If you have to convince someone they are being exploited, odds are they aren't
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Is profit different from unfair tax?
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Originally posted by Kidicious
I think you're getting it.
Great system, I'm ready to sign up now.When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all. | Trump-Palin 2016. "You're fired." "I quit."
Comment
-
Kid -This country was built on hard work and the land was stolen. Capitalists didn't do any of it. The sat on their fat asses.
All you are talking about is organizing labor. It's not much work at all. I'm not saying that you shouldn't make a living doing it, but get real. Why should you get rich?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kidicious
Typical. You are completely ignoring real economic circumstance. In the economic system parties negotiating a deal either have an advantage or disadvantage in the deal.
They also produce very little of tangible value.
They are, however, free to acquire skills with higher value, and change employers.
People who work in other fields which require specialized knowledge or training, and/or which benefit from years of worker's experience get paid more, because the value of what they produce is more, and they are less easily replaced due to the specialized nature of their skills and their experience.
The labor market adjusts accordingly.
One has greater negotiating power and the other has less. That's why the market price/wage isn't fair. If you have the advantage you insist that it is fair and you ignore the real world.
During the dotcom bubble, a lot of companies deluded themselves that they needed to pay mediocre code jockeys six figures because they listed the latest and greatest things on their resumes, and it was just a "must have." Reality hit, and a lot of IT people landed on their asses, having spent their money like pimps, and so did a lot of owners and investors. Both pick up and move on, but it's "fair" because both sides were willing participants and agreed on the terms of their relationship.When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all. | Trump-Palin 2016. "You're fired." "I quit."
Comment
-
Re: Re: Re: Is profit different from unfair tax?
Originally posted by Kidicious
So why don't they get mad?
Or a small minority decides to do something about their relative value in the labor market.When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all. | Trump-Palin 2016. "You're fired." "I quit."
Comment
-
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Then why own or take capital risks? **** it, I'll just let the welfare state take care of me, and the workers can all kiss my ass.
Great system, I'm ready to sign up now.
Risk has to be taken, but not necessarily by individuals.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Comment
-
Originally posted by Berzerker
Kid -
Who do you think led the revolution that created this country? George Washington? A capitalist?
Buying expensive machinery that creates the machinists' profit is not organising labor. You completely ignored my point... The value of your labor increases because of investments made by others - that increase is called "profit". So, why should the machinist "profit" from the effort of others? You look only at the profit the investor makes and ignore the profit made by the machinist.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Comment
-
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Sometimes, yes. If you're talking about unskilled laborers doing menial work, who are easily replaced by other unskilled laborers or machines, and who generate no value added by any work experience (for example, someone who dresses up as a cell phone and holds a sign on the street pointing to a cell phone store), then yes, they have a disadvantage in the deal. Is that the employer's fault?
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
They also produce very little of tangible value.
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
They are, however, free to acquire skills with higher value, and change employers.
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The labor market adjusts accordingly.
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Fairness is not determined by equality of results. It is determined by the ability of either party to enter or leave the market. If the employer can't or won't hire people, he goes out of business. If the worker chooses not to work, he can starve or live off of someone else. There are penalties to both sides for leaving the market, and benefits to both sides for entering the market - and the magnitude and distribution of those costs and benefits varies with economic conditions.
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
During the dotcom bubble, a lot of companies deluded themselves that they needed to pay mediocre code jockeys six figures because they listed the latest and greatest things on their resumes, and it was just a "must have." Reality hit, and a lot of IT people landed on their asses, having spent their money like pimps, and so did a lot of owners and investors. Both pick up and move on, but it's "fair" because both sides were willing participants and agreed on the terms of their relationship.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kidicious
What is so different from letting the welfare state take care of you and collecting profit, rent, and/or interest? No difference.
Risk has to be taken, but not necessarily by individuals.
1) The "welfare state" will determine for you what it deems adequate care. If you're someplace like Norway, with a tiny population and a ****load of an easily extractible resource with huge global demand, that's one thing. In the rest of the world, it's another.
2) If you collect profit, rent or interest, (assuming these are in addition to regular earnings), you have considerable flexibility in how those are invested, and whether and how you adapt to changing economic conditions.
3) A welfare state has to have continuous revenue growth to increase standards of living over time. No welfare state has ever achieved this.
4) There is no evidence whatever that a planned economy is or will be responsive enough to create, let alone implement, emerging technologies in an efficient way.
5) The incentives are entirely different. I would have no incentive under a welfare state system to spend time since 1994 designing the software technologies I'm now completing. The first commercial installation of that system will come almost exactly a decade since the original design concept. With the welfare state, my rewards would be the same whether I put in the effort or not, and whether I succeeded marginally, spectacularly, or if I failed entirely. So why go the effort, when I could have spent more time playing at stuff that was more fun?When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all. | Trump-Palin 2016. "You're fired." "I quit."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kidicious
I could care less who bought the machines. Who built them?
You have an ideological bug up your ass about owners/investors, but they are an essential part of production and all economic activity as well.When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all. | Trump-Palin 2016. "You're fired." "I quit."
Comment
-
It's that same old "the rich [owner/capitalist/inventor/investor/whatever] sit on their asses and get richer without doing any work" mentality Kid has displayed since he showed up here. That basic premise, utter bull**** that it might be, drives every argument he makes. You will not change his mind. IIRC, Vel and I tried, using real life examples. He brushed them off and kept on going.
You must be bored, MtG.
-Arriangrog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!
The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kidicious
No, it's the systems fault. The employer is just playing the game. It's only the employers fault when it defends the system.
And the employer produces nothing of tangible value.
No, you just want to buy the ****ing car, not spend a year or two of your life organizing production to get your equivalent of Fred Flintstone's car. Or waiting your turn to get the state approved piece of **** that's decades behind real world technology. GM, or Toyota or whoever acts as an integrator of all their different laborers and subcontractors and vendors, to take a whole bunch of related but separate pieces of work, and deliver them into a single, useful package for the consumer.
Acquiring skills costs money and takes time. The fact that they can acquire more skills does not make the current deal fair. Plus as you say, they are probably to stupid to anyway
Exacltly my point the price is adjusted by supply and demand and as the agents negotiating power changes. And you have decided that this is fair why?
It's fair because all participants have the opportunity to plan for changes in the labor markets, to anticipate them, and to decide how they want to deal with those changes.
Fairness is determined by results when it is known that agents have differing negotiating power. People have to accept deals when they know they are being taken advantage of. When know that this is true, and we can see that it is by the outcomes.
If people refuse to change their job market value and decide to remain unskilled, don't expect me to sympathize with them, any more than I'd sympathize with a business who claims to want an IT staff, or TIG welders, or high voltage journeyman electricians, but will only pay $10.00 an hour, and goes out of business rather than pay market costs for skilled labor.
This is a special case. I see it as an example of the inefficiencies of capitalism. It's hard to see any one party getting screwed. It just didn't work.When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all. | Trump-Palin 2016. "You're fired." "I quit."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Arrian
You must be bored, MtG.
-Arrian
Although I would like to see one of the commies here (who all insist they're not into Soviet style central planning) describe in detail the nuts and bolts of how their great system would work.When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all. | Trump-Palin 2016. "You're fired." "I quit."
Comment
Comment