or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Stupid political crap your friends post on facebook.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Stupid political crap your friends post on facebook. - Page 291

post #4351 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by JapanAlex01 View Post

Haha, not a Facebook IQ test. They were always paper-based, and I took so many out of plain old curiosity (to see how much variation there is in the test).


The Merriam-Webster dictionary, in this case, is incorrect; I am merely pointing out a fact. I'm not too surprised, though, as it is an American dictionary.


First of all, genuinely, thank you very much for some questions, and for furthering proper discussion.

1. As you well know, there are plenty of ways in 2015 to arrange meetings across countries (Skype meetings, etc.). Also, what I said/meant was: Every worker in the company has a say (i.e. a vote) in how the company is run. A democratic voting system (something I thought Americans are all about, haw) is fundamental in a co-op, with the different employees with ideas for change explaining them to the other employees through whatever means they all decide (email/meetings/whatever). The logistics of large co-ops are relatively simple, and have been replicated in large co-ops for some time, so the systems (while I won't admit to having experience working in them myself) are out there.

2. I will answer this question with an explanation of how Mondragon works in Spain. It is the sixth or seventh largest company in Spain, and it is also a co-op.

'At Mondragon, there are agreed-upon wage ratios between executive work and field or factory work which earns a minimum wage. These ratios range from 3:1 to 9:1 in different cooperatives and average 5:1. That is, the general manager of an average Mondragon cooperative earns no more than 5 times as much as the theoretical minimum wage paid in his/her cooperative. In reality, this ratio is smaller because there are few Mondragon worker-owners that earn minimum wages, because most jobs are somewhat specialized, and are classified at higher wage levels. The wage ratio of a cooperative is decided periodically by its worker-owners through a democratic vote.

Compared to similar jobs at local industries, Mondragon managers' wages are considerably lower (as some companies pay their best-paid managers hundreds of times more than the lowest-paid employee of the company) and equivalent for middle management, technical and professional levels. Lower-wage levels are on average 13% higher than similar jobs at local businesses. Spain's progressive tax
 rate further reduces any disparity in pay.'

3. This question is a falsity/a myth. Capitalists believe, that, in a socialist economic system, workers will have no incentive, and will end up living off the state. First of all, that is obviously ludicrous to anyone with a working mind, and, secondly, there are many studies out there which prove this to be a myth/stereotype. People working in co-op (read reply to question two) tend to be paid better than workers in private companies of the same field. Obviously, managers, etc., get paid less, but that's the whole point. Workers have far more incentive to work in a co-op, as they have a genuine say in the company. Marx wrote about what everyone knows has already happened. People do work they hate just for the paycheck. Under socialism, this issue is either a lot less obvious or completely eradicated.

4. There would be far less underperforming employees (most would perform more effectively--read reply to question three). But, there is always a statistical chance there will be poor workers (like in any company); the workers as a whole decide how these workers are dealt with. Under capitalism, they are usually dealt a lot more harshly with, but, under socialism, these workers could be trained more effectively, or the workers could rally to help them become better workers. (I know some workers just plain suck.) This is because it is statistically more likely, to have more moral workers turning in a vote over the issue of what to do with slackers.


How do you know this, when we have never, ever had a totally socialist state? State capitalism most often works better than private capitalism.


First of all, I think you've written that wrongly, because surely you meant the wealth divide in those countries is higher (it isn't), and not that these countries are just richer. You guys have to get this notion out of your heads, that being a socialist country makes you automatically poorer. It's about wealth distribution; not handing money out for free. By its inherent nature, you'd actually become richer as a country, because of all the benefits of socialism and the disadvantages of capitalism.


First of all, his value is only that of his workers, as he wouldn't have a company without them. And secondly, the workers in a co-op can decide to pay people more than others; it's just a lot fairer, as, under capitalism, the board of directors tend to pay the CEOs all the money (for no logical reason). The workers do the brunt of the work in a company, so why shouldn't they decide how the pay hierarchy is structured. This is another myth you guys have to get out of your heads: Not everyone has to be paid the same under socialism; the wealth divide is just a lot fairer.


Again, I never said I was an anarchist (how many times do I have to say that?). I'm all for government!


I'll accept the compliment.


Ha. I didn't post it as total proof; like someone else said, IQ tests are not the be-all-and-end-all of intelligence tests.
The reason the workers should not be able to decide the wage in the case of the inventor or inventors is that the workers did create create the company... if the workers wish to create inferior product they can start a coop. but why should Normal businesses be illegal if you wish to start a coop or a corp it should be up to you and your partners. You statist pig
post #4352 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by JapanAlex01 View Post

First of all, his value is only that of his workers, as he wouldn't have a company without them.

This concept is far more true for the industrial era economy than the modern information age economy. A company like Google wouldn't exist without the ideas of the founders and the strategic direction from upper management/executives. The people who actually do the work are certainly important, but the company could not exist just with the workers. Even a more labor intensive enterprise like Amazon would be much less innovative and effective without the value provided by the leadership.


To extend the example JohnGalt provided, say I found a technology company. My IP is the sole product originally. I get some funding (probably heavily leaning on personal connections and networking), start selling. The company is successful enough that I need another worker. Is my company now a democracy by default, when I'm providing 99% of the value and simply need someone else to help since there aren't enough hours in the day? Say I hire a delivery driver and an accountant. Do they get equal votes on the strategic direction of the company? Can I fire them if they're terrible? Hopefully they're not stupid and let me control my own ideas, but why would I want to lose control over that? Do I need to give them an ownership stake, when all the startup capital and ideas came from me?
Quote:
And secondly, the workers in a co-op can decide to pay people more than others; it's just a lot fairer, as, under capitalism, the board of directors tend to pay the CEOs all the money (for no logical reason). The workers do the brunt of the work in a company, so why shouldn't they decide how the pay hierarchy is structured. This is another myth you guys have to get out of your heads: Not everyone has to be paid the same under socialism; the wealth divide is just a lot fairer.

This idea is far from incompatible with capitalist framework economies, in fact, many countries already incorporate it. They're simply farther down the capitalist/socialist continuum than the US.
post #4353 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarphe View Post

Please, define fairer. I am sure each person will have a different standard of fairer. You think it is management not making a lot, but one of your forefathers', Bellamy, concept of fair was the same wage for everyone.
And, what is wrong with the current system? No one is forced to work for the man all could create those idealized co-op that you talk about which, in reality, exploit their own workers.

 

If you can't look up the word 'fairer' in the dictionary, I can't help you.

 

There are socialists who have different ideals. The core, fundamental idea behind socialism, though, is giving power to the worker. Regardless of what he believes is fair, the workers in that system can vote whichever way they like, so they could vote for a higher wage for management. The fact is: Right now, CEOs in America, on average, are paid 3000% more than their company's lowest earners. If you think that is fair, I really can't help you.

 

What is wrong with the current system? Have you not been reading my posts?

 

Things capitalism does by design which are bad:

 

1. Helps to destroy the planet.

 

2. Creates a massive wealth divide.

 

3. Outsources labour, so jobs are lost.

 

4. Child labour.

post #4354 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by JapanAlex01 View Post

4. Child labour.

Is there child labor in the US? I thought the US was this terrible bastion of capitalism, but apparently we have some labor protections after all.


You're talking about some stark binary divide between capitalism and socialism, but that's demonstrably not true (something englade321 has mentioned before). Every modern economy incorporates many elements of socialism. The debate among most is the correct blend.
post #4355 of 5454
Quote:

This concept is far more true for the industrial era economy than the modern information age economy. A company like Google wouldn't exist without the ideas of the founders and the strategic direction from upper management/executives. The people who actually do the work are certainly important, but the company could not exist just with the workers. Even a more labor intensive enterprise like Amazon would be much less innovative and effective without the value provided by the leadership.

 

You can still have people with ideas in a co-op. Mondragon has become one of the biggest/most important companies in Spain, and it's a co-op. They have built a university on site, too. So, there's some form of proof a co-op is more likely to do better things than a private company.

 

Quote:

To extend the example JohnGalt provided, say I found a technology company. My IP is the sole product originally. I get some funding (probably heavily leaning on personal connections and networking) and start selling. The company is successful enough, that I need another worker. Is my company now a democracy by default, when I'm providing 99% of the value, and simply need someone else to help since there aren't enough hours in the day? Say I hire a delivery driver and an accountant. Do they get equal votes on the strategic direction of the company? Can I fire them if they're terrible? Hopefully they're not stupid and let me control my own ideas, but why would I want to lose control over that? Do I need to give them an ownership stake, when all the startup capital and ideas came from me?

 

Workers in a co-op do not want to lose their jobs--just like workers in a private company don't. They are not going to vote for things like firing great employees, are they? They're going to vote for things like company perks, good wages, etc. If workers vote the people with the ideas out, the company will fail, so it is not in their best interests. To answer your question directly, yes, all businesses should be co-ops from the start. If people work by themselves (plumbers, etc.) then they're the only person in the company, so it doesn't matter.

 

Quote:
This idea is far from incompatible with capitalist framework economies. In fact, many countries already incorporate it. They're simply farther down the capitalist/socialist continuum than the US.

 

Personally, I am against regulation which is what you're suggesting, as any political party can come into power, and revert that regulation. Changing the entire system is the only way to regulate properly.


Edited by JapanAlex01 - 7/28/15 at 7:13am
post #4356 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by JapanAlex01 View Post

If you can't look up the word 'fairer' in the dictionary, I can't help you.

There are socialists who have different ideals. The core, fundamental idea behind socialism, though, is giving power to the worker. Regardless of what he believes is fair, the workers in that system can vote whichever way they like, so they could vote for a higher wage for management. The fact is: Right now, CEOs in America, on average, are paid 3000% more than their company's lowest earners. If you think that is fair, I really can't help you.

What is wrong with the current system? Have you not been reading my posts?

Things capitalism does by design which are bad:

1. Helps to destroy the planet.

2. Creates a massive wealth divide.

3. Outsources labour, so jobs are lost.

4. Child labour.
1. Massive coops will have the same carbon foot print of large corp. So i fail to see this point.
2.why is wealth division bad? You think it is therefore it is a universal truth..
3. Jobs are not lost they are simply given to other people. It us cheaper to make cars and spoons in less developed countries that also gives a benefit to the developed populations of cheaper goods. And the developed populations need to get with program they have much more acess to loans education and other gov help to stay relevant in the market than their counterparts in myanmar brazil etc, if they do not avail themselves that is their problem.
4. Lets be real for a moment the children that are working are not being denied an education or other chances because they are working. Their families cannot support their schooling nor can they provide the most basic needs.thysly yes there is child labour but it is better than starving.
post #4357 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

Is there child labor in the US? I thought the US was this terrible bastion of capitalism, but apparently we have some labor protections after all.


You're talking about some stark binary divide between capitalism and socialism, but that's demonstrably not true (something englade321 has mentioned before). Every modern economy incorporates many elements of socialism. The debate among most is the correct blend.

 

Yeah, no duh. Capitalists outsource labour to children in poorer-paying countries, because it's cheaper for them (including all the shipping).

 

Like I said, unless you totally change the system, you will never, ever get rid of all these problems (child labour, etc.). You can socialist-leaning systems in a country, but it's not what socialism is fundamentally about: power for workers.

post #4358 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by JapanAlex01 View Post

Yeah, no duh. Capitalists outsource labour to children in poorer-paying countries, because it's cheaper for them (including all the shipping).

Like I said, unless you totally change the system, you will never, ever get rid of all these problems (child labour, etc.). You can socialist-leaning systems in a country, but it's not what socialism is fundamentally about: power for workers.
But workers have power now there is nothing stopping them from qutitting their jobs and starting coops unless you think it required to dictate to people how they should act
post #4359 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by JapanAlex01 View Post

You can still have people with ideas in a co-op. Mondragon has become one of the biggest/most important companies in Spain, and it's a co-op. They have built a university on site, too. So, there's some form of proof a co-op is more likely to do better things than a private company.
How are you justifying that one company as "proof" that co-ops "do things better" than private companies? It stands as an example that co-ops are a viable company structure, but that's a far cry from being universally superior.
Quote:
Workers in a co-op do not want to lose their jobs--just like workers in a private company don't. They are not going to vote for things like firing great employees, are they? They're going to vote for things like company perks, good wages, etc. If workers vote the people with the ideas out, the company will fail, so it is not in their best interests. To answer your question directly, yes, all businesses should be co-ops from the start. If people work by themselves (plumbers, etc.) then they're the only person in the company, so it doesn't matter.
Work out the logistics of starting a company under this arrangement for me. It's already a risky enterprise for the entrepreneur, but now literally every employee you hire becomes an incredibly risky decision since they all become equal partners from Day 1. How do you maintain a nimble company culture when every decision requires convincing all your employees first?

All the incentives would drive you to develop the idea and then sell it to some larger company who could actually manage the risk and not be utterly hamstrung by having to deal with the dynamics of a co-op with a bare handful of employees. Why would I ever hire somebody when I've taken all the risk but have to share the rewards disproportionately and lose control of the direction of the company?
post #4360 of 5454
People who preach the virtues of socialism are nothing more than failed capitalists. When everything else fails the next step is to steal from everyone, "equalize" for all and sit on top. Sure in a perfect world we would all be happy to recieve bread and water but it's not going to happen. There is nothing to motivate people and really all you have is a welfare state which would force people to work.

Power for workers is nice but why would I want to be a worker and where would JapanAlex sit in this totem pole of fairness. Does a person with such amazing smarts need to be digging a ditch because it's fair to me, I sure think so but Alex might not. Sadly in a perfect world both of our view points don't matter do they?

Best advise is to shut up, work, thrive, make money and retire before the likes of some decide they are tired of "The Man" winning all the races.

Time to grow up.
post #4361 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by JapanAlex01 View Post

The Merriam-Webster dictionary, in this case, is incorrect; I am merely pointing out a fact. I'm not too surprised, though, as it is an American dictionary.


I have just realized who JapanAlex is.

Quote:
"I dust a bit," Ignatius told the policeman. "In addition, I am at the moment writing a lengthy indictment against our century. When my brain begins to reel from my literary labors, I make an occasional cheese dip.”
post #4362 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold falcon View Post

Five Reasons Every Straight Man Should Go Gay At Least Once Or Five Times
http://www.queerty.com/five-reasons-every-straight-man-should-go-gay-at-least-once-or-five-times-20150725

Ed, take note.

Shit, only five times? I mean, I'm up to nine times willingly for July alone and I ain't gay yet.
post #4363 of 5454
Also, JapanAlex, I really have nothing to say that won't be said by others except that if you're going to fault a dictionary (especially one that's incredibly well regarded) you might want to avoid using made up words such as "secondly".
post #4364 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by edinatlanta View Post

Also, JapanAlex, I really have nothing to say that won't be said by others except that if you're going to fault a dictionary (especially one that's incredibly well regarded) you might want to avoid using made up words such as "secondly".

And you might want to stop making comments about language, you suck at it.


http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/secondly
post #4365 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold falcon View Post

Fuck yeah, just took the IQ test and I'm 139! Suck it bitch!

I just took the IQ test and I'm 68! So suck it bitch (and I'll owe you one)!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Stupid political crap your friends post on facebook.