Basically your complaint rests on me having used the word "productivity" as a short-hand for everything that's involved in deciding a salary. In other words, you don't really have a case.
Labor has become more efficient and profitable, but employees aren't sharing in the benefits.
See what he did there? Right away he sets up an image of employees "deserving" to "share in the benefits". The article is meant to get people to think that more government intervention is needed, when in reality, the exact opposite is true. As always.
I could expend a lot of effort on unpacking even the idea of "labour" becoming more "efficient and profitable", but.. I don't think it's worth it now. But for starters, if you become more efficient, does that mean you're worth more to your employer? -If so, wouldn't you get a higher salary too? Is the increase in efficiency your achievement, or did the business owner just invest in more efficient machinery or tools? Do you deserve a raise for using more efficient tools?
When manufacturing costs decrease, the products usually get cheaper. But then there's no money left over for "sharing" with employees, and besides, why would the business share the savings instead of investing them somehow, or even just the owner grabbing the money for himself? It's his business, after all.
Basically your complaint rests on me having used the word "productivity" as a short-hand for everything that's involved in deciding a salary.
Yes. The statement "the thing is, generally people get paid what their productivity is worth." is not true. And since that's the starting point of your argument, it makes the rest meaningless.
Dude. My specific choice of words there does not matter. As I said above, it stood for everything that's involved in deciding a salary. Feel free to connect some dots for yourself.
It's kind of sad that your comment is at +5. Lots of people are in denial. They want the economy to deteriorate further!
Basically your complaint rests on me having used the word "productivity" as a short-hand for everything that's involved in deciding a salary. In other words, you don't really have a case.
See what he did there? Right away he sets up an image of employees "deserving" to "share in the benefits". The article is meant to get people to think that more government intervention is needed, when in reality, the exact opposite is true. As always.
I could expend a lot of effort on unpacking even the idea of "labour" becoming more "efficient and profitable", but.. I don't think it's worth it now. But for starters, if you become more efficient, does that mean you're worth more to your employer? -If so, wouldn't you get a higher salary too? Is the increase in efficiency your achievement, or did the business owner just invest in more efficient machinery or tools? Do you deserve a raise for using more efficient tools?
When manufacturing costs decrease, the products usually get cheaper. But then there's no money left over for "sharing" with employees, and besides, why would the business share the savings instead of investing them somehow, or even just the owner grabbing the money for himself? It's his business, after all.
Yes. The statement "the thing is, generally people get paid what their productivity is worth." is not true. And since that's the starting point of your argument, it makes the rest meaningless.
Dude. My specific choice of words there does not matter. As I said above, it stood for everything that's involved in deciding a salary. Feel free to connect some dots for yourself.
It's kind of sad that your comment is at +5. Lots of people are in denial. They want the economy to deteriorate further!