How far?

Page 3 of 4  
George responds:

I dunno. Maybe one of those families without a living wage should pop up a person who can teach physics while raising kids and writing several textbooks. If you do the job, you should get the pay, regardless. If you're wealthy enough to give all or some back, then that is your decision to do make, not your employer's. It does not seem they're hiring others for the job, just underpaying those they do hire for reasons that have no relevancy to the job or the quality of work done.
When I was starting out, my first wife made considerably more money than I did. If a magazine editor had suggested paying me a lower fee because she made enough money to support us, I'd have pulled my article and sold it elsewhere.
Charlie Self "Democracy is a process by which people are free to choose the man who will get the blame." Laurence J. Peter
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Careful. Next you'll be saying the "rich" have a right to their earnings rather than an obligation to return them to society!

enough
job or

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
George responds:

Sorry, George, but getting paid what a job is worth is a liberal idea.
Too often, the rich want you to work for zip, for the privilige of kissing the hems of their money bags.
Charlie Self "Give me golf clubs, fresh air and a beautiful partner, and you can keep the clubs and the fresh air." Jack Benny
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Yeah, sure. And the party decides what the job is worth?
Sorry.

the
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
George states in response:

Where did you read that? Not in anything I wrote. The job market decides the wage, as it should, but getting equal pay for equal work is sensible, regardless of who, or what, determines the wage. To me, if a woman can do the work, it is senseless to pay her less because she's married, but that has been, and still sometimes is, a reasonably consistent policy of employers since the Industrial Age began.
Are you saying that because someone has another wage earner in the house, they should get less than the single person for doing exactly the same work at the same level and doing it just as well?
Charlie Self "Give me golf clubs, fresh air and a beautiful partner, and you can keep the clubs and the fresh air." Jack Benny
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Charlie Self wrote:

Equal pay for equal work was never part of the Industrial age. One standard even upto the 1950's and still espoused by many is pay based on need. Statements such as, "That man needs a good paying job to support his family, so Miss go somewhere else to find a job or GET MARRIED" were common especially in any union workshop. The same applied to kids who often did more work that the adults.
Pay was often based on race, sex, age, education, appearance, religion and other factors unrelated to the actual amount of quality of work done. Equal pay for equal work may be a goal, but even now it is not universal even in highly industrialized nations.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
George Cawthorn responds:

Reminds me of my first days in a machine shop, back in '57.
I know that equal pay doesn't exist. It is said to, and in some jobs, it is required, but...

Unfortunately. And we get some strange results when laws substitute for sense in the marketplace, with incompetents protected because they are the only ones in a category getting equal pay, thus serve as shining examples of a company's attention to fairness in employment.
Charlie Self "Give me golf clubs, fresh air and a beautiful partner, and you can keep the clubs and the fresh air." Jack Benny
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Why, it's word for word what you wrote, Charlie. I used it to point out that what the job is worth, is an arbitrary decision taken by the government in socialist states, the party in communist, or the unions in closed shops, and does not necessarily equate to what the laborer is worth. It is a straw woman to bring the "equivalent wage" and feminist rhetoric into the discussion.
The laborer has a skill set which s/he brings to the workplace. If the set is complicated, _and_ rare in the population, it is sound economics to compensate them at a higher rate of pay. If they move to another "job" in the same firm, are you saying they should be compensated differently? Economics would agree, but try to impose a pay cut, or even a pay freeze and see what happens.
More important than the skill set, which is sometimes learned on the job itself, is the work ethic of the individual, yet this often cannot be rewarded, paradoxically, because it is against the law. If , for example, 30 sick days a year are allowed, there are those who assume that these days are their right, not a privilege. They cost the enterprise a good deal more than others doing the same job. If a twenty minute break three times a day is authorized, there are those who take twenty minutes of transit time to get to the lunchroom rather than carry their thermos (used to frost me), or walk off based on the clock, not on the task. They cost the enterprise in the loss of their time, and often the loss of productivity in others.
So, it's not what the "job" is worth, but what the _individual_ is worth which counts. A company progresses by figuring this out, while to a union, it is anathema.
Obviously I was mocking the idea that everyone needs a "living wage" in Marxist terms. I thought even you would realize that. It's basic leftie dogma that no one needs more than some arbitrary "living" amount, therefore, they should return their ill-gotten gains to the state for redistribution. "From each ...."

the
the
been,
the
they
the
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
George responds:

Bullshit. I never used the word "party" and, though I know it roughens your intellectual picture of yourself, what YOU point out is NOT what I say.
You'd have had a blast working for the railroads in the '90s--the 1890s.
Charlie Self "Give me golf clubs, fresh air and a beautiful partner, and you can keep the clubs and the fresh air." Jack Benny
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Charlie Self wrote:

So what happened to "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"?

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That idea has been relegated to the dustbin of history since, oh, about 1991 or so.
scott
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Scott Lurndal responds:

And it also is not a liberal idea. It is socialist, and the neocons have done a better than fair job of confusing themselves about the differences.
Charlie Self "Give me golf clubs, fresh air and a beautiful partner, and you can keep the clubs and the fresh air." Jack Benny
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 02 Aug 2004 23:47:45 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@aol.comnotforme (Charlie Self) wrote:

I would say that the "progressive" wing of a certain party has done an even better job of associating its policies and rhetoric with those ideas. Your so-called "neo-cons" are simply pointing out that fact.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Charlie Self wrote:

I see. So liberalism has repudiated socialism? When did that happen?

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Charlie a LOT of that went on was also based on the petty envy of men, as in "she's no longer available so we'll hire another single gal". These days it's not as bad.
Alex
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

..and to think we owe it all to Richard Milhous Nixon....
Larry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Suuuuuure we do. That's funny.
Wayne
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
NoOne N Particular wrote:

That was one of the signature accomplishments of the Nixon administration. He was instrumental in renewing political and trade relations with the People's Republic of China.     mahalo,     jo4hn
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

in
True that he unlocked the door. His goal was to have a new market for us to sell our goods. He isn't the one that started the industrialization of China and all of the transfer of technology that has taken place.
Wayne
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I would rather use harbour freight's chinese bar clamps than sears's plastic handled ones... a lot of good basic iron like that comes from China. I just ordered ten 1/2" pipe clamps, after sampling ones from an instore purchase, $2.99 ea. and work great! It is a better deal than 14.99 ea. pony ones made in the US!
Alex
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.