[QUOTE=RB33;52431700]Do ordinary people own the welfare and the state? Is that their property? It's a sum of money given to you as aid. You don't own whoever gave it to you. That's the difference.[/QUOTE]
And people who work for companies are not slaves to the CEO.
[QUOTE=CarnolfMeatla;52431760]And people who work for companies are not slaves to the CEO.[/QUOTE]
They are effectively forced to work or suffer for it and despite being the vast amount of productive contributors to the company, they only earn a small share of the revenue. Unacceptable, the needs and fairness for the many trumps the rights to money for the few.
[QUOTE=RB33;52432586]They are effectively forced to work or suffer for it and despite being the vast amount of productive contributors to the company, they only earn a small share of the revenue. Unacceptable, the needs and fairness for the many trumps the rights to money for the few.[/QUOTE]
They are not forced to work at this specific company. If they are highly skilled workers, they simply leave the company if they are thinking they don't earn the right amount of money. If they are low skilled workers, well, instead of complaining they could have earned a degree in a field which is in high demand. Or stay at home and get the welfare check. They are not forced to work. That would be slavery.
And in the end there is always this fact: Without the guy founding the company while risking his money and assets (with a high chance of not succeeding) there wouldn't be these jobs.
Why do you want to punish people who earned their success?
[QUOTE=CarnolfMeatla;52434963]They are not forced to work at this specific company. If they are highly skilled workers, they simply leave the company if they are thinking they don't earn the right amount of money. If they are low skilled workers, well, instead of complaining they could have earned a degree in a field which is in high demand. Or stay at home and get the welfare check. They are not forced to work. That would be slavery.[/QUOTE]
As if your case is the situtation for every worker in the world. Getting a degree isn't the solution for everything. At times that doesn't even help, your degree was not needed or the companies have to high requirements. Every country doesn't have extensive welfare, for most countries, it's literally work or starve. Because it's the only thing paying for survival. I guess its slavery then.
[QUOTE]And in the end there is always this fact: Without the guy founding the company while risking his money and assets (with a high chance of not succeeding) there wouldn't be these jobs.
Why do you want to punish people who earned their success?[/QUOTE]
I'm punishing them because they are punishing the people with their selfishness and greed. The upper classes roll in their money and the poor people of the world suffer because our system is "so good". Tell that to 12+ hours working cloth manufactures in Bangladesh who risk their lives in no safety factories, the phone makers in China or the guy working 2+ jobs in America with no remaining free time. The ineffective distribution of wealth, more money to the rich, instead of spending it to improve the lives of the poor.
i think ceo's do work very very fucking hard so they do deserve their paycheck (to an extent which i am not at the liberty to define) but i think the amount they earn compared to their average workers is astro-fucking-nomical and the gap shouldn't be so large
[QUOTE=343N;52436032]i think ceo's do work very very fucking hard so they do deserve their paycheck (to an extent which i am not at the liberty to define) but i think the amount they earn compared to their average workers is astro-fucking-nomical and the gap shouldn't be so large[/QUOTE]
they work very hard (in the sense they actively do stuff), but their work doesn't really add any more productivity to the company nor to the wider economy
the other problem is that typically the managing staff of a company aren't always the ones who own it, meaning they can do decisions using other peoples money and often get away with fleecing shareholders and/or the public
[QUOTE=343N;52436032]i think ceo's do work very very fucking hard so they do deserve their paycheck (to an extent which i am not at the liberty to define) but i think the amount they earn compared to their average workers is astro-fucking-nomical and the gap shouldn't be so large[/QUOTE]
Really, think of it like this: They do necessary work that needs to be done in order for the company to work, but so does a janitor. No one wants to work in a dirty run-down enviroment. Now why does the CEO earn sometimes 10-100 times as much money as the janitor? Because they can get away with it, never because it's fair.
[QUOTE=RB33;52436472]Really, think of it like this: They do necessary work that needs to be done in order for the company to work, but so does a janitor. No one wants to work in a dirty run-down enviroment. Now why does the CEO earn sometimes 10-100 times as much money as the janitor? Because they can get away with it, never because it's fair.[/QUOTE]
Because if your janitor quits, you get a new one. If your CEO quits, the company faces falling apart under new leadership. There are famous cases of CEO's being the life or death of companies. They're are objectively more important than a janitor.
A good CEO can bring massive growth and wealth to a company (and it's employees)
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Welch#CEO[/url]
While a bad CEO can destroy a whole company, and ruin the lives of it's employees
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Lay#Enron_Bankruptcy[/url]
A new janitor is not going to lead the company into growth.
In a world where people have the freedom to change jobs, these high quality CEO's are retained with high salaries so other companies don't try to hire them to rebuild their own business.
[QUOTE=OvB;52436857]Because if your janitor quits, you get a new one. If your CEO quits, the company faces falling apart under new leadership. There are famous cases of CEO's being the life or death of companies. They're are objectively more important than a janitor.
A good CEO can bring massive growth and wealth to a company (and it's employees)
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Welch#CEO[/url]
While a bad CEO can destroy a whole company, and ruin the lives of it's employees
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Lay#Enron_Bankruptcy[/url]
A new janitor is not going to lead the company into growth.
In a world where people have the freedom to change jobs, these high quality CEO's are retained with high salaries so other companies don't try to hire them to rebuild their own business.[/QUOTE]
ehh it really depends
oil companies are more dependent on oil prices than their CEOs. people like to ascribe more to them than they actually do (I don't trust a CEO unless they have skin in the game)
prime example is that if oil prices go up and a company makes tons of cash off it, the CEO says he is doing good and people raise his bonuses. if oil prices go down and the company suffers, the CEO blames the loss on oil prices going down and people agree with him and his wage remains unaffected
[QUOTE=OvB;52436857]Because if your janitor quits, you get a new one. If your CEO quits, the company faces falling apart under new leadership. There are famous cases of CEO's being the life or death of companies. They're are objectively more important than a janitor.
A good CEO can bring massive growth and wealth to a company (and it's employees)
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Welch#CEO[/url]
While a bad CEO can destroy a whole company, and ruin the lives of it's employees
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Lay#Enron_Bankruptcy[/url]
A new janitor is not going to lead the company into growth.
In a world where people have the freedom to change jobs, these high quality CEO's are retained with high salaries so other companies don't try to hire them to rebuild their own business.[/QUOTE]
Good CEOs aren't that rare, also you could just put a wealth ceiling on it. So then you wouldn't have a need to compete for CEOs. Anyone with the right training and skills can do the job. No CEO is entitled to 10 times higher salary than the average worker. They're not a more valuable as human beings, still just another cog in the company machine as the janitor are.
[QUOTE=RB33;52421366]
[quote]Even in the west things were hell, most cities for the longest time didn't grow naturally because you'd die from work related illness, starvation, general illness, etc. so the only reason the population grew is because rural people moved in. And in the USSR? Well, Holodomor and the other two massive famines speak for themselves.[/quote]
In the feudal era, yes. These are not feudal countries anymore, they're capitalist but just not as developed.[/QUOTE]
mate were you stoned when you wrote this? this was a thing far after feudalism fell out of fashion, capitalism was in fact the only reason america ever made it past its newborn phase. That was only a couple hundred years ago.
[editline]6th July 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=RB33;52437919]Good CEOs aren't that rare, also you could just put a wealth ceiling on it. So then you wouldn't have a need to compete for CEOs. Anyone with the right training and skills can do the job. No CEO is entitled to 10 times higher salary than the average worker. They're not a more valuable as human beings, still just another cog in the company machine as the janitor are.[/QUOTE]
You have absolutely no experience with a corporate workplace and its becoming increasingly clear your opinion on this matter is formed largely in part by that lack of experience and understanding of how a business actually works. If you don't mind me asking, what kind of work have you done in the past?
I think slavery might be a bit dead here, but long live wage slavery. Zero hour contracts are killing this economy, sure it makes things seem very productive for the employers when they can just pull a bunch of workers out of thin air but the workers sure are low on morale, pay and benefits which means in all they are all having poorer health affecting our economy negatively. There needs to be more done to fix inequality in wages in countries and ban/remove jobs that are zero-hours or ones that are pretty much never paying the idea of the living wage, it sucks knowing as you see your CEO walk by your desk earning more than your entire team combined as you sit there smiling and laughing as you exchange jokes then get on with your respective jobs. The dude might work hard but all our work combined is so close to being worthless at times I just wonder whether to quit just to spite the shit economy.
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;52438254]mate were you stoned when you wrote this? this was a thing far after feudalism fell out of fashion, capitalism was in fact the only reason america ever made it past its newborn phase. That was only a couple hundred years ago.[/QUOTE]
In some economic circles, fedualism is what describes anything that came before capitalism, as in the dominance of the kings and aristocracy instead of the traders and capitalists.
Edit: I'm tired and not sure I understand your question.
[QUOTE]You have absolutely no experience with a corporate workplace and its becoming increasingly clear your opinion on this matter is formed largely in part by that lack of experience and understanding of how a business actually works. If you don't mind me asking, what kind of work have you done in the past?[/QUOTE]
It doesn't matter if it works differently, it's still a shit system that should be replaced. Capitalism has and is doing severe damage to our world, exploits the poor in order for the rich to increase their profits. It's immoral, inequal, undemocratic and seldom in favour of the people as a whole. I know how bad this system is from personal experience, whatever specific experience I have isn't important. The sooner we don't have to deal with speculation, debt and bullshit financial practices. I will be very happy. If you don't trust me specifically, ask how much other people exploited by it enjoy the system.
[QUOTE=RB33;52439512]In some economic circles, fedualism is what describes anything that came before capitalism, as in the dominance of the kings and aristocracy instead of the traders and capitalists.
Edit: I'm tired and not sure I understand your question.
It doesn't matter if it works differently, it's still a shit system that should be replaced. Capitalism has and is doing severe damage to our world, exploits the poor in order for the rich to increase their profits. It's immoral, inequal, undemocratic and seldom in favour of the people as a whole. I know how bad this system is from personal experience, whatever specific experience I have isn't important. The sooner we don't have to deal with speculation, debt and bullshit financial practices. I will be very happy. If you don't trust me specifically, ask how much other people exploited by it enjoy the system.[/QUOTE]
So what kind of work have you done in the past that gives you this experience? Let me understand you.
[QUOTE=CarnolfMeatla;52439857]So what kind of work have you done in the past that gives you this experience? Let me understand you.[/QUOTE]
One of my parents is unemployed, since no one wants to employ an older manual laborer. My other parent is self-employed but debts keeps making it impossible to ever get out of a poor situation. I am myself completely repulsed and ill-suited to most forms of work. I like to work indendently and with the freedom to set my own working hours. Which unless your work is in high demand and you exploit the system further for own gain is not very profitable. Capitalism keeps my family poor, myself very demoralized in working in it. While socialism would fix any problem my family and others face and give myself the flexibility in contributing to society in the most productive way possible.
[QUOTE=RB33;52439945]One of my parents is unemployed, since no one wants to employ an older manual laborer. My other parent is self-employed but debts keeps making it impossible to ever get out of a poor situation. I am myself completely repulsed and ill-suited to most forms of work. I like to work indendently and with the freedom to set my own working hours. Which unless your work is in high demand and you exploit the system further for own gain is not very profitable. Capitalism keeps my family poor, myself very demoralized in working in it. While socialism would fix any problem my family and others face and give myself the flexibility in contributing to society in the most productive way possible.[/QUOTE]
What kind of field do you want to work in?
Trying to read it from the other point of view and yes, it does look like indeed the CEO is an important part of business. It still upsets me to see how unfair wages have become though, so I guess even if just the janitor left and they got a new one (not too hard a replacement given the demand for jobs lately!) then it makes sense the wage is terrible too.
Perhaps my anger toward the CEO is misjudged too because they do a lot more than just walk by our desk and tell jokes. Perhaps the economy will have to find a balancing act to keep everyone placated though because workers aren't exactly getting better off and it would not be wrong to say zero hour contracts aren't at least part of the problem or something I could probably raise to the CEO and let them know needs to stop. Well that's if they're listening even, they could just as well replace me like the janitor example.
Market socialism isn't too far a stretch that might work towards helping an unfortunate family, my knowledge on it is limited but here we have the NHS and benefits payments to those unable to work, but I hear it's a whole lot more rosy in Denmark whereas right now this country is sitting on an NHS that was in crisis and we've had Tories clamouring to claw back benefits payments by implementing austerity measures for some years now.
So you have absolutely no work experience?
In their defense, even having been at work for ages I too care very little for the CEO and could see how nearly anyone could fit into the CEO's shoes for a moment and run the job alright. They should make a tv program about it testing janitors as CEO's just to let others see what the CEO role actually does honestly, it feels very behind closed doors and it's quite a powerful position.
I work for a large company.
The CEO's here, who I personally know thanks to a familial connection, work and do work, but the majority of the work is delegated. The majority of their work is decision making based on the work of other people. They don't put in a 9-5 day, they don't show up every day, and hell, they've earned that right. But at the same time, a company like mine is struggling just to retain employees, let alone get new ones. Why? Because we're underpaid. Both of the CEO's are very well compensated. There's not a lot to really say, they deserve the money for the fruits of their labour in setting up a company, but the company won't survive another 10 years because the people are what make the company work. The people can't be retained, and the quality of agent/broker is diminishing with each new hire. I'm only a few years into my job here, but I can already tell there's a severe issue with retaining our good employees and hiring mediocre/bad ones because we don't offer competitive wages. That's a decision that rests on the CEO's of the company. So ultimately, as I work harder for this company than I have in the past, even as I get promoted to new positions, I'm not really making any headway. I'm not really going anywhere. What does this lead me to believe? That work is a pretty silly endeavor. If I'm going to be part of the backbone of your company that lets you be a rich and insulated individual, do I not deserve to be compensated properly?
[QUOTE=CarnolfMeatla;52440127]What kind of field do you want to work in?[/QUOTE]
I would honestly love working in a socialist administration. Were I know every action I take will affect the people and they hopefully trust me to do the right thing.
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;52440131]So you have absolutely no work experience?[/QUOTE]
I'm an independent film maker and sometimes work in a Café. Neither pays well. Lack of "proper" work experience isn't an excuse for the system, we have. It can be improved and should.
[QUOTE=RB33;52440341]I would honestly love working in a socialist administration. Were I know every action I take will affect the people and they hopefully trust me to do the right thing.
[/QUOTE]
Socialism historically has been pretty nice for those who wear the boots
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52440346]Socialism historically has been pretty nice for those who wear the boots[/QUOTE]
I'm not a red fascist, stop beliving the red scare and get out of the cold war mentality. Socialism works and is helpful for the vast majority of the people. Just because totalitarian assholes in the past runied their countries for decades doesn't mean we stopped having the right to evolve past capitalism.
[QUOTE=RB33;52440341]I would honestly love working in a socialist administration. Were I know every action I take will affect the people and they hopefully trust me to do the right thing.[/QUOTE]
What you should do is study business administration. Economic and business knowledge will come in handy if your socialist dream ever happens somewhere, since you'll be doing the same thing that businesses do except just for everyone rather than hired employees. The way I see it, communist/socialist states are basically just giant businesses anyway. The higher up's who think they know whats best for everyone ended up profiting a whole lot. While you wait for socialism to rise, get a job in HR. You'll get to manage people and fight for their rights and all that. But they'll also have the freedom to quit and change jobs.
[QUOTE=OvB;52440411]What you should do is study business administration. Economic and business knowledge will come in handy if your socialist dream ever happens somewhere, since you'll be doing the same thing that businesses do except just for everyone rather than hired employees. The way I see it, communist/socialist states are basically just giant businesses anyway. The higher up's who think they know whats best for everyone ended up profiting a whole lot. While you wait for socialism to rise, get a job in HR. You'll get to manage people and fight for their rights and all that. But they'll also have the freedom to quit and change jobs.[/QUOTE]
Well, thanks for the tip. But I rather be an activist (which I guess isn't a job) or work in local government. Not completely dismissing your economic tip, but socialism is about streamlining the process. No markets, no money. Just producing and delivering the goods where they are needed.
Learning economics and some of what business teaches won't be terribly useful in a socialist society. Our economics is quite specifically about studying our market economy, and even marxian economics falls into that.
What we have of socialist/anarchist economics is mostly theory at this point.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52440539]Learning economics and some of what business teaches won't be terribly useful in a socialist society. Our economics is quite specifically about studying our market economy, and even marxian economics falls into that.
What we have of socialist/anarchist economics is mostly theory at this point.[/QUOTE]
If you want to be a Government administrator you should understand basic economic theory and administration skills. Running around and saying [I]"Well this is how it should be!"[/I] without having a single idea how the real world works, how economics works, how hierarchical command structure works (none of these things are dependent on profit/capitalism) will lead you nowhere. You'll hardly be able to run an employee owned GMO free vegan bakery. How are you going to tear down a global system if you have no idea how administrative leadership even works? It's a lot more complex than just understanding supply and demand and profits, you know.
[QUOTE=RB33;52440444]Well, thanks for the tip. But I rather be an activist (which I guess isn't a job) or work in local government. Not completely dismissing your economic tip, but socialism is about streamlining the process. No markets, no money. Just producing and delivering the goods where they are needed.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry, but it's hard to take you seriously. It's just so naive. You act like there's a big pile of goods sitting there and all we need to do is give it to people.
The reality is that there's an almost infinite amount of supply/demand information, a precise balance of scarce resources, etc. that all needs to be taken into account for a society to meet the needs and desires of its people. It's incredibly complex. There's no such thing as just "producing and delivering the goods."
[QUOTE=OvB;52440674]If you want to be a Government administrator you should understand basic economic theory and administration skills. Running around and saying [I]"Well this is how it should be!"[/I] without having a single idea how the real world works, how economics works, how hierarchical command structure works (none of these things are dependent on profit/capitalism) will lead you nowhere. You'll hardly be able to run an employee owned GMO free vegan bakery. How are you going to tear down a global system if you have no idea how administrative leadership even works? It's a lot more complex than just understanding supply and demand and profits, you know.[/QUOTE]
Well, what I said was mostly for economics. I think it'd be somewhat silly to assume that in a vastly different system that what we have now would be very applicable/useful. You're just studying an entirely different beast, pretty much. I'm also talking how socialists describe and want socialism to be, not the state capitalist states you described socialism as. Things like syndicalism, deleonism, mutualism, etc..
Business administration is already done in a pretty diverse set of ways, and there are even socialist businesses to look at so it's much less of a gap there at least I'll hand you that.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52440736]I'm sorry, but it's hard to take you seriously. It's just so naive. You act like there's a big pile of goods sitting there and all we need to do is give it to people.
The reality is that there's an almost infinite amount of supply/demand information, a precise balance of scarce resources, etc. that all needs to be taken into account for a society to meet the needs and desires of its people. It's incredibly complex. There's no such thing as just "producing and delivering the goods."[/QUOTE]
Well, that's just incorrect. We produce so much unnecessary wasteful shit, intentionally produce low quality goods for them to break, so people buy new ones. Competing with new products with marginal improvements for people to waste their money on. The economy isn't run effectively and if it was, we would have a big pile of goods sitting for us to give to the poor and needy. But we don't, because profits are more important than people.
These are just excuses so people resolve to believing that capitalism is the only viable system and to keep the exploitation going. It's sad to see workers believing in it, they are the ones losing from it. Only if you're rich, do you stand to lose from socialism. Call me naive for it, but please look in the mirror before.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
