Funnelling the profits of companies mainly to investors rather than workers is inherently unfair and promotes inequality, selfishness and greed. How does sci feel about this? Syndicalist btw.

File: 72 KB, 600x700, capitalism illustrated.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 07:24:03 2011 No.2403976 [Reply] [Original]

Funnelling the profits of companies mainly to investors rather than workers is inherently unfair and promotes inequality, selfishness and greed.

How does sci feel about this?

Syndicalist btw.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 07:26:03 2011 No.2403982 I don't know about that for sure but the image at least is true.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 07:30:03 2011 No.2403998

College inherently does this. Should it be a surprise? Many people have no motivation and are happy working factory jobs. You still need people to organize those jobs, distribute those products, come up with those products, etc. which is the real work.

Besides, factory workers often get paid entirely too much for what they're doing. I've known of unionized factory workers making $100k/y+ due to overtime. This is hardly common, but $60k/y+ isn't as uncommon.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 07:30:03 2011 No.2404001 How else would a market work, investing in the workforce is already a large part of successful companies in the US anyway

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 07:31:03 2011 No.2404009

>>2403976

There's no legal bar to investing in the company you work in, you know. The system is fair because of that fact; if a worker chooses not to invest that is in fact his choice.

inb4 idiotic "hurr investors do no work therefore they should get no profit" statements

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 07:35:03 2011 No.2404024

>>2404009

1,000 years ago

"Inb4 hurr the feudal lords do no work therefore they should get no profit"

Face it, it's entirely unwarranted and creates castes based on wealth. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.

If people need capital they should have cheap loans made available by the government. Better than allowing these leeching investors in.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 07:38:03 2011 No.2404035 Not /sci/ related.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 07:43:03 2011 No.2404050

>>2403998

Obviously management at least has an excuse. I don't think they should get the obscene wealth they get but at least they do something. Investors don't even have to be from the same country. They give capital in return for control later on. It's a deal with the devil.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 07:46:03 2011 No.2404057

I've always hated this system. The richest people in the world are the ones who just move money around without actually contributing at all. I'm not saying I wouldn't have done the same given the chance, though, but it shouldn't be tolerable in the first place.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 07:47:03 2011 No.2404062 >>2404035 but math related >>2404009 >>2404024 I'm really happy to see a thread like this in a forum where the majority part of the people hanging out in here were educated inside the capitalist perspective.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 07:50:03 2011 No.2404070 >>2404062 >math related No it isn't.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 07:50:03 2011 No.2404073

>>2404024

That's completely inaccurate. Feudal lords didn't actually do work, their titles were granted and guaranteed by the government and had carte blanche to do what they wanted in their own territory. None of that applies to modern investing. An accurate portrayal of the modern investor is probably closer to your uncle David than Franz Leopold III.

If people need capital they could just sell parts of their company to make the capital they need. Which...they do.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 07:57:03 2011 No.2404095

>>2404073

Modern investing 'work' relies on speculating in shares and commodities. This has no impact on the running of the business itself. I don't care that many shares are owned by ordinary people. Most of them are concentrated in the hands of millionaires, and that is too close to plutocracy for my liking.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 07:59:03 2011 No.2404105

So from that comic... the only stage of product development that matters is manufacturing. Marketing, research, distribution, product support, safety tests,management, etc, are all pointless wastes of money trying to keep the common worker down.

Yeah, no.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 07:59:03 2011 No.2404106 >>2404095 actually, we're getting away from the point. exploration of the work class is what the extreme profit search causes humans are not robots, you can tell it yourself

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 08:02:03 2011 No.2404119

I think the comic undervalues ideas and the motivation to implement them. most people are just cogs, grinding their way through a system they dont understand. some people understand the system, and have the grundle fortitude to modify it. this is severely rewarded, as i believe it should be.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 08:04:03 2011 No.2404127 I had a great idea. Start your own business and don't exploit your "wage slaves". You have a competitive advantage. You will get better and happier employees. It is only a matter of time your business will be huge.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 08:05:03 2011 No.2404136

>>2404095

No, modern investing work relies on the fact that you're putting money that you worked to get and putting it into a company.

You've neglected this basic tenet that it costs currency to buy stocks and you seem to assume that all money used to buy stocks is inherited from some distant relative who you barely know.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 08:12:03 2011 No.2404155

>>2404136

If you are working already, why not share in the profits of your own company rather than someone else's?

No need for investment and stock markets to do that, and it eliminates the lazy rich guy problem.

See, what you were saying would be valid if the world was relativity fair. But it is not. In the United States, the richest country in the world, the top 10% possessing 80% of all financial assets (according to wikipedia).

That is the effect of investment capitalism.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 08:23:03 2011 No.2404198

>>2404155

You're ignoring that of these millionaires, the vast majority of them are self-made who came from income levels not unlike what you and I have. I think you have this mental image of what a "rich guy" is and are ignoring what has gone on (at least in the US) over the last 20 years. Consider that over the last 20 years the number of millionaires, multi-millionaires, and billionaires has doubled within their own ladders (that is to say, the number of billionaires has doubled over the last 20 years, so on so forth.) Now, with inherited money wouldn't you expect that the number of millionaires etc would stay relatively constant because the money is passing down, a generation at a time?

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 08:26:03 2011 No.2404206

>>2404198

You will not find a man unable to get enough to eat, who has to leave his underfunded public school in year 10 and get a job flipping burgers, that can become a millionaire.

Just because people make money, does not mean they worked for it. Edison nicked Telsa's inventions and left him penniless because he had better business sense. This is not justice.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 08:29:03 2011 No.2404224

>>2404070
If economics is a science, science related...

I don't see how banks can lose in this system. If they are allowed to create money for loans, and the loans default, don't they just receive the real property in exchange for the created money? What exactly do they lose? Trust?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 08:30:03 2011 No.2404231 >>2404105 >implying any of those people make more money than the person "paying them" The point of the comic is do all the work but get a small fraction of what the company gets off all your work.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 08:33:03 2011 No.2404238 >>2404224 I'd have the banks nationalized for this reason, so loans could be made cheaply to all. Industries should be self run as co-operatives.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 08:33:03 2011 No.2404241

>>2404127
Most start-ups can't afford to, hence they offer stock options. Hence the old lines about the first janitor at Microsoft becoming a millionaire when the stock offering went public. (Though I doubt there's truth the that, the point is a good one.)

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 08:39:03 2011 No.2404259 >>2404231 >do all the work but get a small fraction of what the company gets off all your work But since this is not true then would you agree the comic is false and misleading? Companies are not skimming record profits off the top.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 08:41:03 2011 No.2404265 File: 22 KB, 358x374, CEO vs average worker pay chart.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2404259 >Companies are not skimming record profits off the top. I guess that depends on how you're defining "companies?"

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 08:42:03 2011 No.2404271 File: 65 KB, 600x400, Ratio of CEO to Average Worker Pay.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2404259 Actually, here's a slightly more broad looking one.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 08:42:03 2011 No.2404272 File: 148 KB, 624x352, 1285859906144.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2404259 >Companies are not skimming record profits off the top. http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/pay/index.cfm

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 08:44:03 2011 No.2404278

>>2404206

That's true. That's also an extreme example that is pretty incongruous with reality. The fact of the matter is that there is always a choice and you can always arrange your life to maximize how much money you can redirect into investment which will give you returns. Some choices may be very simple, like a man choosing to try and pay off a suburban home which makes him live at the furthest reaches of his means rather than choosing to live in a more modest apartment in a shitty urban district to shield his wife and daughter from the horrors of the ghetto. It's a total no-brainer and one I personally agree with, but I can't be so disingenuous to say that a choice wasn't made, even no-brainers are choices.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 08:45:03 2011 No.2404280 It's partly because labour is a cost, while bonuses and dividends are profits. You minimize 'costs' of labour, maximise profits for investors.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 08:45:03 2011 No.2404281 >>2404265 If you don't understand why this is a propaganda chart, then it is very hard to argue with you. This propaganda chart convinces you. Arguments by prepared Intelligent Design proponents convince children.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 08:46:03 2011 No.2404285 >2404278 People do not choose which class they are born into. Being poor is usually caused by being born to the wrong parents.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 08:50:03 2011 No.2404302

>>2404285

There's a marked difference between "needing to get a part-time job to make ends meet" and "oh you need to drop out of school 2 years early because the school has no money and is dropping everyone and mama can't get enough money for me to eat a decent meal and a dog pisses in my face every day of the week"

One is something that happens with some regularity, the other is completely outlying propaganda that bears more resemblance to an Horatio Algiers novel than real life.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 08:53:03 2011 No.2404321

>>2404281
Actually, I'd love to hear your argument that it isn't a case of the wealthy using their position to take an increasingly larger chunk of the pie. I'd like to know if I am a stupid idiot, or if it's just a difference of opinions.

Saged because we're exiting /sci/, though, in the smaller sense.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 08:53:03 2011 No.2404322 >>2404302 You make it sound like either of those should be socially acceptable... I'm assuming the first one is a 'working multiple jobs' scenario

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 08:57:03 2011 No.2404340 >>2404281 AAGH! The data! IT BURNS! IT BURNS USS! TAKE IT OFF USSS! Gollum! Gollum!

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 08:59:03 2011 No.2404353 >>2404321 I can't write to you now because I have to leave. Saved your picture and will post it and my take on it on /sci/ some time to the future. (and hope I don't get banned for non-sci-related then)

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 09:08:03 2011 No.2404373 >>2403976 >Implying he is stealing. He's just not giving away his money.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 09:08:03 2011 No.2404377

>>2404322

Look at that, bouncing around the point almost like you can't provide any counter to it. To answer your question, neither of those are socially acceptable, and I never said that they were; only that they happen. In fact neither of these happen enough to point to some systemic failure of capitalism or even as you call it "investment capitalism" (as contrived a term as I've ever heard)

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 09:16:03 2011 No.2404394 Every bit of profit should be taxed out of them and invested in public research.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 09:18:03 2011 No.2404400 >>2404394 All that does is shift the profit from those companies affected to the education industry which by nature of what you're trying to do cannot be taxed. Research isn't some mystical slider you jack up to 100% like in Civ 4 or EU3, friend.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 09:24:03 2011 No.2404408 both sides need to be rewarded, according to the motivations needed from each and the resources possible balance

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 09:25:03 2011 No.2404411 >>2404377 Wasn't even the guy you were talking too... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discouraged_worker http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underemployment http://www.chmuraecon.com/underempl/

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 09:28:03 2011 No.2404422

I don't understand why shares should pay back indefinitely. Once the money invested is paid back with some agreed upon interest, that should be the end of it. It doesn't make sense for people to be able to collect money (debt from society) forever from just one transaction. Yes you worked (in theory) for the money to put in, but to get 'infinite' money back out means someone else isn't getting it, and that someone else might still be doing actual work. Acquiring wealth in measure far greater than effort put into society is the definition of leeching.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 09:33:03 2011 No.2404430

>>2403976
Fucking fuck I hate people like this.

Using money we can turn our hard work into influence in the economy. To start a new business, you need money and you need to put that money at risk. Those two factors mean you should make more than the person working for you, because he's converting time into money, not money and time into some MAYBE money.

On top of that, money now is worth more than money later. Always has been. It follows, then, that someone should make money equal to the amount of work they put in plus the % their money appreciates in value over time, which happens through investment, with limited risk, or with business, which carries very much risk.

Also consider that the system follows from very very few simple rules. It's simply THE efficient system that results in overall prosperity, and yes. It favors those who take have the patience to save and invest, the balls to risk the money they saved, and the brains to turn that money into more money at a rate that was worth the risk.

If after all that work you would just make as much as your employees, then why bother being an entrepreneur or investor?

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 09:36:03 2011 No.2404440

>>2404422

>I don't understand why shares should pay back indefinitely.

They quite often don't, in practice. Shares that pay dividends in theory do, but many stocks have ridiculously low dividend yields. Hewlett-Packard for example costs 46 bucks a share and provides a whopping 8 cent dividend. At that rate it would only take you the better part of a century to get your money pack.

Stocks aren't a loan; you're literally selling a part of the company off. You own part of the company when you buy stock from that company and as a result as long as the company chugs along you get money from that stock.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 09:40:03 2011 No.2404444

>>2404422
Wow, that shows a profound lack of knowledge of how the economy works. If you buy a cow for 20 dollars, should you start handing out milk after 20 dollars of milk is retrieved and sold? Also, stocks aren't even mostly about dividends.

Let's say there are 4 shares to be sold in a locust swarm. 40 bugs in a swarm, 50 cents a bug. 20 dollars for a locust swarm, or 5 dollars a share. You buy a share, and 10 of those locusts are yours. One year, the swarm does very well. There are now 120 bugs in the locust swarm. You own 25% of that, or 30 bugs, which is 15 dollars. If you were to sell that share, you'd effectively be selling stake in the future of those 15 bugs. If the swarm dies off, you now own 0 bugs. No one is going to buy a quarter stake in a swarm of 0.

So, taking financial stake in a company means taking a loss if the company loses assets, and gaining if the company gains assets. Now, because of the nature of supply and demand, it's more complicated than that. If people think a gain of assets is coming on, then the price goes up, almost as if the assets had gone up.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 09:45:03 2011 No.2404460 >>2404444 >supply and demand You mean speculation.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 09:48:03 2011 No.2404469 I was a bit ambivalent about it. Now it's awwwwwwwwright. Since I'm now in the upper part of the pyramid.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 09:50:03 2011 No.2404482 >>2404444 So does that mean you have to find someone willing to take the risk that the stock will increase in value in order to get any money back out of it?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 09:50:03 2011 No.2404484 >>2404444 quads don't lie well said anon

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 09:51:03 2011 No.2404486 >>2404460 If people would rather buy the stock than sell it at the current price, the price goes up. It's the same principle applied to a different area.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 09:54:03 2011 No.2404497

>>2404482
Yes. Fortunately it's not all that hard due to the size of the market, but it means that if the general opinion is that you shouldn't buy the stock at the current price, the price will go down. It's why playing the stock market isn't a cakewalk, the prices represent general opinion.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 09:55:03 2011 No.2404500 >>2404422 That's how bonds work. It's a better way to finance a capitalist economy, but it doesn't allow as much speculation as stocks.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 09:57:03 2011 No.2404516 >>2404486 Except that the point of the demand is to manipulate the price.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 09:58:03 2011 No.2404518 >>2404422 Congratulations! You just described how government bonds work!

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 09:58:03 2011 No.2404521 >>2404500 Yeah, bonds are boring. They're for boring people.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 10:02:03 2011 No.2404535 >>2404521 Traders are quite boring.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 10:05:03 2011 No.2404549

>>2404516
Ok, I'll agree that speculation is the correct and better word. I was just trying to describe the fact that the price of a stock is dependent on the perceived value of a stock.

From my example, it seemed like the price of a stock was equal to its percentage of the company times the company's total assets. The increase in price of a stock disproportionate to its assets is due to speculation, yes, but at a more basic level it's due to supply and demand. If people don't understand that a general want for a stock increases its price, it seems like a piece of cake to invest and make gagillions.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 10:10:03 2011 No.2404570 Something about all this just seems to be pissing on thermodynamics. Putting in one measure of energy and getting more than one back can't possibly be sustainable without infinite resources.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 10:16:03 2011 No.2404593 >>2404570 They pretend that work is an infinite ressource.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 10:19:03 2011 No.2404608 >>2404570 While I guess there's a point there, infinite sustainability is impossible anyway. Exploiting the 48bl(buttloads) of energy in our sun to fuel our local race against entropy is fine with me.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 10:24:03 2011 No.2404623

>>2404593
No, it's simply that an hour of a man's time yields a finite amount of product. Without investment in the proper tools, money or credit to buy the materials, and a method of distribution to sell the product, and hour of a worker's time is worthless. If you want to maange your own chain of supply and distribution channels, then congratulations: you're are a small business owner.

If not, you'll have to give a significant portion of the fruit of your labor to the person who makes your labor actually yield money. In addition, if you're doing a job that only a relative few can do, you'll be paid more. If anyone could do it, you'll be paid less.

It's like complaining that all that ranchers do is profit off the labor and life of the livestock. As you undoubtedly know, being a rancher isn't a walk in the park.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 10:38:03 2011 No.2404695

>>2404623
>If not, you'll have to give a significant portion of the fruit of your labor to the person who makes your labor actually yield money. In addition, if you're doing a job that only a relative few can do, you'll be paid more. If anyone could do it, you'll be paid less.
That's how it works now, more or less. That's not just, or best, in any regard.
The person who sell your production also controls what portion of its monetary value will come back to you. It also can replace you for someone who can do your work much more easily than you can replace it : hence the respective incomes aren't decided by simple ability on the work, but on the capabilities on the work "market".

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 10:44:03 2011 No.2404714

>>2404695
>That's not just, or best, in any regard.
What? The alternative is that people either risk the money they work for and then give it away if it succeeds, or that no one takes individual risk. Oh wait, those two are the same.

It's a direct result of continuing to own something you buy. If you don't think someone has a right to the things they pay for, then ok. Enjoy your more fair world.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 10:46:03 2011 No.2404721

>>2404422
>Once the money invested is paid back with some agreed upon interest, that should be the end of it.
What you're describing is a bond. Companies do indeed issue bonds, and pay an agreed upon interest over an agreed upon time. A stock is different. A stock is a share of ownership of them company itself. There is no agreed upon interest. The value of your stock increases if and only if the value of the company increases.

Buying a company is hardly leeching. Those shares came from initial startup capital that allowed the company to exist in the first place. Those shares also represent risk. Workers don't generally want to share in the risk of the company. They want a guaranteed salary. If a worker wants to share in that risk he is always free to buy some shares with his salary, if it's a publicly traded company.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 10:51:03 2011 No.2404752

>>2404695
>The person who sell your production also controls what portion of its monetary value will come back to you.
Wrong. You control it and only you control it. Stop being so beta. You negotiate your salary. If no one is willing to pay you what you think your work is worth, try starting your own business. It's a lot harder than you think.

>It also can replace you for someone who can do your work much more easily
So you're saying you suck at your work? Then find something you're good at. If you can't do anything of value, that's your problem. It's not unjust that no one wants to pay you for your lack of value. It's just.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 10:54:03 2011 No.2404761

>>2404714
People that risk their lives at work earn far less that people who risk their money. It's not just.

It's not best either, even in your idealistic perspective, because it is designed to keep most people from having the ressources to invest, and allow the ones with the most ressources to minimize risk while maximizing profits, regardless of actual economic realities like wealth production.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 11:01:03 2011 No.2404792

>How did you get those machines?
I pooled my money together with other investors to purchase them!
>And how did you get that money?
I worked at a job like that man did!
>Oh, okay.
Not all investors are rich bastards. Sure, I'm lucky to be born into a middle class family rather than trying to live on a dollar a day, but I earned the money I invested by selling my labour (and at this point in my life, it is actual physical labour rather than "PhD in Maths/$400K starting/UJelly.jpg") and I just chose to save it and make more money out of it rather than spending it right away.

Although I do think some wealth redistribution is warranted. Estate taxes, for one, really need to be introduced into my country.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 11:09:03 2011 No.2404818

>>2404752
>Wrong. You control it and only you control it. Stop being so beta. You negotiate your salary.
Well, sorry for not following your abstraction, but I really prefer to talk about the real world.
>If no one is willing to pay you what you think your work is worth, try starting your own business. It's a lot harder than you think.
What do I think, exactly ?
It is pretty hard. Never said the contrary. It's much easier when you're rich, though. Too bad it's not you who's rich, but the guy who tell someone to write your contract and someone specialized in "negociations" to tell you to sign it.

>So you're saying you suck at your work?
What do you pull that from ? Being replaceable neither means that the work isn't well done, nor that it has no value.
It's easier to find a worker willing to work for less than a capitalist willing to pay one more. Because being able to pay allows more control over the work market than being able to work.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 11:10:03 2011 No.2404822

>>2404761
If people were turned off overly by the risk of life and limb, then the salary would be higher. And it is. Ever seen Deadliest Catch? They make a killing due to the necessarily dangerous nature of the job. All you can do is minimize the risk as much as possible, and if someone feels that 60,000 a year is worth the risk, they'll take it.

Things are worth their money value. Nothing's much more fair than that.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 11:14:03 2011 No.2404834 >>2404497 That's why I don't "play", but invest in diversified funds and just let the share market appreciate, as it does over the long term.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 11:15:03 2011 No.2404838 >>2404822 So robbing people at gunpoint is fair because they pay for their lives an amount they're willing to part from ?

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 11:16:03 2011 No.2404841

>>2404818
I really don't understand what your point is supposed to be. That some portion of everything is yours, and people should hand it to you? If you spend an hour making a bottlecap, is that worth 15 dollars just because it took an hour of your time?

You're worth what you're worth, and not a cent more. If you can't do something that's worth a lot of money, you won't get a lot of money.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 11:17:03 2011 No.2404847 >>2404752 >Wrong. You control it and only you control it. Stop being so beta. You negotiate your salary I guess you dropped out of Econ 101 before the lecture on "Supply and Demand", huh.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 11:19:03 2011 No.2404851

>>2404838
That doesn't follow. Dangerous jobs are the conversion of work into goods or services with some kind of natural risk. Robbing people at gunpoint is creating a risk for the purposes of stealing something they own.

If someone wants to work a dangerous jobs at a salary, they will. If they don't, they won't. If no one does, then they'll need to off a more lucrative salary. If they can't afford the salary necessary to entice people to risk their lives, then the business won't take off.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 11:21:03 2011 No.2404862

>>2404841
My point is that work relations are not equal, and that it's not profitable for the majority nore for society as a whole.

I must also point out that saying "if you get a lot of money, you're worth a lot of money, because if you're worth a lot of money, you get a lot of money, because if you get a lot of money, etc." is an arbitrary, vacuous and irrelevant statement.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 11:25:03 2011 No.2404872 >>2404862 I really don't understand your position. You think it's somehow unfair, yet provide no alternative.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 11:25:03 2011 No.2404873 Better comic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFxvy9XyUtg

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 11:31:03 2011 No.2404889

>>2404851
Capitalists do create the risk unemployment constitutes. But creating the risk or using the risk created by someone else is the same.
People obey robbers pointing a gun even if the robber didn't load the gun, or actually intend to shoot if they fled or refused, because they hear of murders. The robber just use a risk he did not create to his advantage.
Your preexisting situation defines what you are willing to do and for what.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 11:33:03 2011 No.2404894 >>2404872 You understand perfectly my position, you're just playing dumb.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 11:38:03 2011 No.2404909

>>2404889
It's not "capitalists" creating a risk of unemployment. It's a guy who finds that they can profit by paying people to do something dangerous. It only works so long as there are people who think that the time they spend doing the job is worth less than the money they get paid for doing it.

Your robber analogy really doesn't apply, because the dangerous job isn't forced upon anyone. Blaming the risk of unemployment on the employer is no different than saying that food vendors commit armed robbery by selling you food instead of handing it out.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 11:44:03 2011 No.2404932 >>2403976 Read Louis Kelso

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 11:51:03 2011 No.2404953

>>2404818
>I really prefer to talk about the real world.
In the real world people sell their labor for whatever it's worth. It's impossible to not be able to be paid what you're worth, because if no one is willing to pay you x for your work, then by definition your work isn't worth x.
>It's easier to find a worker willing to work for less than a capitalist willing to pay one more.
So you're bothered that other people can do the same work as you for less? If other people are willing to do it for less, then that's what that work is worth. Supply and demand. If you want to be more valuable, learn a more valuable skill.
>Because being able to pay allows more control over the work market than being able to work.
It's true that the buyer gets to decide what he buys, but if there's a unique item on the market, the seller gets to pretty much set his own price. If you don't have anything unique or rare to offer, then it's just a fact of life that your work isn't worth a lot, and is set by the labor supply and demand.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 11:52:03 2011 No.2404958

>>2404889
>Robber with a gun takes peoples money so market economy sucks.

You were criticizing a system based on voluntary exchange of goods and services. Your example doesn't really apply to this system as it is a coercion with a threat of physical harm.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 11:55:03 2011 No.2404969

>>2404761
>People that risk their lives at work earn far less that people who risk their money. It's not just.
There's definitely a pay benefit for risking your life. There's not one for risking your money. People who risk their money in stocks very often lose it all. The potential upside in investing in a company that increases its value is offset by the risk of it going out of business or losing value. If it wasn't, everyone would put their money in stocks instead of lower risk securities.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 12:06:03 2011 No.2405011

>>2404909
Capitalists create the risk, by restricting the progression of welfare policies, or organizing their withdrawal.

It is forced. Those who can work in less dangerous and better paid jobs do so. Those who work these jobs do so because they need to and can't change jobs.
Of course, this need is superficial : they could always choose to starve alone under a bridge. Like the robbed could choose to try and fight or flee.
Food vendors profit of a situation too (people want food), not as brutally as a random robber or employer though, because food vendors are more subject to competition, political control, and purely mechanical economic effects (raising prices on food induce inflation, lowering salaries and work conditions standards do not). Of course, that applies to rich countries, now : food vendors have been more favorised in certain times and places, have profited more harshly of the hunger of the people, and laws have been passed to restrict that.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 12:12:03 2011 No.2405026

>>2405011
>Capitalists create the risk, by restricting the progression of welfare policies, or organizing their withdrawal.
Sure, some capitalists do, but not all. I vote for the Greens (a party with actual power here in Australia) who have pretty good welfare policies, such as expanding our socialised health care to include dental care.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 12:22:03 2011 No.2405064

>>2405011
>Capitalists create the risk, by restricting the progression of welfare policies
You're talking about the personal risk which motivates people to produce. When you have rampant socialism, which attempts eliminate personal risk, you lose that motivation for production, and the entire economy becomes impoverished.

This is the basic risk involved in living... the risk of not being able to arrange enough food or shelter and dying. Capitalists didn't invent it. It's the risk that motivates people to do 90% of what they do.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 12:25:03 2011 No.2405075 >>2405064 Uh, I think you can get people to work even when their life isn't on the line. People like having stuff other than the bare essentials to survive.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 12:25:03 2011 No.2405079

>>2405011
Your analogy is still shit. Providing a solution to a problem at a price is not threatening someone with that problem, and the alternative is worse. The overall health of the economy benefits from competition and entrepreneurship.

If you want to protect individuals using the government, more power to ya. I'll pay the taxes. Suggesting, however, that the fault of all the problems of the worker is the businessman, however, is ludicrous. Nothing's better for individual prosperity, especially for the skilled and educated.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 12:28:03 2011 No.2405090

>>2404953
>if no one is willing to pay you x for your work, then by definition your work isn't worth x.
Your work is always worth more than x, else the employer wouldn't make a profit. Its exchange value, on the other hand, is indeed its exchange value. What's your point ?
>So you're bothered that other people can do the same work as you for less?
No, I'm bothered by their reasons to work for less.
>your work['s pay] is set by the labor supply and demand.
And the labor supply and demand is set by society and the various agents on that market. For example, the minimum wage laws, or the pressure for short-term profits from shareholders.

>>2404958
>You were criticizing a system based on voluntary exchange of goods and services.
Robbing people is based on a voluntary exchange : the robber sell you your life, and you're willing to pay. An exchange cannot be involuntary. That doesn't change the fact that one can profit of any situation to get a better deal. That's the system I'm criticizing, and that's the real world.
Employers specialize in getting a better deal. That's their work.

>>2404969
There's no pay benefit for risking your life. Like some other post said, the pay is determined by the willingness of the potential workers to risk their lives for this or that amount, and as I added, by the capacity of the employers to control the work market.
Same thing for the retribution of investment : it depends of the respective weight of the investor and the moral or physical person recieving the investment in their deal.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 12:34:03 2011 No.2405109 >>2405075 Ok. Every time you get some extra cash, loan it out at 0% interest. Isn't that what you want? For people to take risks without reward? For 100 dollars now to be 100 dollars in 10 years?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 12:37:03 2011 No.2405115 >>2405109 No inflation? FUCK YEAHZ

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 12:37:03 2011 No.2405117 >>2405090 You keep insisting that your analogy is consistent when we've pointed out the inconsistencies. By the same faulty logic, as I've pointed out, you could say that anyone selling food is committing armed robbery.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 12:38:03 2011 No.2405119 >>2405115 Well, in a world of 0% interest there wouldn't be any inflation, I suppose. Due to the whole "economic collapse into barbarism" thing.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 12:41:03 2011 No.2405129 >>2405117 In the future we will download the food. Recipe creators live off donations. Anyone demanding a "pay" for food gets told to go back to 20th century.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 12:47:03 2011 No.2405145

>>2405026
That's nice of you.

>>2405064
They don't invent much. They organized it.
Of course, risk is a motivation. That only motivates lower-class people, apparently. Why don't we starve all middle and ruling class people to see if they produce more ?
Actually, people work better in better work conditions. American and european workers are notably more productive than chinese workers.

>>2405079
>Providing a solution to a problem at a price is not threatening someone with that problem
Actually it is. Threats of unemployment are a very explicit part of "negociations" of one's salary in many sectors.
>The overall health of the economy benefits from competition and entrepreneurship.
Problem is, there's not much competition between the employers of the lowest income jobs, and entrepreneurship is quite hard to achieve when you're not born rich.

I'm saying that the fault of all the problems is a system, the current one for current problems. This is the system I criticize. Yes, businessmen (I prefer to say employers and/or capitalists, more precise) are an important part of this system, and tend to exploit its problems and to oppose their solutions, and I don't see why I should deny that (if you want, I can add that they get the support of a significant part of the workers on this).

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 12:48:03 2011 No.2405150 Oh look another place to talk about an energy credit based economy with a guaranteed minimum income and a relative value income calculated by societal usage rather than arbitrary price gouging. But I digress: Ayn Rand is great amirite guise?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 12:51:03 2011 No.2405155 If the factory worker hasn't realized this all by himself, he is an imbecile.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 12:58:03 2011 No.2405183

>>2405109
So it's all or nothing, huh ?

>>2405117
And I pointed out the inconsistencies of your remarks. Robbers are not employers nor food vendors (not at the same time, at least). All three profit of a situation they have a hand in, more or less brutally depending of their respective power in this situation. Food vendors, in your country and time, have the least power in regard to the situation of their concern, for robbers and employers, that depends, though. In some extreme (but not rare) cases, employers can get workers to do something a robber couldn't.
But I already said this, what didn't you get ?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 13:00:03 2011 No.2405192 >>2405155 I blame ideology.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 13:37:03 2011 No.2405305
File: 175 KB, 535x798, cerial.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

ITT: OPINIONATED FAGGOTS, OPINIONATED FAGGOTS EVERYWHERE.

Honestly, the amount of ignorance in this thread is sickening. Fuck you and your entitlement centred viewpoint on life. Go read some books on investment, educate yourself on how businesses are run then come back and have a logical discussion.

There's only one rule in this world - he who has the gold rules.
I intend to get my gold rather than sitting around like a faggot romanticising about a utopian workers paradise.

And yes, imad.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 13:42:03 2011 No.2405318 File: 7 KB, 251x241, 1284067929838s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] If somebody in this thread can explain the difference between price and value in market terms, I'll believe that this thread isn't saturated with full on retards.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 13:47:03 2011 No.2405336 >>2405318 The price is the exchange value and the value is some other thing you should precise.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 13:49:03 2011 No.2405341 File: 81 KB, 750x600, Brool-Story-Co.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2405305

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 13:50:03 2011 No.2405344

>>2405305

I hope you have a life devoid of all happiness, you certainly don't care about anyone other than yourself nor do you feel and duty to your fellow man. Plenty of people in here do not understand how economics in our modern world work but in the very least they care about the suffering of fellow members of their species.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 13:53:03 2011 No.2405354 this thread is not economics this thread is what a bunch of people ignorant of economics believe economics is and then a few people educated in economics sprinkled throughout sage for not /sci/ related

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 13:57:03 2011 No.2405358 >>2403976 there's nothing stopping you starting a business with your friends run according to syndicalist principles as a proof of concept. when you've done that, get back to us.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 13:59:03 2011 No.2405364
File: 12 KB, 228x251, 1294435162239.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2405354
This.

>>2405344
Lol. It's obviously much better to sit around bemoaning your existence and bitching about successful people. I'm sure your fellow man appreciates your empathy while you eat canned food and fail to make rent every month.
Why not get involved in the game, make some money and get off your fat ass and do something with it?
Oh, yes. That would involve doing something with your life.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 14:02:03 2011 No.2405375 >>2405358 Touché. Tou-fucking-ché.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 14:05:03 2011 No.2405389

>>2405364

>Implying I don't plan on making a decent living

I just think it's important to be concerned about other people as we are social creatures and depend on eachother for survival. I also think that anyone who believes it is a good idea to completely disregard the lives of other members of their species is an idiot and an asshole.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 14:05:03 2011 No.2405392

In IT there is a cool story called "turnover":They invented a word to blame the worker for not wanting to stay in the company if someone offer higher salary.
They argue that "we have a problem because the demand is higher than the offer of specialized workers".When I grow up, I wanna be an Oil barrel.At least they will think that economic laws would apply to me too.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 14:05:03 2011 No.2405393 investors risk their money with the company. each worker can start his own business if he wants to.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 14:07:03 2011 No.2405403 >>2403976 I've seen that cartoon before and it makes me rage every time. >He's paying you £75 a week to be told to work faster What? That doesn't even follow.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 14:20:03 2011 No.2405463 >>2405403 It does if someone thinks that all value comes from labor like the psychotic and delusional marxists do.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 14:27:03 2011 No.2405495 >>2405393 >>2405358 Actually, competion from large groups and lack of funds are a big obstacle. A lot of people want to start their own business and cannot. As I said, let's talk about the real world instead of your fantasies.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 14:35:03 2011 No.2405511

>>2405358
>there's nothing stopping you starting a business with your friends run according to syndicalist principles as a proof of concept. when you've done that, get back to us.

>>2405495
> Actually, competion from large groups and lack of funds are a big obstacle.

syndicalism still involves competition.
choose a business that doesn't involve much or any startup capital, there are plenty.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 14:37:03 2011 No.2405516 >>2405495 >lack of funds is an obstacle I don't understand the implication. That credit should be more easily distributed? That caused a recent recession you know.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 14:37:03 2011 No.2405517 Jesus christ, it's the first book of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations - "Of the Division of Labour". Read up, then make threads.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 14:42:03 2011 No.2405522

>>2405495
>A lot of people want to start their own business and cannot.

A lot of people want to start their own business and are neither sufficiently qualified nor capable. In general resourcefulness scales with aptitude for business.

I'm going to claim the current system is ideal. It does indeed concentrate wealth where wealth is already plentiful. But making shitty excuses gets you nowhere.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 14:46:03 2011 No.2405533

>>2405522
you've both pointed out the major reasons for a person being unable to start a business.

Too much competition and the market being already controlled by other businesses.

Not having the ability to successfully run a business.

I don't understand why both of these cannot be accepted mutually.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 14:48:03 2011 No.2405537 >>2405533 > I would prove that I'm right, but it's too hard and I can't be bothered.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 14:51:03 2011 No.2405552

>>2405537
...what

What are you talking about? How is it not obvious that those are both reasons?

One cannot start a business if one is a complete idiot and does not understand basic arithmetic.

One will be hard-pressed to start a profitable, say, convenience store, in an area already saturated with Wal-Marts.

>>	Alpharius Mon Jan 24 14:53:03 2011 No.2405557 I think this isn't /new/ and you should go to 4chon with this shit.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 14:55:03 2011 No.2405569 >>2405552 i.e. workers are complete idiots whereas investors are not?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 14:58:03 2011 No.2405581 >>2405516 Credit for buying homes is (was) more readily granted.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 15:04:03 2011 No.2405598

>>2405569

ya. Workers will simply consume money.

Investors will invest. Sometimes well, sometimes not so well.

Why give it to stupid workers lol. All they need is enough money to survive and buy a little entertainment to distract them from the system.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 15:15:03 2011 No.2405624 >>2405598 clearly all they want, otherwise they'd be starting their own businesses.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 15:16:03 2011 No.2405627

So, is this thread drunkenly trying to argue that it's bad to let capitalists make as much money as they can?

Sure, that may be the case. What do you propose instead? A 100% tax bracket after N times minimum wage yearly income? It's all that comes to mind for me.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 15:16:03 2011 No.2405629
File: 105 KB, 374x254, social-mobility.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Capitalism is the best economic system, however much can be done to improve upon it using well-designed public programs.

For example, the European Social Democracies have capitalist economies and free enterprise along with universal health care, free public colleges, laws protecting against anti-competition, and significant investment in R&D. As a result of these two policy viewpoints, their countries have demonstrably increased economic mobility and a better quality of life than the United States.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 15:19:03 2011 No.2405636 File: 133 KB, 700x344, qualityoflifeoecd.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2405629 OECD Quality of Life index.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 15:20:03 2011 No.2405640 File: 85 KB, 413x580, corruptionperceptionindex2009.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Social Democracies are also more democratic and less corrupt than the United States as found by Transparency International's Corruption Index.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 15:21:03 2011 No.2405645 >>2405629 >see my country at the top of that scale >no idea what it means Someone explain please?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 15:22:03 2011 No.2405648 >>2405636 >>2405636 This. Using the GDP as our primary metric has warped our thinking.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 15:23:03 2011 No.2405649
File: 74 KB, 358x424, innovationindex.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2405640
Due to the adjoining of public and free enterprise investing in research and development, Social Democracies have been found to be more innovative by the Global Innovation Index.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 15:28:03 2011 No.2405680 >>2405645 Contemporary Danes improve their economic situation relative to their parents 3 times more than Americans. http://www.economicmobility.org/assets/pdfs/EMP%20American%20Dream%20Report.pdf

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 15:31:03 2011 No.2405690 >>2405569 you're getting conclusions from what I said that I'm not trying to imply. I'm simply giving reasons that could cause anyone to fail at starting a business.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math