|
Mans posted:Actually it convinces. Most of the aversion to the left seems to come from fear of change, belief that it's impossible to break the status quo or of losing the struggle. This is also a huge problem WITH the left in the US. Hence rabid support for Obama in spite of him being almost GWB awful.
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 20:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 04:49 |
|
|
wateroverfire posted:What about the point that accumulated capital isn't sitting in a vault somewhere? That it mostly represents assets that contribute to the quality of life of ordinary people by, for example, producing things they want or need? Much of it is, though. Even mainstream economics talks about the "marginal propensity to consume", which is much much higher for poor people who need to spend their money immediately on food and rent (which is why SNAP / Food Stamps help the economy so much) and much lower for millionaires and billionaires, who can't spend all of that money in a lifetime. So yeah, most billionaires do have staggering amounts of literally unused money just sitting around. They're not using it, other people need it badly, so why should they get to keep it? Withholding money that you're not even using while people starve and die of treatable disease isn't just selfish, it's homicidal. OwlBot 2000 fucked around with this message at 20:52 on Jun 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 20:50
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:People who haven't internalized leftist ideology tend to find that description unconvincing. Actually I've talked to a bunch of people who identify as centrists or liberals that don't have any issues with it. quote:What about the point that accumulated capital isn't sitting in a vault somewhere? That it mostly represents assets that contribute to the quality of life of ordinary people by, for example, producing things they want or need? Rising tide lifts all boats, eh? Lots of money sits in the bank or the stock market, neither of which necessarily create things people want or need, and you're also making the mistake of thinking that money gets invested in things with have a great amount of utility, which is not always true. That's ignoring the idea that maybe giving the money directly to the people would be more effective than having just a few people control it and maybe help the poor by accident.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 20:57
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/29/wealthy-stashing-offshore_n_3179139.html Hey now...some of the money is being spent to buy up property in already expensive areas, so they can put the screws to families who are forced to rent from them. You see, it's providing
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 20:59
|
|
|
Mans posted:Actually it convinces. Most of the aversion to the left seems to come from fear of change, belief that it's impossible to break the status quo or of losing the struggle. Don't forget 100+ years of indoctrination and instead internalizing the ideology of capital, being immersed in the most sophisticated system of propaganda ever etc
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 21:24
|
|
|
I wanna go back to the whole Australia discussion for a minute. If consumer items are 30-50% more expensive in AUS compared to the USA but the minimum wage is almost twice as much how does that leave the minimum wage earning Aussie in a worse position sans healthcare exactly?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 21:26
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/29/wealthy-stashing-offshore_n_3179139.html Money has no utility value except perhaps as a medium for facilitating trade. It's not like if that money weren't in a vault people could eat it or live in it. Mans posted:If you don't understand that the massive amounts of capital that are acumulated by said private individuals and corporations cause massive and crushing poverty in the third world and destroy the social fabric of the first world then i don't know in which world you're living. That some billionaires want to dismantle social programs shouldn't be surprising -- plenty of non-billionaires do as well. Some billionaires, such as George Soros, would like to see them strengthened. If you can make an argument that concentration of wealth causes poverty in the developing world I'd be interested to hear it. I do find iterations on, "If you don't believe me, you're an idiot," fairly unconvincing though. I'm not sure that, for example, sub-Saharan Africa was much wealthier five hundred years ago than it was today.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 21:59
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Money has no utility value except perhaps as a medium for facilitating trade. It's not like if that money weren't in a vault people could eat it or live in it. Yes, and when it's locked away in a vault it's not facilitating any trade. It's not giving anybody a job that will pay a person money that they can then use to buy food and a place to live. They've taken money out of the economy and are just sitting on it, not helping anybody (except maybe Swiss bankers?)
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 22:04
|
|
|
rscott posted:I wanna go back to the whole Australia discussion for a minute. If consumer items are 30-50% more expensive in AUS compared to the USA but the minimum wage is almost twice as much how does that leave the minimum wage earning Aussie in a worse position sans healthcare exactly? In increase in prices that's half the increase in wages? Even if you take a strict "minwage increase directly causes across the board price inflation" tactic, you're still making out better, so it looks like another case of posters making arguments for their opposition.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 22:29
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Right, but it comes down to what is the means and what is the end. Is making the wealthy pay an end unto itself? Yes, financial equality and political equality go hand in hand. If democracy is something we claim to be striving for, allowing people to have vastly greater amounts of resources with which they can change policy, elect politicians and influence officials is something we should prevent. Even in terms of bourgeois Liberal economics, having super-rich people around is simply inefficient. Here's an argument from Nick Hanauer,venture capitalist, early Amazon investor, etc: quote:Since 1980, the share of the nation’s income for fat cats like me in the top 0.1 percent has increased a shocking 400 percent, while the share for the bottom 50 percent of Americans has declined 33 percent. At the same time, effective tax rates on the superwealthy fell to 16.6 percent in 2007….In my case, that means that this year, I paid an 11 percent rate on an eight-figure income. So even ignoring the corrosive effects of inequality on democracy, there's lots of reasons people shouldn't have 10,000 times more money than any other person.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 22:37
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:I presume you would grant that the rich person is better off being rich than not rich, but that asside, the question becomes are other people better off, worse off, or unchanged by the fact that someone is rich. To answer this (and to a certain extent how the rich today are different than medieval nobility) we need to look at how wealth is held by the ultra rich. In the middle ages, supporting a king's standard of living required an army of servants all of whom had to be fed, housed, and clothed by an even larger army of servants. The common person was quite poor, lived on dirt floors, etc. although there is some evidence that their standard of living was higher than in some of the poorest countries today (source). Today, in a modern economy, while there is clearly a greater nominal inequality than at any point in history, in terms of material inequality I think it's hard to argue the same thing. Rich people just don't have armies of servants anymore. They may live in houses ten times bigger or own their own private jet, but most Americans have a roof over their head (87% have air conditioning) and 90% have been one a plane. There's literally nothing in your post that says that others are more well off because of the existence of the ultra rich. You did say that there's a coincidence of ultra-rich with a higher quality of life, but correlation is not causation, and industrialization preceded ultra-wealth. You say they own businesses, but not why it's necessary or helpful in the least that they are the ones who own them. Those things you call assets exist and enrich lives because they make things, but they don't have to be owned by a rich person, or one person, or anyone at all to continue to make things. Certainly the workers could own the very means of production they use to make these things. The workers designed and built and worked at the assets that made commodities that others consume; whose name is over the sign has nothing to do with that, and they certainly don't need someone to skim off the top (profit) to produce. They do need management, but many owners tend to hire other people to do their management, so management labor is not something tied to the hip with ownership. I'd say that the ultra rich are a negative influence solely because of the fact that they will often corrupt governments and have the means to do a lot of damage with their selfishness exactly because of that wealth they have that others do not. That along with there being no positives stemming from their existence makes at least a workable argument that they're a bad influence on those around them except for their patrons, families, and anyone they're paying off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 22:52
|
|
|
rscott posted:I wanna go back to the whole Australia discussion for a minute. If consumer items are 30-50% more expensive in AUS compared to the USA but the minimum wage is almost twice as much how does that leave the minimum wage earning Aussie in a worse position sans healthcare exactly? The minimum wage in Australia is in nominal terms twice the current US federal minimum, but with everything worked out it buys under what minimum wage in the US buys. The overall cost of living over there is over double the cost of living in the US. One of the biggest things driving that is an ongoing bubble in housing costs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 23:04
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:If you can make an argument that concentration of wealth causes poverty in the developing world I'd be interested to hear it. I do find iterations on, "If you don't believe me, you're an idiot," fairly unconvincing though. I'm not sure that, for example, sub-Saharan Africa was much wealthier five hundred years ago than it was today. Deprivation of the wealth of sub-Saharan Africa to the hands of local elites and the economic interest of foreign players have been the main cause for the poverty seen in Africa. Every single attempt of African nations using their resources for the favor of their populace firstly and the foreign markets as secondary has ended in brutal bloodshed suported by foreign and national oligarchies to end such movements, like those that killed Lumumba, Sankara, Amilcar Cabral, killed thousands of communists in Angola and Mozambique and tried to coup countries like Guinea. And what do you mean by five hundred years ago? Africa has been plundered for five hundred years by western powers who brutalized and still brutalize the locals for their wealth. You can't seriously argue that the common Angolan or Mozambican shouldn't complain about their lot in life because 500 years ago they were poorer. Newsflash, they still live in slave-like conditions and not much better than they were hundreds of years ago. The accumulation of capital and private property consequently creates a control over the political aspects of the country ,resulting in governments that work in the interests of said upper class who may give a certain amount of crumbs to the population to keep them from rioting and demanding justice. This accumulation is built by alienating the populace from the wealth created by their work and the resources around them. That a middle class Parisian nowadays lives better than any French monarch of the feudal age means nothing. The kings of today own much more than the kings of yesterday and are much harder to over-throne.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 23:21
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:The minimum wage in Australia is in nominal terms twice the current US federal minimum, but with everything worked out it buys under what minimum wage in the US buys. The overall cost of living over there is over double the cost of living in the US. One of the biggest things driving that is an ongoing bubble in housing costs. Going by this chart on Wiki, it would appear that you're incorrect, and Australians actually have about 25% more purchasing power at minimum wage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 23:52
|
|
|
In your haste, you've neglected to mention the PP calculations on the wiki article are tied to GDP and not consumer purchasing power so they're irrelevant. And I've yet to see anyone mention the fact that Australian's lurching rightwards so we should expect to see the government strip the country of overly generous welfare and overly burdensome taxes over the next decade or so.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 00:30
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:In your haste, you've neglected to mention the PP calculations on the wiki article are tied to GDP and not consumer purchasing power so they're irrelevant. Speaking of haste: Wikipedia posted:The Geary–Khamis dollar, more commonly known as the international dollar, is a hypothetical unit of currency that has the same purchasing power parity that the U.S. dollar had in the United States at a given point in time. The time given for the link I posted was 2011. Please show me where I've missed the part where this is not about purchasing power? Also, quote:And I've yet to see anyone mention the fact that Australian's lurching rightwards so we should expect to see the government strip the country of overly generous welfare and overly burdensome taxes over the next decade or so. I'm glad to see you pointing out the futility of social democracies outside the Marxism thread, Shrike. Keep strong, comrade. Zeitgueist fucked around with this message at 00:36 on Jun 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 00:33
|
|
|
Wrong again,quote:Note, however, that the purchasing power used here is for GDP and may differ from a private consumer purchasing power.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 00:36
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Wrong again, Fair enough, I missed that line.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 00:47
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:And I've yet to see anyone mention the fact that Australian's lurching rightwards so we should expect to see the government strip the country of overly generous welfare and overly burdensome taxes over the next decade or so. Not as much as you'd think. Economically, our right-wing party is about on par with the US Democrats. The last time they tried to touch industrial relations law (i.e. collective bargaining and worker rights in general) they got thrown out on their arses so thoroughly the Prime Minister lost his seat for the first time in our history. A lot of the hay the Liberals make, politically, is in middle-class and corporate welfare as opposed to straight-up budget cuts and austerity, and this time around they haven't got any Commonwealth assets to sell off to maintain a budget surplus as they do it. Australians still know what side their bread is buttered on and the Liberals are trying really hard to pretend everyone will be better off under them. The unions are still powerful, as well. Added into that we're seeing a significant rise in independent MPs and the two most prominent minor parties, the Greens and Katter's Australia Party, both of which are economically left. The Right as America understands it is actually vanishingly small here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 04:26
|
|
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me
|
2banks1swap.avi posted:You did say that there's a coincidence of ultra-rich with a higher quality of life, but correlation is not causation, and industrialization preceded ultra-wealth. Those things he calls assets generally wouldn't exist had not some persons or people decided to take the risk and make the effort to build them up - People who later became wealthy (or more wealthy) because their projects were successful and enriching lives.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 14:30
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Those things he calls assets generally wouldn't exist had not some persons or people decided to take the risk and make the effort to build them up - People who later became wealthy (or more wealthy) because their projects were successful and enriching lives. Tons of people take risks, and don't get wealthy. Tons of people get wealthy without risk. Tons of people get wealthy despite the failure of their projects(because they enrich themselves at the cost of the business. Tons of people get rich without enriching lives. Not to mention the fact that these assets or companies wouldn't exist without the risk of the worker and often heavy support from the government.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 17:21
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Tons of people take risks, and don't get wealthy. Tons of people get wealthy without risk. Tons of people get wealthy despite the failure of their projects(because they enrich themselves at the cost of the business. Tons of people get rich without enriching lives. That all sounds great except for being rhetorical bullshit that doesn't address the point. Even if some people get wealthy "without risk", whatever that means, business formation is risky and that risk has to be compensated or people won't ante up to do it. And I'm sorry, but for the most part workers do not take anything like those kinds of risks. Showing up to do a job for a wage is not taking a risk.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 17:47
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:And I'm sorry, but for the most part workers do not take anything like those kinds of risks. Showing up to do a job for a wage is not taking a risk. There's some occupations that beg to differ
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 17:50
|
|
|
Not to mention that you can discharge the monetary 'risks.' Christ, taking out student loans is more of a fiscal risk than starting a business.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 17:53
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:That all sounds great except for being rhetorical bullshit that doesn't address the point. Even if some people get wealthy "without risk", whatever that means, business formation is risky and that risk has to be compensated or people won't ante up to do it. 75% of 'business formations' employ one person, I fail to see how this risk compensation has any effect on employment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 17:54
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:That all sounds great except for being rhetorical bullshit that doesn't address the point. Even if some people get wealthy "without risk", whatever that means, business formation is risky and that risk has to be compensated or people won't ante up to do it. It is still possible to reward entrepreneurial risk with a potential payoff that is greater than normal wages would be, but still less than all the money which is the current system. Saying entrepreneurs deserve more is fine argument to make, but it doesn't logically extend to saying they deserve everything. I mean it boils down to: Entrepreneurs take risks Risks should be rewarded commensurate to the level of risk undertaken Therefore, entrepreneurs should be rewarded non-commensurate to the level of risk undertaken Something's missing here! eSports Chaebol fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Jun 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 18:04
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:That all sounds great except for being rhetorical bullshit that doesn't address the point. Even if some people get wealthy "without risk", whatever that means, business formation is risky and that risk has to be compensated or people won't ante up to do it. This all sounds great except for being rhetorical bullshit that doesn't address the point. You're simply stating things as truisms with no support. There's many examples of non-profits that have been formed where there is not really compensation for risk, despite having a pretty good chance of failure. You're also forgetting that the public shields business from much of the risk by virtue of corporations and limited liability. Many people also run businesses regardless of prospective compensation, purely for person reasons like ego. The restaurant business is full of people barely scraping a profit who love their jobs. quote:And I'm sorry, but for the most part workers do not take anything like those kinds of risks. Showing up to do a job for a wage is not taking a risk. Except at many jobs, especially lovely ones run by rear end in a top hat rich "entrepeneurs", corners get cut and there's risk of physical harm simply for taking a wage. Addditionally, even a non-dangerous job is a risk for an employee, who may get laid off, lose healthcare, lose benefits, have pay missed/bounced checks. edit: "Sure I took 20,000 volts at unknown amperage because my boss hired a cut-rate electrician to wire the place, but I don't take nearly the risk he does, what with his liability limited to money he borrowed from the bank with a portion of the wealth he inherited from his father" Zeitgueist fucked around with this message at 18:44 on Jun 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 18:41
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Tons of people take risks, and don't get wealthy. Tons of people get wealthy without risk. Tons of people get wealthy despite the failure of their projects(because they enrich themselves at the cost of the business. Tons of people get rich without enriching lives. Even with the risk issue to the side, generally people are allowed to keep (or sell) the products of their labor. If someone creates a productive asset, or purchases one with with the proceeds of early productivity, why should she not be allowed to keep it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 19:25
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Even with the risk issue to the side, generally people are allowed to keep (or sell) the products of their labor. If someone creates a productive asset, or purchases one with with the proceeds of early productivity, why should she not be allowed to keep it? People specifically are not allowed to keep or sell the products of their labor. The owner gets to do that. The people who create the product get a wage that has little to do with the value of what they create. I've worked at several creative companies, stuff you come up with is not yours. That's not going into the companies that get to profit off public labor, such as the pharmaceutical industry, which is propped up by government medical research.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 19:36
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:People specifically are not allowed to keep or sell the products of their labor. The owner gets to do that. The people who create the product get a wage that has little to do with the value of what they create. When you start out, you are allowed to keep what you create. It does happen in the real world. Notch and Minecraft is a good example of this. There's another option available to you also, and that's that you can sell your creative effort directly. When you do this (through your employment agreement) the party that has already paid you for this creative effort keeps the product. If you want to go build a chair, it's your chair and you can sell it to me. If I hire you to build a chair, then I've bought the labor that produces the chair and it's my chair. It's the same way with a factory. If I build a factory (assume it's run by robots) I can keep (or sell) the things that are produced. Alternatively I can sell the factory itself and the purchaser can keep (or sell) the thing produced. You don't get to have it both ways though, being paid for your work and also owning the things produced. You're essentially asking to be double payed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 20:06
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:When you start out, you are allowed to keep what you create. It does happen in the real world. Notch and Minecraft is a good example of this. There's another option available to you also, and that's that you can sell your creative effort directly. When you do this (through your employment agreement) the party that has already paid you for this creative effort keeps the product. Ah so now you've moved from people being allowed to keep the products of their labor, to acknowledging that many aren't. For every Minecfraft developer that gets lucky, there's a bunch of people who are paid nowhere near the value of what their labor or creativity creates. Exceptions aren't the rule, but that's basically what you're proposing here. quote:If you want to go build a chair, it's your chair and you can sell it to me. If I hire you to build a chair, then I've bought the labor that produces the chair and it's my chair. And if you pay me 10 bucks for a chair that you're going to sell for 100, you've paid me less than the value of my labor. quote:It's the same way with a factory. If I build a factory (assume it's run by robots) I can keep (or sell) the things that are produced. Alternatively I can sell the factory itself and the purchaser can keep (or sell) the thing produced. You don't get to have it both ways though, being paid for your work and also owning the things produced. You're essentially asking to be double payed. No, you're simply underpaying me the first time and pocketing the difference. If you're making everything with zero employees but yourself, that's not a problem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 20:26
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:If you can make an argument that concentration of wealth causes poverty in the developing world I'd be interested to hear it. There's a somewhat popular idea in sociology called Dependency Theory that sort of says that. Basically a bunch of states matured first using the old demographic transition model, and modern smaller or poorer countries can't do the same thing because when the richer countries did it there weren't any already-transitioned large economic powers in existence. Now that there are numerous huge economic 800 pound gorillas all with advanced military forces and significant world political sway, it's much harder for poor countries (even ones with abundant natural resources, like the oil-rich middle east) to increase the quality of life for their citizens because that would not be in the best interest of the larger powers (no more cheap labor and inexpensive natural resources, for example). However, its not really saying that wealth concentration causes poverty, more that it keeps people IN pre-existing poverty that they would otherwise likely be able to pull themselves out of naturally. Shame Boy fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Jun 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 20:27
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:It is still possible to reward entrepreneurial risk with a potential payoff that is greater than normal wages would be, but still less than all the money which is the current system. Saying entrepreneurs deserve more is fine argument to make, but it doesn't logically extend to saying they deserve everything. That's a fair point. In general they don't get everything now, though. For instance, look through the summaries of industry financials on Yahoo finance. Check out the average net profit margin, which roughly approximates the percentage of sales available to pay out to owners assuming none of it is reinvested. It varies by industry (wtf, television broadcasting) but generally it's not nearly as much as a share of sales as the company pays out in wages, for instance. Zeitgueist posted:People specifically are not allowed to keep or sell the products of their labor. If you create a product using facilities supplied by someone else, and materials supplied by someone else, and you're paid for the time spent doing your part of the production, in what way would it make sense that the end product is yours? Congradulations, you can tell a just-so story about hypothetical business owners who (because it's your hypothetical) totally don't care about risks or profits. If you can find real business owners who feel that way, that might actually be something worth talking about.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 20:37
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:And I'm sorry, but for the most part workers do not take anything like those kinds of risks. Showing up to do a job for a wage is not taking a risk. I guess my grandfather who blew his back because he was forced to work extra hours to get a measly wage was just a lazy little bugger who was in the way of the business gods. How much entrepreneurship was involved in making factories in Bangladesh? Did their owners risk more than the workers who suffocated under rubble? Did they work more than the workers? Did they risk more than the people who literally die working? I wonder if this can work outside of market consumption. Can i ask someone else to make my college work for me? I'll pay them 2 dollars an hour and beat them if they don't work as hard as i want. When they finish my work i take full credit and send those people away. Most people whose business fails fails because of poor market consumption caused by low wages and low capacity to compete with the established market forces that already exist and are mostly inherited. Those who do succeed either do it because of massive amounts of pre-existing capital that allows for multiple attempts until they're sucessfull or by ruthless competition, which crushes jobs in the company and sends the pre-existing workers to unemployment. I'd like to bust your just world bubble but i think doing so would flood Chile. KernelSlanders posted:It's the same way with a factory. If I build a factory (assume it's run by robots) I can keep (or sell) the things that are produced. Alternatively I can sell the factory itself and the purchaser can keep (or sell) the thing produced. You don't get to have it both ways though, being paid for your work and also owning the things produced. You're essentially asking to be double payed. Plus, owners are paid a nominal wage much superior to those bellow him and also own the things his workers produced. It's a cyclical road where those with capital own the machines and the products to earn more capital with which to get more machines and more products with which they buy more machines and get more products. The workers, who started by selling their labor force, end in the same position they were in. Your solution apparently is "get capital!" or "make video-games", which aren't good advises. And you're taking away the natural resources and work-force of society not for the sake of social necessity but for the sake of market profit. That in itself should be enough.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 20:38
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:And if you pay me 10 bucks for a chair that you're going to sell for 100, you've paid me less than the value of my labor. If you can make chairs for yourself and sell them for 100 then the value of your labor is $100. If you need my tools, my supplies, my distribution channels, and wages out of my pocket to make chairs, your labor is not worth the final sale price of $100. Sorry, but LTV is ill conceived.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 20:43
|
|
|
Mans posted:I wonder if this can work outside of market consumption. Can i ask someone else to make my college work for me? I'll pay them 2 dollars an hour and beat them if they don't work as hard as i want. When they finish my work i take full credit and send those people away. I know you're trying to make a point, but there was that guy who outsourced all of his assigned work to another guy in India for a much lower wage...
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 20:46
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:If you create a product using facilities supplied by someone else, and materials supplied by someone else, and you're paid for the time spent doing your part of the production, in what way would it make sense that the end product is yours? If your labor is not necessary, why are you getting paid to do it again? quote:Congratulations, you can tell a just-so story about hypothetical business owners who (because it's your hypothetical) totally don't care about risks or profits. If you can find real business owners who feel that way, that might actually be something worth talking about. You're the one creating hypotheticals where everyone is a rational actor. I've given you examples where risk or profit is not a major concern, such as non-profits. But yeah, I know that anything that disagrees with you is probably going to not be worth talking about to you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 20:49
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:If you can make chairs for yourself and sell them for 100 then the value of your labor is $100. If you need my labor to make your chairs, you're not in the business of making chairs. You're in the business of hiring people who make chairs and profiting off of them. Where did you get the money for the tools, supplies, and distribution channels? By being John Galt? The fact that you don't like the LTV doesn't make it ill conceived. Sorry about your economics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 20:52
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:If your labor is not necessary, why are you getting paid to do it again? It's one component of the production and exchange of a good, for which you get compensated through wages. All the other components are necessary and valuable, including the owner's role of bringing everything together and supplying the capital. Zeitgueist posted:You're the one creating hypotheticals where everyone is a rational actor. I've given you examples where risk or profit is not a major concern, such as non-profits. Um.. Risk and profit (not called that, but work around a grant-seeking institution or one with an endowment and you'll find it's the same thing) are absolutely a concern for supposed non profits. Those things are relevant to keeping the lights on over the medium-long term, not just to paying out owners.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 20:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 04:49 |
|
|
Do you think profit and income are the same thing
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 20:58
|
|