Understanding rights

[rustled]

It's interesting to have you call my views "archaic". Stating your personal opinion of my views in that way seems rather personal to me.

Not really, a great many people share your views. It's a common complain about conservative values that they are rooted in the past and haven't kept up with changing conditions, hence my use of the word "archaic".

The topic isn't "rustled's views" though, so your personal opinion of "rustled's views" is off topic. The topic isn't "conservative values" either. The topic is "understanding rights".

It seems to me that the responses go off topic when it becomes difficult to explain one's own position. In the interests of moving away from your personal critique of what you presume to be "rustled's views"

People have been telling us the employees do have a right to a share in the employers' profits. It seems disingenuous to pretend it's all about "framing" and "bias" and someone else's "archaic" views when we see this:

The is certainly nothing unreasonable about Cost Of Living increases. An employee having the same buying power this year as he did last year is just breaking even. COI increases should be a no-brainer.

Perhaps the objective of discussing "rustled's views" is a means of avoiding the obvious: if the price to the customer isn't expected to go up to cover the COL increase the employee ought to get, where does that "no brainer" COL increase come from - if not the employer's profit?

[fluffy]

...if the price to the customer isn't expected to go up to cover the COL increase the employee ought to get, where does that "no brainer" COL increase come from - if not the employer's profit?

There are usually a number of options available to the employer, from reducing staff to raising wages out of profits, to streamlining production methods, but that's up the the boss. The issue with COI is that it's not unreasonable to expect that the buying power of a paycheque to at least remain constant from year to year, otherwise it's a pay cut. Supplies, rental on premises, they all go up. It's folly to think that the product price can remain constant in the face of inflation.

[rustled]

...if the price to the customer isn't expected to go up to cover the COL increase the employee ought to get, where does that "no brainer" COL increase come from - if not the employer's profit?

There are usually a number of options available to the employer, from reducing staff to raising wages out of profits, to streamlining production methods, but that's up the the boss. The issue with COI is that it's not unreasonable to expect that the buying power of a paycheque to at least remain constant from year to year, otherwise it's a pay cut. Supplies, rental on premises, they all go up. It's folly to think that the product price can remain constant in the face of inflation.

Employers face all the same pressures on their profits that the employees are facing on their paycheques. Sidestepping this reality doesn't make it go away.

It IS folly to think the product price doesn't go up as a direct result of payroll pressures on the employer, and every other employer in the supply chain serving that enterprise. People who insist we must raise the minimum wage insist prices needn't go up as a consequence. People who insist we must have carbon taxes, and that we must tax enterprises at higher rates to redistribute the wealth, also insist the cost of goods and services needn't go up as a consequence.

Let's be clear here, so we're keeping it on topic: Is a cost of living increase an employee's right?

I say no, it is not.

[fluffy]

I say no, it is not.

I say yes, it is. And for reasons I've stated more than once. It's not written in stone in the labour laws but it is certainly not an unreasonable expectation that I will make the same money this year that I made last year. I note that BC's minimum wage is now indexed to the CPI. To me that's progress.

[YzzzR1]

There are usually a number of options available to the employer, from reducing staff to raising wages out of profits, to streamlining production methods, but that's up the the boss. The issue with COI is that it's not unreasonable to expect that the buying power of a paycheque to at least remain constant from year to year, otherwise it's a pay cut. Supplies, rental on premises, they all go up. It's folly to think that the product price can remain constant in the face of inflation.

Employers face all the same pressures on their profits that the employees are facing on their paycheques. Sidestepping this reality doesn't make it go away.

It IS folly to think the product price doesn't go up as a direct result of payroll pressures on the employer, and every other employer in the supply chain serving that enterprise. People who insist we must raise the minimum wage insist prices needn't go up as a consequence. People who insist we must have carbon taxes, and that we must tax enterprises at higher rates to redistribute the wealth, also insist the cost of goods and services needn't go up as a consequence.

Let's be clear here, so we're keeping it on topic: Is a cost of living increase an employee's right?

I say no, it is not.

One thing that stands out to me is the omission of automation as an option for the employer. We see this industrial automation increasing every day. It may get to a point that having any employees (except crucial ones) will be too cumbersome and expensive. I have premonitions of critically high unemployment in this version of Utopia.

[fluffy]

One thing that stands out to me is the omission of automation as an option for the employer. We see this industrial automation increasing every day. It may get to a point that having any employees (except crucial ones) will be too cumbersome and expensive. I have premonitions of critically high unemployment in this version of Utopia.

That would come under streamlining production methods. Talk to anyone who works in the manufacturing sector.

[Boosted632]

I say no, it is not.

I say yes, it is. And for reasons I've stated more than once. It's not written in stone in the labour laws but it is certainly not an unreasonable expectation that I will make the same money this year that I made last year. I note that BC's minimum wage is now indexed to the CPI. To me that's progress.

But you would make the same money next year thats not changing its up to you to adjust accordingly. I assume you're ok with your wage being slashed when this country is in a recession by next year and the company's sales are down or is that an unreasonable expectation.

[I_am_a_Liberal]

I think the sentiment of "blah blah blah - you start a business!" is funny. Part of the problem is that it is too easy to suddenly decide you should start a business. And the people that find it difficult seem to always retort "start a business and see". And I think to myself - why? I don't need to. I had friends that didn't play well with others and had a problem with authority. These characteristics were problems for them. Even when they started a "business".

[rustled]

I think the sentiment of "blah blah blah - you start a business!" is funny. Part of the problem is that it is too easy to suddenly decide you should start a business. And the people that find it difficult seem to always retort "start a business and see". And I think to myself - why? I don't need to. I had friends that didn't play well with others and had a problem with authority. These characteristics were problems for them. Even when they started a "business".

How is it easier today than previously?

It would be interesting to see anyone seriously suggest starting a business should be more regulated - that people shouldn't be able to start a business as "easily" as we can. As though people have too much right to start a business, and that right should be curtailed.

[Boosted632]

I think the sentiment of "blah blah blah - you start a business!" is funny. Part of the problem is that it is too easy to suddenly decide you should start a business. And the people that find it difficult seem to always retort "start a business and see". And I think to myself - why? I don't need to. I had friends that didn't play well with others and had a problem with authority. These characteristics were problems for them. Even when they started a "business".

Yup starting a business is easy, being successful and upgrading equipment without packing on a pile of debt and still making money is what seperates the men from the boys,but you obviously know nothing about that, its easy to shout instructions from the sidelines tho.

[The Green Barbarian]

It's interesting to have you call my views "archaic". Stating your personal opinion of my views in that way seems rather personal to me.

Not really, a great many people share your views. It's a common complain about conservative values that they are rooted in the past and haven't kept up with changing conditions, hence my use of the word "archaic".

The only one with "archaic" views are those still pushing this disgusting and evil "value" that the "corporations" are evil and the "workers" are "good". This disgusting and evil paradigm that was pushed last century resulted in the death of millions of people under the banner of communism. It is the ultimate evil that destroys all progress in society. It is so archaic, in that it is so "last century". It is so evil in terms of how much suffering it causes humanity. The common effect of communism is that they are rooted in the past and haven't kept up with changing conditions, and have led to the death of so many. Hence my use of the word "archaic". And "evil". Which it is.

[Jonrox]

It IS folly to think the product price doesn't go up as a direct result of payroll pressures on the employer, and every other employer in the supply chain serving that enterprise.

In most cases for most goods and services, costs have nothing to do with prices. It’s basic economics… prices have everything to do with supply and demand. Look at a supply-demand graph… nowhere on it do costs show up, but price does.

If a business raises prices and sees no impact on sales, it means they were charging too little all along. The market determines pricing, not costs.

Rising costs is being sold as the reason for prices in a lot of goods increasing, but it’s a narrative being used to manipulate the public. It’s simply a reason that folks with limited understanding of economics, running a business, and pricing strategies will buy into.

They hate being told that a good is priced the way it is because it can be… they think it's greedy. So instead they’re being fed this false narrative of costs impacting prices. It really boils down to significant changes in supply and demand over the past couple of years all coming to a head right now.

[fluffy]

In most cases for most goods and services, costs have nothing to do with prices. It’s basic economics… prices have everything to do with supply and demand. Look at a supply-demand graph… nowhere on it do costs show up, but price does.

If a business raises prices and sees no impact on sales, it means they were charging too little all along. The market determines pricing, not costs.

Rising costs is being sold as the reason for prices in a lot of goods increasing, but it’s a narrative being used to manipulate the public. It’s simply a reason that folks with limited understanding of economics, running a business, and pricing strategies will buy into.

They hate being told that a good is priced the way it is because it can be… they think it's greedy. So instead they’re being fed this false narrative of costs impacting prices. It really boils down to significant changes in supply and demand over the past couple of years all coming to a head right now.

Costs have a part to play in setting a line between profit and loss. Above that breakeven point is where supply and demand kicks in, and how much leeway a producer/seller has to set competitive pricing. But like you say, when public perception is that profits have grown excessive then things start to work against you. In situations like we have now in products like food and gasoline, there is a combination of record high retail prices at a time when retailers and/or producers are setting record profits. That doesn't exactly play into the "supply line difficulties" story, nor is it making sense that global conditions should have such an effect on a domestic market for a domestically produced fuel supply.

In terms of "rights", the seller of a product is free to charge what they feel the market will bear. But then we are faced with the downside of monopolies in essential products, and the level of corporate responsibility a company takes for its impact on customers and other stakeholders.

[rustled]

What's being sold to the public is that the employees have a right to a greater share of the employers' profits when the employees' costs go up, and that the consumers have a greater right to corporations' profits when consumers' costs go up.

[fluffy]

For me it's more a matter of corporate social responsibilty, or a lack thereof. If customers are paying higher prices and the employee's paycheque is shrinking at a time when the employer's profits are rising, then those employers are not assuming any responsibility for the impact of their choices they are only in it for the money.