Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

It's Not Your Imagination, You Really Are Working Harder For Less Money.


Guest BoomBoomCrash

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 361
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

So, in effect, you are saying that the proletariat is being denied their fair and equitable access to the most fundamantal means of production (land) and that, if possible, those means of production should be shared more equitably amongst everyone.

Absolutely ..but only for land

There is no moral basis for doing anything but sharing land as it is not contributed or produced by anyone. Unlike other means of production (machinery etc), nobody is responsible for providing anyone with land. However, there is no moral basis for sharing other forms of 'capital' (real capital) whatsoever because that is created by human endeavor and so is rightly private property.

So in simple principle (implementation is another issue) the land is shared, while everything else becomes private property by being produced

Sounds a liitle bit on the Marxist side to me...... ;)

Marx was not impressed.

He called the concept, the 'last gasp of the capitalist'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George

Edited by Stars
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Steve Cook
Are you sure it's not because they want to give genuinely poverty stricken people in other countries a leg up?

Actually, I am going to copy and paste this onto my desktop for posterity..... :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BoomBoomCrash
Absolutely ..but only for land

There is no moral basis for doing anything but sharing land as it is not contributed or produced by anyone. Unlike other means of production (machinery etc), nobody is responsible for providing anyone with land. However, there is no moral basis for sharing other forms of 'capital' (real capital) whatsoever because that is created by human endeavor and so is rightly private property.

So in simple principle (implementation is another issue) the land is shared, while everything else becomes private property by being produced

Marx was not impressed.

He called the concept, the 'last gasp of the capitalist'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George

"One criticism of geolibertarianism is economic: that their analysis of fallow land as the major cause of poverty is wrong. Critics point out that in many places, such as Bolivia, poverty endures despite an abundance of idle land. Geolibertarians counter that far more than the problem of fallow land, it is the uncompensated removal of people's liberty to access and use land that forces the least productive into poverty, as they are unable to secure access to land good enough for them to obtain a living. The abundance of idle, vacant desert land does not help the poor get access to the better land where they could support themselves."

In other words it's complete bunkum

Link to post
Share on other sites
"One criticism of geolibertarianism is economic: that their analysis of fallow land as the major cause of poverty is wrong. Critics point out that in many places, such as Bolivia, poverty endures despite an abundance of idle land. Geolibertarians counter that far more than the problem of fallow land, it is the uncompensated removal of people's liberty to access and use land that forces the least productive into poverty, as they are unable to secure access to land good enough for them to obtain a living. The abundance of idle, vacant desert land does not help the poor get access to the better land where they could support themselves."

In other words it's complete bunkum

Or not everyone is a competent farmer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BoomBoomCrash
Or not everyone is a competent farmer.

Or how about in such a system those with power and wealth will stack the deck so they control the most useful areas of land, leaving everyone else with salted earth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is because "capitalists" are short-termist f*ckwits

One of the shortest posts sums it up the best.

If everyone was well paid most folk would spend every penny. That would create demand and, in turn, jobs that paid well.

Why doesn't this work in reality? Inflation? That can be controlled, but only if those in control choose to.

Inflation is only a symptom. The disease is greed. Far too many folk want more than the guy next door, even if the guy next door is doing ok. And they don't just want a little more. They want a lot more. The worst thing is that they all think that they 'deserve' more and that runs from benefit fiddlers right up to the richest.

My analogy is the crowd fighting for the food sacks thrown from a truck in some poverty stricken area. There might be enough food for everyone twice over but because of the fight some folk get most of it while many others get next to nothing. Those who got too much may pass some on but it will be at a price. And all because the aid workers didn't properly control the distribution.

It is a fact that there is enough food produced to feed the world and yet people starve in their millions.

I think that the same applies to wealth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Or how about in such a system those with power and wealth will stack the deck so they control the most useful areas of land, leaving everyone else with salted earth.

They would have to pay everyone else the market value

Which means (theoretically) everyone else could just buy it back off them

Link to post
Share on other sites
You say - McDonalds should pay the value (to it) of the task, to the employee.

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the employee should receive an income based on some ratio of the profits generated by the business. At present the management gains financialy from increases in profits in the form of bonus payemants-in addition to basic pay- why do the employees at the bottom not also benefit in this way?

I say - but the customer will not pay much for tasks that can be easily done by lots of people.

Yet Mcdonalds makes billions in profit- how do you explain this anomaly? Perhaps a lot of people not paying much still adds up to a lot of profit?

You say - but I'm not talking about the value of the task to the customer, I'm talking about the value to the operation

I say But the value of the task to the customer IS the value of the task to the operation because they can't do anything with the task but sell it to a customer.

So if it isn't worth much to customers because anyone can do it, then it also isn't worth much to McDonalds as well.

Do you see?

If the tasks carried out by it's staff are not worth very much to McDonalds then if they sacked all their staff they would continue to be profitable- but since this is not the case we can only assume that the tasks carried by the staff are vital their billions of profit. And if the tasks are vital, they cannot be of low value, can they? Can something be both vital and at the same time of no importance?

You keep conflating the task with the performer of the task. I completely agree that an individual burger flipper is worthless to Mcdonalds- if he walks away then he can easily be replaced. But the task of flipping burgers is not worthless to McDoanlds- it is vital to their operation and cannot be dispensed with.

QUOTE (wonderpup @ Aug 16 2009, 10:28 PM)

Here's a cartoon example. Lets pretend that a vital part of your operation depends on a big red button being pressed ten times an hour. You employ someone to press that button ten times an hour. Does the fact that a million other people could (theoreticly) also press that button ten times an hour make any difference to the value that procedure adds to your operation?

Yes it will-

Because as an employer, unless I am holding some secret technology, my prices will be competed down towards my costs by other people doing the same thing more cheaply. So if a competitor finds a way to do the same task without employing someone to press that button or getting someone to do it for less, I will be competing at a disadvantage and the value added for me by pressing the button will be lower or perhaps even non existent. So, how difficult it is to find someone to press that button effects how much I can pay someone to do it.

I agree with this- but you cannot seem to grasp my point. I am not talking about the cost of getting the button pushed, I am talking about the part that getting the button pushed plays in your operation.

Think of it in terms of a machine with a washer in it- does the effectiveness of the washer alter in any way if a billion new washers are made in the factory it came from? Does it suddenly become a worse washer as a result? Obviously not.

So can we say that the value of the washer to the operation of the machine is not altered by the fact that a billion other washers are subsequently made?

QUOTE (wonderpup @ Aug 16 2009, 10:28 PM)

The answer is no. The value of the button press to your operation remains the same no matter how many other people could press the button.

Not true (see above)

It is true if we are speaking purely in terms of functionality rather than cost. As in the case of the washer- it's functional value is not impacted in any way if a billion more washers are made- it performs the same function in the same way.

So to claim that because a million people could execute a task makes that task trivial is not accurate- a task could be both simple to perform and yet still be vital to the function of your business. In McDoanlds case most of the tasks it's staff perform are relatively simple operations- but it could not function without them.

Simply put- there are no low value tasks- only low value workers.

However, since you belive that people should be rewarded for the wealth they create, and since you now understand that all tasks are vital tasks, I'm sure you will agree with me that all employees should gain if the companies profits rise- not just a few people at the top.

I see you have avoided answering my company A and company B question- as does everyone else. What is it about that simple scenario that scares you people?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BoomBoomCrash
They would have to pay everyone else the market value

Which means (theoretically) everyone else could just buy it back off them

Who determines the market value? Presumably the same forces that see McDonald's workers earning a pittance? Those with power will always manipulate the system to suit their ends.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the employee should receive an income based on some ratio of the profits generated by the business. At present the management gains financialy from increases in profits in the form of bonus payemants-in addition to basic pay- why do the employees at the bottom not also benefit in this way?

Yet Mcdonalds makes billions in profit- how do you explain this anomaly? Perhaps a lot of people not paying much still adds up to a lot of profit?

If the tasks carried out by it's staff are not worth very much to McDonalds then if they sacked all their staff they would continue to be profitable- but since this is not the case we can only assume that the tasks carried by the staff are vital their billions of profit. And if the tasks are vital, they cannot be of low value, can they? Can something be both vital and at the same time of no importance?

You keep conflating the task with the performer of the task. I completely agree that an individual burger flipper is worthless to Mcdonalds- if he walks away then he can easily be replaced. But the task of flipping burgers is not worthless to McDoanlds- it is vital to their operation and cannot be dispensed with.

I agree with this- but you cannot seem to grasp my point. I am not talking about the cost of getting the button pushed, I am talking about the part that getting the button pushed plays in your operation.

Think of it in terms of a machine with a washer in it- does the effectiveness of the washer alter in any way if a billion new washers are made in the factory it came from? Does it suddenly become a worse washer as a result? Obviously not.

So can we say that the value of the washer to the operation of the machine is not altered by the fact that a billion other washers are subsequently made?

It is true if we are speaking purely in terms of functionality rather than cost. As in the case of the washer- it's functional value is not impacted in any way if a billion more washers are made- it performs the same function in the same way.

So to claim that because a million people could execute a task makes that task trivial is not accurate- a task could be both simple to perform and yet still be vital to the function of your business. In McDoanlds case most of the tasks it's staff perform are relatively simple operations- but it could not function without them.

Simply put- there are no low value tasks- only low value workers.

However, since you belive that people should be rewarded for the wealth they create, and since you now understand that all tasks are vital tasks, I'm sure you will agree with me that all employees should gain if the companies profits rise- not just a few people at the top.

I see you have avoided answering my company A and company B question- as does everyone else. What is it about that simple scenario that scares you people?

Whats the profits of a business got to do with the wages paid on a monkey see monkey do type of job, working their standard jobs ? - if they are adding value to the business with a unique talent then different story. The profits could be driven by technolgy, investments, unique knowledge by Key Man/Woman in the business and not wholly or partially attributable to the routine labour force.

Your example of a washer doesnt stand up - are you saying that a supplier of said washer should then increase his charge for it because its intergral to the business, because the machine won't work otherwise and no profits generated.

Because that's what you are saying in relation to the labour supply.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BoomBoomCrash
Whats the profits of a business got to do with the wages paid on a monkey see monkey do type of job, working their standard jobs ? - if they are adding value to the business with a unique talent then different story. The profits could be driven by technolgy, investments, unique knowledge by Key Man/Woman in the business and not wholly or partially attributable to the routine labour force.

Your example of a washer doesnt stand up - are you saying that a supplier of said washer should then increase his charge for it because its intergral to the business, because the machine won't work otherwise and no profits generated.

Because that's what you are saying in relation to the labour supply.

Just to be clear on this, you equate a sentient being with a piece of formed metal?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BoomBoomCrash
The market value is the price the use of the bare land exchanges for in the market

It may be easier to read a summary of the concept, rather than asking twenty questions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax

I'm very familiar with the concept which is why I can say it is bunkum. Frequently proffered by people who espouse small state or no state solutions, seemingly unaware that the administration of this idea would require an enormous bureaucracy, not to mention the fact that whilst it may work as a thought experiment, it would never work in practise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just to be clear on this, you equate a sentient being with a piece of formed metal?

I'm equating that WP observation that a business's profit's are solely attributable to one element and a failure or withdrawal of one of these elements, place's it in a position where it can be leveraged are not correct.

WP's example was the washer could be replaced - eh... so can the labour, because in this example is not unique and is not of a limited & diminishing availability.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm very familiar with the concept which is why I can say it is bunkum. Frequently proffered by people who espouse small state or no state solutions, seemingly unaware that the administration of this idea would require an enormous bureaucracy, not to mention the fact that whilst it may work as a thought experiment, it would never work in practise.

No more bureaucracy than the section of gov now devoted to appraisal (which is nothing)

Sigh, you seem to forgot that i have just been talking to you about it and so i know perfectly well you aren't that familiar with it.

It's like talking to a nine-year old

Edited by Stars
Link to post
Share on other sites

Using some quickly googled figures.

'McDonald's restaurants are found in 119 countries[9] and territories around the world and serve nearly 47 million customers each day. McDonald's operates over 31,000 restaurants worldwide, employing more than 1.5 million people.[9] The company also operates other restaurant brands, such as Piles Café.'

Link

So lets say we give each worker a $1/hr* increase.

Each worker works say a 40 hour week.**

1.5 million x 40 = $60 million

Each worker works say 50 weeks** per year so 60 x 50 = $3 billion.

* = average figure, obviously wages will vary from country to country.

** = again, average kind of figure for ease of calculation.

So if I have my figures right then even a very modest increase in wages would wipe out 3/4 of the profit of Mcdonalds.

I don't think this is exploitive at all, in fact, it looks like a pretty small margin to me. I think you have to look at more than just the headline figure before jumping up and down and accusing companies of explotation.

I also agree that you can't really blame the employer but the market it works in. As has been pointed out before, if people were that bothered about it, fairtrade would be the highest selling brands and obviously employers attitudes would change.

People will always want the best deal for themselves which means other people have to suffer for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
An example of the monster of capital...

A wealthy person buys X amount of shares in McDonald's. His dividend income is the same as someone working in a McDonald's outlet. Passive deployment of capital in a very low risk stock affords the wealthy individual an income on the back of no effort. His investment does not contribute to the company's bottom line as he gets in return for his investment a share in the company, and a share in the company's profits. Meanwhile the worker gets a fixed rate based on the conceit that their labour has nominal value.

Sometime ago somebody put money into mcdonalds in return for a slice of their earnings. He then sold his slice of earnings to someone else, who is now holding mcdonald's shares.

The workers in mcdonalds get the benefits of the past investment in return for this arrangment

Link to post
Share on other sites
"One criticism of geolibertarianism is economic: that their analysis of fallow land as the major cause of poverty is wrong. Critics point out that in many places, such as Bolivia, poverty endures despite an abundance of idle land. Geolibertarians counter that far more than the problem of fallow land, it is the uncompensated removal of people's liberty to access and use land that forces the least productive into poverty, as they are unable to secure access to land good enough for them to obtain a living. The abundance of idle, vacant desert land does not help the poor get access to the better land where they could support themselves."

In other words it's complete bunkum

Of course it is.

The thieves that run everything will tell you anything you want to hear, just so you will go away and let them carry on.

Two decades ago, the populations of the west said "government is too large, where is our freedom going?" so they lied about bringing free markets in and shrinking government. Actually they just stole more and borrowed even more. You moan about wage inequality, so they steal even more by bringing minimum wage legislation in and using the regulatorypower to bully businesses further in order to extract yet more money - it's all about stealing and lying to get support for the theft.

1) The government always gets larger until it collapses society and then collapses itself

2) Those who run it will lie, quite literally tell you anything whatsoever to carry on stealing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1) The government always gets larger until it collapses society and then collapses itself

Agreed.

And if you look back you will see that most new empires last for a far shorter period than those that came before.

Link to post
Share on other sites
or if you are a woman, you work for 20% less.

I am more qualified and have more responsibility in my job than all the other men and yet I am paid the least and expected to do the most complicated work.

I am currently studying the "Life in the UK" test as a Commonwealth citizen (through Ancestry for you anti-Immigration nutters) and even there i kid you not, this is a direct quote from the study guide for the Citizenship test by your government and this is what you are telling newcomers to your country to expect:

"Women in Britain make up 51% of the population and 45% of the workforce. Girls as a whole, leave school today with better qualifications than boys, and there are now more women at University than men.....

.... Research today shows that very few people believe that women should stay at home and not go to work....

....Women in Britain do not have the same access to men to promotion and better-paid jobs, and the average hourly rate of pay for women is 20% lower than it is for men."

i.e: women are smarter, should work harder and get less just beacuse we don;t hjave peniises.

you sould be ashamed. diicks.

p.s. not a feminist, just disappointed. and trust me, it's even more misogynistic in NZ or I wouldn't be here in the first place.

Sure...however pyschological theory (Winnicott) states that the child under the age of two has no sense of self. (It cannot recognise itself in a mirror) and relies on the mother figure for its identity. To place children into childcare when under the age of two has significant psychodynamic dangers. This need to be recognised and rather than being forced to go to work women should be given the choice to stay at home. What line of work are you in by the way?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 415 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.