CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Wage disparity is a destabilizing force, and we should be critical in our support of businesses which exacerbate growth in that disparity. That being said, some disparity may be warranted based upon ability and skill disparity. Further, it may be more effective to engage with businesses through the legal instrument to regulate disparities than through individual consumer patterns (particularly when dealing with an economy where such disparity is so normalized as to leave exceptionally few consumer alternatives).
Companies that look prosperous, I shun. I always seek out and try to help the under-dog. Glitter is just litter, that the consumer pays dearly for.
I would rather hire 2 shade-tree mechanics and pay them $30.00/hr then to hire some certified shop that charges you $65.00/hr for one mechanic and pays that mechanic $15.00/hr. Shun big business and give individuals the opportunity to make a better living.
I figure that would depend on the work you need done.
All else being equal, that certified shop is going to have better equipment and facilities than a couple of freelancers.
Case in point: I work in the IT field, and earlier in my career was working for a company that provided outsourced IT services to numerous small businesses. The benefit here, as opposed to internal IT, was that my company had business partnerships for reduced equipment costs, premier support accounts with numerous vendors, and a large test lab for replicating out customers environments and testing fixes before applying them in production environments. There was more than just that as well, but these are convenient examples that I can readily compare to my freelance work.
At the same time, I was doing some freelance work on the side. On numerous occasions, I would have to refer a customer I was freelancing with to my company due to simply lacking the resources needed to properly address their issues. In some cases, it was due to the customer needing replacement equipment- I could provide them with what they needed to buy, but they would have to pay the full retail price for the equipment- as opposed to letting my company use a reseller account, generating a little profit for my company while still offering pricing well below retail. Other cases, it would literally take days to get support for a specific issue through normal channels- the enterprise support contracts that my company held offered much quicker support. And of course, there were cases where applying a given fix represented a risk to the customers data or equipment in some cases, and having access to a test environment was essential.
A certified shop that charges you $65/hr for labor isn't just including the actual costs of labor in that; while consumables and installed parts are charged separately, equipment that is kept in the shop for use in the work is factored into that price. For example, most freelance mechanics don't have access to a hydraulic lift; you aren't billed specifically when a hydraulic lift is used to work on your car, but that hydraulic lift was not free, nor is maintenance of said hydraulic lift.
A certified shop that charges you $65/hr for labor isn't just including the actual costs of labor in that; while consumables and installed parts are charged separately, equipment that is kept in the shop for use in the work is factored into that price. For example, most freelance mechanics don't have access to a hydraulic lift; you aren't billed specifically when a hydraulic lift is used to work on your car, but that hydraulic lift was not free, nor is maintenance of said hydraulic lift.
Who many times do have to be reimbursed for that lift? One hundred times, a thousand times, a million times?
Have you ever seen the labor charge of a shop reduced once the over-head has been paid back? I never have.
Who many times do have to be reimbursed for that lift? One hundred times, a thousand times, a million times?
Have you ever seen the labor charge of a shop reduced once the over-head has been paid back? I never have.
You are not being charged to pay the shop back for the purchase of the lift. You are being charged both for having the lift (and other equipment) being available to service your car. Part of this goes to the continuing maintenance costs on the equipment.
They don't reduce the labor charge once the lift is paid off because the entire purpose of buying the lift in the first place is to be able to provide better facilities, equipment, and services, and in so doing charge higher rates for it. It is only after the lift is paid off that it begins to truly serve its intended role; additional profit for the company. Customers aren't buying the lift- they are paying for a well-outfitted shop to service their vehicle.
You are not being charged to pay the shop back for the purchase of the lift. You are being charged both for having the lift (and other equipment) being available to service your car. Part of this goes to the continuing maintenance costs on the equipment.
What you are being charged is enough to cover the CEO's salary, 12 million for GM for example.
Many certified shops actually have less equipment then, the indivdual. The mechanics at these shops are required to have their own tools. These shops only provide the building, lift and very few speciality tools.
What you are being charged is enough to cover the CEO's salary, 12 million for GM for example.
What you are being charged for is to earn the company profit. The CEO's salary is paid with the understanding (sometimes incorrect) that the profits the company earns above and beyond that will be well worth the salaries paid for the CEO and other staff above middle management level. The amount that the shareholders earn typically overshadows what the CEO earns considerably- the CEO is just a nice lump sum data point. The CEO makes millions, but the shareholders collectively make significantly more.
Many certified shops actually have less equipment then, the indivdual. The mechanics at these shops are required to have their own tools. These shops only provide the building, lift and very few speciality tools.
I'd like to see your data both on what the typical certified shop has vs what the typical freelance mechanic has. My experience and observation contradict this significantly, but I freely admit that my personal dealings are not reflective of a statistically significant sample. While this may be true in some cases, I believe you overestimate what most freelance mechanics have, and underestimate what most shops generally provide. I believe you also fatally underestimate the value of those specialty tools.
I'd like to see your data both on what the typical certified shop has vs what the typical freelance mechanic has. My experience and observation contradict this significantly, but I freely admit that my personal dealings are not reflective of a statistically significant sample. While this may be true in some cases, I believe you overestimate what most freelance mechanics have, and underestimate what most shops generally provide. I believe you also fatally underestimate the value of those specialty tools.
Data on this subject is not available, but I'm a mechanic and one of my jobs is working at a shop that works on fire trucks. I have worked for several other shops, and those speciality tools needed are mostly borrowed from fellow mechanics. These shops often lack the special tools needed and are often made and designed by the mechanics or purchased at their own expense from venders, such as Snap-On.
So your understanding of this is also based on your own personal dealings, which themselves are not reflective of a statistically significant sample.
I suppose, in the absence of data, we'll simply have to disagree on this point.
Edit: Note for those following- Thewayitis' previous post did not originally include the claim that he was a mechanic; originally he discussed having friends who were mechanics and hearing stories from them. Much later in the discussion he claims to be a mechanic himself, and has since gone back and edited several of his posts to that effect, starting with this one.
Personal observation is insufficient. Confirmation and negativity biases are not simply a problem- they are an evolved (or created, if you insist) part of our reasoning. Everyone suffers from these. Your personal observation is only marginally accurate in respect to the data points that you have personally observed, and is not accurate in respect to the general population.
How exactly does a person do impersonal observation? It is not possible and cannot be done. Since you said that personal observation is insufficient, then one can rule out all data as being correct.
and is not accurate in respect to the general population.
So what the general population thinks or is lead to believe is assumed correct data? Talk about blindly following. Please take your car to a certified shop and I can guarantee you that you be certifiably ripped off.
How exactly does a person do impersonal observation? It is not possible and cannot be done. Since you said that personal observation is insufficient, then one can rule out all data as being correct.
Non-sequitur. It is not personal observation as opposed to impersonal observation. It is personal observation through ones own life which inevitably represents a selection bias as opposed to direct analysis of statistics based off of a much larger and diverse population. The latter is a far superior representation of the whole.
So what the general population thinks or is lead to believe is assumed correct data? Talk about blindly following. Please take your car to a certified shop and I can guarantee you that you be certifiably ripped off.
Your reading comprehension could use some work. I wasn't referring to the beliefs of the general population of citizens on the matter. By 'general population' in this context, I refer to the entire population of certified shops and freelance mechanics. The idea is that an individuals personal observation of these is generally limited to a very small subset within a very narrow geographical area. As such, the observations that an individual may make based on his experiences, while accurate insofar as the specific experiences are concerned, do not tell us anything regarding the population as a whole- not even an educated guess.
“Experience has shown, and a true philosophy will always show, that a vast, perhaps the larger portion of the truth arises from the seemingly irrelevant” ~ Edgar Allan Poe
And non-sequiturs are a typical dishonest debate tactic employed by theists. For that matter, throwing out falsely attributed quotes that would appear to support your side is also pretty common amongst the uneducated :)
And non-sequiturs are a typical dishonest debate tactic employed by theists. For that matter, throwing out falsely attributed quotes that would appear to support your side is also pretty common amongst the uneducated :)
If the quote isn't by Poe, then who?
Calling others uneducated is a common tactic among atheists. Somehow this is supposed to make their unsubstantiated claims justifiable. If you were truly educated you'd know better than to call others stupid.
Whomever came up with it and attributed it to him initially, of course. Not knowing the originator is not the same as knowing it was the one claimed. There is no credible source linking that quote to Poe, and it is rather counter to his style as well.
alling others uneducated is a common tactic among atheists. Somehow this is supposed to make their unsubstantiated claims justifiable. If you were truly educated you'd know better than to call others stupid.
I didn't call you stupid. I called you uneducated. There is a difference. 'Stupid' implies a lacking in intelligence, and is not what I'm asserting. 'Uneducated' means a lack of knowledge. It's not a personal slight or representative of anything being innately wrong with you- it's simply noting that you're missing information. If atheists have a tendency to call others uneducated, it is at least in part grounded in fact; statistically speaking, atheists on average are significantly more educated than theists as a whole.
I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was using it to justify a claim of any kind- it wasn't. It was merely an observation, and a recommendation at that. Among other things, you would do well to improve your reading comprehension. It's a shame, really, how badly you misinterpret people online. I know it's not just me, either, and your interpretations are always a huge stretch. I don't believe you are significantly lacking in intellect, so it should be something you can fix with education.
“Experience has shown, and a true philosophy will always show, that a vast, perhaps the larger portion of the truth arises from the seemingly irrelevant” ~ Edgar Allan Poe
Your reading comprehension could use some work. I wasn't referring to the beliefs of the general population of citizens on the matter. By 'general population' in this context, I refer to the entire population of certified shops and freelance mechanics. The idea is that an individuals personal observation of these is generally limited to a very small subset within a very narrow geographical area. As such, the observations that an individual may make based on his experiences, while accurate insofar as the specific experiences are concerned, do not tell us anything regarding the population as a whole- not even an educated guess.
There is nothing wrong with my reading comprehension, I responded only to that in which you wrote. If you meant something different, you should have said so.
My personal experiences have occurred over 30 years and with a vast range of these so called certified shops. Caterpillar, John Deere, Case, GM, Vermeer, Ditch Witch, Bobcat, Cummins, Detriot Diesel and have spanned across most of the mid-west. Just where has your expertise on this matter came from? Consumer Guide? What a joke.
And non-sequiturs are a typical dishonest debate tactic employed by theists. For that matter, throwing out falsely attributed quotes that would appear to support your side is also pretty common amongst the uneducated :)
There is nothing wrong with my reading comprehension, I responded only to that in which you wrote. If you meant something different, you should have said so.
The context of my statement made my intent evident. I'm aware I've had difficulties with it in the past, but not this time. I'm not sure at the moment whether you only skimmed the post, read it without understanding it, or are being intentionally irritating- but none of these represent a problem on my part.
My personal experiences have occurred over 30 years and with a vast range of these so called certified shops. Just where has your expertise on this matter came from? Consumer Guide? What a joke.
Over 30 years? OK, so let's say you have vehicle trouble 4 times a year, every year. 120 incidents over 30 years. As you'd need experience with both freelance mechanics and certified shops, let's say it was 50-50 freelancer and certified shop- and as we need diversity, we'll say you did a different one every time. 60 of each. That isn't sufficient to draw conclusions about the entirety of either one- straight up. You are overvaluing your personal experience. And remember, that's 4 vehicle issues requiring the services of a mechanic per year, every year, for 30 years. Even at this level, I would suggest that so much vehicle trouble strongly implies a lack of background to form an objective opinion regarding the competence and services of different mechanics and shops. Even if we assumed you got second and third opinions each time, it's still not enough. It would take an order of magnitude more, at the very least, with an even spread across varying shops and mechanics with varying backgrounds consistent with the overall population.
Your personal experiences are anecdotal and are not necessarily reflective of reality in general. As to my expertise- that's largely immaterial, because I'm not asserting my personal experiences as being representative of the whole.
That said- you aren't wrong in holding your opinions- You are only wrong in assuming that they represent an objective picture of the entire industry. Almost every type of prejudice, stereotype, and bigotry is started by anecdotal experiences with a subset of the population that are unfairly extended to the entire population. Occasionally, the anecdotal experiences do turn out to be fair approximations of the whole, but this is generally a fluke. You'll have to forgive me for wanting something more substantial than some unvetted internet personalities alleged personal experience, particularly when said experience implies significant personal difficulties with the subject in question.
Over 30 years? OK, so let's say you have vehicle trouble 4 times a year, every year. 120 incidents over 30 years. As you'd need experience with both freelance mechanics and certified shops, let's say it was 50-50 freelancer and certified shop- and as we need diversity, we'll say you did a different one every time. 60 of each. That isn't sufficient to draw conclusions about the entirety of either one- straight up. You are overvaluing your personal experience. And remember, that's 4 vehicle issues requiring the services of a mechanic per year, every year, for 30 years. Even at this level, I would suggest that so much vehicle trouble strongly implies a lack of background to form an objective opinion regarding the competence and services of different mechanics and shops. Even if we assumed you got second and third opinions each time, it's still not enough. It would take an order of magnitude more, at the very least, with an even spread across varying shops and mechanics with varying backgrounds consistent with the overall population.
Your personal experiences are anecdotal and are not necessarily reflective of reality in general. As to my expertise- that's largely immaterial, because I'm not asserting my personal experiences as being representative of the whole.
That said- you aren't wrong in holding your opinions- You are only wrong in assuming that they represent an objective picture of the entire industry. Almost every type of prejudice, stereotype, and bigotry is started by anecdotal experiences with a subset of the population that are unfairly extended to the entire population. Occasionally, the anecdotal experiences do turn out to be fair approximations of the whole, but this is generally a fluke. You'll have to forgive me for wanting something more substantial than some unvetted internet personalities alleged personal experience, particularly when said experience implies significant personal difficulties with the subject in question.
This is not an opinion because I'm a mechanic and have worked at these shops before leaving them and starting my own repair shop. If my being a mechanic is somehow not qualified in speaking about such matters, then by the same token no scientist is qualified to speak about matters of science.
This is not an opinion because I'm a mechanic and have worked at these shops before leaving them and starting my own repair shop. If my being a mechanic is somehow not qualified in speaking about such matters, then by the same token no scientist is qualified to speak about matters of science.
Oh, so you are a mechanic now? Sorry- I don't buy it. You would have led with that to establish your personal credibility. Even if you are, in fact, a mechanic, how do I know you aren't the bottom of the barrel that a reputable shop wouldn't keep around, and aren't simply biased against certified shops? If you are a freelance mechanic, you're certainly biased towards freelance mechanics.
Oh, so you are a mechanic now? Sorry- I don't buy it.
Frankly, I don't care whether you by it or not. I am what I am.
Of course I'm biased against certified shops, I've worked for them. They over-charge, do half-ass work, and try to sell customers things they don't really need (like batteries). Most shops don't even attempt to actually figure out what is wrong, they just change parts and bill the customer for their lack of knowledge. ASE certified mechanics are trained to take the test, not to do mechanical work. Most freelance mechanics started out being ASE and working in certified shops. When they have had enough of the bullshit and watching the public being ripped off, they go in business for themselves.
Can you truly not understand that I am unwilling to accept your stance on this as true? Even if I were to disregard all the massive problems with your personal credibility, and then give you an uncharacteristic benefit of the doubt, you would still represent only a single data point.
As I pointed out, science itself cannot be taken anymore serious than the credibility of the scientist in which you do not personally know. In other words all that you have ever been taught, read or learned is not anymore real than what reality is. You no nothing by your own accord.
See, thats the beauty of it. The methodology of studies and experiments are exposed to peer review, the data verified, the samples verified, with individuals that are quick to call to dispute if they find anything inconsistent. The raw data generated through experimentation can generally be held to be objectively correct, except where flawed methodology was utilized. The conclusions drawn are not necessarily valid, as there may still be more to a given subject than meets the eye, but we can certainly verify that the conclusions drawn are consistent with what we can observe. In a number of cases, we can replicate the experiments and see them for ourselves at minimal cost.
Science does not require assuming that a single scientist is a credible resource, so much as a more reasonably optimistic assumption that the stringent peer review process will tend to expose problems and flaws when they occur. Recognizing flaws and adjusting our concepts accordingly is an important part of science; we're constantly moving towards a better picture of the reality around us, although there are setbacks here and there.
Put simply- science' credibility comes from the fact that you aren't trusting just one person not to fuck up or cheat- rather, you're trusting that at least one person in the long chain of the peer review process will neither fuck up nor cheat.
My education is tempered by a surprising breadth and depth of experience as well.
My education is tempered by a surprising breadth and depth of experience as well.
I doubt this to be truly the case. If you had a little more experience you would have recognized that quote as being one of Edgar Allen Poe's it came from "The Mystery of Marie Roget (1842)
As far as the peer review goes, I suggest you Google hoaxes in the scientific journals that have been promoted by the scientific community. Some of these have even been promoted by scientist simply because they listed credible sources for their far fetched schemes.
Well, you did get me there. You'll forgive me if I'm not a huge Poe Reader. I did rather assume that you just copy pasted something from a sketchy quotes list somewhere and didn't bother to even look it up. I'm still not convinced otherwise, except perhaps of the sketchiness. That said, this would seem to be a gap in my education rather than my experience. I never did claim my education to be exhaustive.
Yes, you can find data on scientific hoaxes- these are well documented because fundamentally flawed conclusions do not generally produce accurate prediction or are inconsistent with reality. The scientific method has a way of policing itself, fortunately, and these hoaxes are revealed, generally quickly, because bad science generally doesn't deliver. On the other hand, theist perspectives are non-flexible even when claims that they make are demonstrably false. When I hear a new claim, even if it supports what I believe, I try not to get too excited until I can see the data.
I've met a few "entrepreneurs" cunning and smart enough to arrange free labor. It's wild to see. I get a kick out of it when I see it. I'll admit right here it doesn't bother my conscience to see it. Perhaps that they are learning valuable lessons keeps it from seeming particularly unjust :/
Okay - it just seems obvious to me, that the one's who are easily replacable in a business are the once who are paid less. People who don't have a higher education fall into that category. Your position is not worth more than someone else is willing to work for. So if you want more payment you just need to convince everyone else they are worth more, and then you can demand more.
It's not the businesses fault employees are paid an unethical payment. Like Atrag said, a business is competing with others, and therefore it will of course cut losses where it can. If the employees are willing to work for less, they will work for less - if they demand more, they will get more.
That's why higher educated people earn better salaries - They know what they're worth.
That's why higher educated people earn better salaries - They know what they're worth.
“The whole educational and professional training system is a very elaborate filter, which just weeds out people who are too independent, and who think for themselves, and who don't know how to be submissive, and so on -- because they're dysfunctional to the institutions.” ― Noam Chomsky
Would you ever want to be treated by a doctor without a medical degree?
Yes, I'd rather be treated by a veterinian, than most doctors in the USA.
Secondly, if I was injured in a plane crash; I really don't care who attempts to put me back together. You can lay among the wreckage and wait for somebody with the right degrees.
Would you ever hire a lawyer without a law degree?
Yes, I have often represented myself and I have no law degree. Lawyers work for those in which they have something to gain by representing. Often when they represent an individual they are working for the opposing side. Such as in the case of tax lawyers, they better represent the IRS than you.
Would you feel safe if the police officers in your town had no training in the area at all?
There is little difference between crooks and the police. How safe do feel with crooks watching over you.
Would you want a a person who failed most classes to be your children's teacher?
If this person was street smart instead of book smart, of course I'd want them to teach my child.
I'd like to see a world with ''independent'' doctors, officers, lawyers and teachers. I doubt you'd be long to change it back to our educated world.
People like me finish jobs after those so called educated people fall to do their job. And yes I've finished college and hated the one track mind of the so called educated. Most educated people deem themselves as something special and pat themselves on the back for being failures. With higher formal education comes less common sense.
I really don't care who attempts to put me back together. You can lay among the wreckage and wait for somebody with the right degrees.
This is a .. weird situation to imagine oneself in in a world without educated doctors. What if you got cancer? What if you got a dangerous infection? Would you like to not have access to an educated doctor then?
Yes, I have often represented myself and I have no law degree.
Well .. I realize Denmark and the US are very different concerning services like medical care an the right to laywers. How about you move to a more civilized country?
There is little difference between crooks and the police.
I forgot you are .. freaky over there in the us. You want guns and all that in your homes - that is unknown to me. We have a rifle in the house, but it is in the basement, and my father uses it for hunting only. He would never go get the rifle for protection. Basically because we prefer to not shoot people!
If this person was street smart instead of book smart, of course I'd want them to teach my child.
What if he couldn't spell, use grammar correctly? What if he failed to check his facts before teaching to the students?
I realize this is a dead debate. We obviously live in two very different worlds.
The USA has become a very capitalistic society and degrees/certifications have become a tool in this environment. If one has enough money, one can basically buy a degree. What is the point of such degrees when one can merely purchase them?
Love to move to a more civilized country. If one would closely examine even where you live, you'd find corruption there too.
Spelling and grammar are of little importance when that is all one can do.
Spelling and grammar are of little importance when that is all one can do.
School was originally invented to learn people how to read and write. Might not be important on themselves - but an extremely important and useful skill when you learn other things.
Love to move to a more civilized country. If one would closely examine even where you live, you'd find corruption there too.
Maybe! No one here is ungrateful for their doctors though.
Today I say it's become more socialist then ever. If we were capitalist you would have to work or you would die. Hell in a capitalistic society you more likely to die doing your job then of old age.
Today I say it's become more socialist then ever. If we were capitalist you would have to work or you would die. Hell in a capitalistic society you more likely to die doing your job then of old age.
You're very wrong in this regard. Who do the Senators and Congressmen work for? Those that finance their campaigns, which is the countries wealthiest not the majority of the countries citizens.
I once was asked what I would do if I won the mega-lottery. My response, "I'd do just what every other rich person does, buy a Senator."
You're very wrong in this regard. Who do the Senators and Congressmen work for?
Well in a perfect world they work for us.
which is the countries wealthiest not the majority of the countries citizens.
Well, when you mean wealthiest, you talking about billionaires, right? In that case they worked for it.
Of millionaires, 80% of them are first generation millionaires. In other words, they worked for it.
I once was asked what I would do if I won the mega-lottery
If I were you I wouldn't place money in a lottery ticket
True, there is corruption in the Government. I however was referring to how political matters are dealt.
In a true capitalist society, the government does not intervene with private businesses at all. As you can see, that's all the US has done. The economy has tanked because of it.
The world isn't even close to perfect. They work for lobbyist. Lobbyist work for special interest groups consisting of billionaires.
Well, when you mean wealthiest, you talking about billionaires, right? In that case they worked for it. Of millionaires, 80% of them are first generation millionaires. In other words, they worked for it.
I'm talking about billionaires, and so throwing out figures about measly millionaires is completely insane. Since when have the rich ever worked, they hire people to do this.
If I were you I wouldn't place money in a lottery ticket
I don't buy lottery tickets and have never said I do.
In a true capitalist society, the government does not intervene with private businesses at all. As you can see, that's all the US has done. The economy has tanked because of it.
The economy tanked not because of regulation, but do to a lack of it. JPMorgan is the main culprit behind the economy collapsing.
I don't get why you've asked this. I'm sure its just to try and catch us out by not asking the full question at the start.
Of course people are paid different amounts according to the value of their skills are the value to the company. High wages for some positions are needed to attract or retain highly skilled workers.
It's because I think businesses who pay most of their employees poorly should be shunned, and I want to read arguments that challenge my opinion.
I'm sure its just to try and catch us out by not asking the full question at the start.
The question not fitting in the field has some to do with it, but I must admit, I was hoping to catch some of you out.
Of course people are paid different amounts according to the value of their skills are the value to the company. High wages for some positions are needed to attract or retain highly skilled workers.
I'm not arguing that skilled labor shouldn't fetch higher wages. I'm arguing that we shouldn't support businesses that act like since there are many people willing to work for shamefully low wages, that this somehow makes it ethical to pay shamefully low wages.
I think a business shouldn't be considered successful unless all those employed by it are paid decently. I think it is unethical to have a business philosophy where you pay as little as possible to a portion of your employees.
I'm arguing that we shouldn't support businesses that act like since there are many people willing to work for shamefully low wages, that this somehow makes it ethical to pay shamefully low wages.
I wonder... have you ever gone into a shop, thought that something was too cheap and the insisted on paying more? This is similar to the behaviour that you are suggesting.
Businesses need to be able to compete with one another. Salaries are often the biggest expense many businesses have. Businesses that employee minimum wage workers often operate in oligopolies (supermarkets and fast-food, for example) and therefore they don't have room for manoeuvre when it comes to competing on price. To be competitive they have to charge the same as their competitors that are selling almost exactly the same thing as them.
The only way to solve the problem is to implement higher minimum wages. It is something that the USA is too capitalist to do but the minimum wage in European countries are usually quite reasonable: £6.31 per hour in the UK ($10.60).
I wonder... have you ever gone into a shop, thought that something was too cheap and the insisted on paying more? This is similar to the behaviour that you are suggesting.
What you are suggesting is that there is no other viable way to do business than to have extreme inequity in pay between executives and those doing the bulk of the work. I think it would be enlightening to try an experiment with a fast food restaurant where everyone who works there is paid based on productivity. I think if we moved away from thinking that success = making money in your leisure time while people who are actually productive pay your expenses, this would be a good thing.
Businesses need to be able to compete with one another.
This doesn't require a business model where the most productive are paid as little as possible. There are better ways to cut costs and be competitive than by sticking it to the people who do most of the work. You seem sure that there aren't...how did you get so sure?
To be competitive they have to charge the same as their competitors that are selling almost exactly the same thing as them.
The same salary budget could be dispersed more equitably and not effect sales prices.
The only way to solve the problem is to implement higher minimum wages.
Spoken like someone who thinks all other possibly better options have been tried.
This doesn't require a business model where the most productive are paid as little as possible. There are better ways to cut costs and be competitive than by sticking it to the people who do most of the work.
Tell me how.
The same salary budget could be dispersed more equitably and not effect sales prices.
That is true. So what do you think is a fair wage for, for example, a director of MacDonalds? I assume it is the directors that you would want to take the money from. What is a fair wage for someone who flips burgers? And what is a fair wage, for example, for the manager in charge of the whole of the USA?
What is a fair wage for someone who flips burgers? And what is a fair wage, for example, for the manager in charge of the whole of the USA?
It’s easy to paint this picture of a zit faced teenager flipping burgers and a clean cut businessman in a suit and briefcase ensemble and use it to argue that the suit deserves more.
The fact is that we’re not talking about a one to one basis, were talking about a millions to one basis. Should the millions of people doing the work of a company get paid more as a whole than the group of CEOs? Yes, because they are the ones doing all the work. It really is as simple as that because otherwise, you have slaves building pyramids. This isn't ancient egypt, people are not cattle, CEOs are not kings.
Being the proprietor or owner of a company does not include ownership of the laborers; it includes the responsibility to compensate credit where credit is due.
People with a shred of dignity wouldn't want to work for a company that doesn't pay a decent liveable wage. This is kind of an elephant in the room no?
People with a shred of dignity wouldn't want to work for a company that doesn't pay a decent liveable wage. This is kind of an elephant in the room no?
I believe you have this backwards. A CEO or other management with a shred of dignity wouldn't want to work for a company that pays other employees so little. People in general need a job and as a result of this, many have little choice where they work. http://maaw.info/ArticleSummaries/ArtSumMartin92.htm
”I'm arguing that we shouldn't support businesses that act like since there are many people willing to work for shamefully low wages, that this somehow makes it ethical to pay shamefully low wages.” - Atypican
“I wonder... have you ever gone into a shop, thought that something was too cheap and the insisted on paying more? This is similar to the behaviour that you are suggesting.” - Atrag
Not exactly. Saying that it’s unethical to pass on the hidden costs of goods and services to the workers is not similar to saying that those costs ought to be passed on to the consumer. I think it’s obvious that Atypican believes that the ethical avenue is to have the hidden costs of running a business paid for BY the business if they don’t want the consumer to pay it. In other words, the plutocrats should pay their own bills instead of passing on the cost to the workers.
Businesses need to be able to compete with one another.
This would render the passing of hidden costs to the consumer counter intuitive, yes. But that’s not what Atypican suggested.
Salaries are often the biggest expense many businesses have.
Yes, they are a hidden cost of the product/service produced. What I think Atypican means is that it is unethical for workers to in essence ‘pay their own salaries.’
To be competitive they have to charge the same as their competitors that are selling almost exactly the same thing as them.
This is true. But if not the consumer, who should pay for the cost of the product? The workers? or the business owners who purposely lower the retail in order to compete with other businesses? Should the workers shoulder the burden of the hidden costs to make the retail lower and in turn essentially pay their own wages/work for free? Or should the business owners shoulder the brunt of that burden and take responsibility for their decisions to lower the retail cost?
Certainly the most ethical avenue would be to have the consumer pay the actual cost of the products and services they desire. This would require the retail cost of products and services to include all of the hidden costs. This may not work out for a business where competition exists, as you’ve correctly pointed out, but is it ethical to pass the cost that the consumer should pay onto the workers?
Should we shun businesses that do this to their workers?
The only way to solve the problem is to implement higher minimum wages.
This could work although I strongly disagree that it is the only way to solve the problem. Also, I speculate that the business owners will only push the hidden costs even further. Cut costs in quality/quantity, or outsource manufacturing to countries with less labor laws.
It is something that the USA is too capitalist to do
I realize you have a superiority complex against the US, but the majority of the country agrees that the minimum wage could use an increase. It has little to do with capitalism and more to do with tyranny of the plutocracy. The “representatives” of our country are more interested in representing big business then they are the people. I would agree with your disdain for the US if I regarded a country by its rulers instead of its inhabitants, but I don’t.
but the minimum wage in European countries are usually quite reasonable: £6.31 per hour in the UK ($10.60).
I would argue that even £6.31 isn’t “quite reasonable” compared to what it should be; Europe is not immune to the effects of the business oligarchy.
Yes, they are a hidden cost of the product/service produced. What I think Atypican means is that it is unethical for workers to in essence ‘pay their own salaries.’
Working for free? They should make more money for the company than they take, or there is no point in employing them. I don't understand what you mean by shouldering the cost. It certainly can never be the case that the workers earn more than they make for the company.
Paying employee wages is the business’s responsibility. It’s like a bill or expense they incur for hiring people to do the work for them.
This expense is one of many “hidden costs” that a business incurs and in turn a product or service inherits. For instance: the cost of fuel that a company pays to get a shipment of toaster ovens to a distributer is a hidden cost to the price of an individual toaster oven.
The hidden cost is not factored into the retail price of goods (hence the “hidden” aspect) otherwise the price would be too high for larger corporations to compete with smaller ones who have less expenses.
So who pays the hidden cost?
The consumer ought to pay it, because they are the ones deciding on how to spend their capital. They have the power to decide what is worth their money and what is not. But since larger businesses take away that cost in order to compete with other businesses, the consumer is happily freed from paying that expense.
So we’re at a dilemma. Is it more ethical to lay the burden of paying the hidden cost on the workers of a company (lower wages)? Or is it more ethical for the company to shoulder the burden; knowing full well that they purposely exempted the consumer so that they can compete with other companies (which would mean less profit)?
If the company makes the workers pay that hidden cost (lower wages) then the workers are essentially paying their own salary (wages are already a hidden cost, making an employee receive less wages then they are entitled to is a cost on them to pay for the hidden cost) It really is as ludicrous as it sounds. Indentured Slavery.
If the company pays the hidden cost, then the workers get fair wages, and the consumer is still freed from the expense allowing the company to compete with others, BUT the company incurs a penalty to their overall profit, a sacrifice they ought to deal with themselves for giving the consumer a better deal.
They should make more money for the company than they take, or there is no point in employing them.
This illustrates a popular misconception about the employer/employee relationship.
It is not the workers responsibility to make a company money, it’s the consumers choice to make the company money.
The worker’s responsibility is to do the work that the company proprietors are unable to do (mostly due to a company’s size).
It’s the company’s responsibility to adequately reimburse the people who do the work of the company with the money that the company makes.
If this means less profit for the company, then that is a sacrifice they ought to incur for having other people do the work.
If more profit is desired by a company, the profit ought to be transacted directly from the consumer. This is where a form of checks and balances comes into play, for if they raise the purchase price of a product too high, the consumer will either not pay or find a company who can afford to have lower prices on goods (that is to say they can ethically lower their prices and still adequately compensate their workers for doing all the work). The bigger the business, the more expenses, the less they can afford to lower the purchase price.
Is it unethical for a business to grow? No. But with more expenses, it is harder to compete with smaller businesses. And if the purchase price is lowered in order to compete and the costs of those expenses are pushed onto the workers, then THAT is what would be unethical. And THAT is what is happening in the world.
It certainly can never be the case that the workers earn more than they make for the company
Not what I’m arguing, but they are certainly entitled to earn an equal amount of whatthey make for the company. The Plutocrats have done a good job at convincing the public that a person’s contribution to an employer is not worthy of adequate compensation. Without the fleet of workers a company employs, the company would not exist, a fact that is conveniently ignored throughout history.
It's because I think businesses who pay most of their employees poorly should be shunned, and I want to read arguments that challenge my opinion.
I am expecting you won't get the arguments you are looking for. I think businesses need to start self regulating before the government has to step in.
I think a business shouldn't be considered successful unless all those employed by it are paid decently. I think it is unethical to have a business philosophy where you pay as little as possible to a portion of your employees.
The thing I hate is the overpaying of the higher ups no matter what. Business highly successful = big bonus. Business stays the same = big bonus. Business tanking = big bonus. Not only is it unethical that they are underpaying the lower level workers, it is also stupid that they are overpaying the higher level.
Why? If a job is, for the most part, much more difficult to perform than another job then higher compensation is to be expected. I don't see why an IBM computer technician should receive the same pay as a person who slaps a burger on a bun.
