No, I want to regulate it to prevent exploitation.
It’s not self-evdient to you that capital without labor is worthless?
Whatever your labor is worth. I’m not going to play math games here, so save it. We’re talking in broad general outlines here.
If it’s legal, you can do whatever you want. It’s just immoral, that’s all. Under my ideal, you wouldn’t have that choice, though.
You don’t need to force profit sharing to do that.
That’s not what I was responding to, and that’s not the same thing as saying that the worth of labor is determined by the value of the end product.
I don’t see why you’re getting so pissy about fleshing out your scheme. You said that labor “owns” at least part of the value of the end product? If you can’t say how much they own, then you haven’t thought this through, and I don’t see how you expect anyone to agree with you.
I love how you never pass at an opportunity to dig your hole deeper. Care to provide any cites for these positions?
No, you could just regulate compensation instead.
I already said that labor is worth profit minus capital I can’t further refine that question without specific numbers as to profit and capital.
It also isn’t necessary to show some kind of detailed spreadsheet to simply hold the opinion that when some useless parasite who does nothing, creates nothing, and gives nothing is making 2000 times more than the people doing all the work, there’s something wrong with the system.
Reality. Name one time when unemp[loyment went up because minimum wages were raised. You’re the one asserting that just compensation will cause unemployment. You prove it.
Under my ideal, consenting adults largely get to make their own choices – such that it’d be immoral to interfere with 'em. (For that matter, I can’t help but note that your quote there is pretty much word-for-word the sort of thing I hear when folks are railing against, say, homosexual activity: it’s legal, so I suppose they can do whatever they want – but it’s immoral, so under my ideal they wouldn’t have that choice. Can’t say I buy it in either context.)
I’m not even sure what “profit minus capital” means. What capital are you referring to here? The initial capital that investors laid out, or do you actually refer to operating overhead?
What share of profits should the investors receive?
You hire when you can not keep up with demand. You do not hire because management is sitting on a pile of dough. What, do you imagine, they would hire people to stand around because profits are soaring?
Auto companies add shifts when they can not keep up with projected demand. All companies do the same thing. If you don’t understand that , you are lost.
I just wanted to add “fails to support claims he makes” to your rap sheet in this thread. So thanks.
We’ve been Dio’ed again, folks . . .
Consenting my ass. Do you think workers would consent to less than the value of their labor if they actually had a choice?
Whatever is not labor. How about that?
Maybe something equivalent to the interest on a loan, because that’s really all they’re contributing.
Donny, we are trying to have a conversation . . .
What you don’t know already fills several books. Maybe you should read one.
A key concept you are missing is risk. It’s the reason that people make equity investments in businesses rather than making loans in the first place. If you think people who make equity investments in a business should only get the return they’d get from making a loan, then why in hell would anyone make an equity investment in a business? How many people does a non-existent business tend to hire, in your experience?
You know, this whole bit about there being some measure of “value” outside what someone is will to pay is nonsense. The universe does not assign value to things-- humans do. You can say capital without labor is worthless, but capital + labor without customers is worthless, too. So customers should share a part of the profit, too.
The fact is, “value” is completely a human construct and it is completely subjective.
Still, it’s one thing to argue for a minimum wage as a sort of welfare, but it’s completely another thing to argue that you gain partial ownership of something just because you worked to make it.
Who or what decides what the value of their labor is? And do workers not have a choice to go work somewhere else where their labor is more valued?
Can you run a billion dollar company?
They do make something that’s the equivalent of interest on a loan. What exactly do you think the return on capital is?
But when you answered “whatever is not labor” it confirmed for me that you really don’t understand basic econ and you’re just making up stuff as you go along, stuff that doesn’t strongly resemble the real world. Seriously, “profit minus capital”?
Maybe this will be the thread where Dio finally, at long last, realizes that he’s got absolutely no idea what he’s talking about. I rather doubt it though.
Do not post insults in Great Debates.
[ /Moderating ]
What’s weird for me is I can understand collective ownership. I don’t understand Dio’s system where I guess the current capitalist system would still exist, and we’d still have a few individuals owning a company, but all the profits go to the laborers?
That just wouldn’t work. No one would invest the capital. Collective ownership makes a lot more sense than that.