Message 31 of 135 (746762) 01-09-2015 2:54 PM

Reply to: Message 28 by RAZD 01-09-2015 1:31 PM

That's right.

No, its an informed estimation.

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.

He makes business decisions and procures new business opportunities.

One call to the temp service and we've got a busload of new eager workers.

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.

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".

Could, but don't want to.

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.

No, I don't.

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.

Tell that to the line worker.

They're really not that valuable. Many of the jobs could be performed by robots.

But the robots are a little too valuable.

I don't care how far down I am.

I'm high enough to be comfortable, and that's good enough for me.

We're privately owned. It was more than a week of my salary but less than two weeks.

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.

He was successful. Then he hired people to do the work so he wouldn't have to. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

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

Informed by arbitrary valuation.

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.

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.

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.

So you agree that an educated population would provide better workers.

And feel superior to people working minimum wage on the production lines and thankful for the trickle down manna from the boss?

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.

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?

Fascinating.

So not that much, just enough to keep you shackled.

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?

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

Message 34 of 135 (746880) 01-10-2015 12:46 PM

Reply to: Message 32 by RAZD 01-09-2015 4:32 PM

No, its a very particular valuation: How much profit you're providing the company.

Because they're adding more to the bottom line.

The CEO adds more to the bottom line in a different way.

He created the company and gave himself the job. They're weren't any workers at the time.

The company wasn't set up to make justice, it was set up to make a profit.

They get sick time and vacation time. (And a 401k)

But there's always extra people in the plant. You gotta have a little fluff.

We don't pay minimum wage. You get really shitty workers if the pay is that low.

I don't feel superior. Its interesting that you have to impart emotional states onto me in order to make a point.

I'd much rather earn it myself than have it handed to me for free from the government.

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?

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.

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.

My job works. I'm happy to have it. I enjoy the work I do.

What do you mean should?

Anybody can start a business. If it can succeed (legally) then so be it.

Uh, you're welcome, I guess.

I'm not seeing it, or maybe you're just easily amused.

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.

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.

Of course.

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.

But if you pay them less than the value they add, the company makes a profit off them and the only decision that makes sense to make is to hire them. Now you're definately creating that new job instead of not.

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

Except that you can't tell me what that is, and you've already said it is arbitrary ...

When the sales of the company fluctuate with market does that affect the pay rates?

So you say but don't say how.

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.

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 ...

So you agree that paying more has benefits in getting and keeping better workers.

Actually I just listen to how you talk about them. Words have nuances.

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 ...

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 ...

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.

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?

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.

At contradictions you make, yes.

Another illusion -- unless you have actual job offers that pay the same or more for the same work, which I highly doubt.

I guess you don't know what synergy and valued added mean.

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.

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?

If you are a greedy taker.

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.

Message 38 of 135 (747077) 01-12-2015 9:35 AM

Reply to: Message 29 by Taq 01-09-2015 1:43 PM

Capitalism comes in many forms. The Nordic model of social democratic capitalism is not the same as the Chicago school of free-market fundamentalist capitalism. Capitalism as practised by the US and UK arguably lie somewhere between those two.

With regard to executive pay – The main problem I have with the current situation is that it is symptomatic of the move to an increasingly ‘corporatist’ and plutocratic form of capitalism. Currently in the UK we have a situation where millions of workers are paid so little that they cannot function in society without public assistance (“welfare” in the form of rent payments and income top-ups) whilst shareholders, executives and landlords receive an ever increasing portion of the wealth being generated. I would suggest that this public subsidy of private profit on the back of low wages is not only “unjust” but ultimately unsustainable. A symptom of an increasingly ‘rentier’ economy where the acquisition of wealth is linked to the existing ownership of wealth and decreasingly linked to the sort of risk, innovation and entrepreneurism that are the hallmarks of ‘good capitalism’.

Message 39 of 135 (747086) 01-12-2015 11:01 AM

Reply to: Message 37 by RAZD 01-11-2015 2:08 PM

You take value from those people and turn it into a profit for the company.

Meh, I'm happy.

I'm not missing it, I accept it.

I have no problem with the company making a profit off of me. That's why I'm here.

You're a real piece of work.

If I do the work, I'm a blind slave. If I don't do the work, I'm stealing from the company.

Talk about facinating contradictions.

And really, this is all you have: A bunch of emotive insults.

I get that you don't like it. But I'm fine with it. I chose my path and I'm aware of it and I accept it.

But somehow I'm a blind slave anyways. I see what I'm involved in, and I have the freedom to leave whenever I want. But I'm still a blind slave.

Unless I don't work really hard: Then I'm a thief.

When all you have is emotion and insults, its no wonder that people don't take your ideas seriously.

Well I do pay income tax.

Except we product more than we take.

Shows what you know.

They add value. Value that you say to give to the worker.

Again, added value that you say should go to the worker.

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.

Privately owned for-profit companies are not democracies... like, at all.

Message 40 of 135 (824516) 11-29-2017 9:01 PM

Reply to: Message 15 by Minnemooseus 01-09-2015 12:47 AM

quote:

---

quote:

---

One of the best soundbites I’ve heard about modern economics is (paraphrased)) “It’s not possible to earn a billion dollars. It is possible to steal a billion dollars.”

There is nobody smart enough, hardworking enough, trained enough and dedicated enough to earn a billion dollars without leveraging corrupt systems and exploiting people.

The poverty threshold in America is $11,490 for one person. If someone has a billion dollars, that is 87,032 times the poverty line.

It’s possible for someone to be twice as smart as another worker. It’s possible for them to be four or five times as hardworking. It’s possible for one person to have ten times the training of another person. So if you have one person that is half as smart, a fifth as hardworking, and a tenth as trained, they should reasonably earn one percent of the other. That’s the very outside figure. But anyone who takes in more than a million dollars per year did not earn that, they stole it. They found a vulnerable system to exploit or they found a group of people to cheat. Maybe they did it legally. Maybe they paid someone to make it legal to do that. It happens. But “earn”? Actually -deserving- that much money because of their merits and efforts? No.

---

---

Moose

Message 41 of 135 (824588) 11-30-2017 11:16 PM

Reply to: Message 40 by Minnemooseus 11-29-2017 9:01 PM

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?

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Message 42 of 135 (824590) 12-01-2017 12:06 AM

Reply to: Message 41 by NoNukes 11-30-2017 11:16 PM

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

Message 43 of 135 (824591) 12-01-2017 12:30 AM

Reply to: Message 42 by RAZD 12-01-2017 12:06 AM

I am not challenging that part. But to call a man a thief? I cannot call a man that unless he did something he should not have done.

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

Not all of it, just a fair share, as the people really adding value are the workers -- without them you have nothing.

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.

The workers make the value, not the company. When it goes into someone's pocket it isn't profit.

Enjoy

Message 45 of 135 (824593) 12-01-2017 12:50 AM

Reply to: Message 43 by NoNukes 12-01-2017 12:30 AM

So the question is whether an exploiter is a thief or not?

Enjoy