4 ms·

Agreed. Also there seems to be an implied assumption that these "no-profit" companies are only holding on to their current low-wage workers out of some kind of

Agreed. Also there seems to be an implied assumption that these "no-profit" companies are only holding on to their current low-wage workers out of some kind of charity that will expire when they have to pay them a few bucks more an hour, which seems absurd when all of my experience as a retail consumer suggests that modern companies staffed primarily by minimum-wage workforces are generally incredibly under-staffed already in the name of increasing the profit the companies employing them supposedly aren't making, as evidenced by the generally poor customer service, long wait times for service, etc (I'm in SoCal, YMMV in other parts of the country).

bakhy 12y ago
of course. the day a company, when faced with larger profits, decides "hey, let's give it all to our workers through an increase in pay" is when i'll believe the libertarians ;) the determining factor for the amount someone is payed is not how much their company earns, and/or how much they contribute to that. for most workers it is simply - how easily can s/he be replaced? i.e. market price, mostly independent of how well an individual company is doing! no manager is going to pay workers more than s/he needs to, at least not without risking reduction in competitiveness, and for workers with low education, you can find replacements easy, particularly during economic downturns.
- zo1 12y ago
  "of course. the day a company, when faced with larger profits, decides "hey, let's give it all to our workers through an increase in pay" is when i'll believe the libertarians ;)" This has nothing to do with Libertarianism, nor any of it's main tenets. It's called charity, and you'd do well to disassociate it with petty political ideology.
  - bakhy 12y ago
    hm, i would not necessarily call redistributing profits to workers "charity". it is merely an alternative model of work organization, which is actually implemented in some organizations around the world.
    - zo1 12y ago
      Then it's not a company, or they're not employees. Gee, I wish I could just make up random re-definitions of long-established words so I could win arguments.
      - bakhy 12y ago
        gee, i wish you could follow the thread, since the petty detail you are squabbling about bears little if any relevance to the main point ;) and yes, it still can be a company, unless you wish to narrow the definition of the word company. the way a company will distribute it's profits is mostly it's own business. are you perhaps automatically assuming that all companies are traded on the stock market? in any case, you're the one who started with redefining "charity" in such a wild manner you seem to now hypocritically be accusing me of.

bakhy 12y ago

of course. the day a company, when faced with larger profits, decides "hey, let's give it all to our workers through an increase in pay" is when i'll believe the libertarians ;) the determining factor for the amount someone is payed is not how much their company earns, and/or how much they contribute to that. for most workers it is simply - how easily can s/he be replaced? i.e. market price, mostly independent of how well an individual company is doing! no manager is going to pay workers more than s/he needs to, at least not without risking reduction in competitiveness, and for workers with low education, you can find replacements easy, particularly during economic downturns.

zo1 12y ago
"of course. the day a company, when faced with larger profits, decides "hey, let's give it all to our workers through an increase in pay" is when i'll believe the libertarians ;)" This has nothing to do with Libertarianism, nor any of it's main tenets. It's called charity, and you'd do well to disassociate it with petty political ideology.
- bakhy 12y ago
  hm, i would not necessarily call redistributing profits to workers "charity". it is merely an alternative model of work organization, which is actually implemented in some organizations around the world.
  - zo1 12y ago
    Then it's not a company, or they're not employees. Gee, I wish I could just make up random re-definitions of long-established words so I could win arguments.
    - bakhy 12y ago
      gee, i wish you could follow the thread, since the petty detail you are squabbling about bears little if any relevance to the main point ;) and yes, it still can be a company, unless you wish to narrow the definition of the word company. the way a company will distribute it's profits is mostly it's own business. are you perhaps automatically assuming that all companies are traded on the stock market? in any case, you're the one who started with redefining "charity" in such a wild manner you seem to now hypocritically be accusing me of.