It's funny how any ideas based on making things somewhat democratic and more fair instantly lead to satanism.

I know we're quibbling but the fact that the mobile employees get paid more is because the employer needs to do that to retain them.

It's also why unionized employees do better, they can act as one and that makes them more powerful (like the mobility is power in your example).

I'd say that they're still being paid as little as possible. It's just that it's not possible to squeeze them as much as others.

Well, tbh, dealing with cancer, jail and divorce is much easier with a fat portfolio.

Money=power. Even the power to live a little longer sometimes.

Nobody has given hard evidence that employees are underpaid, I'm more so just hearing "workers are being exploited because I said so," and "workers are being exploited because I feel like they are." These aren't good arguments. I have to go with the economists and my economics education over emotions.

Here's a good graph of productivity and compensation's relationship:

Did your economics education stop in HS or after Econ 101 in college? Here are two economists who call wage stagnation "a central issue in economic policy debates". They largely blame US federal policies, particularly right wing trickle down Reganomics as the culprit, which is unsurprising given they work for a liberal think tank. But I question your appeal to your own education if you're unaware this is a major topic in the economics community and expect an internet form to fill you in on the details rather than spending 10 min looking at the literature.

He could just look at his own graph.

You are absolutely wrong on that in taking an absolutist position.

I have worked in and owned companies who, on principle want to include the employees in on the profits they help generate and share the wealth created.

It is part, 'need to retain', and part 'want to reward'.

The example I cited ($70k minimum wage guy) proves you wrong, as he had many of the same employees at the lower wages.


You may say 'he is the exception' but that is not true, he is however more extreme than most though. But between 'Paying the Minimum' and 'Paying the Amount he pays more', there are many companies who exist in between.

Prior to the pandemic our economy was at full employment and full production capacity. Since employees don't actually want more money but rather more stuff money can buy, how would reducing profits/increasing wages result in our economy producing more stuff for employees to consume?

Go see Henri Ford theory ....
Basic economy .

Obviously there is a line where giving too much to employees do not create a better economy , but in the US for decades now , that line as been backing up for ever ....

How many years inflation as been hiding from consumer price ?
Money velocity too .
Those are hints you can base an opinion on .

I'm speaking generally. Not absolutely.

Henry Ford paid his employees more than the going rate. There are no absolutes in business.

But shareholders demand profit and profit comes from labor as much as anywhere else.

I'm pretty sure fairly high wages are a boon to any economy and I have known a few small business owners who honestly want their employees to do well. I'm not arguing with you. I'm just saying your view is very much a minority one. If not, we'd be much better off as a society imo.

Are you saying the US was incapable of producing more consumer goods less than a year ago ?

Can you square that graph with your statement ?

All the best.

Imho this is where the system is breaking down for decades and never been ( needed checking on this) worst since 2008 crash (GFC).

ie: the banks got bailed out , meaning they literally went bust !
And what the top bankers did with the bailout money , they payed themselves billions of bonus while the ordinary Americans lost their home by millions without any money support from the government or barely .

It’s fine to bailout but the bonus payed for good management was scandalous!
And that is a scheme that exist for centuries between the rich and the poor ....

For I don’t know what reason , some seem to think those at the top of the I come ladder just fo not need to be integrated in the society of everyone else , hence having special treatment for them .....

And this is where imo society break down , some people get rich regardless of Te time while those who are below them have a hard time squeezing any kind of worthwhile profit in prosperous time and obviously even lose a lot when the economy is shaky .
That is not an equal opportunity environment and certainly not a fair one either .

My expressed view here is not a minority one as i only expressed opinions to counter the absolutist ones saying 'you cannot say that' and provided examples.

I did not peg where on the spectrum I think things stand. I have not seen anyone try to define that spectrum such that we could see where the 'extremes are on each end and what was the norm, in-between them.

Sure. Obviously if farm hands consumed everything they produced, there wouldn't be any seed corn for next years crop let alone anything to give in exchange for a new tractor, research for higher yielding seeds, etc. Even socialist economies do that, i.e., deprive workers a portion of their present output to ensure future output and increased future productivity.

Imho a possible simple solution exist to remedy at a certain point the wealth gap , integrated more « reality » in the life of the top 1% by integrating them more in « real » economy lived by every Americans and bringing a little bit more of a certain ethics in society.
But obviously it will vehemently rejected by those that benefits the most the wealth gap and the ignorant.....

It as in some kind been established in professional sports to help the leagues economies in general and it worked .

Im not talking necessarily about a cap but more about a limit of divergence between the lowest salary of the company with the highest !
That would force the integration of everyone to be part of the same reality of society .
You would stop seeing CEO get all the profits of the company ( even in bad time ) at the expense of the employees when a company makes money ...

There isn’t a cap but it make sure that everyone benefits when the company goes well .
It’s problem that exist in the majority of develop countries .

In Canada in the 70, that ratio was around 40 and today it is over 200 if not 300 !
And of course that creates wealth gap when you don’t implement some kind of ratio like that .
I mean seriously, implementing a ratio like that, you could just eradicated the minimum wage automatically .....

« By comparison, it is estimated that the average CEO was paid about 20 times the typical worker’s pay in the 1950s, with that multiple rising to 42-to-1 in 1980, and to 120-to-1 in 2000"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_ratio

And today the ratio is at near 300 times .
No wonder you only needed 1 person to work to sustain a whole family in the 1950 ....
The profits was share between the management , share holders AND the employees.

Might be why the US were the strongest economies at that time , they were producing massively and every worker had enough money to consume ..

Not without employees working longer hours. It's similar in one way to giving everyone healthcare: the only way is to get doctors, nurses, etc. to work longer hours, given our current stock of doctors, nurses, etc. It's different because we can de-employ workers from producing stuff in another sector and re-employ them in healthcare. But that's merely a zero-sum swap, so it doesn't hold with the economy in total.

Maybe the cost of education discourage at least some kind of minimal % of students , right ?
Personally I would never spend a house on my education .
I would buy the house first 99.9% of the time .

The Bank Bailouts was flat out criminal IMO. The too big to fail argument was complete BS.

It was true the liquidity issue was about to cause an even bigger spiraling crisis and the gov't needed to do something to address it. I do believe that.

However instead of giving the Big Banks the gift of that free money, they should have instead divided that exact same amount of money in the form of Mortgage, Credit Card and other debt credits and given them to every US adult citizen.

That money would then get immediately paid down on the mortgages and other debt but to the Mid Size and small banks all across America. Those are the banks the vast majority bank with and not those Wall Street banks. The big banks then fail but the Mid banks rise. And citizens get some relief allowing many to stay in their homes.

This fixes far more problems and gets rid of certain business group considered 'too big to fail' which is a good thing.

What metric do you use to see the full production capacity of the US ?

I see the capacity utilization rate but that was around 80 pre covid.

But you're implying that a significant number of employers pay their employees more than the minimum required to keep them working.

If that were true that graph wouldn't be widening so much. What am I missing ?

Economic growth.

More to distribute means income gaps and wage gaps can widen simply by that pie being distributed more unevenly than previous shares.

net output per hour/compensation share in income is flat.

I don't know what economic expansion has to do with that but if wages were at all tied to production it wouldn't be the case.

The split that is massive and being exploited and largely represented by that graph is the 'labor' type jobs of the service sector and also many low end factory jobs where no specific skills are needed and employment replacement is easy.

However most of the Knowledge labor market, which includes Management at any company are not working for the minimal pay possible an employer can get away with paying.

What you seem to not understand is that there is a big cost to companies if knowledge workers leave. It can impact productivity and add cost as replacements are identified, hired and trained and then actually start contributing. Thus why most are compensated in some form or way more in line with the companies top line and not just the bottom line.

I would say that you're not understanding that even a well paid employee is paid the minimum the company can get away with.

But whatever. You seem married to the idea that employers are generous with their compensation packages. I don't want to rain on your parade.