Obama funding plan for health insurance losses is a bailout

Nov 14, 2014 20:42:29 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Nov 14, 2014 14:11:54 GMT ShivaTD said:

As you accurately note the "terrorist" is not going to be deterred based upon the remote possibility of an Air Marshall being on board a commercial airliner. How many cases of "run-of-the-mill" criminals committing criminal acts on an airliner can you cite from the last 50 years? We had DB Cooper decades ago that hijacke an airliner but generally speaking the only problems we have on commercial airliners are disruptive passengers that the crew/passengers subdue. These are not "run-of-the-mill" criminals but merely irresponsible people causing a disruption and the crew and passengers deal with them routinely.

The $30 employee is minimally harder to replace because the $15/hr employee often has more of the knowledge and skills necessary to perform the task (or where on the job training could provide the knowledge and skills) before being hired than the $30/hr employee. As I noted in aerospace it took a few weeks to provide the basic knowledge and skills for the aerospace technician. In short the aerospace company has to "invest" up front prior to the employee actually working and earning their keep while a lower paying job doesn't require that pre-investment by the employer. There is no lack of people willing to work in aerospace and they are easily replaced. The difference is that the $30/hr employee requires more investment by the enterprise than the $15/hr worker.

I've also gone to the market, purchased some hamburger, cooked it, and all too often, upon taking my first bite, found that it was still raw in the middle. That is unacceptable from a commercial standpoint. Because I'm not a professional "burger-flipper" I can't produce a consistent and quality product for others. Given time and experience (knowledge and skill) I could but I certainly couldn't today.   

I would imagine that burger flippers are instructed as to how long to grill the burgers they make. (As for myself, I have made many hamburgers; and I have yet to have one that was "raw in the middle.")

Your phobia as concerning air marshals--you would simply leave it to the "passengers" and "crew" to subdue anyone who might attempt to hijack an airplane--is probably not grounded, really, in an aversion to our spending a few dollars on the matter. It is more likely just a manifestation of political correctness.

As I have noted previously, I am certainly no expert on the matter of the aerospace industry--since you worked in that industry, I would imagine that you know far more about it than I do--but I rather doubt that the $30-per-hour employee would be easier to replace than the $15-per-hour employee is throughout American companies in general.  That just flies in the face of common sense. 

You're obviously more qualified to get a job as a burger-flipper than I am as you would require less training but I would still state that you're not qualified without further training to work as a burger-flipper at McDonalds. Can you, for example, list the order in which the pickle, onion, lettuce, cheese and dressing are placed on the Big Mac hamburger (yes, there is a specific order for these) or would you require training?

I have no "phobia" concern the Air Mashalls but find $300 million per arrest to be an absurd cost for law enforcement when the passengers and crews on commercial flights have demonstrated that they are fully capable of defending the plane against hijackers. Remember that the hijacking of Flight 93 could have been stopped had the crew and passengers responded immidiately to the hijacking but due to policies of the time they did not.  A "Flight 93" incident could not occur today because the passengers and crew won't allow it to happen.  

The fundamental difference between the $15/hr job and the $30/hr job is based upon "unions" that were capable of counteracting the economic coercion of the market place. Where we have found unions in enterprise they are capable of increasing the market wages of the industry which are driven down by market coercion. We need two balancing forces to achieve a neutral position and without unions the only force is the market force that drives down wages.

There is fundamentally no difference between the people earning above a liveable wage (i.e. $30/hr) and below a liveable wage ($15/hr). The real difference is whether the industry has been influence by unions counter-acting market forces or not.

Nov 15, 2014 23:03:35 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Your enthusiasm for unions sounds almost socialist. In an earlier era--about 100 years ago--Upton Sinclair (author of The Jungle; The Goose-step: A Study of American Education; and many other works) was similarly enamored of them.  How would you differentiate your own views from his?

Your further enthusiasm for "a livable wage" is also indicative of a left-wing mindset.  As is your indictment of "market coercion."  (It is evident that you do not believe in free-market capitalism; your views, in fact, seem more in line with those of Karl Marx than with those of Adam Smith.)

To reiterate, you would rely upon the "crew" and "passengers" to attempt to foil any attempt at hijacking. But that is not their duty. And it is especially not the job of the passengers.

Since I am now retired, I really do not imagine that I will allow myself to be trained as regarding the order in which the condiments are placed upon the hamburgers at McDonald's.  But if you wish to work at McDonald's, please feel free to learn the proper order...

In an absolute sense a "free market" is economic anarchy without any laws or regulation and I'm opposed to that. I would not like to live in an economy without government enforcement of the "law of contract" for example. As you should be aware "coercion" invalidates a "contract" under contract law.

When we address employment there is always coercion where the employer typically wants to provide least possible compensation while the worker wants to obtain the most compensation for labor. The "market" produces the force (coercion) for the lowest possible wages but without organizated labor there is no counteracting force (coercion). One person cannot stand against "all enterprises" in any field of labor. Only if "all employees" can counter the force (coercion) of the market forces (coercion) does a semblance of balance exist. We have two opposing forces (opposite forms of coercion) existing in such a case.
 

So no, I don't advocate a "free market" but instead I seek a "fair market" where the purpose of government is to level the playing field for both enterprise and labor when it comes to the employment contract. Today we have market pressure (coercion) driving down wages to the point that the worker literally can't live off of the compensation and, with the significant decline in the power of unions that have been undercut by laws favoring the enterprise (employers), there is no counteracting force (coercion). Perhaps, instead of a mandated "liveable wage" we should instead produce legislation that re-establishes the ability of people to join and create unions that has been undercut by laws favoring the "enterprise" over the "worker" in America. That is a possibility that is being ignored by many.

You've seen this in my positions when it comes to our laws that provide favoritism in taxation where corporations and investors currently pay lower tax rates and fewer types of taxes than sole-proprietorship and workers. I wanted to achieve balance where both were treated the same under our tax codes by our government.

When it comes to the "duty" of the passenger on an airliner I'm going to cite a passage from the Declaration of Independence.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Identical to the depotism of government that Thomas Jefferson addressed in this statement a terrorist taking over an airliner is attempting to reduce the passengers to "absolute despotism" and the passenger not only have the "Right" but the "Duty" to "throw off" the person (or persons) attempting to subject them to "absolute despotism" and "provide new Guards for their future security." This is based upon the simple fact that not only does a person have a "Right of Self-Defense Against Acts of Aggression" but that they also have a "Duty to Defend Themselves Against Acts of Aggression" committed against them. It is the linkage of "Rights and Responsibilities" that many seem to ignore. With every "Right of the Person" also comes a "Responsibility of the Person" and too many people ignore that linkage. The "Right of Self-Defense" comes with the "Responsibility of Self-Defense" of the person. 

I'm in forced (semi)retirement because I wouldn't accept the huge drop in compensation (over 50% cut in pay) caused by market forces due to the 2008 Recession but fortunately I'd earned enough previously to be able to retire. Instead of choosing to work at McDonalds (about an 85% pay cut) I formed a partnership with another "retiree" to create jobs that provide adequate compensation for all direct or indirect employees we require to produce goods. Sitting on my butt and doing nothing simply wasn't an option for me (because I would have gone nuts with nothing creative to do) although I could afford to do that if I wante that is not an option for tens of millions of Americans that are forced (by market coercion) to accept employment that doesn't provide enough compensation for them to live on.    

Nov 20, 2014 18:33:19 GMT pjohns1873 said:

For openers, I applaud your initiative. And if you would prefer to pay your employees generously, well, I certainly cannot imagine any compelling argument against that. But that is a decision for you and your partner to make; for anyone else to attempt to do so, on your behalf, would simply be wrong.

As regarding another point, however, you appear to equate the free market with "economic anarchy."  Is that really what you think? (By the way, your preference for a "fair" market over a free market reminds me of the protectionists' preference for "fair" trade over free trade.)

And I am really not a big fan of unions. At times, they may be useful--as, for instance, as regarding the proposed Keystone pipeline: they tend to be in favor of it, whereas rabid environmentalists (another Democratic constituency) are opposed to it--but I simply do not see them as a legitimate countervailing force, with regard to management...

Let us start with the "Investopedia" definition of "Free Market" as it is the commonly held definition.

www.investopedia.com/terms/f/freemarket.asp

"Without regulation" means exactly that. That means no regulation whatsoever in the extreme which means no regulation of even contract law. It means no legal recourse based upon laws (regulations) in the economy. No laws, no regulations, that protect the rights of the person. It is economic anarchy if the definition is followed without exception.

When I refer to "fair market" I'm referring to a regulated market where the government protects the Rights of the People, mitigates the violations of the Rights of the People when it is beyond the ability of the government to prevent the violations, and that is not involved in "crony capitalism" that affects the outcomes of fair trade.

You've even read a proposal I've made that embraces "fair trade" where treated corporations identically to sole proprietorships and where I treated investors identically to workers in my tax proposal. There was no favoritism in my proposal as all enterprises and all people were subjected to the identical tax provisions. It was "fair" as opposed to being "unfair" in addressing taxation.

Historically there have been cases of unfair practices by unions but in truth they are rare. I typically use the phrase "organized labor" as opposed to "unions" although that is a difference in nuance similar to the differences between the words tenacious and stubborn.

Here is the problem as I see it. The employer doesn't typically establish the compensation but instead generally uses the force of the market that establishes the compensation so the employer has the power of thousands. The prospective employee, lacking organized labor, is only representing themself and only has the power of one. It is a "David v Goliath" confrontation where the puny David goes up against the Goliath of the Market. Unlike the mythical Biblical story of David and Goliath in reality David always dies at the hands of the giant. So it is when it comes to the so-called compensation negotiations between the employer and the employee. Standing alone the employee always loses.

Historically there were, at times, a balance between the market forces, that always applies force to drive compensation to the lowest possible level, and organized labor, that always applies force to drive compensation to the highest possible level. Ideally the situation exists where these two opposing forces reach a compromise resulting in neither having an advantage and a "fair" compensation is achieved. Compensation is neither too high or too low as the forces between the market and organized labor are equal. 

What I've seen is that in combating anecdotal cases of unfair practices by labor unions (that should be addressed) our laws in recent decades have gutted organized labor basically throwing out the baby with the bath water. Today virtually all of the economic forces are based upon the "Market" that applies downward force on compensation for employment creating the situation where the individual, the David facing Goliath, can never win in reality.

In my opinion we need to address restoring the balance of power between the Market and Organized Labor as that is how best to find the "fair compensation" for labor.

By way of example, large franchises use the business plan established by the corporation. It would be my opinion that the laws governing organized labor should be at the "franchising" (corporate) level. In short the employees of McDonalds, for example, should be able to "organize" at the corporate level as opposed to at the individual retail level of the franchise. Today our laws and regulations don't support that.

What I'm looking for is that balance of power between the employer and the employee when it comes to compensation. I'd call that "fair market" practices.      

Nov 21, 2014 18:55:23 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Nov 21, 2014 12:04:32 GMT ShivaTD said:

Let us start with the "Investopedia" definition of "Free Market" as it is the commonly held definition.

www.investopedia.com/terms/f/freemarket.asp

"Without regulation" means exactly that. That means no regulation whatsoever in the extreme which means no regulation of even contract law. It means no legal recourse based upon laws (regulations) in the economy. No laws, no regulations, that protect the rights of the person. It is economic anarchy if the definition is followed without exception.

When I refer to "fair market" I'm referring to a regulated market where the government protects the Rights of the People, mitigates the violations of the Rights of the People when it is beyond the ability of the government to prevent the violations, and that is not involved in "crony capitalism" that affects the outcomes of fair trade.

You've even read a proposal I've made that embraces "fair trade" where treated corporations identically to sole proprietorships and where I treated investors identically to workers in my tax proposal. There was no favoritism in my proposal as all enterprises and all people were subjected to the identical tax provisions. It was "fair" as opposed to being "unfair" in addressing taxation.

Historically there have been cases of unfair practices by unions but in truth they are rare. I typically use the phrase "organized labor" as opposed to "unions" although that is a difference in nuance similar to the differences between the words tenacious and stubborn.

Here is the problem as I see it. The employer doesn't typically establish the compensation but instead generally uses the force of the market that establishes the compensation so the employer has the power of thousands. The prospective employee, lacking organized labor, is only representing themself and only has the power of one. It is a "David v Goliath" confrontation where the puny David goes up against the Goliath of the Market. Unlike the mythical Biblical story of David and Goliath in reality David always dies at the hands of the giant. So it is when it comes to the so-called compensation negotiations between the employer and the employee. Standing alone the employee always loses.

Historically there were, at times, a balance between the market forces, that always applies force to drive compensation to the lowest possible level, and organized labor, that always applies force to drive compensation to the highest possible level. Ideally the situation exists where these two opposing forces reach a compromise resulting in neither having an advantage and a "fair" compensation is achieved. Compensation is neither too high or too low as the forces between the market and organized labor are equal. 

What I've seen is that in combating anecdotal cases of unfair practices by labor unions (that should be addressed) our laws in recent decades have gutted organized labor basically throwing out the baby with the bath water. Today virtually all of the economic forces are based upon the "Market" that applies downward force on compensation for employment creating the situation where the individual, the David facing Goliath, can never win in reality.

In my opinion we need to address restoring the balance of power between the Market and Organized Labor as that is how best to find the "fair compensation" for labor.

By way of example, large franchises use the business plan established by the corporation. It would be my opinion that the laws governing organized labor should be at the "franchising" (corporate) level. In short the employees of McDonalds, for example, should be able to "organize" at the corporate level as opposed to at the individual retail level of the franchise. Today our laws and regulations don't support that.

What I'm looking for is that balance of power between the employer and the employee when it comes to compensation. I'd call that "fair market" practices.      

To begin with, I do not agree with your absolutist view of the free market.  I think Wikipedia sums up the term very well:

A free market is a market system in which the prices for goods and services are set freely by consent between sellers and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority. A free market contrasts with a controlled market or regulated market, in which government intervenes in supply and demand through non-market methods such as laws creating barriers to market entry or directly setting prices. A free market economy is a market-based economy where prices for goods and services are set freely by the forces of supply and demand and are allowed to reach their point of equilibrium without intervention by government policy, and it typically entails support for highly competitive markets and private ownership of productive enterprises.

And your view of unions and management as competing forces that (in theory, at least) should achieve some sort of happy equilibrium, is much too cynical for my own tastes.  It reminds me of the aptly named "MAD" theory (Mutual Assured Destruction) of the 1960s, '70s, and '80s.

Note:  Anyone with significant skills is not a mere "David," up against a "Goliath."  He (or she) may sell his (or her) services to anyone who is willing to pay for those services.  But I have no special desire to advance the interests of those who are merely doing run-of-the-mill labor, no matter how important that labor may be to the proper functioning of the company in question... 

Once again I'd refer to "Organized Labor v Market" as indicating the cummulative forces of all employees v all employers in addressing issues of dispute between two opposing interests that, we should also note, have common interests as well. This is unrelated to individual negotiations between a union and the owners of enterprise. It is not cynical to seek to achieve a balance between the interests of the employees and the owners of enterprise. My position is really about the labor contract being established "freely by consent" between the worker and the owner though negotiations between both where each is on equal terms. With laws that have gutted organized labor in favor of the owners of enterprise, advocated by Republican economic policies, the balance of power between the worker and owner has been destroyed and it really is "David" (the worker) going up against "Goliath" (the owner) today.

Once again it doesn't matter the skill level of the worker that really determines compensation which is, in practice, tied to the "market" and not the worker's contibution to the enterprise.

I hate using myself as an example because it's anecdotal but perhaps I can in this case. I one of the top 1% in my former professional field in the aerospace industry and generally I was paid very well but it wasn't base upon my contribution to the financial success of the enterprise. When I worked at Boeing my personal contribution resulted in over $100 million of documented net profit to Boeing based upon a 10-year cost-benefit analysis of a proposal I made that was implemented. That's $10 million per year and while I was well paid at the time it wasn't even a small percentage of that net profit to the enterprise that my knowledge and skills were responsible for. There was no relationship between cost and benefit related to my employment compensation as I was merely paid at the high end of the "market rate" for my labor. The market alone controlled my compensation and not my knowledge and skills related to my job.  

Nov 22, 2014 18:02:46 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Nov 22, 2014 12:17:29 GMT ShivaTD said:

Once again I'd refer to "Organized Labor v Market" as indicating the cummulative forces of all employees v all employers in addressing issues of dispute between two opposing interests that, we should also note, have common interests as well. This is unrelated to individual negotiations between a union and the owners of enterprise. It is not cynical to seek to achieve a balance between the interests of the employees and the owners of enterprise. My position is really about the labor contract being established "freely by consent" between the worker and the owner though negotiations between both where each is on equal terms. With laws that have gutted organized labor in favor of the owners of enterprise, advocated by Republican economic policies, the balance of power between the worker and owner has been destroyed and it really is "David" (the worker) going up against "Goliath" (the owner) today.

Once again it doesn't matter the skill level of the worker that really determines compensation which is, in practice, tied to the "market" and not the worker's contibution to the enterprise.

I hate using myself as an example because it's anecdotal but perhaps I can in this case. I one of the top 1% in my former professional field in the aerospace industry and generally I was paid very well but it wasn't base upon my contribution to the financial success of the enterprise. When I worked at Boeing my personal contribution resulted in over $100 million of documented net profit to Boeing based upon a 10-year cost-benefit analysis of a proposal I made that was implemented. That's $10 million per year and while I was well paid at the time it wasn't even a small percentage of that net profit to the enterprise that my knowledge and skills were responsible for. There was no relationship between cost and benefit related to my employment compensation as I was merely paid at the high end of the "market rate" for my labor. The market alone controlled my compensation and not my knowledge and skills related to my job.  

     

I would strongly argue that the free market should have determined your level of compensation--not your "personal contribution" to the company's success.

Your comment that "it doesn't matter the skill level of the worker" sounds--like so many of your other comments--much more like Karl Marx than like Adam Smith.

And I believe that it is, indeed, cynical to view labor and management as competing "interests," when they should, in fact, be working together toward a common goal...

Once again you present two arguments that are self-contradictory. On the one hand you propose that a low income worker should expand their skills and knowledge to increase their income but then contradict that argument by stating a person should not be compensated based upon how their skills and knowledge financially benefit the enterprise.

A comparison of Marx and Adam Smith merely reflects a distortion by each related to the "natural right of property" as established by John Locke in his Second Treatise of Civil Government, Chapter 5. For examply Adam Smith, in his advocacy for the "division of labor" in The Wealth of Nations held the opinion that with division of labour, the produce of one's own labour can fill only a small part of one's needs. This is juxtaposed to Locke's contention that the labor of the person established their right to "survival and comfort" as expressed in Chapter 5 of the Second Treatise of Civil Government.

Both Karl Marx and Adam Smith ignored the "Natural Right of Property" whenever it contradicted their economic philosophies and that is a common bond between them.

Both the worker and the owner have a common interest when it comes to the success of the enterprise but the division of profits is a matter of dispute between them. The owner would prefer that the labor was free to maximize profits while the worker wants to be compensated for their contribution to the financial success of the enterprise.

If we were to create a hypothetical then the enterprise has "gross income" which is 100% of the revenue of the enterprise. Then we can break out expenditures as "Labor" and "Other" where, under the typical business plan the labor compensation is equal to an average 25% of gross revenue. The owner would prefer to lower that expenditure while not changing gross revenue thereby increasing the net "owner" profit. The workers would like to increase their percentage of the gross revenue which increases the "worker" profit from the enterprise. It is this competing desire of "worker profit" v "owner profit" where there are opposing forces.

The problem we have today is that the workers are often required to "operate at a loss" because the compensation doesn't cover their personal expenditures. We have "owner profit v worker loss" because the market, in over 20% of all professions, has driven the compensation levels below what is required for the worker to meet their financial necessities.  The workers are not being compensated based upon how much their "knowledge and skills" contribute to the financial success of the enterprise. In a "fair market" both the owner and the worker "profit" from the revenue from the enterprise but that isn't happening in over 20% of the cases today. Only the owners are profiting while the workers actually lose money by working because their "cost of living" is greater than their compensation.

Nov 24, 2014 18:47:37 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Nov 23, 2014 14:29:54 GMT ShivaTD said:

Once again you present two arguments that are self-contradictory. On the one hand you propose that a low income worker should expand their skills and knowledge to increase their income but then contradict that argument by stating a person should not be compensated based upon how their skills and knowledge financially benefit the enterprise.

A comparison of Marx and Adam Smith merely reflects a distortion by each related to the "natural right of property" as established by John Locke in his Second Treatise of Civil Government, Chapter 5. For examply Adam Smith, in his advocacy for the "division of labor" in The Wealth of Nations held the opinion that with division of labour, the produce of one's own labour can fill only a small part of one's needs. This is juxtaposed to Locke's contention that the labor of the person established their right to "survival and comfort" as expressed in Chapter 5 of the Second Treatise of Civil Government.

Both Karl Marx and Adam Smith ignored the "Natural Right of Property" whenever it contradicted their economic philosophies and that is a common bond between them.

Both the worker and the owner have a common interest when it comes to the success of the enterprise but the division of profits is a matter of dispute between them. The owner would prefer that the labor was free to maximize profits while the worker wants to be compensated for their contribution to the financial success of the enterprise.

If we were to create a hypothetical then the enterprise has "gross income" which is 100% of the revenue of the enterprise. Then we can break out expenditures as "Labor" and "Other" where, under the typical business plan the labor compensation is equal to an average 25% of gross revenue. The owner would prefer to lower that expenditure while not changing gross revenue thereby increasing the net "owner" profit. The workers would like to increase their percentage of the gross revenue which increases the "worker" profit from the enterprise. It is this competing desire of "worker profit" v "owner profit" where there are opposing forces.

The problem we have today is that the workers are often required to "operate at a loss" because the compensation doesn't cover their personal expenditures. We have "owner profit v worker loss" because the market, in over 20% of all professions, has driven the compensation levels below what is required for the worker to meet their financial necessities.  The workers are not being compensated based upon how much their "knowledge and skills" contribute to the financial success of the enterprise. In a "fair market" both the owner and the worker "profit" from the revenue from the enterprise but that isn't happening in over 20% of the cases today. Only the owners are profiting while the workers actually lose money by working because their "cost of living" is greater than their compensation.

If these workers "actually lose money," as you contend, they would do better to not work for the comapny in question.  (There are always other jobs available.)

When did I ever state that "a person should not be compensated based upon how their skills and knowledge financially bebefit the enterprise" to which they are attached? A free market--which I very much favor--would certainly result in their being compensated accordingly.

You claim that the owners of companies wish to minimize the amount that they pay their employees, in order to attempt to maximize net profits. But that is apparently not in accordance with your own plan, according to what you have previously told me. Do you consider yourself to be far more altruistic than most others?

Oh, and what did Adam Smith say about the "Natural Right of Property" that you would consider a "distort[ion]"?

The other jobs available to them don't pay anymore than the job they have so while they can switch employers the compensation is still below what the basic necessities of life require. Switching jobs from "Burger King" to "McDonalds" doesn't normally result in higher compensation.

No, a free market, in most cases (the exception being jobs that pay a commission on gross sales) don't result in compensation based upon contribution to the enterpise. The free market almost always results in the compensation being the least possible compensation for the worker.

I don't know if believing in the natural right of property, as argued by John Locke, and providing compensation to our employees based upon that ideology would be considered altruistic. I would simply call it "being fair" based upon the natural right of property without any force or coercion. I have this belief that I should always treat people the same way that I would like to be treated. I've been both an employee and an owner and I understand how I would like to be treated in both cases. When I worked as an employee I treated my employers like I would want to be treated as an owner. As an owner I will treat my employees like I would want to be treated as an employee. Is that altruistic?  

Adam Smith's economic ideology was based upon "statutory ownership of property" as established under the "divine right of kings" and was completely opposite to John Locke's arguments for the "natural right of property" where the person had a right to "survival and comfort" based upon their physical labor. Karl Marx's economic philosophies were more closely related to the "right of property" of the person based upon Locke's arguments by far than those of Adam Smith, Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises and the general Austrian School of Economic philosophy that gained a foothold in ecnomic circles. That didn't make Marx right as his economic philosophy also violated the natural rights of the person with collectivism but merely reflects he was far closer to understanding and addressing the natural right of property than Adam Smith.

Nov 26, 2014 21:05:53 GMT pjohns1873 said:

It is probably rather instructive that you consider Karl Marx to have been "far closer" to the truth than Adam Smith was--even if not entirely correct.

I will gladly use your word ("fair"), in place of my own suggestion ("altruistic"). Do you, then, consider yourself to be much more inclined to fairness (as you view it) than most other Americans are?

No, merely switching from a burger-flipper position at Burger King to a similar position at McDonald's (or vice-versa) is not likely to result in substantially greater compensation. But anyone who is no longer an adolescent or a twentysomething would probably do well to learn a serious skill--not just how to flip a hamburger.

Your observation that a free market "almost always" results in inadequate compensation is belied by the fact that there are plenty of well-paying jobs out there. (Of course, burger flipper is not one of those jobs.)

Marx expressed the belief that a person should be able to provide for their "survival and comfort" based upon their labor, which John Locke also expressed as the very foundation for the natural right of property, while Adam Smith expressed the belief that some workers should not be able to provide for their "survival and comfort" based upon their labor which is juxtaposed to the foundation for the natural right of property. Smith believed in a hereditary wealth and power and a strict social stratification that, in all respects, was identical to society under a monarchy. Smith was a huge proponent of social elitism and class in his economic agruments.

Once again I find the economic philosophies of both to contain serious errors but Smith's was really abhorent as I don't believe in the stratification of society into the wealthy and powerful and the poor that are nothing but "slaves" to the power elite. Sadly in American we're seeing Smith's idealism becoming a reality where we're being slowly divided into an economy of the very rich and the very poor with fewer and fewer in-between. The middle-class that you and I grew up in is disappearing which is exactly what Smith's economic philosophy embraced. He advocated for the society of the "haves" and the "have nots" based upon hereditary wealth.    

Yesterday I was explaining my "business" philosophy of employee/owner relationships to a potential employee. I've been both an employee and an owner in by life and my belief is simple. Treat another person the same way you'd like to be treated. The owner should treat their employee the same way that they would like to be treated if they were the employee. The employee should treat the owner the same way they would want to be treated if they were the owner.

As an employee, as a minimum, I'd like to receive enough compensation to provide for my basic necessities as well as some comforts. I'd also like to receive compensation commensurate with my contribution to the financial success of the enterprise. As an owner how could I not provide this compensation to my employees when it is exactly what I'd like to receive if I was the employee? I create my business plan so this will be taken care of and the employee and myself will both benefit from the success of the enterprise.

This actually extends beyond just the employee-owner relationship. It extends to the customers and suppliers of the enterprise as well. It is based upon mutual respect and treating everyone exactly like you'd want to be treated if you were in their shoes. An enterprise based upon this criteria never fails and everyone profits from the customer to the supplier to the employee to the owner. It becomes a win-win-win-win situation and those types of enterprises are always successful.

I've read that the average age of a "burger-flipper" is 29 years old today. No longer is the job just a job for a teenagers or a part-time job for someone like a college student. Today it's a job that young families have come to depend upon to support a family. We can also note that even after graduating colllege many are still forced to work at "burger-flipper" type jobs. I'm not sure if my memory is correct but as I recall something like 25% of the taxicab drivers in New York City have four-year college degrees today. Driving a cab isn't much different than flipping burgers and it sure as hell doesn't require a college degree. It is estimated that 1/3rd of all college graduates are "under-employed" or in a job that doesn't require a college degree at all. We have roughly 40 million college graduates but only have about 25 million jobs that require a college degree.  

Yes, there are well-paying jobs, although per capita the number is decreasing, but that doesn't imply  the person is being compensated based upon their contribution to the finanical success of the enterprise. Based upon the "market" a person is virtually always under-compensated even when they have a high paying job. Typically only when there is an equal opposite force driving compensation up (e.g. organized labor) to offset the downward pressure of the market will a person receive compensation commensurate with their contribution to the finanical success of the enterprise.