patrick.net

Heraclitusstudent says

It's just purely arbitrary.

If it's purely arbitrary as you claim, then there is no reason to perform one methodology over another including preferring capitalism.

Heraclitusstudent says

Unless there is a labor market that tells you that

Supply and demand do not determine value but rather an equilibrium about what you must pay. Let's say you value a hamburger at $5 and you find a restaurant that will sell you that hamburger at $3. You don't pay the amount you value the burger, $5, do you? Of course not.

A demand-supply equilibrium is not the definition of value.

Dan8267 says

Supply and demand do not determine value but rather an equilibrium about what you must pay. Let's say you value a hamburger at $5 and you find a restaurant that will sell you that hamburger at $3. You don't pay the amount you value the burger, $5, do you? Of course not.

A demand-supply equilibrium is not the definition of value.

The definition of value is that if the prices was lower, some producers wouldn't bother providing it, but if the price was higher, some buyers would not buy it.
This is the only definition there can be. All the rest is arbitrary.

Heraclitusstudent says

neplusultra57 says

That's the meme, but it's not true: nobody works and semi-starves like The Grapes of Wrath. Everywhere I look I see Mexican immigrants making do just fine, not starving, raising large families, thriving, if you want to call it that.

Yeah they're thriving with their families living in a garage, working 2 jobs and eating MacDonald. With no healthcare or retirement. But poor Americans are "too lazy" to do the same.

And yeah these Americans are racists if they don't like it.

You're an arrogant jerk.

Not saying they're racist, I'm saying they can't deal with the market they've voted for and they blame those who can deal with it. That's the arrogance of jerks who think REAL AMERICANS "deserve better" than what Mexican immigrants make do with. And, by the way, every job I ever had required a migrant lifestyle. I NEVER worked in the town of my tax home residence. That makes you an ignorant jerk, so fuck off.

Heraclitusstudent says

Suppose I have an assembly line with 10 workers and 1 operation requires a worker with more experience and more skills. The product also requires an engineering team to design it, a QA team, a marketing team to sell it.

Explain how your slime model applies here.

The finished product is composed of parts. Each contributor to the finished product is, by definition, impacting one or more parts. Measure the value added by each contributor for each part. To do this compare the result of not having that work done. If not having that work done makes the part unusable, then consider that contribution to be equal to the part's value divided by all such contributors for that part. Sum across all parts.

Integration of parts is a part. Use the same algorithm.

You can model this as each contributor getting a share based on his or her contributions. His total income is the profit times his share count divided by the total share count.

The entire point of business administration is, therefore, to accurately assess contributions. If human beings are incapable of doing this, then automate such assessments using scientific methods. If McDonald's can measure the time and effort to build a burger down to each flip of a patty, then we can measure the contributions of all contributors.

When a hiring manager offers a prospective employee a specific salary, he already has the problem of determining the employee's expected productivity. The only difference between the system I am proposing and the status quo is that I do not require the hiring manager to also determine how much he can gouge the prospective employee. The problem that you are claiming is unsolvable, determining the wealth employees produce, is already solved in the status quo. If it weren't solved, employers would routinely pay employees more than they produce and their businesses would go bankrupt!

neplusultra57 says

Not saying they're racist, I'm saying they can't deal with the market they've voted for

BS they didn't vote for unenforced immigration laws. In fact they are clamoring for enforcing them - they are being called racists all the time.

So easy to tell which years are divisible by 4.

Are fucktards spewing rivers of venom at immigrants? If yes, there will be summer Olympics and a presidential election this year.

Even if net wetback flux is negative, the braying whackaloon white-privilege SJW's will be moaning "dey terk er derbs!"

Heraclitusstudent says

neplusultra57 says

Not saying they're racist, I'm saying they can't deal with the market they've voted for

BS they didn't vote for unenforced immigration laws. In fact they are clamoring for enforcing them - they are being called racists all the time.

The market they voted for was non-union right-to-work for nothing free market trickle down Republican dogma. And they are lazy if they won't pack up and "go get a better job" like they say all the "lazy liberals, millennials, and minorities" should. Yeah, sounds like lazy, arrogant, entitled victims of their own stupidity. Personal responsibility need not apply.

Dan8267 says

The entire point of business administration is, therefore, to accurately assess contributions. If human beings are incapable of doing this, then automate such assessments using scientific methods.

Assuming you do that, you will get shortage for some work positions, and too many candidates for other positions. ... unless you do what the labor markets would do automatically to balance the supply and the demand: raise wages where there are shortages and lower it where you have too much supply, until you have equilibrium.

Heraclitusstudent says

The definition of value is that if the prices was lower, some producers wouldn't bother providing it, but if the price was higher, some buyers would not buy it.

No, that is not the definition of value. In fact, by that definition there can be no value to anything. There will always be producers not willing to produce a product or service at a given price. How much would you require to let Clint Howard have anal sex with you? There will also always be some buyers who will not buy a product or service at any price. Would you pay even one cent to have Clint Howard give you a blow job?

Furthermore, there will be multiple buyers and sellers willing to take other price points.

You are confusing equilibriums with value. They are not the same thing. By your definition, neither stock nor anything else can ever be overvalued. Clearly this is empirically false.

More importantly, you have not given any reason why bargaining power, rather than actual productivity, should be the determining factor of wealth distribution. It is obvious that basing the economy on bargaining power does not maximize productivity as it does not reward productivity. In fact, it creates perverse incentives to greatly diminish productivity in order to increase one's own share of the wealth. Many executives have gutted businesses to increase their own personal profits.

Heraclitusstudent says

Assuming you do that, you will get shortage for some work positions, and too many candidates for other positions.

That happens in the status quo. This is not a problem. If people are rewarded based on their actual productivity rather than mere bargaining power, then people will want to be as productive per unit of their time as possible. This is a good thing.

Less productive jobs should not be done. That's wasteful.

neplusultra57 says

The market they voted for was non-union right-to-work for nothing free market trickle down Republican dogma. And they are lazy if they won't pack up and "go get a better job" like they say all the "lazy liberals, millennials, and minorities" should. Yeah, sounds like lazy, arrogant, entitled victims of their own stupidity. Personal responsibility need not apply.

The free market they voted for doesn't include uncontrolled immigration for dirt poor workers. You are confusing the republican elites rhetoric defending their rich donors and the actual people on the ground.

The timing of the oil patch bust in Texas coincided exactly with the upswing in demand for construction workers in Dallas.....if you bother to read the linked article. These are high paying jobs anybody with spit in their mouths could have transitioned right over to. Anyone who sits on their ass and bitches about immigrants taking the jobs they deserve is a fucking failure of a man. The immigrants are already on these high paying jobsites right fucking now. The whining crackers will be the LAST demographic to show up, and sure as the world it will be just in time for a housing bust and some more blamegame crying and another round of pouting about the brown horde.

Not saying they're racist, I'm saying they can't deal with the market they've voted for and they blame those who can

------------

That's rich, you really could use some time in the real world. Your lack of perspective is blinding

Heraclitusstudent says

The free market they voted for doesn't include uncontrolled immigration for dirt poor workers.

That's the only free market they've been able to vote for, and they believed it hook line and sinker, until lo and behold....it doesn't work! Lordy, lordy that means it's the immigrant's fault? Yeah, right! If there's so many of the brown horde why are labor wages rising in the Dallas construction market? There's an endless supply from the horde, right? Wrong. The nature and stigma of the work doesn't suit the pouters. See TPB: no REAL AMERICAN should stoop to living out the back of a truck and eating from a taco truck on every corner, no matter what it pays, that's scut work.

Dan8267 says

No, that is not the definition of value. In fact, by that definition there can be no value to anything. There will always be producers not willing to produce a product or service at a given price. How much would you require to let Clint Howard have anal sex with you? There will also always be some buyers who will not buy a product or service at any price. Would you pay even one cent to have Clint Howard give you a blow job?

There is no market place for sex with Clint Eastwood. So it doesn't follow.

Dan8267 says

there will be multiple buyers and sellers willing to take other price points.

Sure and what matters is the aggregate equilibrium avoiding excesses and shortages.

Dan8267 says

It is obvious that basing the economy on bargaining power does not maximize productivity as it does not reward productivity.

People take the job that provides them with the best income. This means the most productive job.

Dan8267 says

You are confusing equilibriums with value. They are not the same thing. By your definition, neither stock nor anything else can ever be overvalued. Clearly this is empirically false.

I simply pointing to the fact that there is no measure of value outside equilibrium. All other measures result in either oversupply or shortage.
The stock market is a never achieved equilibrium. Like the ocean always has waves, a stock market is always fluctuating and pushed by irrational factors. Nonetheless there is no other mechanism to value stocks that worked better. The inventor of such a method would indeed be very rich.

errc says

Not saying they're racist, I'm saying they can't deal with the market they've voted for and they blame those who can

------------

That's rich, you really could use some time in the real world. Your lack of perspective is blinding

Splain. The real world I grew up in was nothing but labor and my competition was almost entirely Hispanic workers, most of them illegals.

neplusultra57 says

most of them illegals.

Truth be told, I admired them. Tough motherfuckers, abused by their bosses, who (their bosses) really did eventually wreck the market for labor.

Heraclitusstudent says

There is no market place for sex with Clint Eastwood. So it doesn't follow.

There most certainly is a market place for sex and that market place includes the specifics of the prostitute. So it does follow.

Heraclitusstudent says

Sure and what matters is the aggregate equilibrium avoiding excesses and shortages.

Equilibriums of supply and demand do nothing to avoid excesses or shortages and most certainly do not maximize national or global GDP. Nor is there any reason remotely to believe that paying labor the bare minimum to get the job done is the way to maximize the wealth of a society. In fact, this assumption is empirically false.

Slavery is the prime reason that the American South never became wealthy. Sure, a few individuals became wealthy, but slavery, or for that matter any cheap labor, actually diminishes wealth because it wastes the potential productivity of human capital. The existence of slaves causes free men to earn less, buy less, and thus society produces less wealth. It's a vicious cycle.

If your beliefs were true, there would be no negative economic side to slavery (ignore the ethics for sake of argument) as it would only shift the supply curve of labor to the left. Slavery would only have positive economic consequences. Clearly, this is not true.

Heraclitusstudent says

People take the job that provides them with the best income. This means the most productive job.

Ah, but that demonstrates why you are wrong. The most productive job would be the highest paying one if wages were based on productivity rather than bargaining power. But because bargaining power alone determines wages, less productive jobs often pay more than more productive jobs. That's exactly why I'm proposing that pay should determined by actual productivity rather than bargaining power.

Heraclitusstudent says

I simply pointing to the fact that there is no measure of value outside equilibrium. All other measures result in either oversupply or shortage.

You do realize that these two statements directly contradict each other? If there is no other measure than all other measures cannot exist.

Furthermore, your second statement is a baseless assertion. Finally, the current system of letting owners determine wages based on bargaining power does indeed create oversupplies and shortages. We have an oversupply of realtors and an undersupply of scientists and doctors. And that's under the status quo.

In our current economic system we waste vast resources on zero-sum financial games, marketing, and lobbying. To say that the current system efficiently allocates resources including human capital is ridiculous.

Heraclitusstudent says

Nonetheless there is no other mechanism to value stocks that worked better.

The argument that a better alternative has not already been implemented, therefore a better one cannot be, is clearly a bad argument. The entire rise of the digital age screams bloody murder at that position.

Heraclitusstudent says

The inventor of such a method would indeed be very rich.

Unfortunately, not under capitalism. Edgar Codd, inventor of the relational database system, made no money off his invention while fat-ass Larry Ellison, who could not even understand the basic math of it nonetheless implement a RDMS, made billions off of the hard labor of others who did actually implement it.

Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web (HTML and HTTP), made nothing from his invention even though it create trillions of dollars of wealth every year for the past 20 years. Meanwhile billionaires rose on the backs of productive IT workers while producing little to nothing themselves.

The fundamental flaw of capitalism is that it does not reward wealth creation, but rather wealth control. Why create wealth when it goes only to those who control wealth?

Everything great about our economy and our country was created by STEM, not capitalism. Capitalism is holding back our economy. It is a Bronze Age technology with a few Industrial Age refinements. It is archaic. Unfortunately, it is treated as a religion rather than being subject to the scientific method and accountability. People refuse to even consider alternatives.

If it makes you feel better, we can always call the new system capitalism. It won't be, but if you just like the word capitalism we can keep it as a historic misnomer. In fact, if we do ever switch to a new system, it most certainly will still be called capitalism no matter how different it is.

Dan8267 says

Heraclitusstudent says

People take the job that provides them with the best income. This means the most productive job.

Ah, but that demonstrates why you are wrong. The most productive job would be the highest paying one if wages were based on productivity rather than bargaining power. But because bargaining power alone determines wages, less productive jobs often pay more than more productive jobs. That's exactly why I'm proposing that pay should determined by actual productivity rather than bargaining power.

If a job is very productive in terms of value produced for the employer, it should be in high demand as the employers seek to maximize their own incomes. Therefore the bargaining power in such job is higher.

On the other hand, if it is a commodity job that every one can do, producing a commodity product (like a hamburger), the high availability of such products ensure they have low value, and so these jobs cannot be called very productive, and will be paid less.

Therefore the bargaining powers (and wages) follow the productivity of the job - assuming of course employers and governments do not conspire to negatively affect the equilibrium by adding illegal immigrant workers.

Dan8267 says

Unfortunately, not under capitalism. Edgar Codd, inventor of the relational database system, made no money off his invention while fat-ass Larry Ellison, who could not even understand the basic math of it nonetheless implement a RDMS, made billions off of the hard labor of others who did actually implement it.

There is a chain of value that goes from having a concept, to implementing it, to marketing it, to maintaining it, to protecting the intellectual property, etc....
If you don't have the complete chain, you can't claim the value.
If you relinquish your part to a fat ass, then you gave up your share.
A piece of code in a directory is not a product and is worth nothing.

Heraclitusstudent says

If a job is very productive in terms of value produced for the employer, it should be in high demand as the employers seek to maximize their own incomes. Therefore the bargaining power in such job is higher.

This is a faulty assumption and is empirically false.

You state yourself that the wages for a job should be determined by supply and demand of labor and NOT by the productivity of the job. If wages are determined by the supply and demand of labor than a high potential supply means low wages REGARDLESS of how productive the job is. Migrant farm laborers could literally produce millions of dollars of wealth per laborer and still get paid only $10,000/yr if there are enough of them to drive down wages. And since any potential labor over 100% cause an immediate and dramatic drop in bargaining power, this will always happen.

So what you want to be true, that the productivity of a job determines its value and thus wages, is in direct contradiction with what capitalism does, setting wages to the lowest level possible under the supply and demand curve or bargaining power.

Heraclitusstudent says

On the other hand, if it is a commodity job that every one can do, producing a commodity product (like a hamburger), the high availability of such products ensure they have low value, and so these jobs cannot be called very productive, and will be paid less.

Wrong. The value of a job is not determined by the number of people who can do the job but rather by the value of the end result. A hamburger is worth what it is regardless of how many people can make it. Value is determine by consumption not by production costs.

When machines made the price of manufacturing clothes go to less than a dollar per shirt, that didn't cause the mall to lower the price of that $100 Tommy Bahama shirt. The value of the shirt is over a hundred times greater than the cost of production.

If a company makes donuts by hand and they cost $1 to make and sell for $2, does the value of those donuts go down when the company buys a machine that makes the donuts for 10 cents a pop? No, and neither does the price. The company's owner simply pocket the difference.

Heraclitusstudent says

Therefore the bargaining powers (and wages) follow the productivity of the job

No, this is empirically false. Look at the graph below. It clearly contradicts your statement.

Source: Understanding the Historic Divergence Between Productivity and a Typical Worker’s Pay
Why It Matters and Why It’s Real

How can you explain this chart if "the bargaining powers (and wages) follow the productivity of the job"?
Heraclitusstudent says

assuming of course employers and governments do not conspire to negatively affect the equilibrium by adding illegal immigrant workers

The legality of the workers is irrelevant. With a stroke of the pen, the government could make all the immigrant workers legal citizens, fully documented. It's trivial to do.

The reason the immigrant workers drive down wages is because wages are determined by the most desperate supply rather than by productivity. Although this mechanism drives up the personal riches of a few owners, it greatly reduces the overall wealth of our society for the exact same reasons that slavery impoverished the American South, the exact same reasons child labor impoverished the city dweller in the industrial revolution, and exactly why outsourcing impoverishes STEM labor. And because these people then have less money to spend on goods and services, the consequences spread to everyone else.

Dan8267 says

If wages are determined by the supply and demand of labor than a high potential supply means low wages REGARDLESS of how productive the job is.

You are saying a job can be very productive but be paid little. If this is the case then someone is making a lot of money from that worker. If this is the case someone else could start doing the same and offer a better pay to attract the rare worker, increasing the bargaining power of that worker.

It follows that the jobs that represent the most constraining bottleneck in the value chain are the most productive and therefore command the best bargaining power and highest wage.

Dan8267 says

No, this is empirically false. Look at the graph below. It clearly contradicts your statement.

The graph you showed represent several distortions that were deliberately setup to destroy the value at the bottom of the spectrum:
- a very large addition to the labor force through free trade and immigration (hundreds of millions). And in China in particular, this is compounded by the constant migration to cities. (so we are talking an almost infinite labor pool).
- the commodization of almost all trades, so workers are all alike and replaceable. (for example a worker in a coffee shop like starbuck is deliberately totally deprived of anything original that would add value to himself compared to others)
- the destruction of end-demand: because wages are down, demand is down, and so the equilibrium point is down. This is a race to zero that is compensated only by huge debt creation in developed countries.
- all this creates a winner take all where the few people who setup the winning value chain rip the benefit from the work of the entire planet.

And so, what didn't you prove here:
- This is not saying capitalism would not work in a single homogeneous country like the US taken in isolation.
- This is not saying capitalism will not work in the long term: indeed wages in places like China are going up at double digits rate, meaning their values while initially crushed are increasingly recognized, and this also means they will sooner or later start consuming and adding to the end demand. So what you are showing may "just" be a multi decades distortion created by the development of several high-populations countries.
- This is not saying that individual value is not recognized, for example there are high end coffee shops selling better coffee than Starbucks and offering better jobs.
- So all this doesn't prove that value doesn't follow scarcity and skills. All it means is by default people near the bottom are *made* low value by extra competition and extra commoditization. But people having original ideas can profit disproportionally (in particular if they are smart enough to control the value chain). all this just accentuate the difference between the low value people and the high value people.

Ironworker says

Yep, welder In an area I LIVE In makes easily 120-170K pre year.

Where is this?

Heraclitusstudent says

If this is the case then someone is making a lot of money from that worker. If this is the case someone else could start doing the same and offer a better pay to attract the rare worker, increasing the bargaining power of that worker.

If your statement is true, then why are wages so damn low for migrant workers? It is NOT the case that someone is offering migrant workers better pay for the same job even though it most certainly is the case that migrant workers are making a lot of money for their employers.

From The New York Times: The Costs and Benefits of a Raise for Field Workers

Consumers who pay $1 for a pound of apples are giving 30 cents to the farmer farm owner and 10 cents to the farm worker (i.e. the actual farmer); those spending $2 for a head of lettuce are giving 50 cents to the farmer and 16 cents to the farm worker.

This directly and completely contradicts your statement. The real farmer, the migrant worker, is giving his employer, the farm owner, three times his wages in pure profits. The other 60 cents on the dollar for apples and 34 cents for lettuce are business expenses.

So, here is a case where it has been precisely measured what the value of the labor is, 40 cents on the dollar of the produce costs, and the owner is getting 75% of the worker's wealth production while the worker is getting only 25%. And that's the apples case. For lettuce it's Tell me, how exactly do you justify that on a moral, ethical, or economic basis? Even if you don't give a rat's ass about people, it is clear that this is very economically inefficient.

Heraclitusstudent says

The graph you showed represent several distortions that were deliberately setup to destroy the value at the bottom of the spectrum

Present your evidence for this.

The data comes from The Economics Policy Institute, which has a damn good reputation for accuracy, honesty, and non-partisanship. It is a highly respected organization whose papers are often referenced by academics, respected news outlets like The New York Times and The Economist, and used by our government to form policies. Attacking the EPI on economics is like attacking NASA on climate science. So if you are going to poo on it, you'll need to bring some evidence to bear.

Heraclitusstudent says

so workers are all alike and replaceable

All the reasons you give, especially this one, are the direct consequences of capitalism, and are not inevitable in other economic systems.

If i was Dan's professor, this would be his report card:
Economics...F
Politics.........C
Math............D
Imagination..A
Bullshitting...A
Remarks..........Dan has failed to grasp the basics of economics after repeated attempts. His "C" in politics was only due to showing up in class. His math is at a disgraceful "D" which he acquired in pity.
However, Dan is highly talented when it comes to Bullshitting his way in class. His super imagination was the laughing stock of the economics faculty.
Unfortunately, Dan will amount to nothing much.

Well since we're making up grades, I'll give you an A in animal husbandry.

neplusultra57 says

Private companies say that they are having a hard time attracting workers, and they are often forced to give employees on-the-spot raises to prevent them from going to competitors.

That's not a shortage, that's capitalism in a hot housing market - they are in demand! There are plenty of American workers willing to do the job if you pay them accordingly. Of course you can always import wage slaves that do it for less as long as you wave the threat of revoking their status over them. That's like saying Americans are rushing away from neuro-surgeon jobs unless you pay them a neuro-surgeon salary. A good construction worker should be worth their money.

errc says

What I personally find repulsive is the higher middle class people sweating good conscience for being accepting of illegal immigrants, while blaming poor Americans for not being able to compete with semi starving immigrants willing to do any job at any rate (too lazy) - even as the hiring corporations take the undue profits in-between.

---------------

I've got mine, fuck you!

Those Americans were given 30-40 years of chances. Fighting free trade agreements was a loser for the Democrats.

Joe Sixpack didn't care. All he wanted was a strong military and a hard crackdown on abortion - it is well-known that Mike Dickcockis killed babies when he wasn't burning the flag.

Spend several decades hating unions and abortion and voting Republican, and you get what you ask for. Like pumping quarters into a cigarette machine: you get cigarettes.

The rednecks spoke at the ballot box. They spoke in favor of abortion and guns above their own future. Now they get to compete against Vietnamese, Chinese and Mexican labor. It's the libertarian paradise they voted for.

By the way: since poor blacks are losers and it's their fault, it must be weird to be a poor white, without the excuse of skin color.

I don't know as many of them are poor, anyway. They seem to afford the time and gas/food costs of attending Trump rallies just fine, and in late model full-size pickups. Could be they're just racists, who hate immigrants every four years, on the dot.

HydroCabron says

By the way: since poor blacks are losers and it's their fault, it must be weird to be a poor white, without the excuse of skin color.

Now the excuse is they're poor because they don't deserve to do "wetback" work even if it pays well. Besides, the gummint would just tax it away to give unemployment to blacks. Better to stay home, hunt possum, draw unemployment and get yer fair share. The #orangedouchebag says he's gonna reopen the coal mines. In right-to-work states it don't pay fer shit but have you ever seen a jig down there? A man can be proud o' his work AND stay poor. Keepin' the white poor identity apart from the black poor identity is the alt-right vision Trump has. THAT's makin' Amurica great again!

mmmarvel says

You don't need a union to have an apprenticeship program. There are many, many apprenticeship programs being run through/in cooperation with community colleges. If you go to work for a plumbing company they will tell you about the program (at the community college), they will explain that as you pass those classes that along with your experience your pay will increase. In many cases they will even offer paying for the courses (only if you pass). I've seen people come in from community colleges and get hired. I've seen alot of people go to work, then while working attend classes at night to complete the apprenticeship program. I'm only aware of a few people who attended a 'pay-for-training' program and then came out and got hired.

Community college vocational programs are free in Texas? When did that happen? When I lived in Tx 15 years ago they were like 4k a year with books and fees and stuff. You are paying for your training courses just like I said. Keep making my points for me. The traditional union type apprentice program of 50 years ago where you earn a wage while working and learning is pretty uncommon. Exactly like I said.

bob2356 says

Community college vocational programs are free in Texas?

Odd, I read my post, I didn't say ANYTHING about them being free. You can go through a community college program on your own dime and graduate and then try to get a job. OR you can get a job and your employer MIGHT pay for the program (or reimburse you if you pass) while you work for them. Strange these are the same words that I used in the previous post. No, nothing is free, if you are lucky and are on the right track you MIGHT get a job where they will pay for your education while you work. Oh and there ARE trucking companies that WILL pay you while you earn (at their school - no fees to join the school) $500 a week, the course takes about 4 weeks. When you earn your CDL you drive with a trainer for about two weeks, making $90 a day, then your a driver making more than that. The ONLY catch is that you have to drive 120,000 miles for these guys (or pay something for your training). If you think you can make more money at the end of the 120,000 miles, switch to another company. This is but one of many trucking companies that do this.

http://www.roehl.jobs/cdl-truck-driving-schools

Dan8267 says

If your statement is true, then why are wages so damn low for migrant workers?

Because there are a lot of migrants with no skills. The market is there to recognize bottlenecks. Migrants are not bottlenecks.
You can produce what is needed without a desperate need for more migrants.

Dan8267 says

So, here is a case where it has been precisely measured what the value of the labor is, 40 cents on the dollar of the produce costs, and the owner is getting 75% of the worker's wealth production while the worker is getting only 25%.

I say it again: migrant workers are not rare compared to the need. The market is not there to be moral or kind, it is there to recognize REALITY. It achieves that. Reality is not independent of the number of available workers.

If you think the farmer is getting too much: try to buy lands, plant trees, wait for them to grow, treat them with pesticides, find workers to hire, manage these people, find buyers and sell your apples. If you *really* think owning a farm is a pathway to riches, why don't you do that, then lower your price to 25 cents, and tell us about it as you retire in caligulan splendor?

In your example if the consumer pays $1, then the other $0.6 is probably going to transportation and a grocery shop where a lot of people are working as cashiers, sweeping the floors, unloading trucks, reloading shelves, etc.... They are working as hard as farm workers and deserve to be paid too.

Dan8267 says

Heraclitusstudent says

The graph you showed represent several distortions that were deliberately setup to destroy the value at the bottom of the spectrum

Present your evidence for this.

The data comes from The Economics Policy Institute, which has a damn good reputation for accuracy, honesty, and non-partisanship.

I never said the graph is incorrect. I commented on what it shows. It shows the impact of globalization.
I'm pretty sure no one in the Economics Policy Institute thinks capitalism is not working. You should take a hint from that.

Dan8267 says

Heraclitusstudent says

so workers are all alike and replaceable

All the reasons you give, especially this one, are the direct consequences of capitalism, and are not inevitable in other economic systems.

They are not inevitable in capitalism. In particular for this argument: smart workers will refuse to do jobs in which they are indistinguishable from their co-workers. They will do something that set them apart as special and better. Lots of people are doing that in capitalism. There are other coffee shops than starbucks and other restaurants than McDonald.

mmmarvel says

Oh and there ARE trucking companies that WILL pay you while you earn (at their school - no fees to join the school) $500 a week, the course takes about 4 weeks. When you earn your CDL you drive with a trainer for about two weeks, making $90 a day, then your a driver making more than that. The ONLY catch is that you have to drive 120,000 miles for these guys (or pay something for your training). If you think you can make more money at the end of the 120,000 miles, switch to another company. This is but one of many trucking companies that do this.

http://www.roehl.jobs/cdl-truck-driving-schools

I see more and more black, Hispanic and Indian truck drivers these days. 50k to start after training ain't a pot o' gold, but one wonders why it wouldn't be attractive to young single white males.

Job openings and hires trend in construction demonstrates the skills divide

Forget just talking about construction

5,900,000 job openings in spread out in every sector in the U.S.

https://loganmohtashami.com/2016/09/07/5900000-job-openings/

So, job openings in construction have been rising steadily for six years, with wages probably rising somewhat commensurately, but the rate of hiring has been flat at best. I guess you could legitimately explain that as a lack of "skilled" workers. How would you quantify that as the disparity as opposed to a simple lack of interest in the jobs themselves?

neplusultra57 says

How would you quantify that as the disparity as opposed to a simple lack of interest in the jobs themselves?

Mexicans left after the housing bust and now coming into America are Chinese and Indians ...

http://www.housingwire.com/blogs/1-rewired/post/37817-illegal-immigrants-arent-taking-your-houses-or-your-jobs

$26.25 pay for the work, cities like Phoenix showing near 10% wage growth

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AHECONS

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=6X8C

http://www.housingwire.com/blogs/1-rewired/post/37817-illegal-immigrants-arent-taking-your-houses-or-your-jobs

"What about those construction jobs they left behind? No one is taking them. Job openings for construction jobs are high today with hours worked at their highest ever...Starting to see a correlation? When the housing bubble burst, the immigrants left. Now, however, although the housing market and overall economy are starting to improve again, they have yet to come back."

Thanks, Logan.