On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:30:58 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .


I find it interesting because not that long ago, you guys on the left
were lambasting Wal-Mart for paying "slave wages" to its employees,
even though those people were free to leave and look elsewhere.

I never complained about the wages they pay. You're lumping me into a
category with someone else. Maybe Harry. My beef with Wal Mart goes far
deeper than that, which may be why you've never really understood it.

It would help if you elaborated.


You
have jumped in on the "exploitation" bandwagon, and have dismissed the
principles of the free market concepts of supply and demand setting
the wage scales, and opinione that those wages should be increased to
some level higher.

No, I didn't. Ease up on the mushrooms, Dave.

Really? I was sure you were among those who wanted the salaries of
those unskilled workers (Including McDonalds and Wal-Mart) to be
raised to a level where they could be reasonably expected to live a
"comfortable" life.

Socialism attempts to "compress" or limit the range of wages that
exist for the different skill levels. So no, a street sweeper will not
be paid the same as a neurosurgeon. But the difference would ne be
nearly as great as it is now. At some point people will question the
work needed to make that higher wage, and the responsibility that goes
with it, if the reward is not much better.

Now, you are suggesting that you agree with the free market inspired
wage scales as they apply to different skill levels?

Let's play with this! First, let's pick a job that actually relates to YOU.
A service which, if it weren't performed, would really **** you off. Two, as
a matter of fact: Hotel maids and office janitors. If you checked into a
hotel and along with your room key, they handed you a bucket of cleaning
supplies, you'd walk out the door and go home. And, since every office has
some asshole who ****es all over the toilet or stands two feet from the
urinal and soaks the floor, things would get really disgusting after a week
without the janitor. Your place of business would begin to resemble a sports
bar on Superbowl Sunday.

Yea, so?


So, you agree that these two cleaning people are absolutely necessary.

Yea so?


Next: Since they're necessary, it means that as a group, they must exist
forever. There will always be cleaning people. They are not paid very well
now, and they never will be.

Not as long as the pool of people qualified to do the work, exceeds
the demand for the skillset. That's free market 101.


Next: We live in a country where if you add up the salaries of two such
people, it's next to impossible to buy a nice little house, maybe a used
car, and have a kid or two.

Yea so?


You're going to say that they can better themselves if they'd like. True.
But, they'll have to be replaced, right?

And there is always someone to replace them. That's why the wages are
so low. Haven't you figured this out yet?


But, some people actually like
cleaning. They're good at it, more efficient than other people.

I really like boating. Maybe someone should pay me a wage for doing
what I like instead of what makes the most money.


And they may
prefer quiet work where they don't have to be dragged down by the failures
of other people.


And the compensation for that is a low wage. What, do you think that
dealing with the pressures of a high income responsibility should not
be rewarded? The risks and the pressure are some of the things that
command the higher salary. If you want to work in a happy-go-lucky
job, then you get paid accordingly.




So, if through some outside mechanism, perhaps legislation,
their income was raised to $20k a year from $14k a year, would that be such
a bad thing?

It would be for the person who was already earning $20K, and who now
has to wonder why this unskilled person is now making what they are.
That former $20K person now wants a raise, and points to the former
$14K person's raise and commensurate skillset as a justification.
Surely you can realize where this will lead?



That's still a far cry from $200k - $2 million per year that
many medical specialists make, don't you think?

But those people have a LOT more responsibility.


Or, do you think people should be penalized for sticking with work that they
like?

See above. We all can't do what we like, and expect to get paid well
for it (unless, of course, you like rocket science, or happen to be
good at professional sports or entertainment). What determines a
particular salary is the relative worth to society, that a particular
skillset has, weighed against the number of people qualified to
perform the job.

Dave