stops growing corn until the price of corn again is high enough to be profitable.

The state sets a minium wage, but after that the pay is negotiable. If there is no profit, there is no jobs. The owner of a business is entitled to make the highest profit possible. A free market is the best determinant of price and profit.

Let's focus this discussion with specific examples.

On the island of Telag the main industry is harvesting a sea creature called a bleem. Every bleem boat needs a bleem spliner to function.

Bleem spining is a skilled profession which requires 2 years of training.

The industry is profitable. A bleem boat owner could pay $50/hour to his spiner and still make a profit.

Case 1:

There are 20 bleem boats. There are 15 currently employed bleem spliners making an average of $15/hour. This means that there are 5 bloats that need to hire spliners. However there are 10 qualified unemployed spliners looking for work in the boats.

The capitan offers Sam $9/hour. He argues that if Sam doesn't take this offer, one of the other hungry spliners will accept it.

Is $9/hour a fair rate (assuming that Sam or someone else will accept it)?

Why wouldn't you say that the laborer is paid the highest amount the laborer can negotiate?

These are not always the same, but which is more fair?

I agree with this on one level.

But strangely enough, our market doesn't always pay more for "harder" jobs. Some of the most difficult jobs I've ever had were the lowest paying ones (digging ditches, etc.). And some of the easiest ones were the highest paying (owning my own business, {at times}, designing software, etc.)

The economy we live in today is almost bizarre, in a way. One cannot just work hard and succeed. You better work hard and smart in the right career path, get some luck, etc.

Our current market economy (if it can be called that), is almost surreal, at times:

Consider this: what about a second rate (yet popular) actor who makes B movies and makes maybe $10 million per year? Maybe the actor pretends he is a security guard in one of the movies and makes $2 million. Finishes "work" in 4 months and vacations in high style for the next 4 months. Before someone counters "but acting is hard," note I didn't say a great actor, just a run o the mill no skill Hollywood pop star.
Across town, a REAL security guard makes $25,000/year, works all year, and is barely getting by. His occupation is most likely harder than the second rate actor's. Weird.

I know: the actor is worth more because of box office money, etc.

Whats my point? None, really. The market based economy creates some strange situations. Sometimes you can make way more pretending to do something than actually doing the real thing.

I think a major glitch with our society today is that there are too many people making way too much money who don't really produce anything or add much value to the products they touch, etc. This was outlined well in the movie "Wall Street." Middlemen, etc., making huge profits. Yes, they distribute, etc., and they should be paid; but what I'm trying to get at is there are so many people still making huge amounts of money by figuring out how to work the system. Is this okay with you? Do they deserve it, because...after all, if the opportunity is there to make that money, its okay. Who cares if the clothing middleman makes 100x what the textile worker makes; they're smarter and they put theirself in that position, if the textile worker doesn't like it, its their job to get a higher paying job, etc?

How about a pro athlete making $5 million/year, saying thats not enough, holding out for more? On the one hand, some say s/he is already overpaid for what she does. On the other hand, maybe that athlete is making $20 million in revenues for the owners. Should this athlete be free to get whatever someone is willing to pay them?

Some say in a truly free market, you (or products you're selling) are worth whatever someone is willing to pay you. It doesn't matter how long you worked at it, how much it might be worth to a 3rd person, etc. If someone is willng to freely pay you that much for your product or work, that is how much it is worth. Agree? Disagree?

What gives the "owner" his "ownership?" He did not manufacture the land.

This is a serious question.

"Who determines what a labourers work is worth?"

One - the labourer - in the amount of money he will accept
Two - the employer - in the amount of money he is prepared to pay

There are many employers who could state - this is the going wage, accept it or not - and the labourer, by not accepting and moving on to another company/city/job-type, has taken his services out of the employers pool of workers. Now the employer may find another worker who will accept that money. That other worker may be skilled or unskilled, efficient or inefficient, reliable or unreliable. The fact is you get what you pay for. If the employer cuts the wages and expects the same professionalism, speed, return, then I wish them luck. I cannot count the times I have seen underpaid workers finally tire and leave a job because they cannot get a decent raise, only for the employer have to hire someone else at a much higher salary, with less production (because the speed and familiarity of the previous worker was so efficient).

On the other hand there are many people who think they are worth more than they get paid but it does depend on the market for that service. I am an insurance/risk management specialist. I expect a certain salary for my skills, based on what the industry currently pays and what I need to maintain my lifestyle and hopefully surpass that - buy a house, save money, etc., etc. Now if I go out into the workplace and request DOUBLE my salary, I can expect some raised eyebrows or not a lot of interest. If I found an employer with a position that I would like to see myself in and does pay double my salary, how do I convince this employer to pay me this money now as I learn the ropes and advance to this position? There will be give and take on either side as we reach for the things we want (both labourers and employers) within a financially acceptable margin.

It is largely a matter of supply and demand - on both sides.

No one is responding to my specific example (bleem spliners)!

Let's leave all this dry theorizing and talk about a realistic (albeit hypothetical) situation. I think it will make a more interesting and relevant discussion.

What say you? Is Sam being treated fairly, or getting shafted.

I would especially like to hear a reasponse from Asherman.

If Sam accepts it, I don't think he's getting shafted. Its his choice.

I guess this is where the dirty word union comes in. If all the spliners unionize and all stick together, and hold out for $25/hour, this will benefit all the spliners, yet still allow the owner to make a good profit. I don't love the idea of unions and what some of them have become, but I dislike even more the idea of owners growing rich on the backs of the poor.

Some unions have become so strong and have used that strength in negative ways, less than good faith. Tough balance.

I'd tell Sam to unionize the spliners. Let the union battle it out with the owners for a fair balanced wage.

I believe the workers as well as the owners should be able to use whatever peaceful/non-coercive means available to negotiate a fair wage.

My great-grandfather was a factory owner. Unions almost forced him into bankruptcy a few times. However, at the other extreme, I think he would gladly have paid the workers the least amount he could get away with, regardless of their living situation. He was able to eventually negotiate profitable settlements with the unions, and ended up well off. Not as well off as he would have been with no unions, but, definitely not hurting for money. But what a lifelong battle. My relatives say his whole life seemed to be about battling unions, etc. But is there a better system out there?

(let the flames begin)

If Sam can live on $9 per hour and is satisfied with what he can afford to do with it, then yes the rate would be acceptable to Sam.

If Sam requires at least $15 to pay his rent, food, clothing, education, childrens, etc., bills, and he knows that the going rate for all other spliners is $15, then no, an offer of $9 is not fair.

There is a chance that one of the 10 other spliners will accept the $9. There is also the chance that they will not - if they can go clean floors for $10/per hour. Then they can afford to wait. If no spliner accepts the $9 rate, the boss is going to have to 'up' the rate until he gets a bite.

Conversely, if Sam takes the $9 and then discovers later that the other spliners are paid $15 on average, he will be more likely to investigate what another bleem boat owner would be prepared to pay him if he got a new boat or needed extra hands. Then the current guy who is paying $9 gets little or no loyalty if he gains a reputation for giving his workers the shaft.

1, In re. the question of where does ownership come from. Ownership has several sources:

a. It can be built and developed by one's own hands;
b. It can be purchased;
c. It can be inherited;
d. It can be won by chance, or
e. It may be taken by force and legitimized by time.

There are probably other means, but you get the drift I'm sure. Ownership of property is the foundation of wealth, and wealth is one of the great motivators of human endeavor. We seek wealth as a means of securing ourselves against ill fortune, to provide comfort and opportunity for our families and children. Wealth comes coupled with prestige and power, so those who have it are at advantage over those who do not. Its better to be rich, even relatively well-off than to be be poor, in so far as we are looking solely at material well-being.

Owning property is neither morally good, nor bad, it is just a fact of life.

2. In re. E_Brown's hypothetical as to the fairness of an employer offering $9 to "Sam" for his skilled labor. Who says the work is worth more? Because that is what was paid elsewhere, or in the past? Perhaps because of the pay more people acquired the skill, and now that there are more skilled hands available the value of that skill has dropped to whatever level will attract the needed employee(s). If Sam won't take the $9, will someone else? How long can the owner/employer go without filling the job before they must decide to either pay more, or get out of the business? The market will determine. One only stays in business so long as the profits are greater than those that might be realized in some other business, or investment. When the profits go away, so do the businesses and with them the jobs. Owners have a direct interest in realizing the maximum profit from their property. If a property begins to lose its profit margin, or worse ceases to be an asset, then the property will be sold, or abandoned to become once again part of the State's property.

Everybody replied to the question based on market forces. I wanted to to get to the relationship between the cornfield worker and the cornfield "owner" within those market forces. When the negotiation begins the cornfield worker brings his labor and the cornfield "owner" brings his labor also and one more thing: his ownership of the land. That "ownership" makes the negotiation uneven. What bestows ownership of LAND?

a. LAND can not be built but only built upon.
b. What gives the seller the ownership?
c. What gives the bequeather ownership?
d. Same idea.
But
e. The idea that land can be taken by force and legitimized over time strikes me is an example of the fruit of the poison tree. Keeping in mind that this thread started as an offshoot of a thread about Randian philosophy (which finds force abhorant) then: How can time legitmize force? How much time is needed to legitimize force? Can the cornfield worker and his co-workers occupy the cornfield for a week and then claim it is theirs? How about a month? A year?

I am not talking about morality but I am looking for some consistancy. Force is force whether it is old force or new force.

Asherman,

There is a basic injustice in the pure market system that is illustrated in this example. First of all, our protagonist has put in the effort to get trained in a skill that is needed by an industry. This involved an investment of time and money that directly benefits the industry.

The owners in this example have all of the power. They can drive the salary of their skilled labor down to almost the point of unskilled labor. They can even lower the wages of their existing employees with the threat of losing their job to hungry skilled labor.

Since these laborers are trained in a specific skill there is not much they can do about their lowering wages. They have to work to feed their family and their choice is to accept what the owners give them, or choose unskilled labor.

Note also that this is a zero sum game. In this example the owners are making a hefty profit. This profit is divided between the owner, the captains and the employees. Paying skilled labor near unskilled wages to increase an already large profit for the owners is possible in an economy without enough jobs-- but is it fair?

In this situation you'd better believe I would get together with my fellow unemployed spliners and say--

"Look we are being had. We worked to get skill that they needed and now they are shafting us. Five of us aren't going to get jobs, but let's promise that the five of us that do get jobs are paid fairly."

I would talk to employed spliners as well. Employers who try to boost profit by paying skilled workers less and less are a risk to all employees.

Asherman,

Tcis and I have both suggested that a union would be helpful here. Would you unionize if you were being put in this position-- having to choose between an artificially low wage, or working as unskilled labor?

John,

You ask an interesting question because some owned resources are built (i.e. boats). Land ownership at is core is injust since someone claimed it, the someone else conquered it and now someone owns it.

However, I think of the current ownership of land as part of the social contract. For the sake of society we accept that people now own the land. How they got it was often unjust, but we forget the past to ensure the stability of the present system. We now have a widely agreed system with laws to govern the further transfer of land.

The only other option I can think of is to say that no one can own land (i.e. a public ownership). The is perhaps intrinsically more just, but it is economically impossible.

Presently we have a rule of law that works. We choose to accept the unfairness of erasing the past to ensure our present prosperity.

Heeven,

I don't think the boat owners would take the needs of their employees into account. If Sam has to choose between $9/hr on the boat or $8/hr cleaning floors, she will have to make to with $9/hr.

I think a determination of what Sam is "worth" should be based on her contributions to the enterprise. We need people who clean floors too. They all make do with $8/hr.

Oh yes indeedy. I believe that unions have an important role to play. If I were Sam, or any of the other spline workers, I'd be strongly pro-union. However, there is only so much that a union can do. Any union that pushes its demands too far will kill the goose that laid the golden egg. If the profit margin gets too small, or the business can't be operated without loss over a period of time, it must fail.

Businesses do fail. Sometimes they are poorly managed, sometimes the costs including labor make it impossible to compete in the marketplace, sometimes the industry is destroyed by technological advances, or the introduction of cheaper products. When costs get too high, the owners will look for other investments that have a better, safer return.

There are also all kinds of different ownership. As a painter, I own the pictures I paint until they are sold. My ownership extends to a large house, several vehicles, and other property all of which has some value. A single propriator may own a small business like a restaurant, a barbershop, or a hardware store. Several attorneys or doctors might form a partnership to improve their market share, or reduce the risks. A family might own a number of smaller businesses that are managed by employees supervising other employees. I own stocks and bonds in large corporations. All of these sorts of ownership are arrived at for most people in legal ways, and their property rights aren't something that anyone is willing to give up just because someone claims they don't deserve whatever wealth they own.

As has already been pointed out, sometimes folks acquire ownership by sheer good luck. They were born to a family that had already accumulated a certain degree of wealth. They married the boss's daughter, or happened to be in the room when a new bit of technology was born. They might have bought a lottery ticket. Mostly though, in my exerience people who have wealth and property earned it. They worked two jobs, and saved every cent to start a small business. Then they sacrificed everything to make the business profitable, and able to grow. Some of these folks studied for long years piling up huge debts in student loans to get the degrees, certifications and skills that enabled them to make large fees and/or salaries.

The folks who have only their unskilled labor to sell are unlikely to gain much in the way of worldly goods. Some of those folks just don't have what it takes to acquire degrees, or valuable skills, and so they have less opportunities. I've had janitors working for me who were fundamentally illiterate, but they were good workers and earned their pay. Some of those folks I trusted more, and had a higher regard for than some of my "bright young" assistants some of whom started at salary levels that it took me years to work up to. I'm not sure that some of those so called "bright young" assistants were much more literate than the janitors. The dumb assistants probably hadn't much better futures than the brightest and most talented of the janitors. Worldly success is a few percentage points of luck, a few points of genius, and 95% hard work and dedication to getting the job done effectively and efficiently. Not everyone can do it, certainly not those who party rather than study; Who spend their time wishing instead of working, of spending instead of saving.

If anyone can figure out how to be "fair", whatever that is, then I'd be interested in hearing about it.

I have to concede to ebrown_p's point as to the social contract. But I needed to make the point that land ownership is, in fact, the end result of the exercise of force. Further, Randian capitalists would also concede to the social contract but only to the extent that it would have the effect of forming a government that would protect "Life, Liberty and PROPERTY." Any government restriction on the use of one's property is seen as force or coercion. All property comes from the land: even boats (ie. wood or ore to build with). While purporting to despise force they conveniently forget that the very property which they are protecting was itself obtained, at some point, by force.

If one accepts something that is the fruit of force, coercion and/or intimidation, then it is a bit disingenuous, by pretending to deplore coercion, to deny someone else the same deal. Either give up your government enforced goodies (anarchy perhaps?) or allow the government to extend the social contract where it deems some public interest is served.

Our government has already determined that it is in the public interest to allow all the cornfield workers to band together and coerce the cornfield owner into paying more than the owner would like. But we have already conceded to the owner possession of his land. If the International Cornfield Workers Association demands the entire market value of the corn for its members then the cornfield owner will simply not allow corn to be planted on the property. The ICWA is enjoined from taking possession of the land and proceeding on their own: so a negotiation is had.

Now Asherman asks for a "fair"system with which to arrive at a settlement as to what the cornfield worker should reap. There may not BE a fair system. Here's a parable:

A prince of the realm is leaving his castle on a trip to a nearby village. On his way he comes upon one of his overseers beating one of his serfs with a stick. He grabs the stick and while he berates his overseer he hands the stick to the serf. On his return journey he comes upon the same pair only this time the serf is beating the overseer. The problem for the prince is: who does he give the stick to?

The government can't stand over us 24 hours a day any more than the prince can stand over his subjects. So what they do is make law to govern the relationship between the cornfield owner and the cornfield worker. But over time the law is changed to reflect the political make up of the government. The stick gets passed back and forth.

My answer to the questions which began this thread are:

1. Your work is worth as much as you can get of the full market value of whatever it is you produce. You obtain this value in a negotiation with the owner. The owner is given special status as "owner" by operation of law but, in a legal trade off, must bargain collectively with his employees if that is what they desire.

2. Coercion and intimidation are two way streets.