So I was thinking about two different views of how much money workers should make
The one view, is, like say we're all friends and say 10 of us start up a company that makes $10 million (in monies that could be paid out, other operating costs aside), so we might end up (plus or minus) then paying each person $1 million each.
On the other hand, say one person left and we needed to hire another person who wasn't our friend to do one of the roles - we might just let people compete to offer the market rate and maybe pay them $100,000 to do the job.
Do either of these reflect the real value of labor, or is there some mix that seems moral or appropriate, or is it going to be completely random?
On the one hand, if the market rate is $100,000 for a job and you're paying $1 million dollars out, aren't you in a sense "overpaying" for the value of labor?
On the other hand, should the common laborer really be paid just the market rate while monies in some businesses just go to managers or CEOs or leadership, and are they really producing that amount of value?
Is the key to distributing more value to laborers to create businesses then that pay out this value like the first case, or does that overpay for labor and is not efficient?
Anyone have any thoughts on calibrating how labor should be compensated?
My 2 cents. I was a member of a millwright union for 7 years, and I continue working in that field for 9+years, so ive seen both sides. I hate union politics, and the leadership vampiring off of thier members.To be objective though: Pros: The ONLY things that unions started out doing correct is collective barganing, It must be done by those elected by the workers, and the strike laws are screwed as hell. Every other reason, IMHO, is either not needed in a voluntary labor system, or has been shifted against the worker by the union leadership and the government. The fore-runner of the United Mine Workers (the redknecks), was such a good idea that Roosevelt had to send U.S. troops to shoot them!