Lamborghini and the Beggar

[Dodds]

So you agree with her that she shouldn't be thankful that someone hired her because it's all "bullshit" and that everyone is entitled to more of the money earned by someone else's business?

Yes, what you stated was/is bullshit. Someone who hires another person should be thankful that a person gives their blood, sweat and tears to make their enterprise a success. Also what you don't understand is that the hired person made that business more money. Should they not get a share of the money they helped make? Which in turn will help other people get jobs and services, this is a fundamental truth to growth.

..and I can't say I'm surprised you'd agree

It helps the economy when people are well paid. Thats what you don't get. It is all about demand.

The thread is about the wealth gap essentially, when it is high the economy suffers. A balance needs to be found. Greed is not good.

[Dieval]

Yes, what you stated was/is bullshit.

haha nice way to turn that around

Someone who hires another person should be thankful that a person gives their blood, sweat and tears to make their enterprise a success.

...assuming they are giving their "blood, sweat and tears"....and the person giving that should be thankful that someone hired them. It goes both ways.

Also what you don't understand is that the hired person made that business more money.

I understand that just fine.

Should they not get a share of the money they helped make?

I assume the hired person is being paid for their work and not just donating their time to help some random person out...of course they should be paid and they are.

It helps the economy when people are well paid. Thats what you don't get. It is all about demand.

I have no problem with people being "well paid", however, you can't have everyone "well paid" or people will increase prices to match the rate of pay.....then aren't you back at square one?

The thread is about the wealth gap essentially, when it is high the economy suffers. A balance needs to be found. Greed is not good.

Back to this old game again, eh?

[lsbskins1]

I have no problem with people being "well paid", however, you can't have everyone "well paid" or people will increase prices to match the rate of pay.....then aren't you back at square one?

This is the lie you believe. If I made 6 dollars in profit last week, there is no immutable law that says I can not make 5.50 in profit next week. It is not absolutely necessary that a business owner keep the same profit level. It is entirely possible and actually desirable for the larger economy that these profits be more equitably distributed, because that is what makes the engine go. As the owner, I can, without real harm to myself, give up the jet. But, in giving up the jet, I am not removing that money from the economy. I am allowing it to circulate more reasonably. I am allowing 6,000 toasters and 100 microwaves and 2,000 more books, etc to be purchased. That works out better for us all. And, it isn't like paying the grocery store clerk 10.00 an hour rather than 7.25 an hour makes them as wealthy as the CEO, who might go from making 2.5 million a year to 1.5 million a year. The slope is not that fucking slippery.

[Dodds]

haha nice way to turn that around

Thanks. :)

...assuming they are giving their "blood, sweat and tears"....and the person giving that should be thankful that someone hired them. It goes both ways.

I agree here. The way someone shows appreciation is with hard work and the way the owner can is with decent wages. Or even a thank you. Which is rare really. The way I see it is that if we both give something then we all gain something.

I understand that just fine.

Then why are you not coming across that way?

I assume the hired person is being paid for their work and not just donating their time to help some random person out...of course they should be paid and they are.

Allow me to rephrase. Should they be paid a percentage of their productivity?

I have no problem with people being "well paid", however, you can't have everyone "well paid" or people will increase prices to match the rate of pay.....then aren't you back at square one?

There is a difference here. What you stated was people can easily be replaced for someone who gets $0.50 less an hour. That is not increasing wages. That is decreasing them. When you go for market value on wages it stagnates growth in downturn periods,(as can be seen in Greece right now) wages and prices are sticky. Meaning that they do not fluctuate downwards or upwards with market forces. When you ignore this fact you ignore a fundamental law of economics.

Another thing you ignore with this statement is that productivity will go up when we reach full employment, supply and demand will meet an equilibrium. Goods and services are not static, their supply will grow to meet demand. So no we are not back to square 1.

Back to this old game again, eh?

The truth is not a game. Inequality to this level is not good. Wealth does not trickle down, the horse will not feed the sparrows. The idea of supply side economics is false.

[Dieval]

This is the lie you believe. If I made 6 dollars in profit last week, there is no immutable law that says I can not make 5.50 in profit next week. It is not absolutely necessary that a business owner keep the same profit level. It is entirely possible and actually desirable for the larger economy that these profits be more equitably distributed, because that is what makes the engine go. As the owner, I can, without real harm to myself, give up the jet. But, in giving up the jet, I am not removing that money from the economy. I am allowing it to circulate more reasonably. I am allowing 6,000 toasters and 100 microwaves and 2,000 more books, etc to be purchased. That works out better for us all. And, it isn't like paying the grocery store clerk 10.00 an hour rather than 7.25 an hour makes them as wealthy as the CEO, who might go from making 2.5 million a year to 1.5 million a year. The slope is not that fucking slippery.

Which god are you that you get to decide what people can "give up" and who gets someone elses money? How is that freedom?

[Dodds]

Which god are you that you get to decide what people can "give up" and who gets someone elses money? How is that freedom?

That "god" would be the free market. Answer your own question.

[Dieval]

I agree here. The way someone shows appreciation is with hard work and the way the owner can is with decent wages. Or even a thank you. Which is rare really. The way I see it is that if we both give something then we all gain something.

Is it "rare"? I am a hard worker at the company I'm employed with and they provide a nice paycheck and a lot of thank yous for everyone's hard work. Can you prove your statement is true?

Then why are you not coming across that way?

I don't agree with your assessment of the situation.

Allow me to rephrase. Should they be paid a percentage of their productivity?

That depends on the employment contract that is worked out. If it's agreed to up front, sure.

There is a difference here. What you stated was people can easily be replaced for someone who gets $0.50 less an hour. That is not increasing wages. That is decreasing them. When you go for market value on wages it stagnates growth in downturn periods,(as can be seen in Greece right now) wages and prices are sticky. Meaning that they do not fluctuate downwards or upwards with market forces. When you ignore this fact you ignore a fundamental law of economics.

My point was that unskilled labor can be replaced quickly by someone willing to work for less money and even be thankful to have a job....
As an employer, who would you rather have working for you?
1) ungrateful person wanting high wages (see: lsbskins1)
2) very thankful person, willing to work for less

[Dieval]

That "god" would be the free market. Answer your own question.

Please explain how being forced to give up something is freedom.

[Senor Hoint]

Please explain how being forced to give up something is freedom.

Ever heard of Rousseau and the social contract? Somehow, I doubt it. You know, that whole idea where you give up certain freedoms in order to gain others. You give up the freedom to attack people in exchange for the freedom from being attacked...and you give up the right to greedily hoard money while people starve in order to gain the right not to be overthrown in a revolution.

[Dodds]

Is it "rare"? I am a hard worker at the company I'm employed with and they provide a nice paycheck and a lot of thank yous for everyone's hard work. Can you prove your statement is true?

Yes I can.

Nearly 40 percent of workers feel unappreciated | TechJournal

I don't agree with your assessment of the situation.

Then we shall agree to disagree.

That depends on the employment contract that is worked out. If it's agreed to up front, sure.

WHY YOU DAMNED PINKO COMMIE SCUM!!!!! You should look into Socialism, you will find you don't disagree with most of it.

My point was that unskilled labor can be replaced quickly by someone willing to work for less money and even be thankful to have a job....
As an employer, who would you rather have working for you?
1) ungrateful person wanting high wages (see: lsbskins1)
2) very thankful person, willing to work for less

As someone who understands economics, I would go for the Henry Ford approach. I would wan't my business to survive in the long term. And I would hire Skins, she is lovely.

[Dodds]

Please explain how being forced to give up something is freedom.

Then please explain how the free market is freedom? It is your argument, not mine.

[minorwork]

If you say, "Be thankful the person gave you a job", you are advancing this type of bullshit.

That's NOT a straw man? Just because now it's conditional? Nice try to deny ownership but the baby is still yours.

A job is not a "gift" that is given.

I don't know what you mean by "gift." Your employer is needing to make his quota's of veterans, females, or minorities. Is it not a gift from whoever established the quotas to those hired to make the quotas when a better qualified person not within the quota domain would have been a better hire? I don't know what you would consider a gift. Maybe there is no such animal as far as you're concerned. Enlighten me.

I may have used a bit of hyperbole to make a point, but there is no straw man. Or, do you believe that a person should view a job as a "gift"?

You'd not permit a person that point of view? But again I don't know what you require of a thing or position that would make it a gift.

Do you think that I am wrong in saying that the person who is an engineer for a mining company or schedules appointments for a doctor or does electrical work for a contractor is not just receiving the largesse of the business owner who shares profit because he is nice and generous?

That is not the wrong part that makes your statement a straw man. The wrong part was in attaching to your opponent the position that you find easily attacked.

Do you believe that they are each actually a vital part of the generation of profit? Which is it there, old pal?

Which false dichotomy? Two guys doing nothing, one has an idea that needs both to make some bucks and wants a 60/40 split for his having the idea and agrees that when his pal has an idea that takes two to engage in that he will then take the short side of the 60/40 split. Either, when the idea is not theirs, can demand 50/50. But then the idea can be taken to another who will agree to the 60/40. Is it your claim that whichever is taking the lion's share here is a cad somehow? I see no gift unless it would be if the idea holder is forced by thugs, er, government regulators, who will demand a cut themselves from both parties, to adhere to his buddy's idea that demands equal pay for a job that requires both to do.