> What about it? Are the workers there currently off the job while they wait for more money?
No they aren't because it's Asia? You don't work then you starve. There is so much poor people there that you can pay whatever and you will find workers, no labor laws, no unions. So he pays them pennies because as you said "THERE IS SHORTAGE OF REVENUE"? That's not the reason and everyone knows that. Just admit that they are not paid because of greed and we can finish this discussion instead of framing it like poor business owner would need to charge higher price or they would be starving. That's NOT the case.
> Here I was convinced you were just going on some mindless "workers are victims" rant, not realizing that workers stop showing up when they are not paid enough
Ye, all of these people without education can choose to do whatever they want.. so they can just quit and then they eat air and pay for rent and their children school etc with air, with almost zero savings (because cost of living eats everything) especially in Asia without labor laws and unions. But ye live in your alternative world where workers can choose whatever they want, but it's not only Asia where its really bad or Africa, lets look at the richest country in the world where 57% of Americans can't afford a $1000 emergency, I guess these people with kids can't wait to just quit their jobs and be homeless.
> It was suggested that the guy at the head of Louis Vuitton is too greedy to randomly pay people more. I asked if you randomly pay people more as well. If not, it would be strange for you to expect others to do so. Everyone here has money to spare.
Difference is that these are not random people but people that do work for him, see the difference? It's the fruit of their labor. That's why again, WTH are you talking about?
I would never say such a thing as "shortage of revenue" is completely nonsensical. A shortage occurs when an external mechanism, such as government regulation, prevents price from rising. Revenue may be impacted by a shortage, but revenue fundamentally cannot be in shortage itself.
The original comment that set the stage for the thread stated that certain businesses are struggling to find workers because they don't pay enough to attract workers. That is true, but the reason they aren't able to pay enough to attract the workers they need to keep going is because the customers aren't interested enough in their product to want them to keep going. Not everything is worth doing.
It is not clear how you think Louis Vuitton fits into that. They seemingly have no trouble hiring workers, and when the workers do leave over concern of not being paid enough they demonstrably offer more to win them back. They have sufficient customer interest.
> Difference is that these are not random people but people that do work for him, see the difference?
No. You also have people working for you. Everyone, save those who have gone completely off grid (which you clearly have not), does. That is how an economy functions. The question stands: How often do you pay your workers more than they have asked of you?
Are you even reading my responses? Or are you just picking and choosing what suits your narrative?
You still don't get it, do you? I'm not saying labor costs are the only factor, but it's undeniable that many companies choose to underpay workers while raking in massive profits for themselves. It's called greed, plain and simple.
Sure, business owners take risks, and they should be rewarded for it. But it's not an excuse to exploit workers and keep them in poverty. Finding a balance means not being a greedy Scrooge and sharing the success with those who help build it.
You keep twisting my words. I never said anything about randomly paying people more. It's about recognizing the value of the workers and paying them fairly for their hard work. If they demand more, it's probably because they're being undervalued, which you conveniently ignore.
Labor laws vary in different places. But that doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to exploitation. Just because some workers have it better doesn't make it acceptable to mistreat others. It's about decency and fairness.
You want to talk about poverty? Then address the issue at hand, the fact that many workers are struggling to make ends meet while business owners swim in pools of cash. It's not about giving away $100 bills on the street, it's about paying workers what they deserve.
> No. You also have people working for you. Everyone, save those who have gone completely off grid (which you clearly have not), does. That is how an economy functions. The question stands: How often do you pay your workers more than they have asked of you?
You seem to be fixated on deflecting the conversation away from the real issue at hand. Let's be clear: the topic of this discussion is not about me or whether I have people working for me as a customer. It's about addressing the widespread problem of companies underpaying their workers and prioritizing excessive profits over fair compensation.
While it is true that in everyday transactions, as a customer, I interact with employees at various businesses, that is not the crux of this debate. The main concern is the mistreatment and underpayment of workers within companies, especially those that are highly profitable.
As for the question of how often I pay workers more than they ask for, it is irrelevant to this conversation (but actually often I pay more, I tip people etc but I don't want it to be discussion about me). The focus should be on corporate practices and the need for businesses to recognize the value of their employees and provide fair wages.
So, let's get back on track and concentrate on the real issue – advocating for fair treatment, fair wages, and better working conditions for workers within companies.
Honestly, you're so focused on nitpicking and avoiding the real problem that it's frustrating to even continue this discussion. Stop defending the indefensible and open your eyes to the reality of the situation. Workers deserve better, and it's time for businesses to stop being so damn greedy.
> but it's undeniable that many companies choose to underpay workers while raking in massive profits for themselves.
Are you replying to my original statement or not? This has nothing to do with the original discussion.
But let's run with it: To underpay a worker ultimately means that you have an outstanding debt to that worker. Are you suggesting that Louis Vuitton has outstanding debt to its workers and that the workers continue to stick around only because they think "If I keep working hard enough I am sure that good guy Louis will eventually settle up!"
I can believe in the short term workers will really hold that view. Indeed, unlike robots which stop working the minute you hold back on pay, humans are a lot more forgiving. But, at the same time, only for so long. If the debts aren't eventually settled they will give up hope.
Louis Vuitton has been in business since 1854, so unless this is something that has only started happening in the past few months, I expect that isn't really the case. I expect the workers are actually paid up in full. Workers don't like to be banks. You won't last long if you treat them as such.
> You seem to be fixated on deflecting the conversation away from the real issue at hand.
Well, I tried going down your weird rabbit hole. Then you told me that you were actually talking about what I said originally. With us back to the original discussion, now you're telling me that you were still in the rabbit hole...? Pick a lane.
> So, let's get back on track and concentrate on the real issue – advocating for fair treatment, fair wages, and better working conditions for workers within companies.
Let's not. Advocacy requires presenting opinion, and presenting opinion is bad faith participation. Good faith participation limits itself to exploring the way things are. One can always use that information to form an opinion, if they so choose. And, frankly, if you are not familiar enough with the way things are in order to be able to contribute in good faith, you most certainly are not in a position to have a well considered opinion.
> Are you replying to my original statement or not? This has nothing to do with the original discussion.
Yes, I am addressing your original statement, which implies that some companies underpay workers despite making massive profits. My point was that this is an issue we should consider in our discussion about fair wages and workers' treatment.
> To underpay a worker ultimately means that you have an outstanding debt to that worker. Are you suggesting that Louis Vuitton has outstanding debt to its workers and that the workers continue to stick around only because they think "If I keep working hard enough I am sure that good guy Louis will eventually settle up!"
No, I am not implying that Louis Vuitton or any other company has outstanding debt to its workers. The point is that if a company is making substantial profits but not adequately compensating its workers, it raises concerns about fair treatment and the distribution of wealth within the company.
> Louis Vuitton has been in business since 1854, so unless this is something that has only started happening in the past few months, I expect that isn't really the case. I expect the workers are actually paid up in full. Workers don't like to be banks. You won't last long if you treat them as such.
I agree that businesses must pay their workers adequately to retain a skilled workforce. However, the issue is not whether workers are currently owed back payments, it's about ensuring that workers are paid fairly for their contributions and that companies prioritize fair wages alongside their profits.
> Let's not. Advocacy requires presenting opinion, and presenting opinion is bad faith participation. Good faith participation limits itself to exploring the way things are. One can always use that information to form an opinion, if they so choose. And, frankly, if you are not familiar enough with the way things are in order to be able to contribute in good faith, you most certainly are not in a position to have a well-considered opinion.
I disagree. Good faith participation involves discussing issues with the goal of seeking positive change and improvement. While we explore the way things are, we can also advocate for fair treatment and better conditions for workers based on ethical and moral considerations.
The real issue here is about recognizing that some companies may not prioritize fair wages for their workers, even if they have the means to do so. By discussing this, we can raise awareness and foster a better understanding of the challenges faced by workers in various industries.
It's evident that your approach to the discussion has been selective and avoiding certain aspects that do not fit your viewpoint. It's disappointing to see you ignore crucial points about the challenges faced by workers in various regions, especially those with low wages and inadequate labor protections.
Addressing only parts of the conversation that align with one's narrative while disregarding significant aspects of the discussion limits the potential for a constructive and well-rounded exchange of ideas. This behavior not only hampers progress in finding solutions but also fails to acknowledge the complexity and diversity of issues related to fair wages.
> which implies that some companies underpay workers despite making massive profits.
Again, had you taken the time to read the full context, you would know the statement was made with respect to not being able to find workers to hire. How can you underpay, let alone pay at all, workers which do not exist? You can't. This has nothing to do with the original topic.
> The point is that if a company is making substantial profits but not adequately compensating its workers
If the workers are not adequately compensated then there must be debt. You fundamentally cannot withhold something in an exchange without accumulating debt. Perhaps you mean the workers have voluntarily forgiven any debt that was outstanding? Indeed, that is an option available to them, but not something workers usually take kindly.
> it's about ensuring that workers are paid fairly for their contributions and that companies prioritize fair wages alongside their profits.
What is fair is established when to exchanging parties reach an agreement on what they both consider to be an equal exchange of value. Until such an agreement can be made, a transaction does not begin. If, later, one party does not fulfill their end of the agreement then that would be unfair, but debt is also created. When there is unfairness, there is debt. They are intrinsically linked. Debt is literally a measure of how far one party has been unfair to another.
> Good faith participation involves discussing issues with the goal of seeking positive change and improvement.
You can't meaningfully seek positive change and improvement without understanding the current state of the world. Once you do understand it, that change is a natural consequence. It doesn't require drawn out discussion.
Jumping straight to pushing your agenda of what you think is the positive change and improvement is bad faith participation as it robs other parties from the understanding of why it is the change they too want to see, and is typically done so because the message wouldn't be compelling if the other parties had that underlying understanding. Even where intentions are pure, it is a self-centred position, and self-centredness is not faithful to the other participants.
Seems like I'm rate limited, couldn't add reply for 45 minutes.
I understand your perspective, but it's important to clarify some points:
> You can't meaningfully seek positive change and improvement without understanding the current state of the world. Once you do understand it, that change is a natural consequence. It doesn't require drawn-out discussion.
While understanding the current state is crucial, meaningful change often requires open and constructive discussions to explore various perspectives and potential solutions. Engaging in dialogue allows us to gain insights from different viewpoints and fosters a deeper understanding of the issues at hand.
> Jumping straight to pushing your agenda of what you think is the positive change and improvement is bad faith participation as it robs other parties from the understanding of why it is the change they too want to see, and is typically done so because the message wouldn't be compelling if the other parties had that underlying understanding.
Advocating for positive change can also involve presenting well-considered ideas and supporting them with evidence and reasoning. Engaging in open discussions allows us to better comprehend the underlying issues and work towards consensus on positive improvements for all parties involved.
> What is fair is established when two exchanging parties have reached an agreement on what they both consider an equal exchange of value. Until such an agreement can be made, a transaction does not begin. If, later, one party does not fulfill their end of the agreement, then that would be unfair, but debt is also created. When there is unfairness, there is debt. They are intrinsically linked.
Fairness in the context of business goes beyond just an initial transaction. It involves ongoing relationships between employers and employees. While formal agreements are crucial, there is also a moral and ethical dimension to consider in how workers are treated over time, especially in light of the company's profits and growth.
There is important additional context that needs to be considered when discussing fair exchanges in the labor market. In many cases, especially in poor countries or among economically vulnerable individuals, the concept of "equal exchange of value" might not be applicable in the traditional sense.
For many people in these situations, they may not have the luxury of multiple options or the bargaining power to negotiate for fair wages. When individuals are in desperate need of employment to survive, they might accept any job opportunity presented to them, even if the compensation is not sufficient.
In such cases, the power dynamics between employers and employees are significantly skewed, making it challenging for workers to demand fair wages. This imbalance can lead to underpayment and exploitation, and it may not be a result of an equal and voluntary agreement between the parties.
Recognizing this context is essential to understanding the complexity of labor issues and the intrinsic link between unfairness and debt that you mentioned earlier. It highlights the need for greater attention to workers rights, social safety nets, and the role of governments and businesses in ensuring fair treatment and better opportunities for economically vulnerable individuals.
In discussions about fair wages, we must consider the broader socioeconomic context and work towards addressing the root causes of inequality and exploitation in the labor market. By doing so, we can foster an environment where all workers are treated fairly and have the opportunity to thrive, regardless of their socioeconomic background.
> Seems like I'm rate limited, couldn't add reply for 45 minutes.
There is no rush.
> Fairness in the context of business goes beyond just an initial transaction.
Well, sure. The world certainly isn't static. What is fair can change over time. And to be sure, one can negotiate at every turn to stay on top of that, but that's not terribly efficient for long-term engagements, so workers usually seek a long-standing agreement and renegotiate only as needed, like the Louis Vuitton workers did as discussed earlier.
Indeed, the workers we like to subcategorize as contractors often try to renegotiate at every turn, seeking opportunities in trying to stay current with what is fair. While it can be beneficial, the growth in what is fair has to exceed what is given up to navigate the inefficiencies, which often doesn't happen. We'd all be contractors if it was always a better deal. Usually the worker is better off when the agreement is long-standing.
> For many people in these situations, they may not have the luxury of multiple options or the bargaining power to negotiate for fair wages.
While this doesn't make sense, what I think you are trying to say is that some people are not worth as much as other people and that those people worth less will not be able to negotiate terms as favourable as someone worth more? If so, certainly. Everyone is different. Similarly, I expect your greed, as you call it, prevents you from paying Ferrari prices for a Chevy Trax as well.
After all, the whole reason for attaching a price to something is to deal with scarcity. The cost is supposed to scare you away. The higher the cost, the more scared you should be of using up the resource. But if someone has nothing else to do with their life, why would you want to be scared of them? Are they not best utilized to the betterment of themselves and humanity as a whole, not tossed aside out of fear?
On the flip side, you should be terribly afraid of hiring someone like a doctor to sew handbags. You want to see that they are tossed aside so that they can work as a doctor instead. They and all the rest of humanity is better off when you toss them aside. This is why they must carry a much scarier price.
> And to be sure, one can negotiate at every turn to stay on top of that, but that's not terribly efficient for long-term engagements, so workers usually seek a long-standing agreement and renegotiate only as needed, like the Louis Vuitton workers did as discussed earlier.
Yes, long standing agreements can provide stability for both workers and employers. However, the ability to renegotiate and advocate for fair wages periodically is essential, especially in dynamic economic environments where factors like inflation, cost of living, and company profits may change over time. Workers seeking better conditions and wages is not an unreasonable expectation, as their contributions contribute to a company's growth and success.
> While this doesn't make sense, what I think you are trying to say is that some people are not worth as much as other people and that those people worth less will not be able to negotiate terms as favourable as someone worth more?
The point is not about devaluing individuals or considering certain people as worth less than others. It's about acknowledging that economic disparities and systemic challenges can limit the bargaining power of certain individuals, making it difficult for them to negotiate for fair wages and better working conditions.
> After all, the whole reason for attaching a price to something is to deal with scarcity. The cost is supposed to scare you away. The higher the cost, the more scared you should be of using up the resource. But if someone has nothing else to do with their life, why would you want to be scared of them? Are they not best utilized to the betterment of themselves and humanity as a whole, not tossed aside out of fear?
It is important to recognize that the labor market is not a perfect representation of resource allocation. The concept of "scarcity" in this context does not equate to the value of human labor or the potential contributions individuals can make to society. People should not be devalued or discarded based on their circumstances, but rather, they should be provided with opportunities and support to enhance their skills and contribute meaningfully to the workforce.
The goal is to ensure that all individuals have access to fair opportunities and can be compensated appropriately for their work, regardless of their background or circumstances. Empowering workers to improve their skills and capabilities benefits not only them but also society as a whole. By promoting fairness and addressing economic disparities, we can create a more inclusive and equitable labor market that benefits everyone.
> It's about acknowledging that economic disparities and systemic challenges can limit the bargaining power of certain individuals, making it difficult for them to negotiate for fair wages and better working conditions.
It is never difficult to negotiate a fair wage. Tricking someone into paying an unfair wage, where you see greater value than you give back in return, is a lot harder. But that questions: Have you actually tricked them, or was the agreement fair all along? The reality is that any offer that is considered unfair, by either side, is rejected and a transaction never takes place. When an agreement is made, it is always considered fair. You, fundamentally, cannot work for someone for an unfair wage.
That is, assuming involved parties are holding true to the agreement made. If someone is not holding up their end of the bargain then that would be unfair, but that also introduces debt...
> It is important to recognize that the labor market is not a perfect representation of resource allocation.
There is no importance to that statement at all. It is a true statement, but it doesn't have any bearing on the conversation.
> The concept of "scarcity" in this context does not equate to the value of human labor or the potential contributions individuals can make to society.
The perception of scarcity is what drives the perceived value of human labour. If I think I can put out a job ad and see a thousand great people line up for a chance at the job, I'm not going to find much value in the work. If I think there is only one person in the world who can suitably do the job, and every other company wants to hire them too, I know it is going to take one hell of an offer to compel them in my direction.
Which brings us back to the first comment in this thread (the one before my first). That is exactly what they stated. If you think they mischaracterized the state of the world, you should take it up with them. These circles you keep us running around in are pointless.
Ah, the same old rhetoric of denying economic disparities and systemic challenges that clearly impact workers bargaining power. You seem so eager to downplay the struggles faced by certain individuals, but let's not pretend negotiating a fair wage is a walk in the park.
Sure, you keep harping on about not tricking someone into accepting an unfair wage, but the reality is far from your idealistic view. Many workers, especially those facing economic vulnerabilities, have no choice but to accept whatever is offered, even if it falls short of fair compensation. And don't give me that "transaction never takes place" nonsense, exploitative agreements happen all the time, whether you care to acknowledge it or not. And don't use words like NEVER and FUNDAMENTALLY, unless you think that labor relation between slave and master in slavery period was a fair transaction, do you?
As for your dismissive attitude towards the importance of the labor market's representation of resource allocation, it just shows your lack of understanding. While it might not fit neatly into your narrow worldview, it's crucial to recognize the market's influence on labor value and the allocation of resources. Don't believe me? Here, educate yourself by reading these two reports from OECD and ILO with data and sources to research:
Things like economic disparities and systemic challenges in context of labor that I mentioned so many times and that you dismissed are discussed there and supported by data.
And don't even get me started on your skewed perception of scarcity. Yes, supply and demand play a role, but that doesn't negate the fact that unfair practices can still arise, leaving workers struggling while companies rake in massive profits. But I guess it's too much for you to grasp that concept.
You keep going in circles, pointing fingers at the initial comment as if it's some holy truth. Well, newsflash: discussions evolve, and we're addressing a broader issue here. If you can't keep up and insist on your one-track mind, then by all means, spare us your pointless circles and let those who are genuinely interested in understanding the complexities have a meaningful conversation.
No they aren't because it's Asia? You don't work then you starve. There is so much poor people there that you can pay whatever and you will find workers, no labor laws, no unions. So he pays them pennies because as you said "THERE IS SHORTAGE OF REVENUE"? That's not the reason and everyone knows that. Just admit that they are not paid because of greed and we can finish this discussion instead of framing it like poor business owner would need to charge higher price or they would be starving. That's NOT the case.
> Here I was convinced you were just going on some mindless "workers are victims" rant, not realizing that workers stop showing up when they are not paid enough
Ye, all of these people without education can choose to do whatever they want.. so they can just quit and then they eat air and pay for rent and their children school etc with air, with almost zero savings (because cost of living eats everything) especially in Asia without labor laws and unions. But ye live in your alternative world where workers can choose whatever they want, but it's not only Asia where its really bad or Africa, lets look at the richest country in the world where 57% of Americans can't afford a $1000 emergency, I guess these people with kids can't wait to just quit their jobs and be homeless.
> It was suggested that the guy at the head of Louis Vuitton is too greedy to randomly pay people more. I asked if you randomly pay people more as well. If not, it would be strange for you to expect others to do so. Everyone here has money to spare.
Difference is that these are not random people but people that do work for him, see the difference? It's the fruit of their labor. That's why again, WTH are you talking about?