Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Value in Labor

ColeTrain
Posts: 4,320
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 6:35:18 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
How much is an employee worth? This is a question, I believe, that drives the campaigns for and against wage increases -- but that's not what I want to talk about. I want to discover how valuable workers are to their firm, and the caveats with making baseline assumptions about all workers. The question often gets much less attention than it deserves; if we are to use the power of the government to chart policies of labor, it is well to know the value of various prospective employees. There are plenty of variables which determine the value of an employee, as well as factors that change from one occupation to the next. In general, though, there are a couple of areas where a firm can judge the value an employee will have to the company:

(1) Quality of work
-- There's some workers capable of doing complex workings and complete tasks others are unable to do. This asset is particularly necessary for specialized jobs and subsequent employees. Again, though, in terms of value, I believe it would be the driving factor with a couple stipulations: a) the work is done correctly, b) the work is done carefully, and c) the work is sustainable. The company definitely wants what it paid for, so this is an imperative qualification of a high-wage worker.

(2) Speed and efficiency
-- There's definitely something to be said about speed. Yet, (1) is a prerequisite to (2) being a positive trait. If an individual can meet (1) (inclusive of a, b, and c), they've effectively "maxed out" the worker value scale, at least in productivity sense. Speed, as well as efficiency (not haphazard with mistakes) is important for a quality, powerful, worker, particularly in regards to demand. High demand requires rapid productivity, and an efficient, quick worker can supply the demands of employers and consumers.

The two mentioned above are very important when calculated the aggregate worth of an employee to a company. However, the two encapsulate value from an exclusively productive standpoint. There are a couple of other necessities to affirm a great employee, both of which are more ethical measurements.

(3) Drive
-- Workers need to have a lot of drive for their company, and a personal attachment to its success. If workers don't care about their success of the firm, and don't have a drive to improve it, their influence could be detrimental, as well as a decline in value. This drive can also penetrate others around them to do better, which adds an influential positive to the company.

(4) Honesty
-- Yet, this solves for a high worker power. If individuals are truly honest in their practices, it renders the worker useful, rather than harmful, scaling up the value. Honesty is, though, a driving factor in regards to if worker influence will be good or bad. Influence, then, transcends a strictly individualistic sense of value and adds another dimension of worth.

Most workers, unfortunately, do not fulfill (1), (2), (3), and (4). There are combinations of the four, with a healthy mix. That's why it doesn't make sense to implement baseline regulations or policies that undermine the variety of the value of laborers. If it had to be broken down in most simplistic forms, the value of a worker would be based off of two core principles: productivity and ethicality. Because they vary from worker to worker, it's unfair to the workers (and to the firms) to presuppose a standard of value. Inevitably, reality will be exemplary of employees both above and below the standard. To answer the question with which I began the OP: it depends. Workers can be of very much, or very little worth. I believe the areas I outlined above are reputable starting points for calculating the aggregate worth of a laborer.

Thoughts?
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
bulpoof
Posts: 143
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 6:54:33 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 6:35:18 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
How much is an employee worth? This is a question, I believe, that drives the campaigns for and against wage increases -- but that's not what I want to talk about. I want to discover how valuable workers are to their firm, and the caveats with making baseline assumptions about all workers. The question often gets much less attention than it deserves; if we are to use the power of the government to chart policies of labor, it is well to know the value of various prospective employees. There are plenty of variables which determine the value of an employee, as well as factors that change from one occupation to the next. In general, though, there are a couple of areas where a firm can judge the value an employee will have to the company:

(1) Quality of work
-- There's some workers capable of doing complex workings and complete tasks others are unable to do. This asset is particularly necessary for specialized jobs and subsequent employees. Again, though, in terms of value, I believe it would be the driving factor with a couple stipulations: a) the work is done correctly, b) the work is done carefully, and c) the work is sustainable. The company definitely wants what it paid for, so this is an imperative qualification of a high-wage worker.

(2) Speed and efficiency
-- There's definitely something to be said about speed. Yet, (1) is a prerequisite to (2) being a positive trait. If an individual can meet (1) (inclusive of a, b, and c), they've effectively "maxed out" the worker value scale, at least in productivity sense. Speed, as well as efficiency (not haphazard with mistakes) is important for a quality, powerful, worker, particularly in regards to demand. High demand requires rapid productivity, and an efficient, quick worker can supply the demands of employers and consumers.

The two mentioned above are very important when calculated the aggregate worth of an employee to a company. However, the two encapsulate value from an exclusively productive standpoint. There are a couple of other necessities to affirm a great employee, both of which are more ethical measurements.

(3) Drive
-- Workers need to have a lot of drive for their company, and a personal attachment to its success. If workers don't care about their success of the firm, and don't have a drive to improve it, their influence could be detrimental, as well as a decline in value. This drive can also penetrate others around them to do better, which adds an influential positive to the company.

(4) Honesty
-- Yet, this solves for a high worker power. If individuals are truly honest in their practices, it renders the worker useful, rather than harmful, scaling up the value. Honesty is, though, a driving factor in regards to if worker influence will be good or bad. Influence, then, transcends a strictly individualistic sense of value and adds another dimension of worth.

Most workers, unfortunately, do not fulfill (1), (2), (3), and (4). There are combinations of the four, with a healthy mix. That's why it doesn't make sense to implement baseline regulations or policies that undermine the variety of the value of laborers. If it had to be broken down in most simplistic forms, the value of a worker would be based off of two core principles: productivity and ethicality. Because they vary from worker to worker, it's unfair to the workers (and to the firms) to presuppose a standard of value. Inevitably, reality will be exemplary of employees both above and below the standard. To answer the question with which I began the OP: it depends. Workers can be of very much, or very little worth. I believe the areas I outlined above are reputable starting points for calculating the aggregate worth of a laborer.

Thoughts? : :

If it wasn't for the first man who made a hard working gardener believe that a rock was worth as much as a hand-picked basket of fruit, we would never understand what money is.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,320
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 7:43:34 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 6:54:33 PM, bulpoof wrote:
At 3/31/2016 6:35:18 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
How much is an employee worth? This is a question, I believe, that drives the campaigns for and against wage increases -- but that's not what I want to talk about. I want to discover how valuable workers are to their firm, and the caveats with making baseline assumptions about all workers. The question often gets much less attention than it deserves; if we are to use the power of the government to chart policies of labor, it is well to know the value of various prospective employees. There are plenty of variables which determine the value of an employee, as well as factors that change from one occupation to the next. In general, though, there are a couple of areas where a firm can judge the value an employee will have to the company:

(1) Quality of work
-- There's some workers capable of doing complex workings and complete tasks others are unable to do. This asset is particularly necessary for specialized jobs and subsequent employees. Again, though, in terms of value, I believe it would be the driving factor with a couple stipulations: a) the work is done correctly, b) the work is done carefully, and c) the work is sustainable. The company definitely wants what it paid for, so this is an imperative qualification of a high-wage worker.

(2) Speed and efficiency
-- There's definitely something to be said about speed. Yet, (1) is a prerequisite to (2) being a positive trait. If an individual can meet (1) (inclusive of a, b, and c), they've effectively "maxed out" the worker value scale, at least in productivity sense. Speed, as well as efficiency (not haphazard with mistakes) is important for a quality, powerful, worker, particularly in regards to demand. High demand requires rapid productivity, and an efficient, quick worker can supply the demands of employers and consumers.

The two mentioned above are very important when calculated the aggregate worth of an employee to a company. However, the two encapsulate value from an exclusively productive standpoint. There are a couple of other necessities to affirm a great employee, both of which are more ethical measurements.

(3) Drive
-- Workers need to have a lot of drive for their company, and a personal attachment to its success. If workers don't care about their success of the firm, and don't have a drive to improve it, their influence could be detrimental, as well as a decline in value. This drive can also penetrate others around them to do better, which adds an influential positive to the company.

(4) Honesty
-- Yet, this solves for a high worker power. If individuals are truly honest in their practices, it renders the worker useful, rather than harmful, scaling up the value. Honesty is, though, a driving factor in regards to if worker influence will be good or bad. Influence, then, transcends a strictly individualistic sense of value and adds another dimension of worth.

Most workers, unfortunately, do not fulfill (1), (2), (3), and (4). There are combinations of the four, with a healthy mix. That's why it doesn't make sense to implement baseline regulations or policies that undermine the variety of the value of laborers. If it had to be broken down in most simplistic forms, the value of a worker would be based off of two core principles: productivity and ethicality. Because they vary from worker to worker, it's unfair to the workers (and to the firms) to presuppose a standard of value. Inevitably, reality will be exemplary of employees both above and below the standard. To answer the question with which I began the OP: it depends. Workers can be of very much, or very little worth. I believe the areas I outlined above are reputable starting points for calculating the aggregate worth of a laborer.

Thoughts? : :

If it wasn't for the first man who made a hard working gardener believe that a rock was worth as much as a hand-picked basket of fruit, we would never understand what money is.

We benefit from that now, I suppose.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
bulpoof
Posts: 143
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 7:48:20 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 7:43:34 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 3/31/2016 6:54:33 PM, bulpoof wrote:
At 3/31/2016 6:35:18 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
How much is an employee worth? This is a question, I believe, that drives the campaigns for and against wage increases -- but that's not what I want to talk about. I want to discover how valuable workers are to their firm, and the caveats with making baseline assumptions about all workers. The question often gets much less attention than it deserves; if we are to use the power of the government to chart policies of labor, it is well to know the value of various prospective employees. There are plenty of variables which determine the value of an employee, as well as factors that change from one occupation to the next. In general, though, there are a couple of areas where a firm can judge the value an employee will have to the company:

(1) Quality of work
-- There's some workers capable of doing complex workings and complete tasks others are unable to do. This asset is particularly necessary for specialized jobs and subsequent employees. Again, though, in terms of value, I believe it would be the driving factor with a couple stipulations: a) the work is done correctly, b) the work is done carefully, and c) the work is sustainable. The company definitely wants what it paid for, so this is an imperative qualification of a high-wage worker.

(2) Speed and efficiency
-- There's definitely something to be said about speed. Yet, (1) is a prerequisite to (2) being a positive trait. If an individual can meet (1) (inclusive of a, b, and c), they've effectively "maxed out" the worker value scale, at least in productivity sense. Speed, as well as efficiency (not haphazard with mistakes) is important for a quality, powerful, worker, particularly in regards to demand. High demand requires rapid productivity, and an efficient, quick worker can supply the demands of employers and consumers.

The two mentioned above are very important when calculated the aggregate worth of an employee to a company. However, the two encapsulate value from an exclusively productive standpoint. There are a couple of other necessities to affirm a great employee, both of which are more ethical measurements.

(3) Drive
-- Workers need to have a lot of drive for their company, and a personal attachment to its success. If workers don't care about their success of the firm, and don't have a drive to improve it, their influence could be detrimental, as well as a decline in value. This drive can also penetrate others around them to do better, which adds an influential positive to the company.

(4) Honesty
-- Yet, this solves for a high worker power. If individuals are truly honest in their practices, it renders the worker useful, rather than harmful, scaling up the value. Honesty is, though, a driving factor in regards to if worker influence will be good or bad. Influence, then, transcends a strictly individualistic sense of value and adds another dimension of worth.

Most workers, unfortunately, do not fulfill (1), (2), (3), and (4). There are combinations of the four, with a healthy mix. That's why it doesn't make sense to implement baseline regulations or policies that undermine the variety of the value of laborers. If it had to be broken down in most simplistic forms, the value of a worker would be based off of two core principles: productivity and ethicality. Because they vary from worker to worker, it's unfair to the workers (and to the firms) to presuppose a standard of value. Inevitably, reality will be exemplary of employees both above and below the standard. To answer the question with which I began the OP: it depends. Workers can be of very much, or very little worth. I believe the areas I outlined above are reputable starting points for calculating the aggregate worth of a laborer.

Thoughts? : :

If it wasn't for the first man who made a hard working gardener believe that a rock was worth as much as a hand-picked basket of fruit, we would never understand what money is.

We benefit from that now, I suppose. : :

Who benefits? The rich man who made you believe money has value or the slave who is working his butt off to support the rich?
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,320
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 7:49:22 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 7:48:20 PM, bulpoof wrote:
At 3/31/2016 7:43:34 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 3/31/2016 6:54:33 PM, bulpoof wrote:
At 3/31/2016 6:35:18 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
How much is an employee worth? This is a question, I believe, that drives the campaigns for and against wage increases -- but that's not what I want to talk about. I want to discover how valuable workers are to their firm, and the caveats with making baseline assumptions about all workers. The question often gets much less attention than it deserves; if we are to use the power of the government to chart policies of labor, it is well to know the value of various prospective employees. There are plenty of variables which determine the value of an employee, as well as factors that change from one occupation to the next. In general, though, there are a couple of areas where a firm can judge the value an employee will have to the company:

(1) Quality of work
-- There's some workers capable of doing complex workings and complete tasks others are unable to do. This asset is particularly necessary for specialized jobs and subsequent employees. Again, though, in terms of value, I believe it would be the driving factor with a couple stipulations: a) the work is done correctly, b) the work is done carefully, and c) the work is sustainable. The company definitely wants what it paid for, so this is an imperative qualification of a high-wage worker.

(2) Speed and efficiency
-- There's definitely something to be said about speed. Yet, (1) is a prerequisite to (2) being a positive trait. If an individual can meet (1) (inclusive of a, b, and c), they've effectively "maxed out" the worker value scale, at least in productivity sense. Speed, as well as efficiency (not haphazard with mistakes) is important for a quality, powerful, worker, particularly in regards to demand. High demand requires rapid productivity, and an efficient, quick worker can supply the demands of employers and consumers.

The two mentioned above are very important when calculated the aggregate worth of an employee to a company. However, the two encapsulate value from an exclusively productive standpoint. There are a couple of other necessities to affirm a great employee, both of which are more ethical measurements.

(3) Drive
-- Workers need to have a lot of drive for their company, and a personal attachment to its success. If workers don't care about their success of the firm, and don't have a drive to improve it, their influence could be detrimental, as well as a decline in value. This drive can also penetrate others around them to do better, which adds an influential positive to the company.

(4) Honesty
-- Yet, this solves for a high worker power. If individuals are truly honest in their practices, it renders the worker useful, rather than harmful, scaling up the value. Honesty is, though, a driving factor in regards to if worker influence will be good or bad. Influence, then, transcends a strictly individualistic sense of value and adds another dimension of worth.

Most workers, unfortunately, do not fulfill (1), (2), (3), and (4). There are combinations of the four, with a healthy mix. That's why it doesn't make sense to implement baseline regulations or policies that undermine the variety of the value of laborers. If it had to be broken down in most simplistic forms, the value of a worker would be based off of two core principles: productivity and ethicality. Because they vary from worker to worker, it's unfair to the workers (and to the firms) to presuppose a standard of value. Inevitably, reality will be exemplary of employees both above and below the standard. To answer the question with which I began the OP: it depends. Workers can be of very much, or very little worth. I believe the areas I outlined above are reputable starting points for calculating the aggregate worth of a laborer.

Thoughts? : :

If it wasn't for the first man who made a hard working gardener believe that a rock was worth as much as a hand-picked basket of fruit, we would never understand what money is.

We benefit from that now, I suppose. : :

Who benefits? The rich man who made you believe money has value or the slave who is working his butt off to support the rich?

Both. The worker is employed, not in slave labor anymore in the US.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
bulpoof
Posts: 143
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 7:54:13 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 7:49:22 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 3/31/2016 7:48:20 PM, bulpoof wrote:
At 3/31/2016 7:43:34 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 3/31/2016 6:54:33 PM, bulpoof wrote:
At 3/31/2016 6:35:18 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
How much is an employee worth? This is a question, I believe, that drives the campaigns for and against wage increases -- but that's not what I want to talk about. I want to discover how valuable workers are to their firm, and the caveats with making baseline assumptions about all workers. The question often gets much less attention than it deserves; if we are to use the power of the government to chart policies of labor, it is well to know the value of various prospective employees. There are plenty of variables which determine the value of an employee, as well as factors that change from one occupation to the next. In general, though, there are a couple of areas where a firm can judge the value an employee will have to the company:

(1) Quality of work
-- There's some workers capable of doing complex workings and complete tasks others are unable to do. This asset is particularly necessary for specialized jobs and subsequent employees. Again, though, in terms of value, I believe it would be the driving factor with a couple stipulations: a) the work is done correctly, b) the work is done carefully, and c) the work is sustainable. The company definitely wants what it paid for, so this is an imperative qualification of a high-wage worker.

(2) Speed and efficiency
-- There's definitely something to be said about speed. Yet, (1) is a prerequisite to (2) being a positive trait. If an individual can meet (1) (inclusive of a, b, and c), they've effectively "maxed out" the worker value scale, at least in productivity sense. Speed, as well as efficiency (not haphazard with mistakes) is important for a quality, powerful, worker, particularly in regards to demand. High demand requires rapid productivity, and an efficient, quick worker can supply the demands of employers and consumers.

The two mentioned above are very important when calculated the aggregate worth of an employee to a company. However, the two encapsulate value from an exclusively productive standpoint. There are a couple of other necessities to affirm a great employee, both of which are more ethical measurements.

(3) Drive
-- Workers need to have a lot of drive for their company, and a personal attachment to its success. If workers don't care about their success of the firm, and don't have a drive to improve it, their influence could be detrimental, as well as a decline in value. This drive can also penetrate others around them to do better, which adds an influential positive to the company.

(4) Honesty
-- Yet, this solves for a high worker power. If individuals are truly honest in their practices, it renders the worker useful, rather than harmful, scaling up the value. Honesty is, though, a driving factor in regards to if worker influence will be good or bad. Influence, then, transcends a strictly individualistic sense of value and adds another dimension of worth.

Most workers, unfortunately, do not fulfill (1), (2), (3), and (4). There are combinations of the four, with a healthy mix. That's why it doesn't make sense to implement baseline regulations or policies that undermine the variety of the value of laborers. If it had to be broken down in most simplistic forms, the value of a worker would be based off of two core principles: productivity and ethicality. Because they vary from worker to worker, it's unfair to the workers (and to the firms) to presuppose a standard of value. Inevitably, reality will be exemplary of employees both above and below the standard. To answer the question with which I began the OP: it depends. Workers can be of very much, or very little worth. I believe the areas I outlined above are reputable starting points for calculating the aggregate worth of a laborer.

Thoughts? : :

If it wasn't for the first man who made a hard working gardener believe that a rock was worth as much as a hand-picked basket of fruit, we would never understand what money is.

We benefit from that now, I suppose. : :

Who benefits? The rich man who made you believe money has value or the slave who is working his butt off to support the rich?

Both. The worker is employed, not in slave labor anymore in the US. : :

Most of the negro slaves were treated better than the slaves of the corporate world today. Now many of those slaves are living in the streets as homeless people wondering where they will get their next meal.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,320
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 7:55:49 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 7:54:13 PM, bulpoof wrote:
At 3/31/2016 7:49:22 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 3/31/2016 7:48:20 PM, bulpoof wrote:
At 3/31/2016 7:43:34 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 3/31/2016 6:54:33 PM, bulpoof wrote:
At 3/31/2016 6:35:18 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
How much is an employee worth? This is a question, I believe, that drives the campaigns for and against wage increases -- but that's not what I want to talk about. I want to discover how valuable workers are to their firm, and the caveats with making baseline assumptions about all workers. The question often gets much less attention than it deserves; if we are to use the power of the government to chart policies of labor, it is well to know the value of various prospective employees. There are plenty of variables which determine the value of an employee, as well as factors that change from one occupation to the next. In general, though, there are a couple of areas where a firm can judge the value an employee will have to the company:

(1) Quality of work
-- There's some workers capable of doing complex workings and complete tasks others are unable to do. This asset is particularly necessary for specialized jobs and subsequent employees. Again, though, in terms of value, I believe it would be the driving factor with a couple stipulations: a) the work is done correctly, b) the work is done carefully, and c) the work is sustainable. The company definitely wants what it paid for, so this is an imperative qualification of a high-wage worker.

(2) Speed and efficiency
-- There's definitely something to be said about speed. Yet, (1) is a prerequisite to (2) being a positive trait. If an individual can meet (1) (inclusive of a, b, and c), they've effectively "maxed out" the worker value scale, at least in productivity sense. Speed, as well as efficiency (not haphazard with mistakes) is important for a quality, powerful, worker, particularly in regards to demand. High demand requires rapid productivity, and an efficient, quick worker can supply the demands of employers and consumers.

The two mentioned above are very important when calculated the aggregate worth of an employee to a company. However, the two encapsulate value from an exclusively productive standpoint. There are a couple of other necessities to affirm a great employee, both of which are more ethical measurements.

(3) Drive
-- Workers need to have a lot of drive for their company, and a personal attachment to its success. If workers don't care about their success of the firm, and don't have a drive to improve it, their influence could be detrimental, as well as a decline in value. This drive can also penetrate others around them to do better, which adds an influential positive to the company.

(4) Honesty
-- Yet, this solves for a high worker power. If individuals are truly honest in their practices, it renders the worker useful, rather than harmful, scaling up the value. Honesty is, though, a driving factor in regards to if worker influence will be good or bad. Influence, then, transcends a strictly individualistic sense of value and adds another dimension of worth.

Most workers, unfortunately, do not fulfill (1), (2), (3), and (4). There are combinations of the four, with a healthy mix. That's why it doesn't make sense to implement baseline regulations or policies that undermine the variety of the value of laborers. If it had to be broken down in most simplistic forms, the value of a worker would be based off of two core principles: productivity and ethicality. Because they vary from worker to worker, it's unfair to the workers (and to the firms) to presuppose a standard of value. Inevitably, reality will be exemplary of employees both above and below the standard. To answer the question with which I began the OP: it depends. Workers can be of very much, or very little worth. I believe the areas I outlined above are reputable starting points for calculating the aggregate worth of a laborer.

Thoughts? : :

If it wasn't for the first man who made a hard working gardener believe that a rock was worth as much as a hand-picked basket of fruit, we would never understand what money is.

We benefit from that now, I suppose. : :

Who benefits? The rich man who made you believe money has value or the slave who is working his butt off to support the rich?

Both. The worker is employed, not in slave labor anymore in the US. : :

Most of the negro slaves were treated better than the slaves of the corporate world today. Now many of those slaves are living in the streets as homeless people wondering where they will get their next meal.

Perhaps it's bad, but that's irrelevant to the OP. Do you have any comments on the substance of the OP?
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
bulpoof
Posts: 143
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 7:59:58 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 7:55:49 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 3/31/2016 7:54:13 PM, bulpoof wrote:
At 3/31/2016 7:49:22 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 3/31/2016 7:48:20 PM, bulpoof wrote:
At 3/31/2016 7:43:34 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 3/31/2016 6:54:33 PM, bulpoof wrote:
At 3/31/2016 6:35:18 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
How much is an employee worth? This is a question, I believe, that drives the campaigns for and against wage increases -- but that's not what I want to talk about. I want to discover how valuable workers are to their firm, and the caveats with making baseline assumptions about all workers. The question often gets much less attention than it deserves; if we are to use the power of the government to chart policies of labor, it is well to know the value of various prospective employees. There are plenty of variables which determine the value of an employee, as well as factors that change from one occupation to the next. In general, though, there are a couple of areas where a firm can judge the value an employee will have to the company:

(1) Quality of work
-- There's some workers capable of doing complex workings and complete tasks others are unable to do. This asset is particularly necessary for specialized jobs and subsequent employees. Again, though, in terms of value, I believe it would be the driving factor with a couple stipulations: a) the work is done correctly, b) the work is done carefully, and c) the work is sustainable. The company definitely wants what it paid for, so this is an imperative qualification of a high-wage worker.

(2) Speed and efficiency
-- There's definitely something to be said about speed. Yet, (1) is a prerequisite to (2) being a positive trait. If an individual can meet (1) (inclusive of a, b, and c), they've effectively "maxed out" the worker value scale, at least in productivity sense. Speed, as well as efficiency (not haphazard with mistakes) is important for a quality, powerful, worker, particularly in regards to demand. High demand requires rapid productivity, and an efficient, quick worker can supply the demands of employers and consumers.

The two mentioned above are very important when calculated the aggregate worth of an employee to a company. However, the two encapsulate value from an exclusively productive standpoint. There are a couple of other necessities to affirm a great employee, both of which are more ethical measurements.

(3) Drive
-- Workers need to have a lot of drive for their company, and a personal attachment to its success. If workers don't care about their success of the firm, and don't have a drive to improve it, their influence could be detrimental, as well as a decline in value. This drive can also penetrate others around them to do better, which adds an influential positive to the company.

(4) Honesty
-- Yet, this solves for a high worker power. If individuals are truly honest in their practices, it renders the worker useful, rather than harmful, scaling up the value. Honesty is, though, a driving factor in regards to if worker influence will be good or bad. Influence, then, transcends a strictly individualistic sense of value and adds another dimension of worth.

Most workers, unfortunately, do not fulfill (1), (2), (3), and (4). There are combinations of the four, with a healthy mix. That's why it doesn't make sense to implement baseline regulations or policies that undermine the variety of the value of laborers. If it had to be broken down in most simplistic forms, the value of a worker would be based off of two core principles: productivity and ethicality. Because they vary from worker to worker, it's unfair to the workers (and to the firms) to presuppose a standard of value. Inevitably, reality will be exemplary of employees both above and below the standard. To answer the question with which I began the OP: it depends. Workers can be of very much, or very little worth. I believe the areas I outlined above are reputable starting points for calculating the aggregate worth of a laborer.

Thoughts? : :

If it wasn't for the first man who made a hard working gardener believe that a rock was worth as much as a hand-picked basket of fruit, we would never understand what money is.

We benefit from that now, I suppose. : :

Who benefits? The rich man who made you believe money has value or the slave who is working his butt off to support the rich?

Both. The worker is employed, not in slave labor anymore in the US. : :

Most of the negro slaves were treated better than the slaves of the corporate world today. Now many of those slaves are living in the streets as homeless people wondering where they will get their next meal.

Perhaps it's bad, but that's irrelevant to the OP. Do you have any comments on the substance of the OP? : :

I am giving you my thoughts based on what I read in your thread. An employee is a slave to the rich man who forces him to work according to his laws contrary to the Law of God that can totally free a slave from the rich. I don't have to be a slave or a rich man today because of what I know to be true.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,320
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 8:53:25 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 7:59:58 PM, bulpoof wrote:
I am giving you my thoughts based on what I read in your thread. An employee is a slave to the rich man who forces him to work according to his laws contrary to the Law of God that can totally free a slave from the rich. I don't have to be a slave or a rich man today because of what I know to be true.

So, you're saying people should not work for an employer?
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,313
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 9:04:57 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 8:53:25 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 3/31/2016 7:59:58 PM, bulpoof wrote:
I am giving you my thoughts based on what I read in your thread. An employee is a slave to the rich man who forces him to work according to his laws contrary to the Law of God that can totally free a slave from the rich. I don't have to be a slave or a rich man today because of what I know to be true.

So, you're saying people should not work for an employer?

Lol, are you seriously going to feed that troll? His assumptions are beyond the point of rational rebuttals.
bulpoof
Posts: 143
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 9:05:19 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 8:53:25 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 3/31/2016 7:59:58 PM, bulpoof wrote:
I am giving you my thoughts based on what I read in your thread. An employee is a slave to the rich man who forces him to work according to his laws contrary to the Law of God that can totally free a slave from the rich. I don't have to be a slave or a rich man today because of what I know to be true.

So, you're saying people should not work for an employer? : :

Only if you get the thoughts in your mind to do so. If you were to quit working, you wouldn't have the knowledge to know how to live in your world. So be patient and see if you are chosen to quit your job and do something totally different that will free you from being a slave.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,320
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 9:06:10 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 9:04:57 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/31/2016 8:53:25 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 3/31/2016 7:59:58 PM, bulpoof wrote:
I am giving you my thoughts based on what I read in your thread. An employee is a slave to the rich man who forces him to work according to his laws contrary to the Law of God that can totally free a slave from the rich. I don't have to be a slave or a rich man today because of what I know to be true.

So, you're saying people should not work for an employer?

Lol, are you seriously going to feed that troll? His assumptions are beyond the point of rational rebuttals.

It's the only way people ever respond to what I post, so I might as well.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,313
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 9:06:49 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 9:06:10 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 3/31/2016 9:04:57 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/31/2016 8:53:25 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 3/31/2016 7:59:58 PM, bulpoof wrote:
I am giving you my thoughts based on what I read in your thread. An employee is a slave to the rich man who forces him to work according to his laws contrary to the Law of God that can totally free a slave from the rich. I don't have to be a slave or a rich man today because of what I know to be true.

So, you're saying people should not work for an employer?

Lol, are you seriously going to feed that troll? His assumptions are beyond the point of rational rebuttals.

It's the only way people ever respond to what I post, so I might as well.

I would blame the bunny at this point.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,320
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 9:06:59 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 9:05:19 PM, bulpoof wrote:
At 3/31/2016 8:53:25 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 3/31/2016 7:59:58 PM, bulpoof wrote:
I am giving you my thoughts based on what I read in your thread. An employee is a slave to the rich man who forces him to work according to his laws contrary to the Law of God that can totally free a slave from the rich. I don't have to be a slave or a rich man today because of what I know to be true.

So, you're saying people should not work for an employer? : :

Only if you get the thoughts in your mind to do so. If you were to quit working, you wouldn't have the knowledge to know how to live in your world. So be patient and see if you are chosen to quit your job and do something totally different that will free you from being a slave.

That makes very little sense. If you think you should, then work? If not, don't? How will you support yourself?
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,320
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 9:07:40 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 9:06:49 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/31/2016 9:06:10 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 3/31/2016 9:04:57 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/31/2016 8:53:25 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 3/31/2016 7:59:58 PM, bulpoof wrote:
I am giving you my thoughts based on what I read in your thread. An employee is a slave to the rich man who forces him to work according to his laws contrary to the Law of God that can totally free a slave from the rich. I don't have to be a slave or a rich man today because of what I know to be true.

So, you're saying people should not work for an employer?

Lol, are you seriously going to feed that troll? His assumptions are beyond the point of rational rebuttals.

It's the only way people ever respond to what I post, so I might as well.

I would blame the bunny at this point.

Well, it happened even before the bunny.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
bulpoof
Posts: 143
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 9:18:07 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 9:06:59 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 3/31/2016 9:05:19 PM, bulpoof wrote:
At 3/31/2016 8:53:25 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 3/31/2016 7:59:58 PM, bulpoof wrote:
I am giving you my thoughts based on what I read in your thread. An employee is a slave to the rich man who forces him to work according to his laws contrary to the Law of God that can totally free a slave from the rich. I don't have to be a slave or a rich man today because of what I know to be true.

So, you're saying people should not work for an employer? : :

Only if you get the thoughts in your mind to do so. If you were to quit working, you wouldn't have the knowledge to know how to live in your world. So be patient and see if you are chosen to quit your job and do something totally different that will free you from being a slave.

That makes very little sense. If you think you should, then work? If not, don't? How will you support yourself? : :

We all have to work to provide our bodies with food, water, clothes and find a place to lay down to sleep but that's all we need. The American natives lived simple lives like that without being slaves to some rich masters who told them what to do all day long.

You don't have the required information to live like a homeless person or an American native. If you lost your job and couldn't find another one, you might become homeless. Then you would need all kinds of other information placed in your mind to handle life as a homeless person.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,320
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 9:20:02 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 9:18:07 PM, bulpoof wrote:
At 3/31/2016 9:06:59 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 3/31/2016 9:05:19 PM, bulpoof wrote:
At 3/31/2016 8:53:25 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 3/31/2016 7:59:58 PM, bulpoof wrote:
I am giving you my thoughts based on what I read in your thread. An employee is a slave to the rich man who forces him to work according to his laws contrary to the Law of God that can totally free a slave from the rich. I don't have to be a slave or a rich man today because of what I know to be true.

So, you're saying people should not work for an employer? : :

Only if you get the thoughts in your mind to do so. If you were to quit working, you wouldn't have the knowledge to know how to live in your world. So be patient and see if you are chosen to quit your job and do something totally different that will free you from being a slave.

That makes very little sense. If you think you should, then work? If not, don't? How will you support yourself? : :

We all have to work to provide our bodies with food, water, clothes and find a place to lay down to sleep but that's all we need. The American natives lived simple lives like that without being slaves to some rich masters who told them what to do all day long.

And in the society we live in, to fulfil our needs, it is imperative we work -- else we live off of everyone else's hard-earned money.

You don't have the required information to live like a homeless person or an American native. If you lost your job and couldn't find another one, you might become homeless. Then you would need all kinds of other information placed in your mind to handle life as a homeless person.

Our society is different than the past, comparing the two is incongruent.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
bulpoof
Posts: 143
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 9:33:11 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 9:20:02 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 3/31/2016 9:18:07 PM, bulpoof wrote:
At 3/31/2016 9:06:59 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 3/31/2016 9:05:19 PM, bulpoof wrote:
At 3/31/2016 8:53:25 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 3/31/2016 7:59:58 PM, bulpoof wrote:
I am giving you my thoughts based on what I read in your thread. An employee is a slave to the rich man who forces him to work according to his laws contrary to the Law of God that can totally free a slave from the rich. I don't have to be a slave or a rich man today because of what I know to be true.

So, you're saying people should not work for an employer? : :

Only if you get the thoughts in your mind to do so. If you were to quit working, you wouldn't have the knowledge to know how to live in your world. So be patient and see if you are chosen to quit your job and do something totally different that will free you from being a slave.

That makes very little sense. If you think you should, then work? If not, don't? How will you support yourself? : :

We all have to work to provide our bodies with food, water, clothes and find a place to lay down to sleep but that's all we need. The American natives lived simple lives like that without being slaves to some rich masters who told them what to do all day long.

And in the society we live in, to fulfil our needs, it is imperative we work -- else we live off of everyone else's hard-earned money.

If everyone was dead on earth and you were the only survivor, you would get the information you needed to keep living. Then you would be totally free from any master on earth forcing you to believe you need to serve him.

You don't have the required information to live like a homeless person or an American native. If you lost your job and couldn't find another one, you might become homeless. Then you would need all kinds of other information placed in your mind to handle life as a homeless person.

Our society is different than the past, comparing the two is incongruent.
Overhead
Posts: 106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 10:05:44 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
There are a few fairly significant issues with this:

a) It makes the assumption that the norm without government interference is owners paying their workers based on the four criterion set out. However that's not the case. The incentive employers have is that they wish to accrue profit - the more the better. This gives them an incentive to keep pay for workers as low as they can before lowering it further would be offset by productivity losses.

b) It is a purely business centric view that seems to forget that workers are people and that the extremes prevented by government interference are there to prevent (or at least limit) human suffering, Take the minimum wage, which is what many people are paid. In almost all countries the minimum wage is less than the living wage, the amount needed for people to adequately cover the basic cost of living. Just because a business owner can internally justify to himself paying a pittance to workers (with perhaps even ethical and hard-working employees earning less than minimum wage) does not mean that this is beneficial for society as a whole.

c) We know both from history (Industrial revolution) and today (Sweatshops) that when there isn't government regulation people can suffer terribly from the coercive powers that employers have over them and the unequal bargaining position. The greater social good is regulation.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,320
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 10:44:58 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 10:05:44 PM, Overhead wrote:
There are a few fairly significant issues with this:

a) It makes the assumption that the norm without government interference is owners paying their workers based on the four criterion set out. However that's not the case. The incentive employers have is that they wish to accrue profit - the more the better. This gives them an incentive to keep pay for workers as low as they can before lowering it further would be offset by productivity losses.

I understand what you mean here, and it's a valid point. However, that's not exactly what the OP is asking... it asks what IS the worth of labor, not if that is how they are paid. We all know corporations engage in abuse; always have and always will. The OP simply underscores the idea that government regulated mandates do not accurately represent the value of a worker -- there are far too many outliers.

I would like your opinion on the criterion I outlined, though. I feel like it's a fairly accurate portrayal, but I'd like some further input.

b) It is a purely business centric view that seems to forget that workers are people and that the extremes prevented by government interference are there to prevent (or at least limit) human suffering, Take the minimum wage, which is what many people are paid. In almost all countries the minimum wage is less than the living wage, the amount needed for people to adequately cover the basic cost of living. Just because a business owner can internally justify to himself paying a pittance to workers (with perhaps even ethical and hard-working employees earning less than minimum wage) does not mean that this is beneficial for society as a whole.

Sure, I centered it around business, but that's because my point is business centric. I'm trying to get input on the value of of an employee, not simply advocate for the removal of government intervention. The minimum wage, of course, is not a living wage. That would defy both definitions. A minimum wage job isn't meant to a job that will fully sustain a family -- that's why most are teenage workers, who have secondary income, and that's also why there are so many minimum wage jobs that require rudimentary skill, at best, and little education.

c) We know both from history (Industrial revolution) and today (Sweatshops) that when there isn't government regulation people can suffer terribly from the coercive powers that employers have over them and the unequal bargaining position. The greater social good is regulation.

Of course, there will always be system abuse. We can't remedy that with or without federal intervention. There are positives and negatives to both. I'm not necessarily advocating for the abolition of such government initiatives, but only explaining how they can exacerbate the problem of misidentifying the value of a worker.

Thanks for the response, it was well-thought out and substantive... much unlike most responses to my long OPs like this. :)
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
Overhead
Posts: 106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2016 12:21:31 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
I understand what you mean here, and it's a valid point. However, that's not exactly what the OP is asking... it asks what IS the worth of labor, not if that is how they are paid. We all know corporations engage in abuse; always have and always will. The OP simply underscores the idea that government regulated mandates do not accurately represent the value of a worker -- there are far too many outliers.

I would like your opinion on the criterion I outlined, though. I feel like it's a fairly accurate portrayal, but I'd like some further input.

When reading through the OP I understood the implicit assumption to be that worth was the compensation paid to workers for their labour, which was variable based on the conditions employed. Otherwise it would seem impossible for regulations like the minimum wage - which I believe is what is being hinted at when government regulations are talked about - to influence the value of the worker.

To me it then seems tautological. If someone pays the worker $20 dollars an hour it is because that is the value of the worker under the conditions of the market (note, not free market). By definition the worker is therefore worth $20 an hour. WHY they are worth that much is another question.

Whether judging value based on the rate paid to workers is a good idea or not is completely seperate (I'd say no).

Perhaps I misunderstood though and the issue was me wrongly reading into what you'd wrote.

A quick question might solve this for me though: When you add together your four criteria to come up with the "value", what units are you measuring the value in? Is it in $ or some other currency? Is it some unit-less amorphous feeling of appreciation? Does it have any specific relation to the amount someone is paid for their work? Or the amount you believe they SHOULD be paid?

Sure, I centered it around business, but that's because my point is business centric. I'm trying to get input on the value of of an employee, not simply advocate for the removal of government intervention. The minimum wage, of course, is not a living wage. That would defy both definitions. A minimum wage job isn't meant to a job that will fully sustain a family -- that's why most are teenage workers, who have secondary income, and that's also why there are so many minimum wage jobs that require rudimentary skill, at best, and little education.

There is nothing that inherently centres a discussion about the value of workers around a business. It is merely the case because you have done so.

There are alternate philosophies that take a worker-centric view, for instance the Marxist Labour theory of value which argues that the measure of value is the socially necessary labour time of the commodities produced by the labourer.

To view the value of a worker as something that is decided by an employer is something you have treated as a given when it is actually a specific and voluntary position.

Of course, there will always be system abuse. We can't remedy that with or without federal intervention. There are positives and negatives to both. I'm not necessarily advocating for the abolition of such government initiatives, but only explaining how they can exacerbate the problem of misidentifying the value of a worker.

I would disagree. We might not be able to stop all abuse everywhere completely, but that does not mean that we can't remedy it. Lessening the overall level of abuse is still an option.

There are obvious examples of federal intervention stopping or lessening examples of abuse even though some forms of abuse still exist in regards to employees/employers. The sheer lack of small children being forced through economic deprivation to work in amazingly hazardous jobs, as was the case a little over a century ago, is a clear example of this.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,320
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2016 1:33:01 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/1/2016 12:21:31 AM, Overhead wrote:
I understand what you mean here, and it's a valid point. However, that's not exactly what the OP is asking... it asks what IS the worth of labor, not if that is how they are paid. We all know corporations engage in abuse; always have and always will. The OP simply underscores the idea that government regulated mandates do not accurately represent the value of a worker -- there are far too many outliers.

I would like your opinion on the criterion I outlined, though. I feel like it's a fairly accurate portrayal, but I'd like some further input.

When reading through the OP I understood the implicit assumption to be that worth was the compensation paid to workers for their labour, which was variable based on the conditions employed. Otherwise it would seem impossible for regulations like the minimum wage - which I believe is what is being hinted at when government regulations are talked about - to influence the value of the worker.

That's fair.

To me it then seems tautological. If someone pays the worker $20 dollars an hour it is because that is the value of the worker under the conditions of the market (note, not free market). By definition the worker is therefore worth $20 an hour. WHY they are worth that much is another question.

Agreed.

Whether judging value based on the rate paid to workers is a good idea or not is completely seperate (I'd say no).

Yeah. You obviously can't pay workers their value wage all the time -- some workers are just too good, and nearly always deserve more than they are paid. Then there are the other outliers... the workers who are generally too bad to be paid the low wage they "deserve" based on their performance. That's just the way the market works, things are often unfair.

Perhaps I misunderstood though and the issue was me wrongly reading into what you'd wrote.

You're fine, I'm enjoying the discussion. :P

A quick question might solve this for me though: When you add together your four criteria to come up with the "value", what units are you measuring the value in? Is it in $ or some other currency? Is it some unit-less amorphous feeling of appreciation? Does it have any specific relation to the amount someone is paid for their work? Or the amount you believe they SHOULD be paid?

That's what I'm still trying to figure out. It's really hard to compare abstract ideas or concepts with tangible currency. I guess, at minimum (no pun intended), a worker who meets the criteria would earn a living wage -- which is dependent upon the location and the cost of living there. But, if the worker is a great worker, they deserve more than the minimum required. Really, I'm not sure how you would measure it, just more a general scale -- the closer they are to perfect each of the four tiers, their value rises. I'd say the rise should be concurrent to a wage increase for the individual, but I've not figured out a respectable scale yet.

Sure, I centered it around business, but that's because my point is business centric. I'm trying to get input on the value of of an employee, not simply advocate for the removal of government intervention. The minimum wage, of course, is not a living wage. That would defy both definitions. A minimum wage job isn't meant to a job that will fully sustain a family -- that's why most are teenage workers, who have secondary income, and that's also why there are so many minimum wage jobs that require rudimentary skill, at best, and little education.

There is nothing that inherently centres a discussion about the value of workers around a business. It is merely the case because you have done so.

Well, that's what I meant. The OP is centered around business because my point is business centered: I want to know the value of a worker TO THE FIRM. Sorry if that was confusing.

There are alternate philosophies that take a worker-centric view, for instance the Marxist Labour theory of value which argues that the measure of value is the socially necessary labour time of the commodities produced by the labourer.

Yeah.

To view the value of a worker as something that is decided by an employer is something you have treated as a given when it is actually a specific and voluntary position.

Fair enough.

Of course, there will always be system abuse. We can't remedy that with or without federal intervention. There are positives and negatives to both. I'm not necessarily advocating for the abolition of such government initiatives, but only explaining how they can exacerbate the problem of misidentifying the value of a worker.

I would disagree. We might not be able to stop all abuse everywhere completely, but that does not mean that we can't remedy it. Lessening the overall level of abuse is still an option.

Perhaps my words were too infinitive. You're definitely right, we can lessen the negative impacts, we just can't solve them entirely. I feel like some situations could benefit from intervention while others could not. I think this would be especially true with stark contrast between big city and rural areas. In rural areas, federal intervention is often more concerning. It also has plenty to do with how accurately the intervention is matched with the area.

There are obvious examples of federal intervention stopping or lessening examples of abuse even though some forms of abuse still exist in regards to employees/employers. The sheer lack of small children being forced through economic deprivation to work in amazingly hazardous jobs, as was the case a little over a century ago, is a clear example of this.

Yes, that's certainly true. Logic, and economic theory, are exemplary of these types of things: if labor laws decline, practices decline at an even more regressive rate. An increase in labor laws also correlates to better circumstances all around.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW