(08-21-2022 03:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-21-2022 12:46 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(08-21-2022 12:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-20-2022 10:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-19-2022 03:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  My opinion is that for multiple decades the pendulum swung towards capital and it is swinging back towards labor. Each element plays a critical role, but capital was winning pretty much every battle for decades

Seeing capital and labor as opposing forces seems very Marxist to me. I see them as being pieces of the puzzle or members of the team. Maybe labor is the O-line, and capital is the coaching staff - but they all ride the team bus.

The idea that has come seeping through from multiple posters is that corporations are evil entities, run by evil people who have no interest in anything other than squeezing every dime of profit possible from the workers and then evading taxes. I hear enough of this viewpoint from Senator Sanders and the Squad, and even their more moderate colleagues on the Left side of the aisle.

Granted, my companies were small - but I do know what it is like to determine how much to offer a job applicant, or how much to offer to get an employee with experience and qualifications, and I can guar-an-*******-tee you that available government benefits played zero part in that determination. I operated in the poorest cities on the Mexican border and to the best of my knowledge nobody on my payrolls ever needed or wanted assistance. My employees bought houses and raised families. As did the employees of competitors, I presume. I paid market wages, and provided good benefits. In over 30 years, I only had one employee quit - because in the midst of a bad year, I reduced Christmas bonuses - and he took it personally. I learned a lesson there - I should have just bitten the bullet and not linked bonuses to profits. Never did it again.

Business owners and managers are much more than just "capital". They are the people steering the ship, and making sure it doesn't sink with all hands.

Of course there are some businesses that operate more holistically and diverge from Friendman’s views on shareholder value. But obviously any company employing someone who is on welfare doesn’t follow in your footsteps. Plenty of employees don’t value employee retention - you’ve even discussed that yourself with respect to burger flipping. So they don’t pay sufficient wages retain labor.

I personally view labor and capital to be more on a scale that should by balanced - and it has been out of balance, IMO. Again, I believe that someone who is willing and able to work 40 hours a work should be able to afford basic necessities. I always find it interesting when people essentially push back on the idea that working a full work week shouldn’t do that - what is the value of an honest days work then?

What’s created the imbalance that you mention is government efforts to make up the difference between wages of jobs that were originally intended for part-time and transitional jobs, and a wage needed by a head-of-household. The fast food industry offers inexpensive food in a simple setting, with the plan of keeping costs low by not offering career jobs. By design, fast food jobs were for students, people looking for part-time work, etc. Progressives demonize the industry for doing what it was always designed to do; if they succeed all they will accomplish is ensuring that nobody has those jobs.

Is there not a difference between a career job and a job that can afford basic necessities?

I’m not going to get drawn into one of your exercises in semantic hairsplitting. A high school student working at McDonalds does not need that job to be a career. His “basic necessities” are gas money and such. Wasn’t I clear enough? Let me repeat: fast food work was never imtended as a way to make a living. I would define “making a living” as “affording basic necessities.” No doubt you have some elusive and elastic definition.