pull down to refresh
29 sats \ 1 reply \ @LOSTandUNFOUNDS 13 Aug \ on: Why Do We Work? econ
I disagree with socialist on their assessment. The economy, isn’t oppressive, simply because labor cannot be adequately compensated. In most cases, labor can be adequately compensated, but in most cases, the profits are disproportionately split between employers and workers.
Most of the time, we are working for people who pay flat rates or salary’s. This is where a bulk of the exploitation happens. We want to keep our jobs, and generally in order to do that, we have to do things that were not in our job description when we were hired.
Some days the worker can be “over-paid” if there isn’t much work to be done. They can just pass time, get their hours done, and go home.
Other times they are bringing home the “honest check”, where the workload matches the pay and job description.
But when you get into peak seasons and hours, many of us are forced to wear several hats to keep the business functioning. This is where we get screwed the most.
The only environment where a worker has a choice, is an environment where said worker is paid a percentage based on performance. Most people opt out of these environments because pay can be inconsistent. Stack that with inflation which makes it impossible to save money for slower times of growth.
Most employer try to keep their labor budget at about 30% and use about 20% of their budget for advertising. They could make a choice to cut their advertising budget, and opt to pay individuals 50% of profits, but they don’t.
I believe that workers equally share some of the blame, because they opt for “security and stability”, even if they feel their skills and energy are being exploited. They accept low paying jobs instead of working in an environment that pays them based on their productivity.
People are afraid to take risks, and adverse to learning to increase their ability to earn more.
If the free market was based solely on percentages, with flat-rate wages eliminated, I think it would be healthier for a capitalist market. I also think it would be considerably healthier for the worker as well.
I think more people would choose jobs they like, boosting productivity in companies focused on quality products and knowledgeable workers. Strong cultures would thrive in this environment.
All it takes is one unselfish business owner to create a culture like this. Without us, these companies would have no sales. Most people are the only representatives of these companies that consumers know, doing all the work to create the sale, while the owners are never seen or heard from.
50/50 should be the way.
That's a great nuanced answer. I urge against thinking of it as "blaming" workers, though. It's just a human tendency to be risk-averse and prefer stable income. That means the owners have to eat the volatility, which they aren't going to do for free.
There are also lots of labor costs that owners have to absorb, because of regulations. To an owner, that's effectively part of the workers' pay, whereas workers may not value those amenities at what they cost. That's one of the many ways the government exacerbates owner-worker relations.
reply