|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Raise Minimum Wage? Progressive Taxes? Let the Rich Decide! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Jon writes:
I'm just saying that if I give a thousand and he gives a milion, that's a lot more help. It's quite possible that the harm he does outweighs the help.
I'm sure he also takes a lot more than you do too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 632 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
and I am sure you can back up that statement with facts, and historical information?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 632 days) Posts: 3228 Joined:
|
Actually, he got the gig for selling DOS to IBM for their pc's via intervention from his mother, and he bought dos from someone else to sell to IBM.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 632 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
How many times did his companies go bankrupt?
Is that smarter, or is that manipulating the system because he had the money to take advantage of it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
How many times did his companies go bankrupt? I don't know, how many?
Is that smarter, or is that manipulating the system because he had the money to take advantage of it? Its way easier to make money, when you have money. I'd say taking advantage of the system is a smart way to go about it. But I have no intention of defending Trump, I'm sure he's some kind of crook.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
But okay, so does everyone share in the risk too? etc Consider it as a partnership rather than a feudal\overlord vs peasant\(wage)slave relationship.
What about when a new company starts, and overhead outweighs income, do the newly hired workers have to invest money into the company in order to get the job? Or do they just start out with a negative wage and pay into the company until it gets profitable? I see sweat equity as equal in value to investment equity -- both want the company to succeed, workers so they get (and keep) a job with a growing return on their investment just as investors want a return on their equity. There are many employee owned companies, there are many co-ops, and both show an alternative to the 'mini-kingdom' corporation model. Enjoyby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Consider it as a partnership rather than a feudal\overlord vs peasant\(wage)slave relationship. Okay, do the partners share in the risk at all? When the company doesn't make a profit, do the partners stop taking a wage for thier work? When the company goes into the red, and there is negative profit, do the partners take a negative wage and start paying the company for the work they've done? Edited by Cat Sci, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 632 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
His companies went bankrupt 4 times.. however, since they were corporations, he was able to insulate his personal fortune from his companies going under (once by transferring stuff to his wife)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
His companies went bankrupt 4 times.. however, since they were corporations, he was able to insulate his personal fortune from his companies going under Well that's just smart business sense. I've got a buddy who is in the process of starting up a new business right now. He actually started three new companies if I remember correctly. One is just a holding company. It owns the private property as well as the building. Then there's the actual business. That company will then rent the building from the other company. That way, if the business ever gets sued then they cannot go after any of the property... because its owned by another company. Genius!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
I see sweat equity as equal in value to investment equity -- both want the company to succeed, workers so they get (and keep) a job with a growing return on their investment just as investors want a return on their equity. There are many employee owned companies, there are many co-ops, and both show an alternative to the 'mini-kingdom' corporation model. More importantly, there are labor unions. The busting of unions by conservative movements is, in my opinion, the main reason why we see a widening gap between worker and business owner. Labor unions were born out of a period where there were predatory labor practices, such as paying employees in company money. It could be argued that labor unions did grow too powerful, but the backlash has tipped the balance too far to the side of corporations in my estimation. We also need trade protections for labor. I only know enough about economics to be dangerous, but trade laws are a really interesting topic to me. It makes sense to charge massive tariffs on imported goods from China so that we stop losing jobs to manufacturing in China. At the same time, how would we react to more expensive goods? Social justice also plays a part in this whole discussion. We can all acknowledge the basic feelings of jealousy between haves and have nots, but that is not what I am talking about. Rather, our democracy is now run by money. The more money you have, the more influence you have over what laws are passed. That is a problem. As the wealth gap increases, more and more political power will be concentrated into fewer and fewer hands and away from the populace. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
I see your proposals as far beyond 'trickle up'. To me, they look more like hippy-commune economics: people doing good things for the sake of doing good things. I don't think that works. It never has. Doesn't now. And I don't see it ever working in the future. Two questions: 1: do you think any company that cannot pay a wage sufficient to live on for a full time (40 hour/week) job should be subsidized (directly or indirectly) to continue? 2: can you tell me what makes an hour of one person's life more valuable than an hour of another person's life?
No. The economy is made of people creating stuff and exchanging it for other stuff. ... ... using the medium of money to accomplish this, and we can measure the levels of exchanges in the amount of money exchanged for the products. The more money moves the more those exchanges occur, and the better the economy is.
There are a couple of threads on this; there might be some hints that this is not a sustainable pattern. We know that 'pure' capitalism doesn't work that well -- cyclic binge and bust events. We also know that socialist democratic governments can temper capitalism so that every person has benefits and a place in the economy. Minimum wage, full healthcare, union protections, etc etc etc can work.
And that means that your model of people earning more money and buying more stuff to fuel economic activity doesn't necessarily work. Our current economy has not been stagnant due to insufficient supply of goods, but due to the inability of people to buy goods. That is a result of wage starvation\stagnation for the last 12+ years for middle-income and actual loss of comparable wages among the poor. People earning more in wages at these levels of the economy will spend virtually dollar for dollar, increasing the purchase of goods. This is reality, not "hippy-commune economics." Enjoy.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Okay, do the partners share in the risk at all? They have the choice to leave or stay.
When the company doesn't make a profit, do the partners stop taking a wage for thier work? They have that choice, compared to being fired by the company. If they stay then they would\should expect a return on that investment once the company became profitable, yes?
When the company goes into the red, and there is negative profit, do the partners take a negative wage and start paying the company for the work they've done? Is this not what you expect of an owner? If they have faith in the company being able to work their way out and start to produce a profit they can invest their time -- as long as there would be a fair return on investment in the future. Enjoyby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Okay, do the partners share in the risk at all?
They have the choice to leave or stay. Is that a "no"? I mean, are you saying that when the business is profitable, they get to partake in the rewards, but then when the business is losing money, they can just leave and not partake in the risk? How is that fair?
When the company doesn't make a profit, do the partners stop taking a wage for thier work? They have that choice, compared to being fired by the company. If they stay then they would\should expect a return on that investment once the company became profitable, yes? Sure. But we have a hard enough time getting people to show up for work when we're paying them. I can't imagine how hard it would be to get them to show up for work when we're not
When the company goes into the red, and there is negative profit, do the partners take a negative wage and start paying the company for the work they've done? Is this not what you expect of an owner? No, the owner still gets his salary when the company goes into the red. What is at risk is all the money that he invested into the company to get it started. In your situation, the owner still takes all that risk, but then he gives the reward away. I'm saying that if you want people to partake in that reward, then they are going to have to partake in the risk as well. I don't see where you've accounted for that.
If they have faith in the company being able to work their way out and start to produce a profit they can invest their time -- as long as there would be a fair return on investment in the future. You really think people are going to show up for work and not get paid for it? That's crazy. ABE:
2: can you tell me what makes an hour of one person's life more valuable than an hour of another person's life? From a business perspective, its how much it impacts the bottom line. The salesmen that brings in 10 million dollars of business from an hours worth of work is worth way more than the guy who swept the floor for an hour the second time that day. Edited by Cat Sci, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
No, the owner still gets his salary when the company goes into the red. What is at risk is all the money that he invested into the company to get it started. In your situation, the owner still takes all that risk, but then he gives the reward away. I'm saying that if you want people to partake in that reward, then they are going to have to partake in the risk as well. I don't see where you've accounted for that. I've known many owners to take a cut in pay, I also know of partnerships where the partners took a cut in pay. Are you saying that a person that continues to work for reduced pay is not taking risk on the company eventually succeeding?
I mean, are you saying that when the business is profitable, they get to partake in the rewards, but then when the business is losing money, they can just leave and not partake in the risk? Certainly a worker that bails is just like an investor that bails, what is the difference? They decided to cut their losses vs risking more on the company.
You really think people are going to show up for work and not get paid for it? That's crazy. That would depend on whether there were a good potential for the business to eventually succeed and provide a return on their investment.
2: can you tell me what makes an hour of one person's life more valuable than an hour of another person's life? From a business perspective, its how much it impacts the bottom line. The salesmen that brings in 10 million dollars of business from an hours worth of work is worth way more than the guy who swept the floor for an hour the second time that day. So you are saying that the difference is the job, not the person ... so you fully support equal pay for work of equal value ... So now let them change jobs ... Enjoyby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
And that means that your model of people earning more money and buying more stuff to fuel economic activity doesn't necessarily work. However, a pyramid scheme does work . . . for the 1% of earners at the top of the pyramid. Even then, if the top of the pyramid goes bust they can use their political power to have the bottom 99% bail them out, and then assume their position at the top of the pyramid once again.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024