Re:How Employers Get Out of Paying Their Workers
by SamReidHughes on Saturday May 23, 2015 @08:24PM
(#9594907)
Yep.
> if there exists any more surplus value with which they could be paid more, it is reasonable for the employer to do so and unreasonable for them not to.
The one problem in practice with this is that typically, in a retail setting, employers are in a race to the bottom, and those that don't squeeze their workers get beaten in the market by those that do. It's really the evil customers capturing everything.
Of course, in the technology industry it's par for the course -- it's basically how the patent system and certain aspects of immigration law are designed.
Re:How Employers Get Out of Paying Their Workers
by sukilot on Sunday May 24, 2015 @02:14PM
(#9597015)
Sam Walton's billionare heirs are confused by your claims.
Re:How Employers Get Out of Paying Their Workers
by SamReidHughes on Sunday May 24, 2015 @07:29PM
(#9597991)
Walmart is subject to the same effects as every other company. That's why their net profit margin is 3-4%, not 100%.
Re:How Employers Get Out of Paying Their Workers
by bayesianhorse on Sunday May 24, 2015 @09:58AM
(#9596248)
You are confusing a contract agreement with fraud and rationalizing the latter with a capitalist/marxist rant. Exploitative wages are not illegal and not wage theft. Not paying wage owed as per the contract, by whatever means of deception and coercion however is fraud or theft. It's as simple as that!
Re:How Employers Get Out of Paying Their Workers
by SamReidHughes on Sunday May 24, 2015 @02:01PM
(#9596983)
I'm trying to find the part of your post that disagrees with the parent. It's hard.
It makes much more sense to simply reason about what is morally correct (assuming we accept capitalism and the idea that employers deserve to dictate to employees to some degree).
In the full blown Marxist world view any appropriation of surplus value is essentially 'wage theft'. Of course, if that were completely returned to workers, there would be no point in bothering with employees.
Instead, we can consider that if a worker has a wage low enough that their quality of life is really bad (e.g. complete inability to build capital as 100% of wage goes on absolute essentials), if there exists any more surplus value with which they could be paid more, it is reasonable for the employer to do so and unreasonable for them not to.
Is it 'theft' not to? Well... no. In the same way that my landlord doesn't 'steal' my labour by exploiting the fact that buying property is difficult. It's still not great though.