RE: Daily Discussion No. 3: Working and Wages - Minimum, Maximum, Fair - What IS "Fair?"
i think there's a lot of people out there with old school ideas who believe that you should be prepared for hard times, the "lifes not fair so plan ahead".
yet jobs used to have a lot more security 50 years ago, and one salary paid for the needs of a family. now unless the worker can afford a college education or is particularly ingenious, one salary will barely cover basic needs.
the issue with corporations is that they have all the power. the terms are theirs to dictate because rich people got together to change laws that favored business owners. we all need food housing etc. we cant afford to be picky about where and how we work for wages, and we arent allowed to barter about terms unless we are extremely skilled. the company is allowed to end work at will in some places.
the issue here is that work is not an even exchange, because our input is devalued. if you have a product and you add up all the components that went into that product, the company does not consider workers as an equal partner, if you create the product it then becomes the companies property. if you modify or improve it, same. if the products value grows, do workers share in the increased value? no. who does? business owners and investors.
money is more important then labor. and we have no way to change that equation with the current political system where money buys power. we cant stop working, hence we are slaves in the equation, with more and more costs being added to the pile of our responsibilities. taxes, health care, schooling.
a fair wage is where one third to one half of your monthly hours should cover the cost of housing your family within a half hour commute from your job. fair would be that all workers share in the companies profits. now I know there is no such thing as fair. but in my mind businesses by far have way too much power in the equation, and it needs to be addressed.
I think part of the issue we face is that we have given corporations "independent status," which means they no longer serve those who created the company... they serve themselves. The mission is no longer to "produce the best and most innovative product," the mission is to make money. And often that is done at "human cost." I saw that firsthand, working at a Fortune 500 company where "making the quarterly numbers" took precedence over all else.
So what is "wrong" with that? The issue is that the focus becomes more on keeping investors happy than on keeping customer/consumers happy. Investors are the primaries, customers are the secondary. Under such a system, the human factor is dispensable.
agreed.