|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Smalll Businesses | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
And that is very good. Such a system ensures that owners will not innovate in a direction that only concentrates wealth into their hands at the expense of their workforce Let's probe that statement with an example. Let's say that I am paying assembly line workers 20 dollars an hour to make widgets. One of my managers comes to me and suggests that I knock out a wall and put in a new framistat locker next to the assembly line because right now the workers are spending 30 minutes per carrying framistats from one end of the loading dock to the other of the property. According to you, if I do follow my managers advice and spend money installing the recommended storage space, I must give everybody on the assembly line a raise commensurate with the increase in productivity. That may seem intuitively obvious to you, but I don't see it. What I see is that I've removed some back breaking labor from the employees and now I can ask them to do something else in those 30 minutes. Or I can just let things be. Apparently that less than satisfactory answer is just fine. How about if I just give out raises but let people go so that my labor costs stay the same? You call your idea a "system". So how does the system work? What causes me to shell out more money? Government oversight? And how am I exploiting workers when I make their job lighter? How am I exploiting workers by using fewer of them? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
What I see is that I've removed some back breaking labor from the employees and now I can ask them to do something else in those 30 minutes. Then you'd have situation 1 from Message 13: "The 'extra' labor can be put to use producing some other essential or demanded product, ... "Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Then you'd have situation 1 from Message 13: "The 'extra' labor can be put to use producing some other essential or demanded product, ... " Something I believe I acknowledged. I note that you did not address a single question about how your "system" might be implemented here and that I've asked you such questions several times now with the same lack of result. For the record, I am quite concerned with the income inequity in this country and with the ever increasing dumping of money into the political process that only seems to produce more inequities and less freedom. That said, I know that many of the rights I cherish are a function of our current system of government and I'm just curious about how you plan to work around the constitution. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I note that you did not address a single question about how your "system" might be implemented here and that I've asked you such questions several times now with the same lack of result. How is anything implemented?Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
... I note that you did not address a single question about how your "system" might be implemented here ... One way that will happen again and again is workers going on strike and holding walkouts -- as we have seen with wallmart and fast-food franchises. This will force companies to provide better pay and conditions, as they have done historically. Another way is where enlightened companies embrace better working conditions for their workers -- vis-a-vis Costco paying $15/hr to Wallmart's $7/hr ... and making more profits. Then there are worker owned companies that hire managers to do the work of the CEO with an annual salary but the workers make the final decisions -- they would decide whether or not to purchase the labor saving machine and what wages people would have as a result of the increased profits. Run by democratic methods rather than feudal methods. by our ability to understand Rebel American 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member
|
Thank you. I had a migraine earlier and couldn't think enough to type. Your third option, along with government mandate, are the two I would have listed.
Strikes can work, but they are more difficult to implement, and often result in fixes that are only slight improvements over previous conditions. An owner can decide alone to withhold the means of production (thus 'strike'), but the workforce has to act collectively to achieve the same with their labor. The owner, generally having more wealth, can also more easily weather a period of non-production; while the workers cannot afford to go without regular income for nearly as long. In a strike, the owners still have considerable advantage. But their advantage is even greater in a system that relies on their own goodwill. It would be nice for all companies to realize the justness of increasing the share of the production benefit taken by the producers, but not many companies actually care. More effective than either of these options is to simply force the owners to act properly. Since the government holds the monopoly on enforcement, the owners can do little more than oblige. But this option still creates discord and resentment between the owners and the workers. And there is really only one way to remove that disunity and the best way to resolve the owner-worker struggle: make the owners and workers one and the same. Only in a system where the producers own the means of production can the rewards of their efforts ever be properly and justly distributed to them according to their efforts. The workers can then decide for themselves which innovations to implement; they can innovate away their workload with no fear it will diminish their share in the productivity. If one worker makes 10 widgets an hour with a profit of $1/widget, then his daily pay after making 80 widgets is $80. If the workforce can cut the amount of time required to make widgets in half, then he makes 20 widgets an hour, with a profit of $1/widget, and his daily pay after making 80 widgets is $80, but with four hours more of leisure than he had before. Even better, where the previous system utilized a single owner spending 8 hrs/day looking for ways to innovate, this system now allows the entire workforce 4 hrs/day to devote to innovation. Contrary to NoNukes's concern that innovation might be stifled because the incentive to do so is gone, such a system would present thousands upon thousands times more innovation than the current one. Every worker in the line could still have two more hours of leisure than before and, by devoting the remaining two to innovation, still put more effort to innovate than a single owner ever could. Total societal prosperity could be the only result. What sickness must possess a culture that so readily chooses the current model over the abundantly better alternative? Is it a sickness from which mankind itself suffers? Will a system of mutual cooperation and benefit always fail as greed propels a few men to exploit the masses for their own benefit? And how do small businesses fit into all this? I guess that's supposed to be the topic... Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
One way that will happen again and again... Thanks RAZD. I think these are great suggestions. I don't think they directly answer the questions I asked Jon, which were more along the lines of what do you do with existing situations, were it is the owners money and not the employees money being invested. Only your strike answer seems to get at that. Your answers all seem to leave the Fifth Amendment and the Contract Clause intact as well. In my view, when people insist that their wages should go up in step with their productivity, then they are essentially asking to be paid on a 'piece work' basis. Are they willing to accept reduced wages when the owner steps down production because of a recession? Because that's what owners do. Finally paying workers the same wages for doing less work than than the job entailed when I hired them does not sound anything like abuse to me. I still want to someone to explain why that is abusive to them. I'm looking for an answer other than noting that the owner is making more than I am. Calling something sick is not an answer. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member
|
Finally paying workers the same wages for doing less work than than the job entailed when I hired them does not sound anything like abuse to me. I still want to someone to explain why that is abusive to them. I'm looking for an answer other than noting that the owner is making more than I am. Calling something sick is not an answer. If I work my fields and produce ten acres of corn, then to ten acres of corn I am entitled. If I work to produce only five acres of corn, then five acres of corn is what I earn. It's the basic principle that a laborer is entitled to a benefit from his work commensurate with the productivity of that work. Unchecked hourly-wage labor is an affront to this basic principle of human decency. It reverses the relationship between a laborer's productivity and the benefit he receives from his work: as soon as he becomes more productive, the amount of time he is required to work decreases and he ends up with less benefit than before despite being more productive. Remember, the owner may think up ways to increase productivity, but it is the workers who actually more productive. Should the man who solves the problem of increasing productivity be entitled to some of that benefit? Of course. But should he be entitled to all of it? The whole ridiculousness of the current system boils down to the fact that workers do not own the means of production. Instead, those means have been concentrated into the hands of a few individuals who use their position to exploit the workforceif people need widget XYZ, then whoever owns the means to produce widget XYZ can charge a premium for use of those means. This is the concept which underlies the exploitation of a society's workforce by those who own the means of production. Call it what you will; repackage it how you want; it's all the same in the end.
In my view, when people insist that their wages should go up in step with their productivity, then they are essentially asking to be paid on a 'piece work' basis. Are they willing to accept reduced wages when the owner steps down production because of a recession? Because that's what owners do. Yes. In fact, I would say that almost all labor should be compensated for based on the quantity of production rather than the duration of production. When production decreases as a result of falling demand the saved labor can be devoted to some other production or the laborers' reduced pay made up for (to some extent) though a safety-net program as RAZD and I have discussed.
I don't think they directly answer the questions I asked Jon, which were more along the lines of what do you do with existing situations, were it is the owners money and not the employees money being invested. When the owner has to pay workers based on their productivity, then he isn't going to use his 'own' money to innovate labor reductions. If he does, he's something of a fool. The owner already has his undue benefit simply in the fact that he contributes nothing of value to the product by way of his ownership of the means of production and yet still receives a benefit that his workers alone produce. He's already a non-contributor being floated by the contributors (and floated quite high). If we decide to give him an additional cut of the increased productivity because he innovated it, then we're paying him twice: once for doing nothing and again for doing something. It'd be like having gainful employment and receiving unemployment benefits at the same time. I guess I just can't figure out how the hell that makes sense. Can you help me understand how that makes sense?Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Unchecked hourly-wage labor is an affront to this basic principle of human decency. Yes I agree that it can be. But that does not mean that 'regulated' wage earning is the same unfair affront. I don't see anything insulting or indecent about receiving a fair wage for in exchange for a day's work, particularly when I've agreed on the terms before I start working. Based on the examples I posed and your reaction to them, you are more upset the fact that the business owner has made some money than with the standard of living of the workers. That seems to me to be nothing but an unwarranted jealous fit. This isn't the first discussion in which I have gotten impression that your politics are that of a jack booted thug bent on getting his way by any means. If you were in charge, I think we'd quickly find that the new boss is exactly the same as the old boss. Nobody is forcing you to work for the man, so if you find plowing your own fields more to your liking, then go out and produce five acres of corn.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Nobody is forcing you to work for the man, so if you find plowing your own fields more to your liking, then go out and produce five acres of corn. Too, a bunch of workers can get together and form their own company where they all own the production equipment and profits together.
Based on the examples I posed and your reaction to them, you are more upset the fact that the business owner has made some money than with the standard of living of the workers. That seems to me to be nothing but an unwarranted jealous fit. There's really no substance either.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.4
|
Jon writes:
And there is really only one way to remove that disunity and the best way to resolve the owner-worker struggle: make the owners and workers one and the same. ^^^ this....- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
And there is really only one way to remove that disunity and the best way to resolve the owner-worker struggle: make the owners and workers one and the same. ^^^ this.... Shit, we can't even get our workers to show up on time. I have no faith in them being able to run the company.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member
|
Nobody is forcing you to work for the man, so if you find plowing your own fields more to your liking, then go out and produce five acres of corn. A real 'let them eat cake' response.
I don't see anything insulting or indecent about receiving a fair wage for in exchange for a day's work, particularly when I've agreed on the terms before I start working. And if you don't agree on the terms?
Based on the examples I posed and your reaction to them, you are more upset the fact that the business owner has made some money than with the standard of living of the workers. That seems to me to be nothing but an unwarranted jealous fit. When the owner does nothing but own, then his cut of the productivity can be nothing but theft.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Shit, we can't even get our workers to show up on time. Perhaps if you paid them more...Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Shit, we can't even get our workers to show up on time.
Perhaps if you paid them more... Our wages are pretty good. And the operators get paid even more. But they still rack up points for showing up late. Its kinda funny that we allow a certain amount of points to accumulate before you get fired. So, beginning of the year, people showing up late left and right, and then points start to accumulate, and wow, being faced with losing your job makes people show up on time a lot more, regardless of their wage. I wonder what would happen if they owned the company and had no threat of losing their job. We'd be lucky if they showed up at all.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024