Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 45
  1. #11  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    alright well these questions are very vague but ill keep it short.

    1. simple answer wealth is produced. wealth can be many things but in short money is the abstraction of labor. all items or goods or services are produced, performed, or obtained via labor. the value is something is a combination of it's use-value determined by demand and also the cost of labor. labor used to produce a good is what imparts it's additional value, it's the basic commodity traded and that which is necessary for all others to be produced, and keeping a portion of that labor cost for yourself is profit. a system of power like our own over time will acculumate abstracted labor force in the form of monitary wealth. this is why technological innovations , measured in how many man-hours they could output, were the basis of the explosion of wealth in the last century and a half, allowing for more man-hours (or labor) to be abstracted from individual workers (who shifted the their labor onto manning machines, for longer periods of time and for even less pay).

    2. your income should be earned. ideally, how much money you make is determined by how much work you do, plus additional value for societal needs which require special training like doctors or scientists. in reality, there's no such thing as the invisible hand, we should adjust our system so that working class and middle class americans have a larger share of the pie (because they already earn it, but others take it) and the recipients of wall street bailouts who give themselves billion dollar bonuses would get less. this wouldn't involve simply taking money away andd giving it to others, but creating a macroeconomic environment that benefits the bottom 80% more than currently and the top 5% less than currently. There is no such thing as a neutral economy, some mythical hands-off policy where the economy runs itself. No such thing. right now the policies actively benefit the super-wealthy, so instead of doing nothing and letting the current gravity keep sucking wealth upwards, we can change a few things to benefit working class people and give more of a competative edge to small businesses.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,139
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    alright well these questions are very vague but ill keep it short.

    1. simple answer wealth is produced. wealth can be many things but in short money is the abstraction of labor. all items or goods or services are produced, performed, or obtained via labor. the value is something is a combination of it's use-value determined by demand and also the cost of labor. labor used to produce a good is what imparts it's additional value, it's the basic commodity traded and that which is necessary for all others to be produced, and keeping a portion of that labor cost for yourself is profit. a system of power like our own over time will acculumate abstracted labor force in the form of monitary wealth. this is why technological innovations , measured in how many man-hours they could output, were the basis of the explosion of wealth in the last century and a half, allowing for more man-hours (or labor) to be abstracted from individual workers (who shifted the their labor onto manning machines, for longer periods of time and for even less pay).

    2. your income should be earned. ideally, how much money you make is determined by how much work you do, plus additional value for societal needs which require special training like doctors or scientists. in reality, there's no such thing as the invisible hand, we should adjust our system so that working class and middle class americans have a larger share of the pie (because they already earn it, but others take it) and the recipients of wall street bailouts who give themselves billion dollar bonuses would get less. this wouldn't involve simply taking money away andd giving it to others, but creating a macroeconomic environment that benefits the bottom 80% more than currently and the top 5% less than currently. There is no such thing as a neutral economy, some mythical hands-off policy where the economy runs itself. No such thing. right now the policies actively benefit the super-wealthy, so instead of doing nothing and letting the current gravity keep sucking wealth upwards, we can change a few things to benefit working class people and give more of a competative edge to small businesses.
    Wow. A concise answer. Wrong, but concise. While you have the basic grasp of the concept of #1, where you err is when you say this:
    this is why technological innovations , measured in how many man-hours they could output, were the basis of the explosion of wealth in the last century and a half, allowing for more man-hours (or labor) to be abstracted from individual workers (who shifted the their labor onto manning machines, for longer periods of time and for even less pay).
    Your error is believing that those who are manufacturing this product should be compensated the same as those who own the plant. Wrongo. The workers you describe are paid the wage that the owner feels is fair. If they don't like it, they are free to seek employment elsewhere. I don't care what any of you socialist types believe, you do not have the right to a job. Nor do you have the right to a "living wage". Minimum wage jobs are set in that manner for a reason. They are not designed to get rich from. Most of these jobs are low skilled jobs designed to introduce young people to the work force. If you are in your 20's and still flipping burgers at McDonalds, then you are a pathetic loser. Everyone, and I do mean everyone, has the OPPORTUNITY to be successful and even wealthy. The means of how you do it is all up to you. I do not begrudge anyone the living they make. I am not jealous nor envious. I say good for them.

    As for the "wealth getting sucked upwards", I go back to the saying I posted. "If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you always got". If you want to be up there with the Jones', come up with a product or service someone might be willing to pay for. If you want to continue to be a slug, you should expect the government to take, at the barrel of a gun, from someone who earned it and give it to you. You make your own breaks, plain and simple.

    I've often said that if every dime was pooled and doled out evenly across the board, within a matter of 5 years, those who were considered wealthy before would be wealthy again and those who were dirt poor will be dirt poor again. With scant few exceptions. If you don't think most poor people are poor because of poor decisions, take a look at a few lottery winners.
    Last edited by NJCardFan; 10-18-2010 at 05:56 PM. Reason: my keyboard sucks
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    Wow. A concise answer. Wrong, but concise. While you have the basic grasp of the concept of #1, where you err is when you say this:

    Your error is believing that those who are manufacturing this product should be compensated the same as those who own the plant. Wrongo. The workers you describe are paid the wage that the owner feels is fair. If they don't like it, they are free to seek employment elsewhere.
    This assumes better options are available elsewhere. The system itself gravitates away from this ideal environment. This is because very wealthy owners are in a different class than regular wage workers (I should note that obviously there isn't a simple 2-class divide, but a rather more complex system of classes based on numerous factors, not simply income, but the point remains that the very wealthy elite ruling class is distinctly different from the majority of working classes). They compete against each other for highest profit, while workers compete against each other highest wage. The thing is that highest profit motive naturally means keeping costs low, including labor costs, which is actually extracting the most unpaid labor out of as many workers as possible. The owner must do this to stay competitive against other owners, it's not as if he is some ghoul, but when the government is extraordinarily overrepresentative of the most wealthy owners, the resulting macroeconomic policies are those which benefit these elites at the expense of most Americans.

    This means that businesses are doing their best to keep labor costs lower and lower, there is a myth of being to use your relatively little labor as a significant bargaining tool, but this isn't true today. It's not really a negotiation when one party already holds all the chips.


    I don't care what any of you socialist types believe, you do not have the right to a job. Nor do you have the right to a "living wage".
    Do you believe that the government is by and for the people? If so, why cannot the people decide, through democratic representative legislation, to pool together resources for the benefit of everyone?

    You don't have to call it a right, it can just be a smart decision made by the population.


    Minimum wage jobs are set in that manner for a reason. They are not designed to get rich from. Most of these jobs are low skilled jobs designed to introduce young people to the work force. If you are in your 20's and still flipping burgers at McDonalds, then you are a pathetic loser.
    No they are set that way because it's the lowest these companies can get away with paying their employees. It has nothing to do with some life lesson there isn't some paternal figure designing the economy it's just about profits, that is the legal obligation of a corporation.

    Also, the point of a job isn't to get rich. Maybe this is your plan but I don't believe most Americans have getting rich as a realistic desire or goal. Most Americans, I believe (and no I can't cite any source on this one) want to be able to make enough money from a full time job to support themselves, their families, and a little extra to pursue their passions. This is not a human right or any sort of thing like that, this is simply the American Dream.

    Everyone, and I do mean everyone, has the OPPORTUNITY to be successful and even wealthy. The means of how you do it is all up to you. I do not begrudge anyone the living they make. I am not jealous nor envious. I say good for them.
    Not everyone has an equal opportunity though. It's not even realistic to expect full equality of opportunity, people will always have connections. The problem is that large segments of the population are statistically dramatically less likely to to become wealthy or even stably successful.

    We produce the wealth of the wealthiest nation in the world, I believe the workers have a claim to a larger percentage of that wealth, through a restructuring of macroeconomic policy to achieve greater access to opportunity, not from simple robin-hood style redistribution.

    As for the "wealth getting sucked upwards", I go back to the saying I posted. "If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you always got". If you want to be up there with the Jones', come up with a product or service someone might be willing to pay for. If you want to continue to be a slug, you should expect the government to take, at the barrel of a gun, from someone who earned it and give it to you. You make your own breaks, plain and simple.
    Horatio Alger called, he wants his self-indulging pipe dream back.

    The fact of the matter is that this success story applies to a tiny percentage of the population. These people are constantly held up as reminders that "even a regular guy can make it", but the very excess of attention given to them also highlights the fact that these people are a tiny fraction of the population, the vast majority of people simply work their entire lives and try to save for retirement if they can. They are like celebrities and American Idol stars to us, they justify our system because we can point to them as shining examples of how someone can make it here but if it were truly that common we wouldn't need all of this excess because it would be the norm.

    People also love these stories because when you buy into them you also purchase the self-congratulating notion that "even if only a tiny percentage of the population ever achieves this, I can do it, because I am special". Deep down everyone wants to believe this, and this mythology, while justifying the power structure, gives people the chance to believe that.



    I've often said that if every dime was pooled and doled out evenly across the board, within a matter of 5 years, those who were considered wealthy before would be wealthy again and those who were dirt poor will be dirt poor again. With scant few exceptions. If you don't think most poor people are poor because of poor decisions, take a look at a few lottery winners.
    One primary function of ideology is to convince the population that the status quo is a result of nature.
    Last edited by Wei Wu Wei; 10-18-2010 at 08:24 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,139
    Oy. My head is spinning....

    This assumes better options are available elsewhere. The system itself gravitates away from this ideal environment. This is because very wealthy owners are in a different class than regular wage workers (I should note that obviously there isn't a simple 2-class divide, but a rather more complex system of classes based on numerous factors, not simply income, but the point remains that the very wealthy elite ruling class is distinctly different from the majority of working classes). They compete against each other for highest profit, while workers compete against each other highest wage. The thing is that highest profit motive naturally means keeping costs low, including labor costs, which is actually extracting the most unpaid labor out of as many workers as possible. The owner must do this to stay competitive against other owners, it's not as if he is some ghoul, but when the government is extraordinarily overrepresentative of the most wealthy owners, the resulting macroeconomic policies are those which benefit these elites at the expense of most Americans.
    Wow, I used to think you didn't know shit. Now I'm completely convinced of it. Have you ever run a business? You do know that a business that doesn't make a profit will not be a business for too long, right? If it weren't profits, you wouldn't have that computer you babble on. And as I said, if a particular worker doesn't like the wage, go work somewhere else. There is no gun to anyone's head to work anywhere. And if you don't think you're being paid what your worth, negotiate a higher salary.
    This means that businesses are doing their best to keep labor costs lower and lower, there is a myth of being to use your relatively little labor as a significant bargaining tool, but this isn't true today. It's not really a negotiation when one party already holds all the chips.
    Wow. Clueless. I worked in the bread business for 12 years. I made damned good money. So did the guys who baked the bread. According to you, the sweatshops are still in business. Nope. Nobody is starving.
    Do you believe that the government is by and for the people? If so, why cannot the people decide, through democratic representative legislation, to pool together resources for the benefit of everyone?
    Supposedly. 2nd question, no. Theft by any other name is still theft. And this democratic legislation you speak of is called communism. It's the old joke. Democracy is 2 wolves and 1 sheep deciding what's for dinner. Let me twist this around, you have 10 people and 1 doesn't want to play. Do you think it's right to force that 1 person to play? Freedom. Learn it.
    You don't have to call it a right, it can just be a smart decision made by the population.
    So you're advocating taking things by force. Nice. Someone's "smart decision" is another man's rights infringement. Like I said, theft by any other name is still theft.
    No they are set that way because it's the lowest these companies can get away with paying their employees. It has nothing to do with some life lesson there isn't some paternal figure designing the economy it's just about profits, that is the legal obligation of a corporation.
    Once again...WRONG! The only thing the minimum wage does is kill jobs. Minimum wage gets you minimum effort. You know what I find irritating? Going to McDonalds. Ordering a fucking value meal, and having the order get screwed up. I mean, value meals are set in stone. Sandwich, fries, drink. How do you fuck that up? But it happens, a lot. And again, the minimum wage was never meant to be a "living" wage. But here's the thing. You get hired. Get this minimum wage, then guess what? Do a good enough job, and you get a raise. Wow. What a concept.
    Also, the point of a job isn't to get rich. Maybe this is your plan but I don't believe most Americans have getting rich as a realistic desire or goal. Most Americans, I believe (and no I can't cite any source on this one) want to be able to make enough money from a full time job to support themselves, their families, and a little extra to pursue their passions. This is not a human right or any sort of thing like that, this is simply the American Dream. ]
    Again, get a marketable skill and you'll do fine. I made a good living delivering bread. And I make a good living now(even though I hate the job). I'd give everything to go back to the bread business, or any delivery business...and who knows, maybe I will. But you know what? There's money to be made everywhere. The medical field is a gold mine. My wife wants to get into that. And there's also a side project I'm looking at that is a major money maker.
    Not everyone has an equal opportunity though. It's not even realistic to expect full equality of opportunity, people will always have connections.
    Bullshit. Everyone has an opportunity. EVERYONE. Even your sorry ass. It's what you do with that opportunity. I know of many people who started with shit and are doing well. Like I said, if you want to spend your time getting high and spouting shit on the internet, then you're not making the most of your opportunity.
    The problem is that large segments of the population are statistically dramatically less likely to to become wealthy or even stably successful.
    Prove it. Give me a study not from DailyKos or something like that.
    We produce the wealth of the wealthiest nation in the world, I believe the workers have a claim to a larger percentage of that wealth]
    Bullshit. The workers put up not one dime of capital to start the business so they are only entitled to what the employer is willing to pay. Remember, the employer is doing the employee a favor of giving them a job, not the other way around. If that employee doesn't like it, there are 10 people who would love to have their job. Wow, you are so incredibly stupid.

    Next question.
    Last edited by NJCardFan; 10-18-2010 at 10:47 PM.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    This is a bit of a thread bump but this is also an excellent thread. Real questions, real discussion, at least for a little while.

    I was probably banned before I could reply to the last post, which I would like to do, however there's two things I'd like to adress before I do:

    1. Notice in this thread who resorts to chilidish insults and name-calling. If a person knows what they are talking about, they don't need to obsessively call other people stupid, they can simply demonstrate in a respectful way that they don't know what they are talking about.

    2. I'm a bit wary of posting any good, well-thought out responses on this forum because it seems pretty clear that I'll get banned for making too much sense. I know that nobody likes anyone else spanking their children, so I think I'm justified in my caution here.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #16  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    42,271
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    This is a bit of a thread bump but this is also an excellent thread. Real questions, real discussion, at least for a little while.

    I was probably banned before I could reply to the last post, which I would like to do, however there's two things I'd like to adress before I do:

    1. Notice in this thread who resorts to chilidish insults and name-calling. If a person knows what they are talking about, they don't need to obsessively call other people stupid, they can simply demonstrate in a respectful way that they don't know what they are talking about.

    2. I'm a bit wary of posting any good, well-thought out responses on this forum because it seems pretty clear that I'll get banned for making too much sense. I know that nobody likes anyone else spanking their children, so I think I'm justified in my caution here.
    If you have a problem here and feel as though your mistreated go somewhere where you are treated better.
    The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.
    http://i.imgur.com/FHvkMSE.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #17  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockntractor View Post
    If you have a problem here and feel as though your mistreated go somewhere where you are treated better.
    i like it here, clarification on the rules is just useful before i post.

    i've been trying to stay within the boundaries here, but even then the banhammer drops down whenever someone gets upset, which happens pretty easily. I don't mind adjusting to the rules but it's just a little difficult to do when I have no clue where 'the line' is. I'm not trying to be difficult here , i hope you know. I won't talk about this more in this thread, but I would appreciate some clarification if that's possible. :)
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #18  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    42,271
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    i like it here, clarification on the rules is just useful before i post.

    i've been trying to stay within the boundaries here, but even then the banhammer drops down whenever someone gets upset, which happens pretty easily. I don't mind adjusting to the rules but it's just a little difficult to do when I have no clue where 'the line' is. I'm not trying to be difficult here , i hope you know. I won't talk about this more in this thread, but I would appreciate some clarification if that's possible. :)
    Just don't worry about it and make your posts Wei, if you get a week off now and then there are better things to do than post on message boards.
    The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.
    http://i.imgur.com/FHvkMSE.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #19  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,800
    Wei, what is best in life?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #20  
    Best Bounty Hunter in the Forums fettpett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southwest Michigan (in Exile)
    Posts
    8,757
    Quote Originally Posted by CaughtintheMiddle1990 View Post
    Wei, what is best in life?
    huh?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •