[QUOTE=Aman VII;39798167]Um yeah they are. Is that an issue? Why are you entitled to a higher pay?[/QUOTE]
Stop suggesting that my employer is some god like entity simply giving me my pay and I'm some measly inferior peasant.
If i'm leaving for work before the sun rises and getting home after it sets I should damn well be comfortable in those 10 hours of time at home I get. Not freezing because heat is too expensive or starving because I have to wait til lunch again tomorrow since I don't have food.
[QUOTE=Aman VII;39798167]Um yeah they are. Is that an issue? Why are you entitled to a higher pay?[/QUOTE]
Entitlement in such huge amounts if beyond stupid. No matter how much one man supposedly contributes to society does not make him more than a man. He is still a human being, and should not hold 5000 times the amount of power/wealth as someone on the bottom.
By all facts of science and sociology, I highly doubt one man can contribute more to society than 5 thousand. Maybe he founds a great company and makes a ton of money. Does that mean he, in particular, deserves the combined wealth of 5000 people? No. Because obviously corporations and companies beyond a one man scale are COOPERATIVE ventures. Just because he founded a company on a good idea, or invested luckily, does NOT make him a superhuman person with the so called "inherent value" of thousands that these far-right wingers (economically) talk about.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];39798025']-snip-[/QUOTE]
But you don't own the man. You're paying the man to use your ax in which he does your job for you. By paying him, the rewards of his labor will go to you but he receives financial compensation for his involvement.
Additionally, since you're no longer cutting the tree, it leaves you free to do other things and explore other venues.
[QUOTE=theoneman;39797599]People are so entitled these days, get your own money, your own wealth. Stop acting like you deserve MY money, its mine, not yours...MINE!! If you are poor, then do something about it instead of b*tch and moan. Sitting and complaining about how Bill Gates has more money than you and that you deserve some of it, won't help you financially.[/QUOTE]
I doubt you're even old enough to have a job, fool. As someone who works full time in an expanding industry, I can easily observe how fucked our economics are. I lose 40% of my paychecks to state and federal taxes.
[QUOTE=Aman VII;39798167]Um yeah they are. Is that an issue? Why are you entitled to a higher pay?[/QUOTE]
I'm entitled to the fate of all that I produce. The only reason that I'm not is because of my position created by the very process by which people usurp the value of production from others.
If I chop down a tree, who chopped down the tree? Me. Whose wood is it? Mine. What changes if the axe says "John Smith's Property" on it? Does simply using the owner property of another entitle that person to the product of my labor? "You can borrow my car to get to work, but then I am entitled to all of your wages." Capital does not produce wealth- labor does, and it is labor that produces all wealth. It is questionable, then, how individuals who do not labor, can accumulate the exchange-value equivalent of wealth, which is created only through collective achievement of labor. That is to say- how can Henry Ford own a factory he never built? Because he traded for the resources? but trade produces nothing, it simply is an exchange of goods or entitlements- he still has no factory unless he constructs the thing. His simply trading for the ability to produce a factory, does not produce a thing. He does not make, own, nor produce, the factory. He is irrelevant to the situation, and is capable of producing only through his arbitrary claim on the use of that capital that he gained from exchange of wealth created in the same way.
[QUOTE=Aman VII;39798167]Um yeah they are. Is that an issue? [b]Why are you entitled to a higher pay?[/b][/QUOTE]
Minimum wage was designed to be able to support a family if a person was working full time at a minimum wage job. That is very clearly not the case. No one can live off of $1000 a month. That's not even enough for a studio + utilities.
The axe concept is that a man wants to get something from the tree, but doesnt want to do it, so he gets someone else to do it in exchange for work. This only works when the man who is doing the cutting agrees on a set price for the work. Companies take advantage of people by making them barely able to live off of their set price and to get out of that set price you have to spend money you dont have to get a better price.
The best way to fix it would be a massive strike until the wages were raised to a livable level and working conditions improved, but then everybody would be homeless because they couldnt pay their bills and banks would take everything.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];39798381']I'm entitled to the fate of all that I produce. The only reason that I'm not is because of my position created by the very process by which people usurp the value of production from others.
If I chop down a tree, who chopped down the tree? Me. Whose wood is it? Mine. What changes if the axe says "John Smith's Property" on it? Does simply using the owner property of another entitle that person to the product of my labor? "You can borrow my car to get to work, but then I am entitled to all of your wages." Capital does not produce wealth- labor does, and it is labor that produces all wealth. It is questionable, then, how individuals who do not labor, can accumulate the exchange-value equivalent of wealth, which is created only through collective achievement of labor. That is to say- how can Henry Ford own a factory he never built? Because he traded for the resources? but trade produces nothing, it simply is an exchange of goods or entitlements- he still has no factory unless he constructs the thing. His simply trading for the ability to produce a factory, does not produce a thing. He does not make, own, nor produce, the factory. He is irrelevant to the situation, and is capable of producing only through his arbitrary claim on the use of that capital that he gained from exchange of wealth created in the same way.[/QUOTE]
Do you own your computer? You didn't build it. Some person in a Chinese sweatshop did. Why aren't they using your computer instead of you?
People should be entitled to their earnings. Yes during his time at Microsoft Bill Gates probably never worked as hard as someone in a sweatshop or something, but without his leadership Microsoft wouldn't exist as it is today, and the people hired by Microsoft might have been worse off if Microsoft never existed. Let the rich keep their money, most of them have deserved it for working their way to it.
Not saying screw the poor people though. I support schemes that are designed to financially assist the poor, such as progressive taxation.
[QUOTE=Aetna;39798366]I doubt you're even old enough to have a job, fool. As someone who works full time in an expanding industry, I can easily observe how fucked our economics are. I lose 40% of my paychecks to state and federal taxes.[/QUOTE]
Taxes are a different issue, and yes I agree that government spending should be minimal and taxes are higher than they should be. Coincidentally the reason some of these taxes are high is because of social and entitlement programs like people in this thread seem to want.
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;39798421]Do you own your computer? You didn't build it. Some person in a Chinese sweatshop did. Why aren't they using your computer instead of you?[/QUOTE]
Because the chinese people, in turn, work for people, who in turn, own the computers, who listen to people above them and so on up the corporate ladder.
Problem is, this corporate ladder nowadays is completely out of control and is strife with corruption and carelessness.
[QUOTE=Aman VII;39798433]Taxes are a different issue, and yes I agree that government spending should be minimal and taxes are higher than they should be. Coincidentally the reason some of these taxes are high is because of social and entitlement programs like people in this thread seem to want.[/QUOTE]
There should be programs to help people get out of and stay out of poverty.
Being able and willing to work doesn't guarantee getting out of poverty, which is part of the reason why the wealth inequality is a problem.
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;39798421]Do you own your computer? You didn't build it. Some person in a Chinese sweatshop did. Why aren't they using your computer instead of you?[/QUOTE]
If no one bought computers, the people who build them may not be unemployed, or worse off who knows. For them building it, in return I am guaranteeing them employment.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;39798427]People should be entitled to their earnings. Yes during his time at Microsoft Bill Gates probably never worked as hard as someone in a sweatshop or something, but without his leadership Microsoft wouldn't exist as it is today, and the people hired by Microsoft might have been worse off if Microsoft never existed. Let the rich keep their money, most of them have deserved it for working their way to it.[/QUOTE]
So you're saying, just because one man had an idea that worked and was profitable, we give him huge excesses amounts of money in terms of what he needs to live happily, where instead this money could have been used for education, poverty relief, or even just returned into circulation.. Instead, we trust these superrich individuals to use their huge excess in perfect responsibility? I don't think so.
[QUOTE=lifehole;39798264]What do you think we are, tribals? We see the flaws, and there are many paths of supposed ways to fix it, but staying the same obviously isn't right, because of the perceived flaws.
[URL]http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-things-rich-people-need-to-stop-saying/[/URL]
Read the last part of that humor/info mix article and I hope you'll get my point a bit more.
Anyways, [B]do you honestly think that someone is entitled to as much as 5 thousand times the amount of money as another human being simply because he made smart decisions, started a company, etc[/B]? I don't think any living thing on earth has the combined emotional, physical, and mental capacity of 5 thousand people.
There are obviously flaws, but the way to fix them is up for grabs.[/QUOTE]
yes
it doesn't matter if he has the abilities of 5000 people or not, it matters that he created something which other people wanted enough to give him enough money to make him that rich
[QUOTE=lifehole;39798481]So you're saying, just because one man had an idea that worked and was profitable, we give him huge excesses amounts of money in terms of what he needs to live happily, where instead this money could have been used for education, poverty relief, or even just returned into circulation.. Instead, we trust these superrich individuals to use their huge excess in perfect responsibility? I don't think so.[/QUOTE]
You're assuming businesses don't practice corporate social responsibility, which is a pretty dumb assumption to make.
[QUOTE=Eltro102;39798493]yes[/QUOTE]
You believe one human being can be inherently more valuable than 5 thousand others combined simply because he had a smart idea/played his cards right
[QUOTE=Aman VII;39798275]lolwat?
Think you got some twisted ideas of what the USA are.[/QUOTE]I think you have no idea what the government in the past had planned for the USA.
[QUOTE=lifehole;39798513]You believe one human being can be inherently more valuable than 5 thousand others combined simply because he had a smart idea/played his cards right[/QUOTE]
how does him being richer make him inherently more valuable? he just has more opportunities now and is better equipped to use them because he correctly used opportunities he got before or 'played his cards right'
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;39798321]But you don't own the man. You're paying the man to use your ax in which he does your job for you. By paying him, the rewards of his labor will go to you but he receives financial compensation for his involvement.
Additionally, since you're no longer cutting the tree, it leaves you free to do other things and explore other venues.[/QUOTE]
But how do you get the money in the first place? Let's just assume that we're at the original position- no one has money, so no one can get paid. The first thing of value ever produced would be the axe. The second thing, would be the wood chopped by the axe. We can then assume that chopping the tree down with the axe would produce something of value. Regardless of whom owned the ace, the person that chopped the tree has created the wood. Who is entitled to the wood? Is it the man who owned the axe, or the man who chopped the tree? Well, you could say the man who owned the axe, but you would therefore have to take the position that you are taking the product of the labor of someone else- you are taking the wood of the chopper. You could justify this by saying that- "Well, the chopper needs my axe, and I need wood. The exchange of goods would be beneficial, mutually." But that would be partially incorrect- the man who chopped the tree could be entitled to [I]all[/I] of the wood, because he makes the wood. Essentially, he is paying your 75% of his wood to use your axe, since he produced all of the wood. Your axe merely allowed him to do it- you did not make any of the wood. You are not responsible for it, and you are not entitled to it. "But without my axe, he could not chop the wood at all." This is true, but if you didn't own the axe at all, and everyone was free to use the axe, and we would assume that the wood would be equally available as the axe because it also could not be owned, then you are hindering the ability to make wood. You could allow for the axe to be used freely, or you could exclude its use for personal gain. By owning the axe and excluding its use by others without an exchange, you are hindering others and forcing those who need wood to bend to your will, until another axe is capable of being produced, at which point we would continue the cycle because of the scarcity of axes caused by your exclusive ownership. Those without axes, must sell their time, bodies, and labor in the form of contract of exchange in order to gain any wood, and those with axes, would have the upper hand in fashioning the best axes because they would have more wood than those without. Essentially, then, you create a system whereing there is inequality not based on hard work, merit, or entitlement, but on the arbitrary concept of exclusive ownership of capital
which is acquired by work
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];39798538']Marxist stuff (I guess)[/QUOTE]
Now I understand why your Steam group requires a five hundred word essay to join.
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;39798421]Do you own your computer? You didn't build it. Some person in a Chinese sweatshop did. Why aren't they using your computer instead of you?[/QUOTE]
Well, some person in china also doesn't own the computer, his manager does, and it was his managers choice- not his- to exchange this computer. The Chinaman should have every right to decide- collectively, with his cohorts- the fate of the computers they make. This computer is my personal property- it does not produce, and it is only exclusive because no one else wants to use it. It is not private, nor is it capital. It would be my hope that the chinese factory workers of Dell and Foxconn or whatnot, would be able one day to exchange their computers to receive the full value of them, an dnot merely a small percentage paid back by the "onwers" of the factory. My personal ownership of this computer would come not at their expense, but with their consent.
Edit: I'll continue this later, I have to sell my time, labor, and body to another person out of necessity of my survival.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;39798505]You're assuming businesses don't practice corporate social responsibility, which is a pretty dumb assumption to make.[/QUOTE]
"businesses" Most of the time, they don't. Look at all the damn loopholes corporations exploit to avoid taxes, look at the american skew of CEO-company wealth compared to other countries, etc.
I'm not saying abolish corporations or anything like that, I am just saying that some things have to be unavoidable and wealth needs to be taken back from people who have much more than they deserve. I don't care if it's the government taking it in taxes or if it's the CEO dispersing it in a massive grant to his employees.
Just don't spend the already massive amount you have to invest and make more. Use it to help other human beings for fucks sake. Maybe not direct recirculation, and I am not saying that all superrich people will be in a situation to help others, but there needs to be more regulation on this.
Corporations are playing a bigger and bigger part in our lives, and need to be watched carefully, from the inside out and the outside in. I don't really feel like falling into laissez-faire again.
[QUOTE=Aman VII;39797796]So?
He was the leader, he owned it all, he reaps the rewards. That's how it works.[/QUOTE]
yea this is how it works in a dysfunctional, immoral society. that's not how it works in a civilized society where people are rewarded based on how much they contribute vs. how much they can manipulate and corrupt.
[QUOTE=Eltro102;39798531]how does him being richer make him inherently more valuable? he just has more opportunities now and is better equipped to use them because he correctly used opportunities he got before or 'played his cards right'[/QUOTE]
That does not make him a human being entitled to 5 thousand times the economic capital. I'm pretty sure you don't have to take increasingly large psychology and corruption and polygraph/etc tests for every level of wealth you have. Just because someone is financially successfully doesn't mean he is immune to corruption.
[QUOTE=lifehole;39798606]That does not make him a human being entitled to 5 thousand times the economic capital. I'm pretty sure you don't have to take increasingly large psychology and corruption and polygraph/etc tests for every level of wealth you have. Just because someone is financially successfully doesn't mean he is immune to corruption.[/QUOTE]
and neither does it mean he is corrupt
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];39798579'].[/QUOTE]
Seed Eater, you're leaving out artificial labor. And intellectual labor.
[editline]4th March 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Eltro102;39798625]and neither does it mean he is corrupt[/QUOTE]
I know, but the risk outweighs the (realtively) non-existent benefits.
I doubt if you place 5 thousand people in an environment one man will end up with all the cash (of all 5k) through legal, completely pure, business.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];39798579']Well, some person in china also doesn't own the computer, his manager does, and it was his managers choice- not his- to exchange this computer. The Chinaman should have every right to decide- collectively, with his cohorts- the fate of the computers they make. This computer is my personal property- it does not produce, and it is only exclusive because no one else wants to use it. It is not private, nor is it capital. It would be my hope that the chinese factory workers of Dell and Foxconn or whatnot, would be able one day to exchange their computers to receive the full value of them, an dnot merely a small percentage paid back by the "onwers" of the factory. My personal ownership of this computer would come not at their expense, but with their consent.
Edit: I'll continue this later, I have to sell my time, labor, and body to another person out of necessity of my survival.[/QUOTE]
A computer can be used to produce. But since you don't believe in the idea of ownership, can I have your stuff?
I never really got the idea of redistributing wealth. I'm all for programs to help poverty and higher taxes for the rich, but saying rich people don't deserve their cash because they have a lot is really stupid.
The economy, like life, isn't fair. Some people are naturally just gonna make more. You can't say they don't deserve it because you think they made to much. It doesn't really matter how hard they worked for it. It's their cash and you can't just take it away from them because you feel it's unfair.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.