Rage against the Machine - Communism Vs. Capitalism (again!)

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Did anyone mention that the net profits should be shared between the investors or the company and the workforce 51:49 (without the directors taking the whole 49% ), just distribute equally among all the workers what was left, CEO and someone who has been employed for 12 months lets say, both get the same share of that part (everything else stays the same, management bonuses payment structure, divdends etc...) Noone looses, that would be investment into the compay, many companies have profit share schemes, I just feel they are too low in overall scheme of things.

that is about all that I would change (for the companies listed on the stock market only, like one of the requirements...

That's all, investors would still be able to make good returns, and I am pretty certain it would not wipe out the benefits of listing on the stock exchange.

That's about it, a lot of the workforce would be much better off, and you would inject more spending capital into the society...

well this might be shallow and it will never happen, but somehow I like the idea as I don't think that most of the capital accumulated is efficiently spent, or to say that it would be better for the society overall if the workforce would get 49% of the pie per quater (or year) for listed companies

not to mention that it would seriously address the differences in payment structures for the offices in third world countries, it would be a great driver for a more economically balanced world.

[Berzerker]

Kid, don't those numbers just refute your argument even more effectively?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
just distribute equally among all the workers what was left, CEO and someone who has been employed for 12 months lets say, both get the same share of that part (everything else stays the same, management bonuses payment structure, divdends etc...)

Prediction: You will work for 11 months and 29 days. They will fire you and hire you back the next day.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Kid, don't those numbers just refute your argument even more effectively?

No, because there is a smaller percentage of families that recieve the mean income than that don't. The median income is right in the middle. 50% of the families get more and 50% get less.

[Velociryx]

Alva: Yep, it feels like we're really covering some good ground in this, our third thread on the topic!

With regards to sweatshops...yes and no. Consider that the companies in question have invested heavily IN those countries (the physical plant obviously cannot be moved, and although the physical equipment can be relocated, that, on top of the training expense for a new crop of workers AND the construction of a new facility to house it all would make it prohibitively expensive to do so.

Plus the fact that the wage protection need not be implemented in one step. A phased approach would generally work best (and also consider that the cost of living in these countries is dramatically lower, such that two dollars an hour in the states would be a criminal wage, while that same two bucks an hour in some SE Asian nations would be QUITE well to do!

Kid: And those numbers help your argument....how exactly? Given that there is no indication what percentage of the households in your figures have two wage earners, I don't see how any strong conclusions can be drawn from them, save for the fact that household-by-household, we already are above the 30k threshold you specified.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Kid: And those numbers help your argument....how exactly? Given that there is no indication what percentage of the households in your figures have two wage earners, I don't see how any strong conclusions can be drawn from them, save for the fact that household-by-household, we already are above the 30k threshold you specified.

-=Vel=-

I'm talking about individuals. I suggested that each individual might recieve 30k/year. That would mean that a married couple would recieve 60k together.

You're just trying to set up another strawman anyway, and doing a very poor job I might add . I'm not claiming to know the exact amount that would be affordable.

[Velociryx]

Hey....no strawman here....YOU specified the numbers, not me. And what on EARTH are you doing talking about individuals! It's the "whole group" that matters, as you have stated repeatedly!

So....we're looking at the numbers of the "whole group" and what do we find? That the average lies above the threshold specified BY you.

But of course, you'll refute that too I suppose....

-=Vel=-
(one trick pony? :hmm: )

[Velociryx]

and, in anticipation of the refutation sure to come, here's a quote from the Kid himself, in our first thread on this matter:

You can't look at the individual. You have to look at the whole group and draw general conclusions.



-=Vel=-
(except of course, when the Kid is desperate to make a point)

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
And what on EARTH are you doing talking about individuals!

This would be more enjoyable if you and certain other people like-minded as you didn't act like you were incapable of understanding what I'm saying.

[Velociryx]

There is such a thing as simply cutting your losses, Kid.

YOU laid down the ground rules by saying that individual experiences or situations were invalid to the argument. We complied and stopped using them, going instead after information as it pertained to the "whole group" (your call, remember?)

And now, having lost ground in the debate and in a scramble to try and prove your point, you reverse yourself by talking about "individual" situations.

Which is it to be? I'll play the game either way you want, but at least have the good graces to be consistent!

Oh, and btw, here's another golden pair of quotes from you:

I think that most people would be satisfied with around 30k.

and then, when THAT didn't work out....

I'm not claiming to know the exact amount that would be affordable.



-=Vel=-
(this would be more enjoyable if you would pick a position and actually stick with it.... )

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
There is such a thing as simply cutting your losses, Kid.

YOU laid down the ground rules by saying that individual experiences or situations were invalid to the argument. We complied and stopped using them, going instead after information as it pertained to the "whole group" (your call, remember?)

And now, having lost ground in the debate and in a scramble to try and prove your point, you reverse yourself by talking about "individual" situations.

Which is it to be? I'll play the game either way you want, but at least have the good graces to be consistent!

You obviously have a certain type of intelligence, and I'm not very articulate, but I find it hard to believe that you don't know what the difference is.

I wasn't using the experience of one individual in my argumment. I was using the term individual to describe the statistic. I really don't know how to explain the difference by saying anything that I haven't already said.

Originally posted by Velociryx
Oh, and btw, here's another golden pair of quotes from you:

I think that most people would be satisfied with around 30k.

and then, when THAT didn't work out....

I'm not claiming to know the exact amount that would be affordable.

Those are not contradictory.

[Velociryx]

God bless ya, Kid, but you are a riot! I have nothing further to add, on the thinking that you've done more than enough damage in one day to your own debate.

-=Vel=-
(I LOVE this guy!)

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Stop compensation people based an the marketablilty of their skills. Do the best you can to create equality of results while providing incentives that will be beneficial to everyone.

"equality of results" is just not realistic. Life is like a race. There are winners and there are losers. That is a fact. The problem with socialism is that it believes that it can and should artificially make everybody a winner. That is just not realitistic!

[alva]

"equality of results" is just not realistic. Life is like a race. There are winners and there are losers. That is a fact. The problem with socialism is that it believes that it can and should artificially make everybody a winner. That is just not realitistic!

It's not because it isn't, it can't ever be..

Life should definately not be a race.

[Kidlicious]

Crime Pays When the Market Doesn't

Here's a report by the Dept of Public Advocacy.

The Economy-Crime Rate Connection and Its Effect on DPA Caseloads: Does Crime Pay When the Market Doesn't?

From the report

The notion that the crime rate in a country is affected by the state of its economy has a common-sense appeal to most individuals.... According to this instinctual approach and most of the "economic" models of criminology, a flagging economy leads to more joblessness, less money for charity and "safety net" programs, and greater difficulty for individuals trying to find or maintain income to sustain the basic needs of their families. As a result, those individuals will more likely turn to criminal activity as a means of income for these basic needs, since the benefit of lawful activity no longer outweighs the risks of criminal activity (these risks, such as injury at the hands of a potential victim, incarceration, social and familial pressures against crime, etc., are viewed as the "costs" of criminal activity in the economic models).

the majority of recent scholarly analysis has found that crime rates are directly related to the economy.

In their paper, "Crime Rates and Local Market Opportunities in the United States: 1979-1997," Gould, Weinberg, and Mustard concluded that both wages and unemployment are significantly related to crime, with wages having the stronger effect.

In their first paper on "Identifying the Effect of Unemployment on Crime," Raphael and Winter-Ebmer found that the conventional wisdom on the effects of unemployment on crime (i.e., a direct relationship _ higher unemployment leads to higher crime and lower unemployment leads to lower crime) actually underestimates these effects.

A decrease in income and potential earnings associated with involuntary unemployment increases the relative returns to illegal activity. Moreover, workers who experience chronic joblessness have less to lose by arrest and incarceration. Unemployment is an important determinant of the supply of criminal offenders and hence, the overall crime rate.