Social Unrest?

Please propose such a system and we can examine it. How did it create a monopoly? How did it make OS's and other software?Jon

---

Check out the Purple Quill!

Whats the difference between use and abuse? Utilization versus exploitation?do a fair job and get a fair wage, I say.

How do you know? You've never once tried to examine the issue critically; educate yourself on the basics; look at the history. How do you know you are getting less? If you are or are not, do you know the reasons why it is as it is? You.Jon

---

Check out the Purple Quill!

What's a fair job? What's a fair wage?Jon

---

Check out the Purple Quill!

simple lots would get better whit 2 laws.that the wages of the owner or maneger of any company cannot surpass the wage of the least payed worker by 10 times.and that a portion of the exses profits the ones usualy payed to the owner/s has to be payed to the workers.say a company has a pure profit of 100 000 $some or all of it can be invested in the company for more profit but if some of the profit gets "payed out" to the owners say 30 000$ the rest gets invested then say a portion say 15% of that gets payed to the workers employed that year proportional to the time they are employed there and their wagesthese simple 2 laws would do tones to strop the gap between the ritch and the poor from getting larger and raising the standrard of living every where.small note currently 90% (could be more) of money is in the hands of 5% (could be less) of the people

How would these laws (you didn't actually propose a system) fix anything? How does underpaying one person and overpaying another help? How does setting wages relative to the wages of others help fix the problem of wages not being representative of work performed? Of monetary exchanges not representative of real-value outputs?Shifting money makes the maid happy, but does it really fix the underlying problems?Jon

---

Check out the Purple Quill!

that what is happening now, this law would allowe for all the workers to be payed a reasnoble wage, and they would get rewarded if their work helped the company make profit. well i should know how little i do to keep my company running and i know how much more my workers do. still i can set my wage as hig as i like and set them to minimal wage if they dont like it i get others to do the work. And thanx to their hard work i can take as much profit out of the company i like they dont see s*/*/ of it. and still they are the ones doing moste of the work all i do is tell them wat to do and arrange a few deals whit others like me. So setting a limit to my wage based on the wage i pay my workers would make their wages more representative to their work cause i like my high wage i would haveto find a ballance betwean my wage and the lowest wage and the profit of the company. since i am also the owner i could set my wage to a minimal wage and live of the profits of the company but do to the second law i could not screw over my workers like that they would get a portion of the profits too. And importing labure would not help cause i would haveto pay them the same wage if i want to keep my high wage. you think your wage is representative of your output in your workplace dont make me laugh a true representative of your output could be calculated based on the profit of the company and the work you do but no one would want to own a company like that where the workers are payed more than the manegers.my 2 laws would bring the gap closer than it is there would still be ritch people and poor people only less of them. there would be more of high middle class and low middle class people. the maid would not have to worry what she will eat tomorow, and i would not buy a new car every year.

I agree: your laws assist in redistributing wealth.But, do they fix the problem of monetary exchanges not being representative of real-value outputs? Who says the owner does only ten times more than the maid in ensuring company success? Does their pay relative to one another accurately reflect their work relative to one another? Are you paying based on work? Are there loopholes?JonEdited by Jon, : No reason given.

---

Check out the Purple Quill!

Who says the owner does anything ensuring the companies success as i said i tell my workers what to do in the morining make a few phone calls and then i go watch tv and surf the net. If i did not own the company i would get fired preaty quick the workers could do their jobs on their own and the phone calls could be made by the secretary. But i do own the company so tough luck for the workers.So if the owner would feel over worked he could do the same, hire others to do his job for him and still get paied. And the others would get paied somwhere close to what they should get paied some more some less but better than what we have now where every one but the ones on top get payed more than they should and everyone else gets payed less. The worker compared to the boss well no, in moste cases the worker should be payed more than the one in charge or the owner, but that would never work there is not enough magic in the world to make that work. Though my model would get us reasnobly close to how it should be. if you payed based on work the maid would get more than the boss in moste cases. It would be paying based on profit and the boss. Slacking off would now not be tolarated neither by the boss or the workers cause less done meens less money for all of them. Now slacking off is not tolerated only by the boss. no and nothing can, though it comes closer to the way it should be. as said if it would be fair i would be jobless and my workers would split my wage, i would only charge them rent of machinery and place. And that would not work cause one hasto be in charge even if he does not own the place or machinery.

What kind of a 'can-do' attitude is that? Is that what you tell your workers everyday!? Anyone can dust a keyboard. There is more to 'work' than the physical. Besides, your laws still let the boss earn more than the maid.You still haven't addressed how your laws helps maintain the real-value of money. You also didn't address the loopholes. Of course; they're the owners. Relative to what the owner wants to pay himself, or relative to the work they do?Jon

---

Check out the Purple Quill!

nope they are morrons if i tell them to crush rocks so long that water comes out they will do it lol , and if i specificly do not tell them to use a hammer they will use their fists. well cause no one would want to be the boss if a maid ernd more money, and a maid does more than dust your keybord her work lets your work go one uninterupted. well the real value of money is the paper it is printed on, (a few cents for paper and a bit more for coins), our faight in money assighns it value. To maintain the value you would haveto "lock" it to something gold, eggs, ciggarets anything.well in my moddel if inflation gets to high the boss will want a bigger pay the nominal profit is bigger and so the workers get payd "more" evan though the value of the money they get is roughly the same as before. relative to both and profit too. say a maid gets 1000$ per month so the boss gets 10 000$, the secretary will want more than the maid but will haveto settle for less than the boss the law would haveto incorporate education and workplace too for the other workers. though they are curently not the problem of our society cause they are alredy in the middle class.it has to be relative to all 3.
if it is only relative to profit the boss can lift his wage high enough so there is no or very litttle profit and the workers get screwedif it is only relative to the bosses wage he can cut his wage down and live of the profit.if it is only relative to the work one does then one hasto calculate how much ones work contributes to the profit of the company and if your work is needed at all for the profit of the company. As i said the workers could organise themselves and the secertary could make my phone calls so i am not needed. unless you cont in a signature every now and then so a few bucks per month should cover my work. umm what loop holes, like the ones in place now where i can get some cash from the state if i hire some one, and still keep it if i fire him the next day you have to be imaginative to find them i dont see any yet though they could be fixed the same way as they get fixed now when we see them being exploited.

Not quite. The real value is what you can get in exchange for the money. Proving that your company would be better off without you doesn't really help you make your point. I'm still not sure I see the efficacy of your two laws when it comes to fixing the underlying problems.If I own the company and hire a contracting team to make some building repairs, do I have to adjust my wadges, under your laws, to match the 1:10 scheme? If the team's lowest-paid gets $5/hr and my lowest $10/hr, do I have to cut my wages in half on account of one of the team members on the construction crew?JonEdited by Jon, : JonEdited by Jon, : Jon's

---

Check out the Purple Quill!

depends did you employ them as in sighning a contract with each individual in this case yes you haveto cut your pay.If you hired a nother company to do it and you sighned the contract whit that company you do not haveto for their bosses wages and their wages are tied not yours.the system actualy worked in yugoslavia though a bit different the wage ratio was 1:6 and only in state owned firms. You could only have a private owned firm whit a max of 6 employies and your wages did not follow that rule. there where ways to get more employies though i forgot how. there was also a nominal max sallery for state owned firms. This would not work today cause there are no state owned firms so for workers to get a fair share their wages haveto be tied to something in the company. And law detirmend nominal salleries would still not be fair to the workers

So as long as my contract is with a company and not an individual, I am okay?Jon

---

Check out the Purple Quill!

You are employing the company, not the individual. As long as what you pay the company for their work is no less than ten times what you pay yourself, it would be fine for you; the company you hired has to make sure they pay the workers that they employ correctly.