This is why we need to tax the wealthy

[TruthNotBS]

I didn’t know I was required to.


Yes. I get paid by the day but nevertheless, the company I work for pays me to do a job.


I don’t know.

As I said, I don’t like the increasing automation any more than you but what is a viable solution that doesn’t involve usurping the rights of businesses to cut costs?


Maybe, maybe not. But banks loan to who or what they see as low risk. They’re not likely to loan to a bunch of people who have no real world experience at running a business.

I forget what the percentage is but a majority of new businesses fail within six months and bank and loan companies know this.


It would be unconstitutional under any system.


Again, choice.


Non profit? What the hell would be the point of that?


No you’re not.


Um, what?

A company doesn’t sell you, they sell the product. And you know who’s buying the product? Workers. How can they afford the product? With the money they’re paid to work.


If true, workers would be commodified under any system.


If people suffer from being paid to work then they will be miserable wretches anywhere, anytime.

Suffering is a part of life, such that we measure our lives against our suffering.


If it serves to increase or preserve prosperity, great. But if it constrains individuality or subverts individual rights and liberties, forget it.

Exactly.

I didn’t know I was required to.

If you're engaged in a debate with someone on a forum like this or anywhere else, you should at least mention the points your opponent is making, even if you decide not to respond to them. You should explain why you're not going to provide an argument against those points, for whatever reason.

You don't have to do anything, you can even not respond at all, that's up to you but if you're going to engage in a debate, you should at least do what I just said or else your opponent will lose interest in the discussion and will begin ignoring you. If whenever I make a point my opponent ignores it, I won't invest more of my precious time or energy in their posts.

Yes. I get paid by the day but nevertheless, the company I work for pays me to do a job.

Yes, they're purchasing your labor power, or essentially you, for a day or whatever. You have rights, as a human being (You're not a circus monkey), and if your employer, whoever that might be, doesn't recognize your human rights, you should have the leverage and means to file a complaint and have your legitimate needs met.

You should also keep in mind that in capitalism there are socio-economic classes with their own unique interests or needs due to the nature of their role in a capitalist economy. Each class has a right to unite or create unions. The wealthy have their own unions, in the form of Chambers of Commerce, industry specific associations and guilds, super-PACs, NGOs that lobby the government, think tanks, exclusive country clubs..etc.

If wealthy powerful employers can unionize, so can the working class. Labor can likewise unite and leverage their power in the same way and if employers deny that by firing workers who unite with other workers, the government has every right to intervene and tell that employer, NOPE.

There's already a great power imbalance between the wealthy, capitalist class, and workers, so workers have the right to also form their own organizations that protect their interests. Collective bargaining is the most effective way for workers to protect and advance their legitimate needs against employers who exploit and abuse them. Workers should not be forced due to horrible conditions in the workplace or lack of wage raises and benefits, to be forced out of their jobs. No one should lose their jobs because they had to spend three days in the hospital or had an emergency. Workers should by default have certain benefits in virtue of being human.

As I said, I don’t like the increasing automation any more than you but what is a viable solution that doesn’t involve usurping the rights of businesses to cut costs?

When did I ever say I didn't like automation? I love advanced, intelligent automation and technology in general, it ensures that socialism will replace capitalism in the not-too-distant future. I love it. Please automate capitalism to oblivion, be my guest. Thanks.

Maybe, maybe not. But banks loan to who or what they see as low risk. They’re not likely to loan to a bunch of people who have no real world experience at running a business.

Not maybe not, they don't loan money to anyone, with or without business experience, if the venture is a worker-owned cooperative. If a group of skilled, well-experienced, ambitious workers with great credit seek a loan to start one they're always turned down, whereas a wealthy trust fund baby fresh out of college will go to the bank and get half a million bucks or more to start his or her business. That's unfair, no matter how you try to worm yourself out of admitting it.

The SBA, (i.e. Small Business Administration) a government organization that helps new, inexperienced entrepreneurs start businesses also refuses to assist people wanting to start a worker-owned cooperative, no matter how experienced or skilled they are. So your lame attempt to justify this doesn't fly. You sound like a capitalist, not a working-class person.

I forget what the percentage is but a majority of new businesses fail within six months and bank and loan companies know this.

Exactly, so it doesn't make much sense to be so against worker-owned cooperatives, being that they are more competitive and resilient, more robust than regular businesses.

Worker Cooperatives Are More Productive Than Normal Companies

And even if that were not the case, there is no excuse to single out worker-owned cooperatives as undesirable loan recipients when there's no evidence that they do any worse than other business models. As I just mentioned, they often do better, based on certain studies and stats.

It would be unconstitutional under any system.

It wouldn't be unconstitutional under any system, being that, that other system's constitution could allow it. Even our US Constitution could allow it as well, provided it is amended to allow it.

Again, choice.

I agree, it should be a choice, although I believe people owning the business they work at with their fellow workers, is the ideal. Productive enterprises should be run democratically, without unelected leadership. Under our current capitalist system, it's a matter of choice, and I accept that.

Non profit? What the hell would be the point of that?

It's necessary due to the eventual replacement of wage labor by advanced technology. All production is done within a marketless, non-profit system, to meet people's needs. People will always be consumers, but not necessarily paying consumers, in the same sense they are now where they earn a wage and then purchase products in a marketplace from capitalists with their incomes (their wages). Eventually, society is going to be forced by necessity, to adopt a non-profit, marketless, more democratic form of production, free of capitalism or the pursuit of profits.

Um, what? A company doesn’t sell you, they sell the product. And you know who’s buying the product? Workers. How can they afford the product? With the money they’re paid to work.

Capitalists buy/rent you for X amount of time daily, they don't sell you. They purchase you to produce and deliver their products and services for sale in a marketplace.

If true, workers would be commodified under any system.

False, since commodities are products that are sold in a marketplace, and not all systems of production include markets.

If people suffer from being paid to work then they will be miserable wretches anywhere, anytime.

People suffer when they work under poor conditions and their terms of employment are abusive or unfair, not allowing them to meet their basic needs. No one should work full-time and yet not have enough to feed themselves and their families, and have a roof over their heads. People who work full-time should get paid a living wage, namely, enough to meet, at least, their basic needs. Anything other than that is abusive exploitation and shouldn't be tolerated in a modern, civilized society like ours.

Suffering is a part of life, such that we measure our lives against our suffering.

Remind the wealthy capitalists who live in opulence of that profound truth when they start complaining about their workers asserting their legitimate rights and interests. You only direct your appeal to austerity at your fellow workers, not at your capitalist master.

Yes, "master". Even Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, identified capitalists as masters of their workers:

"What are the common wages of labor, depends everywhere upon the contract usually made between those two parties, whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little as possible. The former are disposed to combine in order to raise, the latter in order to lower the wages of labor.

It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorizes, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen." (Book I, Chapter VIII)

I realize that you don't care about having a human master, but some people don't accept having a human master, only elected leaders that they trust and are accountable to their subordinates.

If it serves to increase or preserve prosperity, great. But if it constrains individuality or subverts individual rights and liberties, forget it.

I agree.

Exactly.

That's why production will eventually become fully automated and we will have to adopt a non-profit, marketless economic system. It's just the nature of human production and advanced technology. Socialism is inevitable, but it has to be done correctly, in a way that increases people's standard of living and upholds democracy. It has to be a democratic socialism, not a totalitarian, oppressive one.

 

[Nostra]

Does anyone actually read CommieMan's lunatic manifesto posts?

 

[beagle9]

I've answered this question many times. It's nothing more than an empty diversion. We have to pay off the debt and to do that we need to make cuts and raise income and that income should come from those who have benefitted the most.

Others can figure out what exactly those numbers should be. That's what they get paid for.

You leave out the incentive to work that gets lost in these games being played.

If you pay people more than they are worth, then you create entitlement in which opens Pandora's box. It never is enough, and the production levels begin to suffer greatly as the newly entitled workers begin to feel that they have been made to good to do certain jobs if a ripple in their employment is encountered.

The accumulation of wealth at the top is of course to be held in good stewardship by those who have been given the awesome power of keeping balance in a righteous and just manor, otherwise it is imperative to balance out society through proper wealth distribution that is accumulated by everyone doing their part, and then issued out by those in whom we put our trust in to do the right thing.

Now if these Bernie Madolphs and/or such names commit criminal acts that breach the trust in which they have been given them in America, then exactly what happened to them needs to continue in the name of justice and fairness.

The stuff is really simple.

 

[beagle9]

I didn’t know I was required to.

If you're engaged in a debate with someone on a forum like this or anywhere else, you should at least mention the points your opponent is making, even if you decide not to respond to them. You should explain why you're not going to provide an argument against those points, for whatever reason.

You don't have to do anything, you can even not respond at all, that's up to you but if you're going to engage in a debate, you should at least do what I just said or else your opponent will lose interest in the discussion and will begin ignoring you. If whenever I make a point my opponent ignores it, I won't invest more of my precious time or energy in their posts.

Yes. I get paid by the day but nevertheless, the company I work for pays me to do a job.

Yes, they're purchasing your labor power, or essentially you, for a day or whatever. You have rights, as a human being (You're not a circus monkey), and if your employer, whoever that might be, doesn't recognize your human rights, you should have the leverage and means to file a complaint and have your legitimate needs met.

You should also keep in mind that in capitalism there are socio-economic classes with their own unique interests or needs due to the nature of their role in a capitalist economy. Each class has a right to unite or create unions. The wealthy have their own unions, in the form of Chambers of Commerce, industry specific associations and guilds, super-PACs, NGOs that lobby the government, think tanks, exclusive country clubs..etc.

If wealthy powerful employers can unionize, so can the working class. Labor can likewise unite and leverage their power in the same way and if employers deny that by firing workers who unite with other workers, the government has every right to intervene and tell that employer, NOPE.

There's already a great power imbalance between the wealthy, capitalist class, and workers, so workers have the right to also form their own organizations that protect their interests. Collective bargaining is the most effective way for workers to protect and advance their legitimate needs against employers who exploit and abuse them. Workers should not be forced due to horrible conditions in the workplace or lack of wage raises and benefits, to be forced out of their jobs. No one should lose their jobs because they had to spend three days in the hospital or had an emergency. Workers should by default have certain benefits in virtue of being human.

As I said, I don’t like the increasing automation any more than you but what is a viable solution that doesn’t involve usurping the rights of businesses to cut costs?

When did I ever say I didn't like automation? I love advanced, intelligent automation and technology in general, it ensures that socialism will replace capitalism in the not-too-distant future. I love it. Please automate capitalism to oblivion, be my guest. Thanks.

Maybe, maybe not. But banks loan to who or what they see as low risk. They’re not likely to loan to a bunch of people who have no real world experience at running a business.

Not maybe not, they don't loan money to anyone, with or without business experience, if the venture is a worker-owned cooperative. If a group of skilled, well-experienced, ambitious workers with great credit seek a loan to start one they're always turned down, whereas a wealthy trust fund baby fresh out of college will go to the bank and get half a million bucks or more to start his or her business. That's unfair, no matter how you try to worm yourself out of admitting it.

The SBA, (i.e. Small Business Administration) a government organization that helps new, inexperienced entrepreneurs start businesses also refuses to assist people wanting to start a worker-owned cooperative, no matter how experienced or skilled they are. So your lame attempt to justify this doesn't fly. You sound like a capitalist, not a working-class person.

I forget what the percentage is but a majority of new businesses fail within six months and bank and loan companies know this.

Exactly, so it doesn't make much sense to be so against worker-owned cooperatives, being that they are more competitive and resilient, more robust than regular businesses.

Worker Cooperatives Are More Productive Than Normal Companies

And even if that were not the case, there is no excuse to single out worker-owned cooperatives as undesirable loan recipients when there's no evidence that they do any worse than other business models. As I just mentioned, they often do better, based on certain studies and stats.

It would be unconstitutional under any system.

It wouldn't be unconstitutional under any system, being that, that other system's constitution could allow it. Even our US Constitution could allow it as well, provided it is amended to allow it.

Again, choice.

I agree, it should be a choice, although I believe people owning the business they work at with their fellow workers, is the ideal. Productive enterprises should be run democratically, without unelected leadership. Under our current capitalist system, it's a matter of choice, and I accept that.

Non profit? What the hell would be the point of that?

It's necessary due to the eventual replacement of wage labor by advanced technology. All production is done within a marketless, non-profit system, to meet people's needs. People will always be consumers, but not necessarily paying consumers, in the same sense they are now where they earn a wage and then purchase products in a marketplace from capitalists with their incomes (their wages). Eventually, society is going to be forced by necessity, to adopt a non-profit, marketless, more democratic form of production, free of capitalism or the pursuit of profits.

Um, what? A company doesn’t sell you, they sell the product. And you know who’s buying the product? Workers. How can they afford the product? With the money they’re paid to work.

Capitalists buy/rent you for X amount of time daily, they don't sell you. They purchase you to produce and deliver their products and services for sale in a marketplace.

If true, workers would be commodified under any system.

False, since commodities are products that are sold in a marketplace, and not all systems of production include markets.

If people suffer from being paid to work then they will be miserable wretches anywhere, anytime.

People suffer when they work under poor conditions and their terms of employment are abusive or unfair, not allowing them to meet their basic needs. No one should work full-time and yet not have enough to feed themselves and their families, and have a roof over their heads. People who work full-time should get paid a living wage, namely, enough to meet, at least, their basic needs. Anything other than that is abusive exploitation and shouldn't be tolerated in a modern, civilized society like ours.

Suffering is a part of life, such that we measure our lives against our suffering.

Remind the wealthy capitalists who live in opulence of that profound truth when they start complaining about their workers asserting their legitimate rights and interests. You only direct your appeal to austerity at your fellow workers, not at your capitalist master.

Yes, "master". Even Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, identified capitalists as masters of their workers:

"What are the common wages of labor, depends everywhere upon the contract usually made between those two parties, whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little as possible. The former are disposed to combine in order to raise, the latter in order to lower the wages of labor.

It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorizes, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen." (Book I, Chapter VIII)

I realize that you don't care about having a human master, but some people don't accept having a human master, only elected leaders that they trust and are accountable to their subordinates.

If it serves to increase or preserve prosperity, great. But if it constrains individuality or subverts individual rights and liberties, forget it.

I agree.

Exactly.

That's why production will eventually become fully automated and we will have to adopt a non-profit, marketless economic system. It's just the nature of human production and advanced technology. Socialism is inevitable, but it has to be done correctly, in a way that increases people's standard of living and upholds democracy. It has to be a democratic socialism, not a totalitarian, oppressive one.

How many employees think they have a right of some sort that is created in their screwed up mischievous mind, and then it is found out later that they were running a scam to get more for nothing ? They upset the entire apple cart, but could give a crap because they are operator's that constantly are up to no good trying to get whatever they want at everyone's expense.

I have been in management, ownership, and a long standing foreman over many employees in my past, and I've seen it all. One thing learned, and that is if you want to do things right, and what I mean by right is that we are not to punish or change a system because scammers were scamming and playing everyone.

No, it's best to deal with those at fault (the scammers as individuals), and then to keep consistency on production, customer service, and quality of workmanship by those worker's who wanted nothing to do with any joining up with any scammers that are full of disingenuous dirt bags who go through their entire lives blaming other's.

 

[TruthNotBS]

You leave out the incentive to work that gets lost in these games being played.

If you pay people more than they are worth, then you create entitlement in which opens Pandora's box. It never is enough, and the production levels begin to suffer greatly as the newly entitled workers begin to feel that they have been made to good to do certain jobs if a ripple in their employment is encountered.

The accumulation of wealth at the top is of course to be held in good stewardship by those who have been given the awesome power of keeping balance in a righteous and just manor, otherwise it is imperative to balance out society through proper wealth distribution that is accumulated by everyone doing their part, and then issued out by those in whom we put our trust in to do the right thing.

Now if these Bernie Madolphs and/or such names commit criminal acts that breach the trust in which they have been given them in America, then exactly what happened to them needs to continue in the name of justice and fairness.

The stuff is really simple.

You leave out the incentive to work that gets lost in these games being played.

The incentive to work is to eat, have housing..etc. Everyone who can work, and isn't of advanced age, in retirement, or suffering from a serious debilitating illness or handicap, must work. The only people who have the luxury of being young and healthy, and not working are the rich. Those who have amassed enough capital by one way or another, allowing them to no longer labor for their food, housing..etc. Most people aren't in that position, they must work to eat and have a roof over their heads.

If you pay people more than they are worth, then you create entitlement which opens Pandora's box.

What or who determines what human beings are worth? Society. You want to conveniently leave the appraisal of human worth to invisible, chaotic, irrational capitalist markets, which are always manipulated by the masters of capital, namely capitalists. That's a little bit too, let's say....convenient.

Society, the community, determines whether human beings have the right, to be housed (at least with some basic housing), fed, employed, treated medically (healthcare), receive an education (including vocational job training. etc), among other services. Any society can decide for itself whether it wants its government providing certain services, resources, infrastructure, protections..etc. That's up to society, not the so-called invisible hand of the free market, which really doesn't exist. That invisible hand is nothing more than a well designed, manipulated hand that serves the interests of capitalists, often at the expense of the working class and consumers.

It never is enough, and the production levels begin to suffer greatly as the newly entitled workers begin to feel that they have been made to good to do certain jobs if a ripple in their employment is encountered.

That's the nature of the beast. I'm a communist, and I admit that capitalists have every right to negotiate their terms and workers should be reasonable. It's self evidence for most people, what is reasonable and what isn't. Employers need to make a profit, and employees have to understand that. There should be a certain degree of mutual undertanding and concern for each other's legitimate needs. As a communist who is employed by a wealthy capitalist, I understand that my employer needs to make a profit in order to survive and thrive. I won't have a job if I'm a jerk, demanding ridiculous shit.

Expecting not to get fired if I get sick and need to be admitted into the hospital for a few days, even a week or more, is not unreasonable, provided the company is large enough, with adequate resources to handle not having me around for a week or two due to a medical emergency. I had one of those events a few years ago and I didn't lose my job. If I hadn't been a union member, I probably would've lost my job.

The accumulation of wealth at the top is of course to be held in good stewardship by those who have been given the awesome power of keeping balance in a righteous and just manor, otherwise it is imperative to balance out society through proper wealth distribution that is accumulated by everyone doing their part, and then issued out by those in whom we put our trust in to do the right thing.

At a national, societal level, I trust elected officials more in taking charge of that than capitalists, any day of the week. At least with the government, we have recourse and there's a degree of accountability that is missing in the private sector. The private sector's bottom line is profits, not the public good necessarily. However by necessity, the government's bottom line always has to be the public good, hence it behooves us to avail ourselves of its resources and power, as members of the public, who rely on our labor to survive.

Now if these Bernie Madolphs and/or such names commit criminal acts that breach the trust in which they have been given them in America, then exactly what happened to them needs to continue in the name of justice and fairness.

I agree. Nonetheless, if wealthy capitalists can tap into the government trough and drink, so can the working class. That's pretty self-evident.

 

[pknopp]

You leave out the incentive to work that gets lost in these games being played.

If you pay people more than they are worth,

Go discuss that in another thread.

 

[TruthNotBS]

How many employees think they have a right of some sort that is created in their screwed up mischievous mind, and then it is found out later that they were running a scam to get more for nothing ? They upset the entire apple cart, but could give a crap because they are operator's that constantly are up to no good trying to get whatever they want at everyone's expense.

I have been in management, ownership, and a long standing foreman over many employees in my past, and I've seen it all. One thing learned, and that is if you want to do things right, and what I mean by right is that we are not to punish or change a system because scammers were scamming and playing everyone.

No, it's best to deal with those at fault (the scammers as individuals), and then to keep consistency on production, customer service, and quality of workmanship by those worker's who wanted nothing to do with any joining up with any scammers that are full of disingenuous dirt bags who go through their entire lives blaming other's.

How many employees think they have a right of some sort that is created in their screwed-up mischievous mind and then it is found out later that they were running a scam to get more for nothing ?

How many wealthy capitalist employers think they have a right of some sort that is created in their screwed-up, greedy, arrogant mischievous minds and then it is found out later that they were running a scam to get more for nothing? Demanding from their workers more than they can or even should be subject to? Then they turn around and expect the public to fund their businesses by receiving government bailouts and subsidies.

They upset the entire apple cart, but could give a crap because they are operator's that constantly are up to no good trying to get whatever they want at everyone's expense.

Sounds like capitalists who expect others to toil for them and feel entitled to government assistance to the tune of trillions of dollars. Your venomous accusations are misplaced.

I have been in management, ownership, and a long-standing foreman over many employees in my past...

I know I can tell. Working class people like you often side with their capitalist masters, because you feel more akin to them, due to your position of authority over other workers. You're like a henchman capo or the capitalist's means of controlling and punishing his workers. You're an unelected leader in a capitalist dictatorship and unfortunately, most of them think like you. I manage projects sometimes and I never behave that way, because I see my co-workers as my comrades, brothers and sisters, who struggle with the same challenges as I do, as working-class people.

You lack class consciousness and see yourself as a member of the capitalist class or a soon-to-be capitalist, that's why you shit all over your fellow workers, seeing them as inferior human beings to you.

and I've seen it all. One thing learned, and that is if you want to do things right, and what I mean by right is that we are not to punish or change a system because scammers were scamming and playing everyone.

Systems aren't punished, people are.

No, it's best to deal with those at fault (the scammers as individuals), and then to keep consistency on production, customer service, and quality of workmanship by those worker's who wanted nothing to do with any joining up with any scammers that are full of disingenuous dirt bags who go through their entire lives blaming other's.

You want to scam workers of their rights and force them to work under shit conditions and leadership. Not happening, when workers unionize. You'll have to deal with workers collectively as a united community and front of people who share common interests and needs. If you don't like it, who cares?

 

[TruthNotBS]

Go discuss that in another thread.

He's ridiculous. Typical management taking the side of the employer against his or her coworkers, to advance his position in the company. A bootlicker, who never stands up for his or her subordinates with upper management or the owner/s of the company. They see themselves as members of the capitalist class or future capitalist fief-lords.

 

[Oldestyle]

He's ridiculous. Typical management taking the side of the employer against his or her coworkers, to advance his position in the company. A bootlicker, who never stands up for his or her subordinates with upper management or the owner/s of the company. They see themselves as members of the capitalist class or future capitalist fief-lords.

You're amusing. You have this concept of ownership that is so myopic it borders on farce! I hate to break this to you but most owners don't loll around the country club drinking snifters of high priced cognac and eating finger sandwiches. Most of them work longer hours than their employees do under a kind of stress you can't grasp unless you ARE an owner! If you're an employee you get paid first...not last...you get paid whether the business makes money or not. There is no guarantee like that if you're an owner. If you're simply a worker? When you clock out for the day your worries are over. You're not worrying about how you're going to make payroll. You're not worried about costs of materials going through the roof or not being available at all. You're not worried about competition coming in and undercutting your profits. You can go home, put your feet up and relax. I've been on both sides of that equation. Are there good things about being an owner? Very much so. But along with that comes sleepless nights and heartburn. It takes guts to be an owner. You have to take chances. If you screw up you might lose it all. Remember this though, Christian...if it wasn't for people taking chances...workers like you wouldn't have a job period! All you're looking for when you trade in Capitalism for Communism is a different boss. You're still taking orders. Only under Communism there is a limit to what you can achieve. Under Capitalism the only limits are the ones that you set yourself.

 

[TruthNotBS]

You're amusing. You have this concept of ownership that is so myopic it borders on farce! I hate to break this to you but most owners don't loll around the country club drinking snifters of high priced cognac and eating finger sandwiches. Most of them work longer hours than their employees do under a kind of stress you can't grasp unless you ARE an owner! If you're an employee you get paid first...not last...you get paid whether the business makes money or not. There is no guarantee like that if you're an owner. If you're simply a worker? When you clock out for the day your worries are over. You're not worrying about how you're going to make payroll. You're not worried about costs of materials going through the roof or not being available at all. You're not worried about competition coming in and undercutting your profits. You can go home, put your feet up and relax. I've been on both sides of that equation. Are there good things about being an owner? Very much so. But along with that comes sleepless nights and heartburn. It takes guts to be an owner. You have to take chances. If you screw up you might lose it all. Remember this though, Christian...if it wasn't for people taking chances...workers like you wouldn't have a job period! All you're looking for when you trade in Capitalism for Communism is a different boss. You're still taking orders. Only under Communism there is a limit to what you can achieve. Under Capitalism the only limits are the ones that you set yourself.

You're amusing. You have this concept of ownership that is so myopic it borders on farce! I hate to break this to you but most owners don't loll around the country club drinking snifters of high-priced cognac and eating finger sandwiches. Most of them work longer hours than their employees do under a kind of stress you can't grasp unless you ARE an owner!

I'm referring to large companies, the big-money capitalists, not small fry, mom-and-pop business owners, who have a few employees. Couldn't you figure that out by what I said previously? Usually, a pizzeria or small construction company doesn't have "upper management", in the sense that I was referring to. I work with multibillion-dollar companies and those are the ones where workers should be unionized. Becoming part of a union when working with small businesses also has its benefits, but my criticism is mostly directed at the big-money, not mom-and-pop hardware store owners, trying to compete with Home Depot.

Such small businesses are usually owned by working-class people, who labored HARD for decades saving their money and protecting their credit, to one day fulfill their dream of having their own business. Usually, such people treat their workers with a bit more heart and compassion than the big-money boys, who don't want to work. They purchase companies and sell them as soon as possible. They hire others to do the heavy lifting, to stay up all night as you described, worrying about the business. These big-money capitalists are the ones at the country club drinking high-priced cognac and eating finger sandwiches.

If you're an employee you get paid first...not last...you get paid whether the business makes money or not.

Overhead, correct. That's what it takes to run a for-profit business.

There is no guarantee like that if you're an owner. If you're simply a worker?

That depends on what your credit is, what connections you have in the industry, and how many cronies you have working for you in government. If you're referring to a large company the owner/s most likely are wealthy investors, who are able to take the hit. A single mother trying to make ends meet with her wages doesn't enjoy much of the financial security of many of these big business owners, so I'm more concerned for the working class.

I prioritize the needs of workers, over those of employers, but that doesn't imply that I dismiss the legitimate needs and concerns of employers. They also have to make a profit and be successful. I support employers who care for their workers, and I don't care if they're at the county club all day, provided that they have enough control over the business from their poolside comforters to pay a decent living wage, provide some benefits to their employees, an acceptable, caring work environment. etc.

When you clock out for the day your worries are over.

Not really, that depends on what type of work you do. I code CNC machines and organize projects from home, so I work at the factory and home and I don't charge any extra fees, for those hours I spend working at home.
However, workers have a right to a family life and not be like me. Not all jobs require people to be planning for the next day at home or going over training or product manuals in their workshop at home.

Employees are paid/bought/rented for eight, ten, and twelve hours per shift and if they go home and decide to take the workplace out of their minds and activities, that's their prerogative. If you want these workers to do more work from home, pay them. I like what I do, and I don't demand payment for what I do at home for my employer, but I could. My wife and others in my family have remarked that I should charge my employer for what I do at home.

You're not worrying about how you're going to make payroll.

If I don't do my job, I don't make payroll. I have to work, so I'm not clear on what you mean here. I have to worry about performing well at my job, to get paid. I offer a service to my employer, which involves me being present at the business, and doing my job. So I'm not sure what you mean, maybe you can elaborate further.

You're not worried about costs of materials going through the roof or not being available at all.

The owners of a large business, don't have to worry about that either. They have a purchasing department and specialists taking care of all of that, while they drink their high-priced spirits and eat finger sandwiches at the gentlemen's club. throwing dollar bills at the ladies. Seriously, even if a business owner has to take care of such tasks, that's better than most of the work their employees have to do. They're also making a lot more money, sometimes 100, 1000 times more than the average salary in their companies, so I don't feel sorry for them at all. They're doing great, even if they have to make a few phone calls to take care of the roof and talk to a few people, big deal.

You're not worried about competition coming in and undercutting your profits.

Employees also have to keep that in mind, but not to the extent as the owner of the business, obviously. That's just part of doing business, you have to compete with other capitalists. As a business owner, you don't necessarily have to have most of the market share to make a decent profit, or to hold your niche in the marketplace. If business owners are 100% committed to making more money, even at the expense of their workers, why would anyone expect workers to give their employers any free handouts?

Do you expect workers to do more work beyond their shifts, at home, or do extra work while on the job, when their employer is not willing to do anything extra for them? Think about it. Sometimes an employer should take less if it means improving work conditions and taking good care of his workers. If not, then don't expect workers to do more for that type of employer. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

You can go home, put your feet up and relax.

Yeah, and I should, ask my wife and children, they'll agree.

I've been on both sides of that equation.

I grew up working in a family business, so I'm aware of how it works and how the wealthy think. I was raised in that environment. Upper-Middle Class, Miami, Florida, Pinecrest, that should say it all. I was raised in a household with an annual net income of a quarter million dollars in the 1970s and 80s. Many of my friends had millionaire parents and lived in mansions with boat slips. My family's house was pretty big, three blocks from the bay.

Are there good things about being an owner? Very much so.

Yes indeed.

But along with that comes sleepless nights and heartburn.

Sleepless nights in a 700 square ft master bedroom and taking Pepto from a medicine cabinet in a luxury "pimped out" bathroom, with a big bubbling jacuzzi bathtub, isn't that bad. Believe me, especially when you have a few million bucks in savings and great credit.

It takes guts to be an owner.

That depends on the type of business and the owner. Not necessarily. I would say the same about the employees. It takes guts to wake up in the morning and go to work in a factory with machinery that can crush you into a bloody pancake and in an environment that could easily turn you into a wet red puddle of dying protoplasm on the concrete floor below.

You have to take chances.

Yes, that's right, we all do. That's life.

If you screw up you might lose it all.

Maybe you shouldn't be in business if not succeeding means you end up under a bridge. Business is a gamble, you might make it, or you might not. That's how it works. Welcome to the real world, where capitalists compete with one another for market share and workers compete for jobs and have every right to advance their interests, and meet their needs, just like capitalists do. Of course, within that employer-employee relationship, there is a serious power imbalance, and that's why workers should have the legal right to organize labor unions among themselves, without being harassed, threatened, or fired by their employers.

The idea that an employer has the right to dismiss a worker saying:

"Hey, if you don't like it here, go to hell, find another job. I only buy one filter a month for that machine and I don't care if it begins emitting toxic fumes after two weeks, deal with it. I don't have to do anything else legally, because the government regulation which I helped write into law by bribing politicians, states that I am only obligated to buy one filter for that machine monthly. So I'm not spending an extra $500 monthly for another filter, there's the door bucko".

Mind you, this is a profitable business, with over 1000 employees. The business can and must buy that extra filter, for that machine, whether they want to or not. That's part of the cost of doing business (i.e. overhead). People being forced to leave their jobs, after taking the risk of moving their whole family, from one city to another, or from another state in the country to another state 2000 miles away, to work a job, only to be told by the owner of the company "GO FKYRSLF breath the gas", that's unacceptable.

That is less likely to occur when 80% of those 1000 workers are unionized. The union representative enters the owner's office and says:

"You're going to have to spend an extra $500 monthly for that second filter, or purchase a better quality filter because that machine is releasing toxic gas and although people aren't getting sick now, they're breathing it in and sooner or later, you're going to get sued. We'll give you two months to fix the filter issue with that machine and if you don't do it, we'll strike".

Only a union rep can talk to a powerful, wealthy employer like that.

Remember this though, Christian...if it wasn't for people taking chances...workers like you wouldn't have a job period!

What a skewed view of the world you have. If it wasn't for people like me taking chances and applying my high-level skills at the job, capitalists wouldn't have a business or any customers to buy their products. Everyone takes risks, in their own way as I mentioned earlier. Look at those construction workers standing over a thousand feet above New York City. Look at that worker, standing in front of that machine, that could easily crush him. There are different types of risks, and the ones that workers consistently make often involve their health and lives.

​

We don't need capitalists for jobs, we can have the government employ us or with the assistance of the SBA (Small Business Administration), the working-class can launch worker-cooperatives, that do everything that a privately owned enterprises does. Capitalists are unnecessary middlemen, especially in the modern age, with all of the technology we have available today.

All you're looking for when you trade in Capitalism for Communism is a different boss.

The US government is the boss we're going to need to have out of necessity when it comes to the production of goods and services, due to advanced automation. However, the good thing about allowing the government to do all of the accounting and logistics of production and providing the facilities and machinery, is that it's a boss that is accountable to the public. This boss is comprised of a group of elected officials that organize the Department of Commerce and Labor in such a way, that every American citizen and legal resident enjoys a high standard of living and beautiful life, full of resources.

Robots work 24/7, producing everything that we consume. People will need to work less supervising the system and will have more than what they have now under capitalism.

You're still taking orders.

I don't have a problem with following rules and acknowledging authority, provided it's legitimate and isn't only out for "numero uno". That authority figure or system has to serve the community and be accountable to it. If it's incompetent or oppressive there should always be a way to strip that person or system of its abusive authority. It's that simple.

We replace congressional districts with community councils that elect their delegates to Congress and that's how we maintain control of the government. I'm a communist that believes in democracy, the rule of the people, not the rule of one socioeconomic class over another, or the rule of kings and queens. I'm for the legal rule of the people (the rule of laws established by the people), in a constitutional, Republican, socialist government.


Only under Communism there is a limit to what you can achieve.

No less than under capitalism.

Under Capitalism, the only limits are the ones that you set yourself.

That depends on what type of capitalism is in place. In a mixed economy where there is equality of opportunity and the nation's infrastructure supports and serves the public good, capitalism can indeed provide people with many opportunities. However, In a form of capitalism that doesn't prioritize the public good and is only focused on private profits and power, there are many limits set by the circumstances created by the system. Gross inequality, poor working conditions for workers, stagnant wages without many benefits, a high cost of living, limited access to healthcare, to an education, and crumbling infrastructure, all undermine a person's ability to actualize their fullest potential.

 

[Markle]

After a lie there is no need to continue.

He didn't keep out illegals. I have no obligation to address bogus statements.

US migrant crisis has grown by STAGGERING 277 per cent since Biden took office​

Story by George Bunn • 11h

According to US Customs and Border Patrol data, Border Patrol recorded a total of 5,940,511 encounters, a 277 percent increase from the same period during Trump's term, from 2017 to 2019.

MSN

 

[Stann]

You can't even admit that you're a liberal. That's pathetic but you don't see it...do you?

Sounds like he's a conservative wanting people to pay their fair share. The wealthy are the last people that should be getting away with paying no taxes.

 

[pknopp]

US migrant crisis has grown by STAGGERING 277 per cent since Biden took office​

Story by George Bunn • 11h

According to US Customs and Border Patrol data, Border Patrol recorded a total of 5,940,511 encounters, a 277 percent increase from the same period during Trump's term, from 2017 to 2019.

MSN

Your post is 100% off topic and it does nothing to back up the lie that Trump kept out illegals.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Nope. I’m in record since I showed up here saying we need a balanced budget amendment. And that budget needs to include enough to pay down the debt every year.

You still have nothing but empty Dimwinger talking points about the rich paying their fair share without being able to define it.

Sorry that gets you butthurt, Simp.

Empty statements on future debt. What about current debt? Again, leave it to future generations?

Are you literate?

Its not as simple as that

With many companies competing with each other price often becomes the deciding factor for consumers

If one company hires illegals and can offer the product at a lower price every company is forced to hire illegals also

Yes...the illegals have killed many trades in this area.

 

[pknopp]

Are you literate?

Yes which is why I asked how a balance budget pays down the debt. It seems you don't know either.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I can't explain who else can pay for it other than those who have run it up. I'm missing the problem there.

You are playing stupid...or you're not PLAYING stupid.

No they dont

They can buy more phony documents and look for another job

Besides, without a job to support themselves why not deport them?

My wife is still all in favor of simply having them rounded up and shot.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Yes which is why I asked how a balance budget pays down the debt. It seems you don't know either.

Either you didn't read what you responded to or you didn't comprehend it.

 

[Mac-7]

My wife is still all in favor of simply having them rounded up and shot.

I dont believe that

She may be frustrated by liberals open door policy

And that causes concerned citizens to say things they dont really mean

Shoot on sight is one of those things

 

[DBA]

My criticism is directed at a specific type of rich person called "capitalists", who receive government assistance for their productive ventures. I wouldn't be so against bailing out businesses if the working class could also receive government services and assistance when needed, without being accused by right-wing Republican conservatives of being lazy bums who just want to live off of the government.

Any help an average Joe, working person gets from the government is characterized by MAGA hats as a shameful handout, whereas when the wealthiest people in our society, namely multimillionaires or billionaires receive any services or assistance from the government, it's "Peachy-King".

"Good for them, why not? What idiot wouldn't get help from the government when it's being offered, like DUH."

Will you ever acknowledge that such a variant in attitude towards people receiving services and resources from the government is hypocritical?

No specific examples mentioned here. I’ve got some news for you. The “rich”, as defined by Biden, pay far and away more taxes that others. If your family earns 400k/yr, you can’t afford a team of accountants to find every loophole in the tax code. You typically aren’t living off of capital gains at that pay level. What you can’t do is invest in a Roth IRA, you didn’t get stimulus money, you don’t get the child tax credit which is up to $1700 per child under 17 in 2024 and is fully refundable, meaning you get it whether you pay taxes or not. The same goes for the EITC, which is also fully refundable. You are in a higher tax bracket. Though not specifically income based, those that make more money typically pay more property tax, in which case they can only write off 10k/yr, no matter how much they pay. Trump capped the deduction and ”rich” Democrats when bonkers. Biden will likely let that expire, to help his “rich” Democrat buddies.

There are actually many more caveats which most who aren’t in that position understand. I don’t know all of them myself and am often surprised by many restrictions.

 

[DBA]

Not maybe not, they don't loan money to anyone, with or without business experience, if the venture is a worker-owned cooperative. If a group of skilled, well-experienced, ambitious workers with great credit seek a loan to start one they're always turned down, whereas a wealthy trust fund baby fresh out of college will go to the bank and get half a million bucks or more to start his or her business. That's unfair, no matter how you try to worm yourself out of admitting it.

Banks are in the business of making money. They feel that worker coops are risky. If they felt they could make money, they would finance their loans. Remember, they are “greedy Capitalists”, not social welfare warriors. Or are you attempting to say they are social welfare warriors but for the wealthy class, not the working class?

What or who determines what human beings are worth? Society.

If by society you mean the labor markets, yes. People are paid based on their value relative to others. Why do pro-sports athletes make so much money? Could it be because few can do the same thing at the same level? If hamburger flippers and ice cream scoopers were very difficult to come by, guess what, those who chose those professions would make more money.