Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,292,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

Universal Basic Income

Results 1 to 75 of 227

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    There are many jobs that employers don't even list because they would have to pay too much for the job to be worth it, yet those are potential jobs that can benefit the employer and the employee greatly. Examples are small business administrative work. Oftentimes they have just one administrator who often could use help. To hire help, the owner has to pay $10/hr. But the help might not be worth that. The help might leave after a few months, might make too many mistakes, and ultimately might cost more than $10/hr. But at $4/hr, the job could be offered at low enough risk to the employer. And the person who gets the job gains valuable experience. Some go from that sort of pay to 50k+/yr within a couple years.

    This process doesn't even get off the ground floor if the employer isn't allowed to offer a job at a low enough wage to make it worth his while. And then we're left with most entry-level listings not even being entry-level in the first place.
    What should happen here, is that the current administrator gets more efficient, through experience and innovation, to command an extra $4/hour.

    Remember, businesses aren't in business to educate an entry-level workforce. In my scenario, the cost is the same but the firm also gains by acquiring more efficient processes in its operation. And if they can negotiate with the administrator and pay something less than $4/hour, then profits are enhanced.
  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    What should happen here, is that the current administrator gets more efficient, through experience and innovation, to command an extra $4/hour.
    That is true and happens to a degree, though it has limits. As scale increases, more help is needed. This is why one of my friends is one of five accountants at his firm instead of just one of one accountants at his firm.

    Remember, businesses aren't in business to educate an entry-level workforce.
    Why is that? I know of a lot of reasons why we have been gravitating away from that. Yet, the concept is still very valuable.

    I believe things would operate much more productively if we moved back towards the norm that there should be more of a role in firm-designated training and apprenticeships. We already have a lot of this in indirect ways; an example is in how employers will often pay for employees to go to college. This tells us that firms do consider themselves playing the role of educating the workforce. It's just that the current standards for how to do it are not that efficient.
  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    That is true and happens to a degree, though it has limits. As scale increases, more help is needed. This is why one of my friends is one of five accountants at his firm instead of just one of one accountants at his firm.
    That's different.

    In the administrator example, the admin is providing a service that the employer is willing to pay $10/hour for. If the "scale" of that job increases, meaning the volume of work, then the additional work is also worth $10 per hour. Paying someone $4 just because they are willing to, is an exploitation.

    What interns do changes the "scope" of the administrators job. The Intern can assume tasks that do not require the administrator's skill, but are still the administrator's responsibility. The lower skill requirement is what justifies the lower, or non-existent, wage.

    So going back to my original point. Innovation and efficiency on the part of the administrator eliminates the need for the intern. Either by eliminating those extraneous tasks, or by the administrator simply having more time to do them. Scale would not affect this. Scale would affect the need for more administrators.
  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    That's different.

    In the administrator example, the admin is providing a service that the employer is willing to pay $10/hour for. If the "scale" of that job increases, meaning the volume of work, then the additional work is also worth $10 per hour. Paying someone $4 just because they are willing to, is an exploitation.

    What interns do changes the "scope" of the administrators job. The Intern can assume tasks that do not require the administrator's skill, but are still the administrator's responsibility. The lower skill requirement is what justifies the lower, or non-existent, wage.

    So going back to my original point. Innovation and efficiency on the part of the administrator eliminates the need for the intern. Either by eliminating those extraneous tasks, or by the administrator simply having more time to do them. Scale would not affect this. Scale would affect the need for more administrators.
    This is true and is what I am discussing. The risk and cost of hiring new administrators is such that as the price of their labor declines, the quantity demanded of their labor inclines. So, an employer can more efficiently bring in new administrators if he was legally able to set the price lower, and lower skilled applicants are able to get work they otherwise wouldn't if they are legally allowed to accept that lower price.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •