9th July 2014, 01:05 PM
Marc,
Yep. We seem to be observing from very different perspectives.
The archaeology is 'owned' by the landowner.
As with many professions, the photo's, drawings etc 'created' by the employee are owned by the employer.
Think of your lemonade making as a larger scale operation e.g. a production line. (a crude analogy). Those mixing the ingredients or working/maintaining the machine that mixes are employed by you to do so. They get paid by you. They don't own the lemonade they make, you do.
Now in archaeology a 'digger/archaeologist' is either employed by an archaeological company, a non-archaeological company or they are self-employed. In the first case anything they produce is owned by their employer (depending on the terms of their contract). In the second it would be dictated by the contract for the job in question.
I don't see the link between low pay and 'taking ownership'. In my understanding, ownership is dictated by law and formalised by contracts. Pay is dictated by market forces and negotiations between employer/employee, unions and institutions.
There is no magical ethereal entity that flits from industry to industry waving a wand of higher pay on whim. There is no complex economic formula or social conundrum that can be manipulated. Its as simple as:
P=B-C
that is profit (for whoever can bid for and win a particular 'job') = Amount you can charge the 'client' to do the job - the cost to carry out the work (including any overheads you have to operate).
If someone doesn't make enough profit they starve/ their company goes into liquidation etc.
This formula is applicable at all levels from the employee at the sharp end, to the government minister who manipulates policy. You could see it as the ultimate capitalist expression of survival of the fittest.
I am confused by your alternative model. Your beginning to sound like the long lost unit of 1!:face-stir:
Yep. We seem to be observing from very different perspectives.
The archaeology is 'owned' by the landowner.
As with many professions, the photo's, drawings etc 'created' by the employee are owned by the employer.
Think of your lemonade making as a larger scale operation e.g. a production line. (a crude analogy). Those mixing the ingredients or working/maintaining the machine that mixes are employed by you to do so. They get paid by you. They don't own the lemonade they make, you do.
Now in archaeology a 'digger/archaeologist' is either employed by an archaeological company, a non-archaeological company or they are self-employed. In the first case anything they produce is owned by their employer (depending on the terms of their contract). In the second it would be dictated by the contract for the job in question.
I don't see the link between low pay and 'taking ownership'. In my understanding, ownership is dictated by law and formalised by contracts. Pay is dictated by market forces and negotiations between employer/employee, unions and institutions.
There is no magical ethereal entity that flits from industry to industry waving a wand of higher pay on whim. There is no complex economic formula or social conundrum that can be manipulated. Its as simple as:
P=B-C
that is profit (for whoever can bid for and win a particular 'job') = Amount you can charge the 'client' to do the job - the cost to carry out the work (including any overheads you have to operate).
If someone doesn't make enough profit they starve/ their company goes into liquidation etc.
This formula is applicable at all levels from the employee at the sharp end, to the government minister who manipulates policy. You could see it as the ultimate capitalist expression of survival of the fittest.
I am confused by your alternative model. Your beginning to sound like the long lost unit of 1!:face-stir: