Income Redistribution

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
381

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:Shallow ideas is true.

His whole baker example is bullshit.

Obviously a baker needs the tools of his trade, i.e capital .

That does make him more productive than he otherwise would be, so his profit cannot come from work alone.

So the other part must necessarily come from his capital goods.

If that is so however, that is also true for other bakers he might employ, so it cannot be said that he is exploiting them if they are that much more productive with his capital .

Now obviously it is a problem how to determine what the specific capital and labor is worth in this equation, which the market solves quite nicely by attaching a monetary value to capital goods and employed labor.

I do not see the problem there, and he does not see the problem with the gaping wounds in his theory because he completely blind to them.

Meh.
[/quote]

Once again, you don’t know what my ideas are, since when I ask you to critique them, you always get them wrong. Secondly, it wasn’t my baker example. But anyway, it shouldn’t surprise you to learn that you’re wrong again:

The baker gets a price of $A for a load of bread. He adds capital, making him more productive. Perhaps he temporarily receives an extra profit, if $A is the going price for bread baked by persons not possessed of his capital. However, once this new capital becomes widespread and standard, he will receive $(A-B) for a loaf of bread. His wage is diminsihed commensurately with the diminution in the amount of labor required to bake a loaf of bread.

For someone so intolerably smug, it’s amazing how bad you are at this.

[/quote]

So?

There was no actual point there.

Or is it that once the same machines are everyhwere they suddenly lose their value? Why do they then not sell their equipment or do not replace it?

edited

382

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

Owning capital and demanding economic rent is not productive.

It’s quite simple–you want to earn money? Earn it. Work for it. Don’t aspire to earn your living off the sweat of another man’s brow.
[/quote]

Thank you.

Orion, look at who the rich in this country are and how they make money.

The business owner makes money off of the services provided by, or products created by, his or her workers.

The landlord/property owner makes money off the ownership of property.

The investor makes money off of the success of businesses, which, see above, make money off the work of employees.

Insurance companies make a profit when you pay for years in exchange for nothing, and actively go to lengths to make it hard for you to get any benefits from the money you’ve given them.

And people scream about how fair the sytem is because any one person could be the boss, or the investor, or the landlord – nevermind that all of these positions cannot exist without a workforce of people getting paid much less than the value of the work they do.

But working 50 or 60 hours a week and barely getting by because the boss needs a huge salary, and the shareholders need to get as much as possible, and what money they are paid has to be doled out to rent/mortgage, car insurance, health insurance, is fine. If you’re one of the majority who works to make other people rich, and you have a problem with it, you are just jealous, or lazy, or stupid.

How do people not see that this is bullshit?

[/quote]

Because your whole point is nonsense.

People forego consumption and take risks in order to provide the capital so that other people have those jobs, and yes, they expecto be compensated.

Take that away and they will blow it on a Ferrari, what would stop them?

You are actually expecting that other people take on your risks (insurance) or let you work with their equipment for free?

Why?

[/quote]

Forego consumption? Are you telling me that most people who make considerable profits on investments are foregoing reasonable consumption in order to make those investments?

Yeah, they’d buy an expensive car. Which would pay people, who would in turn buy things, etc, etc, as opposed to one rich person sitting back and getting paid for having money.

I’m expecting that people should make money for doing work that actually creates things rather than shuffling money around and getting rich off of other peoples work.[/quote]

Just because you deem work to be unnecessary does not mean that it does not create wealth. The financial industry does have legitimate functions like spreading risks that would be to large to bear for a single individual and to direct resources where they are most needed.

Just because they do this in a way you do not undestand makes it no less valuable.

Second, what you deem “reasonable” consumption is irrelevant. The very fact that they want to indulge in “unreasonable” consumption at a later point makes them forego consumption now and frees resources to be ploughed back into the economy.

[/quote]

All their work is entirely dependant on doing the majority of workers the “favor” of “giving” them jobs that just barely allow them to get by paycheck to paycheck, usually facing increasing debt year after year.

Shuffling money around does not create wealth. Owning property does not create wealth. Spreading risks and directing resources does not create wealth. The actual act of producing things or providing services creates wealth, and more should go to the people doing the actual jobs instead of all the people who want to profit from someone elses work.

383

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

Owning capital and demanding economic rent is not productive.

It’s quite simple–you want to earn money? Earn it. Work for it. Don’t aspire to earn your living off the sweat of another man’s brow.
[/quote]

Thank you.

Orion, look at who the rich in this country are and how they make money.

The business owner makes money off of the services provided by, or products created by, his or her workers.

The landlord/property owner makes money off the ownership of property.

The investor makes money off of the success of businesses, which, see above, make money off the work of employees.

Insurance companies make a profit when you pay for years in exchange for nothing, and actively go to lengths to make it hard for you to get any benefits from the money you’ve given them.

And people scream about how fair the sytem is because any one person could be the boss, or the investor, or the landlord – nevermind that all of these positions cannot exist without a workforce of people getting paid much less than the value of the work they do.

But working 50 or 60 hours a week and barely getting by because the boss needs a huge salary, and the shareholders need to get as much as possible, and what money they are paid has to be doled out to rent/mortgage, car insurance, health insurance, is fine. If you’re one of the majority who works to make other people rich, and you have a problem with it, you are just jealous, or lazy, or stupid.

How do people not see that this is bullshit?

[/quote]

Because your whole point is nonsense.

People forego consumption and take risks in order to provide the capital so that other people have those jobs, and yes, they expecto be compensated.

Take that away and they will blow it on a Ferrari, what would stop them?

You are actually expecting that other people take on your risks (insurance) or let you work with their equipment for free?

Why?

[/quote]

Forego consumption? Are you telling me that most people who make considerable profits on investments are foregoing reasonable consumption in order to make those investments?

Yeah, they’d buy an expensive car. Which would pay people, who would in turn buy things, etc, etc, as opposed to one rich person sitting back and getting paid for having money.

I’m expecting that people should make money for doing work that actually creates things rather than shuffling money around and getting rich off of other peoples work.[/quote]

Just because you deem work to be unnecessary does not mean that it does not create wealth. The financial industry does have legitimate functions like spreading risks that would be to large to bear for a single individual and to direct resources where they are most needed.

Just because they do this in a way you do not undestand makes it no less valuable.

Second, what you deem “reasonable” consumption is irrelevant. The very fact that they want to indulge in “unreasonable” consumption at a later point makes them forego consumption now and frees resources to be ploughed back into the economy.

[/quote]

All their work is entirely dependant on doing the majority of workers the “favor” of “giving” them jobs that just barely allow them to get by paycheck to paycheck, usually facing increasing debt year after year.

Shuffling money around does not create wealth. Owning property does not create wealth. Spreading risks and directing resources does not create wealth. The actual act of producing things or providing services creates wealth, and more should go to the people doing the actual jobs instead of all the people who want to profit from someone elses work.[/quote]

Now that is just nonsense.

Spreading risks makes endevours possible that otherwise would never be realized and that does create wealth. True, finance has an auxiliary function in this, but an indispensable one.

Directing resources to where they would be most profitable also shifts them in the direction where demand is highest, making the economy more effcient and consumer driven. That also leads to more efficient wealth creation and those enabling this get a part of that wealth, yes.

While owninmg property in and of itself does not create wealth, it enables production if it is owned in the form of capital goods,i.e. means of production. Since the owners of this wealth have the option of either going on vacation or invest it they expect a return if they forego consumption and take the risk of investing their money.

Since they sacrifice, for a time, the benefit of consumption and run the risk of never getting their money back, well yes, they deserve a part of that cut.

Now, how big should that cut be?

If you try to decide that on your own you will run into the problem of how to weigh the specific contibution of labor and capital. The market however takes care of it splendidly, in that he attaches a price to labor and to foregoing of consumption, i.e. interest rates and then it all falls into place.

You claim that the owners of the means of production makie to much compared to workers. However, almost everyone works, but very few people actually save money and invest it skillfully.

Therefore, human labor is abundant and people with the resources and the skill to use them productively are rare and the current market rates reflect that.

Now the logical conlusion would be, save your money and learn how to invest. If you do that somewhat intelligently it does make a difference over the years, and then people will complain about your “unearned” wealth.

In other words, everybody wants to be a bodybuilder but noone wants to lift the heavy ass weights.

384

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]JoeGood wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

No, it is one of the four factors of production ACCORDING TO a group of people whose whole goal is to legitimize existing relations of production. There are other schools with other ideas who, incidentally, have much better predictive track records.
[/quote]

Where?[/quote]

The Marxists are one such group.[/quote]

No, where has this ever worked?

There are alos people who believe that the earth is flat but belief is not proof.

385

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:why should a worker compensate the owner for machinery? As we all know its from the labor of the workers the owner gets capital to pay down loans on machinery or repare them or buy new ones. In short the workers are the ones paying for the factory an everything in it with theire labor, It would be beyond stupid to ask them to pay a entry.
[/quote]

Don’t you get it? The worker won’t be productive unless the owner gets paid extra. It makes sense.[/quote]

No you don’t get it. It is the owner’s business. He has the right to do with it what he wants. And the workers have the right to not work there if they feel like they are being oppressed. [/quote]

But it doesn’t need to be one owner’s business, and the continuation of these arrangements will only worsen our economic condition.

Thanks for your opinion, though.
[/quote]

Actually the ruling document of our country grant’s individual’s the right to own property, if you don’t like the basic tenant’s of this country, You are more then welcome to leave if you don’t like the ideals and principles that grew this country into the strength it was. But if you want to drag us into the European, Global framework, I see you and your ideal’s as treasonous.

386

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

Owning capital and demanding economic rent is not productive.

It’s quite simple–you want to earn money? Earn it. Work for it. Don’t aspire to earn your living off the sweat of another man’s brow.
[/quote]

Thank you.

Orion, look at who the rich in this country are and how they make money.

The business owner makes money off of the services provided by, or products created by, his or her workers.

The landlord/property owner makes money off the ownership of property.

The investor makes money off of the success of businesses, which, see above, make money off the work of employees.

Insurance companies make a profit when you pay for years in exchange for nothing, and actively go to lengths to make it hard for you to get any benefits from the money you’ve given them.

And people scream about how fair the sytem is because any one person could be the boss, or the investor, or the landlord – nevermind that all of these positions cannot exist without a workforce of people getting paid much less than the value of the work they do.

But working 50 or 60 hours a week and barely getting by because the boss needs a huge salary, and the shareholders need to get as much as possible, and what money they are paid has to be doled out to rent/mortgage, car insurance, health insurance, is fine. If you’re one of the majority who works to make other people rich, and you have a problem with it, you are just jealous, or lazy, or stupid.

How do people not see that this is bullshit?

[/quote]

Because your whole point is nonsense.

People forego consumption and take risks in order to provide the capital so that other people have those jobs, and yes, they expecto be compensated.

Take that away and they will blow it on a Ferrari, what would stop them?

You are actually expecting that other people take on your risks (insurance) or let you work with their equipment for free?

Why?

[/quote]

Forego consumption? Are you telling me that most people who make considerable profits on investments are foregoing reasonable consumption in order to make those investments?

Yeah, they’d buy an expensive car. Which would pay people, who would in turn buy things, etc, etc, as opposed to one rich person sitting back and getting paid for having money.

I’m expecting that people should make money for doing work that actually creates things rather than shuffling money around and getting rich off of other peoples work.[/quote]

Just because you deem work to be unnecessary does not mean that it does not create wealth. The financial industry does have legitimate functions like spreading risks that would be to large to bear for a single individual and to direct resources where they are most needed.

Just because they do this in a way you do not undestand makes it no less valuable.

Second, what you deem “reasonable” consumption is irrelevant. The very fact that they want to indulge in “unreasonable” consumption at a later point makes them forego consumption now and frees resources to be ploughed back into the economy.

[/quote]

All their work is entirely dependant on doing the majority of workers the “favor” of “giving” them jobs that just barely allow them to get by paycheck to paycheck, usually facing increasing debt year after year.

Shuffling money around does not create wealth. Owning property does not create wealth. Spreading risks and directing resources does not create wealth. The actual act of producing things or providing services creates wealth, and more should go to the people doing the actual jobs instead of all the people who want to profit from someone elses work.[/quote]

Now that is just nonsense.

Spreading risks makes endevours possible that otherwise would never be realized and that does create wealth. True, finance has an auxiliary function in this, but an indispensable one.

Directing resources to where they would be most profitable also shifts them in the direction where demand is highest, making the economy more effcient and consumer driven. That also leads to more efficient wealth creation and those enabling this get a part of that wealth, yes.

While owninmg property in and of itself does not create wealth, it enables production if it is owned in the form of capital goods,i.e. means of production. Since the owners of this wealth have the option of either going on vacation or invest it they expect a return if they forego consumption and take the risk of investing their money.

Since they sacrifice, for a time, the benefit of consumption and run the risk of never getting their money back, well yes, they deserve a part of that cut.

Now, how big should that cut be?

If you try to decide that on your own you will run into the problem of how to weigh the specific contibution of labor and capital. The market however takes care of it splendidly, in that he attaches a price to labor and to foregoing of consumption, i.e. interest rates and then it all falls into place.

You claim that the owners of the means of production makie to much compared to workers. However, almost everyone works, but very few people actually save money and invest it skillfully.

Therefore, human labor is abundant and people with the resources and the skill to use them productively are rare and the current market rates reflect that.

Now the logical conlusion would be, save your money and learn how to invest. If you do that somewhat intelligently it does make a difference over the years, and then people will complain about your “unearned” wealth.

In other words, everybody wants to be a bodybuilder but noone wants to lift the heavy ass weights.

[/quote]

Yup. Keep the people not doing the work fat and happy and tell the worker his povery is his own fault for not “saving his money and learning how to invest.”

Invest = get free money for not doing work.

Everybody wants to be an investor, nobody wants to do any damn work.

387

Yes, the owners of means of production make too much compared to workers. So do the investors, the government, the insurance agencies, the stock traders, the administrators, the banks, and everyone else in those “auxiliary functions”.

So the worker works and thanks to the wonderful benefit of rich peoples “risk” being “distributed”, and all those “auxiliary functions” which have to pay more, they get to watch other people get rich off their hard work.

And then what they do get, has to go to making other people rich – their own landlord, their own car insurance, their mortgage or car payments (which they constantly pay interest on).

Then factor in food and basic needs and (gasp) occasional recreation and you’re left with basically nothing, or in debt.

But the problem, according to Orion, is that they just arent smart with their money. They’re stupid, and thats why they work for a living instead of making money off of other people working for a living, like the smart people who have lots of money to invest do.

So eventually people say “Fuck this. I’m not working my whole life to finance everyone elses lives while they profit from my work.”

And of course Orions solution is “Well then, YOU should find a way to be the one to leech off the work of others, instead of them leeching off yours!”

388

Orion, if the workers in America made anywhere near as much as all the people in the “auxiliary functions” do, there wouldn’t be a problem. But since everybody wants to be in the “auxiliary function”, since thats where all the money is, you get a smaller and smaller workforce being pushed harder and harder and paid less and less (relative to cost of living).

Is that a system that’s going to last?

389

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

Owning capital and demanding economic rent is not productive.

It’s quite simple–you want to earn money? Earn it. Work for it. Don’t aspire to earn your living off the sweat of another man’s brow.
[/quote]

Thank you.

Orion, look at who the rich in this country are and how they make money.

The business owner makes money off of the services provided by, or products created by, his or her workers.

The landlord/property owner makes money off the ownership of property.

The investor makes money off of the success of businesses, which, see above, make money off the work of employees.

Insurance companies make a profit when you pay for years in exchange for nothing, and actively go to lengths to make it hard for you to get any benefits from the money you’ve given them.

And people scream about how fair the sytem is because any one person could be the boss, or the investor, or the landlord – nevermind that all of these positions cannot exist without a workforce of people getting paid much less than the value of the work they do.

But working 50 or 60 hours a week and barely getting by because the boss needs a huge salary, and the shareholders need to get as much as possible, and what money they are paid has to be doled out to rent/mortgage, car insurance, health insurance, is fine. If you’re one of the majority who works to make other people rich, and you have a problem with it, you are just jealous, or lazy, or stupid.

How do people not see that this is bullshit?

[/quote]

Because your whole point is nonsense.

People forego consumption and take risks in order to provide the capital so that other people have those jobs, and yes, they expecto be compensated.

Take that away and they will blow it on a Ferrari, what would stop them?

You are actually expecting that other people take on your risks (insurance) or let you work with their equipment for free?

Why?

[/quote]

Forego consumption? Are you telling me that most people who make considerable profits on investments are foregoing reasonable consumption in order to make those investments?

Yeah, they’d buy an expensive car. Which would pay people, who would in turn buy things, etc, etc, as opposed to one rich person sitting back and getting paid for having money.

I’m expecting that people should make money for doing work that actually creates things rather than shuffling money around and getting rich off of other peoples work.[/quote]

Just because you deem work to be unnecessary does not mean that it does not create wealth. The financial industry does have legitimate functions like spreading risks that would be to large to bear for a single individual and to direct resources where they are most needed.

Just because they do this in a way you do not undestand makes it no less valuable.

Second, what you deem “reasonable” consumption is irrelevant. The very fact that they want to indulge in “unreasonable” consumption at a later point makes them forego consumption now and frees resources to be ploughed back into the economy.

[/quote]

All their work is entirely dependant on doing the majority of workers the “favor” of “giving” them jobs that just barely allow them to get by paycheck to paycheck, usually facing increasing debt year after year.

Shuffling money around does not create wealth. Owning property does not create wealth. Spreading risks and directing resources does not create wealth. The actual act of producing things or providing services creates wealth, and more should go to the people doing the actual jobs instead of all the people who want to profit from someone elses work.[/quote]

Now that is just nonsense.

Spreading risks makes endevours possible that otherwise would never be realized and that does create wealth. True, finance has an auxiliary function in this, but an indispensable one.

Directing resources to where they would be most profitable also shifts them in the direction where demand is highest, making the economy more effcient and consumer driven. That also leads to more efficient wealth creation and those enabling this get a part of that wealth, yes.

While owninmg property in and of itself does not create wealth, it enables production if it is owned in the form of capital goods,i.e. means of production. Since the owners of this wealth have the option of either going on vacation or invest it they expect a return if they forego consumption and take the risk of investing their money.

Since they sacrifice, for a time, the benefit of consumption and run the risk of never getting their money back, well yes, they deserve a part of that cut.

Now, how big should that cut be?

If you try to decide that on your own you will run into the problem of how to weigh the specific contibution of labor and capital. The market however takes care of it splendidly, in that he attaches a price to labor and to foregoing of consumption, i.e. interest rates and then it all falls into place.

You claim that the owners of the means of production makie to much compared to workers. However, almost everyone works, but very few people actually save money and invest it skillfully.

Therefore, human labor is abundant and people with the resources and the skill to use them productively are rare and the current market rates reflect that.

Now the logical conlusion would be, save your money and learn how to invest. If you do that somewhat intelligently it does make a difference over the years, and then people will complain about your “unearned” wealth.

In other words, everybody wants to be a bodybuilder but noone wants to lift the heavy ass weights.

[/quote]

Yup. Keep the people not doing the work fat and happy and tell the worker his povery is his own fault for not “saving his money and learning how to invest.”

Invest = get free money for not doing work.

Everybody wants to be an investor, nobody wants to do any damn work.[/quote]

You are missing teh point.

Maybe everyone wants to be an investor bust moszt people cant because they suck at it.

Which indicates to me that not only is becoming a skilled investor hard work but there must also be more to it than you concede.

390

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Orion, if the workers in America made anywhere near as much as all the people in the “auxiliary functions” do, there wouldn’t be a problem. But since everybody wants to be in the “auxiliary function”, since thats where all the money is, you get a smaller and smaller workforce being pushed harder and harder and paid less and less (relative to cost of living).

Is that a system that’s going to last?[/quote]

I reject your premise.

While it is true that most people try to get money off others peoples work the usual route is through the government and the “American worker” is as guilty of this as anyone else, just not quite as succesful.

Putting such a framework in place and then complain that other people are better at yopur own game than you believed you would be is somewhere between despicable and amusing.

Also, you are rewarded proportionately to the skills you bring to your job, not proportionately to what other people make.

If people want to maintain a level of consumption that would put every other generation and almost all people today to shame and yet complain that they cannot save money that is a form of whining, no more, no less.

391

[quote]orion wrote:

You are missing teh point.

Maybe everyone wants to be an investor bust moszt people cant because they suck at it.

Which indicates to me that not only is becoming a skilled investor hard work but there must also be more to it than you concede.

[/quote]

Most people can’t because they don’t have the money to do so in any reasonably beneficial way.

I think the topic you keep bringing up of “foregoing consumption” is interesting. Most people who invest aren’t missing meals or skipping going to the movies because of their investments – even after, they have enough to live comfortable.

Conversely, for workers to “save money”, the effects are much more acutely felt. Its little surprise that most people would rather have small luxuries rather than save a tiny bit which will, maybe, in several decades, add up to something significant.

392

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Orion, if the workers in America made anywhere near as much as all the people in the “auxiliary functions” do, there wouldn’t be a problem. But since everybody wants to be in the “auxiliary function”, since thats where all the money is, you get a smaller and smaller workforce being pushed harder and harder and paid less and less (relative to cost of living).

Is that a system that’s going to last?[/quote]

I reject your premise.

While it is true that most people try to get money off others peoples work the usual route is through the government and the “American worker” is as guilty of this as anyone else, just not quite as succesful.

Putting such a framework in place and then complain that other people are better at yopur own game than you believed you would be is somewhere between despicable and amusing.

Also, you are rewarded proportionately to the skills you bring to your job, not proportionately to what other people make.

If people want to maintain a level of consumption that would put every other generation and almost all people today to shame and yet complain that they cannot save money that is a form of whining, no more, no less.

[/quote]

“Putting such a framework in place”? You’re saying the average american worker “put the framework in place”?

393

skill, ability and education. IF they had the ability or skill to own the place they could make that money, they don’t.

394

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
skill, ability and education. IF they had the ability or skill to own the place they could make that money, they don’t.[/quote]

And then many otehrs would be in the same position they are.

But they shouldn’t care about them, right?

395

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
But we can provide the jobless with jobs. [/quote]

With whose capital?

396

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
But we can provide the jobless with jobs. [/quote]

With whose capital?[/quote]

Tsk, tsk a minor detail - Besides they do it in Cuba and that’s little Ryan’s dream world–CUBA! LOL

397

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Everybody wants to be an investor, nobody wants to do any damn work.[/quote]

Investors get paid for taking a risk. As Orion points out: investors delay consumption in the hopes of turning a profit for their time. We call this interest.

Would you front your own money and not expect a return on it? If this is the case then you better not even have a savings account because you are profiting from NOT DOING ANY WORK.

In fact, any one who works or saves their money can be considered a capitalist – Ryan P. included!!

398

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
skill, ability and education. IF they had the ability or skill to own the place they could make that money, they don’t.[/quote]

And then many otehrs would be in the same position they are.

But they shouldn’t care about them, right?[/quote]

That makes no sense. who would be where, if it weren’t for having to fund useless spending on entitlements with taxes there would be much more money to reinvest in employees and benefits.

399

If I work hard to save up money and start a business of my own, actually just was able to. Then I have the right to run the business as I see fit. Now a others have a right to purchase or not purchase whatever goods or services I provide. And I should be able to pay whatever I deem appropriate for wages to whoever I deem appropriate as and employee.

There my rights are already violated. But you don’t care about that. the government says how much I have to pay and what grounds I can use to hire. If I don’t pay fair wages, people won’t work for me, I will not produce anything and will go out of business. But we don’t let systems work the way they are intended, you think you have the right to tell me what to do with my life or how to run my business.

Bet you wouldn’t like me telling you what to do with your stuff. I don’t care what you do with your stuff, just don’t take mine to do it.

400

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
If I work hard to save up money and start a business of my own, actually just was able to. Then I have the right to run the business as I see fit. Now a others have a right to purchase or not purchase whatever goods or services I provide. And I should be able to pay whatever I deem appropriate for wages to whoever I deem appropriate as and employee.

There my rights are already violated. But you don’t care about that. the government says how much I have to pay and what grounds I can use to hire. If I don’t pay fair wages, people won’t work for me, I will not produce anything and will go out of business. But we don’t let systems work the way they are intended, you think you have the right to tell me what to do with my life or how to run my business.

Bet you wouldn’t like me telling you what to do with your stuff. I don’t care what you do with your stuff, just don’t take mine to do it. [/quote]

Poor thing. You couldn’t exploit workers by paying them three dollars an hour if you wanted. What a shame.

Whats that, if you only paid three dollars an hour nobody would work for you? Maybe. But if everywhere else was only paying three dollars an hour, and all the beter jobs were taken, well, they’d just be stuck wouldn’t they?