## Question for those in charge of hiring employees

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

If you were to offer me a job at $X per hour, what would you say if I asked how much you're making per hour off my labor? I'm curious how business owners, managers, human resource officers, etc would answer this question (if you're not one, then pretend you are). Explanation: If I can't know what value my labor is generating, then I can't know what percent of it I would agree to, so it's impossible for me to agree to the wage (except from the perspective of competing wage offerings). On the other hand, if I were being offered$10 to generate $20 of productivity, then I might see splitting it down the middle as a fair deal (all things considered) and therefore agree to it. At that point, I would concede taxation as unethical (if ethics were a thing). How could it be ethical to redistribute what is fairly agreed to? But productivity profited that wasn't sanctioned by an accord with the employee is pirated loot and therefore occupies no moral ground as refuge from taxation. Therefore taxation is not theft, but the return of property taken without permission. That is the socialism where workers have some say in the operations of the means of production. The ruling class would rather workers be kept in the dark and pressured by prospects of hunger in order to compel them to relinquish their services for peanuts instead of informed decisions and fair (aka ethical) divisions of the fruits of labor. The capitalists would prefer wages be valued in terms of competing offers, which are limited, and it's that limitation that the capitalists are capitalizing upon because if no one is offering a prospective employee more money, then employers won't have to pay as much and that means more profit for them. Keeping workers in a weak position of negotiation is incentivized by capitalism... as well as hiding productivity and other shenanigans to further the differential of wealth and consolidation of power. Serendipper Philosopher Posts: 2109 Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm ### Re: Question for those in charge of hiring employees If it were me, I'd tell you that I don't make money off your labor. You're the one making money off it. I would be making money off my own labor via the process of organizing, managing and maintaining a business. I would then suggest that you should do the same, as you seem to want more money than the position that you're applying for it worth. Then I'd tell you that we'd make a hiring decision within the next few days and then I would just not call you back. Anyone can make a sandwich, or move bricks from one pile to another, or clean a floor, or do a variety of other things. And those kinds of things are easy to do. Because they're easy, they don't pay as much as things that are more difficult like organizing people, managing and maintaining a business, and calculating risks in real time in order to create an environment wherein the business makes predictable, stable profit. If you can do those things, then you should. You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square. Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too. What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude. http://www.innocenceproject.org/ Mr Reasonable resident contrarian Posts: 25892 Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself ### Re: Question for those in charge of hiring employees big dipper wrote:If you were to offer me a job at$X per hour, what would you say if I asked how much you're making per hour off my labor?

I'm curious how business owners, managers, human resource officers, etc would answer this question (if you're not one, then pretend you are).

ew that's a hard one, dude. are we talking about typical employees who don't know shit about what's really going on, or are we talking about employees who haven't been sufficiently brainwashed?

for those ignorant employees, i'd offer an explanation something like mr. reasonable gave. but if i were faced with a employee who knew his shit, the conversation might look something like this:

enlightened worker: how much are you paying me per hour?

me: $10 enlightened worker: where do you get the money to pay me? me: i sell the products you make. enlightened worker: how many products will i make in 8 hours? me:$100 worth.

enlightened worker: so then really i'm paying you $20 every 8 hours to do.... what, exactly? me: i own the factory and run the business. enlightened worker: where did you get the money to buy the factory? me: from selling products. enlightened worker: and who made those products? me: look man, i don't know what you're trying to say, but if you think i don't do any work, you're wrong. enlightened worker: i'm not disputing that. there is no doubt that you perform some kind of labor. what we're examining here is how and where you get your profit; whether it is from your own labor, or the labor of others. me: i manage the business, and this involves a lot of work. enlightened worker: of course, but the money you make is not proportionate to the work you do. if you were getting paid only for the labor you perform, you'd be making as much per hour as stacy over there who's in charge of the book keeping. you pay stacy$10 per hour, so that's what your labor would be worth if you were doing the book keeping, no?

me: well i pay myself a little more when i do the book keeping. it's my business. that's my right.

enlightened worker: i don't doubt that you do, and you are able to do so because of the profits you generate from the work of your employees. but this doesn't mean the labor of book keeping is worth the amount you give yourself. if it was, stacy would be making the same as you when she does the book keeping, right?

me: you know what, i'm late for a luncheon and i really must go.

enlightened worker: of course, of course. hey, you enjoy your lunch, big guy... oh and try the lobster... it's on me.
soundcloud

not sure? ask a Rosa
promethean75

Posts: 342
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

### Re: Question for those in charge of hiring employees

Mr Reasonable wrote:If it were me, I'd tell you that I don't make money off your labor. You're the one making money off it. I would be making money off my own labor via the process of organizing, managing and maintaining a business. I would then suggest that you should do the same, as you seem to want more money than the position that you're applying for it worth. Then I'd tell you that we'd make a hiring decision within the next few days and then I would just not call you back.

Anyone can make a sandwich, or move bricks from one pile to another, or clean a floor, or do a variety of other things. And those kinds of things are easy to do. Because they're easy, they don't pay as much as things that are more difficult like organizing people, managing and maintaining a business, and calculating risks in real time in order to create an environment wherein the business makes predictable, stable profit. If you can do those things, then you should.

I used to hire guys in construction and every guy I hired made me $20-$40 per hour. I paid them $5-$10 under the table (back when min wage was $5.25). They made their money, but more importantly, they made MY money. By myself, I could make$50/hr. With a crew, I could make $100s per hour. If they had known how much I was making off of them, they would not have agreed. How do I know? Because they found out and went on strike. Obviously they didn't agree to the division. I had to hide how much I was making and pretend to be just as poor as them. That should have clued me in that I was unethical, but I consoled myself with the capitalist mantra that they could do it too (which is untrue). A friend of mine is a manager in IT for a big Berkshire company and he told me a story of a guy who wrote some code which saved the company$1 million. Then the guy asked if he could have a portion of the $1 million and was laughed at, and his notion of "entitlement" was so preposterous that he just had to tell me the story. Your value is not what you contribute, but what someone more desperate than you is willing to work for. If I could have found someone to work for 10 cents per hour, then it would be that much more profit for me. Slavery would be ideal and I know a guy who did that: he'd hire guys out of prison and shelter them in his own trailerhouses, for which he charged rent. After draws for beer-money was settled from throughout the week, they never saw a dime of their pay. Never. They were slaves with free housing and beer and no other options in life. For years I did jobs for a builder at a certain rate of pay until one day some neanderthal drug his knuckles up out of some cave saying he'd work for less. Then I was presented with the choice of working for the lesser pay or not working. I did one job at the lower rate and quit. I will not be valued based on what someone else will do the work for. Parents and welfare gives people the option of not working and the lack of employees forces companies to raise their wages to lure someone from his mother's basement or off the gov's teat. Without welfare, wages would plummet because people like me, my friend, my old employer, would base your value on that of the most desperate and hungry person we can find. Serendipper Philosopher Posts: 2109 Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm ### Re: Question for those in charge of hiring employees promethean75 wrote:enlightened worker: how much are you paying me per hour? me:$10
enlightened worker: where do you get the money to pay me?
me: i sell the products you make.
enlightened worker: how many products will i make in 8 hours?
me: $100 worth. enlightened worker: so then really i'm paying you$20 every 8 hours to do.... what, exactly?
me: i own the factory and run the business.
enlightened worker: where did you get the money to buy the factory? No, I would say "But the costs of running the factory have been accounted for by the other employees prior to me or else you would not have hired them, therefore you're hiring me at no addition cost and anything I give you is 100% pure profit above and beyond your compensation as an: accountant, manager, business owner, etc. What entitles you to that profit?"
me: from selling products.
enlightened worker: and who made those products?
me: look man, i don't know what you're trying to say, but if you think i don't do any work, you're wrong.
enlightened worker: i'm not disputing that. there is no doubt that you perform some kind of labor. what we're examining here is how and where you get your profit; whether it is from your own labor, or the labor of others.
me: i manage the business, and this involves a lot of work. (It's a lot of work if a business owner is also: an accountant, human resources, quality control, supervisor, sales, repair, legal, and a worker involved in production. I lived it. Greed made me take on too much work. Instead of hiring a salesman, I juggled the role with all other jobs. Then of course I appealed to the amount of work required of me for justification for the pay... as if I'm a slave to the grind just like everyone else.)
enlightened worker: of course, but the money you make is not proportionate to the work you do. if you were getting paid only for the labor you perform, you'd be making as much per hour as stacy over there who's in charge of the book keeping. you pay stacy $10 per hour, so that's what your labor would be worth if you were doing the book keeping, no? (I wouldn't appeal to the proportion of work done, but the proportion of the value generated) me: well i pay myself a little more when i do the book keeping. it's my business. that's my right. enlightened worker: i don't doubt that you do, and you are able to do so because of the profits you generate from the work of your employees. but this doesn't mean the labor of book keeping is worth the amount you give yourself. if it was, stacy would be making the same as you when she does the book keeping, right? me: you know what, i'm late for a luncheon and i really must go. enlightened worker: of course, of course. hey, you enjoy your lunch, big guy... oh and try the lobster... it's on me. I put my comments in red. I really applaud your conversation with yourself as it proves you can think from both perspectives which is a valuable tool of reasoning in my opinion. "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." - F. Scott Fitzgerald I want to encourage this type of post and have proposed arguing by dialogue before. Then others can edit the dialogue the way they think it should unfold. Serendipper Philosopher Posts: 2109 Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm ### Re: Question for those in charge of hiring employees I used to hire guys in construction and every guy I hired made me$20-$40 per hour. I paid them$5-$10 under the table (back when min wage was$5.25). They made their money, but more importantly, they made MY money. By myself, I could make $50/hr. With a crew, I could make$100s per hour.
You could have paid them any amount that you wanted. 'Capitalism' was not holding a gun to you head, forcing you to pay $5-$10. You also had a lot of options on how to organize your business - partnerships, profit sharing - which are not available to you under other economic/political systems. You had a lot of freedom.
A friend of mine is a manager in IT for a big Berkshire company and he told me a story of a guy who wrote some code which saved the company $1 million. Then the guy asked if he could have a portion of the$1 million and was laughed at, and his notion of "entitlement" was so preposterous that he just had to tell me the story.
The 'entitlement' is expecting to get a slice when he saves the company $1 million, but taking no responsibility if he made a mistake which cost the company$1 million. He wouldn't offer to make up the loss, would he? He feels entitled to profits but not losses. An agreed wage insulates the employee both from gain and loss that the company incurs. There are some real advantages to that arrangement. And some disadvantages. Most businesses lose money when they startup. Most businesses fail within a few years.
phyllo
ILP Legend

Posts: 11075
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

### Re: Question for those in charge of hiring employees

phyllo wrote:A friend of mine is a manager in IT for a big Berkshire company and he told me a story of a guy who wrote some code which saved the company $1 million. Then the guy asked if he could have a portion of the$1 million and was laughed at, and his notion of "entitlement" was so preposterous that he just had to tell me the story.
The 'entitlement' is expecting to get a slice when he saves the company $1 million, but taking no responsibility if he made a mistake which cost the company$1 million. He wouldn't offer to make up the loss, would he? [/quote]Lots of companies do punish for losses, in direct and indirect ways. But I think it exceptionally unlikely that anyone not working in finance could lose a company a million, and even there, the system has made errors. IOW there should be internal auditors and oversight. Most other losses will be covered by insurance. What kind of asshole would not share some part of that million, a significant part, with that employee? People should turn away from them at every party, like backs to them. They should be shunned.

They deserve workers who muddle through half-heartedly not giving a shit. It isn't just immoral, they acted like idiots.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher

Posts: 1491
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

### Re: Question for those in charge of hiring employees

phyllo wrote:
I used to hire guys in construction and every guy I hired made me $20-$40 per hour. I paid them $5-$10 under the table (back when min wage was $5.25). They made their money, but more importantly, they made MY money. By myself, I could make$50/hr. With a crew, I could make $100s per hour. You could have paid them any amount that you wanted. I couldn't pay them less than what they were willing to work for or I would have. Essentially I paid them the minimum to keep them from quitting. 'Capitalism' was not holding a gun to you head, forcing you to pay$5-$10. Capitalism was the gun I held to their heads, forcing them to take the peanuts I offered, or else return to peddling drugs or doing nothing. You also had a lot of options on how to organize your business - partnerships, profit sharing - which are not available to you under other economic/political systems. You had a lot of freedom. Why would I want to share profit? I tried a partnership initially, but my partner was too lazy, so I dissolved it and paid him hourly. A friend of mine is a manager in IT for a big Berkshire company and he told me a story of a guy who wrote some code which saved the company$1 million. Then the guy asked if he could have a portion of the $1 million and was laughed at, and his notion of "entitlement" was so preposterous that he just had to tell me the story. The 'entitlement' is expecting to get a slice when he saves the company$1 million, but taking no responsibility if he made a mistake which cost the company $1 million. Costing the company$1 million would be his manager's fault, not the fault of the employee. All the employee does is create code, and if malicious code found its way into the system, it would be the fault of the manager for allowing it to happen. On the other hand, if the employee writes $1 million in code, then the manager had nothing to do with that, except to allow it to be implemented. He wouldn't offer to make up the loss, would he? Probably so if he were cut-in on the profits. That's like asking me if I'd start a business and be willing to absorb losses. Of course I would. If I stand to make profit, I'm willing to risk losses. He feels entitled to profits but not losses. An agreed wage insulates the employee both from gain and loss that the company incurs. That's a myth perpetuated by the Right. Ask any employee if he'd be willing to accept profits if it meant also accepting losses. "Hell yeah!" would be the answer. Would you rather be paid$10/hr consistently? Or be paid $20 sometimes,$30 other times, $50 other times, and once in a bluemoon you'd have to pay me$5? Which would you pick?

I don't think ever in my life I lost money on an employee, so the rate of pay would have never been negative.

There are some real advantages to that arrangement. And some disadvantages. Most businesses lose money when they startup. Most businesses fail within a few years.

They were probably bad business models. Perhaps slavery would have saved them.
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 2109
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Question for those in charge of hiring employees

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Lots of companies do punish for losses, in direct and indirect ways. But I think it exceptionally unlikely that anyone not working in finance could lose a company a million, and even there, the system has made errors. IOW there should be internal auditors and oversight. Most other losses will be covered by insurance. What kind of asshole would not share some part of that million, a significant part, with that employee? People should turn away from them at every party, like backs to them. They should be shunned.

They deserve workers who muddle through half-heartedly not giving a shit. It isn't just immoral, they acted like idiots.

Not only is he not ashamed, but he ridicules the employee for even entertaining the thought.

He's the same guy who has 30 jobs open perpetually that pay almost twice the minimum, but can't find anyone to stick. I say raise the wage and people will stick. Instead, he derides them as lazy bums who won't buckle-down and work for the peanuts he's offering. He says end welfare and they'll be forced to come to work. Then he could cut their wages down to the minimum. Of course, he's against min wage too, so ideally he'd like to see them working for literal peanuts. Why? Because suffering builds character! Help people by making it harder on them. Adversity engenders prosperity, which is why poor neighborhoods are churning out so many successful people /sarc.
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 2109
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Question for those in charge of hiring employees

Serendipper wrote:Not only is he not ashamed, but he ridicules the employee for even entertaining the thought.

He's the same guy who has 30 jobs open perpetually that pay almost twice the minimum, but can't find anyone to stick. I say raise the wage and people will stick. Instead, he derides them as lazy bums who won't buckle-down and work for the peanuts he's offering. He says end welfare and they'll be forced to come to work. Then he could cut their wages down to the minimum. Of course, he's against min wage too, so ideally he'd like to see them working for literal peanuts. Why? Because suffering builds character! Help people by making it harder on them. Adversity engenders prosperity, which is why poor neighborhoods are churning out so many successful people /sarc.
I've been mulling, recently, my sense of 'what should be done', a little bit around our discussions around capitalism and socialism and the problems with the elites. I do not feel competent enough to know what changes, either at the tweaking level or at large scale economic levels - say a shift towards socialism- would make things better. The closest I come is with negative changes. Eliminate corporate personhood, get the money out of campains, restrict lobbying, return to the state revoking corporate charters for abuse of the priviledge - crimes, pollution getting fined cycles, etc. But when it comes to the whole wages worker rights freedom of employers, my knee jerk is towards lefty solutions, but I no longer feel the slightest certainty, given that the effects are so complicated, plus humans are such brainwashed idiotic, non-creative swayable creatures, I am not sure this would do anything but make a pendulum swing that will not last. There is nothing to stop the next Reagan comign in and erasing these changes and nothing to stop another Clinton from gutting the social system and freeing up Wall St. like his did with Glass speagal. The problem runs so deep.

I am lurching toward a sense that the only hope is in pointing out the lies and bullshit, primarily of those with power. And also focusing on how we are trained not to be fully human - by media, nowadays by technology especially via social media, by schools and by parenting memes and ideas about what is evil in the human. The left and the right have different ideas about what is evil, and the former are less likely to use the word evil, but they both go at children with a lot of assumptions about what has to be suppressed, destroyed, trained out, controlled.....

There is a complicated web and pulling out this strand here and making it good, in society, doesn't change much since the entire web simply counterbalances.

I think real leverage points are rare and since the very minds that need to change are so fixed by all the implicit assumptions, changing infrastructure doesn't do much since the minds drag things down
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher

Posts: 1491
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

### Re: Question for those in charge of hiring employees

Karpel Tunnel wrote:There is nothing to stop the next Reagan comign in and erasing these changes and nothing to stop another Clinton from gutting the social system and freeing up Wall St. like his did with Glass speagal. The problem runs so deep.

That's why we need a constitutional amendment preventing any trickle-down economics from ever plaguing us again. I don't know why FDR didn't advocate it.

There are two ways of viewing the Government's duty in matters affecting economic and social life. The first sees to it that a favored few are helped and hopes that some of their prosperity will leak through, sift through, to labor, to the farmer, to the small business man. That theory belongs to the party of Toryism, and I had hoped that most of the Tories left this country in 1776

Franklin Delano Roosevelt's First Presidential Nomination Acceptance Speech, July 2, 1932 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Franklin ... nce_Speech

If they were indeed the redcoats, then they are traitors and should be dealt with once and for all. Currently they're like a herpes virus that goes into remission for a time only to habitually reappear.

I am lurching toward a sense that the only hope is in pointing out the lies and bullshit, primarily of those with power. And also focusing on how we are trained not to be fully human - by media, nowadays by technology especially via social media, by schools and by parenting memes and ideas about what is evil in the human. The left and the right have different ideas about what is evil, and the former are less likely to use the word evil, but they both go at children with a lot of assumptions about what has to be suppressed, destroyed, trained out, controlled.....

Authoritarianism depends who is the authority. A people cannot be tyrannical to itself, but only a small group of idealists can be tyrannical to the people.

The left makes laws.
The right makes laws.
The difference is who they represent.

The left advocates sales tax on soda to discourage unhealthy drink and fund education. <- community representation
The right advocates sales tax on netflix in order to be fair to corporations. <- corporate representation
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 2109
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Question for those in charge of hiring employees

Serendipper wrote:
'Capitalism' was not holding a gun to you head, forcing you to pay $5-$10.

Capitalism was the gun I held to their heads, forcing them to take the peanuts I offered, or else return to peddling drugs or doing nothing.

Uhhhh....... Do you seriously believe this? YOU were the POS (the "gun"), not capitalism, YOU! This is exactly the same lack of responsibility and judgement that leads the push for gun control. You are literally arguing that it's the system's fault that it allowed itself to be used by you to take advantage of other people. It's the system's fault it was open to corruption by a garbage individual(s)? And if anything, this is more like communism where you as the dictator of the state take all of the product of labour and give out just enough to keep them dependent on you, keeping all the luxuries for yourself, of course.

I am absolutely convinced that the other side of the fence is like anti-matter. A reciprocal. An exponent of -1. Reversed polarity. It's not like a good v. evil, because they genuinely think think they are correct and genuinely think they are moral. They are the road to hell being paved with good intentions.
Mimisbrunnr

Posts: 157
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:18 am

### Re: Question for those in charge of hiring employees

Mimisbrunnr wrote:
Serendipper wrote:
'Capitalism' was not holding a gun to you head, forcing you to pay $5-$10.

Capitalism was the gun I held to their heads, forcing them to take the peanuts I offered, or else return to peddling drugs or doing nothing.

Uhhhh....... Do you seriously believe this? YOU were the POS (the "gun"), not capitalism, YOU! This is exactly the same lack of responsibility and judgement that leads the push for gun control. You are literally arguing that it's the system's fault that it allowed itself to be used by you to take advantage of other people. It's the system's fault it was open to corruption by a garbage individual(s)? And if anything, this is more like communism where you as the dictator of the state take all of the product of labour and give out just enough to keep them dependent on you, keeping all the luxuries for yourself, of course.

I am absolutely convinced that the other side of the fence is like anti-matter. A reciprocal. An exponent of -1. Reversed polarity. It's not like a good v. evil, because they genuinely think think they are correct and genuinely think they are moral. They are the road to hell being paved with good intentions.

I think much of what you're saying is perfectly right and I am blaming the system, but not the system per se, but the admiration of the system. You see the distinction? For instance, the love of money is the root of all evil.

I was indoctrinated capitalist in my youth by my father who probably just innocently wanted to pay less taxes before being sucked into the AM radio phenomenon. I honestly thought I was being virtuous: providing a service to the community by creating jobs in accordance with the capitalist manifesto. How the hell was I to know any better? The internet didn't exist yet. But that's my point: it's the propaganda full of specious talking-points designed to appeal to simian sensibilities. Concepts like "fairness" and "deserve" are utilized exhaustively. "People who don't work don't deserve anything and it's not fair being burdened by them." Etc.

It's easy to get wrapped up in it especially when ones neurology had a toll taken by poverty and the struggle to escape breeds resentment for those who appear to rely on handouts. "Hey bum, why don't you work like I am?"

I used to yell at workers on strike. "Go find a better job if you don't like the pay here!"

As one coming from the darkside I feel I have particular insight to their inner workings. I'm not looking for redemption, but a better world to inhabit. The source of my morality is pure selfishness: what's good for society is generally good for me because I don't want to live in a shithole specifically tailored to compel people into servitude for the benefit of elites who don't give a shit about me or anyone else. This is not a righteous crusade, but a pragmatic one.
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 2109
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Return to Society, Government, and Economics

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users