So a few days ago I saw someone talk about a cashier example that will quickly learn that the money going into the company is far more than his or her wage.
How do you calculate the full value of this labour?
Cashier 1: sits idle for 90% of the day and scans items that bring in 2500 euros in that day.
Cashier 2 in a different store: sits idle 20% of the day and scans items that bring in 2500 euros in that day.
How do you calculate the full value of that labour.
So what do I say to this employee that is 20% idle? I need a good answer, if this person quits the job, I can’t find anyone else. It’s the 4th person in a few months that have been leaving.
How do I keep someone doing this job?
Do I create less idleness in the other location even though there’s not as much need for a cashier there?
Wage discrimination won’t solve this - skewing it will create resentment and turnover in another location. If the workload is heavy, I would assume that there is understaffing. And I will emphasize again - wages depend on the reproduction of labor force, not on how much surplus value it brings.
Aight aight, so. I work as accountant at a hospital, what you propose is basically how Belgian hospitals pay their employees. IFIC barema.
Well, it works I guess.
But now, the doctors. They do not get paid by the hospital as employees. They have their own companies and the hospital pays them based on their performances. Not on the time they spent at the hospital. Only when they saw clients, and it depends on which act they did to know how much they’ll get paid for that amount of time.
If I announce tomorrow that they will be paid based on IFIC barema. They all pack their bags and move to other countries.
Wage discrimination based on activity done is normal.
Someone being idle 90% of the time should not earn the same as someone idle 20%.
We should activate accountants such as myself to properly calculate the value of their labour. It will always be subjective, but more close to their level of productivity compared to other people.
Government barema =/= having total value of your labour. The people slacking off get value from the people working hard.
Working hard must be incentivised. Not the other way around.
I see you didn’t come here for an understanding of political economy, but to find justification for cannibalistic wage theft by business owners. Oh, well.
I’m here to explain how humans react to policies.
Economics is a social science. A study of human behaviour.
You can prefer any type of policy. They all can be put in charge. Then we just have to see how people react to it.
That’s what economists have to do.
What is this wage theft you are talking about anyways. Most self employed people earn less than their employed peers.
Capital causes productivity. Capital was made by labour. Whose labour? There’s past labour, present labour and future labour.
Past labour, for example someone that built a house through working for decades. Future labour by getting a loan in order to have capital.
But what does present labour have to do with capital? Nothing. There’s no risk involved.
Capital is an accumulation of labour. Of well used labour. Adequate labour.
If your policy is “we take an average and everyone gets the same wage” while nobody is allowed to invest in capital, then you’ll have a slow system.
They will only earn in order to consume.
I already have enough money for consumption. I have a job. Should I just quit? Nah, I want my child to have capital too.
We can look at Cuba. Where the doctors do what I describe. They flee to other Spanish speaking countries where they have more than 1 possible employer.