 |
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
The price of production has nothing to do with peoples compensation. The worker only recieves a portion of that price. The portion that he recieves has nothing to do with the price of the thing or service produced.
|
If that is the case, then why is it that in the aggregate, the income division between labour and capital stays at roughly 80:20? If the value added, expressed in prices, has nothing to do with it, shouldn't there be change over time?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
 |
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by obiwan18
Kidicious:
Define productivity as the ability to create wealth within a society. Unproductive workers may earn money, but they do not help others earn money. Productive workers help other people earn money, by hiring them, and by taking on risks.
|
All wealth comes from labor. It's just that simple. You can do your job productively or you can be slow, but everything is produced through work.
quote:
Originally posted by obiwan18
Look at it this way. As an employee, the only stake you have in your company if it fails is your job. The owner has likely invested a substantial portion of his livelihood, oftentimes in a small business, their house.
|
What does this have to do with production. Can't you see that to individual has to take a risk for production to occur. The capitalist is simply not even needed, so why do you say that he is the most productive.
quote:
Originally posted by obiwan18
Finally, the more educated the worker becomes, the more likely her or she is to become a more productive worker. This education represents an investment not needed for a less productive worker.
|
Education can make you productive, but what about job experience. Sometimes education is necessary, but it's job experience that really makes a worker productive.
quote:
Originally posted by obiwan18
Now, it seems fair to me to compensate the productive workers for the risks that they have to take, in the business, in acquiring the training, and for the duty they provide to the public. |
Back to the risks that productive workers take? Working is one thing, but most business owners hire others to do the work. The owners usually do a small portion of the work if any.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
DAVOUT
|
 |
AUERSTADT
Jun 2002
time: 05:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
'Decides' on the project, 'undertakes' the project, what is the diference that you are trying to clear up. How does this make the person who 'undertakes' the project a worker.
No, organizing labor is not producing something. Its' just what it is. Of course, we need organization, but it's not work. |
Analytically, the capitalist has money waiting. The entrepreneur, for whatever reasons, wants to build, to grow, to produce, to manufacture something. Because his project is expected to produce a fair return, the entrepreneur convinces the capitalist to invest his money. They are different persons, differently motivated.
If the capitalist has no chance to get a return, he will not invest, and the project will not live. Sometimes, but not often, the capitalist and the entrepreneur are the same person, but not often because both jobs require different qualities.
The end is that the wealth created by the project must be shared between the capitalist, the entrepreneur, and the workers, because all of them are indispensable to the creation of wealth.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
You mean the price of production. Value can be determined many ways, but price can only mean one thing. The price of production has nothing to do with peoples compensation. The worker only recieves a portion of that price. The portion that he recieves has nothing to do with the price of the thing or service produced. |
I'm not talking "value" as an esoteric econobabble concept. I'm talking agreed value in the marketplace. 
quote:
No they didn't. That's what I'm talking about, compensating those who are doing the work. A regressive compenstion system taxes these people. I want people who work to be compensated.
|
OK, so if I stand with an orange vest around holding a "Slow" sign where there's some road construction, I'm "doing the work" and contributing to the economy, but if I'm inventing software technologies and managing a bunch of engineers, I'm not. Whatever, comrade.
quote:
Well here's your attitude in a nutshell. You aren't talking about policy which benefits everyone. You're talking about policy that will benefit an elite class.
|
There is no such thing as a policy that benefits everyone. That's a fallacy. Especially forced wealth transfers. Like the old joke about FDR and Moses.  Nobody is "entitled" to a certain standard of living just because they feel like it. I'm not referring to taking care of people with disabilities, those already retired (elderly poor) etc., who can't do anything about their situation. I'm talking about (theoretically) capable people who can make hard choices.
As for a policy that benefits an elite class, that's a joke. If you want that, then lets abolish income taxes entirely, and fund the government strictly on VAT. In a good income year, I pay more in taxes of all kinds than a couple of statistically average families of four make in gross income. I don't consume more in government services, in fact, I consume less. (especially living outside the US). So I'm already subsidizing government services for other people. So much for "benefitting an elite class"
quote:
The thing is that you do have to care, because these are the people who buy things. They are the ones who make the profits. Without profits the whole system breaks.
|
If I make consumer products, I have to care to some extent, however, if some wise, benevolent socialist type decides to raise minimum wage to $30.00 an hour, and the price of a McDonald's hamburger goes up to $10.00, so much for extra profit and spending power.
The system breaks if you have an oversupply of labor and laissez faire economic policies that let employers pay however little they want and essentially get away with it.
The system does not break as it is in the US currently.
quote:
They need to 'better' themselves? Yuck! You really do think you're superior don't you? |
You're so easy to troll. Let me put it this way. You (generic "you" not "you" personally) work on that road construction site, holding that little sign that says "slow" on one side and "stop" on the other for minimum wage. Your job options are to maybe see if you can get on with a union contractor, since laborer's union scale is a couple of bucks above minimum wage. Maybe, if you hang with the job, your big break will come and you can fill the dirt back in ditches with a shovel. Maybe one day they'll let you clean the tracks on the backhoe.
Or, you can decide that's a dead-end, and you really want to do something else with your life. Ever think of that? There's nothing glorious and noble about doing half-assed, dead-end, low paid jobs. If somebody decides that's all they want to do with their life, fine for them, but don't go whining to me about how you don't get paid well. If somebody decides they don't want to do that the rest of their life, but they don't want to bother training or educating themselves to do something better, then don't go whining to me either. They earn their money, I earn mine.
I've done my time doing minimum wage **** jobs. I decided that wasn't my goal in life, but I sure as hell didn't look to the government to throw some extra money at me.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-06-2003 11:56
|