com/cap/com debate - laboring under delusions

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
End of story, and welcome to the dark side. With the admission that it has value to you, you have just admitted that NOT compensating me for it is unfair.

I knew you'd come around!

-=Vel=-

I think I may see where we are not seeing eye to eye. Even if I pay you for any losses that you incure while I use the tool, and any work that you do, you still bought the tool, and you really want compensation for that, right? I'll assume so.

The thing is, that's really impossible. I mean, if we could own the tool we would. We wouldn't have to rent it from you. So this type of arrangement, which I'm going to assume that we both see as fair, is not possible.

[Kidlicious]

Oh, and I should apologize to you Vel. I take things too personal sometimes. I don't blame you personally for renting to people. That's the way the system works, and lot's of normal people rent things

[Velociryx]

Apology accepted, good sir. I know you luv me...

As to the debate. It is false that "if you could own the tool, you would." It is false because you CAN own the tool!

It is also false that the twenty dollars Lowes charges to rent the tiller is "more than the item is worth."

Again, since words like "worth" and "value" are non-arbitrary and non-universal, the most you can say is that it's more than it is "worth" to you. Personally, I think twenty bucks a day to DRAMATICALLY enhance my yardwork productivity is a steal, but I'm sure not complaining! In short, I feel that I get far, far more than twenty dollars of value out of that tiller when I borrow it.

If you didn't feel that way, I contend that you wouldn't borrow it (and if you DID borrow it, feeling that way about it, then you just acted extremely irrationally).

Nobody EVER rents stuff for more than it's worth, because at that price, nobody would be willing to pay. This is common sense, really. At that point (say, renting a tiller for 500 dollars a day when you can go buy a new one for 300), NO ONE would EVER rent. There would be no point or purpose. Truthfully, there'd be no point in renting at 299....298.....297.....but somewhere, as the price dropped below what the item was worth, you'd start getting takers, depending on how dire the need was.

Conversely, if you rent it for three cents a day, you'll be swamped with takers (and this is an insufficient amount to cover your own expenses involved with renting, including normal wear and tear on the machine you're lending out). Somewhere in the middle, supply meets demand, and that's what you'll wind up charging for the item.

Nothing tricky. Nothing nefarious going on there. Just the market helping set the price.

You keep talking about wanting to keep the fruits of your labor, and that's admirable. What you fail to acknowledge is that your labor isn't all there is to the equation.

You say you want to compensate me for the use of my tool, but complain that the compensation I'm asking for is too much.

My counter argument to that is...if you think the price is too high, since no one is forcing you to pay the fee (which you have claimed repeatedly), why you paying? Just go away, leave my tool unrented, and let someone who appreciates the value they're getting make use of it, while you find your own means.

If you're not happy with the food you get in a restaurant, the normal response is to have it sent back and get what you want, rather than sit and whine and complain all through dinner about how unfair it all is.

And for sure, the response isn't to rise up and kill the restaurant owners, cooks, and wait staff for being monsters, then go into the kitchen and make yourself a sandwich.

But that's exactly what you're proposeing to do.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Again, since words like "worth" and "value" are non-arbitrary and non-universal, the most you can say is that it's more than it is "worth" to you. Personally, I think twenty bucks a day to DRAMATICALLY enhance my yardwork productivity is a steal, but I'm sure not complaining! In short, I feel that I get far, far more than twenty dollars of value out of that tiller when I borrow it.

I'm sorry, but I've thought it out a bit more than that. I know that capitalists buy things at low prices ans sell them for high prices. It's been that way since the beginning, but then people just bought things at a low price and sold them at a high price. They made a fairly meager living for the most part doing so. That changed with industrialization. Industrialization created the oportunity for these traders to become capitalists. Then they were able to buy labor for a lower price than it was worth. You can ignore a lot of things, but you can not ignore history, and you have said it yourself that capitalists have exploited in the past. So how do you think this is different today? Explain to us your little theory of how capitalist press on with out buying things at a low price and selling them at a high price. Is it some invention of theirs?

If you didn't feel that way, I contend that you wouldn't borrow it (and if you DID borrow it, feeling that way about it, then you just acted extremely irrationally).

Say you were framed for murder. If you are convicted you will recieve the death penalty. The state offers to only sentence you to 20 years in prison if you plead guilty. What is the rational decision? Is it a fair deal?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


We just want to keep the fruits of our labor.

Nice catchphrase but what does it mean? If you mean the value of your production there's a problem since 5000 people's labor went into building a product and they used a machine that was built by 500 more. Also many people work hard but produce no economic product ( doctors, teachers, cleaning staff etc etc). Also does the diamond miner get millions of dollars a day??

Kid I want to get behind your catchphrases and into real factual circumstances of WHAT it MEANS. If I run an operation, how do I pay people so they get ALL of the "fruits of their labor"??

Originally posted by Kidicious


We see that we live in a system where there is no choice but to pay an 'incentive' so that we can work. We recieve nothing else for this, except the right to work. We think that's a 'warped sense of fairness.'

Kidicious. when have you paid this incentive and how much is it? Did this incentive exist if you worked in an operation that lost money?

Imagine that you worked in an operation that paid you thirty bucks an hour for unskilled labor. If I am understanding you right, if the capitalist owner makes money on the operation then you have been exploited since the owner appropriated some of the value of your labor. If the owner breaks exactly even I guess you think thats perfect. What if the owner loses money or the product you produced has zero value? Should he collect back what he paid you?

The inconsistency bothers me. It seems under your model, the exact same pay for the exact same work can be fair or exploitive depending on whether the operation is profitable or not . If you want to go down that line , you should embrace worker owned businesses where the workers can actually take some of the risk if they want the reward.

As it stands, you seem to want it both ways. I assume that workers get paid regardless of profit or loss, just they should get paid MORE if the operation is profitable. So you want the chance of the profit without the risk of the loss.

edited for typos

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


Nice catchphrase but what does it mean? If you mean the value of your production there's a problem since 5000 people's labor went into building a product and they used a machine that was built by 500 more. Also many people work hard but produce no economic product ( doctors, teachers, cleaning staff etc etc). Also does the diamond miner get millions of dollars a day??

Kid I want to get behind your catchphrases and into real factual circumstances of WHAT it MEANS. If I run an operation, how do I pay people so they get ALL of the "fruits of their labor"??

Some people are not going to get paid everyting they should. I don't have a solution that will make everyone alsways get paid exactly what they should. I do have a solution that would allow the 'workers' (plural) to keep the fruits of their labor.

Kidicious. when have you paid this incentive and how much is it? Did this incentive exist if you worked in an operation that lost money?

Imagine that you worked in an operation that paid you thirty bucks an hour for unskilled labor. If I am understanding you right, if the capitalist owner makes money on the operation then you have been exploited since the owner appropriated some of the value of your labor. If the owner breaks exactly even I guess you think thats perfect. What if the owner loses money or the product you produced has zero value? Should he collect back what he paid you?

Obviously capitalism can't work like that, which is why I'm against capitalism, even if there were no exploitation.

The inconsistency bothers me. It seems under your model, the exact same pay for the exact same work can be fair or exploitive depending on whether the operation is profitable or not . If you want to go down that line , you should embrace worker owned businesses where the workers can actually take some of the risk if they want the reward.

But I don't believe worker capitalism can work.

As it stands, you seem to want it both ways. I assume that workers get paid regardless of profit or loss, just they should get paid MORE if the operation is profitable. So you want the chance of the profit without the risk of the loss.

That's not true. Again, your assuming that I propose a capitalist system. In the communist sytem the risk cost is shared.

[Flubber]

Kid I am still trying to get answers to the simple question of how you think people should be compensated. Here is a simple practical example.


1. I spend a year ( 2000 man-hours) building a machine. I hire a worker that spends 1000 man hours using it and producing product. After all other expenses, revenue is 60,000. How should we split it up?

2. The following year my worker uses the same machine the same amount of time with revenue after all other expenses of 100,000. I do no futher work. How do we split this up?

3. Year 3. I personally spend 2000 more man-hours modifying the machine and my worker does the standard 1000 hours. However, demand sags and revenue is only 20,000 after all other expenses.

4. year 4 . Demand booms and I hire 4 more workers . Each of my now 5 workers, work for 2000 hours. Revenue after all other expenses is 1 million dollars. How do we split it up ?


There you go kidicious. A very simple example of a very small business. I am really trying to understand how your model would work so I want to know specifically how much compensation my worker or workers should receive. Assume throughout that the average market wage for operating the machine is $25 per hour while the market wage for construction or modifying such a machine is about $ 50 per hour .

I think this would be a very helpful exercise in understanding in reality how things would work . People can spout terms like "worth" or "value" or "fruits" all day long but I have always struggled with what the heck you mean.

Very very simple example. I've even made it easy by having no years with losses. Please show me who gets what in each of the 4 years. I think that a little time spent on this would clarify you position more than 500 more posts back and forth.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
Kid I am still trying to get answers to the simple question of how you think people should be compensated. Here is a simple practical example.

Can you understand my dificulty in answering these questions. My answers should be that they should switch to a communist system, but you want me to assume that they don't.

1. I spend a year ( 2000 man-hours) building a machine. I hire a worker that spends 1000 man hours using it and producing product. After all other expenses, revenue is 60,000. How should we split it up?

2. The following year my worker uses the same machine the same amount of time with revenue after all other expenses of 100,000. I do no futher work. How do we split this up?

3. Year 3. I personally spend 2000 more man-hours modifying the machine and my worker does the standard 1000 hours. However, demand sags and revenue is only 20,000 after all other expenses.

4. year 4 . Demand booms and I hire 4 more workers . Each of my now 5 workers, work for 2000 hours. Revenue after all other expenses is 1 million dollars. How do we split it up ?


There you go kidicious. A very simple example of a very small business. I am really trying to understand how your model would work so I want to know specifically how much compensation my worker or workers should receive. Assume throughout that the average market wage for operating the machine is $25 per hour while the market wage for construction or modifying such a machine is about $ 50 per hour .

I think this would be a very helpful exercise in understanding in reality how things would work . People can spout terms like "worth" or "value" or "fruits" all day long but I have always struggled with what the heck you mean.

Very very simple example. I've even made it easy by having no years with losses. Please show me who gets what in each of the 4 years. I think that a little time spent on this would clarify you position more than 500 more posts back and forth.

What is the depreciation on the machine?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Obviously capitalism can't work like that, which is why I'm against capitalism, even if there were no exploitation.

THis is a key point. If there was no exploitation, why would you oppose capitalism?

Originally posted by Kidicious

But I don't believe worker capitalism can work.

Why not? If workers have reasonable expectations of what this means and hire competent and empowered managers.

Originally posted by Kidicious

That's not true. Again, your assuming that I propose a capitalist system. In the communist sytem the risk cost is shared.

Kidicious-- everyone knows you are not proposing a capitalist system... but thats the system we have right now. So you claim certain things are currently unfair . . . My last post is your chance to show how things would be fairer ( yes under the existing system)

I have seen glimpses of what you would want to do if you could design things from scratch and have come from that with visions of everyone wearing the same clothes, driving the one socially useful style of car, living in cookie-cutter houses and all earning the state-mandated fair wage. Oh ya and any dissenting thought will be considered a counter-revolutionary and "silenced". If you want to spell out specifics of your perfect society, I would welcome that as well sicne you have been vague and contradictory at times.

But for now, lets stick with the current system. I gave you a simple example and I'm not looking for the whole world. I just want to know your vision of fair compensation for owner and worker in each of the 4 years of operation.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
THis is a key point. If there was no exploitation, why would you oppose capitalism?

Because it doesn't work without exploitaion.

Kidicious-- everyone knows you are not proposing a capitalist system... but thats the system we have right now. So you claim certain things are currently unfair . . . My last post is your chance to show how things would be fairer ( yes under the existing system)

But they can't be made fair in a capitalist system. Your example is hypothetical, and I'm just giving you hypothetical answers.

[Az]

Umm, why does one have to keep opposing capitalism because it's "unfair"?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious




What is the depreciation on the machine?

Sorry I made it simpler than necessary for an accountant type.

Current estimate is 10 years life (mechanically) but it is an asset of a class that is typically depreciated at a rate of 30%). Beyond the labor, the materials for the machine cost 100,000. It will require 2000 man hours of owner labor each year to keep it operating in any year past the 4 provided.

Also economically, new products have appeared based on our year 4 sales and there is a 99% chance the machine will be economically obsolete at the end of year 5. Disposal costs and site remediation are estimated at $100,000 beyond the salvage value of the machine.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Azazel
Umm, why does one have to keep opposing capitalism because it's "unfair"?

I think it's Kid's main beef with capitalism, hence the reason the word comes back so often.

[Az]

One person's opinion dominating the thread

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


But they can't be made fair in a capitalist system. Your example is hypothetical, and I'm just giving you hypothetical answers.

Call the example and your ansers whatever you want, but they will shed a lot of light on what you consider to be fair. I have seen literally hundreds of posts by you railing against unfair compensation. Leaving aside all the other issues, I am trying to focus down on one little issue, a very small business and ask what is fair compensation here.

And while its "hypothetical", its representative of what really really happens out here.