Are pensions a burden on the former employer?

DamnYankee said:
Compensation is a burden, deferred or otherwise. You enjoy sitting on your ass being a burden to your former employers.
Click to expand...



He can read minds and knows what you're thinking ladies and gentlemen!

Let's hear it for The Amazing Kreskin!!
 
Last edited:
Threedee said:
Yes it is. Things which could amass great value in the market place 10, 20, 50, 100 years ago don't necessarily have any value today. In many/most cases, none at all.
Click to expand...

That's just talking about the development of technology, not a shift in the structure of a capitalist firm. And it has no effect on the validity of the LTV.
 
DamnYankee said:
Then the employee either takes the $3 or gets a job elsewhere at $5.
Click to expand...

If the employee quits, in a competitive market, chances are very high that they won't find a job with higher pay - also, there's the fact that quitting means an decrease in employment stability, which is carries a huge risk for most people. And in accordance with the LTV, they won't ever be employed at $5.

Not that any of this detracts from the point I was making.
 
Rose Captain said:
If the employee quits, in a competitive market, chances are very high that they won't find a job with higher pay - also, there's the fact that quitting means an decrease in employment stability, which is carries a huge risk for most people. And in accordance with the LTV, they won't ever be employed at $5.

Not that any of this detracts from the point I was making.
Click to expand...
If he's worth $5 then he'll find a job paying exactly that.
 
DamnYankee said:
You must be, like, super smart, because that makes no sense to me whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Look at it like this: How does an employer earn a salary in a productive firm? And were does profit come from?

Well, imagine a process:

1. Raw materials are inputted into a firm.
2. A worker transforms these raw materials into a product.
3. These products are sold.

So how does the employer, who never touches or transforms these raw materials, earn money? Well, he buys the raw materials at the same price as anyone else - he doesn't control the price of them. And he can't sell the product for more than its worth, because he won't be able to compete. So what's left? You guessed it: He has to buy labor for less than it's worth.

-
Side bar: There's often a complex combination of these. The diamond market is a good example, where diamonds are really very cheap, but a monopoly has formed, hiking up the price. And along that line of reasoning, large scale functions of the market can only work when a large sector of the market is preforming them - which, in this case, they are.

Then the first stage of the process also deserves mention. What's important there is that the taking of surplus value (the value above what the employer pays a worker) is also true in the raw material market.

The parts of economics that sound simple very rarely are. So look into this further, and start thinking about these concepts. You'll be glad you did.​
-

Does this make more sense?
 
Rose Captain said:
Look at it like this: How does an employer earn a salary in a productive firm? And were does profit come from?

Well, imagine a process:

1. Raw materials are inputted into a firm.
2. A worker transforms these raw materials into a product.
3. These products are sold.

So how does the employer, who never touches or transforms these raw materials, earn money? Well, he buys the raw materials at the same price as anyone else - he doesn't control the price of them. And he can't sell the product for more than its worth, because he won't be able to compete. So what's left? You guessed it: He has to buy labor for less than it's worth.

-
Side bar: There's often a complex combination of these. The diamond market is a good example, where diamonds are really very cheap, but a monopoly has formed, hiking up the price. And along that line of reasoning, large scale functions of the market can only work when a large sector of the market is preforming them - which, in this case, they are.

Then the first stage of the process also deserves mention. What's important there is that the taking of surplus value (the value above what the employer pays a worker) is also true in the raw material market.

The parts of economics that sound simple very rarely are. So look into this further, and start thinking about these concepts. You'll be glad you did.​
-

Does this make more sense?
Click to expand...

It makes sense if you don't understand capitalism.

The employer takes all the risk. He designs the product with no guarantee of success. He borrows capital and pays interest on it for months or years before he makes his first sale. He has to make critical decisions with respect to factory size and location, and has to bend over to comply with local, state and federal laws put together by bureaucrats that have unlimited time and resources, and no interest in his profitability. He then has to hire people, many times dealing with unions whose only interest is making money off him.

He can't buy labor for less than the market allows. And he has to pay them benefits, insurance, and keep then safe.

After making the product he has to pay to advertise, then sales commisions to keep the stock moving out the door and money coming in to pay his bills. He'll likely work 80-100 hours per week for several years, no vacations for himself or with his family, to avoid bankruptcy.

After all that, he draws his own paycheck.

I've been there, and I've got friends who have been there. Several lost their marriages because of the stress. If these guys make billions I say "good for them".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top