No one is Underpaid

[Vol in Buckeye Land]

1. We have the second highest standard of living in the world. Our poor live better than middle class of Europe. People in this country do provide a great standard of living for themselves and their families. Idk where you’re getting anything that says otherwise. Although I do object to the notion that they should be able to do it by only working 40 hours a week. I would frequently work 96 hours a week in EMS and 60-70 as a teach/coach/small business owner. If you want more, you should expect to work more than 40.

2. It’s obviously true. There’s a massive number of companies needing help. More than anytime in American history. You seem to be ignoring (intentionally I assume) that companies compete for workers. Here’s an honest question for you…what do you think would happen if we changed the minimum wage tomorrow to 0. Would you go to work for $1 tomorrow? Or do you except the fact that your wages are determined by competition for you as an employee?

3. I’m not being cute at all. I’m being honest. Also if we intend on getting anywhere with this debate we need to drop out future replies to 1-2 topics at a time. I’ll gladly come back to anything you wish, but it will go better if we go in more depth on these issues instead of being all over the place

1.
Claim: Our poor live better than the middle class of Europe.
Again you state something as though it’s axiomatic and it absolutely is not. What is your evidence?
Side note, your claim was “No one is underpaid.” Now you’re talking about the U.S. vs Europe. Do you mean no one, or no one in the U.S.?

2.
Companies compete for workers, yes. Does the average person have the skills to get into an industry where competition for workers is great enough to compensate for the profit maximizing incentive to pay as little as possible. I happen to be in a field (tech) with a lot of competition for labor. People in other fields, including those doing the essential labor that society requires to function, still deserve to provide a good standard of living for them/their families.

 

[IluvdoubleD's]

you threw gas on the economy and planned to blame any one else for it later. That's what debt is.

 

[IluvdoubleD's]

 

[Vol in Buckeye Land]

You’re still doing it. You’re trying to talk about 10 different things at once and as a result we get nowhere. I’ll gladly respond to everything you bring up but once again, it’ll help if you can limit the scope.

You falsely claimed earlier that you could raise a family of 5 on minimum wage in the 50s. Now you’re saying it’s only equal to $10 an hour? McDonald’s is paying more than that. So by your own logic McDonald’s is not underpaying people and you can raise a family of 5 (maybe even six since they pay more than $10) off a McDonald’s salary.

The roads of 1921 weren’t nearly as good as today. Nor were the cars. You’re talking about before the interstate and cars that could probably do 15-30mph tops between the poor road conditions, tires, and braking systems. I own a 1931 Model A. It’s an awesome car, but you’ll never see me hit 55mph in it. You have far, far more options than coal miners in 1921 and to even pretend they’re anywhere near equal is insane.

No one forced your mother to accept a pension. She was welcome to invest in her own retirement. Something else that’s easier to do today than ever before. Another reason this is the wealthiest time in American history even though you cling to a weird notion that people were better financially in the 1950s

It’s not incumbent on me to “limit the scope” when you started this argument by making the colossal blanket statement “no one is underpaid.”

 

[IluvdoubleD's]

The dude lives off debt.

 

[Vol in Buckeye Land]

1. It’s absurd and elitist because you’re proclaiming the best job they can get is not good enough by your standard.

2. Your second paragraph makes my point for me. The fact that they can’t quit and find better employment naturally implies they are not underpaid. To be underpaid would mean their current employer undervalues their work. If they are truly undervalued, wouldn’t another business be glad to hire them for more? The idea of underpaid employees is normally based in the idea that companies are evil and greedy. If so, wouldn’t they want to hire all these undervalued people so they can make money off them?

Seriously, if you believe there’s so many underpaid people in America you should start a business. You’d make billions if what you believe is correct. Here’s an example. There’s a false claim that women make .75 to the dollar that a man makes. If you believe that’s true you could start a business only employing women, pay them .80 to the dollar and save 20% over all your completion while offering them a better situation.

3. Firefighting is a great profession. I know multiple firefighters and paramedics making over 100k. I know a lot making 80k. If police officers and teachers don’t like their pay, they’re welcome to do something else.

You’re really asking too many question for me to provide detailed answers to any of them. But if you’d like me to focus in on any one area I gladly will.

For example you’re the first person I’ve heard in probably 5 years who still believes the myth that women are underpaid. It’s an example of a statistical myth from the left and I’d gladly explain why

Re: firefighters and truck drivers you know making 80k+ and 100k+, respectively. How wonderful for firefighters and truck drivers that you know personally! Anecdotal evidence does not disprove the fact that there are people in both professions who are underpaid.

 

[Vol8188]

1.
Claim: Our poor live better than the middle class of Europe.
Again you state something as though it’s axiomatic and it absolutely is not. What is your evidence?
Side note, your claim was “No one is underpaid.” Now you’re talking about the U.S. vs Europe. Do you mean no one, or no one in the U.S.?

2.
Companies compete for workers, yes. Does the average person have the skills to get into an industry where competition for workers is great enough to compensate for the profit maximizing incentive to pay as little as possible. I happen to be in a field (tech) with a lot of competition for labor. People in other fields, including those doing the essential labor that society requires to function, still deserve to provide a good standard of living for them/their families.

1. I bring up the US vs Europe because you specifically mentioned standard of living in your reply and implied that the standard of living is low.

The Poor in the US Are Richer than the Middle Class in Much of Europe | Ryan McMaken

I primarily mean no one in the US. It’s possible to be a Muslim slave in a Chinese internment camp, for example. I can’t proclaim they are not underpaid. No one working by their own free will is underpaid. The fact that they accepted the job means it was their best opportunity. Yet you blame the businesses providing that opportunity.

Of course the average person has the ability to get into an industry that is in high demand. That’s why our country is so wealthy. Truck drivers for example are in high demand. EMTs are in high demand. Plumbers, Welders, mechanics, etc. Where are you getting this false notion that any of those jobs require someone have above average ability?

You keep bringing up standard of living yet you live in one of the wealthiest countries on earth in a time with an insanely high standard of living. I have no clue what you’re complaining about

 

[Vol8188]

The dude lives off debt.

What dude?

 

[Vol in Buckeye Land]

1. I bring up the US vs Europe because you specifically mentioned standard of living in your reply and implied that the standard of living is low.

The Poor in the US Are Richer than the Middle Class in Much of Europe | Ryan McMaken

I primarily mean no one in the US. It’s possible to be a Muslim slave in a Chinese internment camp, for example. I can’t proclaim they are not underpaid. No one working by their own free will is underpaid. The fact that they accepted the job means it was their best opportunity. Yet you blame the businesses providing that opportunity.

Of course the average person has the ability to get into an industry that is in high demand. That’s why our country is so wealthy. Truck drivers for example are in high demand. EMTs are in high demand. Plumbers, Welders, mechanics, etc. Where are you getting this false notion that any of those jobs require someone have above average ability?

If it was easy, more people would get the skills training required and fill those roles, and there wouldn’t be a labor shortage.

 

[Vol8188]

If it was easy, more people would get the skills training required and fill those roles, and there wouldn’t be a labor shortage.

You mean jobs pay based on difficulty? Idk why you think that’s a problem. Some jobs are harder than others. Those typically pay better. That sounds like a functioning system to me.

What’s the issue?

 

[AshG]

 

[Vol8188]

Re: firefighters and truck drivers you know making 80k+ and 100k+, respectively. How wonderful for firefighters and truck drivers that you know personally! Anecdotal evidence does not disprove the fact that there are people in both professions who are underpaid.

The average hourly salary for a firefighter is $25 an hour. Firefighters don’t work 40 hour weeks. They work 50-60 hour weeks typically depending on where they work. When you factor the overtime in, you end up with a number of around 80k. When I worked EMS it wasn’t uncommon for me to work 96 in a week. Many of my friends would do the same. They’d work 2 days a week on a fire truck and 2 on an ambulance and end up with 96 hours.

Firefighters are not underpaid.

 

[Vol in Buckeye Land]

You mean jobs pay based on difficulty? Idk why you think that’s a problem. Some jobs are harder than others. Those typically pay better. That sounds like a functioning system to me.

What’s the issue?

I was using your logic.

 

[Vol8188]

I was using your logic.

But you’re not. My logic is simple. You can’t claim the companies are the bad guys, if they’re offering you your best opportunity. It’s an entitled view.

Why is it bad to offer someone their best opportunity?

 

[Vol in Buckeye Land]

But you’re not. My logic is simple. You can’t claim the companies are the bad guys, if they’re offering you your best opportunity. It’s an entitled view.

Why is it bad to offer someone their best opportunity?

That logic is flawed. Let’s make it super elemental:

I run a ditch digging business in a small village. So does my neighbor, Tom. Tom and I don’t do the digging ourselves; we own the only two shovels in town (means of production). We both get paid $5 to for a ditch. Tom pays 50 cents a ditch to anyone he hires. I pay 75 cents. I offer workers a better opportunity, sure. Does the fact that Tom is even cheaper than I am make me justified in paying someone such a tiny fraction of the value of their labor? No.

Entitlement has nothing to do with it. Workers produce a certain amount of value in any given business. Paying them what they are “worth” is not as subjective as you are trying to argue.

It seems like we fundamentally disagree on this, and further debate will not be productive. Also, you kinda insulted my Mom, and that pisses me off. Bye.

 

[Vol8188]

That logic is flawed. Let’s make it super elemental:

I run a ditch digging business in a small village. So does my neighbor, Tom. Tom and I don’t do the digging ourselves; we own the only two shovels in town (means of production). We both get paid $5 to for a ditch. Tom pays 50 cents a ditch to anyone he hires. I pay 75 cents. I offer workers a better opportunity, sure. Does the fact that Tom is even cheaper than I am make me justified in paying someone such a tiny fraction of the value of their labor? No.

Entitlement has nothing to do with it. Workers produce a certain amount of value in any given business. Paying them what they are “worth” is not as subjective as you are trying to argue.

It seems like we fundamentally disagree on this, and further debate will not be productive. Also, you kinda insulted my Mom, and that pisses me off. Bye.

This is interesting. What fraction of your labor do you believe you should earn?

You brought your mother into this, not me. You thought her pension plan going under would be some kind of trump card. If you don’t want your feelings hurt, don’t attempt to use loved ones to win ideological arguments.

Edit: The reason it’s interesting is you are basically quoting Marx. When Marx was alive times were much harder. Neomarxists now openly admit capitalism has succeeded. That’s why cultural Marxism exists. I can quote them directly on these things if you’d like, but the basic idea is the success of capitalism prevented their Marxist revolution. So in order to gain approval for a revolution they would change their criteria from rich vs poor and a revolution of the poor, to a revolution of those not included in mainstream culture

 

[1world1love]

I apologize for the delay. Had to feed the kids dinner. Thank you for your response, I appreciate your time.

I am not sure I follow point 1. This is a rhetorical fallacy. There are many people that could get better jobs than the one they have, but that has nothing at all to do with whether they are underpaid for what they currently do. It It is a strawman.

On point 2, again, most teachers and police officers are overqualified for those roles and could certainly find better paying jobs. They choose not to for many reasons, and thank goodness for that.

I am a little confused about your suggestion to start a business to hire underpaid people. What does "If you believe there's so many underpaid people you should start a business and hire them" even mean? What are you actually trying to say when you say that? It is a very odd strawman.

Women are most certainly paid less than men in almost every profession - Employment and Earnings by Occupation | U.S. Department of Labor - if you have actual, reliable data backing up your claim otherwise, I am all ears. The data I am looking at come from actual payrolls, not from a news source or talk radio show. The actual payroll data for the United States of America shows that women get paid less than men. You can download the data and analyze it with your method of choice and to whatever granularity you would like. There is no scenario where the data does not show that women are paid less than men for the same job. This actually isn't even controversial by any measure.

The fact that you have not met anybody in five years that believes that women are paid less than men is an effect of confirmation bias. It is quite common. I would recommend actually doing some analysis on your own and seeing what you come up with. It is very interesting.

Finally, I am neither left, nor right. I fall into the unfortunate majority for which no party represents my interests or beliefs. I would be glad for you to explain to me how the fact that women are underpaid is a myth. But in order to do so, I will need to see actual data and the source code used to analyze it. Or I will need to see a primary reference, including data sources and source code. And please don't take offense. I don't generally believe anything anybody says without verifying myself. Call me cynical. On that note, I am very happy to have an open dialog on this subject, but I am not likely to respond to more rhetorical fallacies.

I am also fine if you would like to agree to disagree. The great thing about this forum is that there are many people from many backgrounds and viewpoints. People are not always going to agree. And thank goodness for that. What a boring world that would be.

Thanks again for your time.

 

[C-south]

1. This is not some superficial value judgment about someone’s job. No one is objecting to the aesthetics of being a cashier or something. “Your standard” the standard is that the average person should be able to live and provide a reasonable standard of living for themself and their family working a 40 hour a week job. It’s far less subjective than you’re pretending it is.

2. You keep making this argument as though it’s an obvious truism. It isn’t. You also act like there are an abundance of companies who are willing to pay more for x job. Newsflash: the vast majority of companies exist to maximize profit. How do you do that? You pay workers less. How much less? As little as you can possibly get away with. Saying “oh those workers should go elsewhere” doesn’t work when the prime directive for literally every publicly traded company is to maximize profits.

3. You think you’re being cute, but you’re not. This is not a cogent argument; it’s the equivalent of waggling your tongue at us.

Get 2 cashier jobs and work 80 hours a week. Jobs that require virtually no skill pay a lot less. If there weren’t people that have low work skills to fill them for less money then they’d pay more just like some of the fast food restaurants are doing. While I agree there are issues in the system it isn’t that cashiers working 40 hours a week aren’t able to afford a nice home, car, etc.

 

[Vol in Buckeye Land]

This is interesting. What fraction of your labor do you believe you should earn?

You brought your mother into this, not me. You thought her pension planning going under would be some kind of trump card. If you don’t want your feelings hurt, don’t attempt to use loved ones to win ideological arguments.

I led with emotion, sure. It’s an example of corporate corruption that’s close to home. Your apparent insistence that everything is reducible to personal responsibility is absurd, particularly when it absolves business entities of their responsibility to pay out retirement funds that employees paid into. Why is my mother (or someone in a similar situation) somehow responsible for knowing her company would go bankrupt a quarter century before it happened, but the company is not responsible for honoring its obligations?

You seem to implicitly assume that you live in a just world , and reason backward from that. If people are unsatisfied, it’s their own fault, because the world is fundamentally just.

 

[Vol8188]

I apologize for the delay. Had to feed the kids dinner. Thank you for your response, I appreciate your time.

I am not sure I follow point 1. This is a rhetorical fallacy. There are many people that could get better jobs than the one they have, but that has nothing at all to do with whether they are underpaid for what they currently do. It It is a strawman.

On point 2, again, most teachers and police officers are overqualified for those roles and could certainly find better paying jobs. They choose not to for many reasons, and thank goodness for that.

I am a little confused about your suggestion to start a business to hire underpaid people. What does "If you believe there's so many underpaid people you should start a business and hire them" even mean? What are you actually trying to say when you say that? It is a very odd strawman.

Women are most certainly paid less than men in almost every profession - Employment and Earnings by Occupation | U.S. Department of Labor - if you have actual, reliable data backing up your claim otherwise, I am all ears. The data I am looking at come from actual payrolls, not from a news source or talk radio show. The actual payroll data for the United States of America shows that women get paid less than men. You can download the data and analyze it with your method of choice and to whatever granularity you would like. There is no scenario where the data does not show that women are paid less than men for the same job. This actually isn't even controversial by any measure.

The fact that you have not met anybody in five years that believes that women are paid less than men is an effect of confirmation bias. It is quite common. I would recommend actually doing some analysis on your own and seeing what you come up with. It is very interesting.

Finally, I am neither left, nor right. I fall into the unfortunate majority for which no party represents my interests or beliefs. I would be glad for you to explain to me how the fact that women are underpaid is a myth. But in order to do so, I will need to see actual data and the source code used to analyze it. Or I will need to see a primary reference, including data sources and source code. And please don't take offense. I don't generally believe anything anybody says without verifying myself. Call me cynical. On that note, I am very happy to have an open dialog on this subject, but I am not likely to respond to more rhetorical fallacies.

I am also fine if you would like to agree to disagree. The great thing about this forum is that there are many people from many backgrounds and viewpoints. People are not always going to agree. And thank goodness for that. What a boring world that would be.

Thanks again for your time.

1. If they could get better jobs, then idk what the problem is. You’re claiming they decided to work at a job that you personally consider underpaid? Then why’s that a problem if you believe they have other options but don’t pick those options? I’m not following.

2. agree to disagree

3. Not a strawman at all. If what you’re claiming is true, then you’ve found a source of tremendous economic value. Let’s pretend women really do only make 75 cents to the dollar. If so, you could hire nothing but women, pay them 80 cents to the dollar and still have a 20% advantage over a company primarily hiring men.

I’m not sure what in any of my replies you consider to be a rhetorical fallacy but I’d gladly address those too

It is interesting you claim you don’t believe anything without verifying yourself but you also stated a well known economic fallacy that women make less than men. So did you verify that claim?

Once you adjust for fact that men work more hours, more overtime, and you adjust for equal work experience you find there is no gap. Now the median income for a woman in general is lower than the median income for a man in general. But not in the same field with the same level of experience. In fact women make up the majority of high paying jobs outside of tech, engineering, and trades

https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/public-policy/hr-public-policy-issues/Documents/Gender Wage Gap Final Report.pdf

 

[Vol8188]

I led with emotion, sure. It’s an example of corporate corruption that’s close to home. Your apparent insistence that everything is reducible to personal responsibility is absurd, particularly when it absolves business entities of their responsibility to pay out retirement funds that employees paid into. Why is my mother (or someone in a similar situation) somehow responsible for knowing her company would go bankrupt a quarter century before it happened, but the company is not responsible for honoring its obligations?

You seem to implicitly assume that you live in a just world , and reason backward from that. If people are unsatisfied, it’s their own fault, because the world is fundamentally just.

How can a company honor its obligations with money that doesn’t exist? The issue with pensions is one your mother learned the hard way. Your live is already insanely invested in your profession. The worst thing you can do is double down through a pension plan of company stock option.

Obviously no one knows which companies will make it and which will go under. That’s pension plans and stock options are terrible moves.

How is it fundamentally unjust? I can give you plenty of examples of how our system is just. Granted no system is ever perfect, but to claim it’s unjust to allow people to work for a wage that isn’t high enough to make you happy seems to be a bit absurd. What specifically about the salary of any person in this country is unjust?

What’s unjust about your mother’s situation? Should the company pay her money they don’t have?

If your mother went bankrupt would you be as upset with her not paying the companies she owed as you are with the company for not paying her?

 

[Vol8188]

I led with emotion, sure. It’s an example of corporate corruption that’s close to home. Your apparent insistence that everything is reducible to personal responsibility is absurd, particularly when it absolves business entities of their responsibility to pay out retirement funds that employees paid into. Why is my mother (or someone in a similar situation) somehow responsible for knowing her company would go bankrupt a quarter century before it happened, but the company is not responsible for honoring its obligations?

You seem to implicitly assume that you live in a just world , and reason backward from that. If people are unsatisfied, it’s their own fault, because the world is fundamentally just.

I’m curious, do you believe people’s employers are offering the employees their best opportunity?

If not, why do they work their?

 

[Vol in Buckeye Land]

How can a company honor its obligations with money that doesn’t exist? The issue with pensions is one your mother learned the hard way. Your live is already insanely invested in your profession. The worst thing you can do is double down through a pension plan of company stock option.

Obviously no one knows which companies will make it and which will go under. That’s pension plans and stock options are terrible moves.

How is it fundamentally unjust? I can give you plenty of examples of how our system is just. Granted no system is ever perfect, but to claim it’s unjust to allow people to work for a wage that isn’t high enough to make you happy seems to be a bit absurd. What specifically about the salary of any person in this country is unjust?

What’s unjust about your mother’s situation? Should the company pay her money they don’t have?

If your mother went bankrupt would you be as upset with her not paying the companies she owed as you are with the company for not paying her?

That would be a compelling argument if bankruptcy literally meant “empty coffers.” All it means is that there is a limited reserve of cash from which to fulfill obligations. I think it’s unjust that employees are at the back of the line while executives routinely walk away from bankruptcies unscathed.

How is what unjust? A wage high enough to make who happy?
I’m still not sure what your basic argument is other than “people can’t be underpaid because then they would get better jobs.” You haven’t provided any support for that argument, so I assume it’s based on an a priori belief that the world is just.

 

[Vol in Buckeye Land]

I’m curious, do you believe people’s employers are offering the employees their best opportunity?

If not, why do they work their?

It’s your responsibility to support your assertion that someone’s current job is their best possible opportunity, not mine to disprove it.

 

[Vol8188]

It’s your responsibility to support your assertion that someone’s current job is their best possible opportunity, not mine to disprove it.

The fact that they work there is the proof. If they did not believe it to be their best opportunity, why else would they be there?