Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,584 Year: 2,841/9,624 Month: 686/1,588 Week: 92/229 Day: 3/61 Hour: 3/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Executive Pay - Good Capitalism Bad Capitalism?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 16 of 135 (746686)
01-09-2015 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Minnemooseus
01-09-2015 12:47 AM


Re: What someone gets vs what they earn
Slacker, who has "earned" $1000, but is paid $10,000
And what about the person who earns $10,000 but is paid $8,000? Are they not being robbed by the company?
This is the average pay for a woman compared to a man for doing the same work ... and you can also compare pay rates by race (which ties us to the Are you Racist? Homophobic? etc thread and unconscious racist\bias\bigotry).
And I still have not seen anyone answer the question of what makes 1 hour of one person's life more valuable than 1 hour of another's life.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-09-2015 12:47 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-09-2015 10:33 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 18 of 135 (746694)
01-09-2015 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by New Cat's Eye
01-09-2015 10:33 AM


Re: What someone gets vs what they earn
And I still have not seen anyone answer the question of what makes 1 hour of one person's life more valuable than 1 hour of another's life.
From the company's perspective, its how much they contribute to the bottom line.
Curiously that does not answer the question, does it.
Take a production line -- every person contributes a task that is essential to the final product. The bottom line is determined by how much that product sells for versus the cost of producing it. Is not every second spent on the production line tasks of same value to the bottom line?
How does the floor manager fit in? Does he contribute to the production lines essential tasks? How does the secretary fit in? The boss?
When you actually look at the bottom line you see that the way to maximize it involves minimizing payment to workers regardless of their real value, that the ruling paradigm is greed and what you can steal from workers value for their time.
You can pay everyone the same rate, sell the product for the same value and still operate a company.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : last P

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-09-2015 10:33 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-09-2015 11:03 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 21 of 135 (746726)
01-09-2015 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by New Cat's Eye
01-09-2015 11:03 AM


Re: What someone gets vs what they earn
Sure it does: An hour of one person's life is worth more to the company than another person's when that hour adds more to the bottom line than the others does.
No because you haven't explained how one person adds more value than another for the same increment of time.
Not everyone's hour adds the same to the bottom line. The people's hours that add more are worth more.
This does not explain how this is measured. Taking money away from a worker adds to the bottom line, so the person who does this adds more to the bottom line ... is that how it works?
No, it isn't. Some jobs contribute more to the production than others.
So the job is more important than the person doing it -- anyone could do the "more valuable job" or the "less valuable" job ... but both jobs are valuable to the completion of the product -- if one of them is not complete the task as a whole is not complete and it cannot add to the bottom line.
... Some people are more experienced and produce more.
So experience is a factor. Does that add up year by year? Does training help?
Nobody contributes the exact same amount.
Yet when one is missing they all suffer, yes?
There are about 100 people working 10 production lines about 100 feet to my right as I type this.
So why do you get paid more per hour than they do? What are you doing? Typing on a non-work website? Do the line operators have that opportunity?
Curiously I was a designer for a company with several production lines. I designed new product AND how the lines were set up for the new product. I worked with the line leaders and workers to maximize production with ergonomics and part flow and how they actually worked. Some jobs were better done by left-handers, and some by tall people. Fitting people was as important as the tools provided and the training in using the tools.
Does the value of the work change if a person is left-handed or tall?
Last time I talked to you about how we run things here you called it a fantasy.
Indeed. Capitalism is the fantasy that you can steal life value from people to line your pockets and that this is a good system, good for society, good for general happiness.
Heh, you wanna talk about greed and stealing:
They're out there making the products we sell and I'm in here dicking around on the internet.
And I make way more money than they do.
Which begs the question of what value you provide to the bottom line that pays your more and lets you slack off.
The appeal to the bottom line is just a way to rationalize the feudal system that is endemic to corporate business based on greed and stealing.
Consider this: a secretary can be replaced by people writing their own letters, answering their own phones, making their own schedules, etc etc etc. -- does that not mean that the value of one hour of secretary time is the same value as one hour of time for these other people? According to the bottom line?
Or a janitor in the plant. The other workers could sweep the floors at the end of each shift and take their waste barrels to the dumpster, etc etc etc ... but that takes away from production time ... does that not mean that the value of one hour of janitor time is the same value as one hour of time for the workers? According to the bottom line?
Some individuals work harder and produce more than others ...
So if the secretary is faster at typing letters, quicker at answering the phones, makes fewer mistakes, etc. etc. etc ... shouldn't they be paid more per hour than those others? According to the bottom line?
And if the janitor is faster and more thorough at cleaning, more efficient at getting all the waste to the dumpster etc etc etc ... shouldn't they be paid more per hour than those others? According to the bottom line?
What you really have is a bunch of people working together for a common cause -- the production, sale and distribution of product, the time spent by each person contributes to the bottom line. The difference is in how that work is valued not in the value of the work.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-09-2015 11:03 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-09-2015 12:49 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 25 of 135 (746740)
01-09-2015 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by New Cat's Eye
01-09-2015 12:06 PM


Re: What someone gets vs what they earn
So the company just offers a wage that they know is less than the contribution they figure.
Or, you figure out a wage for the whole group, determine how much overhead that adds, and see if you can add that cost to what your charging for your product. If the market will only allow for so much, then you base your wage on what you can afford. If that's $9/hour, then you gotta find people who are willing to do the work for that wage.
So workers contribute to the bottom line by being underpaid and undervalued ...
And how are wages for management ceo salaries determined? How do you know they are not overpaid and overvalued and that their cost detracts from the bottom line?
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-09-2015 12:06 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-09-2015 12:56 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 28 of 135 (746748)
01-09-2015 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by New Cat's Eye
01-09-2015 12:49 PM


Re: What someone gets vs what they earn vs what they are worth
Yes I did: It adds more to the bottom line.
You didn't ask how it was measured. But it isn't really measured all that much. ...
So it "adds more to the bottom line" by a metric that "isn't really measured all that much."
Fascinating.
... Mostly its just estimated.
So the real value of the worker's contribution to the bottom line is just an uninformed guess.
No, worker 1 produces more product than worker 2 does.
Worker 1 added more to the bottom line than worker 2 did.
But the number of dollars that they contributed isn't directly calculated.
Could you take the CEO and put him on the line and have him show how is salary is justified by his ability to produce ... at a rate proportional to his salary?
Wouldn't that be a metric that you could compare workers to and arrive at a system of valuing the work based on the time it frees up for the CEO to do other tasks?
Of course it is.
Of course it isn't. Take that person away and the job is not done.
No, some jobs require a higher skill set than others.
So the second worker would need training to do the first worker job and then would be able to do it. How long does that training take? Wouldn't training workers to do more complicated jobs improve the bottom line?
Not always. Some jobs are rather ancillary. Like a second checker. If the first checker is really awesome then the second checker doesn't really do that much.
So the company is wasting his time? We trained line leaders to be first checkers ...
But not by the same amount. If the line operator is missing then the whole thing falls apart.
But if the second checker is missing they can still get the job done.
Increasing the possibility that faulty product is shipped, which can cost more than the value of the second checker's time. If that isn't critical then the second checker isn't needed at all.
Of course not. We don't even allow cellphones in the plant.
So you have a position of privilege and feel entitled to waste company time justifying it.
Well, if the owner of this company wasn't stealing all of our life values, then none of us would be working here.
This is your assumption. You could take the gross profits from production, sales - costs, and divide by number of people and the company would still make a profit and pay people.
I'm glad he's stealing my life value and paying me a decent salary. Otherwise I couldn't afford my house.
I'm happy to sell my life value, that's what I signed up for.
That's the myth of corporate work -- that you are being paid well for your actual value because somebody else is being paid less.
Its working for me. I foresaw what corporate america was like and prepared myself to succeed.
And you measure your success based on other people making less, rather than on what your real value is.
When a CEO takes 400 times what the line worker makes and you make twice as much as the line worker, the difference between you and the line worker is insignificant.
There's more to it. The secretary doesn't have to take responsibility for making business decisions.
Because they are incapable of making business decisions? Or because they are not allowed to make business decisions? Who determines who is capable of making good decisions?
The company I worked for was bought up by a major corporation and given to the CEO's daughter to run. It was bankrupt in two years. All the workers paid for that bad decision. The salary of the CEO wasn't even dented. So he wasn't paid to risk bad decisions was he?
And the janitor isn't responsible for the quality of the product.
No, he is responsible for the quality of the work environment.
Those responsibilities add risk to the job, and you have to compensate people for that.
That responsibility adds to the safety and efficiency of the work environment and you need to compensate people for that.
Sort of, but not really. A lot of us in the office care a lot about the success of this company, our livelihoods depend on it. We're on salaries and our jobs are a significant aspect of our life.
Many of the plant workers couldn't care less about this place. They're just clocking in for a paycheck. If they're not working in this plant they'd just go work in the one down the road.
Because they are undervalued and underpaid, while you think you are justly valued and justly paid. That's the con of wage disparity.
and I'm betting this is a non-union shop.
I'm pretty much married to this place and I really do care. ...
The white collar slave looking down on the blue collar slaves. As long as you don't look up you won't see how far down you are.
... The owner realizes that, he even gave me a nice Christmas bonus.
Was it a share in the company stock? Or was it less than a week of your salary? What was it in terms of the annual net profits? the Owner's salary?
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : union

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-09-2015 12:49 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-09-2015 2:54 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 32 of 135 (746775)
01-09-2015 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by New Cat's Eye
01-09-2015 2:54 PM


Re: What someone gets vs what they earn vs what they are worth
No, its an informed estimation.
Informed by arbitrary valuation.
That's retarded. The CEO's pay isn't determined by how fast he can operate the production lines. He hardly even goes out into the plant.
But you say that worker 1 should earn more than worker 2 if he produces more.
It follows then that if someone earns more that they should be better workers ... or they use some other metric to justify to you and others that they are stealing value from the workers.
He makes business decisions and procures new business opportunities.
And there it is ...
So did he interview for the job and was he approved by the company with salary set by the workers for the value they perceive he contributes?
In a just system it is a two-way street. A one-way street is inherently unjust.
One call to the temp service and we've got a busload of new eager workers.
If the worker is sick and goes on sick leave you are paying two people for one job.
A busload that need to be trained and brought up to speed. Again I assume you are a non-union shop.
When you are training someone you are paying two people to do one job, often slowely ...
Curiously when you look at companies that pay living wages instead of minimum wages they thrive as well if not better than the minimum wage ones ... and one of the reasons is the workers are more committed to getting to work, and one of the reasons is that the companies don't need to train new workers and get them up to speed. Reducing turnover improves the bottom line ... by valuing the workers more.
Not necessarily. For example, one position requires you to pass a basic math test, like arithmetic. People have applied for the job internally but failed that test.
If you can't do arithmetic then you can't do the job. Some people cannot do arithmetic.
Or my job, it requires a fairly high-level understanding of chemistry. You can't just "train" people for that. You need a whole education.
So you agree that an educated population would provide better workers.
Like I said, I foresaw what corporate america was about. I went to college and got a degree so I could be "privileged" and "entitled".
And feel superior to people working minimum wage on the production lines and thankful for the trickle down manna from the boss?
I consider myself being paid well, not because somebody is being paid less, but because I can easily afford a comfortable lifestyle.
But I'm not extravagant or lavish, I drive an old car and have an old house. I'm happy with that.
So having a steady guaranteed income that provides a comfortable lifestyle of living ...
... would allow you to pursue avenues of interest to you rather than having to go to a white collar slave job with no paid overtime ...
Curiously I have three degrees that I earned to learn, not because some fabulous paying job awaited.
I'm working for somebody else. If they paid me what my real value was then they wouldn't be making any money off me. I realize this is a for-profit business and not a charity.
Being paid full value for your work is not charity, it is respect and it is justice. If they can't afford that then should they be in business?
And you measure your success based on other people making less,
No, I don't.
When a CEO takes 400 times what the line worker makes and you make twice as much as the line worker, the difference between you and the line worker is insignificant.
Tell that to the line worker.
The white collar slave looking down on the blue collar slaves. As long as you don't look up you won't see how far down you are.
I don't care how far down I am.
I'm high enough to be comfortable, and that's good enough for me.
Because they are undervalued and underpaid,
They're really not that valuable. Many of the jobs could be performed by robots.
But the robots are a little too valuable.
And you measure your success based on other people making less,
No, I don't.
Fascinating.
Was it a share in the company stock? Or was it less than a week of your salary? What was it in terms of the annual net profits? the Owner's salary?
We're privately owned. It was more than a week of my salary but less than two weeks.
So not that much, just enough to keep you shackled.
Our owner is the CEO and president of the company. He started this business himself. He used to get up early, operate the lines and make the products, go and shower up, put on a suit, and then hit the streets and try to sell them.
That's retarded. The CEO's pay isn't determined by how fast he can operate the production lines. He hardly even goes out into the plant.
So he does know what it takes to run the line, he just doesn't think that other people doing it provide the same value?
He was successful. Then he hired people to do the work so he wouldn't have to. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
And pay them less than he paid himself for the same work? The work other do allows him free time to do other tasks -- isn't that just as valuable as his time doing those other tasks?
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : clrty
Edited by RAZD, : cleanup

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-09-2015 2:54 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-10-2015 12:46 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 37 of 135 (747009)
01-11-2015 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by New Cat's Eye
01-10-2015 12:46 PM


Re: What someone gets vs what they earn vs what they are worth
No, its a very particular valuation: How much profit you're providing the company.
Except that you can't tell me what that is, and you've already said it is arbitrary ...
Because they're adding more to the bottom line.
When the sales of the company fluctuate with market does that affect the pay rates?
The CEO adds more to the bottom line in a different way.
So you say but don't say how.
He created the company and gave himself the job. They're weren't any workers at the time.
You're not getting the point. He didn't pay himself a different rate when he was doing the different tasks: worker, janitor, secretary, boss, were all paid the same rate at that time.
The company wasn't set up to make justice, it was set up to make a profit.
Yet it made a profit when he was the sole worker and paid all the different work tasks the same amount per hour.
When he started paying people a lesser rate he was taking value from those people ...
They get sick time and vacation time. (And a 401k)
We don't pay minimum wage. You get really shitty workers if the pay is that low.
So you agree that paying more has benefits in getting and keeping better workers.
I don't feel superior. Its interesting that you have to impart emotional states onto me in order to make a point.
But there's always extra people in the plant. You gotta have a little fluff.
And terrible business sense. You can't make a profit off the workers that way.
Actually I just listen to how you talk about them. Words have nuances.
I'd much rather earn it myself than have it handed to me for free from the government.
Meanwhile taking all the government provided services, socio-economic system and the benefits you owe to union workers (sick leave, healthcare, vacation time, holiday time, pension\401k plans, safe working conditions, etc etc) now covered by government policies ...
Better start building your own road if you don't want government assistance ...
But I don't have to. And it can't be a slave job if I'm free to leave.
A slavery system would be one that you are not allowed to opt-out of. You're in it by force. Like your 50's one.
And really, how much slaving away can I be doing if I'm posting here?
The white collar slave is like the frog in the pot of water, they'll keep sitting their in apparent bliss while the water is heated to a boil. Given crumbs ...
And terrible business sense. You can't make a profit off the workers that way.
The value I add is waaay more than I'm being paid for. I understand that. I agree to that. The company has to make a profit.
There is none so blind as the willing blind.
If the profit were cut in half it would still be a profitable company and the amount you are under-compensated for the value you add could be halved. Then repeat the process -- the company is still profitable ...
The profit ends up in someone's pocket. What you are apparently missing is that the paradigm for sharing the profit based on contribution is not equitable.
So your "contribution" to the bottom line is the value you provide AND the value you willingly give away to the one's who take more profit than the value they contribute.
It takes little effort for me to add this value to the company. What they pay me is worth it to me to do it.
What they pay me is worth it to them to have the value I'm adding, even if I post here during my down time.
If you're gonna pay me more for less effort, I might take the job. If I have to put in more effort for more pay, I might not.
There's a balance between how hard I want to work, and how much money I want to make.
So you like being a lazy slacker that steals time from your employer ... is that any different than a person on unemployment or welfare getting paid for not working?
What do you mean should?
Anybody can start a business. If it can succeed (legally) then so be it.
If the only way a company can make it is to take value from other people then they aren't really being net producers, they are takers.
I'm not seeing it, or maybe you're just easily amused.
At contradictions you make, yes.
I'm not shackled because I can quit whenever I want.
And whatever "shackles" I'm wearing, I put on myself. I agreed to take this position when it was offered to me. There was no force at all and I was allowed to opt-out.
Another illusion -- unless you have actual job offers that pay the same or more for the same work, which I highly doubt.
No, you just want the company to make a profit off any additional workers. That's why the company is in business; to make a profit.
So if a decision does not lead to the company making a profit, like paying a worker the same amount that he brings in, then you don't make that decision.
I guess you don't know what synergy and valued added mean.
If you got a sales call to make, you can hire somebody to run the production while you're gone. If you pay them the exact same amount of value that they are adding, then you might as well not hire them and let the production wait until you get back.
And incur start-up and shut-down costs and mess up scheduling of product out and materials in, costs you don't incur if you maintain production at a steady pace.
But if you pay them less than the value they add, the company makes a profit off them ...
Glad you admit that value theft is part of your model of functioning capitalism.
No, the company makes a profit AND it steals some of the value from the worker to increase the appearance of profits.
If everybody was paid the same $/hr worked you can still have sales less costs show a profit ... the only difference is how you divide the pie, is it democratically shared or is it by feudal edict?
... and the only decision that makes sense to make is to hire them. ...
If you are a greedy taker.
... Now you're definately creating that new job instead of not.
No, that's only creating a handicapped kind of a job, a job at a depressed value, a Burgerking\Wallmart kind of job. A take it if you have nothing else kind of job.
You know how shake-downs and protection rackets work right?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-10-2015 12:46 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-12-2015 11:01 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 42 of 135 (824590)
12-01-2017 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by NoNukes
11-30-2017 11:16 PM


Re: What someone gets vs what they earn
I think I understand the sentiment, but perhaps this sentence is a bit over the top. Last year, Cristiano Ronaldo earned 59 million dollars playing soccer. In what sense did he steal that money?
quote:
... They found a vulnerable system to exploit or they found a group of people to cheat. ...
Looks like he found a vulnerable system to exploit, like all professional athletes, and was happy to do so.
Is he really worth that?
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by NoNukes, posted 11-30-2017 11:16 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by NoNukes, posted 12-01-2017 12:30 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 61 by Taq, posted 12-01-2017 4:55 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 44 of 135 (824592)
12-01-2017 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by New Cat's Eye
01-12-2015 11:01 AM


Re: What someone gets vs what they earn vs what they are worth
... So we're in the same place: If all of this added value just goes to the worker, then the company might as well just not do them.
Not all of it, just a fair share, as the people really adding value are the workers -- without them you have nothing.
If everybody was paid the same $/hr worked you can still have sales less costs show a profit ... the only difference is how you divide the pie, is it democratically shared or is it by feudal edict?
Privately owned for-profit companies are not democracies... like, at all.
So you like being a serf. Fascinating. Or maybe you fancy yourself as a Duke ...
Not surprisingly the American Colonists, the French peasants, the Russian serfs, and others have overthrown such ruling\control structures ... some instigated democratic governments, some just installed a new ruling\control structure.
Also not surprisingly there are many cooperative corporations that are run democratically and the worst paid workers make significantly more than workers doing similar work for totalitarian companies, like Walmart.
They are also successful, but in addition the workers are happy.
You take value from those people and turn it into a profit for the company.
The workers make the value, not the company. When it goes into someone's pocket it isn't profit.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-12-2015 11:01 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-01-2017 12:49 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 45 of 135 (824593)
12-01-2017 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by NoNukes
12-01-2017 12:30 AM


Re: What someone gets vs what they earn
... But to call a man a thief? I cannot call a man that unless he did something he should not have done.
So the question is whether an exploiter is a thief or not?
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by NoNukes, posted 12-01-2017 12:30 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by NoNukes, posted 12-01-2017 1:24 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 54 of 135 (824631)
12-01-2017 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Phat
12-01-2017 12:18 PM


Re: What someone gets vs what they earn
But who determines what you need? I might determine that you need less or more than you actually do.
What anyone needs at a minimum is a wage that pays for your essential living expenses for working 40 hrs/week.
This can be derived from the costs of necessary goods (food, clothes, etc) and housing and comfort (heated/AC apartments) and would vary from area to area.
If a person needs more than that for personal reasons, they can work extra hours.
If the company needs more from the workers, then they should pay extra for the overtime and loss of family time.
Now, if we were to consider a minimum weekly/monthly/dividend (your reward for participating in the economy) that could be set to the minimum essential living expenses for the respective areas.
Now if a person wants more than the bare necessities, they can work for the extra funds.
If a company wants workers, they have to pay enough to attract the workers.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Phat, posted 12-01-2017 12:18 PM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by NoNukes, posted 12-01-2017 2:03 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 59 of 135 (824650)
12-01-2017 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by New Cat's Eye
12-01-2017 3:26 PM


Re: What someone gets vs what they earn vs what they are worth
I know that the company I work for now is making money off of me - my bill rate is way higher than my pay rate - but that gives me leverage. I'm providing value to my employer and they know it. I could go provide that value to a different company if they don't play nice, and then they'll lose money - and they know that too.
Do you think you are getting a fair share of the profit the company makes?
The bill rate also covers overhead that allows the company to function -- that goes to utilities, accounting, property costs, etc. -- it would be abnormal for your pay rate to be the same as your bill rate. But that is costs of business before profit.
The attitude should be more like making the profit WITH your workers.
You can run your company however you want.
If you think you are getting a fair share of the profit the company makes then the company is making the profit WITH the workers.
If you don't think you are getting a fair share of the profit the company makes then the company is exploiting you (with your willing participation in being exploited).
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-01-2017 3:26 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Tangle, posted 12-01-2017 6:44 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 95 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-03-2017 6:38 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 60 of 135 (824652)
12-01-2017 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by NoNukes
12-01-2017 2:03 PM


Re: What someone gets vs what they earn
What anyone needs at a minimum is a wage that pays for your essential living expenses for working 40 hrs/week.
Under this definition, are you an exploiting, thief, RAZD?
What a person needs and what a person deserves as fair compensation for work are two different things.
What a person needs would be the same for everyone in each specific area. What a person deserves depends on their contribution to the company profits. In a cooperative the different pay grades are established democratically, while a feudal style company will decree from the top down.
You can compare similar companies that operate each way to see the difference: Costco and Walmart. Nobody working for Costco has to register for medicare, medicaid, housing assistance, food stamps, etc. while most workers at Walmart do (they even get coached in how to do it).
Walmart exploits their workers and steals money from them (and from taxpayers via the social assistance programs) -- you and I subsidize Walmart profits, which is siphoned to upper management rather than shared with the workers.
Costco doesn't.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by NoNukes, posted 12-01-2017 2:03 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by NoNukes, posted 12-01-2017 11:03 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 66 of 135 (824677)
12-02-2017 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Tangle
12-01-2017 6:44 PM


Corporate Feudalism vs Democracy
To add to what Rrhain said
RAZD writes:
Do you think you are getting a fair share of the profit the company makes?
It might make social sense, but not, I fear, inside a capitalist structure as it is currently organised.
How companies decide to share profits is built into the management structure used.
Capitalism comes in many forms, and what we in the US have is a mixture of feudal (CEO run) companies and democratic (cooperative) companies, and we have for-profit companies and non-profit companies.
Getting a fair share from a corporation is similar to getting a fair shake from a government. If the structure is shared democratic and the people have a say, then they are much more likely to get a fair share.
I find it exceedingly curious that people are happy and proud to have thrown off the yoke of feudal style (king run) government for a democratic style government, but are happy to embrace being serfs in a feudal style corporation.
Whenever we talk about different countries and their governments it seems that the degree of democracy and voice that the people have is equated to relative freedom and liberty and good things they have. Yet whenever we talk about companies, the degree of democracy and voice that the workers have is not considered important.
This is a huge disconnect.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Tangle, posted 12-01-2017 6:44 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Tangle, posted 12-02-2017 2:16 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 67 of 135 (824679)
12-02-2017 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Tangle
12-02-2017 3:10 AM


What is the basis for fair share allocation to investors?
Because if you don't allow profits to be given back to owners, they won't make the investments necessary to create and grow companies.
And why does this not hold true for the sweat-equity investors in the company? Are there two kinds of people, elites and peons?
Can the company succeed and grow without the workers? No.
Can the company succeed and grow without the investors? Yes.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Tangle, posted 12-02-2017 3:10 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Tangle, posted 12-02-2017 2:23 PM RAZD has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024