Wage Wars

[brerrabbit]

I am just wondering based on the number of threads and pages of discussions that have grown from the original discussion of the Wisconsin situation how people think about economics in general.

I studied a lot of economics in my life and use it as a basis to explain and understand a lot of things.

Think about this (non wage related economics question).

You want to buy a house, you have found the neighborhood you want and therein are three houses you are considering. All the homes in the area including these three were built around the same time, are similar in size and amenities. House 1 is $200,000 in good shape, house 2 is $180,000 and needs a little work, house three has some upgrades and the seller won't listen to his realitor because it has granite in the kitchen, hardwood floors, and upgraded bathrooms. He insists on listing it for $300,000 because its better than the others. Comparable sales over the past six months indicate the right price for all of these houses is $180 to $200k range.

Do you think that because seller 3 thinks his is worth $300k he should get that much? Do you think he will get that much?

Think about it.

 

[mikehn]

This is a no brainer. Seller 3 is going to get whatever someone else is willing to pay for it. Period.

Same with salaries. Your salary is going to be whatever the market is willing to pay for your services. Period. If you dont like your salary, go find another job.

 

[brerrabbit]

Thank you! There is someone else who does understand. As I have said in posts on several of those threads, market price is the price at which a buyer and a seller are willing to transact at. That goes for houses, tvs, cars, and even wages, the employer being the buyer and the employee being the seller.

 

[Handbag Lady]

I am just wondering based on the number of threads and pages of discussions that have grown from the original discussion of the Wisconsin situation how people think about economics in general.

I studied a lot of economics in my life and use it as a basis to explain and understand a lot of things.

Think about this (non wage related economics question).

You want to buy a house, you have found the neighborhood you want and therein are three houses you are considering. All the homes in the area including these three were built around the same time, are similar in size and amenities. House 1 is $200,000 in good shape, house 2 is $180,000 and needs a little work, house three has some upgrades and the seller won't listen to his realitor because it has granite in the kitchen, hardwood floors, and upgraded bathrooms. He insists on listing it for $300,000 because its better than the others. Comparable sales over the past six months indicate the right price for all of these houses is $180 to $200k range.

Do you think that because seller 3 thinks his is worth $300k he should get that much? Do you think he will get that much?

Think about it.

Do I think his house is worth that much? I don't know. It will be worth whatever he gets as the selling price.




However, where are these houses and can I buy one?

 

[BillSears]

But if you bought house number 3 for $300,000 last year you don't get to go back to the original seller and tell him that you've changed your mind and since the house is only worth $200,000 now he should pay you back the difference.

Once the contract is settled then both parties have to live with the price.

 

[brerrabbit]

The point I was really trying to illustrate without getting into another discussion of teachers vs nurses was simply that the market sets the price for everything. I am a free market guy. I can explain value and salaries, and prices based upon market conditions. Most people in the discussions of teachers v nurses want to talk about degrees and level of education, and difficulty of the job when at then end of the day it is the market that sets the rate. To that end the obvius answer to the case posed above is that the value of the house is around $200k and for the seller to expect anymore is wishful thinking and as a buyer an offer of anything more than that would be foolish.

 

[piperdown]

The point I was really trying to illustrate without getting into another discussion of teachers vs nurses was simply that the market sets the price for everything. I am a free market guy. I can explain value and salaries, and prices based upon market conditions. Most people in the discussions of teachers v nurses want to talk about degrees and level of education, and difficulty of the job when at then end of the day it is the market that sets the rate. To that end the obvius answer to the case posed above is that the value of the house is around $200k and for the seller to expect anymore is wishful thinking and as a buyer an offer of anything more than that would be foolish.

I agree with you. I just find it sad that given teachers' salaries (at least here in Texas) how little value people have for education.

 

[Hoodie]

This is a no brainer. Seller 3 is going to get whatever someone else is willing to pay for it. Period.

Same with salaries. Your salary is going to be whatever the market is willing to pay for your services. Period. If you dont like your salary, go find another job.

Exactly!!!

Everyone thinks they are worth more than they make. The truth is that whatever you are making is what the market actually says you are worth.

Personally, I put a lot more emphasis on what I do to value my own worth than the dollar amount the market says I' worth.

 

[tvguy]

Thank you! There is someone else who does understand. As I have said in posts on several of those threads, market price is the price at which a buyer and a seller are willing to transact at. That goes for houses, tvs, cars, and even wages, the employer being the buyer and the employee being the seller.

Except I think some people feel in situations like Wisconsin, the state has a choice of the $180,000 house, the $200,000 house, or the $300,000 house. So the state selects the $180,000 house and pays $400,000 for it.

 

[Schmeck]

This is a no brainer. Seller 3 is going to get whatever someone else is willing to pay for it. Period.

Same with salaries. Your salary is going to be whatever the market is willing to pay for your services. Period. If you dont like your salary, go find another job.

When the market decides to pay less than a living wage, then what do you do? Do some research, look back in history, see if you want to live like that, if you want your children to live like that - especially focus on the steel industry and the coal mining industry.

And in this economy 'go find another job' is asinine!

 

[mikehn]

The point I was really trying to illustrate without getting into another discussion of teachers vs nurses was simply that the market sets the price for everything. I am a free market guy. I can explain value and salaries, and prices based upon market conditions. Most people in the discussions of teachers v nurses want to talk about degrees and level of education, and difficulty of the job when at then end of the day it is the market that sets the rate. To that end the obvius answer to the case posed above is that the value of the house is around $200k and for the seller to expect anymore is wishful thinking and as a buyer an offer of anything more than that would be foolish.

This is exactly why I dont debate on these disboards. I dont see the point of debating people who insist 2 plus 2 equals 5. I come to these boards for comedic relief and thats about it.

 

[manning]

I like the reply to the comment that "you don't pay me enough for my experience or education" and the comeback was

"If you feel you are not paid enough then quit and do something else."

 

[eliza61]

I like the reply to the comment that "you don't pay me enough for my experience or education" and the comeback was

"If you feel you are not paid enough then quit and do something else."

which is pretty much grounded in as much reality as tinker bells pixie dust.

 

[Acklander]

If the person with the 300K house wants to list it for 300K he's more than welcome to do so. And someone is welcome to put in an offer for less, and from there you negotiate the price. All the teachers are asking for, is the right to negotiate. That's fair.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

People's opinions aren't going to change.

 

[RNMOM]

When I was getting my education in nursing, and when I was working all the indicators were that if you got more experience and more education you would be compensated with higher salaries. Perhaps that is why we expect that.

In a free market people who provide a particular service you can't provide youself are usually paid well. Why is that not true for teachers and nurses? Also fire, police and lots of other groups are stuck being compensated based on contracts that limit the amount of compensation.

Really, it isn't about teachers or nurses but about paying a fair wage and sticking with the contracts you made with these people. It is completely unfair to take something away from them that was written years ago. I'm sure if they knew that could happen they would have planned their retirement monies differently.

My DH's company bought some other companies and as of a certain date changed the retirement plans and compensations for medical and such. Those already working were included in the original plan but new hires are not. Fair, yes, because they went into the job knowing the deal.

It is unfair to change the compensation at a later time for these public employees.

 

[Megan_J]

I think that people who work hard for a living should be able to earn enough to live on without worrying about where the money for food is going to come from. There are a lot of people in this country who are underpaid for what they do and saying 'Go look for another job' is pretty pointless when the economy is in the dumps. Nobody should have to look for another job, instead everybody should be treated with diginty and be paid a living wage. If the 'market' doesn't want people to earn a living wage then there is something wrong with the 'market'.