If he’s paid four dollars a day and only makes 10 dollars worth of products, he’s probably turning a loss once material costs and everything are accounted for? As 10 dollars would be revenue, not profit
The story exists because of an employer taking advantage of an employee. The numbers can be whatever makes sense.
Look up sec filings for the company you work for (or whatever company you feel like getting mad at), and compare revanue and profits to employee counts, and how those numbers have changed in the past 15 years. If we define “productivity” as profits divided by employee count, then for my job “productivity” has increased 30x in 15 years while my wages have increased approximately 2.5x. If you define “productivity” as revanue divided by employee count, then it’s even worse.
The exploitation is the point, and the story works for anyone who’s worked too hard for too little, regardless of the specific numbers.
Talk about missing the forest for the trees. I notice that Econ101 people never want to include profit, or advertising to the cost of production. Both are inefficiencies due to adding cost without value, but it’s invisible to the system. Always left out when it comes to factoring costs. Weird.
The numbers are certainly off. This person would probably only be paid $2 a day, the costs and materials would only likely account for another $2 per day and they sell $10 in revenue and make the owner $6 of profit. But even then thats company profit and the boss takes a salary too. Then there’s taxes and other stuff and it gets complicated.
If he’s paid four dollars a day and only makes 10 dollars worth of products, he’s probably turning a loss once material costs and everything are accounted for? As 10 dollars would be revenue, not profit
The specific numbers are hardly the important part of the story.
The outrage is the important part, math is for nerds!
The story exists because of the numbers.
And if they’re not important to the story, there’s no reason for them not to be accurate.
The story exists because of an employer taking advantage of an employee. The numbers can be whatever makes sense.
Look up sec filings for the company you work for (or whatever company you feel like getting mad at), and compare revanue and profits to employee counts, and how those numbers have changed in the past 15 years. If we define “productivity” as profits divided by employee count, then for my job “productivity” has increased 30x in 15 years while my wages have increased approximately 2.5x. If you define “productivity” as revanue divided by employee count, then it’s even worse.
The exploitation is the point, and the story works for anyone who’s worked too hard for too little, regardless of the specific numbers.
Agreed. The numbers are the basis of the abuse. So just use real numbers
The numbers are a measure of the abuse.
The existence of the numbers is the reason for the abuse
It does not specify what the $10 is a measure of.
Talk about missing the forest for the trees. I notice that Econ101 people never want to include profit, or advertising to the cost of production. Both are inefficiencies due to adding cost without value, but it’s invisible to the system. Always left out when it comes to factoring costs. Weird.
The numbers are certainly off. This person would probably only be paid $2 a day, the costs and materials would only likely account for another $2 per day and they sell $10 in revenue and make the owner $6 of profit. But even then thats company profit and the boss takes a salary too. Then there’s taxes and other stuff and it gets complicated.