Worker Ownership For the 21st Century?

[keywish]

My position is that most people are not responsible for their situation and that social pressures and environment are things that people cannot control. I can back up this position with actual data on Social mobility, what you do is just talk shit.

Where a person starts is not his or her making. Only where they end up. We spend so much money to try and give people a leg up and the vast majority just waste it. and then they listen to people like you who tell them none of their problems are their own making. it is all because of society. They are in a bad environment. Why should they bother. there are so many like you tell these people in these bad situations about how much the deck is stacked against them that the shear weight of it would keep any one down.

You don't like your environment then work towards getting out of it. you don't like your social position then strive to make it better.


Don't whine and complain or listen to people who tell you how bad things are for you. Just work to make changes.

[Dodds]

And then we have people like you who ignore the data.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...ty-data-charts

This is UK based but the USA is not too far in front of us.

Hey look I backed up my position.

You see I look at the data, then draw logical conclusions. Reality sucks when the facts don't match the baseless claims of personal responsibility.

[Dieval]

This has nothing to do with anything you said. You talk about me being unclear? You are about as likely to make a point as you are to back up baseless assertions.

I've made my points just fine, thanks.

My position is that most people are not responsible for their situation and that social pressures and environment are things that people cannot control.

And just why can't people control their situation?

I can back up this position with actual data on Social mobility, what you do is just talk shit.

Does your data explain the question I just asked?

Having trouble reading? No surprise.

Not at all.

[keywish]

And after 70 years of increasing the size of their government in the uk and almost crushing social mobility you advocate one thing to fix the problem. MORE GOVERMENT. At least then the social mobility debate will be over because everyone will just stay at the bottom under the goverment

[Dan74]

Keywish, you act as if I want to replace the current hierarchy with some sort of democratic capitalism. I don't, which is why your argument is still irrelevant.

[grandpa]

Keywish, you act as if I want to replace the
current hierarchy with some sort of democratic capitalism.
I don't, which is why your argument is still irrelevant.

I don't advocate any one program on one line, which is what many people don't understand about my view. In theory, those of us who like capitalism could actually try it, provided they leave the libertarian socialists/communists alone. I personally doubt they would, because capitalism thus far has been quite statist in nature (though this is constantly denied, much to my annoyance).

Grandpa h.

[keywish]

Keywish, you act as if I want to replace the current hierarchy with some sort of democratic capitalism. I don't, which is why your argument is still irrelevant.

I said

"I am asking about your system. I'm not concerned with what you oppose.

I'm talking about when you do away with capitalism and the so called oppressive slave wage system is no longer "



Your system.
the system you would prefer to be in place. I haven't claimed you want any particular system.

But you probably don't know what you want so you would rather avoid my question.

[keywish]

I love the claim of representation of the "99%". As if these occupiers have among their numbers a number of those in the 99th through 75th percentile.

I have no doubt that should this group acquire any actual power over the top 1% they would immediately seek to expand their target range to the top 10%, after which the top 20% and so on.

Another carefully crafted, completely non-applicable misnomer.

I have often laughed at this. I remember reading a protest sign that said "we are protesting for all of you". I am in the lower middle class. so by definition of what 99% would be I should be part of them also but I find them repugnant and useless. Not only would there be very few of the top 25% (if any at all) that agree with the self proclaimed 99 percenters but I doubt the majority of the upper 50% of wage earners agree with them. I don't even think a large majority of the lower 50% would agree with most of their claims and agree with even fewer of their actions.

Yet this group, with aid from the media, gets away with pretending they are in the majority.

[Dan74]

But you probably don't know what you want so you would rather avoid my question.

Actually I want socialism.

[keywish]

I don't advocate any one program on one line, which is what many people don't understand about my view. In theory, those of us who like capitalism could actually try it, provided they leave the libertarian socialists/communists alone. I personally doubt they would, because capitalism thus far has been quite statist in nature (though this is constantly denied, much to my annoyance).

Grandpa h.

What do you mean by 'try capitalism if they leave the libertarian socialist/communists alone' ?

Thats a curious statement I hope you expound on

[keywish]

Actually I want socialism.

OK. Thank you for the straight answer.
In this socialist system you require (as if we are not practically there already)

What are you proposing we do about my oppression from other workers I am shackled too who are less productive than me to such a fault that the productive end up being slaves to the un productive workers?

Are we all paid the same wage or is there a scale that would benefit the more productive worker.

[truthreality]

I strongly believe that variable-pay programs provide the most efficient way to motivate employees in a corporation. Variable-pay programs such as pierce-rate pay, merit-based pay, bonuses, skill-based pay, profit-sharing plans, gainsharing and employee stock ownership plans are effective because they pay based on performance and productivity. Over time those who are less productive have their pay stand still, while highly productive employees enjoy increased pay. The result is that those who are less productive will be forced to become more productive to increase their pay.

Variable-pay programs are also cost effective from the standpoint of the company.

The issue with equal pay for all employees is that it breeds laziness. The lack of opportunity for advancement and increased pay that certain sectors, such as the state, have is a demotivating factor for employees. Why should they put in more effort then they have to if they are not going to get compensated for doing so?