It matters because there are strong negative correlations between income disparity and various measures of societal health, such as life expectancy, infant mortality, social mobility, and others. Here’s a summaryof some of these correlations.
Part of our current economic problem is an enormous amount of money has been removed from the economy in the form of personal wealth and is not circulating back through the economy. The wealthy have revised the tax codes so that it no longer serves this purpose effectively. They don’t exhibit the sense of social obligation shown by earlier generations of tycoons. So, the problem is not really wealth, it is greed.
But the difference between a “good” janitor and a “bad” janitor is non-existent. Sure, there are people who will show up drunk or miss work constantly, but all you need is someone who can put a mop in a bucket and swirl it around the floor. Once you find someone who can do that, there’s no need to improve upon it.
The guy with extra dedication to the job who waxes to a shine the underside of the urinal doesn’t add value to the company.
It has to be recognized that some jobs are like cogs in a wheel and have no special bargaining power or ability to advance through harder work. Ideally, those jobs would be performed by 16 year olds who are earning date money for the weekend while moving up to real careers that can pay the bills later on in life.
The 52 year old janitor is being lied to if he things that some magic law will give him a great wage.
There is no activity, even a janitor, that cannot be executed with varying degrees of excellence. What the difference between “poor” and “excellent” performance is worth varies with the circumstance. But you don’t think that maybe the janitorial organization may grow and need supervisors? Wouldn’t the logical place to find supervisors be from among the existing janitors who have exhibited responsibility and initiative?
Also, I resist this notion that humans should rightly be regarded as “cogs in a wheel”, even if that is commonly done. That’s part of the problem with things the way they are. People aren’t people, they are “resources” and are viewed purely in economic terms. My underlying premise here is that some of the business behavior that has become common because it is “good for business” is turning out to be bad for society as a whole. This is leading back to a feudal-type society with two classes: land owners and serfs.
I disagree. Let’s quit picking on janitors and use a different example. A person has a job to attach a component to the side of a widget by attaching two Phillips head screws. That’s it. You can’t be “good” or “excellent” at that job. You either do it or you don’t.
I don’t thing that humans in general are cogs in a wheel; just from an economic perspective. A janitor or widget installer that lives next to me is my equal in every way. He is entitled to respect, basic human rights, and God loves him. But when it comes to another individual paying him money, he becomes part of the balance sheet. Everyone in private industry is part of the balance sheet.
Yeah, everyone here knows that correlation is not causation.
That does not mean that correlations have no value.
They are useful for identifying things that may warrant further investigation.
And, effectively, the rich might as well keep their money in mattresses, if they aren’t putting back into the economy (instead of offshore tax havens, etc.).
It doesn’t matter what example you choose. Your argument is that there are some jobs that don’t deserve to participate in the profits of the company because they didn’t contribute to those profits. I disagree.
WalMart famously pays its workers poverty-level wages and encourages them to apply for government benefits to make up the difference. Each of the WalMart heirs is a multi-billionaire. They do this because they can. It certainly isn’t ethical. But ethics no longer seem to have a place in business.
What happens when the company has a loss? Do these people participate in the loss, or only the profit?
Why isn’t it ethical? If we, as a society, think people should be given money beyond what the job they are doing is worth, then we, as a society, should pay for it.
I don’t agree that the proper role of government is to regulate this particular aspect of society as a whole. That is, even assuming that society might be made better by some controls inn this area, it would be made far worse by conceding to the government power in this area.
It’s a notion that eviscerates our concept of freedom, and for this reason I doubt seriously it will gain any traction except amiong those on the far left, who seek a society along the lines of an ant colony, with individuals laboring only for the good of the whole with not a thought or desire about personal betterment.
If there is a portion of their compensation that is tied to profits, then that portion would fluctuate just like it does for everyone else participating in a profit sharing plan.
As for the second part of your reply, it makes no sense to me. I have no idea what you are saying.
But you are proposing that every employee always deserves a share of the profits. My question is do they always share in a loss, too?
First, I asked a question, so let’s start with that. Why is it unethical? Once we determine that, then we can move on to the second part.
I agree, but why on earth did you have to add that last part about the ant colony? If someone proposes a 100x differential in pay between top and bottom, surely there is room for personal betterment, no? No one in this thread is arguing for compete equality of pay.
But that still leaves the question: Of what value is forcing them to outsource the janitorial duties? You are essentially saying nothing at all here. You say this:
But you are not actually saying that. You are actually saying that they cannot insource it again, ever, because you’ve already priced janitors at $1 million. How could they insource that again? You are arguing an untenable position.
I’m saying they are free to make staffing decisions as they see fit. What’s so hard to understand about that? If it’s always cheaper to outsource, they will continue to outsource. What’s the problem?
Really, I’m not kidding. You’ve lost me. I don’t know why that quote from Bricker is inserted. I don’t know what you mean about bringing up an “ant colony”. If you want to back up a step or two so I can follow you, I’d be glad to respond.
Dude, have you never seen someone respond to 2 different posts? Look at my post again. As soon as it says “Originally posted by Bricker”, then I’m responding to Bricker, not you. His post is only 2 posts up from mine (post #70).
Here’s my post without the response to Bricker:
Well, yeah. That’s a tautology.
But you are proposing that every employee always deserves a share of the profits. My question is do they always share in a loss, too?
First, I asked a question, so let’s start with that. Why is it unethical? Once we determine that, then we can move on to the second part.
The formatting of the response didn’t distinguish your reply to Bricker from your current response to me. I’m glad you cleared that up.
Still, your first question makes no sense. If I participate in some kind of profit sharing plan, when there are no profits there is nothing to share. I don’t know of any plan like that which takes money back from employees when there is a loss. Do you know of such a plan?
As for why I consider it unethical for a company with enough profits to produce several multi-billionaires to not provide non-poverty level pay and normal benefits, well I guess I’m just strange that way.
Perhaps there is something wrong with your screen because on mine it clearly says “Originally posted by Bricker”.
It doesn’t have to take money back, it just has to reduce the pay. In that case, someone might make less than MW if the company is losing money. IOW, we change the MW to something like $4 and make the rest profit sharing.
That’s simply an admission that you can’t support your assertions.