User Controls
The Inefficiencies Of The Hourly Wage System
-
2024-12-29 at 2:42 PM UTC
Originally posted by Michael Myers Only problem is they only hire you if you have work experience or university degrees and I have neither.
You might have to swallow your pride and try to get a shitty little job in like fast food or a factory or something. Unfortunately you can't always find jobs you like but this way you can have something to show you have work experience. If you don't like it just keep going while you put in other applications.
I remember when jobs weren't shit to find, back in the day I've quit a shitty job and went and got another job that same day. Things definitely ain't the same lol.
Best wishes to the job search -
2024-12-29 at 3:34 PM UTCIf you raise the wages, they just raise the prices. If you tax the employers more, they just raise the prices more. No matter how you slice it, your prices will increase. That's why government has no business sticking its long nose into private commerce.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2024-12-29 at 4:26 PM UTC
Originally posted by Kingoftoes I made a point earlier in the thread that these things are a temporary solution to the lack of overall higher wages, simultaneously the money provided by bonuses is lacking, while compensation is only paid out in certain scenarios that are not contingent on worker productivity.
So I’m kinda of of two minds here. In my personal experience, I see a lot of talent lost because internal advancement is limited and hopping jobs is more lucrative. But my industry is kinda weird. And on the other hand I still see people busting their humps for disproportionate potential comp. Maybe the logic is comp or no, you still want a good recommendation for you next gig. In any case, the system seems to work fairly well for reasonably well paid labor at least in terms of extracting effort from a labor force.Corporations are no different, except in that they can get away with more poor business practices because they can be approaching impervious to public dissent. Independent contractors are not quite so.
If you are a highly skilled and efficient salary worker, perhaps it is possible for you to work 30 hours a week for a salary. It may be OK for the employee, but it is still an inefficient wage structure, it attempts to bind the behavior of man to that of a clock, which is as previously stated not conducive to any sort of minimization of economic inefficiencies.
How does salary bind anyone to a clock? How is it inefficient? It may not extract as much labor from the worker as possible but that’s volume, not efficiency. The fact that a salaried employee might work less than a 40 hour week is actually a demonstration of time efficiency, no more time is spent than is necessary to fulfill the need for labor. The market can set a price salary labor as well as contract labor. -
2024-12-29 at 4:32 PM UTCThen again, the New World Order globalists and their mindless lackeys know full well what happens when government interferes in private commerce. That's why they do it. They are intentionally doing it, knowing full well what the outcome will be. Their single-minded goal is to destroy societies worldwide from within, kill off the majority of the population, and surround those left with tyrannical control. They have several clandestine methods to accomplish this, and every single one is "for the greater good". True evil never comes in under its own face, it comes in under the noble banners of justice, truth, fairness, equality, diversity, peace, and love, and there's more than enough complete and utter imbeciles out there who will buy into it.
-
2024-12-29 at 4:39 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny How does salary bind anyone to a clock? How is it inefficient? It may not extract as much labor from the worker as possible but that’s volume, not efficiency. The fact that a salaried employee might work less than a 40 hour week is actually a demonstration of time efficiency, no more time is spent than is necessary to fulfill the need for labor. The market can set a price salary labor as well as contract labor.
My point was not that tearing down salary pay would help corporations squeeze more labor out of it's workers, my point was that tearing down salary would make for a more efficient wage system because salary pay is not directly contingent on output, instead it depends on the passage of time itself, not even the amount of time that is spent working. -
2024-12-29 at 5:36 PM UTC
Originally posted by Kingoftoes My point was not that tearing down salary pay would help corporations squeeze more labor out of it's workers, my point was that tearing down salary would make for a more efficient wage system because salary pay is not directly contingent on output, instead it depends on the passage of time itself, not even the amount of time that is spent working.
Hmm I guess to back up for a second, what do you mean by efficient? A process can only be efficient with respect to some input resource relative to the output of the process, and often one sort of efficiency is traded for another (eg riding a bike is money and energy efficient relative to a car, but time inefficient). So when you say salary is inefficient relative to contract labor, inefficient with respect to what? Capital? Time? Human suffering?
It is true that salary is not directly tied to work output, but this is generally a feature rather than a bug. To effectively contract out work you need a fairly precise definition of the work product, and a comprehensive rubric of what a satisfactory quality of work is. Take construction for example where contracting is the default mode: there is an elaborate and expensive process of specification in design and Byzantine system of codes and inspection for QA. This makes sense for building structures but certainly not for all sorts of work, it’s an idea that’s been tried over and over in my field but routinely fails outside of a few marginal domains. Salary is instead a system that’s vague by design, it lends an employer a lot of leeway in specification (and ability to change specification) and the laborer gets steady work and doesn’t have to litigate a contract (which when it happens is a fundamentally inefficient thing since contract negotiation Is definitionally not the work product of the contract) -
2024-12-30 at 3:02 PM UTC
Originally posted by Kingoftoes my point was that tearing down salary would make for a more efficient wage system because salary pay is not directly contingent on output, instead it depends on the passage of time itself, not even the amount of time that is spent working.
that i believe is culture-dependent.
as shown in that dalit brush factory, paying laborers according to their time spent on the factory floor seemed llke a reasonably efficient as none of the workers were idle for an extended period of time.
their presence on the factory floor, every second, every minute and every hour translate into productivity,
as they never have the chance to remain idle for longer than a toilet or ciggarette break. -
2024-12-30 at 3:06 PM UTCIn the old days, most slaves didn't want to leave and be free. Most were very happy and satisfied. They weren't paid any money for their labor, but everything they needed to live comfortably was provided. I mean, that's why people work, so they can live comfortably. The point is, wages have nothing at all to do with it.
-
2024-12-30 at 3:18 PM UTC
Originally posted by Kingoftoes My point was not that tearing down salary pay would help corporations squeeze more labor out of it's workers, my point was that tearing down salary would make for a more efficient wage system because salary pay is not directly contingent on output, instead it depends on the passage of time itself, not even the amount of time that is spent working.
Dicey -
2024-12-30 at 9:39 PM UTCSo we are arguing against hourly wage and salaried positions, correct? Which only leaves contract positions?
So you end up with employers that have an extremely high rate of turnover who are constantly investing in the onboarding process and training, which is exhaustive and expensive. Additionally contract employees do not have healthcare benefits, 401k match, etc.
There are systems that rely on job stability such as home buying. So if you’re in a contract position you may be considered higher risk, or not even eligible for a loan. -
2024-12-30 at 9:40 PM UTCNIGGA WAT
-
2024-12-30 at 9:40 PM UTCJIGGA WHO
-
2024-12-30 at 10:40 PM UTC
Originally posted by ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ In the old days, most slaves didn't want to leave and be free. Most were very happy and satisfied. They weren't paid any money for their labor, but everything they needed to live comfortably was provided. I mean, that's why people work, so they can live comfortably. The point is, wages have nothing at all to do with it.
Put that back where you pulled it from you stupid old goat. -
2024-12-30 at 10:47 PM UTC
-
2024-12-31 at 12:03 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Hmm I guess to back up for a second, what do you mean by efficient? A process can only be efficient with respect to some input resource relative to the output of the process, and often one sort of efficiency is traded for another (eg riding a bike is money and energy efficient relative to a car, but time inefficient). So when you say salary is inefficient relative to contract labor, inefficient with respect to what? Capital? Time? Human suffering?
Salary is economically inefficient, meaning that supply and demand are not in or close to equilibrium. Salary is inefficient because it does not accurately allocate pay to a worker based on their output.
Originally posted by Lanny To effectively contract out work you need a fairly precise definition of the work product, and a comprehensive rubric of what a satisfactory quality of work is. Take construction for example where contracting is the default mode: there is an elaborate and expensive process of specification in design and Byzantine system of codes and inspection for QA. This makes sense for building structures but certainly not for all sorts of work, it’s an idea that’s been tried over and over in my field but routinely fails outside of a few marginal domains. Salary is instead a system that’s vague by design, it lends an employer a lot of leeway in specification (and ability to change specification) and the laborer gets steady work and doesn’t have to litigate a contract (which when it happens is a fundamentally inefficient thing since contract negotiation Is definitionally not the work product of the contract)
Yes, it is not suitable for all types of work, especially if you are working for a corporation/union that you are bound to. That's why private contractors are private. Even if salary is inefficient for all parties involved, I suppose corporations have the extra money to blow on an employee that has specialized in their field. -
2024-12-31 at 12:14 AM UTCYou can get a lot more out of a salaried worker than an hourly worker.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2024-12-31 at 1:43 AM UTC
Originally posted by Speedy Parker You can get a lot more out of a salaried worker than an hourly worker.
Exactly, the incentive for an employer to use the prospect of unemployment as a threat to an employer is quite prominent in modern societies where work is formal and the process of working tied to a standardized set of procedures. Not so much in pre-industrial societies where you could easily find work with little to no skills. -
2024-12-31 at 2:27 AM UTC
Originally posted by Kingoftoes Exactly, the incentive for an employer to use the prospect of unemployment as a threat to an employer is quite prominent in modern societies where work is formal and the process of working tied to a standardized set of procedures. Not so much in pre-industrial societies where you could easily find work with little to no skills.
Threat has nothing to do with it. If I pay you say $20.00 per hour and you work 40 hours I have to pay you $800.00 plus about another 25% on matching payroll taxes/fees. Or roughly $1000.00 for 40 hours of your labor. If I pay you a salary of $1000.00 per week I can work you 80 hours for the same $1000.00 plus about $250.00 in payroll crap. If I am paying you $20.00 per hour and work you 80 hours in one week it will cost me $1000.00 for the first 40 hours. The second 40 hours I have to pay overtime at a rate of $30.00/hour or another $1500.00. The hourly worker would cost me $3500.00 for 40 hours. The salaried worker would save me $2250.00 for the same 80 hours. -
2024-12-31 at 3:13 AM UTC
-
2024-12-31 at 3:25 AM UTC
