Red States get more than they give (because of Socialism)

[PLAYER57832]

JB's answer was dead on. Wealth is created through labor, work. The rest is just illusion... or a game, depending on how you view it. All other wealth is gained through, in one fashion or another, skimming off the results of that work.

You wish to argue that all such skimming is fully legitimate because without a base foundation of finance, the rest would not exist. JB and I argue that without the work, the rest just does not exist. Some skimming is legitimate, but the current system exceeds all legitimate limits. The roll of the government is to keep things within bounds. THAT is why Big business is pushing so heavily against the government right now, because they would dearly love a world without limits to business. The trouble its, that is disasterous for everyone else and, ironically enough, in the end disasterous even for those big businesses.

I answer that in this link:

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... d#p3153192
And reread: For the sake of my own time, I will only respond to the underlined parts at the end of each of my overall points. Once you have responded to those underlined parts, then we can continue.

Once you have responded to those underlined parts, then we can continue.

Nope, nice try, but nope.

You don't get to claim a "win" by defining the debate so narrowly you ignore most data and background that disputes your view.

Again... this is no different than when jay, etc. refuse to accept most biologic data because "they know the truth".

[PLAYER57832]

However, I played the game with creationists, so why not here... for a time, at least.

For the sake of my own time, I will only respond to the underlined parts at the end of each of my overall points. Once you have responded to those underlined parts, then we can continue.

I see what you're saying, but the imbalance still tips far into the big guys favor. In business the only time you find a fair leader is in a company owned by it's employees. I think that unions helped balance out profits with wages too, but today they don't have enough support to effect a positive change.

Are all businesses run by these "big guys"? Of course not. So does "big" become this arbitrary term to describe businesses that are unfair, while "small" describes businesses somewhat more "fair"? At what size should a business fit in order to not be considered a "big guy"?

Irrelevant. The point is not the size of the business. The point is that workers, alone lack power. By combining, they can fight for better conditions and wages. However, the unions have been heavily cut, no longer are effective except in a few narrow industries. The impact is seen in the overall decrease of wages and benefits, even poorer working conditions (not so much safety, yet -- those are protected by law still, but definitely hours and such).

You attempt here to debate minutia definitions and ignore the real point.

"the imbalance still tips far into the big guys favor"
In other words, thousands of years ago, when I decided to invest in some money in a lawn mower (i.e. capital), I would charge people a rate that was agreed upon (thus being fair, especially since the customers were statisfied after the exchange). I earned a profit after investing in my capital (which was a risk)--this is a form of entrepreneurship. For the sake of argument, let's say my revenue was on average $35 per hour. With my profits (say, $33 an hour), I could occasionally hire workers for larger projects. I would pay them $8 per hour.

Is that fair? Well, if taken from both sides, it is fair pay because the worker agrees to it, and the worker did not take any risk which I took in order to earn my profits. The worker won't split my profits directly because he didn't invest in any capital, he doesn't know any of my clients, he hasn't developed the trust between the clients, etc. It makes no sense for the worker to earn a larger portion of my profits if we agreed to the exchange of my $8 per hour for his labor. Do you agree that it is fair for a worker to receive more than an agreed upon price of his labor if that worker did not incur the same risk and costs which the entrepreneur incurred?

From the outset, you have not included the factors that determine if this is fair or not.

Begin with "reasonable", not "fair". What matters is how much it takes for a person to live reasonably in that society. If a person can buy a house, food, clothing, healthcare and yes, even take a small vacation, providing they use their money wisely, then $8 is reasonable. If someone working fulltime for $8 has to depend on taxpayer/community subsidies ... or if that person is cut to 30 hours to avoid the company paying benefits, then no, it is definitely not reasonable. It is also not a reasonable wage if the person cannot afford healthcare, unless we move to a FULLY government run program. (at that point, it becomes a benefit for all simply paid through tax dollars.. much like having public parks, roads, etc are all public benefits).

Once you have gone above that, then the rest can come into play. At that point, you could argue fair/unfair. I get into this more below, but "fairness" involves more than even just money. However, the real problem now is that companies decided that they had excuses not to honor the contracts/agreements they made with employees because "times were tough". They cut benefits, wages, moved jobs overseas, etc. ONLY... while they were doing this, their profits kept rising. THAT is not "fair" by any stretch or measure.

When it comes to moving jobs overseas, I DO think the government has a much, much larger role and should excercise it. (call that "protectionism" a bad thing all you like.. it helps workers and society in the long run, just hurts the big guys for a time). Basically, companies should not recieve tax payer benefits.. either direct or indirect, by moving overseas. That "indirect" bit is where companies take huge advantage of taxpayers without much return (not always, but too often). For example, our wonderful transportion system is part of what makes it efficient to even go overseas for labor. That system is fully funded by taxpayers.. except it truly isn't. Cuts in spending mean that roads, infrastruture are NOT being maintained. It is fully just and equitable that ALL of the big businesses that benefit so very heavily from that should pay more. Ditto most utility, other infrastructure costs. (dams, etc.) Limiting my examples to keep this relatively short, but do know I can provide many more examples. (should you decide..or at least try to claim... you cannot figure them out for yourself).

Companies plain and simply MUST be paying more for the infrastructure they enjoy!

Regarding straight worker pay, though, as long as companies are paying enough to keep workers from being dependents on other taxpayers, its probably not a situation where the government should intervene. Or, at least it gets into a LOT of very complicated situations that are just too many to detail here. (note, I did not say "unable to calculate" or "don't matter"... just too detailed to spell out in this thread. One example might be that companies do need to be forced to actually honor contracts they make. Cutting wages because times are poor, but refusing to bring them back up when times are good again is not right and in some way might need to be mandated by law -- but only with great care).

"unions balancing out profits"
Let's say that most of the workers are unionized within whatever area which I choose to operate, and that they demand that I pay a minimum of $12 per hour. Is that fair? It depends on the average quality of the average worker at a union. What makes more sense is to individually asses each worker of their ability; however, that comes with a cost. Ideally, there are unions (which essentially are businesses that hire out labor), who ideally bring quality workers to other businesses, and with their reputation, I can save money by hiring a large amount of workers at one time while resting assured that they are actually worth the cost.

But what if the unions/businesses in general perform poorly? I won't hire them because of their poor performance. Instead I'll use alternatives (i.e. non-unionized workers), and I will negotiate a wage with them. What is not fair is when unions discourage other non-unionized workers from taking a job which the non-unionized workers are willing and capable of performing. What is not fair is when unions force non-unionized workers to join their unions involuntarily. Some unions are essentially greedy businesses which attempt to restrict competiting workers who work for lower wages (which isn't fair at all).

You show only one narrow side to this. In truth, the competition between unions and non unions is almost never about the quality of the worker. Sure, companies trot out that claim all the time. The truth is that unionized plants pay workers better. Because they pay workers better they often do attract better workers. However, not absolutely... as you note, it helps if you have a friend or relative already in the union, etc. The thing you ignore about that is it happens in ANY workplace. It is not a factor of unions, but of humanity. Ironically, the one area where you tend NOT to see that is in government employment (that is, regular employment, not appointments or elected offices), because hiring rules there are very restrictive.

As for the rest.. why is it unfair for a union to require workers to join? In fact, without that requirement unions often cease to function. They cease not because the unions fail to benefit workers, but because employers dislike them so heavily. If they are allowed to hire non-union workers, they will. And, while initially they may pay benefits similar to unions, in time that declines. This is what evidence shows over and over and over.

There are problems with union structure sometimes. The Teamsters is one I beleve still noted for association with the Mob, but again, you see all kinds of outright corruption and collutions, etc in businesses. Unions are just fewer in number, so the issues with them are perhaps easier to point out and identify.

Even so, just showing problems with unions is not enough to prove that they should go away. Again, this is akin to creationists arguing that there are small problems with pieces of evolutionary theory. Sure, true, but that doesn't mean they can simply insert creationism as a viable option. Just because government, unions, etc have issues doesn't equate to "so let's all turn it over to fully private business". Particularly when the biggest problems with the above are, in the case of unions that they operate too much like another business or, in the case of government, that they are to subject to influence by big business players and very wealthy/powerful individuals.

The point of the above example is to illustrate to you that
1) unions are essentially businesses
2) some unions/businesses don't act fairly, and since they're paying customers are only the laborers themselves, then their main incentive is to drive up the price of their own wages, so how can unions be trusted to "fairly" balance profits? (see: "If a worker was asked if he wanted more money, would he say "yes" or "no"?)

True, but as I noted, thoroughly meaningless points.

"In business the only time you find a fair leader is in a company owned by it's employees"
What constitutes as a "fair leader"?

Again, I argue that "fair" is rather an irrelevant issue. However, it was used, so here is what I would consider fair...

Everyone involved gets a return equal to the combination of monetary and work investment. I would not necessarily weight the monetary investment as more valuable than the "on the ground" work investment, but that can be negotiated by the individual players, as long as everyone involved gets a bare minimum of either equal pay or enough to live on. (the "either" bit is because many businesses simply fail and may not always be profitable.)

How much should the employees own for the business to be considered "led fairly"?

Again, its not a set percentage. Start with making enough to live upon and the rest is basically up for negotiation. (I assume safe working conditions, etc) However, things like hours and such might be part of the negotiation, even though not strictly monetary. The type of work also is part. Some people enjoy/prefer working night shifts for more money (many women here like that they can sleep when the kids are at school and otherwise are available). A lot of single people like working second shift (what other areas call "swing" -- usually 4-11 or 3-10) so they can go home, party and sleep in the next day. Some people want a "nice corner office" some people would rather have more money and get grimey... etc. Some people, frankly are not going to be as productive (at whatever their job) than others. They have a "right" to expect more in a truly equitable situation (be it more pay or more choice in benefits such as their choice of work shift, etc.)

More to the point are some esoteric issues. I know plenty of people who would prefer to work for more hours at less pay in their own business than go take a steady wage. That is not simply because small business owners get a lot of tax breaks that mean their real quality of life is not necessarily reflected by a straight wage comparison. (for example, a small business might have a nice care associated with the business.. technically not part of the person's salary, but they don't ahve to make a personal car payment out of their own wages, either). A lot of it is just the intangibles... things summarized by saying "I am my own boss". (even though the truth of it is the small business can be a far harsher "boss" than a real "boss")

A "fair" way in which employees can participate in the ownership of a company is if they pay for a stake of that ownership (via stocks) or if they become a partner. I say "fair," because "fair" is a subjective term, which has no moral middle ground--either something is fair or not, from the standpoint of whoever. "Fair enough" to me is determined through the medium of exchange by comparing the ex ante versus the ex post aspects of an exchange (assuming that the exchange was voluntary). If you disagree with my last sentence, then what does "fair" mean to you?

This might be a system you like. I agree it absolutely has benefits and can work well. However, resist the urge to declare that because you like it, it is OK or even fair for everyone. It all depends on what you want and what you are willing to put out (both).

For society, the real question is not ultimate "fairness". What matters for society is that people's basic needs are met. Most people can be expected, should be expected to work. Our society has decided (or did decide.. with the help of unions) that our "base" is a 40 hour work week, weekends off and a 2 week vacation. There are many variations on that, but people who do that should, at a minimum, get enough to live. I argue that applies whether you are flipping burgers, cleaning floors or running a computer. Any company that pays less than this.. whether by simply paying less, converting large numbers to part-time to avoid paying benefits to adults (and I do NOT mean the many people who truly want only part-time work or those places, like fast food places, that have varying needs and only need some people for partial shifts or seasonal work). Teens, trainees, etc can be paid less because the training is part of the "pay". However, there must be careful limits to that. Its fine to hire teens/college students to run the burger line or register during rush hours, summers, etc. However, when they start hiring multiple adults as "trainees" for back to back "part-time" jobs... it can be abusive. Hard to control, but we are talking "fair" and optimums, not limits the government should dictate.

Many people "opt out" for an "entrepreneur" track, knowing they might not succeed. We still need a bottom "floor" to ensure they don't go too far down, become too dependent on society. (I argue, for example, that small business owners should perhaps pay something like an unemployment insurance.. but that is another topic). However, risk of failure is part of the equation.

Conclusion: Considering my lawn mowing business, this unbalance between my profits and a worker's wage is not "fair." I'm the one who took the risk, I'm the one who provided the job, and in exchange for my services, I'm the one who gave my customers a higher valued yard (thus increasing their potential wealth if they wish to sell). Sure, the workers that I hire do contribute, but so do I, you have to understand how this system is connected--not one way. If you disagree that this system is not connected, then you must state why.

Let's rephrase that to illustrate the problem. (and note, I am not saying you are being abusive... I am going with your statement that you might be).

First, if you are not paying a reasonable wage, then nothing else matters. The truth is you are not benefitting society, you are costing taxpayers money .. either directly by putting out employees who need subsidies OR requiring your employees to take on a second job/work extra long hours to make ends meet. If they have kids that can actually harm society because the parents who have to work 2 jobs cannot give their kids the attention they generally need. (grandparents, etc may step in meaning its not necessarily terrible, but it is a cost to society).

If you ARE paying a reasonable wage, then personally, i don't care much what else you do, as long as the conditions are safe. (you're not hiring 12year olds to run power equipment, etc.)

However, why is it that your putting out capitol automatically entitles you to so much more? Why is mere capitol so much more valuable than plain old-fashioned work? The answer is simply that money, in today's society gives power.

In many ways, as was mentioned (though maybe in another thread), this is not much different from the idea that certain people are endowed with more rights by God, ie monarchy. If the money is obtained through pure hard work, you can argue it is equal. Except, most often that is not the case. It is, in fact, almost impossible to become truly wealthy through mere work. Rock stars, actors, CEOs do command huge "wages", but even they make most of their real money elsewhere. (artist, ironically enough -- because you have not even considered them truly, are perhaps the only real exception, since residuals and image sales are the result of their work, even if tangentially).

So, ultimately, it comes down to you were, for one reason or another, more lucky than others. Yes, you can argue that you took more risk, but so what? Are we in a society that should reward risk above all else or do we want a society that rewards hard work, dedication, training, enginuity. You have hit on precisely what is wrong with today's society. We do NOT reward either work or talent.. unless that talent is in entertainment. Since we don't truly reward work or talent, we don't attract it or build it up.

Note, its not entirely skewed. Someone with more talent still can, by and large, do better than someone who is a numbskull. However, there has to also be a fair amount of what can only be described as luck.. beginning with the parents to whom you were born.

You state that "I would argue that businesses put up the capital, but the workers are the ones who create the wealth." But, in light of what I've written, is that really true?

Yes, except that you going out and talking to clients is work also.

What about the labor of the entrepreneur in founding his own business? He created wealth by enhancing the value of people's yards, he provided jobs, he spent money on capital (which was produced by someone else, thus creating wealth for someone else). Sure, workers do contribute, but it goes both ways. If you think that the creation of wealth does NOT go both ways, you'll have to argue why it is only the workers who create the wealth (which is what you posited previously).

[/quote]
Yes, I acknowledge all that. The real question is whether that is truly so much more valuable than the guy who cuts the lawn efficiently.

Let me put it this way... you can do all the marketing, etc you want, but if you cannot find someone able to decently cut a lawn without causing damage, without marring the lawn, cutting the flowers... and likely someone who can weed, etc, effectively and all in a timely manner, then your business will fail. But, you start with the assumption that because you put down some money and you own the business you are "automatically" entitled to more.

Now, to throw some reality in to this situation, it sounds like you are, in fact making a decent living. However, in many cases small business owners actually wind up making less than their employees.. precisely because of what I said above. Without them, there simply IS no business.

[BigBallinStalin]

However, I played the game with creationists, so why not here... for a time, at least.

For the sake of my own time, I will only respond to the underlined parts at the end of each of my overall points. Once you have responded to those underlined parts, then we can continue.

I see what you're saying, but the imbalance still tips far into the big guys favor. In business the only time you find a fair leader is in a company owned by it's employees. I think that unions helped balance out profits with wages too, but today they don't have enough support to effect a positive change.

Are all businesses run by these "big guys"? Of course not. So does "big" become this arbitrary term to describe businesses that are unfair, while "small" describes businesses somewhat more "fair"? At what size should a business fit in order to not be considered a "big guy"?

Irrelevant. The point is not the size of the business. The point is that workers, alone lack power. By combining, they can fight for better conditions and wages. However, the unions have been heavily cut, no longer are effective except in a few narrow industries. The impact is seen in the overall decrease of wages and benefits, even poorer working conditions (not so much safety, yet -- those are protected by law still, but definitely hours and such).

You attempt here to debate minutia definitions and ignore the real point.

It is important to understand the size of the business because your scenario depends on the size of the company with which the workers deal. As redundant as this may sound: for you to think that the size of a business is irrelevant, means that--no matter the size of the business--"workers, alone lack power" and essentially that 'unions are needed to make things better for them.' Since you think this is true, then please explain how a worker who deals with a one-man business (like a lawn-mowing service) has as little power as other workers who deal with multinational enterprises, which exercise much more political influence than the one-man business.

My main point of my original paragraph is to show that the scenario changes depending on how one defines "big guys" and "small guys." Do you agree that the scenario changes for workers depending on the size of the business?

"the imbalance still tips far into the big guys favor"
In other words, thousands of years ago, when I decided to invest in some money in a lawn mower (i.e. capital), I would charge people a rate that was agreed upon (thus being fair, especially since the customers were statisfied after the exchange). I earned a profit after investing in my capital (which was a risk)--this is a form of entrepreneurship. For the sake of argument, let's say my revenue was on average $35 per hour. With my profits (say, $33 an hour), I could occasionally hire workers for larger projects. I would pay them $8 per hour.

Is that fair? Well, if taken from both sides, it is fair pay because the worker agrees to it, and the worker did not take any risk which I took in order to earn my profits. The worker won't split my profits directly because he didn't invest in any capital, he doesn't know any of my clients, he hasn't developed the trust between the clients, etc. It makes no sense for the worker to earn a larger portion of my profits if we agreed to the exchange of my $8 per hour for his labor. Do you agree that it is fair for a worker to receive more than an agreed upon price of his labor if that worker did not incur the same risk and costs which the entrepreneur incurred?

From the outset, you have not included the factors that determine if this is fair or not.

Begin with "reasonable", not "fair". What matters is how much it takes for a person to live reasonably in that society. If a person can buy a house, food, clothing, healthcare and yes, even take a small vacation, providing they use their money wisely, then $8 is reasonable. If someone working fulltime for $8 has to depend on taxpayer/community subsidies ... or if that person is cut to 30 hours to avoid the company paying benefits, then no, it is definitely not reasonable. It is also not a reasonable wage if the person cannot afford healthcare, unless we move to a FULLY government run program. (at that point, it becomes a benefit for all simply paid through tax dollars.. much like having public parks, roads, etc are all public benefits).

Once you have gone above that, then the rest can come into play. At that point, you could argue fair/unfair. Waht is happening right now, which IS unfair is that workers are seeing benefits they were promised being taken away, even their very jobs being taken away in the name of "cost cutting"... all while the upper escheolon get higher and higher returns. THAT situation IS unfair. Even so, as long as companies are paying enough to keep workers from being dependents on other taxpayers, its probably not a situation where the government should intervene. Or, at least it gets into a LOT of very complicated situations that are just too many to detail here. (note, I did not say "unable to calculate" or "don't matter"... just too detailed to spell out in this thread. One example might be that companies do need to be forced to actually honor contracts they make. Cutting wages because times are poor, but refusing to bring them back up when times are good again is not right and in some way might need to be mandated by law -- but only with great care).

If you want to begin with "reasonable" instead of "fair," then tell Juan that, because it's directed towards his saying "fair." If you wish to argue about "reasonable," then make a separate thread about it.


Anyway, this may help explain what I was talking about (it's in reference to SirSebstar about "fair"):

"Fair enough" to me is determined through the medium of exchange by comparing the ex ante versus the ex post aspects of an exchange (assuming that the exchange was voluntary)."

This means, in relation to your statement, that two parties come together to agree upon a set price. They are free to set whatever price they estimate the value of their own labor at, but that price is also determined by other factors (like the elasticities of supply and demand which is determined by multiple factors, so please wiki "elasticity of supply" and "elasticity of demand").

By "ex ante," which literally means "from before" as in "before the exchange," this refers to one's expectations for something gained in exchange for something given at the time before an exchange. Nevertheless, in the "ex post" or "after the exchange" there's also the possibility of having one's expectations not exceed or be aligned with the actual value of whatever was received). This causes dissatisfaction and a sense of unfairness. The means of seeking justice, or "righting a perceived wrong," can lead to court and lawyers, or direct negotiation, or whatever other alternatives there may be. From this means of seeking justice, the issue of "fairness" is addressed--and since it's a legal matter, or matter that can be solved without the legal institution, it has become a separate topic, so please start a thread about it. Otherwise, I won't respond to your reply on this.

"unions balancing out profits"
Let's say that most of the workers are unionized within whatever area which I choose to operate, and that they demand that I pay a minimum of $12 per hour. Is that fair? It depends on the average quality of the average worker at a union. What makes more sense is to individually asses each worker of their ability; however, that comes with a cost. Ideally, there are unions (which essentially are businesses that hire out labor), who ideally bring quality workers to other businesses, and with their reputation, I can save money by hiring a large amount of workers at one time while resting assured that they are actually worth the cost.

But what if the unions/businesses in general perform poorly? I won't hire them because of their poor performance. Instead I'll use alternatives (i.e. non-unionized workers), and I will negotiate a wage with them. What is not fair is when unions discourage other non-unionized workers from taking a job which the non-unionized workers are willing and capable of performing. What is not fair is when unions force non-unionized workers to join their unions involuntarily. Some unions are essentially greedy businesses which attempt to restrict competiting workers who work for lower wages (which isn't fair at all).

You show only one narrow side to this. In truth, the competition between unions and non unions is almost never about the quality of the worker. Sure, companies trot out that claim all the time. The truth is that unionized plants pay workers better. Because they pay workers better they often do attract better workers. However, not absolutely... as you note, it helps if you have a friend or relative already in the union, etc. The thing you ignore about that is it happens in ANY workplace. It is not a factor of unions, but of humanity. Ironically, the one area where you tend NOT to see that is in government employment (that is, regular employment, not appointments or elected offices), because hiring rules there are very restrictive.

As for the rest.. why is it unfair for a union to require workers to join? In fact, without that requirement unions often cease to function. They cease not because the unions fail to benefit workers, but because employers dislike them so heavily. If they are allowed to hire non-union workers, they will. And, while initially they may pay benefits similar to unions, in time that declines. This is what evidence shows over and over and over.

There are problems with union structure sometimes. The Teamsters is one I beleve still noted for association with the Mob, but again, you see all kinds of outright corruption and collutions, etc in businesses. Unions are just fewer in number, so the issues with them are perhaps easier to point out and identify.

Even so, just showing problems with unions is not enough to prove that they should go away. Again, this is akin to creationists arguing that there are small problems with pieces of evolutionary theory. Sure, true, but that doesn't mean they can simply insert creationism as a viable option. Just because government, unions, etc have issues doesn't equate to "so let's all turn it over to fully private business". Particularly when the biggest problems with the above are, in the case of unions that they operate too much like another business or, in the case of government, that they are to subject to influence by big business players and very wealthy/powerful individuals.

I haven't said that. Learn to read and remember better.

The point of the above example is to illustrate to you that
1) unions are essentially businesses
2) some unions/businesses don't act fairly, and since they're paying customers are only the laborers themselves, then their main incentive is to drive up the price of their own wages, so how can unions be trusted to "fairly" balance profits? (see: "If a worker was asked if he wanted more money, would he say "yes" or "no"?)

True, but as I noted, thoroughly meaningless points.

It is not meaningless, because one must understand 1) how prices are agreed upon and 2) that incentives matter. Since you dismiss business incentives for profit-seeking (like unions tend to do--which isn't right or wrong, some just do) as "meaningless," then you will fail to understand the context under which price for wages operates.

"In business the only time you find a fair leader is in a company owned by it's employees"
What constitutes as a "fair leader"?

Again, I argue that "fair" is rather an irrelevant issue. However, it was used, so here is what I would consider fair...

Then tell Juan that it is irrelevant. Try to remember that my original response is dedicated to his posting about what is fair and what isn't.

Everyone involved gets a return equal to the combination of monetary and work investment. I would not necessarily weight the monetary investment as more valuable than the "on the ground" work investment, but that can be negotiated by the individual players, as long as everyone involved gets a bare minimum of either equal pay or enough to live on. (the "either" bit is because many businesses simply fail and may not always be profitable.)

This is a new, interesting topic, which should be started in a new thread. Please make one and then answer the following:

1) Define: "equal"

2) Explain how an "equal return on monetary and labor investments" can be distributed.

How much should the employees own for the business to be considered "led fairly"?

Again, its not a set percentage. Start with making enough to live upon and the rest is basically up for negotiation. (I assume safe working conditions, etc) However, things like hours and such might be part of the negotiation, even though not strictly monetary. The type of work also is part. ..... They have a "right" to expect more in a truly equitable situation (be it more pay or more choice in benefits such as their choice of work shift, etc.)

More to the point are some esoteric issues. I know plenty of people who would prefer to work for more hours at less pay in their own business than go take a steady wage. Tha...... than a real "boss")

We're talking about employees owning a business so that it may be led "fairly." We are not talking about negotiating on safer working conditions, hours, leisure time, etc.

A "fair" way in which employees can participate in the ownership of a company is if they pay for a stake of that ownership (via stocks) or if they become a partner. I say "fair," because "fair" is a subjective term, which has no moral middle ground--either something is fair or not, from the standpoint of whoever. "Fair enough" to me is determined through the medium of exchange by comparing the ex ante versus the ex post aspects of an exchange (assuming that the exchange was voluntary). If you disagree with my last sentence, then what does "fair" mean to you?

This might be a system you like. I agree it absolutely has benefits and can work well. However, resist the urge to declare that because you like it, it is OK or even fair for everyone. It all depends on what you want and what you are willing to put out (both).

When did I declare that "I like it"?

Conclusion: Considering my lawn mowing business, this unbalance between my profits and a worker's wage is not "fair." I'm the one who took the risk, I'm the one who provided the job, and in exchange for my services, I'm the one who gave my customers a higher valued yard (thus increasing their potential wealth if they wish to sell). Sure, the workers that I hire do contribute, but so do I, you have to understand how this system is connected--not one way. If you disagree that this system is not connected, then you must state why.

Let's rephrase that to illustrate the problem. (and note, I am not saying you are being abusive... I am going with your statement that you might be).

First, if you are not paying a reasonable wage, then nothing else matters. The truth is you are not benefitting society, you are costing taxpayers money .. either directly by putting out employees who need subsidies OR requiring your employees to take on a second job/work extra long hours to make ends meet. If they have kids that can actually harm society because the parents who have to work 2 jobs cannot give their kids the attention they generally need. (grandparents, etc may step in meaning its not necessarily terrible, but it is a cost to society).

If you ARE paying a reasonable wage, then personally, i don't care much what else you do, as long as the conditions are safe. (you're not hiring 12year olds to run power equipment, etc.)

However, why is it that your putting out capitol automatically entitles you to so much more? Why is mere capitol so much more valuable than plain old-fashioned work? The answer is simply that money, in today's society gives power.

In many ways, as was mentioned (though maybe in another thread), this is not much different from the idea that certain people are endowed with more rights by God, ie monarchy. If the money is obtained through pure hard work, you can argue it is equal. Except, most often that is not the case. It is, in fact, almost impossible to become truly wealthy through mere work. Rock stars, actors, CEOs do command huge "wages", but even they make most of their real money elsewhere. (artist, ironically enough -- because you have not even considered them truly, are perhaps the only real exception, since residuals and image sales are the result of their work, even if tangentially).

So, ultimately, it comes down to you were, for one reason or another, more lucky than others. Yes, you can argue that you took more risk, but so what? Are we in a society that should reward risk above all else or do we want a society that rewards hard work, dedication, training, enginuity. You have hit on precisely what is wrong with today's society. We do NOT reward either work or talent.. unless that talent is in entertainment. Since we don't truly reward work or talent, we don't attract it or build it up.

Note, its not entirely skewed. Someone with more talent still can, by and large, do better than someone who is a numbskull. However, there has to also be a fair amount of what can only be described as luck.. beginning with the parents to whom you were born.

I think I stated this earlier, but if you would like to argue about how a wage can be considered to be "reasonable" then please start a thread on that, and I'd be happy to join you.

What about the labor of the entrepreneur in founding his own business? He created wealth by enhancing the value of people's yards, he provided jobs, he spent money on capital (which was produced by someone else, thus creating wealth for someone else). Sure, workers do contribute, but it goes both ways. If you think that the creation of wealth does NOT go both ways, you'll have to argue why it is only the workers who create the wealth (which is what you posited previously).

Yes, I acknowledge all that. The real question is whether that is truly so much more valuable than the guy who cuts the lawn efficiently.

Let me put it this way... you can do all the marketing, etc you want, but if you cannot find someone able to decently cut a lawn without causing damage, without marring the lawn, cutting the flowers... and likely someone who can weed, etc, effectively and all in a timely manner, then your business will fail. But, you start with the assumption that because you put down some money and you own the business you are "automatically" entitled to more.

What is your stance on "private property rights"?

[thegreekdog]

@SirSebstar - You have discussed on a general basis that wealth flows one way (presumably to the owners and not the employees) and that employees may, to paraphrase, take a pay cut so that a company can stay afloat. I disagree with the points of both statements (including your statement that we're hypocrits and you're awesomeness personified, but BBS addressed that).

First, wealth does not flow one way. You are lumping all non-business owner employees into a bucket of "low-paid individuals." This ignores a lot of the detail that goes into wages, job demands, and taxes. For example, I am an employee of a law firm. I make significantly less than the partners (because I have no ownership stake in the company). However, I probably make more money than the pizza delivery man. It would be unfair to the pizza delivery man and to me to lump us together in a bucket titled "employees." I have a higher overall wealth than the pizza delivery man (hopefully) for various reasons (intelligence, education, job demand vs. supply). In any event, I also have more wealth than a failed business owner (or a business owner who is about to fail).

Second, employees have the lower level of risk compared to a company owner. If I screw up, I get fired and can find another job. I don't lose an investment I made with my law firm because I don't have an investment. If a partner screws up, he could lose his investment in addition to his job. Further, employees have considerable control over their own fates. If I think I can get more money going somewhere else, I can certainly do that. Can a pizza delivery man? Probably not. He doesn't have any special skills that would set him apart from other individuals. But if the pizza delivery man gets fired, he can get another job, can he not? If the pizza shop owner fails, what does he do? He loses any wealth he accumulated and loses his investment. He has a significant risk.

So, I ask again - is the ideal economic system, in your mind, one in which the government takes and gives away in support of the people? What is your ideal economic system?

[SirSebstar]

My awesomenes personified.. yea i like that!!

Still, I don't lump anybody together. You just did.
And to my utopia? That would be where everybody is responsiable for its own actions and gambles cannot ruin others but yourself. meaning that a ceo or government official that cannot maintain a healthy budget will feel it personally. If a bankdirector losses millions of dollars, he is financially and moraly held to account.
my views revolve around acountability. towards others, society and yourself.

yes you can owns a lawnmower thousands of years ago and still have the same compagny. but you are unable to stop your employe from taking your contract with your customer, if he can deliver too. you cannot run a bank into the ground one year and gain millions by it.
speculation and gambling is fine, but with your own money, not that of society... no more taxcuts for compagnies supposedly to keep them in the country, no more mismanagement of government. a smaller government. a minimum base of living supplied to everybody. And anything above that is your own.
you can be rich by doing things right, but you dont get to be rich just because you polute the environment, pay not enough to live off andget a taxbreak

[thegreekdog]

That would be where everybody is responsiable for its own actions

Hey! Me too! Imagine that... personal responsibility.

[Juan_Bottom]

then please explain how a worker who deals with a one-man business (like a lawn-mowing service) has as little power as other workers who deal with multinational enterprises, which exercise much more political influence than the one-man business.

My main point of my original paragraph is to show that the scenario changes depending on how one defines "big guys" and "small guys." Do you agree that the scenario changes for workers depending on the size of the business?

The scenario doesn't change at all.
It's not a question of the size of the business. It's a matter of how much the business owner shares the profits of the business with his employees. Or whatever. If he's making $40 an hour off of a single employee's labor and only pays them $1 an hour, then that is not a fair or responsible system at all. There was a time in the 1800s when workers were producing goods that they couldn't even afford to buy, because the business owners were keeping all of the profits. The system collapsed, and labor unions were a single result of that.
Today the issue becomes more black and white when dealing with companies that receive government subsidies, corporate tax breaks, and no-bid contracts. It's black and white because the employees taxes are helping the company to save even more money.
This should pretty much cover all of your other questions. There are already infinite business examples that show that unrestricted capitalism is a slave trap for the average citizen. We've had periods in this country where we had such a system, and each one lead to a revolt of some fashion.

Also, I agree with player.

Wrong question. No one is saying that CEOs, etc have no right to get rich. The problem is when they take so much from the lower ranks

Exactly.


You can call this part hearsay if you like.

I do know of employees who accept paycuts to be able to keep the entire compagny afloat.. its a nonsencical argument. Both parties are shown as being opposed of each other where this is clearly not the case...

My company asked it's employees to take a rain check on our yearly pay raises for 5 months. That will freeze wages for the busy season. In the company newsletter it was explained that the reason they needed the employees to do this was to save capital in a bad economy. The company lost $10 million in profits in 2010 compared to 2009. The loses could effect our insurance benefits.... So we all agreed to wait.
What they didn't explain to the employees is that our division of the company didn't lose a single dime. In fact our plant still makes $1 million a month in profit. The company loses came from the bad economy, upgrades to a plant in Pennsylvania, and from a very bad business decision. Our company decided to re-name one of it's products and corporate approved a new package. But they forgot to put "formerly called" on it, so they lost business.
Also, the company didn't lose any money because of buying extra supplies or anything. They lost money because they had fewer orders. And since supplies are brought in to match orders, they never lost money there either.
Next week the company president is visiting our plant to talk with the employees and do a Q & A. He doesn't know that accounting has shared this information with anyone, and we're all drawing straws to see who's gonna grill him about this.

[Juan_Bottom]

Your analogy is very apt.
Also is what happened afterward.
Look at each of the big civilizations in history: India, Egypt, Greece, Rome, the Chinese Dynasties,France, etc (not sure about the Maya.. we don't know enough about them yet to say) and what you see is societies that begin by supporting average people. Then those at the top get greedy and demand more and more, neglect infrastructure, absue of the environment, neglect the workers. Before long society collapses.

That's what my education is, it's historical. All of this has happened before, which is how I can say that I don't understand all the small facets of how a global economy works, but I can also hold the opinion that the current distribution of wealth and the illusion of fairness is just that - a lie. And it's one which leads to ruin. You hear economists and scholars touch briefly on the subject of "Are we Rome" when they talk about the class system today and the distribution of wealth. Well no, we are not Rome, but we're making a lot of the same mistakes. I know that the top 1% of America's wealthy control 80% of our wealth. When they invest 200 million dollars and lose it, they haven't actually risked anything. They still have 900 bajillion dollars tied into other investments. And when they keep it tied into stocks, they pay a lower tax rate on the money they earn than the tax rate that you pay for honest labor. Look back on when the Recession began, and people began losing their homes, small businesses, and jobs. It's easy to see that the "risk" all businesses take is not really what it is made out to be. On paper it looks right. But in practice it's been impractical because of the size of some companies and the wealth of some individuals.

Furthermore, our inflation adjusted power peaked in 1968!!! And today in 2011 fuel prices are still going up, and food prices are rising too. Inflation is on the rise again. The class gap has also been growing, yet American productivity is higher than ever. So our system is overtly flawed. We're being plundered from within.

http://blogs.cfed.org/cfed_news_clips/2 ... 10-un.html

http://www.kyklosproductions.com/articles/wages.html

Stagnating Workers' Wages

In 1979 the American worker's average hourly wage was equal to $15.91 (adjusted for inflation in 2001 dollars). By 1989 it had reached only $16.63/hour. That's a gain of only 7 cents a year for the entire Reagan decade.

But wait. Things get worse! By 1995 it had risen to only $16.71, or virtually no gain whatsoever over the 6 years between 1989 and 1995. During the great 'boom years' between 1995 and 2000 it rose briefly to $18.33 per hour. In other words, from 1979 to 2000, even before the most recent Bush recession, after more than two decades the American worker's average wages increased on average only 11.5 cents per hour per year! With nearly all of that coming in the five so-called 'boom' years of 1995-2000, and most of that lost once again in the last three years. And that includes for all workers, even those with college degrees.

The picture is worse for workers who had no college degree. That's more than 100 million workers, or 72.1% of the workforce. For them there was no 'boom of 1995-2000' whatsoever. Their average real hourly wages were less at the end of 2000 than they were in 1979! And since 2000 their wages have continued to slide further.
The Great Productivity Swindle

Management is always quick to say in contract negotiations, 'give us more productivity and we can afford to give you a bigger raise'. But this has been a false promise from 1979 to 2000, and an even bigger lie under George Bush II.

With 1992 as base year, productivity was at 82.2 in 1979. It grew to 94.2 by 1989 and 116.6 by the year 2000. In the past year, moreover, it has exploded, putting it over 120. That's a nearly 40% increase since Ronald Reagan took office nearly 25 years ago!

The 100 million American workers without college degrees, whose real take home pay today is less than it was 25 years ago, certainly can't be said to have shared in that 40% productivity gain. And the other 20 million or so with college degrees whose pay rose modestly at best certainly shared in very little of that nearly 40% productivity gain.

So who got all the money?

Also;
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/1 ... 37814.html

Ever feel your work isn’t being adequately represented by the final amount on your paycheck?

Turns out that nagging sense of injustice isn’t just a hunch. A recent report by the Economic Policy Institute reveals that benefits and wages haven’t kept up with the increasing productivity of American workers, both in private and public sectors.