Why don't people want these jobs?

[Rosie_0801]

This sounds like a fun read: http://www.newint.com.au/shop/shop-class-as-soulcraft-2798.htm

 

Rosie

[Laura Corin]

I think the issue is entirely different. It is that people either know or feel that these jobs are deeply exploitative, and so they avoid them unless they are desperate.

 

Think about why the owners of the farm, doing the same kind of work, find it satisfying and worthwhile so that they will try to hang on even if the venture is economically struggling. It is because after a days work, they know they have actually improved their lot in life. Their farm is more valuable than it was, they can see the results of their work which will come to them, and over time they and their children will be able to benefit from it.

 

A days real work for a human being produces more value than what is required for immediate needs. That is why human beings have been able to create civilizations where they save for hard times, have leisure, create art, or support universities and churches. We have the wealth to do that because our labour can feed and house us, plus the people who do those things and the resources to create those things.

 

At the end of a day of hard work, a person should not only have supplied his needs for the day, he should have something extra as well, whether he puts the extra time into improving his property or wages to save.

 

If he finishes the days work and has nothing extra, there can be a few reasons, and only the first is the fault of the worker. Maybe he didn't work hard. Maybe the job he has been hired to do is not really a value producing job. Or maybe the employer has taken the extra to line his own pockets.

 

In the case of farm workers, there is no question that they are not working hard, nor that the job is foolish - it's among the most basic and necessary functions of the human community. So why isn't the worker producing anough to accomadate himself in a way that is fair and comfortable, to supply his own health and education needs, and to save a bit for emergencies, to buy his own farm one day, or to buy something nice for his kids?

 

The money. the value of his work, is not being given to him. It doesn't seem to be going to the farmers. I would say that it is going to some extent to big ag companies. But most of it is probably in our houses. It's the second car, tv, internet connection, swim lessons and so on that we can afford because we pay very little for food.

 

That's why there is such a disparity between the way the rich and poor live, and that is why no one wants to do those jobs. They aren't going to do hard, dangerous work to turn over their earnings to other people who have jobs in air conditioned offices.

 

This kind of labour system is just what we saw after the industrial revolution, and it goes against human dignity, and is immoral. Some get rich off of the labour of others, and it is no different if they are in our own country or a sweatshop in China.

 

Laura

[asta]

So what kind of work is moral? And what political system must be in place to insure the existence of these moral jobs?

 

a

[Alison in KY]

Some people misread what I said-the Mexican lady that occasionally watched my kids, and the kids of the other workers, from the fenced yard of the farmhouse that was provided for her family by the potato farmer, was a LEGAL worker. Not an immigrant, even. A temporary worker that returned to Mexico when harvest was done. LEGAL to be here but depending on how many kids she had that day she may not have been a licensed daycare provider. In my state you only need a license if you had over a certain number of kids a day.

 

The men worked milking and potatoes all day because they WANTED to-they were getting overtime! My boss didn't make anyone do anything illegal. The Mexicans were up here for a few months of the year to make money and that's what they did. And I'll tell you what, in my world, that is what a man does. They take care of their family even if it means their hands get dirty, they get tired and they have to work more than 8 hours a day without benefits. The Mexican wives and families came with them to keep everyone together and to help them be able to work all they could. The farmer told me that he couldn't find local people to do the work any more-his daughters and wife worked the tables with us but most of the other locals wouldn't do it any more. Me and a few older farm/ranch wives, a few homeschooled teenagers, and a lot of Mexicans. Funnest job I've ever had! We didn't complain, we didn't fight, we talked all day, we helped each other out, and we respected our boss. Crazy.

 

If I could still work potatoes fulltime I would-it was a great job. I got $11/hour, overtime, mileage and it was all on the books. Plus all the free potatoes I could haul home! It's good honest work, gads-go figure.

 

Are all the jobs like that? no... but some folks here were condemning these jobs with a broad brush and I want to be clear that I'm not a slave nor a sharecropper and my boss was an upstanding citizen, good farmer, and a pastor.

 

And I didn't consider myself too good for the jobs (like many of the college kids and young people did). I got stronger, I got plenty of fresh air. Made some great friends and learned how to make awesome salsa. :D

 

I really enjoyed this! Thank you. My parents have used migrant workers for years, because locals do not want to work out in the fields. I do not understand why (and I have not read through this thread).

 

When I was a kid, say 30 years ago, kids were working and there were no migrants hired. Then , within about 5 or so years you could not find local teens willing to do the work. The only people I see in the fields now are either migrants, or family members...but no locals ever come looking for a job. My 70 year old dad is still out there picking veggies by hand, etc...he'd probably still outwork a healthy teen :glare:.

 

Alison

[Haiku]

So what kind of work is moral? And what political system must be in place to insure the existence of these moral jobs?

 

One where workers aren't exploited. I don't think any particular political system must be in place, but I do think that people should be free to refuse exploitative jobs without being called lazy or having it implied that they are entitled and unwilling to work hard. People own their labor and should be free to negotiate a mutually favorable exchange of labor and money. To me that's a basic, basic principle of this "free market" I keep hearing so much about. If the job-givers have all the power and the job-seekers have none, that's no so much "free," imo.

 

Tara

[Mama Geek]

I don't think it is possible for everyone to get paid what they think is needed to live. There will always be people who make more money and people who make less. There will always be jobs that pay more money and jobs that pay less money.

 

Do we really want a society where a farmhand makes the same as a welder who makes the same as a doctor who makes the same as a CEO who makes the same as a football star and if you can't or won't work the government will pay you the same as everyone else?

 

I often hear discussions about a living wage. Why don't we set it at $45 and hour and no one can earn more and no one can earn less? Wouldn't that solve all the problems? At $45 an hour everyone should be able to provide food, shelter, clothing, and schooling for their family. People would be able to do what they are passionate about instead of worrying if that field will pay enough to support a family. That is where this conversation sounds like it is headed.

[Haiku]

Do we really want a society where a farmhand makes the same as a welder who makes the same as a doctor who makes the same as a CEO who makes the same as a football star and if you can't or won't work the government will pay you the same as everyone else?

 

 

Nope, and I don't think anyone has said or implied that. To me, this discussion is about why people are unwilling to take grueling jobs that don't really benefit them. As far as fair wages, when a full-time worker at a minimum wage job makes $14,500 before taxes, something is wrong with the minimum wage. If you work full-time but can't afford to live, something is wrong. And all the arguments about how minimum wage is for teenagers and part-time jobs and the like don't cut it for me. I work in a local retail store part-time. I'm fine with making minimum wage. But I work with people who are trying to survive on minimum wage, and they basically can't.

 

Tara

[Mrs Mungo]

I don't think it is possible for everyone to get paid what they think is needed to live. There will always be people who make more money and people who make less. There will always be jobs that pay more money and jobs that pay less money.

 

I am snipping your post to take up less room.

 

Of course. But, when you insist that would cannot pay your workers a living wage while giving yourself a multimillion dollar paycheck and loads of corporate perks, then your original statement is obviously false. You could pay a living wage, still pay yourself extremely well and make it more equitable. In the military (using the 2012 scale) the lowest paid private makes a base wage (before allowances) of $1491/month. A brand new private with no time in the army has not even been through basic training, probably has a high school diploma (but might not even have that), has no military experience, has no authority or responsibility beyond him/herself. The top ranking general with 30 years in the army makes a base wage of $17,451/month. That general likely has a PhD, has extreme amounts of leadership experience, often has authority over tens of thousands of soldiers, holds a great deal of responsibility, must travel, deal with congress on a daily basis, has served multiple combat tours, etc.

 

Now, let us look at a private company:

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=11067470

 

This Wal-Mart CEO was making more in an *hour* than most of his employees make in a year.

 

Your conclusions are wrong. I don't think everyone should make the same amount, but I think there is PLENTY of middle ground to make things more equitable.

[Mama Geek]

My brother is someone who started out making min wage. He has worked in grocery stores as well as doing a few other things. I don't know if he started out at min wage at the grocery store or just a little higher, but he worked there for 5 years and as he learned things and took on more responsibility he got some raises and some promotions. I think he was making about $11 an hour when he left. Dh and I gave him some money to start taking college classes because he finally realized that he wanted to do something else. He went to 2 years of trade school and is now making a good deal more money doing his trade. He has only being out of school for the last 6 months or so. I really don't think min wage jobs are intended to last forever. I haven't worked in an agricultural job although my dh was born and raised on a small family farm. I have worked on a road surveying crew in the summer in SC following an asphalt crew. Yes I do understand hot dirty low paying hard work.

[amy g.]

I'm all for workers owning their labor so long as business owners could own their employment and negotiate pay and benefits without outside interference.

[Bluegoat]

I don't think it is possible for everyone to get paid what they think is needed to live. There will always be people who make more money and people who make less. There will always be jobs that pay more money and jobs that pay less money.

 

Do we really want a society where a farmhand makes the same as a welder who makes the same as a doctor who makes the same as a CEO who makes the same as a football star and if you can't or won't work the government will pay you the same as everyone else?

 

I often hear discussions about a living wage. Why don't we set it at $45 and hour and no one can earn more and no one can earn less? Wouldn't that solve all the problems? At $45 an hour everyone should be able to provide food, shelter, clothing, and schooling for their family. People would be able to do what they are passionate about instead of worrying if that field will pay enough to support a family. That is where this conversation sounds like it is headed.

 

 

So do you feel that a full day of work is not enough effort to provide for ones needs? If it isn't, then the job is foolish and shouldn't exist - it is wasted effort. Maybe if employers had to pay a living wage they would come to that conclusion themselves.

 

Or maybe it is worth it, and the employer is not paying what the job is worth.

 

People have somehow got this idea that the "free market", which apparently has a will of its own (and a moral will according to some) will result in conditions that mean workers get a fair wage that actually reflects the value of their work. But I don't know of any example of that actually happening. What happens, inevitably, without some other force coming into play, is that wages are suppressed to the minimum possible, and conditions and benefits ignored, so that the employer can become rich off the labour of the workers. The workers cannot complain because they have no other options and no where else to go, and usually not enough money to move or become educated.

 

When this hasn't been the case it is because there is something else at play. At the end of the 19th century the union movement was important this way, but ultimately government regulation made the difference, when so many people became upset at the plight of workers that they demanded changes. Where I live there was a co-op/adult education movement as well as these other things. In some places religion has made the difference if it provides a strong moral structure for people.

 

The principle is this - a days work has a value which we express in money, but that is only a convenience. The real issue is how much production does a day's work represent? Can a family feed themselves off of a days work, growing enough veg, or producing enough widgets to sell? Well, we know that under normal conditions they can, plus extra. That is the basic level of work - it is also possible for people to produce more value, say if they have specialized skills like welding.

 

If a job is paying less than the value of what the worker produces, than it is cheating him. The worker is selling his labour to the employer and deserves a fair price. The employer should be earning the money from his own work and what he has invested: good ideas, equipment, management skills, and so on.

 

But if he shorts his worker for the value of his labour, that is just a form of stealing. It is no different than if he shorts a supplier for the value of his product.

[Bluegoat]

I'm all for workers owning their labor so long as business owners could own their employment and negotiate pay and benefits without outside interference.

 

Do you think this normally leads to fair negotiations? Could you give an historical example of where that has happened?

[Mama Geek]

People work to make money, not to make things equitable. People start business to make money, not to employ people. CEO's run companies to make money. When governments regulate what private business can pay it is a very slippery slope.

 

I do think that lying, stealing, cheating, hiding stuff, insider trading etc. should not be tolerated and the people involved in that should go straight to jail.

 

Back to the agriculture discussion...I can go to the local farmers market and get things from the farmers or someone they sell directly to for much less than what it costs to buy the stuff at the grocery store. I am sure they are making more money than they would by selling to a grocery chain.

[Mrs Mungo]

I'm all for workers owning their labor so long as business owners could own their employment and negotiate pay and benefits without outside interference.

 

Do you want to go back to 19th century working conditions? Child labor? Extremely dangerous working conditions? The safety nets that came about happened because the public *demanded* it and boycotted businesses that used child labor.

 

The job that my dad held that I discussed above? He regularly called OSHA about dangerous working conditions. Some conditions that he called OSHA about were almost identical to the conditions that led to 25 people being killed and 54 injured in a chicken plant fire in Arkansas. But, he was union and had a safety net. Non-union workers are FAR less likely to call OSHA because it endangers their job.

 

My dh worked a job in college where he worked 4-midnight by himself with 6 injection molding machines. The owners were two brothers. They were too cheap to buy new machines or properly fix the old ones, so they were patched, safety mechanisms turned off, etc. My dh was electrocuted, he had the tip of one of his fingers cut off (which could have been MUCH worse) and more. The owners were millionaires, they took luxury vacations, they built giant homes, etc. They could have afforded to fix the machines, but they would rather keep that money in their pocket.

 

Business owners will *often* do the thing that is profitable instead of the right thing. If everyone did they right thing, we wouldn't need laws at all.

[Bluegoat]

My brother is someone who started out making min wage. He has worked in grocery stores as well as doing a few other things. I don't know if he started out at min wage at the grocery store or just a little higher, but he worked there for 5 years and as he learned things and took on more responsibility he got some raises and some promotions. I think he was making about $11 an hour when he left. Dh and I gave him some money to start taking college classes because he finally realized that he wanted to do something else. He went to 2 years of trade school and is now making a good deal more money doing his trade. He has only being out of school for the last 6 months or so. I really don't think min wage jobs are intended to last forever. I haven't worked in an agricultural job although my dh was born and raised on a small family farm. I have worked on a road surveying crew in the summer in SC following an asphalt crew. Yes I do understand hot dirty low paying hard work.

 

I think that we need to think carefully about whether that is really the case, practically speaking. There are some jobs that are particularly suited to students, or people looking to supplement a family income and so on.

 

But are there really enough of those people to fill all of those jobs? I worked at a supermarket as a student, and there were quite a few people for whom that was going to be a long term position - not part-time cashiers (although some of them had other part time jobs as well) but shift supervisors, the fish and meat guys, and so on. But most of them worked a 36 hour week - just shy of full time and benefits. After about ten years such a person would get a 40 hour a week position, which meant they had also lost out on 10 years worth of pension contributions.

 

I've also worked in our local library system. To get in there even as a trained tech, you have to start as a shelf-reader, at maybe 10 hours a week. Most people have four or five "positions" to make ends meet, and they do this for several years while waiting for a position to open up at the next level.

[Mama Geek]

So do you feel that a full day of work is not enough effort to provide for ones needs? If it isn't, then the job is foolish and shouldn't exist - it is wasted effort. Maybe if employers had to pay a living wage they would come to that conclusion themselves.

 

Or maybe it is worth it, and the employer is not paying what the job is worth.

 

People have somehow got this idea that the "free market", which apparently has a will of its own (and a moral will according to some) will result in conditions that mean workers get a fair wage that actually reflects the value of their work. But I don't know of any example of that actually happening. What happens, inevitably, without some other force coming into play, is that wages are suppressed to the minimum possible, and conditions and benefits ignored, so that the employer can become rich off the labour of the workers. The workers cannot complain because they have no other options and no where else to go, and usually not enough money to move or become educated.

 

There are other options, there are always other options, they may just require different sacrifices.

 

When this hasn't been the case it is because there is something else at play. At the end of the 19th century the union movement was important this way, but ultimately government regulation made the difference, when so many people became upset at the plight of workers that they demanded changes. Where I live there was a co-op/adult education movement as well as these other things. In some places religion has made the difference if it provides a strong moral structure for people.

 

The principle is this - a days work has a value which we express in money, but that is only a convenience. The real issue is how much production does a day's work represent? Can a family feed themselves off of a days work, growing enough veg, or producing enough widgets to sell? Well, we know that under normal conditions they can, plus extra. That is the basic level of work - it is also possible for people to produce more value, say if they have specialized skills like welding.

 

If a job is paying less than the value of what the worker produces, than it is cheating him. The worker is selling his labour to the employer and deserves a fair price. The employer should be earning the money from his own work and what he has invested: good ideas, equipment, management skills, and so on.

 

But if he shorts his worker for the value of his labour, that is just a form of stealing. It is no different than if he shorts a supplier for the value of his product.

 

If the worker agrees to the pay, how is the employer either cheating or stealing?

[Mrs Mungo]

People work to make money, not to make things equitable. People start business to make money, not to employ people. CEO's run companies to make money. When governments regulate what private business can pay it is a very slippery slope.

 

Slippery slope to what? Minimum wage has existed for a long time. Why would it be different to say...cap the number of part-time or minimum wage jobs you could hire as a proportion of your labor force depending upon the type of business that you run?

 

I do think that lying, stealing, cheating, hiding stuff, insider trading etc. should not be tolerated and the people involved in that should go straight to jail.

 

That hasn't happened much so far in all of this mess.

 

Back to the agriculture discussion...I can go to the local farmers market and get things from the farmers or someone they sell directly to for much less than what it costs to buy the stuff at the grocery store. I am sure they are making more money than they would by selling to a grocery chain.

 

I don't know how true this is. My next door neighbors in Hawaii owned a farm. They started making a lot more money when they got their product into local stores. It enabled them to buy more land (in *Hawaii*) and then they made a large part of their business growing herbs for export to Asian countries. That is when their business really started to boom.

[Haiku]

I really don't think min wage jobs are intended to last forever.

 

But see, it doesn't really matter what you think. I'm not being snarky ... I mean that whether you think they are intended to last forever or not, for many people, they do. And we are heading toward being a service economy, where more and more of the available jobs simply are minimum wage jobs.

 

Tara

[mama2cntrykids]

I'm very late to this thread and have only read the OPs post, but if it were me (and I didn't have any infants/toddlers to tend to), I would be doing it. If you need to eat, you need to eat. Obviously, ppl aren't hungry enough or something.

[Haiku]

People start business to make money, not to employ people. CEO's run companies to make money.

 

But when they cheat and steal from the people they depend on to help them make their money, that is wrong.

 

Tara

[Mrs Mungo]

My brother is someone who started out making min wage. He has worked in grocery stores as well as doing a few other things. I don't know if he started out at min wage at the grocery store or just a little higher, but he worked there for 5 years and as he learned things and took on more responsibility he got some raises and some promotions. I think he was making about $11 an hour when he left. Dh and I gave him some money to start taking college classes because he finally realized that he wanted to do something else. He went to 2 years of trade school and is now making a good deal more money doing his trade. He has only being out of school for the last 6 months or so.

 

But not everyone has that option. If you have a family to support, then how can you take off work to go to trade school?

 

I really don't think min wage jobs are intended to last forever.

 

Many of the jobs that are currently minimum wage were not always.

[Impish]

If the worker agrees to the pay, how is the employer either cheating or stealing?

You've obviously never known true desperation, where you'll take *any* job b/c you don't know how you'll keep food on the table for the kids, or the heat on, or a roof over their heads, not to mention luxuries like clothes that fit.

 

When you're that desperate, taking ANY job just to get some income coming in seems better than nothing.

 

Employers know this, don't kid yourself. There will always be someone desperate enough to work in substandard, dangerous conditions for meagre pay. Always.

 

First job in an LTC, they bombarded you with hours, so you thought, wow, this is great! Making decent money, benefits in sight...

 

Uh huh. Non union shop. As soon as you were in striking distance of benefits, the hours dried up. Completely. They brought in new hires, to restart the process. Workers were begging for more hours, but it was cheaper for them to hire new ppl and ensure that very, very few ppl received benefits.

 

At the same time, they demanded you be on call 24/7. If you turned down more than 3 shifts, you could get fired. And no, its not like they paid extra for being on call either. If the next shift was short, and you refused to stay, you would be threatened and harrassed.

 

When you're desperate to keep body and soul together, there will be those that take advantage of that...and employers are among the first.

[mommaduck]

At the same time, they demanded you be on call 24/7. If you turned down more than 3 shifts, you could get fired. And no, its not like they paid extra for being on call either. If the next shift was short, and you refused to stay, you would be threatened and harrassed.

Which means you can practically forget it if you have kids, especially if you are a single mom with no support system.

[Impish]

Which means you can practically forget it if you have kids, especially if you are a single mom with no support system.

Bingo. I was.

 

One place had ONE nursing attendant on from 11-7, in a *locked* ward, with a RN that floated btwn 3 floors. I asked what would happen if a) a resident became aggressive, b) there was a fire, and c) if one of my kids got sick and I had to leave.

 

I was told that if a) happened, I call the RN. Uh, we didn't have cell phones. This meant that I had to be in a position to get to a phone, which is ridiculous. If b) happened, I was solely responsible for getting 30+ residents out...not all of whom were ambulatory. As for c? "Can't your dh handle it?" I informed her I didn't have a dh. I was then told I'd better have a good sitter, b/c once I was on shift, I wasn't allowed to leave until 7am.

[Free]

People work to make money, not to make things equitable. People start business to make money, not to employ people.

 

Right. And people work to make enough money to be able to make a decent livelihood. The opinion on this thread seems to be that people should take up any work no matter how low the wages, but that the only obligation employers should have is to make money for themselves. Why then would employers who do find people to do anything for them for a pittance, ever want to pay decent wages?

 

Somebody spoke of Dickens on this thread. This seems like a classic call for a return to a Dickensian society where the poor remain wretchedly poor with no power to change anything and the rich continue to grow vulgarly rich.

[mommaduck]

Right. And people work to make enough money to be able to make a decent livelihood. The opinion on this thread seems to be that people should take up any work no matter how low the wages, but that the only obligation employers should have is to make money for themselves. Why then would employers who do find people to do anything for them for a pittance, ever want to pay decent wages?

 

Somebody spoke of Dickens on this thread. This seems like a classic call for a return to a Dickensian society where the poor remain wretchedly poor with no power to change anything and the rich continue to grow vulgarly rich.

But aren't there workhouses, asylums, and orphanges?! *scrooge*

 

Seems people have his attitude.

[Bluegoat]

If the worker agrees to the pay, how is the employer either cheating or stealing?

 

Consider a very common, real, free market example. This is from the period before we had government controls on working conditions, so it was much more of an accurate reflection of what the free market really looks like.

 

In many places workers were factory workers, fishermen who sold their product to a factory, farmers who worked on land owned y someone else, or miners.

 

They were given a wage that was barely sufficient to cover their expenses. THey were required to live in company housing at a rate set by the owner, and shop in a company store. Wages were not enough to manage if there was an emergency, but it was possible in such situations to get an advance on wages.

 

At that point of course, it was not possible to leave without paying back what was owed.

 

This was great for owners, as most of what they paid out they made back as rent for housing and profit in the company store. Whatever product they produced was sold and all the profit kept for themselves.

 

Could the workers save up enough to move? Probably not. Could they get a job elsewhere? Maybe in a similar circumstance, though another owner might not be willing to hire a worker who had left another situation. Could he get a better education for himself or his kids? Not if he has to pay for it, and his kids are educated in the company school. Could he unionize, no because he would be fired, or worse. What about renting a cheaper home or shopping elsewhere? Again, cause to be fired.

 

That's free market economics, and that is why our laws allow for unions, and minimum wages, and so on.

 

And it is stealing the workers labour because it isn't paying him what it is worth. He agrees because he has no other option, not because it is a fair bargain. If the worker is an independant operator, and what he has to sell, say turnips, no one wants, then he may decide to sell at a loss and go and grow something else. Or, he could keep the turnips, and eat them, because they still have the intrinsic value of the turnips.

 

We've set up our economy so most people can't actually grow their own turnips or make their own widgets to sell, because they do not own their own factory or shop or land to farm. The only way to make a living is to sell their labour for a wage. But we know from just reading history that it is very easy for employers to set up a system whereby they don't pay a fair wage and keep the money they save for themselves. They are like workers who have a few turnips but no land to grow anything else and they aren't even allowed to eat the turnips (maybe they are only allowed to grow tobacco.)

 

Our current laws make it very difficult for independent operators, who might hire a small workforce, to compete. They strongly favour things like corporations, and taxes subsidize big businesses, the kinds of places that have large workforces they they don't mind treating poorly, because it's impersonal. Why do laws favour big business? Who can afford to lobby government? Who is in government?

[Bluegoat]

I just wanted to add: the reason the worker can't get a fair price for his labour is because he doesn't own any real capital - a shop, or tools, or land. He can't do a days work and trade the product himself, or eat what he grew.

 

The owners make the money because they own real capital.

 

So why do some people own a lot of capital while the majority have none? The way we are taught, we all have the right to own real capital, because that is part of what it is to be human.

 

In a free market economy though, the tendency, even if you start with a wide distribution of capital, (say, you give out small farms to anyone who wants them) is that it becomes more and more concentrated in the hands of a few. At which point they control the employment of those who have no way to make a living. A very small percentage of people own vast the majority of real capital.

 

(And a tv, or a house in the suburbs, or a car does not usually count real capital, much less a vacation in Tahiti. These are not things that can provide income or food.)

 

THis is not the promise that capitalism, or those who extol the free market, make to citizens. They are not misunderstanding here, they understand that capitalism does not really produce many people who can earn a living with their own resources, or even with a real hope of doing so in the future. But like citybank, they do not want people to realize that they are being distracted with lots of fun stuff while they are losing real independence, because if they suddenly figured it out they might actually use their votes to do something significant).

 

In the end, Tea Party people, communists and true socialists, and libertarians are all advocating the same thing - a system where a few people, either the government or capitalist oligarchy, control the fates of the majority of wage earners through control of resources, the means of production, and government.

[Haiku]

To be fair, cheating and stealing is not a one-way deal. Employees also cheat and steal from their employers. At the small, locally owned business where I work part-time, we have had several people in the past year fired for either stealing money from the till or just not working ... cheating the employer out of wages.

 

But in general, employers have the advantage and the power because they have the resources and the capital. The wealthy simply have more power. They always have, throughout history, and I don't think anyone could mount a serious objection otherwise.

 

That's why unions formed ... the idea was that large numbers of workers could challenge the power of the corporations and the wealthy. One single worker doesn't have much power; he is expendable and easily replaced. A large group of workers is harder to replace and therefore has more collective power. If we are ever going to have anything even remotely resembling a balance of power in the workplace (and that does not mean equality of wages ... it means equality of negotiating power), we have to allow workers to unionize/collectivize. But so many people are just flat-out against workers having any power and seem to be of the opinion that workers should just suck up any bum deal they're given because hey, at least they HAVE a job. The underlying idea seems to be that the wealthy are good and moral and the poor masses who need the jobs are selfish and greedy. I just don't get it.

 

ETA: Actually, maybe I do get it. Maybe it's the extreme "every man for himself" idea that I see on the part of those who are opposed to any sort of collective, mutual assistance. The idea that if you can't take care of you and yours, the problem is with you, not with the system that's been created. I wholeheartedly disagree with that.

 

Tara

Edited October 20, 2011 by TaraTheLiberator

[cathmom]

But aren't there workhouses, asylums, and orphanges?! *scrooge*

 

Seems people have his attitude.

 

But...isn't that taking aid???

 

Just have to say...I love Mrs. Mungo and Tara on this thread. You are both awesome!

[mommaduck]

But...isn't that taking aid???

 

Just have to say...I love Mrs. Mungo and Tara on this thread. You are both awesome!

No, taking aid would be like the men that were asking Scrooge to donate to charity. If you know the history, those places were horrible, families were divided, and children died of starvation and neglect (some kids were better off on the streets).

[cathmom]

No, taking aid would be like the men that were asking Scrooge to donate to charity. If you know the history, those places were horrible, families were divided, and children died of starvation and neglect (some kids were better off on the streets).

Right, I know. I was being sarcastic that if they "took advantage" of these places, they wouldn't be out working like they are all supposed to do.

[Xuzi]

Right, I know. I was being sarcastic that if they "took advantage" of these places, they wouldn't be out working like they are all supposed to do.

 

Saw this on facebook earlier:

 

Wow, LOVE this! (would totally post it on my facebook, but I know it would cause quiet a ruckus amongst my friends list :tongue_smilie:)

[Mama Geek]

You've obviously never known true desperation, where you'll take *any* job b/c you don't know how you'll keep food on the table for the kids, or the heat on, or a roof over their heads, not to mention luxuries like clothes that fit.

 

When you're that desperate, taking ANY job just to get some income coming in seems better than nothing.

 

Employers know this, don't kid yourself. There will always be someone desperate enough to work in substandard, dangerous conditions for meagre pay. Always.

 

First job in an LTC, they bombarded you with hours, so you thought, wow, this is great! Making decent money, benefits in sight...

 

Uh huh. Non union shop. As soon as you were in striking distance of benefits, the hours dried up. Completely. They brought in new hires, to restart the process. Workers were begging for more hours, but it was cheaper for them to hire new ppl and ensure that very, very few ppl received benefits.

 

At the same time, they demanded you be on call 24/7. If you turned down more than 3 shifts, you could get fired. And no, its not like they paid extra for being on call either. If the next shift was short, and you refused to stay, you would be threatened and harrassed.

 

When you're desperate to keep body and soul together, there will be those that take advantage of that...and employers are among the first.

 

You know you are right. I didn't grow up in a single parent household with a deadbeat dad. My mother didn't work multiple jobs to keep food on the table and a roof over our heads. I didn't get married at 20 and while dh and I were both attending college. We didn't both worked multiple jobs in college. I didn't get laid off a few months after my first white collar job started and it take more than 2 years to find something to replace it with, all the while going into deeper debt because we had bought a house.

 

My dh and I have worked our tails off to get to where we are, we have made sacrifices that most people wouldn't, and we have made some fairly risky decisions that most people wouldn't.

[livingnlearning]

I just really don't understand why a wealthy successful person is supposed to pay more taxes than the average person. I understand the system is skewed right now but I don't see how taxes should be a percentage of what you have instead of everyone pays their share.

 

Sure that factory uses some public means but that factory owner isn't on disability or maybe they are sending their kids to a private school while still paying their taxes for the public school. Maybe they have no kids. Maybe they aren't causing legal problems that are causing a drain on the legal system and police department.

 

I think a flat tax has to be the fairest tax.

 

If our large family is pooling resources to buy a gift for MIL every family pays the same, the lowest amount that we can all afford. If someone wants to pay extra they kick in extra. If everyone can afford $10 that's what we ALL put in. We don't make the more well-off members of the family pay more, we divide it equally.

[HejKatt]

Saw this on CBS news - Few Americans take immigrants' jobs in Alabama

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/10/20/ap/business/main20123447.shtml

 

Some of its points were mentioned here (though I didn't read all the replies).

 

One of the farmers mentioned that she plans to use a machine to pick the blueberries. I don't think it's related to her decision to also stop growing organically, but could anyone explain if there is a link?

[Bootsie]

If a job is paying less than the value of what the worker produces, than it is cheating him. The worker is selling his labour to the employer and deserves a fair price. The employer should be earning the money from his own work and what he has invested: good ideas, equipment, management skills, and so on.

 

But if he shorts his worker for the value of his labour, that is just a form of stealing. It is no different than if he shorts a supplier for the value of his product.

 

 

How is paying a worker less than the value of what worker produced cheating him? If I can pick thirty baskets of apples a day (or $x worth of a product a day), why would an employer hire me if my wage was thirty baskets of apples? How would there be any benefit to the employer? The employer doesn't exist just to be benevolent.

[Rosie_0801]

I think a flat tax has to be the fairest tax.

 

Fair is in the eye of the beholder, a matter of priority a lot of the time. The poorest in your society can't afford to pay any tax, so it is unfair for anyone to pay tax. Few people enjoy anarchy...

 

Rosie

[Bootsie]

I just really don't understand why a wealthy successful person is supposed to pay more taxes than the average person. I understand the system is skewed right now but I don't see how taxes should be a percentage of what you have instead of everyone pays their share.

 

Sure that factory uses some public means but that factory owner isn't on disability or maybe they are sending their kids to a private school while still paying their taxes for the public school. Maybe they have no kids. Maybe they aren't causing legal problems that are causing a drain on the legal system and police department.

 

I think a flat tax has to be the fairest tax.

 

If our large family is pooling resources to buy a gift for MIL every family pays the same, the lowest amount that we can all afford. If someone wants to pay extra they kick in extra. If everyone can afford $10 that's what we ALL put in. We don't make the more well-off members of the family pay more, we divide it equally.

 

 

I think what you are suggesting a "head tax" (everyone pays the same dollar amount) rather than a "flat tax" (everyone pays the same percentage).

 

We would think that it is odd if we went to the store and bread cost more if our income was more. Is it fair that we all pay the same price for bread regardless of our income? Would it be fair if I had to pay more for bread because my income was higher than the next person in line? Why are taxes any different?

[Bluegoat]

How is paying a worker less than the value of what worker produced cheating him? If I can pick thirty baskets of apples a day (or $x worth of a product a day), why would an employer hire me if my wage was thirty baskets of apples? How would there be any benefit to the employer? The employer doesn't exist just to be benevolent.

 

How do we figure out the correct price for the apples? How much money has the farm owner got tied up in the land and the apple trees? How much did he spend on fertilizer and pesticide? How much to truck them?

 

Then how much to pay the worker, and how much to pay himself.

 

That is the cost of producing the apples. If he couldn't sell them for that price, he is producing them inefficiently, people don't really want apples, or he is paying the workers or himself to much. If he is only just paying the workers a living wage for a day's work, that is not the issue. He is inefficient or paying himself to much or needs to start growing something else. Or there could be a larger systematic problem that means it isn't his management but forces outside his control that make it impossible for him to get a fair price.

 

Or, think of it this way - the workers labour is a commodity. We know that one day of labour equals, at least, one day of modest living expenses. The worker trades his labour to the employer in return for wages. If those wages are less than one days modest living expenses, where is the "lost" money going? It's as if you gave the farmer a bag of fertilizer and he gave you less than it cost you to make it.

Edited October 21, 2011 by Bluegoat

[twoforjoy]

We would think that it is odd if we went to the store and bread cost more if our income was more. Is it fair that we all pay the same price for bread regardless of our income? Would it be fair if I had to pay more for bread because my income was higher than the next person in line? Why are taxes any different?

 

So you are opposed to schools, doctors, and various services that operate on an income-based sliding fee scale?

[mommaduck]

Wow, LOVE this! (would totally post it on my facebook, but I know it would cause quiet a ruckus amongst my friends list :tongue_smilie:)

:iagree:

[Bootsie]

How do we figure out the correct price for the apples? How much money has the farm owner got tied up in the land and the apple trees? How much did he spend on fertilizer and pesticide? How much to truck them?

 

Then how much to pay the worker, and how much to pay himself.

 

That is the cost of producing the apples. If he couldn't sell them for that price, he is producing them inefficiently, people don't really want apples, or he is paying the workers or himself to much. If he is only just paying the workers a living wage for a day's work, that is not the issue. He is inefficient or paying himself to much or needs to start growing something else. Or there could be a larger systematic problem that means it isn't his management but forces outside his control that make it impossible for him to get a fair price.

 

Or, think of it this way - the workers labour is a commodity. We know that one day of labour equals, at least, one day of modest living expenses. The worker trades his labour to the employer in return for wages. If those wages are less than one days modest living expenses, where is the "lost" money going? It's as if you gave the farmer a bag of fertilizer and he gave you less than it cost you to make it.

 

How do we "know that one day of labour equals, at least, on day of modest living expenses"? I see no connection between what my labor is worth and what someone's definition of "modest living expenses" is.

[Bootsie]

So you are opposed to schools, doctors, and various services that operate on an income-based sliding fee scale?

 

I am not saying I am opposed to anything. I am just raising a question of why many people consider a head tax "unfair" but that is the way the majority of the goods and services we voluntarily purchase are priced.

[Free]

We would think that it is odd if we went to the store and bread cost more if our income was more. Is it fair that we all pay the same price for bread regardless of our income? Would it be fair if I had to pay more for bread because my income was higher than the next person in line? Why are taxes any different?

 

Not true. Not all breads are priced equally. And this applies to almost everything - what the poor can afford to buy with their money would often be what the rich turn their noses up at.

 

As far as taxes are concerned, a 10% of income for a low/middle income worker can be significant enough to help him/her put better food on the table or afford better schooling for kids or better healthcare. The same 10% for a high income person will however not have the same impact on lifestyle. I don't see therefore how it is more fair to tax the poor and the rich equally? Especially when you consider that the rich did not earn their wealth in a vacuum.

[Bootsie]

Not true. Not all breads are priced equally. And this applies to almost everything - what the poor can afford to buy with their money would often be what the rich turn their noses up at.

 

As far as taxes are concerned, a 10% of income for a low/middle income worker can be significant enough to help him/her put better food on the table or afford better schooling for kids or better healthcare. The same 10% for a high income person will however not have the same impact on lifestyle. I don't see therefore how it is more fair to tax the poor and the rich equally? Especially when you consider that the rich did not earn their wealth in a vacuum.

 

 

Maybe I wasn't clear. Yes, there are different brands and types of bread that cost different prices. My point is if I go to the store to buy Loaf A of bread I pay the same price as my neighbor who goes in to buy Loaf A of bread. The store does not price Loaf A of bread differently for me than my neighbor because we have different incomes.

[cindergretta]

 

My dh and I have worked our tails off to get to where we are, we have made sacrifices that most people wouldn't, and we have made some fairly risky decisions that most people wouldn't.

 

Um, how do you know what most people would do or have done? How do you know how hard others here haven't worked?? I am a tad gobsmacked at your assertion that you somehow know what others would or wouldn't do. I am surrounded in my life by people who work long and hard hours, sacrifice plenty, and barely get by. IMHO, it is beyond arrogant to assume that you are somehow superior in your sacrificing and risk taking. :glare:

[Free]

Maybe I wasn't clear. Yes, there are different brands and types of bread that cost different prices. My point is if I go to the store to buy Loaf A of bread I pay the same price as my neighbor who goes in to buy Loaf A of bread. The store does not price Loaf A of bread differently for me than my neighbor because we have different incomes.

 

The fact that Loaf A has a single price for all still makes no difference to the affordability of the Loaf. I will only buy it if I can afford it, else I will buy something cheaper. It is not so with taxes. A low income person has to pay the same taxes as a high income person irrespective of his affordability. Which means that he has to cut back on life essentials to afford to pay the tax.

[twoforjoy]

Maybe I wasn't clear. Yes, there are different brands and types of bread that cost different prices. My point is if I go to the store to buy Loaf A of bread I pay the same price as my neighbor who goes in to buy Loaf A of bread. The store does not price Loaf A of bread differently for me than my neighbor because we have different incomes.

 

Taxes are different from buying a loaf of bread, though.

 

I think of them more like a sliding fee scale for a school, which I not only have no problem with, but support. There's a private school here that we're considering maybe sending DS to next year, and it operates on a sliding fee scale. There are four income brackets and we'd be in the second highest one. That seems perfectly fair to me. The school needs a certain amount of money to operate. They could figure out how much they need to operate, divide it by the total number of students they think they'll have, and charge every family the same. But, that would make the school's tuition out of reach for many families. A sliding fee scale allows the broadest range of people to benefit from the school's services without burdening either the poorest or the richest beyond what they could bear.

 

As to the bread issue, it's not like we pay a flat cost for bread. I live in an inner city, and we have a grocery store about half a mile from our house. We have a car, and so can drive to go shopping other places (usually the Aldi in the nearest suburb), but for our neighbors without cars, this is the only grocery store you can access without taking a bus. They charge significantly more for food there than they do at even more upscale suburban grocery stores (and WAY more than Aldi charges) because they know that many of the people living in the area have no other choice. We'll occasionally stop there if we need something on the spur of the moment and don't feel like driving, and it's not unusual for us to pay 50% more than we'd pay for the same item at the Meijer in the suburbs and twice what we'd pay at Aldi.

 

I'm really not sure what that was related to. It's not really addressing your question. I do think it points to another one of the hidden costs of poverty, though. Stores in areas where people lack transportation will often jack up prices as high as they can because many of the residents have no other options.

[twoforjoy]

Um, how do you know what most people would do or have done? How do you know how hard others here haven't worked?? I am a tad gobsmacked at your assertion that you somehow know what others would or wouldn't do. I am surrounded in my life by people who work long and hard hours, sacrifice plenty, and barely get by. IMHO, it is beyond arrogant to assume that you are somehow superior in your sacrificing and risk taking. :glare:

 

And what about the people who took the same risks, but ended up on the losing end?

 

But, yeah, I can't imagine presuming that I have worked harder than most people and that the relatively modest financial success my husband and I have enjoyed over the last few years was largely a result of anything but good fortune. Don't get me wrong: I work hard, and he works hard. But, there are loads of people who work harder than we do who have been far less fortunate. And, I'm sure there are people who work less hard than we do who are better off than we are. So many factors go into financial success, and I really think that hard work is often pretty far down on the list.