spurgistan wrote:3. I'm not quite sure what your argument is.
OP rails against profits should not be held higher than workers. I maintain that without profits there are no workers.
spurgistan wrote:filthy rich capitalists the Republican Party actually cares about.
You should probably include the Democrat party if you were being fair.
spurgistan wrote:If i were operating a tomato farm that employed workers, I'd probably have them work in the fields instead of me
Totally fine. The workers wages are limited by what you can sell your tomatoes for. In fact, for what you could sell your tomatoes for you would not be able to pay your workers livable wages. This is something some people have trouble grasping, wages are limited to the value one can get for the effort of the laborer.
spurgistan wrote:You take short-term losses for long-term gains.
Absolutely, one would make a good business decision by taking losses in the short term for the promise of greater profits down the road. One just need have the cash on hand to make it through until then. It's a cost/benefit analysis. If the projected future earnings don't add up then one must forgo such upgrades or risk losing not only the business but the workers would also lose
their jobs.
spurgistan wrote:Do you think that employers generally pay laborers the maximum amount they can?
Oh, there are plenty of jobs that have a "top pay". That's always based on projected earnings off of projected production the workers would achieve.
The maximum pay is determined by the amount of profit the business owner expects to make. The greater the profit, the greater the amount of pay that can be offered.
An owner has in his interest to pay as much as he can so as to get the best workers, especially if the owner is in the market for
skilled laborers. Unskilled laborers, well, there are a lot more of them so the cost for employing them is less.
A burger flipper can be replaced easily by someone willing to flip burgers for less money.
A skilled electrician is another matter all together. Of the limited supply of such skilled workers where business owners are competing to retain said services, pay and benefits must rise.
For the worker's part, it is best to be skilled, productive and therefore being of greater value to the employer. The greater the value, the greater the wages earned will be.
Companies compete against other companies in the market share. At the same time, workers are competing against other workers for the limited number of jobs available. That's just a reality that some people like the OP seem to fail to realize.
And driving it all is profit. From business owners to workers, all are seeking profit. And there is nothing wrong with that.
spurgistan wrote:I'm not quite sure what your argument is.
You did notice the anti profit rant in the OP? If not, read it again.
