Many things involve your above examples. That doesnt make them relevant to the discussion.
A business has employees that are a continued factor in the increase in wealth. A house doesnt rely on continuing employment to become more valuable -- location, location, location.
A house relies on much "continuing employment" to become more valuable. Additions, improvements and maintenance achieved through employment all contribute to the value of a house, along with location. Furthermore, location also plays a role in the value of a business, so I don't understand how you see that as a differentiating factor.
The fact remains that a business exchanges a product or service for money, often times resulting in profit. Similarly, a homeowner exchanges a product for money, often times resulting in profit.
I'm still trying to understand why the former has an obligation to reward all those who made their profit possible, but when it comes to the latter such discussions are "irrelevant"?
Ownership is a completely different animal...it is not an asset like employees.
Asset implies ownership.
When you have an employee, you own the labor that employee has chosen to sell you. That is what you have purchased with your money. It is an asset to your business. And when profit comes from that exchange, you have already paid the cost of the employee's labor.
A house relies on much "continuing employment" to become more valuable. Additions, improvements and maintenance achieved through employment all contribute to the value of a house, along with location. Furthermore, location also plays a role in the value of a business, so I don't understand how you see that as a differentiating factor.
The fact remains that a business exchanges a product or service for money, often times resulting in profit. Similarly, a homeowner exchanges a product for money, often times resulting in profit.
I'm still trying to understand why the former has an obligation to reward all those who made their profit possible, but when it comes to the latter such discussions are "irrelevant"?
Homeownership is truly a horrible example. Contractors who make home improvements are not full-time employees who come and work on your house everyday throughout the life of you ownership. When that contractor finishes his work, he leaves.
Now if you wanted to compare this scenario to someone who flips homes for a living, consistently using the same contractor, then yes, if a house went for some ungodly amount of profit I would fully expect the owner to pay the contractor a "bonus" and more than likely an invite to work on the next project.
"Worse than traitors in arms are the men who pretend loyalty to the flag, feast and fatten on the misfortunes of the nation while patriotic blood is crimsoning the plains." -- Abraham Lincoln
The bigger point of the OP's original scenario, and the one he ended with, was whether the GOVT should obligate (force) you to share those profits.
Seems everyone's missing that.
Both involve people. Both involve basic economic exchange. Both involve potential profits. Both involve potential loss. Both involve specialization. Both involve the application of labor and resources. That's just a start. I can't think of a way they're different.
Regardless, please back up your statement that they cannot be compared.
When you have an employee, you own the labor that employee has chosen to sell you. That is what you have purchased with your money. It is an asset to your business. And when profit comes from that exchange, you have already paid the cost of the employee's labor.
Agreed...but it isn't just the labor, it's the intellectual contributions as well. You are 100% right in saying that the owner isn't obligated to pay that employee a bonus, but bear in mind that that employee is not obligated to stay employed at your business either. That's your choice, good businessmen understand you don't just let valuable assets, assets that got you where you are, walk out the door. If you purchased a new machine for you assembly line that allowed your hourly output to increase threefold and it broke, would you invest the money to have it repaired or would you say, "fuck it, I already paid for that bitch once"?
"Worse than traitors in arms are the men who pretend loyalty to the flag, feast and fatten on the misfortunes of the nation while patriotic blood is crimsoning the plains." -- Abraham Lincoln
A house relies on much "continuing employment" to become more valuable. Additions, improvements and maintenance achieved through employment all contribute to the value of a house, along with location. Furthermore, location also plays a role in the value of a business, so I don't understand how you see that as a differentiating factor.
The fact remains that a business exchanges a product or service for money, often times resulting in profit. Similarly, a homeowner exchanges a product for money, often times resulting in profit.
I'm still trying to understand why the former has an obligation to reward all those who made their profit possible, but when it comes to the latter such discussions are "irrelevant"?
I pay someone a one time fee for a finite job if they improve my house. An employee who works continually for a company cannot be compared to this reasonably.
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
How do the employees in the original posters story not fit this same description? They too have already been compensated for everything they had done up until that point. Each one was paid for their labor at the price they agreed to when they took the job or got their last raise / pay cut.
What I'm trying to understand is on what grounds these employees can believe they're obligated to collect additional funds for services already purchased and paid for. If they have that right, why doesn't your dead architect?
A house is not the same thing. You build a house, you're done, you sell it and walk away. A business is an ongoing concern, and a collective endeavor. If I could earn the money all by myself, I would do so. If I can't do that, I would personally feel obligated to reward the people who enabled me to earn it.
We just have a fundamentally different outlook on things, that's all. I don't look at employees as a set of services to be bought, and I'd prefer that the rising tide lift all the boats. I understand everything you're saying, but I see things from a different perspective.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Homeownership is truly a horrible example. Contractors who make home improvements are not full-time employees who come and work on your house everyday throughout the life of you ownership. When that contractor finishes his work, he leaves.
Hehe....so in other words the only people I'm obligated to share my profits as a business owner are those who have only worked for me and who have done so their whole lives? Or, if I was a homeowner and had a full-time gardner, it would be completely different?
Now if you wanted to compare this scenario to someone who flips homes for a living, consistently using the same contractor, then yes, if a house went for some ungodly amount of profit I would fully expect the owner to pay the contractor a "bonus" and more than likely an invite to work on the next project.
Of course you would. It's because you find you morality here:
Hehe....so in other words the only people I'm obligated to share my profits as a business owner are those who have only worked for me and who have done so their whole lives? Or, if I was a homeowner and had a full-time gardner, it would be completely different?
Dude, in the scenario given by surferdude, he's not talking about calling ex-employees that left the company 3 years ago and offering them thousands for their contributions. He's talking about keeping his PRESENT employees happy. And the gardener example is horrible:
WHEN YOU SELL YOUR HOME THE "BUSINESS" ENDS, TERMINATES, IT'S DONE. YOU HAVE NO INTEREST NOR REASON TO KEEP THOSE WHO CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PROFITS HAPPY OR EMPLOYED. IT'S A MISERABLE EXAMPLE.
And please answer how you'd handle the broken machinery in my previous post, I feel it gets to the core of this argument.
"Worse than traitors in arms are the men who pretend loyalty to the flag, feast and fatten on the misfortunes of the nation while patriotic blood is crimsoning the plains." -- Abraham Lincoln
A house is not the same thing. You build a house, you're done, you sell it and walk away. A business is an ongoing concern, and a collective endeavor. If I could earn the money all by myself, I would do so. If I can't do that, I would personally feel obligated to reward the people who enabled me to earn it.
A house is also an "ongoing concern". Yours has been ongoing for 86 years, becoming more and more valuable each day. And it was also a "collective endeavor".
Now, what if I started a business today, spent 4 months building a piece of software, paid my employees $1million dollars in the span of those 4 months, and then turned around and sold the company for $500million? Does that obligation not exist there since it was a "build it, sell it, walk away" kind of thing?
We just have a fundamentally different outlook on things, that's all.
Yes, we do.
I don't look at employees as a set of services to be bought
Tell me, how many people have you employed who provided you no service or product? Or how many people have you employed who did provide you with a service or product and you gave them nothing of value?
, and I'd prefer that the rising tide lift all the boats.
I'd prefer that too, unless of course you're proposing scuttling some of them in the process.
I understand everything you're saying, but I see things from a different perspective.
how many employees have money to invest in something when they are trying to get a job?
the words business and ethics can rarely be used in the same sentence. although it could be said that it would be ethical to give this business person a proper beating if he / she didn't give something back to the people who worked hard to make him / her money...or quit and see how successful he / she is.
there are university courses in business to teach you how to hide and / or throw away your morals and ethics. some people are just born assholes.
Dude, in the scenario given by surferdude, he's not talking about calling ex-employees that left the company 3 years ago and offering them thousands for their contributions. He's talking about keeping his PRESENT employees happy.
He's also said that those PRESENT employees were PRESENTLY paid.
And the gardener example is horrible:
WHEN YOU SELL YOUR HOME THE "BUSINESS" ENDS, TERMINATES, IT'S DONE. YOU HAVE NO INTEREST NOR REASON TO KEEP THOSE WHO CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PROFITS HAPPY OR EMPLOYED.
What if, as a business owner, I also have no "interest or reason" in keeping those who contribute to my business's profits happy or employed??? What if my business is also "ending" in the sense that I'm selling it at a massive profit? Does that obligation cease to exist in that scenario?
IT'S A MISERABLE EXAMPLE.
Who are you trying convince with these "miserable" and "horrible" words?
And please answer how you'd handle the broken machinery in my previous post, I feel it gets to the core of this argument.
Agreed...but it isn't just the labor, it's the intellectual contributions as well. You are 100% right in saying that the owner isn't obligated to pay that employee a bonus, but bear in mind that that employee is not obligated to stay employed at your business either.
Completely agree!
That's your choice, good businessmen understand you don't just let valuable assets, assets that got you where you are, walk out the door.
Very true. That said, no employee is a "valuable asset" by default. The majority are not "valuable assets".
If you purchased a new machine for you assembly line that allowed your hourly output to increase threefold and it broke, would you invest the money to have it repaired or would you say, "fuck it, I already paid for that bitch once"?
I don't understand how this question relates. These people (the employees in the example) aren't broken. They've performed their services. They've been paid the price determined for those services. If the employer believes that profit sharing or bonuses would help him retain those employees, and those employees are worth retaining at the additional cost, then by all means he or she should share those profits or share those bonuses. But those shares or bonuses are then no longer payment for the services performed in the past that lead to high profits -- they are investments in future profits.
I pay someone a one time fee for a finite job if they improve my house. An employee who works continually for a company cannot be compared to this reasonably.
Hehe..why? Why can they not be compared? Both perform services of value. Both are paid for those services. The services of both can both directly result in profit to the purchaser. Just because one's services are ongoing changes the whole paradigm?
Hehe..why? Why can they not be compared? Both perform services of value. Both are paid for those services. The services of both can both directly result in profit to the purchaser. Just because one's services are ongoing changes the whole paradigm?
You could compare the services of a prostitute to the services of your wife/lover but they are fundamentally different to most people. Your example is still irrelevant.
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
You could compare the services of a prostitute to the services of your wife/lover
How so? Because sex is typically involved with both? They are still fundamentally different. One seeks an economic profit by definition. The other does not, by default at least.
Your example is still irrelevant.
Hehe...then how come you didn't ask surferdude if the business was real estate?
probably. or like atheist who admit they don't give a fuck about anyone and still somehow feel good about themselves. or wallow in personal self hatred and try to become lawyers.
i care about getting mine first. but once ive got mine, i feel no qualms sharing it. im a man of fairness, not impoverishing charity, nor excessive greed. it's called moderation. i see no problem discouraging the kind of greed and vanity that lets a ceo rationalize taking $200 million per year while his employees make $20,000 or so. his skills are more valuable than a number crunchers, not 10000 times as valuable.
what self hatred dyou refer to? doing a bit of projecting there are we? how dyou reconcile feeling good about oneself with self hatred? why so quick t get personal? i must have hit pretty close to the mark there to get you all riled up i think...
i must have hit pretty close to the mark there to get you all riled up i think...
Riled up? Hell I had visions of the girl I'm heading out with tonight dancing in my head. So if I was riled up your post had nothing to do with it. You give yourself far too much credit my friend. And you do remember what it's like to head out with a girl on a Friday night, right?
BTW you've already admitted to not caring about the poor, "im not taking care of him becos im not christian and never claimed to give a flying fuck about the poor." So please don't try to change your story in this post. I can understand you not caring about the poor. But I'd be very disappointed if you proved to be a liar.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Riled up? Hell I had visions of the girl I'm heading out with tonight dancing in my head. So if I was riled up your post had nothing to do with it. You give yourself far too much credit my friend. And you do remember what it's like to head out with a girl on a Friday night, right?
BTW you've already admitted to not caring about the poor, "im not taking care of him becos im not christian and never claimed to give a flying fuck about the poor." So please don't try to change your story in this post. I can understand you not caring about the poor. But I'd be very disappointed if you proved to be a liar.
such hostility from you. you like to get personal dont you? cant rebut my points, so you attack my character... you were born for politics, what with your inability to make a real point and recourse to throwing playground insinuations about me as a person around instead. i never notice you do this with anyone else on here. but this is the second time you've taken personal shots at me. dyou recall the first? you even pm'ed me to apologize. so what gives eh?
i dont give a flying fuck about poor homeless people cos there's not a damn thing i can do about them right now. if i had $200 million a year in income, id show a little more concern for their plight and id certainly show some consideration for my employees.
Hehe...then how come you didn't ask surferdude if the business was real estate?
Why would I ask surferdude anything? I never argued with his points. I have just pointed out that your example of comparing a business and the selling of a home is a terrible one. If the business WAS real estate then your example is STILL irrelevant. A real estate BUSINESS is not comparable to an individual selling their private home. If you choose to not believe this then that is your right, I really dont care.
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
such hostility from you. you like to get personal dont you? cant rebut my points, so you attack my character... you were born for politics, what with your inability to make a real point and recourse to throwing playground insinuations about me as a person around instead. i never notice you do this with anyone else on here. but this is the second time you've taken personal shots at me. dyou recall the first? you even pm'ed me to apologize. so what gives eh?
i dont give a flying fuck about poor homeless people cos there's not a damn thing i can do about them right now. if i had $200 million a year in income, id show a little more concern for their plight and id certainly show some consideration for my employees.
Give me a break. This post was done purely in jest. Why is mentioning any part of your life getting personal, but you mentioning part of my life not (ie Christian)? If you had no qualms about studying to become a lawyer you'd let any and all comments about lawyers slide right off your back.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Give me a break. This post was done purely in jest. Why is mentioning any part of your life getting personal, but you mentioning part of my life not (ie Christian)? If you had no qualms about studying to become a lawyer you'd let any and all comments about lawyers slide right off your back.
i didnt know you were christian, nor do i care. you can make all the comments you like about lawyers, i got the impression your comments were directed at other areas of my life. if that is not the case, then we've no issue here. im heading out for the night... not with a girl unfortunately (my gf is in cbus), but you never know who you might come home with right?
by definiton to be a buisness person, the hypothetical you posed, isnt a hypothetical, it is basic buisness 101 stuff. Its not a question of if they would do it, of course they cheat their workers and dont give them their fair share of money.
Look at Microsoft. How many Windows CD's has bill gates made, and when I say made, I mean physicially created the cd on an assembly line, and packaged the box and all that? Yet who is the billionaire, and who gets paid measly wages?
The buisnessperson, although they should feel obliated to give profit to their workers, wont and dont. Capitalism breeds greed, racism, exploitation.
The bottom line on any buisness is money. And workers always try and get their fair share of the profit, by trying to force the management to get them more wages, while the employers try and squeeze all the money they can from the labor of the worker
As a famous person once put it: If a man tells you he's rich, ask him whose work he got rich off
Its surplus value, surplus labor.
To the buisnessman, the worker is expendable. Useless. They are not human, they are things that can be exploited and made to work faster and faster to increase the profit margin.
The question shouldnt be, is it right for a buisnessman to keep profit from his employees. The question must become, how can we let this rotten system stand? How can we continue to believe in this false idea of capitalism and a system of so called merit, when its plain to see its a sham?
The question must become, when will we dismantle capitalism and install something more humane?
The question must become, how long will you stand this crap? How long are you willing to make bread crumbs while the white rich greedy CEO goes to Thailand on vacation off your money?
I say destroy capitalism and start the revolution
Capitalism is inherently evil, as long as it exists, every buisness is run the way the originial poster suggested. No good capitalism exists. Only when it lay in ruins is it good
profit only flows one way, out of the hands of the people who deserve it ie the workers and into the hands of ignorant racist capitalist pigs also known as managers, CEO's etc...
Buisness is unethical by definition. You really think any buisness with the exception of a few spend time thinking about ethics? Hell no!!!
The motive is to make as much loot as possible, and if that means cheating, stealing, killing, lieing or otherwise, then so be it.
Until capitalism is dead, this will continue on and on and on
Until workers control the system and until we as citizens get to decide a company is run, only then will things be tolerable.
By definition, a company will always owe their workers more money.
Heres an example:
If you have to work 8 hours a day, its in the capitalists interest to divide the day up mentally in his head. He will tell himself that his workers will work 8 hours a day but he will try and speed up the time necessary for survival and food and water. So he will make it so you done enough work 3 hours in, that you have reproduced your neccessities. You have done enough work to necessitate bein paid your contracted wage. But the capitalist wants you to continue working. And you still have 5 more hours remember? So who do you think makes money off the majority of the day, The 5 hours in this hypothetical? is it the worker, or the capitalist? So the capitalist wants to increase this surplus time, because all the profits and windfall go to him. While the worker wants to lessen that time and increase the time he spends on getting paid his wages.
Workers are expendable. And if anyone tries to strike, they just hire strikebreakers from the army reserve of labor who are willing to work for less money.
Look at Microsoft. How many Windows CD's has bill gates made, and when I say made, I mean physicially created the cd on an assembly line, and packaged the box and all that? Yet who is the billionaire, and who gets paid measly wages?
That comparison is pretty bad dude. You're saying the guy on the assembly line should be the rich one?
Bill Gates is a Gabillionaire and donates Gabillions of dollars to charity and worthwhile causes. I'd rather him do that than give his assembly worker $10 per hour more than any other assembly line worker.
indeed gates should be praised for his charity work. Thats very cool. He seems to admit he doesnt deserve all this money.
The point I am making about Gates and those on the assembly line is that why dont you think the people who actually make hundreds of CD ROMS daily, why dont they get paid billions?
If you are making hundreds of CD ROMS like these workers, while Bill Gates sits at home (and donates money), who deserves to be the rich one?
The question must be asked: who is the thing that makes the profit for the corporation?
Is the CEO who cheats workers and sits in his office all day, deserving of high pay?
Or is the worker, who generates profit daily, and actually physically works, are they deserving of higher pay?
Bill Gates hasnt made a CDROM in years, yet he rakes in millions, billions yearly.
Workers, daily produce the product that made him rich, and they get paid in breadcrumbs
As I said before, to talk about the benefits of capitalism is to talk like a madman.
Workers deserve fair pay, and those kids who die daily and the women who are raped by foreman in thailand while making those nike shoes deserve millions of dollars, while the rich racist white bigot who is CEO of nike deserves little money, if anything.
Do you think Phil Knight should be a billionaire if he hasnt ever made a Nike shoe? Is it fair for him to be raking in the dough while little kids in Thailand are being paid in cents for his shoes? Is that fair?
I would rather the money go to that kid than to someone like Phil Knight or Bill Gates.
A good capitalism doesnt exist. It must be dismantled immediately. Nothing this system does is in our interest. Nothing.
what is making Gates rich? Could it possibly be the workers who slave daily in hell for little to no monetary gain? Or does the money just appear magically and do the cd roms get assembled by themselves?
by definiton to be a buisness person, the hypothetical you posed, isnt a hypothetical, it is basic buisness 101 stuff. Its not a question of if they would do it, of course they cheat their workers and dont give them their fair share of money.
Look at Microsoft. How many Windows CD's has bill gates made, and when I say made, I mean physicially created the cd on an assembly line, and packaged the box and all that? Yet who is the billionaire, and who gets paid measly wages?
The buisnessperson, although they should feel obliated to give profit to their workers, wont and dont. Capitalism breeds greed, racism, exploitation.
The bottom line on any buisness is money. And workers always try and get their fair share of the profit, by trying to force the management to get them more wages, while the employers try and squeeze all the money they can from the labor of the worker
As a famous person once put it: If a man tells you he's rich, ask him whose work he got rich off
Its surplus value, surplus labor.
To the buisnessman, the worker is expendable. Useless. They are not human, they are things that can be exploited and made to work faster and faster to increase the profit margin.
The question shouldnt be, is it right for a buisnessman to keep profit from his employees. The question must become, how can we let this rotten system stand? How can we continue to believe in this false idea of capitalism and a system of so called merit, when its plain to see its a sham?
The question must become, when will we dismantle capitalism and install something more humane?
The question must become, how long will you stand this crap? How long are you willing to make bread crumbs while the white rich greedy CEO goes to Thailand on vacation off your money?
I say destroy capitalism and start the revolution
Capitalism is inherently evil, as long as it exists, every buisness is run the way the originial poster suggested. No good capitalism exists. Only when it lay in ruins is it good
RISE! SET IT OFF!
Where to start?
Firstly, those individuals who were with Microsoft in the early days, secretaries, programmers, you name it, they're all fucking filthy rich now, every one of them. Those profits were shared and Microsoft is STILL a great company to work for.
Your whole rant ignores the fact that there are most definitely human assets that are worth a lot to a business. If you want to talk about factory line workers, janitors, and the lot, you're right, they're COMPLETELY expendable and easily replaced. But the vast majority of many companies, especially those in the technology business, do not employ expendable people with expendable skillsets. If Google said, "yo, programmers and developers, we're sick of you bitching about money so you're all fired", watch what happens to their stock price. Profits mean everything to shareholders and yes, sometimes those shareholders do want lower operating costs which means layoffs, but often those cuts are truly effective at cutting the fat. I've worked for a company that literally went through 10 rounds of layoffs in a matter of 2-3 years. I can honestly say that of all the people I know who were cut, which is a high number, VERY few of them didn't deserve to be axed. Most of them were truly fat, sitting there earning a paycheck for doing the bare minimum.
Why do you think many of the companies on the Fortune 500 are desirable employers? They keep their people happy which in turn improves productivity.
But you're probably right, we should let all industry be controlled by the fucking government. That's a brilliant plan. Those are some of the most trustworthy fuckers on the planet.
"Worse than traitors in arms are the men who pretend loyalty to the flag, feast and fatten on the misfortunes of the nation while patriotic blood is crimsoning the plains." -- Abraham Lincoln
what is making Gates rich? Could it possibly be the workers who slave daily in hell for little to no monetary gain? Or does the money just appear magically and do the cd roms get assembled by themselves?
Who developed what is on that cd-rom? Not the assembly line worker. Bill Gates has impacted all of our lives and is very big reason why technology has advanced to where we are today.
Is that assembly line worker the one promoting the product? Flying all over giving presentations?
There are machines that press all of those CD's and move them down the line.
Comments
A house relies on much "continuing employment" to become more valuable. Additions, improvements and maintenance achieved through employment all contribute to the value of a house, along with location. Furthermore, location also plays a role in the value of a business, so I don't understand how you see that as a differentiating factor.
The fact remains that a business exchanges a product or service for money, often times resulting in profit. Similarly, a homeowner exchanges a product for money, often times resulting in profit.
I'm still trying to understand why the former has an obligation to reward all those who made their profit possible, but when it comes to the latter such discussions are "irrelevant"?
Asset implies ownership.
When you have an employee, you own the labor that employee has chosen to sell you. That is what you have purchased with your money. It is an asset to your business. And when profit comes from that exchange, you have already paid the cost of the employee's labor.
Homeownership is truly a horrible example. Contractors who make home improvements are not full-time employees who come and work on your house everyday throughout the life of you ownership. When that contractor finishes his work, he leaves.
Now if you wanted to compare this scenario to someone who flips homes for a living, consistently using the same contractor, then yes, if a house went for some ungodly amount of profit I would fully expect the owner to pay the contractor a "bonus" and more than likely an invite to work on the next project.
Agreed...but it isn't just the labor, it's the intellectual contributions as well. You are 100% right in saying that the owner isn't obligated to pay that employee a bonus, but bear in mind that that employee is not obligated to stay employed at your business either. That's your choice, good businessmen understand you don't just let valuable assets, assets that got you where you are, walk out the door. If you purchased a new machine for you assembly line that allowed your hourly output to increase threefold and it broke, would you invest the money to have it repaired or would you say, "fuck it, I already paid for that bitch once"?
I pay someone a one time fee for a finite job if they improve my house. An employee who works continually for a company cannot be compared to this reasonably.
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
We just have a fundamentally different outlook on things, that's all. I don't look at employees as a set of services to be bought, and I'd prefer that the rising tide lift all the boats. I understand everything you're saying, but I see things from a different perspective.
Hehe....so in other words the only people I'm obligated to share my profits as a business owner are those who have only worked for me and who have done so their whole lives? Or, if I was a homeowner and had a full-time gardner, it would be completely different?
Of course you would. It's because you find you morality here:
"ungodly amount of profit"
Dude, in the scenario given by surferdude, he's not talking about calling ex-employees that left the company 3 years ago and offering them thousands for their contributions. He's talking about keeping his PRESENT employees happy. And the gardener example is horrible:
WHEN YOU SELL YOUR HOME THE "BUSINESS" ENDS, TERMINATES, IT'S DONE. YOU HAVE NO INTEREST NOR REASON TO KEEP THOSE WHO CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PROFITS HAPPY OR EMPLOYED. IT'S A MISERABLE EXAMPLE.
And please answer how you'd handle the broken machinery in my previous post, I feel it gets to the core of this argument.
A house is also an "ongoing concern". Yours has been ongoing for 86 years, becoming more and more valuable each day. And it was also a "collective endeavor".
Now, what if I started a business today, spent 4 months building a piece of software, paid my employees $1million dollars in the span of those 4 months, and then turned around and sold the company for $500million? Does that obligation not exist there since it was a "build it, sell it, walk away" kind of thing?
Yes, we do.
Tell me, how many people have you employed who provided you no service or product? Or how many people have you employed who did provide you with a service or product and you gave them nothing of value?
I'd prefer that too, unless of course you're proposing scuttling some of them in the process.
Fair enough.
the words business and ethics can rarely be used in the same sentence. although it could be said that it would be ethical to give this business person a proper beating if he / she didn't give something back to the people who worked hard to make him / her money...or quit and see how successful he / she is.
there are university courses in business to teach you how to hide and / or throw away your morals and ethics. some people are just born assholes.
He's also said that those PRESENT employees were PRESENTLY paid.
What if, as a business owner, I also have no "interest or reason" in keeping those who contribute to my business's profits happy or employed??? What if my business is also "ending" in the sense that I'm selling it at a massive profit? Does that obligation cease to exist in that scenario?
Who are you trying convince with these "miserable" and "horrible" words?
Completely agree!
Very true. That said, no employee is a "valuable asset" by default. The majority are not "valuable assets".
I don't understand how this question relates. These people (the employees in the example) aren't broken. They've performed their services. They've been paid the price determined for those services. If the employer believes that profit sharing or bonuses would help him retain those employees, and those employees are worth retaining at the additional cost, then by all means he or she should share those profits or share those bonuses. But those shares or bonuses are then no longer payment for the services performed in the past that lead to high profits -- they are investments in future profits.
Hehe..why? Why can they not be compared? Both perform services of value. Both are paid for those services. The services of both can both directly result in profit to the purchaser. Just because one's services are ongoing changes the whole paradigm?
You could compare the services of a prostitute to the services of your wife/lover but they are fundamentally different to most people. Your example is still irrelevant.
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
How so? Because sex is typically involved with both? They are still fundamentally different. One seeks an economic profit by definition. The other does not, by default at least.
Hehe...then how come you didn't ask surferdude if the business was real estate?
i care about getting mine first. but once ive got mine, i feel no qualms sharing it. im a man of fairness, not impoverishing charity, nor excessive greed. it's called moderation. i see no problem discouraging the kind of greed and vanity that lets a ceo rationalize taking $200 million per year while his employees make $20,000 or so. his skills are more valuable than a number crunchers, not 10000 times as valuable.
what self hatred dyou refer to? doing a bit of projecting there are we? how dyou reconcile feeling good about oneself with self hatred? why so quick t get personal? i must have hit pretty close to the mark there to get you all riled up i think...
BTW you've already admitted to not caring about the poor, "im not taking care of him becos im not christian and never claimed to give a flying fuck about the poor." So please don't try to change your story in this post. I can understand you not caring about the poor. But I'd be very disappointed if you proved to be a liar.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
such hostility from you. you like to get personal dont you? cant rebut my points, so you attack my character... you were born for politics, what with your inability to make a real point and recourse to throwing playground insinuations about me as a person around instead. i never notice you do this with anyone else on here. but this is the second time you've taken personal shots at me. dyou recall the first? you even pm'ed me to apologize. so what gives eh?
i dont give a flying fuck about poor homeless people cos there's not a damn thing i can do about them right now. if i had $200 million a year in income, id show a little more concern for their plight and id certainly show some consideration for my employees.
Why would I ask surferdude anything? I never argued with his points. I have just pointed out that your example of comparing a business and the selling of a home is a terrible one. If the business WAS real estate then your example is STILL irrelevant. A real estate BUSINESS is not comparable to an individual selling their private home. If you choose to not believe this then that is your right, I really dont care.
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
i didnt know you were christian, nor do i care. you can make all the comments you like about lawyers, i got the impression your comments were directed at other areas of my life. if that is not the case, then we've no issue here. im heading out for the night... not with a girl unfortunately (my gf is in cbus), but you never know who you might come home with right?
Join the red cross or something
Look at Microsoft. How many Windows CD's has bill gates made, and when I say made, I mean physicially created the cd on an assembly line, and packaged the box and all that? Yet who is the billionaire, and who gets paid measly wages?
The buisnessperson, although they should feel obliated to give profit to their workers, wont and dont. Capitalism breeds greed, racism, exploitation.
The bottom line on any buisness is money. And workers always try and get their fair share of the profit, by trying to force the management to get them more wages, while the employers try and squeeze all the money they can from the labor of the worker
As a famous person once put it: If a man tells you he's rich, ask him whose work he got rich off
Its surplus value, surplus labor.
To the buisnessman, the worker is expendable. Useless. They are not human, they are things that can be exploited and made to work faster and faster to increase the profit margin.
The question shouldnt be, is it right for a buisnessman to keep profit from his employees. The question must become, how can we let this rotten system stand? How can we continue to believe in this false idea of capitalism and a system of so called merit, when its plain to see its a sham?
The question must become, when will we dismantle capitalism and install something more humane?
The question must become, how long will you stand this crap? How long are you willing to make bread crumbs while the white rich greedy CEO goes to Thailand on vacation off your money?
I say destroy capitalism and start the revolution
Capitalism is inherently evil, as long as it exists, every buisness is run the way the originial poster suggested. No good capitalism exists. Only when it lay in ruins is it good
RISE! SET IT OFF!
Buisness is unethical by definition. You really think any buisness with the exception of a few spend time thinking about ethics? Hell no!!!
The motive is to make as much loot as possible, and if that means cheating, stealing, killing, lieing or otherwise, then so be it.
Until capitalism is dead, this will continue on and on and on
Until workers control the system and until we as citizens get to decide a company is run, only then will things be tolerable.
By definition, a company will always owe their workers more money.
Heres an example:
If you have to work 8 hours a day, its in the capitalists interest to divide the day up mentally in his head. He will tell himself that his workers will work 8 hours a day but he will try and speed up the time necessary for survival and food and water. So he will make it so you done enough work 3 hours in, that you have reproduced your neccessities. You have done enough work to necessitate bein paid your contracted wage. But the capitalist wants you to continue working. And you still have 5 more hours remember? So who do you think makes money off the majority of the day, The 5 hours in this hypothetical? is it the worker, or the capitalist? So the capitalist wants to increase this surplus time, because all the profits and windfall go to him. While the worker wants to lessen that time and increase the time he spends on getting paid his wages.
Workers are expendable. And if anyone tries to strike, they just hire strikebreakers from the army reserve of labor who are willing to work for less money.
Capitalism kills
That comparison is pretty bad dude. You're saying the guy on the assembly line should be the rich one?
Bill Gates is a Gabillionaire and donates Gabillions of dollars to charity and worthwhile causes. I'd rather him do that than give his assembly worker $10 per hour more than any other assembly line worker.
The point I am making about Gates and those on the assembly line is that why dont you think the people who actually make hundreds of CD ROMS daily, why dont they get paid billions?
If you are making hundreds of CD ROMS like these workers, while Bill Gates sits at home (and donates money), who deserves to be the rich one?
The question must be asked: who is the thing that makes the profit for the corporation?
Is the CEO who cheats workers and sits in his office all day, deserving of high pay?
Or is the worker, who generates profit daily, and actually physically works, are they deserving of higher pay?
Bill Gates hasnt made a CDROM in years, yet he rakes in millions, billions yearly.
Workers, daily produce the product that made him rich, and they get paid in breadcrumbs
As I said before, to talk about the benefits of capitalism is to talk like a madman.
Workers deserve fair pay, and those kids who die daily and the women who are raped by foreman in thailand while making those nike shoes deserve millions of dollars, while the rich racist white bigot who is CEO of nike deserves little money, if anything.
Do you think Phil Knight should be a billionaire if he hasnt ever made a Nike shoe? Is it fair for him to be raking in the dough while little kids in Thailand are being paid in cents for his shoes? Is that fair?
I would rather the money go to that kid than to someone like Phil Knight or Bill Gates.
A good capitalism doesnt exist. It must be dismantled immediately. Nothing this system does is in our interest. Nothing.
Where to start?
Firstly, those individuals who were with Microsoft in the early days, secretaries, programmers, you name it, they're all fucking filthy rich now, every one of them. Those profits were shared and Microsoft is STILL a great company to work for.
Your whole rant ignores the fact that there are most definitely human assets that are worth a lot to a business. If you want to talk about factory line workers, janitors, and the lot, you're right, they're COMPLETELY expendable and easily replaced. But the vast majority of many companies, especially those in the technology business, do not employ expendable people with expendable skillsets. If Google said, "yo, programmers and developers, we're sick of you bitching about money so you're all fired", watch what happens to their stock price. Profits mean everything to shareholders and yes, sometimes those shareholders do want lower operating costs which means layoffs, but often those cuts are truly effective at cutting the fat. I've worked for a company that literally went through 10 rounds of layoffs in a matter of 2-3 years. I can honestly say that of all the people I know who were cut, which is a high number, VERY few of them didn't deserve to be axed. Most of them were truly fat, sitting there earning a paycheck for doing the bare minimum.
Why do you think many of the companies on the Fortune 500 are desirable employers? They keep their people happy which in turn improves productivity.
But you're probably right, we should let all industry be controlled by the fucking government. That's a brilliant plan. Those are some of the most trustworthy fuckers on the planet.
Who developed what is on that cd-rom? Not the assembly line worker. Bill Gates has impacted all of our lives and is very big reason why technology has advanced to where we are today.
Is that assembly line worker the one promoting the product? Flying all over giving presentations?
There are machines that press all of those CD's and move them down the line.