I wasn’t yelling at you just people who think everything’s gotta be fair. Things aren’t fair nor should they be. It’s still survival of the fittest, but now everybody survives it’s just how well your lifestyle is.
Yes, the gov takes too much. Why can’t we have a monetary system like our founding fathers put into place? I think I know. Crooks at the top and idiots at the bottom.[/quote]
Yeah, I know, but I have to admit that I kind of do understand the “crooks at the top”- True, some are real sleazeball and then are those who are just tired of trying to convince idiots.
If those idiots constantly meddle in affairs they really have no business meddling with and are not even close to be able to reason somewhat coherently just feed them some BS to change the system in a way tehy do not understand anyway and be done with it.
You would have to be a saint to be battling windmills all your life.
[quote]JesseS wrote:You avoided the whole scenario i presented; the baker(programmer) did reveal the recipe/code under strict contractual obligations; nobody “figures out” his recipe because it was revealed only under those strict guidelines: what recourse - if any - do you believe this individual has if the contract is broken? Or do you think such contracts should not exist?
[/quote]
No, I didn’t. I clearly stated that I saw no problem with it so long as, in the event that it WAS discovered (recipes can be figured out just like anything else), no effort was made to prevent others from baking it. Your scenario, as you wrote it, renders the whole thing moot.
Well, first of all, the wealthy don’t pay the majority of the tax, but even if they did, what of it?
I thought it had much more to do with the billion-dollar lobbying industry and campaign contributions.
The problem with this is, of course, you rely on the rich to implement it. No chance in hell.
Agian, you’re focused on the wrong money. John Boehner doesn’t care how much you pay for Sociali Security, or to any other thing. What he cares about is how his palm gets greased.
Um, yes it does defeat the purpose, because we don’t have mandated savings accounts. We probably SHOULD, and I would support them, but right now, your statement has 0 to do with this country.
Um, right. Which is what I’ve saying here all along.
[quote]orion wrote:But on the individual level you see a huge difference.
WHich is why so some have more and some have less.
Asian immigrants to the US fell from the boats, took three jobs, opened a business and now their children are brain surgeons.
I doubt that they would have done that withoiut expecting to profit from it.
[/quote]
But then they probably wouldn’t have needed to, since they would get what they earn, without having a portion of it diverted to their employer. In addition, public services, such as higher education, would receive higher priorities.
Right, but you had asked a question concerning the ethics of Marxism, or my personal ethics. In that case, ethics have nothing to do with it. Not saying that other people don’t come at it from this vantage point, which it is obvious that they do.
[quote]To the point about capitalism failing and thus needing socialism, I will again employee the less-than-scientific glance around the world and recent history method. Using the start of the United States (~250 years) we can surmise which countries and economies have done the best or simply survived at all. I am genuinely going to try and avoid cherry picking and it is also very important to note that different types of government interventions exists which have different effects on the efficiency of an economy (e.g. high taxes with low regulatory measure effects the economy much differently than medium taxes and high regulatory measures).
Soviet Russia has fallen as well as virtually all of its satellite nations.
Cuba has an economy which is performing so poorly that its own leaders have publicly admitted socialized agriculture and other measures have failed and must be redressed (in line with ‘socialism’)
America has become the wealthiest country on the planet and remains so by some margin
China’s economic renaissance has come in lock step with its liberalization of its economy, starting with its “economic development zones” along the coast which were far less regulated than the hinterland based on the idea freer markets do better
Greece and the rest of the more socialized PIIGS have or are on the brink of financial insolvency
France, the most highly socialized of Europe’s economies in many respects, has had chronic high-unemployment for the better part of a decade particularly among young workers.
The UK went from being one of the worst performing economies in Europe before Margret Thatcher and the ‘Tall Poppies’ reforms to be one of, if not the, best performing economy in Europe
New Zealand, while having in general a highly socialized society, has the most productive per capita agricultural sector in the world. It is also the only pure free market agricultural sector in the world with zero subsidies. After an initial period of shock, the market recovered and now their farmers are the highest paid and most productive workers in the world by some measure. Compare this to highly regulated continental Europe and the difference is striking. To be fair, they are also better than the US in this respect as our agricultural sector is highly subsidized and highly regulated
The Scandinavian countries enjoy a generally robust economy while still being highly socialized, but despite very high tax rates have surprisingly low regulatory measures in place for the market.
Somalia, one of the only stateless or near-stateless societies on earth, has had one of the fastest growing economies and life spans of any country in Africa. Periods of outsider intervention (e.g. Ethiopia, the US, the United Nations, etc.) have caused notable disruptions to these trends. Certainly not a utopia as some anarchists would claim, but shows economies can do much better without a government than with one, socialist or “capitalist”.
The list goes on and their are outliers in every instance, but I do not think that history or evidence is on the side of socialism.[/quote]
I see what you are saying, but the “glance around the world method” can be misleading. One reason in particular is that it causes us to fall victim to confusion caused by words.
Specifically, your comparison is between “capitalist” and “socialist” states. Well immediately, here’s a problem. What do you mean, “capitalist” countries, and “socialist” countries? Because certainly the word that a country uses to describe itself has no impact on its economy. And so by using these words, by saying that “capitalism works better than socialism,” or vice versa, we’re actually referring to a set of policies. “This set of policies works better than that one,” or vice versa. Here’s where the trouble comes in: there is no one single set of capitalist policies or socialist policies. A country doesn’t take a package deal on them, but instead, uses all sorts of different mixtures of them. So the problem then becomes to seperate out what works from what doesn’t. So when you start digging, here is what you find:
-Soviet Russia has indeed fallen. But for one, there is a considerable debate over whether Soviet Russia could even be correctly called a socialist state. But even leaving this aside, there are other facts which defy your simple interpretation. For one, the Soviets achieved industrialization faster than any capitalist power ever has, as well as put the first man into space. This would certainly be an argument in favor of planning. Second, the reasons for the collapse of the USSR arguably had nothing to do with unsound economic fundamentals. If that were the case, it’s unlikely they would have lasted as long as they did.
-Cuba has made impressive gains in many different areas since the revolution, including reductions in poverty, gains in literacy, gains in life expectancy, gains in education level, and they now produce more doctors than any other nation in the Caribbean. You also leave out the fact that for 50 years now, the US has maintained a blockade of Cuba that not only prevents any US businesses from trading with Cuba and prevents US citizens from spending money there, but also prohibits any foreign subsidiaries of US companies from doing business with Cuba, and also threatens to cut-off dealings with foreign-owned companies who do business with Cuba, meaning that the embargo extends to many European businesses as well. As a result, Cuba can only gets things through many middlemen, at higher prices, and often are required to deal in cash, reducing the opportunity for economic expansion.
That the country has held on this long, not to mention actually making the aforementioned improvements, in the wake of such massive sabotage, is a testament to the robustness of the economy.
-America has indeed become the wealthiest country in the world. But how? It was not through Libertarian or Austrian principles. Early American industry grew up behind trade barriers, and with government subsidies. There is also the issue of credit, which I will address further down.
-China certainly has become a powerhouse since liberalization, but it’s not quite the free-market paradise yet. Indeed, citing it as an example of a free-market success story is pretty dishonest, no matter how you look at it. The state is heavily involved in directing funds to particular industries, granting favorable loans to preferred companies, etc.
-I’m going to lump most of your Europe examples into one section here, as the main idea is basically the same. You use the example of the PIIGS economies as examples of socialism not working. But this is either a misunderstanding of what socialism is, or it is very dishonest. Tell me, which of these states features collective ownership of all the means of production? None that I am aware of. They are all thoroughly capitalist countries. The idea that having a welfare state means you can blame the poor performance of capitalist countries on socialism, even though socialism is nowhere to be seen, is popular on the right. But it’s highly dishonest. Instead of being a cause, it’s actually a sympton of the illness. It highlights the conflict between capital and the needs of society.
This also ties into a major feautre of the modern US economy–the explosion of credit. In the US right now, as you know, unemployment is at 9.8% with the real number being, of course, higher. Now, Bernanke was recently on TV saying, in effect, that this was “the new normal,” at least for the next several years. This also gets at why the Austrians, though they’ve been calling for catastrophe, are wrong:
these conditions, which Bernanke, the Austrians, and just about everyone else view as an aberration, a temporary result of recession, and thus departure from the norm, are actually the reality of the situation. It is the good times which are “fictitious.”
Back during the 70s, profits were starting to fall across most industries. This problem was eventually solved, of course, by cracking down on labor and by drastically expanding credit at all levels. If you look at a graph of total household, corporate, and government debt over the past few decades, its growth is tremendous. The reason, of course, is that capitalism has progressed to the point where the people’s buying power is insufficient to purchase everything produced, which of course means some drop in economic activity. Giving workers credit counteracts this problem, for a while at least. In the end though, the debt is unpayable. Thus, the past thirty years of American and much European economic growth has been built on a foundation of sand. This credit bubble will eventually pop, probably with disastrous consequences, as we see now. The collapse of the housing market has destroyed a huge part of Americans’ ability to borrow, resulting in the present recession. Once the credit illusion is gone, the reality of stagnation sets in. This is why conservatives attempts to further rob the middle and working classes will only exacerbate the crisis.
But, Marx’s definition of the petit-bourgeoisie does not necessarily match up with the definition of a small business, which still can be reasonably sized. Thus, there could be many small businesses that are subject to his analysis. I do not know if there are statistics on this particular topic. In addition, the material heart of the economy, manufacturing and finance, are certainly dominated in most cases by large businesses.
Once again, no one is interested in or has said anything about utopia. It doesn’t have to be utopia to be an improvement over our current system.
Actually, if you care to read, it wasn’t me who brought up traveling. I think it was ZEB. I merely responded to him. Then you came in, shooting your mouth off.
Irrelevant. I said I was not permitted to travel there, which is true. The fact that I can do it illegally in no way negates the fact that this capitalist government is attempting to limit my freedom. Certain works of literature were banned in the Soviet Union. You could get them illegally, but I don’t think you, or many other people, would give them a pass for banning the literature simply because you could get it illegally, nor should you. See the point?
See above. The short answer: you got it wrong. I didn’t bring up travel. See? This is what conservatives do: they ask you to explain impossibilities to them, and then when you can’t do it (because you’re a normal, sane person with a functioning brain), they blame YOU for their logical problems.
Ooo, what a tough guy!
Where? Find it and quote it. The truth is that, even though most threads that I become involved in usually end up talking about socialism, in actuality, it’s rarely me who brings it up. Just like this thread. So back your complaints up, please.
Again, where? Find it and quote it. It’s evident that you really don’t read much, because I’ve said many times that there really aren’t ANY socialist countries, except possibly Cuba. So I’ve NEVER talked about “all these flourishing socialist countries.”
Pretty interesting logic you have there. If one place is better in any way than the place you are now, just move! Just drop your entire life and move! Don’t even consider that you might like to bring those benefits to the people who live where you are, just move!
This tired old horse, always trotted out by pouting right-wingers when they have nothing else to say, is nothing but a half-assed attempt to shut up any criticism.
Why don’t you leave me alone? Not only was I in this thread first, meaning that you could have just left well-enough alone if you truly didn’t want to discuss the matter, but this is just as much my country as yours. You show disdain for the democratic principles that this country was supposedly founded upon. Maybe it’s not me who needs to leave?
Haha! Who’s the fucktard, when you don’t even understand the difference between Communists and liberals (fun fact: most Communists hate social democrats and left-liberals even more than right-wing conservatives)? That’s the disadvantage of relying exclusively on the parallel-universe right wing media machine for all your information–it’s wrong.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
The system of “Make others work for you” worked very well when those others didnt have the option to quit. Now the poor majority has the right to quit, and, increasingly, they do so. When this happens the business owner replaces their sorry ass with the next man because people are always looking for work.[/quote]
More like it.
You are worth what you’re worth. Bet you don’t have a problem with employees leaving for better jobs…[/quote]
sure he does, he thinks whoever wants to sit home on unemployment should be able to and anyone that works and has made decent money should have to pay for it. [/quote]
You realize you just make yourself look like an ignorant ass when you make snarky posts about what someone else “thinks” (when they’ve made clear they think no such thing), right?
I used to get upset at stuff like this. Now I just wonder if I should feel sorry for you because you lack the ability to actually understand what I’ve been writing and have to sub in stuff like this to fill the void.
If you want there to be money, you need there to be businesses and such where money can change hands. This is known as an economy. It’s good that smart men start companies and make a lot of money. They CREATE jobs and those who don’t have the intelligence or balls to start a business can have these jobs and feed their family. Make it easier to start companies/keep companies.
I have an issue when people in a position of power take advantage of others and aren’t punished. That is all. YOU DETERMINE YOUR OWN WORTH. [/quote]
The creation of jobs that barely pay workers enough to live on is no favor to anyone.
As long as you have a society where personal greed is celebrated and the everyone wants to benefit from labor without actually performing labor themselves, wealth will continue to consolidate, the working class will continually be pressed harder and harder for less return (relative to cost of living), and more and more will turn to government assistance.
As long as “get more for less!” is the motto of the people, the ones at the top will set up ownership based incomes and the ones at the bottom will put their hands out for whatever they can get. Both are playing the same game, just at different angles.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Thus, the past thirty years of American and much European economic growth has been built on a foundation of sand. This credit bubble will eventually pop, probably with disastrous consequences, as we see now. The collapse of the housing market has destroyed a huge part of Americans’ ability to borrow, resulting in the present recession. Once the credit illusion is gone, the reality of stagnation sets in. This is why conservatives attempts to further rob the middle and working classes will only exacerbate the crisis.[/quote]
I don’t know how much Austrian literature you read, but you do know they have been saying exactly this same thing right? Austrians, by dent of their take on the business cycle, firmly agree with your assessment of credit induced bubbles which they also, quite clearly, call illusory. So far you have not made a counter to many of their claims. Austrians firmly believe the government induced credit expansion is atypical and has caused mass distortions in the market and a false sense of growth.
To the other points you made, I am not sure how you can say I was being dishonest or misleading about China, Cuba, etc. given the preamble I gave regarding different policies effects and different ratios having different effects, but you can be trenchant if you like.
I completely agree there are varying degrees of “capitalism” (i.e. freemarkets or just freedom as I see it). The point of that exercise was to show that the overwhelming theme around the world has been if you want to improve your economy liberalize it. It has worked in virtually every instance it has been implemented. The more you liberalize, the more your economy grows. This is of course a spectrum. This is why China is such a damning example of communist policies. The economy only improved significantly once they started liberalizing. Coincidence? Possibly, but success leaves clues.
Russia industrialized very quickly, but because of centralized planning they did so in a nonsensical way. This why Russia has cities located in the worst possible areas for trade and growth and are a burden even now. It is also why the Russians OVER invested in industry and misdirected their investments. Private enterprise makes these mistakes all the time as well, the difference is there are many actors in a free economy so one failure is not catastrophic. In fact for survivors it is instructive and salubrious. No matter how you feel about how Marxist they were, clearly centralized planning did not serve them well here. I have yet to hear any respected academics make a case for a strong Soviet economy, especially in the long term. Pretty much every report after the fall of the Berlin wall seems to indicate mass poverty and lack of material wealth across the board.
To the Cuba example, no set of policies is wholly good or wholly bad. They have a very small, highly centralized population which makes teaching and caring for the masses easier than it is for more geographically dispersed populations so that is a confounder in its own right. Regardless, the fact they have some success in one area does not mean the overwhelming result of their policies are bad. The vast majority of Cubans are extremely poor and have little material wealth to speak of. Something tells me if things were pretty darn good people would not consistently go to the extremely dangerous lengths they go to to escape it. You don’t typically risk your life to change a situation if things are “pretty good”. Again success, and failure, leave clues.
It should be pointed out that the initial theory of autarchy (i.e. self sufficiency) was a socialist ideal (though perhaps not a strictly Marxist ideal, I admit I don’t know his views on this). Che tried to institute a government run policy of economic independence, shunning free trade, and it failed spectacularly. I have respect for Che as a man of principle and courage, but economist he was not. Another blow against centralized planning it would appear, but I am sure the rejoinder will simply be that he wasn’t qualified, but certainly we could find others that are.
Your point about it being a testament to the robustness of their economy would make sense if they were at full capacity given their current resources. Raul Castro has stated both in speeches and in print that under current policies they are not even at full production (especially agriculturally) with what resources they have. In fact, they are LESS productive now than they were before the revolution. You can say this is because of the embargo and lack of investment (which I would point out was provided by private capitalists), but the land (a fixed commodity obviously) was at one point in full production and no amount of investment can give you more land. Given the rapid improvements in technology, even if Cuban’s had to pay more for tractors and other equipment they should be at least matching former production which was effectively done by hand. Collective ownership of the land (you can claim that it never was really if you like but that was the original goal and intent) has caused their agricultural productivity to plummet.
To make a long post longer, I would honestly like to know in what ways you feel Marx has been accurately predicting ANYTHING. Do you think class tensions have increased in our country? When is the last time you saw a labor riot here? They have been diminishing decade upon decade not increasing. Have real wage rates fallen over time? Even though real wages have stayed flat or decreased slightly in recent times this is ignoring the fact that sense Marx predicted this we have seen an unparalleled increase in the real wage rate in freer markets and a material improvement across the board. America’s poor today, in terms of material wealth and luxury and also simply having their basic needs met, would have been the absolute envy of even many of the wealthy in Marx’s times. True hunger (I don’t mean the subjective ‘fear of hunger’ bullshit that gets portrayed as real actual no food to eat hunger) is virtually eradicated in modern capitalist societies.
Perhaps we are FINALLY entering the capitalist end times he predicted and revolution and class warfare are on the way. Never mind the other false claims of capitalist end times made by Marx and other Marxist in between then and now. This the real one of course. Millennialism anyone? If the timeline for the capitalist end times happening is infinite it is admittedly hard to falsify, but it also isn’t asserting much either. Despite no serious evidence you can simply point down the road or every time a recession hits claim ‘here we go’ and when things improve say ‘its an illusion shit will hit the fan soon’ and rinse wash and repeat. It’s like predicting ‘at some point the earth as we know it will be gone’ in 20 billion years. Perhaps, but is that really worth basing current policy on for the next 10 or 100?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
The system of “Make others work for you” worked very well when those others didnt have the option to quit. Now the poor majority has the right to quit, and, increasingly, they do so. When this happens the business owner replaces their sorry ass with the next man because people are always looking for work.[/quote]
More like it.
You are worth what you’re worth. Bet you don’t have a problem with employees leaving for better jobs…[/quote]
sure he does, he thinks whoever wants to sit home on unemployment should be able to and anyone that works and has made decent money should have to pay for it. [/quote]
You realize you just make yourself look like an ignorant ass when you make snarky posts about what someone else “thinks” (when they’ve made clear they think no such thing), right?
I used to get upset at stuff like this. Now I just wonder if I should feel sorry for you because you lack the ability to actually understand what I’ve been writing and have to sub in stuff like this to fill the void.[/quote]
no I understand what you say, it is just that history and facts contradict your arguments.
There are a couple people on here who I disagree with who present a reality of what they believe which I can respect. I give at the level of what I receive.
What is the standard for personal responsibility? Who decides what need and ability are? Will people be limited to the amount of need they are allowed to impose on society and how their ability can be used?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
The system of “Make others work for you” worked very well when those others didnt have the option to quit. Now the poor majority has the right to quit, and, increasingly, they do so. When this happens the business owner replaces their sorry ass with the next man because people are always looking for work.[/quote]
More like it.
You are worth what you’re worth. Bet you don’t have a problem with employees leaving for better jobs…[/quote]
sure he does, he thinks whoever wants to sit home on unemployment should be able to and anyone that works and has made decent money should have to pay for it. [/quote]
You realize you just make yourself look like an ignorant ass when you make snarky posts about what someone else “thinks” (when they’ve made clear they think no such thing), right?
I used to get upset at stuff like this. Now I just wonder if I should feel sorry for you because you lack the ability to actually understand what I’ve been writing and have to sub in stuff like this to fill the void.[/quote]
no I understand what you say, it is just that history and facts contradict your arguments.
There are a couple people on here who I disagree with who present a reality of what they believe which I can respect. I give at the level of what I receive. [/quote]
Nope. What I actually said and what you claim I “think” are not at all the same thing.
But the Austrian position is that, if these distortions were removed, in the long term, the economy would correct itself and stable growth would set in, which is not the case. They view the capitalist economy as fundamentally self-correcting, when in reality, as we have seen, it runs itself down when left alone long enough.
But you attributed success in general to “liberalization,” implying that this mean a more-or-less free-market approach, when in reality, this is rarely the case.
But agian, when you say “liberalize,” you gloss over all the specifics which, as I mentioned, are the only relevant points of debate. Many of which are anti-liberal.
Once again here, you use a fairly empyty word to gloss over providing a real explanation. They may have liberalized compared to their former arrangements, but liberalization usually entails minimal government involvement in the economy. At least, that’s the main idea when most speak of it. Yet in China, this is far from the case, with the government selecting industries for growth, directing loans, and intervening in the currency markets. Hardly liberal, yet you attempt to use its success to argue for liberalism.
Rubbish. The very fact that their growth puts to shame any free-market country in history by itself is enough to belie this claim. The very fact that the US government was so frightened by them for years is enough to cast doubt on it. Not to mention all their progress in other areas.
I don’t, of course, claim that everything they did was optimal. But it doesn’t even make sense to posit that city planning would be worse under a centralized economy (where everything can be controlled) than a market economy (in which building proceeds in fits and starts, randomly, as fortunes rise or fall).
You are right, they did not successfully make the transition to greater production of consumer goods after their industrial base was completed, but the claim that no one failure is catastrophic in a market economy is false on its face. Besides the fact that over-investment in one industry results in the same consequences, whether the owner is the government or a collection of private individuals, we also have many examples, such as the recent housing bubble, that empirically challenge this claim. The dynamics of capitalism make it likely the malinvestment occurs in groups.
Even if I didn’t feel like challenging these claims, what’s the point? Eastern Europeans are mired in poverty now, under capitalism. In fact, a majority of Russians polled preferred the Soviet system to the newly liberalized economy.
I’m not arguing for a Soviet-style economy, of course, but this is just more evidence that liberalization does not necessarily equal prosperity.
Hello, my name is Montague William 3rd
And what I will tell you may well sound absurd.
But the less who believe it, the better for me
for you see, Iâ??m in banking, and big industry.
For many a year we have controlled your lives
while you struggle and suffer in strife.
We created the things that you donâ??t really need
your sports cars, fashions, and Plasma TVâ??s.
I remember it clearly, how all this begun.
Family secrets from Father to Son.
Inherited knowledge that gives me the edge,
while you peasants, sorry, people, sleep in your beds.
We control the money that runs your lives
whilst you worship false idols and wouldnâ??t think twice
of selling your souls for a place in the sun, these
things wonâ??t matter, when your time is done.
As long as we are there to control the masses,
I can just sit back, and consider my assets
safe in the knowledge that I have it all,
while you common people lose your soul.
You see, I just hold you in utter contempt.
But the smile on my face well, it makes me exempt.
For I have the weapon of global TV
giving me connection whilst inviting empathy.
You would really believe that we look out for you,
while we Bankers and Brokers are only a few.
But if you saw that, then youâ??d take back the power,
hence the daily terrors to ensure you cower.
The Panics the crashes, the wars and the illness
that keeps you from finding your Spiritual Wholeness.
We rig the game, and we buy out both sides,
to keep you enslaved in your pitiful lives.
So go out and work as your body clock fades
and when itâ??s all over a few years from the grave,
youâ??ll look back on all this, and just then, youâ??ll see,
that your life was nothing,… a mere fantasy.
There are very few things that we donâ??t now control.
To have Lawyers and the Police Force was always a goal.
Doing our bidding, as you march on the street.
But they never realised, theyâ??re merely sheep.
For real power resides in the hands of a few.
You voted for parties what more could you do.
But what you donâ??t know, is theyâ??re one and the same.
Old Gordon has passed young David the reigns.
Youâ??ll follow the leader put there by you.
But your blood runs red while ours, runs blue.
You simply donâ??t see, its all part of the game,
another distraction, such as money and fame.
Get ready for wars in the name of the free.
Vaccinations for illness that will never be.
The assault on your childrenâ??s impressionable minds
and a micro chipped world, youâ??ll put up no fight.
Information suppression will keep you in toe.
Depopulation of peasants was always our goal.
But eugenics, was not what we hoped it would be
Oh yes, it was us, who funded the Nazis in old Germany.
So long as we own the airwaves
whatâ??s really happening does not concern you.
So just go on watching your plasma TV,
and the world will be run, by those you canâ??t see.
[quote]JesseS wrote:
What is the standard for personal responsibility? Who decides what need and ability are? Will people be limited to the amount of need they are allowed to impose on society and how their ability can be used? [/quote]
Huh? The government will decide all that, they know what’s best anyway. Smarten up man.
[quote]JesseS wrote:
What is the standard for personal responsibility? Who decides what need and ability are? Will people be limited to the amount of need they are allowed to impose on society and how their ability can be used? [/quote]
Huh? The government will decide all that, they know what’s best anyway. Smarten up man.[/quote]
Na, I am sure you got that wrong.
I am sure Kamui will enlighten you, he knows all about how “we”, as a “society” set “priorities”.
Heres where my current thinking on these issues has been going: The relationship between a laborer and a company/business is a contributory one - the laborer receives less than the profit their work creates. The longer this relationship continues, the more the business makes. The worker puts in more than they get out.
The relationship between an investor and a company/business is initially a contributory one, but progresively becomes more and more deductory (is that even a word? :)). The goal of the investor is to get more out of the company than they put in.
When you have an economy where everyone is trying to be the person who gets more than they put in, eventually the person who puts in more than they get has to put in more and more and get less and less.
I understand that the investor often sets up the conditions for profit-making action to take place, but without the people who actually do the profit-making action, no profit is made. What I advocate is a more equal relationship between the person setting up the conditions and the person actually doing the work.
What about the following laborer and business relationship:
I just bought a small retail shop that nets me $200,000 a year if I hire one full time employee: i can work it myself 60-70 hours a week, but have people lined up to stand behind a register and ring up my customers: what pay should one of my employees receive if he/she is not producing anything and just ringing up merchandise? Is the employee “putting in more than they are getting out” by standing behind a register and ringing up customers in my very busy shop? What if the employee believes he/she deserves more money but i have hundreds of applicants who want the position and are willing to work for less? Maybe one is a student and is very happy with $10-$12 an hour while this employee has a family and “needs” more money?
What if an employee aspires to nothing more than showing up to work and doing this job; does he/she deserve more money for being around for an extended period of time if the work is simple and there is a line out the door of folks who would be happy to get paid their hourly wage?
[quote]JesseS wrote:
What about the following laborer and business relationship:
I just bought a small retail shop that nets me $200,000 a year if I hire one full time employee: i can work it myself 60-70 hours a week, but have people lined up to stand behind a register and ring up my customers: what pay should one of my employees receive if he/she is not producing anything and just ringing up merchandise? Is the employee “putting in more than they are getting out” by standing behind a register and ringing up customers in my very busy shop? What if the employee believes he/she deserves more money but i have hundreds of applicants who want the position and are willing to work for less? Maybe one is a student and is very happy with $10-$12 an hour while this employee has a family and “needs” more money?
What if an employee aspires to nothing more than showing up to work and doing this job; does he/she deserve more money for being around for an extended period of time if the work is simple and there is a line out the door of folks who would be happy to get paid their hourly wage?
[/quote]
Good point.
First off, I’d imagine that just one full time employee would do more than just stand behind the register and ring up customers. Would that person be doing other things, or would you take care of everything else and their only job be ringing up customers?
I really thought this scenerio over and I think the important thing is how you approach it: are you considering what you can pay the employee, or what the least someone will do it for is? Maybe you can find somebody willing to work for 7.25. Just don’t be surprised when a lot of people would rather take the government assistance that gets them more than your full time job would pay.
Also, consider the broader implications: if every employer only pays the bare minimum they can find a person to work for, people are going to keep having less and less money; so, if you’re the only person paying minimum wage, you’ll do well. But when every other store/business/company in town is paying minimum wage, suddenly nobody in town has much money to spend in your store - eventually putting you out of business.
And consider that the employee working there frees up your time to do other things which can help the business, that you otherwise couldnt do if you had to be in the shop all the time ringing up customers.
So, what it comes down to, IMO, is this: are you doing all you reasonably can for that employee, or trying as much as possible to get the labor for as cheap as you can?