Does capitalism work?

[Absane]

WRONG. Usually the people that work harder get paid the least.

Because of crap like capitalism, the people that work the hardest get paid the least.
People that do less work get paid more.

Capitalism is a backwards system that does not function in accordance with the rules of a functioning system.

Do you support the idea that physical labor is harder work than mental labor? What about the guy that went to school for $20,000 or even more? Should the janitor be paided more than him because this guy has more knowledge and does less physical labor?

 

[Absane]

Look, we could run a business without a janitor. We just have everyone chip in and clean up. But why? We can offer someone a job that needs one and everyone else can get more done.

Plus, you look at how much you can save or earn with someone. If the janitor helps the company save $30,000 a year... well, we might pay the guy $20,000 and pass the savings on to the shareholders, which this janitor might be a part of. If it's a private business, we might pay him all the savings. Wal-Mart does this.. many of the "low level" employees are shareholders and they get a share of the local branch's profits every year. I was happy my first year when I got a check for $600.

If a college graduate comes in for an office job and can help the company MAKE andextra $400,000 a year... we might pay him $100,000 a year and do the same thing with the extras. We might even use some of the extra to give another guy a job. Why should we pay the janitor of this same business just like this guy in the office? There is no incentive for the office guy to help the company this much if the janitor helps them less and gets paid the same or more because "he works harder."

 

[wesmorris]

Income distribution is not even.

If it were, there'd be no point in income.

If Andy starts a company he should most definitely not be getting more income than the people that actually do the work.

You clearly have no concept of what it takes to run a business. What exactly defines work? Does it take work to make sure that all of the people in Andy's company keep their jobs, and for Andy's company to stay afloat? Could just anyone in Andy's company do so? Pay is generally commensurate with the availability of the work force. There is only one Andy to keep his company running - to ensure all the ends have a means, etc. Further, it's Andy's company and therefore, Andy's decision as to how resources are allocated.

That is just how inept and moronic capitalism is.

You are demonstrating that it is clearly YOU that is inept and moronic.

Capitalism ensures that the people that work the least get the most pay.

Oh? When you clearly haven't a clue as to how businesses operate - you are simply unqualified to assert this, yet that doesn't stop you. You seem to think that "income" should be distributed to those who endure the "hardest work" however it is that you don't even bother to define. Hard work comes in many forms. The availability of people with the qualifications to make difficult decisions or perform technical tasks is limited, as opposed to people to pick up a box from here and put it over there. They are plentiful. As such, it costs more to get something that is less available. Of course you won't be able to understand this simple explanation because you're mental, spiteful and generally unpleasant. You'll rationalize however you must to justify your completely unfounded idealistic premise, as you demonstrated clearly here.

Those that work the hardest get the least pay. And when they are no longer of use if injured or disabled, they are thrown in the garabge

.

Repetetive and unsupported. How unexpected. I have seen many trash cans and no people in them. Who's reponsibilty is it to ensure the welfare of the individual? Their employer? The state? Well, worker's compensation claims are nuts, people cash in on fabricated, whiny crap every day. I'd guess you'd do it in a heartbeat as spiteful and irrational as you seem to be. You don't seem to understand that just because a company exists doesn't mean it has infinite resourcesl Do you know that business cease to exist sometimes over competely fabricated injury claims? Is that fair to the other workers who are no longer employed because the company folded because someone finds themselves, or their injury, more important than... well, you only seem to see one side of the coin - denouncing the other as inherently evil, apparently. You don't care to understand the issues, you care to promote your hate.

ONLY AN IDIOT WOULD BELIEVE THAT A PERSON SITTING THERE DOING NO LABOR SHOULD GET MORE MONEY THAN PEOPLE THAT ACTUALLY DO THE HARD LABOR. THIS IS NOT FAIR. IT IS THE BRAINWASHING OF EXTREMELY STUPID PEOPLE. STUPID PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT THOSE WHO DO HARD LABOR SHOULD GET LESS THAN THOSE WHO DO NO LABOR.

You're simply hateful and apparently pretty dumb. What exactly consists of "labor"? If I spend my day writing a program to enhance management capacity in a manner profitable to the company, is that labor? If I sit at my desk all day devising means by which to grow the company or manage it more effectively, is that labor? You think like a child, and you should be embarassed by your constant tantrum.

Let me ask you, do you have the slightest clue what "cost effectiveness" means?

For instance, if I pay a guy $8/hr to lift boxes and move them from here to there - is that "labor" as you see it?

If yes, then is that the guy who should be making the most money in the company?

If yes, then - if for instance I were required by your authoritative edict to pay him more than anyone else in the company - like let's say $25/hr, why would I bother when I could build a machine to do it that would only cost me $12/hr? Eh?

But the guy in the office writing programs or policy, or focusing on improving the business... there is no machine I can buy to replace him.

Who's demand is of more concern to the efficient operation of the business?

Do you even care to take anything real into consideration? Do you have the slightest concept of efficiency?

 

[TruthSeeker]

So where is it written that income distribution should be even?

Did you read past that sentence....?

Obviously not....

 

[TruthSeeker]

HELLO All

Following on from Maximus' comments it is fair that Andy pays himself more as he has an added responsibility. Perhaps Mike and Joe just work their 9-5 and go home while Andy probably lives, eats and sleeps his work.. Along with this i would imagine that Andy is actually being paid less per hour (depending on the situation of the company he has formed), as he would have to work very long days which are probably split like this

7:30am - 9:00am: Andy probably prepares for the day before the main production staff start working
9:00am - 5:00pm: Andy overseas the operations/production of his company and probably take a large amount of calls from cleints and suppliers, along with this he pobably just squeezes in a bit to eat while reading a report. along with thsi he will be proritising the jobs of the company for that day and managing any situation that arises.
5:00pm - 9:00pm (ish) Andy would porbably concerntrate on Stratwegy and plannign and look at wways in developing his company alomng with looking at the finances etc.. (he will either stay late or do this at home)

This guy i also providing work for the other 2 along with all the usualy crap from the governement (I dotn know about the US)

Or Andy is smart enough to hire a manager to do all the work for him and he only owns the company. Then he can invest the money, make the company grow, get richer and work less and less......

 

[TruthSeeker]

lixluke,

Define "hard work"....

 

[wesmorris]

Or Andy is smart enough to hire a manager to do all the work for him and he only owns the company. Then he can invest the money, make the company grow, get richer and work less and less......

It's not always that simple...

For instance, it's not easy to find a hard working, trustworthy manager. It's difficult to know if they'll get things done. It's tough for a lot of people to give up that control, knowing that it's a huge risk.

He's basically putting his company in someone else's hands, which could result in the end of the company. A lot of people have had exactly that happen. That's why the manager gets paid well for the most part... partially to show confidence in him, partially to keep him happy so he doesn't cook the books for his personal gain, and partically because he generally has to work harder than anyone else in the company if he's worth his salt.

If the wanna be rich guy hires a manager, he only gets richer and richer if he's good enough to ensure that manager doesn't bleed him and the company dry, which is yet another challenge on top of the challenges he already understand how to face. If he does however, face it... and things work out, then yes... he can make more money for less work, or rather, more money for work he's already done. Generally speaking, I really admire a guy who can make that happen. If nothing else, I generally admire the accomplishment, except in the cases of true scumbags who strongarmed their way into their crap - which is generally difficult to really establish if you aren't him. Appearances are funky and stuff.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Yes, indeed.....

Yes, I'm very aware of those issues. I personally have another strategy which I think is way better. I would, basically, hunt for businesses that are failing, buy them, fix them and automate them as much as possible (so that the manager problem is not that mch of an issue anymore). That way, i can get a good cashflow for a relatively cheap price. All that I need to do is to find someone that is desperate enough to sell their business for practically nothing, analize his financial statements with my cool little ratios and other financial tools, make the necessary adjustments, and voila... a great business for the price of a banana!

Well, what I'm planning to do is actually a small variation of that, since I don't have the start-up funds to actually buy the business....

And I don't want the liabilities either....


Huuumm... I should post this in the ways-to-become-wealthy-without-school thread.....

 

[wesmorris]

"All that I need to do is to find someone that is desperate enough to sell their business for practically nothing, analize his financial statements with my cool little ratios and other financial tools, make the necessary adjustments, and voila... a great business for the price of a banana"

Lol.

Sounds nice and all, but I hope you remember the devil's in the details.

Regardless though, it CAN be done... fairly rare, but possible.

(there are a lot of people looking to do this, so it's difficult to be in the right place at the right time to catch a deal like this... let alone finding anything remotely resembling it to begin with... and then there's the snake-oil salesmen. the reason a lot of businesses fail is because their business model simply doesn't work. they can't do what they say they'll do for less than they have to charge someone to do it for them, so their costs outweigh their income and voila, no business. the trick of course would be to find that shit out and innovate a way around the problem of income vs. expense... but this isn't alway simple, as things are rarely as they appear on the surface. be careful if you'd trying to do this. start small, and be very wary of liability. of course were you charming enough to persuade a venture capitalist to fund you, you'd limit your liability to some extent, but the catch-22 is in full effect, as you need some sort of track record establishing you as able to rescue failing bitnesses, etc... which is why I say a major element is charm (the appearance of competance in the eyes of the venture capitalist)).

Fun fun.

 

[lixluke]

"usually the people that work harder get paid the least"?

Says who?

Got any support for it?

Got a clear definition of what "working hard" means?

Your baseless authoritarian assertions are tiresome.

Yes. Everybody knows this. Look at all of the hardest jobs. Why do you think we import seasonal farm slaves, and pay then $2 per hour? Nobody in the USA wants to do these jobs.

Do you support the idea that physical labor is harder work than mental labor? What about the guy that went to school for $20,000 or even more? Should the janitor be paided more than him because this guy has more knowledge and does less physical labor?

This is not labor.
Tell that person to go out into the feilds or into the construction manufacturing etc. Or any high effort, high danger, harsh conditions work.

 

[TruthSeeker]

wesmorris,

Well, I would probably make an agreement in which I would become a limited partner, so that I wouldn't need to worry about liabilities.

As far as the problems goes, a lot of businesses fail because they do not keep track of cashflows. Preparing a cashflow statement is not easy. Most small businesses don't even know they exist. So basically, they might be selling like crazy, so all the money is tied up to their accounts receivable, and they don't have enough capital to pay their accounts payable. You can track that by taking a look at their quick ratio and their accounts receivable turnover. If the quick ratio is below 1, chances are they are either not selling, or their money is tied up somehwere. So if they are selling well, it might be in the accounts receivable. That's where the turnover ratio would quick in. I would actually prefer to use the average days figure. If it is too high, it is an indication that the A/R is too big. The solution for this is very simple. All you need to do is make some phone calls and get people to pay. If that doesn't work, all you need to do is to transfer the A/R to a financing company to get some cashflow. This is a simple example....

A lot of the times, the problem is simple. Sometimes, the problem is in the inventory, for example. Or sometimes there is just too much debt and the company is in a downward spiral. Or maybe it pays too many dividens. In any case, those are simple problems to solve. More complicated issues, as you pointed out, are strucutal flaws and bad marketing. These kind of problems are usually caused by a lack of planning. Sitting down with the owner and preparing a realisitic business plan might ultimately solve that problem.

You gotta remember that 95% of businesses fail within 1 year, and 95% of those that survive fail with another 5 years. That's a pretty large pool of candidates to choose from. And it's not hard to avoid liability, because they would have to accept whichever option they can, since they would be in danger of losing their business, and possibly even their own personal assets. So that gives you a lot of room for barganing. You put all in a nice contract and voila, you got some income.

 

[lixluke]

You seem to think that "income" should be distributed to those who endure the "hardest work" however it is that you don't even bother to define.

I have defined hard labor dozens of times in this thread, and dozens of threads.
I have stated why the hardest harshest worst labor should get paid the most.
You are nto qualified for anything except for perpetuating a primitive minded moronic system that pays people more for working less.

Sitting at a desk is not hard labor. Planning and facilitating is not hard labor. Performing arts entertainment/athletics is not labor in the slightest.

 

[Absane]

This is not labor.
Tell that person to go out into the feilds or into the construction manufacturing etc. Or any high effort, high danger, harsh conditions work.

Answer my question. Should a contruction worker making $25,000 a year that help bring in $35,000 a year for his effort be paid MORE than a guy being paid $70,000 in an office that brings in $200,000 a year for his efforts?

 

[lixluke]

This is not about money. It is about ration of pay. Money is a temporality fluctuating baseless measurement of anything.
In terms of ratio those doing the hardest labor should be making the most money. They are the highest in demand as they are the jobs the least people want to do. Job pay should not be measured by anything other than desirability.

There various jobs available, the jobs that the workforce least desires should get the highest pay. This is how real First World advanced societies work. Primitive conventional dimwitted societies work the other way around. It is all about incentive. In order for people to do jobs, they require incentive. Pay is an incentive. In a true First World, the worst jobs need the most incentive.

 

[wesmorris]

Then you advocate that first world countries must be isolationists.

 

[lixluke]

Isolationis and charging interest on loans are the causes of global poverty.

 

[wesmorris]

So you advocate global poverty then. Okay.

 

[lixluke]

So you advocate global poverty then. Okay.

Isolationism and charging interest on loans are the causes of global poverty.

 

[TruthSeeker]

So how would you use desirability as a standard of measure for wages?
And what the hell would we do with the present system which is based in needs? If a job is really needed, it will be well paid, right? If only a few people can do the job, then the demand for the job will be higher and so will be the wages. Anyone can sweep the floor, right?

Also, why would someone find running a company more desirable then sweeping the floor (aside from the present wage, of course)? Which one of those two is the hardest to do?

Have you ever read the list of job requirements for a top management position? How many of those requirements can you fulfill, lixluke?

 

[TruthSeeker]

Also, what do you mean by "isolationism"?