-=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- (c) WidthPadding Industries 1987 0|573|0 -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=-
SoCoder -> Link Home -> Misc

 
Afr0
Created : 03 November 2010
 

Profits, worker-control



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGS96J8la1s

View on YouTube

A video that talks about the evils of capitalism, the effect it has for workers, and the alternatives.

 

Comments
Wednesday, 03 November 2010, 15:06
JL235
 		The people who started the business did the hard work, they started it up and put it all together. So they deserve the profits!
Wednesday, 03 November 2010, 17:09
Afr0
 		The business wouldn't exist without the workers though, and they are the ones doing the hard work (even if the capitalists did some work to actually start the business).
At least there is an alternative, and this video informs you about that, even if you do not neccessarily think it is a better alternative.
Wednesday, 03 November 2010, 17:39
Mog
 		There's a lot really there- Like the reason why the company gets half the cake is Liability purposes, operation costs for keeping you, the employee, up, and so on. SO you have to ask yourself - Stand under an umbrella someone else controls, or weather the storm yourself?

Some can do it, some can't. I understand that a lot of this isn't pointing out the simple Owner-Worker hierarchy, but unfair profit margins that cut into employee wages, but some of it's justifiable. But hey, such is life! If you don't like working for sucky people, do it yourself or find a better job elsewhere.
Thursday, 04 November 2010, 05:31
Afr0
Stand under an umbrella someone else controls, or weather the storm yourself?


If you weathered the storm yourself, you'd be as bad as the next capitalist! Nope, instead of weathering the storm yourself, gather your comrades and start a cooperative!
Thursday, 04 November 2010, 05:58
Mog
 		There's a few companies here that started that- one of those 'Equal control' companies, although i wonder how far down the line this equality can travel?
Thursday, 04 November 2010, 06:02
JL235
 		I just watched through the video for the first time. I believe it's argument is flawed in several ways.

First: Audun rightly only deserves a small percentage of the profits from the 'cake' he made because much of the cake is produced by others. Buying parts, other workers, delivery men delivering those parts and so on. They have their own cakes which they deserved to be paid for in return for helping Arudn produce his.

Second: They say the people at the top only makes decisions to benefit themselves. This is a failing, but not a failing of capitalism. It is a failure of good business strategy. A lack of long-term investment in both company and workforce damages the business in the long term (you always need new products, teams and more training to be prepared for the future).

Third: many large corporations (like Google) only succeeded due to early investment. Investors put millions of dollars of their own money on the line because of the potential rewards. If there were no large profits to be made then they wouldn't invest in creating hundreds/thousands of jobs for people. In short greed drives people to make jobs because it'll earn them more money.

Fourth: their example with Audun as an electrician is fundamentally flawed. Most electricians are self employed (it's one of the few sectors where small businesses thrive); not employed by large conglomerates at the video suggests. Those who aren't self-employed are typically: in training, not economically-stable/confident enough to do it alone or are actually working freelance on a long-term contract (and so are actually self employed). Being a self employed electrician also earns quite a decent living, especially in places like London.

Finally: no capitalism no WoW. End of.

|edit| Corrected misspelled name. |edit|
Thursday, 04 November 2010, 10:08
Afr0
Fourth: their example with Ardun as an electrician is fundamentally flawed. Most electricians are self employed (it's one of the few sectors where small businesses thrive); not employed by large conglomerates at the video suggests. Those who aren't self-employed are typically: in training, not economically-stable/confident enough to do it alone or are actually working freelance on a long-term contract (and so are actually self employed). Being a self employed electrician also earns quite a decent living, especially in places like London.


This may be a very Norwegian thing (given we're only 4,7 million people in a country that could support twice as large a population), but I know the guy in the video. It's not uncommon for electricians to work for capitalists here, unfortunately.
I'm all for starting your own company/business, so long as you're the only employee. Any more and the profits should be shared between everyone equally.

Also his name is Audun not 'Ardun'.
Also the video clearly states that operation and material costs are part of the cake, but that doesn't really take away from the fact that the profits that are generated by workers are controlled by the capitalist.
Thursday, 04 November 2010, 10:27
Stealth
 		This video was obviously made by someone who has zero experience running a business. As someone who has studied it, let me explain why Audun doesn't get to keep everything.

First of all, the "boss" or guy running the operation who makes the big bucks has gotten there most of the time by hard work. They either started the business and painstakingly got it where it is today, or they started as an entry level employee and worked their way up the ladder. Either way, they worked hard to be in the position they are in and their paycheck is well deserved.

Here is why this argument is based on zero real facts. Businesses have very high operating costs. In fact, America's competitive economy can cut profits very thin. You have to factor in taxes (which alone can cost upwards of 40% of the pie), book keepers have to be paid, the boss making the big bucks is typically finding clients for Audun, the boss has to negotiate work, the company has to be advertised, and so on. There is very little remaining once all is said and done. The boss takes very little of the pie you'll find. There is no greed here, it's just how businesses realistically operate.

If you're trying to suggest that socialism is better, then think again. Capitalism isn't a perfect system, but socialism has far more cons than pros which makes it extremely undesirable. Socialism stifles innovation and competition. This results in a sluggish to progress economy and higher prices. At the end of the day, capitalism represents freedom in every sense and I fully support that. You are free in America's economy to work anywhere you want, charge whatever you'd like, and create whatever product you'd like. Yet, you're bound by the consumer, which causes business owners to think sensibly, create new and interesting products, and price things competitively.

In fact, in a capitalistic society, Audun can quit working for the "big man" today and go start his own business. He doesn't even have to wait. He can do it today if he'd like.
Thursday, 04 November 2010, 10:48
Afr0
the boss making the big bucks is typically finding clients for Audun


the company has to be advertised


This is simply not true or very unnecessary. If a business is advertized properly, clients will come right away. Typically the capitalist will have one or several people on the payroll involved in marketing. Ideally you should have regular clients before starting a business.
I'm not really against starting businesses, but they should be cooperatives, not 'ordinary' businesses!

Wikipedia has a giant article on cooperatives!

The article says, amongst other things;

'In the Anglosphere, post-feudal forms of cooperation between workers and owners, that are expressed today as "profit-sharing" and "surplus sharing" arrangements, existed as far back as 1795.'

'A cooperative is a legal entity owned and democratically controlled by its members. Members often have a close association with the enterprise as producers or consumers of its products or services, or as its employees.'

'Cooperatives are based on the cooperative values of "self-help, self-responsibility, democracy and equality, equity and solidarity" and the seven cooperative principles.
Voluntary and Open Membership
Democratic Member Control
Member Economic Participation
Autonomy and Independence
Education, Training and Information
Cooperation among Cooperatives
Concern for Community'
Thursday, 04 November 2010, 11:10
Stealth
Ideally you should have regular clients before starting a business.


This is a really silly and unrealistic statement. Restaurants do not have clients before they open. Nor do a lot of businesses.


I'm not really against starting businesses, but they should be cooperatives, not 'ordinary' businesses!


Why do you want to force your ideals upon people? Why can't your country simply be capitalist and free? In capitalism, I can form a business and you can form a cooperative and we're all happy. This is the idea of freedom.


It really bothers me when people try to force their ideals upon other people. Leave the system free and let us all do our own thing. That is the best case for everything generally.
Thursday, 04 November 2010, 11:13
JL235
 		My apologies for getting Audun's name wrong; it's now corrected.

I don't fully agree that capitalism automatically associates itself with freedom, but I do fully agree that it helps to promote development.

China is a perfect example of this. Since opening up their economy to promote more capitalist ideals the country has boomed. As a result they take more people out of poverty in their own country then the rest of the world does for Africa. Taking people out of poverty is a good thing!

Secondly over the last century there have been numerous economic catastrophes under socialist regimes (USSR, China and [url=North Korea). There have been terrible down turns under capitalist systems too, but they resulted in mass redundancies rather then mass famines.
Thursday, 04 November 2010, 11:21
Afr0
Why do you want to force your ideals upon people? Why can't your country simply be capitalist and free? In capitalism, I can form a business and you can form a cooperative and we're all happy. This is the idea of freedom.


It really bothers me when people try to force their ideals upon other people. Leave the system free and let us all do our own thing. That is the best case for everything generally.


I'm not forcing my ideals upon anyone. In a perfect world, everyone would be working in cooperatives. Unfortunately I realize that there are still some self-hating bastards out there who'd love to work for a capitalist.
However I'm all for informing people that there are alternatives!

Edit: The USSR doesn't constitute an economic catastrophy!
There are still people in Russia and other countries who were better off when they were under the USSR.
In fact, my uncle recently married a woman from Ukraine, who's now my aunt. She said that her mother used to say that 'Under the USSR we had lots of money but not alot to choose from. Now we can buy whatever we want, but we have no money to buy it with!'
Thursday, 04 November 2010, 11:23
Stealth
 		If you just want to support this concept, then it doesn't really bother me. I'm just saying that capitalism supports these ideas.

Capitalism isn't evil, executives are. Blame them, not the free system.
Thursday, 04 November 2010, 15:00
JL235
Afr0 Edit: The USSR doesn't constitute an economic catastrophy!
One of the reasons why the USSR ended was because it essentially ran out of money.
Thursday, 04 November 2010, 15:36
HoboBen
 		Nitpick - North Korea, China and the USSR weren't socialist except in name. In its early years, the USSR had a tremendously powerful economy.

I can understand the argument that some people work hard to set up a business and could be argued to deserve a bigger pay check. But if you look at a company like Nike, the CEO's 2008 salary was $7.6 million (source: ref #4 here, but it's currently not loading I can't double check it).

This has two problems:

1) Who the hell needs 7.6 million a year?
2) Nike's profits are in no small part because of their use of child labour and cheap foreign sweat shop labour

Is the CEO really worth 7.6 million in this case? Surely the work force is being exploited?
Thursday, 04 November 2010, 15:53
JL235
HoboBen 1) Who the hell needs 7.6 million a year?
2) Nike's profits are in no small part because of their use of child labour and cheap foreign sweat shop labour

There are plenty of larger and more profitable international businesses which pride themselves on having a long and fair track record. So this is not applicable to capitalism in general. Exploitation is wrong, I fully agree with your here.

But Nike's CEO only needs to raise their profits by just 0.5% to pay for his own salary. That, and the fact it ensures they have the best CEO, justifies his salary.
Thursday, 04 November 2010, 16:47
Afr0
One of the reasons why the USSR ended was because it essentially ran out of money.


No it didn't, it was disbanded by the traitor Boris Jeltsin!
That said, I tend to agree with Hobo that the USSR wasn't socialist except in name. At least after Stalin rose to power.

That, and the fact it ensures they have the best CEO, justifies his salary.


I don't buy this. Why should you get that kind of a salary just because you're a CEO? You can't even educate yourself to become a CEO! It's just... something you're chosen for. By the shareholders! I wouldn't mind it if the workers were shareholders with equal shares, but they're not!

This is a really silly and unrealistic statement. Restaurants do not have clients before they open. Nor do a lot of businesses.


Notice I said 'ideally'. It really depends how much startup capital the business has.
Friday, 05 November 2010, 05:28
JL235
Afr0 I don't buy this. Why should you get that kind of a salary just because you're a CEO? You can't even educate yourself to become a CEO! It's just... something you're chosen for.
You train for it through corporate experience and success. Typically all major CEOs (regardless of how good or bad their current record might be) have managed to make a previous business they have run into a huge success. That's why they are picked.
Friday, 05 November 2010, 06:18
Afr0
That's why they are picked.


It's still not a democratic vote though, which, for me, is the core of the problem.
Friday, 05 November 2010, 07:20
JL235
Afr0 It's still not a democratic vote though, which, for me, is the core of the problem.
They are picked by the guys who own the company, the people who put their money on the line for the company to be run. That sounds democratic to me.
Friday, 05 November 2010, 08:46
Afr0
They are picked by the guys who own the company, the people who put their money on the line for the company to be run. That sounds democratic to me.


They're not the ones creating the profits though. That brings us back to the beginning of the discussion.
Friday, 05 November 2010, 09:59
JL235
Afr0 They're not the ones creating the profits though. That brings us back to the beginning of the discussion.
The implication from this (as I read it) is that the upper management does nothing (hence why they don't create profits).

The reality is that in any serious company this is simply untrue. They aren't the ones doing the grunt work, but they are the ones working out the future strategy of the company as a whole. They are the ones who work out which market they should enter next, why and how. They evangelise the company helping to make it attractive for more investment (which allows them to do more).

Examples: regardless of what you think of them Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, Steve Jobs, the Google guys and many more have clearly marked their stamp on their companies and made them hugely successful.
Friday, 05 November 2010, 14:37
Stealth
Afr0 I don't buy this. Why should you get that kind of a salary just because you're a CEO? You can't even educate yourself to become a CEO! It's just... something you're chosen for. By the shareholders! I wouldn't mind it if the workers were shareholders with equal shares, but they're not!


It's not fair. However, this is a free economy. It's the beauty of our system. If you decide you want to be CEO and make $7.6 million dollars then do it. Nobody is going to stop you.

Likewise, if you hate the CEO making that much money then (1) don't buy products from that company and/or (2) don't work for that company. Consumers vote every single day with how they spend their money.

It's freedom Afr0. Freedom doesn't mean fair, but it means you have the option to do anything you please (including working for the big man or being the big man). Life isn't fair, but freedom gives everyone a chance.

You have no right to tell that CEO he isn't allowed to make $7.6 million dollars for the same reason that I have no right to tell you how to live your life. Making the government tell people how to live their lives is uncalled for and an abuse of the government.
Friday, 05 November 2010, 17:34
Afr0
The implication from this (as I read it) is that the upper management does nothing (hence why they don't create profits).


Actually I'm going to correct myself somewhat here. The upper manager(s) are part of creating the profits. Ergo they deserve money. The same money as everyone else!
I don't buy the idea that initial investment(s) automatically qualifies for a several million dollar paycheck. Or even several hundred thousand dollars. Besides, the initial investments should be made by everyone.
New workers, whether they work 'up' or 'downstairs', should have to work for x amount of months to earn their share of stocks in the company. Since everyone are owners, they are equally interested in the business going smoothly. This makes sense.
Friday, 05 November 2010, 17:44
JL235
Afr0 I don't buy the idea that initial investment(s) automatically qualifies for a several million dollar paycheck. Or even several hundred thousand dollars. Besides, the initial investments should be made by everyone.
An employee expects to be given money in return for work. No money and they work elsewhere. So putting actual cash on the table, risking it to be lost, that takes real commitment.

Plus the toughest part of a business is at the beginning.

I also think Stealth's opinion about 'freedom' is actually better then mine. The fact is you can go and start your co-operative under a free market. Your free to disregard all of my opinions and do the exact opposite. That is far more freedom then you get under socialist (typically state controlled) economies.
Friday, 05 November 2010, 17:50
Afr0
Making the government tell people how to live their lives is uncalled for and an abuse of the government.


No!

We have this problem in Norway now, because some assholes looked to you Americans and figured "Hey! Let's do it they way they do it! That'll solve everything!"
The result is that kindergartens and even hospitals have been privatized. What happens is that they offer cheaper alternatives, so that municipalities are more likely to select them when they need to build a new kindergarten or hospital.
The problems with this are so many that I can only begin to point out a few;

  • The private companies hire cheap Polish workers to build their buildings, meaning more moonlighting and less work for Norwegian construction workers!

  • The private companies force down the wages and increase the maximum number of hours that personell need to work each week. Oftentimes people are forced to work extra with no pay.

  • The private companies are usually subsidiaries of foreign company-chains owned by stockmarket traders. They end up with all the profits, and most of the money transacted end up outside of Norway.

    All this to ensure people have the freedom to choose 'better' alternatives!!!
    • Friday, 05 November 2010, 18:13
    JL235
         		You shouldn't employ people, or give them higher wages out of charity. It's demeaning and leads to long term issues.

    For example one of the jobs with the highest rate of suicide in the US was at a car manufacturer. The positions in this example existed solely out of a union deal, so the workers were required to come into work but literally had no work to do. Lots of the workers in the department suffered from severe depression as a result.

    Afr0 The private companies hire cheap Polish workers to build their buildings, meaning more moonlighting and less work for Norwegian construction workers!

    Foreign labour is typically at a very high quality. I expect it's because the only people interested are those who are willing to move to a foreign country solely in the name of work. I am descended from a Polish immigrant and have gone abroad for work, so I can vouch that it's not a trivial thing to do and have lots of respect for my fellow Poles.

    Besides why would it be right to keep an inferior service in power? This damages the consumer (they have to pay more), the government (they have to pay more) and the competition (as they have a disadvantage). So maybe it's Norwegian construction companies that need to change in order to gain an edge over their Polish counterparts.

    I personally believe in hiring the best person for the job, regardless of nationality. If a foreign worker is willing to do more at a lower price (and they are not being exploited) then they deserve to be given the work.
    Friday, 05 November 2010, 18:26
    Stealth
    Afr0 result is that kindergartens and even hospitals have been privatized. What happens is that they offer cheaper alternatives, so that municipalities are more likely to select them when they need to build a new kindergarten or hospital.


    You know why it's cheaper? Because private businesses operate more efficiently and cheaper than governments. If you were in charge, hospitals and kindergartens would be too expensive for your citizens to afford and you would drive your citizens bankrupt. Private businesses kick ass, thats why people choose them.

    There is this stupid concept that if the CEO made a normal paycheck, the entry level employees would get a huge raise. This isn't true. They would make a small amount more.

    The last thing I would like to mention: Governments are terrible at running things. Everything our government is in control of is shitty and expensive.

    I don't not believe everyone should be forced to be equal. If rich CEOs didn't exist and you could never make more money, there would be no motivation in the workforce. Huge profits drive companies to try harder and be more innovative. It drives employees to excel and work their way up the chain. If anything, the huge CEO paycheck is motivation to their employees to excel.
    Saturday, 06 November 2010, 13:40
    Afr0
    You shouldn't employ people, or give them higher wages out of charity. It's demeaning and leads to long term issues.

    For example one of the jobs with the highest rate of suicide in the US was at a car manufacturer. The positions in this example existed solely out of a union deal, so the workers were required to come into work but literally had no work to do. Lots of the workers in the department suffered from severe depression as a result.


    This has nothing to do with charity! This has to do with the fact that most of the Poles who come here are immigrants with only a temporary amount of time they are allowed to stay. Some are even illegal altogether!
    So they work here for a certain amount of time and then they travel home.
    The issue is that in Poland, you can get looooooooots more for a looooooooot less, so even when they earn less than 50% of what a Norwegian construction worker does, that's a fortune for them!
    But no Norwegian construction workers can work for those kinds of wages, because the living costs are waaaaaaayyy higher in Norway. This means many Norwegian construction workers are simply not hired, and are forced out of work.
    The construction business isn't the only business where this has happened.
    This creates social problems in that we get a lower class of foreign workers doing the 'dirty' jobs, the number of jobs available to Norwegians are lowered, racism is slowly but gradually nurtured etc.etc.

    I personally believe in hiring the best person for the job, regardless of nationality. If a foreign worker is willing to do more at a lower price (and they are not being exploited) then they deserve to be given the work.


    That's the thing though - these workers are being exploited - but then they're not!

    Oh yeah and as for the living costs in Norway - foreign workers oftentimes live in temporary barracks and off of foodscraps.
    Saturday, 06 November 2010, 13:46
    Afr0
    I don't not believe everyone should be forced to be equal. If rich CEOs didn't exist and you could never make more money, there would be no motivation in the workforce.


    Just because everyone has an equal stake in a company doesn't mean that they can't earn more money! If everyone worked harder together then the business would be better and people would earn more.
    I.E if profits are shared equally, everytime the profits were raised, so would the salaries be raised! And since everyone has an equal stake in the company, everyone would be interested in success.
    These rules would apply even if there were no 'traditional' businesses in a given country - at all!
    Saturday, 06 November 2010, 19:37
    Stealth
    I.E if profits are shared equally, everytime the profits were raised, so would the salaries be raised! And since everyone has an equal stake in the company, everyone would be interested in success.


    This is stupid. Not all jobs are equal and some people should make more than others. If you've ever been in the corporate world, you'd understand the hierarchy and the system.
    Sunday, 07 November 2010, 04:42
    mindstorm8191
         		Wow, so much talk in such a short timeframe. Let me throw my two cents in.

    My dad once told me a story about this guy he knew from USSR. He wanted a car, and he'd do anything to get one. So he saved up his money for years, and finally got his car, and he was proud. But the government said he didn't need a car, and so they came and took it. What about all that hard work and money? Well... too bad.

    Under the USSR, the government chose what job each person worked. They decided everyone's salary. It didn't matter if people were no good at their job, or didn't get anything done, they got paid anyways. Pretty soon everyone realized they didn't have to be successful, and therefore no work really got done. No food from the farms, no parts from the factories... so yeah, the whole country went bankrupt.

    I work for McDonalds here in the US. At McDonalds, there is a very high employment ladder that can be climbed, yet nearly everyone starts their careers at the crew member level, making close to minimum wage. From there you have crew leaders, shift managers, store managers, store owners, regional managers, on and on up the ladder. Each of these positions are responsible for the work of more and more people; store owners, for example, have to ensure each of their stores do everything they're supposed to do. If someone isn't doing their job, they have to be cut. These people have to work hard, and be excellent at their jobs, to be considered for advancement. There are no free tickets here. And, whether you agree with me or not, I think the right people are given those positions.

    Meh, out of time...
    Sunday, 07 November 2010, 05:45
    Afr0
    If you've ever been in the corporate world, you'd understand the hierarchy and the system.


    I think the problem is closer to this: I understand the system too well, and I, quite frankly, think it sucks!
    Sunday, 07 November 2010, 05:57
    Afr0
    so yeah, the whole country went bankrupt.


    There is no empirical evidence to support this claim. All history tells us is that the traitor Boris Jeltsin disbanded the entire USSR.
    Sunday, 07 November 2010, 07:50
    JL235
    Afr0 There is no empirical evidence to support this claim. All history tells us is that the traitor Boris Jeltsin disbanded the entire USSR.

    The collapse of the Soviet Union was a gradual decline not an overnight event. Part of the decline was due to it's crumbling economy.

    Afr0 I.E if profits are shared equally, everytime the profits were raised, so would the salaries be raised! And since everyone has an equal stake in the company, everyone would be interested in success.

    I also agree with Stealth that not all jobs are equal. If one team in a company produces more money then another team, then they deserve a bigger bonus and salary increase.

    A cleaner and a project manager might both put in the same amount of hours but the hard truth is that the project manager is earning the company more money, requires more skill/experience and is more vital to the company.
    Monday, 08 November 2010, 11:15
    HoboBen
    You have no right to tell that CEO he isn't allowed to make $7.6 million dollars for the same reason that I have no right to tell you how to live your life. Making the government tell people how to live their lives is uncalled for and an abuse of the government.


    I would say you have every right, while poverty still exists. Still, as long as they pay their taxes this isn't the worst case. Tax evasion of the rich is responsible for over £100 billion in the UK - enough to swallow the cuts, with plenty to spare!
    Monday, 08 November 2010, 13:44
    Stealth
    HoboBen Tax evasion of the rich is responsible for over £100 billion in the UK - enough to swallow the cuts, with plenty to spare!


    This is most likely because the government charges them an extremely unfair amount. In the United States, the top 10% of income earners pay 70% of taxes and the bottom 50% only pay 3% of taxes. With the system so skewed like that, it's no wonder they evade taxes.

    Poor people are always trying to screw over the rich people. It's as if they are some kind of evil force. They are just pissy and angry that they aren't rich too. The majority of rich people are rich because they got themselves there. They are the ones who paid attention in school while all the poor people partied and said "awh fuck it" to school. Now these same people are whining that they don't have the knowhow and intelligence to make big money and are forcing rich people to hand it back to them by making the government pass all kinds of laws. Fuck that.

    If you think rich people being so wealthy is unfair, think about how unfair it is when they have to hand it all back in taxes.
    Monday, 08 November 2010, 14:00
    HoboBen
         		Well, I completely and absolutely disagree with every single point you made there. I'd even take offence, if I was the sort of person who took offence at things. But I don't think we'll agree, so I won't argue.
    Monday, 08 November 2010, 15:44
    JL235
         		Actually Stealth it's been shown that classes (for various reasons) are often inherited. The super rich have children who tend to become super rich whilst the working class have children who tend to become working class. Of course there are lots of people who will move from one class to another, but the majority don't.

    There are many reasons why, partly due to different attitudes to life and partly just because they inherit the vast wealth/title of their parents.

    Tax evasion is wrong, but it's much more complex then this. The majority of how tax evasion is achieved is through transferring your income via a different (entirely legal) channel. It's not simple enough to just 'close the loop holes' as many government critics claim because typically this will hurt lots of perfectly legitimate businesses.

    I'm not as right wing as Stealth (such as I believe privatisation doesn't solve everything) but I have to agree with Stealth that taxing the super rich simply because they are rich is unfair. You work hard, you produce a product that makes millions, and as a result you now need to hand over half of your earnings?
    Monday, 08 November 2010, 16:21
    Stealth
         		I believe the root problem with our society isn't the system, it's the people. I think our current system is very effective when placed in the hands of responsible and careful people. People instead would rather that the government force people in to a model that they can't be evil in. This isn't going to work though. There will still be evil people who figure out how to screw the system.

    Our society is still immature in a lot of ways. We can be selfish and greedy. We're also seeing religious groups demanding their unfair views be imposed (banning gay marriage for instance). Society needs to grow up first. Our government can't force us to do that.
    Monday, 08 November 2010, 16:25
    JL235
         		The system is a product of the people.
    Wednesday, 10 November 2010, 04:02
    Afr0
    I also agree with Stealth that not all jobs are equal. If one team in a company produces more money then another team, then they deserve a bigger bonus and salary increase.

    A cleaner and a project manager might both put in the same amount of hours but the hard truth is that the project manager is earning the company more money, requires more skill/experience and is more vital to the company.


    This is a really bad example. A cleaner could be hired externaly from a cleaning cooperation. If the cleaner is part of the cooperation, he or she is just as vital to the company seeing as his or her stock share is as big as the manager.
    Also the whole skill/experience thing is not valid. A skilled cleaner could do just as good a job managing a business as a poor CEO, and vice versa.
    As for teams, why should there be multiple teams? Multiple teams defeats cooperation and produces internal competition. Not good. Everyone should work together, not against each other.
    Wednesday, 10 November 2010, 04:19
    JL235
    Afr0 This is a really bad example. A cleaner could be hired externaly from a cleaning cooperation. If the cleaner is part of the cooperation, he or she is just as vital to the company seeing as his or her stock share is as big as the manager.

    If the cleaner gets fired then there is very little impact. The other cleaners need to do more work or the cleaning company has to accept a little less work. Even in the latter it's a partial fall in profits (although the loss in the cleaners wages would probably out way this as it should only have a minor affect on their contracts).

    If the cleaners line manager gets fired then there is no one to organise the cleaners and nothing gets cleaned. This can cause the company to lose multiple cleaning contracts which will cause them to lose more money.

    The managers job has a bigger impact on the cleaning business then the cleaners, and so as a result he/she is more important. A critical role expects better trained staff (as it's more important) so the person deserves more money in return for their extra experience.

    Afr0 As for teams, why should there be multiple teams? Multiple teams defeats cooperation and produces internal competition. Not good. Everyone should work together, not against each other.

    When I worked at HSBC our work was split across multiple teams. Each team worked with each other daily even though most of them were located in seperate countries. Locally we even always had lunch with the other teams in the area (although this tends to be less common in the west).

    Just because people are in different teams doesn't mean they need to be at war. It's very counter productive.

    Besides your '1 team' suggestion just isn't realistic. HSBC has over 300,000 employees. Are you suggesting they should be one giant 300,000 team where everyone has a part in every task?
    Wednesday, 10 November 2010, 07:03
    Afr0

    If the cleaners line manager gets fired then there is no one to organise the cleaners and nothing gets cleaned. This can cause the company to lose multiple cleaning contracts which will cause them to lose more money.


    Well, the neat thing about a cooperation is that decisions can be made democratically. If the line manager feels she needs a bigger salary, she can call a vote on it. If she gets voted down, she clearly doesn't deserve it!

    Besides your '1 team' suggestion just isn't realistic. HSBC has over 300,000 employees. Are you suggesting they should be one giant 300,000 team where everyone has a part in every task?


    I didn't say everyone should have a say in every task. If two different divisions are in separate countries or in completely separate parts of a country I could tend to agree with you that the division that earns the most should receive the most.
    In the end its all about democracy and decisions like salaries and other issues should be handled on a division to division basis.
    Wednesday, 10 November 2010, 07:13
    JL235
    Afr0 If she gets voted down, she clearly doesn't deserve it!

    Not necessarily. She might have put in more hours then anyone else and single handedly doubled the companies pay roll. If however she doesn't get on with other team members then some employees will use a personal motive to vote her down.

    People can be very political and personal when it comes to business decisions which affect your co-workers.
    Wednesday, 10 November 2010, 09:07
    Afr0
    If however she doesn't get on with other team members then some employees will use a personal motive to vote her down.

    People can be very political and personal when it comes to business decisions which affect your co-workers.


    If she acts as a bitch towards her coworkers she still doesn't deserve it!
    Wednesday, 10 November 2010, 09:14
    JL235
         		If I doubled the profit for a company I'd expect a pay rise. End of.
    Wednesday, 10 November 2010, 10:02
    Afr0
         		If people can act the way they want towards their coworkers and still get a pay rise, that's just another reason why the system is flawed. End of story.
    Wednesday, 10 November 2010, 11:35
    JL235
         		I'm not saying if she is rude, but I know plenty of people who are civilized with their co-workers but don't really get. They only work on a professional level. If given the option others would happily vote against them getting a pay rise.

    There is also the factor that many people might suspect that if you get a pay rise then they might not. People will vote selfishly.

    Plus shouldn't you be guaranteed a pay rise if you do exceptional work? Voting doesn't guarantee this at all.
    Wednesday, 10 November 2010, 13:27
    Stealth
         		Think about this for a minute Afr0. Should a medical center pay the doctor and the secretary the same amount? The doctor went through extensive schooling to get in their position. The secretary got in with no training. Your "fair" system suddenly isn't fair.

    Socialism like to give everyone equal share, but capitalism rewards peoples for their efforts. It punishes the people who slack off and don't work for things. It's a beautiful system and it's worked for hundreds and hundreds of years. It will always create classes, but if it were 100% efficient then the lowest class would still be decent to live in.

    Socialism hands everyone an equal share and creates a very dull economy. There is no motivation to excel because you will gain nothing in return for your efforts. When you eliminate competition from the economy, you destroy it.
    Thursday, 11 November 2010, 03:54
    Afr0
    The doctor went through extensive schooling to get in their position. The secretary got in with no training.


    That's bullshit and you know it. You need schooling to become a secretary too.

    Your "fair" system suddenly isn't fair.


    What if the secretary has dyscalculia (like me), effectively preventing her from getting the required grades in math to become a doctor?
    Or what if she got a kid at an early age, preventing her from doing extensive studying for several years?

    I propose that what's "fair" isn't as easy to determine as you seem to think it is.
    Thursday, 11 November 2010, 03:56
    Afr0
    Plus shouldn't you be guaranteed a pay rise if you do exceptional work? Voting doesn't guarantee this at all.


    If you do exceptional work, you'll get a payrise either way, because you'll be part of improving the profitmargins of the cooperation, meaning that salaries can (and probably will) be increased.
    Thursday, 11 November 2010, 04:12
    Afr0
         		I would also like to remind Stealth that he said himself earlier that "Life isn't fair".
    So why should this "fairness" (that purportedly doesn't exist) be reflected in people's salaries?
    Thursday, 11 November 2010, 06:10
    JL235
    Afr0 That's bullshit and you know it. You need schooling to become a secretary too.

    There are some companies who require skilled training for their secretaries, but typically this is just a 'good education' rather then anything specific to secretarial work.

    But for a doctors surgery, no you don't any qualifications.
    Thursday, 11 November 2010, 08:16
    Stealth
    What if the secretary has dyscalculia (like me), effectively preventing her from getting the required grades in math to become a doctor?


    This is rarely the case. It's typically because students have no will to become a doctor. In any case, you still wouldn't be a doctor and so you don't deserve his salary. I don't care what disorder you have.

    My 'life isn't fair' statement is directed toward my previous point. You can't do everything. I may be pissed that I can't produce children in my body like women (which I'm not), but I'll have to deal with it because there is nothing I can do about it. This wasn't a blanketed statement toward everything.

    It sounds to me like you just want to make a lot of money like everyone else and not have to work your way up ranks like everyone else. At the end of the day, you're not a doctor. He busted his ass in higher education to get to where he is today and he deserves his paycheck. You shouldn't just get this handed to you.

    It's a stupid way to run the economy and it would become very apparent to you that it was if it was the system for a few years.
    Thursday, 11 November 2010, 08:25
    JL235
         		There are plenty of people with dyslexia who become very successful. In my final year at uni I lived with a girl with dyslexia, she now has a degree.
    Thursday, 11 November 2010, 08:57
    Afr0
    It sounds to me like you just want to make a lot of money like everyone else and not have to work your way up ranks like everyone else. At the end of the day, you're not a doctor. He busted his ass in higher education to get to where he is today and he deserves his paycheck. You shouldn't just get this handed to you.


    And it sounds to me like you're pissed off because there were too many slackers at your school.

    Either way I think I'm done with this discussion. I'm clearly not gonna see eye to eye with either one of you.
    Thursday, 11 November 2010, 09:01
    JL235
         		Statistic still stands tho, as China has opened up it's economy to more capitalism they have dramatically reduced poverty. That is a good thing.
    Thursday, 11 November 2010, 09:05
    HoboBen
         		On that point, most of China was and is still essentially Feudal. Even Trotsky and Lenin acknowledged the importance of an initial stage of capitalism as it turned the feudal surfs into an industrialised working class.