|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 28, 2015 4:34:42 GMT
I am seriously trying to imagine how you might suppose, in a capitalistic economy, that it is the responsibility of the business owner to ensure a particular degree of compensation for his (or her) employees. By the way, the $15.00 per hour minimum wage, for which some are pushing, strikes me as totally ludicrous! Yet you are not content with even that: You seem to prefer a $20.00 per hour wage (with the possibility of its becoming a $35.00 per hour wage). I favor government-issued IDs that are free. Why this should result in the immediate “disenfranchise[ment]” of large numbers of voters, I have no idea. To claim that a fetus is only a “potential” person may have once made some sense. But given our understanding nowadays—a fetus can even feel pain by no later than 20 weeks—it seems downright unenlightened to look upon a fetus as a mere blob of tissue.
I claim it's the owner's responsibility because the owner controls the business plan that accounts for all expenditures and revenues. The employee's role is limited to preforming the tasks assigned by the employer and it's the employer's responsibility to ensure that the tasks assigned assigned to the employee result in the necessary revenue to the enterprise.
I know that any enterprise, if properly managed, can provide adequate compensation to the employee, including my $20-$35 per hour payscale, and still provide products/services at fair market value. What I refuse to accept is incompetent management that fails to do this. We expect the employee to do their job so why shouldn't we expect the owner/management to do their job?
In point of fact I accept the fact that prior legal precendent that established the fetus as a "potential person" is in need of change because of our expanding understanding. That still brings forward a paradox because no rights can exist for the fetus that violate the rights of the woman. The woman, for example, does not have any responsibility to involuntarily "feed or house" the fetus. The rights of one person cannot impose an involuntary obligation upon another person. Because of the paradox it is a very complex issue because the woman has rights as a person even if we change legal precedent for the fetus by granting personhood (that can only be accomplished by a Constitutional Amendment in the United States). For example a fetus that is removed intact and without any harm from the woman's body has not had any of it's "rights" violated even if the fetus later dies of natural causes.
I would argue that if we create the circumstances that will inevitably result in someone’s death, then we cannot reasonably claim that we have not violated anyone’s rights; especially since the right to life is the most fundamental of all rights. I simply cannot imagine how it might be the employer’s “responsibility”—or the owner’s (or manager’s) “job”—to pay all employees between $20.00 and $35.00 per hour. That is just not the way that capitalism is supposed to work. (For more on this, you might want to see some of the works of Friedrich Hayek, or his mentor, Ludwig von Mises. Or even the novelist, Ayn Rand.) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 28, 2015 11:55:45 GMT
I would argue that if we create the circumstances that will inevitably result in someone’s death, then we cannot reasonably claim that we have not violated anyone’s rights; especially since the right to life is the most fundamental of all rights. I simply cannot imagine how it might be the employer’s “responsibility”—or the owner’s (or manager’s) “job”—to pay all employees between $20.00 and $35.00 per hour. That is just not the way that capitalism is supposed to work. (For more on this, you might want to see some of the works of Friedrich Hayek, or his mentor, Ludwig von Mises. Or even the novelist, Ayn Rand.)
We need only refer to the criteria of an "inalienable (natural) right" to understand where the line is drawn.
An inalienable (natural) right of the person is inherent in the person, not subject to another person, does not violate the rights of another person, and does not impose an involuntary obligation upon another person.
The fetus cannot impose an involuntary obligation on the woman to provide "shelter" or "food" to the fetus. It might die if the woman does not provide the shelter (of her womb) or the food necessary for it's survival but it doesn't have a "right" to either. The fetus outside of the womb can very well die of natural causes and no one is responsible for the natural death of another person.
Of course as a society we do have a moral obligation that can impose limited infringements upon our Freedom to Exercise our Inalienable Rights. Our government welfare laws are based upon this moral obligation shared by our society because we don't believe people should go hungry, be homeless, or lack medical services. The recepient doesn't have a "right to welfare" but as a society we have the moral obligation to provide it.
Capitalism is supposed to be based upon mutually beneficial contracts that are entered into without any form of coercion. Capitalism is not supposed to be based upon one person taking advantage of someone else.
Both parties to the employment contract are supposed to be responsible for fulfilling their responsibilities under the employment contract so that both benefit (profit) from it. The employee is responsible for performing the tasks assigned to them by the employer. The employer is responsible for the business plan that ensures that the tasks the employee performs generate the revenue so that employee profits from the tasks they perform and once that obligation is fulfilled that the enterprise also profits from the labor of the employee.
Many employers are fulfilling their responsibilities by ensuring that the enterprise generates the revenue necessary for the employee to "profit" from their labor but many other employers are failing in this responsibility that they have. In virtually all cases the employee always fulfills their responsibility to the employer by performing the tasks they are assigned.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 31, 2015 6:40:23 GMT
I would argue that if we create the circumstances that will inevitably result in someone’s death, then we cannot reasonably claim that we have not violated anyone’s rights; especially since the right to life is the most fundamental of all rights. I simply cannot imagine how it might be the employer’s “responsibility”—or the owner’s (or manager’s) “job”—to pay all employees between $20.00 and $35.00 per hour. That is just not the way that capitalism is supposed to work. (For more on this, you might want to see some of the works of Friedrich Hayek, or his mentor, Ludwig von Mises. Or even the novelist, Ayn Rand.)
We need only refer to the criteria of an "inalienable (natural) right" to understand where the line is drawn.
An inalienable (natural) right of the person is inherent in the person, not subject to another person, does not violate the rights of another person, and does not impose an involuntary obligation upon another person.
The fetus cannot impose an involuntary obligation on the woman to provide "shelter" or "food" to the fetus. It might die if the woman does not provide the shelter (of her womb) or the food necessary for it's survival but it doesn't have a "right" to either. The fetus outside of the womb can very well die of natural causes and no one is responsible for the natural death of another person.
Of course as a society we do have a moral obligation that can impose limited infringements upon our Freedom to Exercise our Inalienable Rights. Our government welfare laws are based upon this moral obligation shared by our society because we don't believe people should go hungry, be homeless, or lack medical services. The recepient doesn't have a "right to welfare" but as a society we have the moral obligation to provide it.
Capitalism is supposed to be based upon mutually beneficial contracts that are entered into without any form of coercion. Capitalism is not supposed to be based upon one person taking advantage of someone else.
Both parties to the employment contract are supposed to be responsible for fulfilling their responsibilities under the employment contract so that both benefit (profit) from it. The employee is responsible for performing the tasks assigned to them by the employer. The employer is responsible for the business plan that ensures that the tasks the employee performs generate the revenue so that employee profits from the tasks they perform and once that obligation is fulfilled that the enterprise also profits from the labor of the employee.
Many employers are fulfilling their responsibilities by ensuring that the enterprise generates the revenue necessary for the employee to "profit" from their labor but many other employers are failing in this responsibility that they have. In virtually all cases the employee always fulfills their responsibility to the employer by performing the tasks they are assigned.
To pontificate that a human fetus just "might die" if he (or she) were jerked outside the womb is, well, something of an understatement. In fact, some might even call it disingenuous. Presumably, the employee "benefit " from the arrangement; otherwise, he (or she) should simply quit--or better yet, should never have agreed to the arrangement, in the first place.
It is only according to Marxian doctrine that the prospective employee is "oppressed" into taking a job that is inadequate...
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 31, 2015 12:12:06 GMT
We need only refer to the criteria of an "inalienable (natural) right" to understand where the line is drawn.
An inalienable (natural) right of the person is inherent in the person, not subject to another person, does not violate the rights of another person, and does not impose an involuntary obligation upon another person.
The fetus cannot impose an involuntary obligation on the woman to provide "shelter" or "food" to the fetus. It might die if the woman does not provide the shelter (of her womb) or the food necessary for it's survival but it doesn't have a "right" to either. The fetus outside of the womb can very well die of natural causes and no one is responsible for the natural death of another person.
Of course as a society we do have a moral obligation that can impose limited infringements upon our Freedom to Exercise our Inalienable Rights. Our government welfare laws are based upon this moral obligation shared by our society because we don't believe people should go hungry, be homeless, or lack medical services. The recepient doesn't have a "right to welfare" but as a society we have the moral obligation to provide it.
Capitalism is supposed to be based upon mutually beneficial contracts that are entered into without any form of coercion. Capitalism is not supposed to be based upon one person taking advantage of someone else.
Both parties to the employment contract are supposed to be responsible for fulfilling their responsibilities under the employment contract so that both benefit (profit) from it. The employee is responsible for performing the tasks assigned to them by the employer. The employer is responsible for the business plan that ensures that the tasks the employee performs generate the revenue so that employee profits from the tasks they perform and once that obligation is fulfilled that the enterprise also profits from the labor of the employee.
Many employers are fulfilling their responsibilities by ensuring that the enterprise generates the revenue necessary for the employee to "profit" from their labor but many other employers are failing in this responsibility that they have. In virtually all cases the employee always fulfills their responsibility to the employer by performing the tasks they are assigned.
To pontificate that a human fetus just "might die" if he (or she) were jerked outside the womb is, well, something of an understatement. In fact, some might even call it disingenuous. Presumably, the employee "benefit" from the arrangement; otherwise, he (or she) should simply quit--or better yet, should never have agreed to the arrangement, in the first place. It is only according to Marxian doctrine that the prospective employee is "oppressed" into taking a job that is inadequate...
C-section deliveries are made all of the time where the fetus doesn't die. Once again if the fetus is removed unharmed and intact then whether it dies or not is not the responsibility of the woman.
The employee really doesn't have a choice because "all jobs" they can possibly secure pay inadequate compensation. Roughly 40% of all jobs in America fail to provide a "living wage" to the employee today. 40% of American workers must work for employers that fail to provide a living wage or not work at all. Not working at all is not an option for the vast majority of Americans.
No, it is not "only according to Marxism doctrine" and I don't know where you came up with that fallacy. Even Adam Smith acknowledged that a significant percentage of the workers would not be able to survive on the compensation they received from a "free market" capitalistic economy and would therefore be economically oppressed by capitalism. Virtually all of the advocates for "free market" capitalism openly admit that economic oppression will exist for a significant percentage of the workforce as their advocacy is expressly for the owners of enterprise that profit by under-compensation for the workers.
Once again I seek balance between the worker and the owner where the owner has the "Market" on their side and the worker has "organized labor" on their side. With this balance of power voluntary compensation contracts can be reached between the employers and the employees. Ideally, if this balance of power exists, then fair compensation will be voluntarily achieved and it is mutually beneficial to both the owners and the workers where both earn a profit (i.e. have more income than basic necessary expenditures).
Always remember that if the workers have enough income to meet their basic expenditures then the necessity for government welfare assistance for working Americans, where the vast majority of welfare exists, simply disappears. Anyone that wants to reduce government welfare assistance should be for a liveable wage because that eliminates the compelling arguments for the welfare assistance for those that work for a living. Welfare would be limited to being a safety net for those that cannot work for whatever reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jun 4, 2015 0:21:48 GMT
To pontificate that a human fetus just "might die" if he (or she) were jerked outside the womb is, well, something of an understatement. In fact, some might even call it disingenuous. Presumably, the employee "benefit" from the arrangement; otherwise, he (or she) should simply quit--or better yet, should never have agreed to the arrangement, in the first place. It is only according to Marxian doctrine that the prospective employee is "oppressed" into taking a job that is inadequate...
C-section deliveries are made all of the time where the fetus doesn't die. Once again if the fetus is removed unharmed and intact then whether it dies or not is not the responsibility of the woman.
The employee really doesn't have a choice because "all jobs" they can possibly secure pay inadequate compensation. Roughly 40% of all jobs in America fail to provide a "living wage" to the employee today. 40% of American workers must work for employers that fail to provide a living wage or not work at all. Not working at all is not an option for the vast majority of Americans.
No, it is not "only according to Marxism doctrine" and I don't know where you came up with that fallacy. Even Adam Smith acknowledged that a significant percentage of the workers would not be able to survive on the compensation they received from a "free market" capitalistic economy and would therefore be economically oppressed by capitalism. Virtually all of the advocates for "free market" capitalism openly admit that economic oppression will exist for a significant percentage of the workforce as their advocacy is expressly for the owners of enterprise that profit by under-compensation for the workers.
Once again I seek balance between the worker and the owner where the owner has the "Market" on their side and the worker has "organized labor" on their side. With this balance of power voluntary compensation contracts can be reached between the employers and the employees. Ideally, if this balance of power exists, then fair compensation will be voluntarily achieved and it is mutually beneficial to both the owners and the workers where both earn a profit (i.e. have more income than basic necessary expenditures).
Always remember that if the workers have enough income to meet their basic expenditures then the necessity for government welfare assistance for working Americans, where the vast majority of welfare exists, simply disappears. Anyone that wants to reduce government welfare assistance should be for a liveable wage because that eliminates the compelling arguments for the welfare assistance for those that work for a living. Welfare would be limited to being a safety net for those that cannot work for whatever reason.
Once again, you seem to imply that most Americans working for minimum wage (or thereabouts) are (1) not very young--and therefore, not on the lowest rung of the economic ladder; and (2) stuck in a low-paying job ad infinitum. Why you would imagine that, I have no idea. Oh, and I would be very interested, indeed, to find the chapter of a book (perhaps The Wealth of Nations)--not merely a single sentence, quoted out of context--in which Adam Smith suggested that another economic system is preferable, overall, to capitalism... |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jun 4, 2015 14:08:28 GMT
Once again, you seem to imply that most Americans working for minimum wage (or thereabouts) are (1) not very young--and therefore, not on the lowest rung of the economic ladder; and (2) stuck in a low-paying job ad infinitum. Why you would imagine that, I have no idea. Oh, and I would be very interested, indeed, to find the chapter of a book (perhaps The Wealth of Nations)--not merely a single sentence, quoted out of context--in which Adam Smith suggested that another economic system is preferable, overall, to capitalism...
When I grew up in the 1960's the typical worker at McDonalds was a high school or college student and the average age was probably around 19. Today the average age for a McDonald's employee is 29. When I go to Walmart I see very few young employees under the age of 30. I would suggest studying poverty in America because it spans all age groups.
The fact is that roughly 40% of all jobs don't provide enough income for the person to survive on and 40% of Americans are condemned to live in poverty. There is an underlying problem:
"Since the late 1970s, wages for the bottom 90 percent of American workers have lagged far behind economy-wide productivity growth (a commonly accepted benchmark for wage growth)."
finance.yahoo.com/news/real-root-america-wage-problem-103000382.html
One of the arguments from the "right" is that higher compensation requires increased productivity but we've had the increased productivity without the corresponding increase in compensation and that's been going on for decades.
There is an economic fact that you seem to ignore.
"Sentier Research — which uses Census data to compile monthly income statistics — found that family incomes plummeted more after the recession than during the recession itself, bottoming out in mid-2011.
After that, family incomes started to make a painfully slow climb. But even now, nearly six years after the recession ended, they are still 5% below where they stood at the previous peak in early 2008, just as the recession was starting."
news.investors.com/blogs-capital-hill/042315-749336-median-family-incomes-drop-in-march.htm#ixzz3YJYriSKM
In just a few short years the median income for Americans plummeted by 5% and those jobs are not coming back. They've been replaced with low-paying "service sector" jobs and that problem is worsening. We will continue to see a per capita decline in manufacturing, the mainstay of the US ecomony, because all service sector jobs rely on the production of goods for their existance. The US economy is in crisis and most economists agree with this fact. I'm not alone in seeing it and being concerned.
A good article to read is linked below and I will provide just a sample from it.
"More than half of the current top 50 companies by market cap are "talent-based" like Apple (AAPL) and Google (GOOGL) rather than the resource-heavy corporations of the 1930s. And "a small percentage of that talent is extracting a greater and greater percentage of the value [of those companies], and that's what's driving inequality," says Martin.
But doesn't talent deserve to be rewarded? Yes it does, says Martin, but the question is by how much?
"We have reached a tipping point where talent takes too much," says Martin in the video above. "The median person in the American economy has to be asking: 'When will I start moving ahead again while the top one percent rockets up into space?'"
So who is this talent that Martin says is taking too much for themselves? They're the corporate executives whose compensation is stock-based, which creates incentives for CEOs to cut labor costs; venture capitalists; tech billionaires; and hedge fund managers who create value for themselves rather than the broader economy, he says."
finance.yahoo.com/news/the--talent-based--economy-is-to-blame-for-increasing-income-inequality--university-of-toronto-professor-183339728.html
Those in control are not concerned about creating value for the economy but instead are greedily concerned with only creating value for themselves. This leaves the American worker out of the equation and is resulting in the destruction of the middle class. In 2012, during the recovery, 95% of all increased income in America was funneled into the pockets of the top 1% of income earners leaving virtually nothing left over for working Americans and that's why the median income plummeted.
The American worker is doing what they're supposed to do by creating the wealth. Their productivity is increasing but not the compensation for that productivity. The profits from the productivity is virtually all going to the wealthy with nothing left over for the workers. The middle class that we grew up with is gone and not likely to return unless something is done to change how capitalism works in America. Even some Republicans are starting to admit that the problem exists but they are slow in addressing the cause which has been their favoritism for corporations and investors while supporting legislation that is harmful for the workers. They are very reluctant to admit that it's been right-wing economic agendas that are behind the problem.
There is no logical reason why both the owners of enterprise and the workers for the enterprise cannot share equally in the profits from enterprise. There can be a balance but that balance does not exist today and the workers suffer because of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jun 7, 2015 22:32:16 GMT
Once again, you seem to imply that most Americans working for minimum wage (or thereabouts) are (1) not very young--and therefore, not on the lowest rung of the economic ladder; and (2) stuck in a low-paying job ad infinitum. Why you would imagine that, I have no idea. Oh, and I would be very interested, indeed, to find the chapter of a book (perhaps The Wealth of Nations)--not merely a single sentence, quoted out of context--in which Adam Smith suggested that another economic system is preferable, overall, to capitalism...
When I grew up in the 1960's the typical worker at McDonalds was a high school or college student and the average age was probably around 19. Today the average age for a McDonald's employee is 29. When I go to Walmart I see very few young employees under the age of 30. I would suggest studying poverty in America because it spans all age groups.
The fact is that roughly 40% of all jobs don't provide enough income for the person to survive on and 40% of Americans are condemned to live in poverty. There is an underlying problem:
"Since the late 1970s, wages for the bottom 90 percent of American workers have lagged far behind economy-wide productivity growth (a commonly accepted benchmark for wage growth)."
finance.yahoo.com/news/real-root-america-wage-problem-103000382.html
One of the arguments from the "right" is that higher compensation requires increased productivity but we've had the increased productivity without the corresponding increase in compensation and that's been going on for decades.
There is an economic fact that you seem to ignore.
"Sentier Research — which uses Census data to compile monthly income statistics — found that family incomes plummeted more after the recession than during the recession itself, bottoming out in mid-2011.
After that, family incomes started to make a painfully slow climb. But even now, nearly six years after the recession ended, they are still 5% below where they stood at the previous peak in early 2008, just as the recession was starting."
news.investors.com/blogs-capital-hill/042315-749336-median-family-incomes-drop-in-march.htm#ixzz3YJYriSKM
In just a few short years the median income for Americans plummeted by 5% and those jobs are not coming back. They've been replaced with low-paying "service sector" jobs and that problem is worsening. We will continue to see a per capita decline in manufacturing, the mainstay of the US ecomony, because all service sector jobs rely on the production of goods for their existance. The US economy is in crisis and most economists agree with this fact. I'm not alone in seeing it and being concerned.
A good article to read is linked below and I will provide just a sample from it.
"More than half of the current top 50 companies by market cap are "talent-based" like Apple (AAPL) and Google (GOOGL) rather than the resource-heavy corporations of the 1930s. And "a small percentage of that talent is extracting a greater and greater percentage of the value [of those companies], and that's what's driving inequality," says Martin.
But doesn't talent deserve to be rewarded? Yes it does, says Martin, but the question is by how much?
"We have reached a tipping point where talent takes too much," says Martin in the video above. "The median person in the American economy has to be asking: 'When will I start moving ahead again while the top one percent rockets up into space?'"
So who is this talent that Martin says is taking too much for themselves? They're the corporate executives whose compensation is stock-based, which creates incentives for CEOs to cut labor costs; venture capitalists; tech billionaires; and hedge fund managers who create value for themselves rather than the broader economy, he says."
finance.yahoo.com/news/the--talent-based--economy-is-to-blame-for-increasing-income-inequality--university-of-toronto-professor-183339728.html
Those in control are not concerned about creating value for the economy but instead are greedily concerned with only creating value for themselves. This leaves the American worker out of the equation and is resulting in the destruction of the middle class. In 2012, during the recovery, 95% of all increased income in America was funneled into the pockets of the top 1% of income earners leaving virtually nothing left over for working Americans and that's why the median income plummeted.
The American worker is doing what they're supposed to do by creating the wealth. Their productivity is increasing but not the compensation for that productivity. The profits from the productivity is virtually all going to the wealthy with nothing left over for the workers. The middle class that we grew up with is gone and not likely to return unless something is done to change how capitalism works in America. Even some Republicans are starting to admit that the problem exists but they are slow in addressing the cause which has been their favoritism for corporations and investors while supporting legislation that is harmful for the workers. They are very reluctant to admit that it's been right-wing economic agendas that are behind the problem.
There is no logical reason why both the owners of enterprise and the workers for the enterprise cannot share equally in the profits from enterprise. There can be a balance but that balance does not exist today and the workers suffer because of it.
For openers, I would suggest that what you personally "see" at "Walmart" is merely anecdotal. (If I were to tell you what I "see" there, would that carry any special weight with you?) Your words appear to reflect the belief that we have entered into some "new normal"; and that is a phrase that I simply detest (as I detest the basic theory behind it). Yes, there is one difference between now and, say, the 1960s: Not many people can simply find a manufacturing job that will pay them fairly well, as that sector of the economy is not what it once was. But has the middle class, therefore, simply disappeared? Well, that is certainly not my own experience. You have, however, managed to demonize "CEOs"; "venture capitalists"; "tech billionaires"; and "hedge fund managers"--all boogeymen of the left. Oh, and there actually is a good reason why workers and owners cannot "share equally" in any (possible) profits from an enterprise. It is this: To the best of my knowledge, those workers did not "share equally" in paying the startup costs; and they will not "share equally" in any losses that the business may sustain. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jun 8, 2015 12:30:57 GMT
For openers, I would suggest that what you personally "see" at "Walmart" is merely anecdotal. (If I were to tell you what I "see" there, would that carry any special weight with you?) Your words appear to reflect the belief that we have entered into some "new normal"; and that is a phrase that I simply detest (as I detest the basic theory behind it). Yes, there is one difference between now and, say, the 1960s: Not many people can simply find a manufacturing job that will pay them fairly well, as that sector of the economy is not what it once was. But has the middle class, therefore, simply disappeared? Well, that is certainly not my own experience. You have, however, managed to demonize "CEOs"; "venture capitalists"; "tech billionaires"; and "hedge fund managers"--all boogeymen of the left. Oh, and there actually is a good reason why workers and owners cannot "share equally" in any (possible) profits from an enterprise. It is this: To the best of my knowledge, those workers did not "share equally" in paying the startup costs; and they will not "share equally" in any losses that the business may sustain.
In the 1960's many conditions existed that don't exist today. Let us address a few examples.
* In the 1960's we were in between the point where unions had the highest per capital membership (1954) and when there was the greatest number of union members (1979) while today we have the lowest union membership in 79 years. (Link previously provided) * In the 1960's compensation was increasing with productivity but that fundamentally ended in the early 1970's where we had increasing productivity by the workers but compenstation lagged behind that increase in productivity. (Link previously provided) *In the 1960's less than 35% of all income went to the top 10% of income earners and today that number is around 50% of all income going to the top 10% of income earners. www.businessinsider.com/income-and-wealth-inequality-charts-2015-4?op=1
There isn't a "theory" that we've entered a "new norm" but instead there is statistical evidence establishing that as an economic fact. You might detest that fact but it's still a fact whether you choose to believe it or not.
I don't demonize "CEOs"; "venture capitalists"; "tech billionaires"; and "hedge fund managers" but instead demonize the owners of the enterprises that employ them. Instead of being concerned with the economy of the United States their focus is on individual greed that is harmful to the overall economy. In the end they're digging their own grave but in the meantime the rest of America suffers.
When you mentioned "start-up costs" I virtually rolled on the floor with laughter. Let's look at one major corporation, McDonalds. It was started by Maurice James "Mac" McDonald in 1940 with a single hamburger stand at 1398 North E Street at West 14th Street in San Bernardino, California and while I don't have the exact "start-up cost" we can estimate that it was limited to a few thousand dollars. Today McDonald's generates over $27.5 billion in revenue and profits of $5.5 billion. That expansion of McDonald's was all predicated upon the labor of the workers at McDonald's and was fundamentally unrelated to the very small amount of start-up capital by the McDonald's brothers.
You mention the losses a company might experience but McDonald's also provides an example of why that is a false argument. While it's the workers that generate the $27.5 billion in revenue it's the business plan under the exclusive control of the owners/management that results in the $5.5 billion in profits. It's the owners/managers that assign the tasks to the workers that determined whether the enterprise earns a profit or suffers a loss. The workers are limited to carrying out the tasks they're assigned by the owners/management and not whether the enterprise experiences a profit or loss. The workers should not be responsible for bad management that can result in a loss for the enterprise. If the enterprise doesn't have a profit that's the owner's fault so blame the owner and hold the owner financially responsible for the loss.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jun 10, 2015 20:44:42 GMT
For openers, I would suggest that what you personally "see" at "Walmart" is merely anecdotal. (If I were to tell you what I "see" there, would that carry any special weight with you?) Your words appear to reflect the belief that we have entered into some "new normal"; and that is a phrase that I simply detest (as I detest the basic theory behind it). Yes, there is one difference between now and, say, the 1960s: Not many people can simply find a manufacturing job that will pay them fairly well, as that sector of the economy is not what it once was. But has the middle class, therefore, simply disappeared? Well, that is certainly not my own experience. You have, however, managed to demonize "CEOs"; "venture capitalists"; "tech billionaires"; and "hedge fund managers"--all boogeymen of the left. Oh, and there actually is a good reason why workers and owners cannot "share equally" in any (possible) profits from an enterprise. It is this: To the best of my knowledge, those workers did not "share equally" in paying the startup costs; and they will not "share equally" in any losses that the business may sustain.
In the 1960's many conditions existed that don't exist today. Let us address a few examples.
* In the 1960's we were in between the point where unions had the highest per capital membership (1954) and when there was the greatest number of union members (1979) while today we have the lowest union membership in 79 years. (Link previously provided) * In the 1960's compensation was increasing with productivity but that fundamentally ended in the early 1970's where we had increasing productivity by the workers but compenstation lagged behind that increase in productivity. (Link previously provided) *In the 1960's less than 35% of all income went to the top 10% of income earners and today that number is around 50% of all income going to the top 10% of income earners. www.businessinsider.com/income-and-wealth-inequality-charts-2015-4?op=1
There isn't a "theory" that we've entered a "new norm" but instead there is statistical evidence establishing that as an economic fact. You might detest that fact but it's still a fact whether you choose to believe it or not.
I don't demonize "CEOs"; "venture capitalists"; "tech billionaires"; and "hedge fund managers" but instead demonize the owners of the enterprises that employ them. Instead of being concerned with the economy of the United States their focus is on individual greed that is harmful to the overall economy. In the end they're digging their own grave but in the meantime the rest of America suffers.
When you mentioned "start-up costs" I virtually rolled on the floor with laughter. Let's look at one major corporation, McDonalds. It was started by Maurice James "Mac" McDonald in 1940 with a single hamburger stand at 1398 North E Street at West 14th Street in San Bernardino, California and while I don't have the exact "start-up cost" we can estimate that it was limited to a few thousand dollars. Today McDonald's generates over $27.5 billion in revenue and profits of $5.5 billion. That expansion of McDonald's was all predicated upon the labor of the workers at McDonald's and was fundamentally unrelated to the very small amount of start-up capital by the McDonald's brothers.
You mention the losses a company might experience but McDonald's also provides an example of why that is a false argument. While it's the workers that generate the $27.5 billion in revenue it's the business plan under the exclusive control of the owners/management that results in the $5.5 billion in profits. It's the owners/managers that assign the tasks to the workers that determined whether the enterprise earns a profit or suffers a loss. The workers are limited to carrying out the tasks they're assigned by the owners/management and not whether the enterprise experiences a profit or loss. The workers should not be responsible for bad management that can result in a loss for the enterprise. If the enterprise doesn't have a profit that's the owner's fault so blame the owner and hold the owner financially responsible for the loss.
I am fine with "hold[ing] the owner financially responsible for [any] loss" incurred by his (or her ) business. But since the employees do not share financial responsibility for this loss (and should not, either), they also should not share "equally" in the business's profits, if any. McDonald's is an interesting example; but it is not really emblematic of the startup costs for businesses (which may be rather considerable). Personally, I am very glad that union membership is lower nowadays. Your characterization of (reasonable) self-interest as mere "greed" says a lot about your leftist mindset... |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jun 11, 2015 12:28:41 GMT
I am fine with "hold[ing] the owner financially responsible for [any] loss" incurred by his (or her ) business. But since the employees do not share financial responsibility for this loss (and should not, either), they also should not share "equally" in the business's profits, if any. McDonald's is an interesting example; but it is not really emblematic of the startup costs for businesses (which may be rather considerable). Personally, I am very glad that union membership is lower nowadays. Your characterization of (reasonable) self-interest as mere "greed" says a lot about your leftist mindset...
It is the owner that determines whether the enterprise earns a profit or suffers a loss. The worker merely carries out the tasks the owner (manager) assigns to them and the workers virtually always fulfill their responsibility to the owner. Why aren't you willing to hold the owner responsible for ensuring the enterprise earns a profit so that the employee can survive without assistance from others? That's the owners job but many owners are failing in this responsibility of ownership.
In point of fact McDonald's is the norm and not the exception when it comes to start up costs. In point of fact there is a significant portion of the US economy based upon zero start-up costs. I was reading a story of a family in Texas that has a multi-million dollar annual income and their "start-up" costs were zero. They earn their money for oil leases based upon homesteading of thousands of acres in Texas that cost them virtually zero dollars because the land was given to their family in the 19th Century. There are thousands of farms today that were based upon homesteads where, outside of a small filing fee, there were no start-up costs. Even when you look at the major corporations like Boeing, General Motors, and GE the start-up costs were insignficant when compared to annual income. Both Microsoft and Apple were founded with virtually no start-up costs by the owners. As I recall Bill Gates and Paul Allen borrowed $20,000 to purchase a computer program when Microsoft signed the deal with IBM that created the Microsoft empire. Borrowing really isn't even a "start-up cost" because if the business fails the owners can file for bankruptcy and are ultimately not responsible for the lost money. Borrowing relies on future "labor" to generate the necessary revenue to repay the note.
Excessive greed can exist with either the owner or the worker(s) and it's detrimental to the ultimate success of the economy. There needs to be balance between the owners and the workers but when only market forces exist then there is no balance. The market creates asymetric bargaining power by the owners of enterprise and all to often, based upon their greed, they take excessive profits from the enterprise by under-compensation for labor. The US economy generates more than enough profits for both the owners and the workers but the asymetric bargaining powers of an unopposed market results in an unbalanced division of the profits. It is the root cause of the income inequality that even Republicans are beginning to acknowledge is a serious problem for the US economy. When 95% of the new profits (income) goes to the top 1% (such as we witnessed between 2009 and 2012) there isn't enough left over for the rest of the people to live on.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jun 14, 2015 21:30:19 GMT
I am fine with "hold[ing] the owner financially responsible for [any] loss" incurred by his (or her ) business. But since the employees do not share financial responsibility for this loss (and should not, either), they also should not share "equally" in the business's profits, if any. McDonald's is an interesting example; but it is not really emblematic of the startup costs for businesses (which may be rather considerable). Personally, I am very glad that union membership is lower nowadays. Your characterization of (reasonable) self-interest as mere "greed" says a lot about your leftist mindset...
It is the owner that determines whether the enterprise earns a profit or suffers a loss. The worker merely carries out the tasks the owner (manager) assigns to them and the workers virtually always fulfill their responsibility to the owner. Why aren't you willing to hold the owner responsible for ensuring the enterprise earns a profit so that the employee can survive without assistance from others? That's the owners job but many owners are failing in this responsibility of ownership.
In point of fact McDonald's is the norm and not the exception when it comes to start up costs. In point of fact there is a significant portion of the US economy based upon zero start-up costs. I was reading a story of a family in Texas that has a multi-million dollar annual income and their "start-up" costs were zero. They earn their money for oil leases based upon homesteading of thousands of acres in Texas that cost them virtually zero dollars because the land was given to their family in the 19th Century. There are thousands of farms today that were based upon homesteads where, outside of a small filing fee, there were no start-up costs. Even when you look at the major corporations like Boeing, General Motors, and GE the start-up costs were insignficant when compared to annual income. Both Microsoft and Apple were founded with virtually no start-up costs by the owners. As I recall Bill Gates and Paul Allen borrowed $20,000 to purchase a computer program when Microsoft signed the deal with IBM that created the Microsoft empire. Borrowing really isn't even a "start-up cost" because if the business fails the owners can file for bankruptcy and are ultimately not responsible for the lost money. Borrowing relies on future "labor" to generate the necessary revenue to repay the note.
Excessive greed can exist with either the owner or the worker(s) and it's detrimental to the ultimate success of the economy. There needs to be balance between the owners and the workers but when only market forces exist then there is no balance. The market creates asymetric bargaining power by the owners of enterprise and all to often, based upon their greed, they take excessive profits from the enterprise by under-compensation for labor. The US economy generates more than enough profits for both the owners and the workers but the asymetric bargaining powers of an unopposed market results in an unbalanced division of the profits. It is the root cause of the income inequality that even Republicans are beginning to acknowledge is a serious problem for the US economy. When 95% of the new profits (income) goes to the top 1% (such as we witnessed between 2009 and 2012) there isn't enough left over for the rest of the people to live on.
Again, you are stating (as if it were an undisputed fact) your opinion, that is unsupported by any American court rulings. I refer, specifically, to your assertion that business owners are "failing in this responsibility of ownership." Now you have gone from a single corporation--McDonald's--to "a family in Texas" and "thousands of farms today that were based upon homesteads," in an effort to prove your point as concerning start-up costs. And you act as if filing for bankruptcy is an easy way out--with no penalties involved. Bankruptcy, of course, may lead to much higher interest rates on anything borrowed, for many years to come. It is hardly a "get out of jail free" card. Let me state the matter very simply: I am opposed to anyone's being reduced to unskilled labor permanently. I will repeat that, so that it is unmistakable: I am opposed to anyone's being reduced to unskilled labor permanently.
And a person who does this sort of work, for low wages, for a little while, while still very young, is simply not the object of my sympathy. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jun 15, 2015 11:03:33 GMT
Again, you are stating (as if it were an undisputed fact) your opinion, that is unsupported by any American court rulings. I refer, specifically, to your assertion that business owners are "failing in this responsibility of ownership." Now you have gone from a single corporation--McDonald's--to "a family in Texas" and "thousands of farms today that were based upon homesteads," in an effort to prove your point as concerning start-up costs. And you act as if filing for bankruptcy is an easy way out--with no penalties involved. Bankruptcy, of course, may lead to much higher interest rates on anything borrowed, for many years to come. It is hardly a "get out of jail free" card. Let me state the matter very simply: I am opposed to anyone's being reduced to unskilled labor permanently. I will repeat that, so that it is unmistakable: I am opposed to anyone's being reduced to unskilled labor permanently.
And a person who does this sort of work, for low wages, for a little while, while still very young, is simply not the object of my sympathy.
It is not the responsibility of the courts to determine if the employee or owner fails in their business responsibilities. The employee(s) role is fundamentally limited to performing the tasks assigned to them. It's the owners responsibility to ensure those tasks result in a profit for the employee and the enterprise.
The individual investor does not suffer financial consequences if the corporation goes bankrupt. That's a key advantages for operating an enterprise as a corporation as opposed to a sole proprietorship or partnership.
Basically I've never met any employee that didn't have more skills than were necessary for the job they performed. Now they may not have had specific skills related to tasks there were to be assigned but that's just a matter of training and they always had skills that they were uncompensated for. Basically everyone is "over-qualified" for the positions they hold but might require some training by the owners (an owner responsibility) to perform the tasks they're assigned.
I might have mentioned this before but I can take virtually anyone off of the street and within a week have them generating $100/hr in income to my business. I can do this because they have "skills" and merely require job specific training to generate that revenue to the enterprise based upon the tasks I will assign to them.
It isn't just the young that are forced to work in low paying jobs. Roughly 40% or more of all workers are forced to work in these low paying jobs because they're the only jobs available.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jun 17, 2015 20:13:14 GMT
Again, you are stating (as if it were an undisputed fact) your opinion, that is unsupported by any American court rulings. I refer, specifically, to your assertion that business owners are "failing in this responsibility of ownership." Now you have gone from a single corporation--McDonald's--to "a family in Texas" and "thousands of farms today that were based upon homesteads," in an effort to prove your point as concerning start-up costs. And you act as if filing for bankruptcy is an easy way out--with no penalties involved. Bankruptcy, of course, may lead to much higher interest rates on anything borrowed, for many years to come. It is hardly a "get out of jail free" card. Let me state the matter very simply: I am opposed to anyone's being reduced to unskilled labor permanently. I will repeat that, so that it is unmistakable: I am opposed to anyone's being reduced to unskilled labor permanently.
And a person who does this sort of work, for low wages, for a little while, while still very young, is simply not the object of my sympathy.
It is not the responsibility of the courts to determine if the employee or owner fails in their business responsibilities. The employee(s) role is fundamentally limited to performing the tasks assigned to them. It's the owners responsibility to ensure those tasks result in a profit for the employee and the enterprise.
The individual investor does not suffer financial consequences if the corporation goes bankrupt. That's a key advantages for operating an enterprise as a corporation as opposed to a sole proprietorship or partnership.
Basically I've never met any employee that didn't have more skills than were necessary for the job they performed. Now they may not have had specific skills related to tasks there were to be assigned but that's just a matter of training and they always had skills that they were uncompensated for. Basically everyone is "over-qualified" for the positions they hold but might require some training by the owners (an owner responsibility) to perform the tasks they're assigned.
I might have mentioned this before but I can take virtually anyone off of the street and within a week have them generating $100/hr in income to my business. I can do this because they have "skills" and merely require job specific training to generate that revenue to the enterprise based upon the tasks I will assign to them.
It isn't just the young that are forced to work in low paying jobs. Roughly 40% or more of all workers are forced to work in these low paying jobs because they're the only jobs available.
No, low-skill jobs are certainly not "the only jobs available" in America. Not by a long shot! Who said anything about "the individual investor...suffer[ing] financial consequences" due to a corporation's bankruptcy? I merely pointed out that if an individual files for bankruptcy, then he (or she) can expect to pay higher interest rates on any money borrowed in the future; and for quite awhile. If it is "not the responsibility of the courts" to determine business owners' "responsibilities," then whose responsibility is it, exactly, to make that determination? Yours? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jul 3, 2015 12:06:15 GMT
It is not the responsibility of the courts to determine if the employee or owner fails in their business responsibilities. The employee(s) role is fundamentally limited to performing the tasks assigned to them. It's the owners responsibility to ensure those tasks result in a profit for the employee and the enterprise.
The individual investor does not suffer financial consequences if the corporation goes bankrupt. That's a key advantages for operating an enterprise as a corporation as opposed to a sole proprietorship or partnership.
Basically I've never met any employee that didn't have more skills than were necessary for the job they performed. Now they may not have had specific skills related to tasks there were to be assigned but that's just a matter of training and they always had skills that they were uncompensated for. Basically everyone is "over-qualified" for the positions they hold but might require some training by the owners (an owner responsibility) to perform the tasks they're assigned.
I might have mentioned this before but I can take virtually anyone off of the street and within a week have them generating $100/hr in income to my business. I can do this because they have "skills" and merely require job specific training to generate that revenue to the enterprise based upon the tasks I will assign to them.
It isn't just the young that are forced to work in low paying jobs. Roughly 40% or more of all workers are forced to work in these low paying jobs because they're the only jobs available.
No, low-skill jobs are certainly not "the only jobs available" in America. Not by a long shot! Who said anything about "the individual investor...suffer[ing] financial consequences" due to a corporation's bankruptcy? I merely pointed out that if an individual files for bankruptcy, then he (or she) can expect to pay higher interest rates on any money borrowed in the future; and for quite awhile. If it is "not the responsibility of the courts" to determine business owners' "responsibilities," then whose responsibility is it, exactly, to make that determination? Yours?
I'm not a fan of the term "low skilled jobs" because all jobs require skills. All jobs require specialized training but the person has to bring many skills to any job that they're employed at. What we do have are tens of millions of low paying jobs that, regardless of skills, people are forced to accept because they cannot live without a job. A person's skills have no meaning when the only job they can obtain is a low paying job.
Yes, a high income investor that declares personal bankruptcy may, but not always, have to pay higher interests rates to borrow money in the future but they almost always pay a lower interest rate than a low income worker that has never declared bankruptcy.
In point of fact I do believe that the courts should address the inherent responsibilities of both the worker and the employer in the "employment contract" as a "general condition" of the contract as established below.
Terms and conditions that set the rights and obligations of the contracting parties, when a contract is awarded or entered into. These include 'general conditions' which are common to all types of contracts, as well as 'special conditions' which are peculiar to a specific contract (such as, contract change conditions, payment conditions, price variation clauses, penalties).
Read more: www.businessdictionary.com/definition/conditions-of-contract.html#ixzz3epRiSn9E
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jul 5, 2015 21:22:29 GMT
No, low-skill jobs are certainly not "the only jobs available" in America. Not by a long shot! Who said anything about "the individual investor...suffer[ing] financial consequences" due to a corporation's bankruptcy? I merely pointed out that if an individual files for bankruptcy, then he (or she) can expect to pay higher interest rates on any money borrowed in the future; and for quite awhile. If it is "not the responsibility of the courts" to determine business owners' "responsibilities," then whose responsibility is it, exactly, to make that determination? Yours? I'm not a fan of the term "low skilled jobs" because all jobs require skills. All jobs require specialized training but the person has to bring many skills to any job that they're employed at. What we do have are tens of millions of low paying jobs that, regardless of skills, people are forced to accept because they cannot live without a job. A person's skills have no meaning when the only job they can obtain is a low paying job.
Yes, a high income investor that declares personal bankruptcy may, but not always, have to pay higher interests rates to borrow money in the future but they almost always pay a lower interest rate than a low income worker that has never declared bankruptcy.
In point of fact I do believe that the courts should address the inherent responsibilities of both the worker and the employer in the "employment contract" as a "general condition" of the contract as established below.
Terms and conditions that set the rights and obligations of the contracting parties, when a contract is awarded or entered into. These include 'general conditions' which are common to all types of contracts, as well as 'special conditions' which are peculiar to a specific contract (such as, contract change conditions, payment conditions, price variation clauses, penalties).
Read more: www.businessdictionary.com/definition/conditions-of-contract.html#ixzz3epRiSn9E
Whereas you are certainly free to disagree with the federal courts (I sometimes disagree with their rulings), it may tell you something that they have never even thought to rule on this matter. Perhaps that is because it is quite unusual for any American to think of mere employment as a type of "contract law." And it is not only "low income worker " who have declared bankruptcy. Not by a long shot.
More than one-third of one's FICO score is determined by one's credit history (including bankruptcy): www.myfico.com/crediteducation/whatsinyourscore.aspx
|
|
