Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Soda for Food StampsFollow

#402 Jan 23 2013 at 9:57 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Iron Chef Olorinus wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The employee working a shift at his job doesn't risk anything.
Of course. No one has ever died in a workplace accident, ever. I'm sure a lot more people have died while dialing up their stock broker than in a mine, or in a factory... etc.
Sorry. I thought it was clear what context I was speaking in. He doesn't risk anything economically.
Because dead or disabled employees prosper economically, right?


It's an irrelevant point. What would he have done otherwise? Not worked? You take a risk every time you walk out your front door (and sometimes even when you don't). The point being that the owner could have chosen not to risk his past economic gains by starting a business. He could have taken his money and bought nice things for himself with them instead of risking them by starting a business. The worker isn't making the same kind of decision. It's not like he banked up 500k units worth of "not getting injured on the job", could have just sat at home enjoying his lack of risk of getting hurt, but decided instead to invest it in working. The comparison you're trying to make is nonsensical.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#403 Jan 23 2013 at 10:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Quote:
Correct. Their labor is valued based on the value of the goods or services they produce to those who consume them. I thought I was pretty clear about this.


No labor cost is based on what the company deems is worth paying based on profit margins. It has very little to what the product being provided is. If that were the case I can think of a lot of Blu Collar jobs that by your definition should be earning millions a year, not 10's of thousands. For example a Car my company builds sells for 45K we produce 200 per shift, so about 600 a day. Assuming nothing goes wrong in the line. We have 2 shutdown periods of 2 weeks each meaning we produce about 130,000 thousand vehicles per year, which is worth about 5.85 Billion per year. Our plant has a staff that makes on average (including benefits) 30$/hr over 400 people, and temp service for 14$/hr no benefits of about 300 people. So our labor cost is about 32 million for the year. Or about half a percent of total profits.

To put a comparison to other cost of the company, it costs us a little under a bil a year for the pre assembled parts (largely from China and Korea being slammed into American Vehicles.) and a little over half a bil to store our product. (both finished and raw). The company made over 2 bil in proftis, shareholders held a party...we weren't invited, and to save costs they even took our company sponsored parties away. My bonus this year was a 1000 dollar cheque (about a weeks worth of my wages).

If you honestly believe that pay is based on product value you are more ignorant to reality than I thought.

And this is why Romney didn't win his election. Top down economics do not work they never have, and they never will. Sadly they have plagued our economic systems in NA (thanks @#%^s), to the point where it is inescapable. More and more jobs go over sees because it is cheaper to operate. Which means more profits. More companies close up here because people don't have money to buy sh*t. In order to keep making sh*t for people to buy, even if they are not (hello auto market) they move to cheaper labor markets.

Labor markets here are saturated with greedy indexing. Raise the price on consumer goods, people will spend more money, people spend more money, more profits, more over sees investment (tax free yo!) more profits. Your country is an economic husk, because free market capitalism is a failure proven twice now ('29/'08)...the greatest pyramid scheme ever devised.

Socialism baby, its the only way. We the people should control our sh*t, not a group of death panel investors.



Edited, Jan 23rd 2013 11:42pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#404gbaji, Posted: Jan 24 2013 at 3:18 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) So investors aren't part of "we the people"? Those are individuals making free choices with their own money. You'd prefer the government decide how much things are worth? You can't seriously think that would work better.
#405 Jan 24 2013 at 10:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Quote:
How else do you suggest we determine worker pay? It seems as though the two opposing forces (workers desire for more pay versus employer desire to pay less) is the best way to do this. It ensures that the pay is not too low, and not too high.


LOL you are a blithering moron. Cost of living has increased much more than the average pay. These products that "dictate" the wages people make have gone up in price...pay has not. We went over this a few weeks back when you claimed that on average Americans were making more money than they were a decade ago...when they are making the same as they were 10 years ago and cost of living has gone up some 25%.

Sadly the only way to equalize pay in the workforce is to mandate profit sharing within a company. Meaning all profits are shared among every person involved in the company equally. So little Joe Blow doesn't get a 500 dollar Christmas bonus for doing all the work, while the Monopoly Man sits back and collects his 500K bonus for sitting on his pompous pig ass signing agreements to have Joes job moved to Mexico where Juan Gomez can be paid half Joes wage, and doesn't get a Christmas bonus.

But that is too @#%^ing communist even for me. But it is a lot better than the current system of Rich Pig making all the choices depending on what his fat @#%^ing off shore wallet says.

God dammit you are stupid.

But hey lets keep rewarding the fat pigs for moving jobs to other countries, while they retain the profits, tax free in foreign tax havens, milking the money back through Investments that they pay a fraction of the national income taxes on.



Edited, Jan 24th 2013 11:24pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#406 Jan 25 2013 at 2:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,858 posts
Quote:
I'd rather risk failing to provide for someone who utterly cannot provide for himself than risk causing a harmful outcome to someone else.


If that is your position then any sort of government is useless to you.

Food stamps? Clearly no.
Roads? @#%^ no, car crashes.
Police? Also no. Everyone should just shoot the bad guys anyway
Legal system? False imprisonment. Also, there are no police.
Military? Hahahaha.
____________________________
"Observe what happens when you force a man to change"
Just as Planned.
#407 Jan 25 2013 at 3:16 AM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,894 posts
One way to achieve fairness (and motivation!) to workers is to give workers shares in the company as part of their pay packet . You don't socialise or communise the company by giving the entire company to the workers, but you make all of them - even the cleaners - very modest stockholders in the place. As minority stockholders each worker would get a modest but real dividend that theoretically gets bigger if the company as a whole is more productive and successful. These would be real shares. After a worker leaves they would be able to hold onto their share (meaning that the long term health of the company is in their best interests), or sell the shares.

A prominent economist once made the very same argument sometime in the 80's or 90's. The executive boards enthusiastically misinterpreted his firm suggestion to mean that the executive board employees in public companies should be assigned shares in a company, thusly that theoretically well performing boards would be rewarded by the capital gains of their shares or share options.

I think a reasonable division would be 10% total of the issued shares being held by the entire workforce of that company. I realise that this system would require frequent share issues: probably once every year or two, with a public offering included to keep the balance at 10% employees-90% public shareholders. But I think the gains to productivity would be well worth the paperwork.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#408 Jan 25 2013 at 7:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,152 posts

Of course it does. What do you think it's based on? Random number generator?


Really? You think labor costs are related to the value of the item being produced? So worker A manufactures charcoal briquettes, worker B cuts large jewelry diamonds. Worker B should be paid 1000 times worker A? Fuck, we KNEW you were stupid but really?

Edit: Don't bother with the explanation, BTW. We all know what it'll be, that you were simply stating the bone crushingly obvious in such an obtuse and obfuscated way that no one can tell. "No, smash, the value of the good OR service they produce, the service is cutting diamonds" I understood this already, it's also wrong and so poorly phrased as to be painful, so please don't feel the need to expound.

Edited, Jan 25th 2013 8:09am by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#409 Jan 25 2013 at 7:13 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
26,638 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
One way to achieve fairness (and motivation!) to workers is to give workers shares in the company as part of their pay packet . You don't socialise or communise the company by giving the entire company to the workers, but you make all of them - even the cleaners - very modest stockholders in the place. As minority stockholders each worker would get a modest but real dividend that theoretically gets bigger if the company as a whole is more productive and successful. These would be real shares. After a worker leaves they would be able to hold onto their share (meaning that the long term health of the company is in their best interests), or sell the shares.
So basically, something like what New Belgium did as they became 100% employee owned a couple weeks ago. Although the employees held a 41% share before that.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#410 Jan 25 2013 at 7:27 AM Rating: Decent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,668 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
How else do you suggest we determine worker pay? It seems as though the two opposing forces (workers desire for more pay versus employer desire to pay less) is the best way to do this. It ensures that the pay is not too low, and not too high.


LOL you are a blithering moron. Cost of living has increased much more than the average pay. These products that "dictate" the wages people make have gone up in price...pay has not. We went over this a few weeks back when you claimed that on average Americans were making more money than they were a decade ago...when they are making the same as they were 10 years ago and cost of living has gone up some 25%.

Sadly the only way to equalize pay in the workforce is to mandate profit sharing within a company. Meaning all profits are shared among every person involved in the company equally. So little Joe Blow doesn't get a 500 dollar Christmas bonus for doing all the work, while the Monopoly Man sits back and collects his 500K bonus for sitting on his pompous pig ass signing agreements to have Joes job moved to Mexico where Juan Gomez can be paid half Joes wage, and doesn't get a Christmas bonus.

But that is too @#%^ing communist even for me. But it is a lot better than the current system of Rich Pig making all the choices depending on what his fat @#%^ing off shore wallet says.

God dammit you are stupid.

But hey lets keep rewarding the fat pigs for moving jobs to other countries, while they retain the profits, tax free in foreign tax havens, milking the money back through Investments that they pay a fraction of the national income taxes on.



Edited, Jan 24th 2013 11:24pm by rdmcandie
Smiley: lol So @#%^ing oblivious I'm almost pissing myself laughing. There are far less companies out there acting like this than are companies who do, yet you act and speak like this is the norm. Is it uncommon? No, not at all. Is it the majority? Not even fucking close.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#411 Jan 25 2013 at 7:31 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,152 posts
Is it the majority? Not even @#%^ing close.

It's the vast, vast, vast, vast majority measured in any significant way. If you measure it comparing me to IBM, then maybe not, but that's a moronic way to measure it.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#412 Jan 25 2013 at 9:39 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
How else do you suggest we determine worker pay? It seems as though the two opposing forces (workers desire for more pay versus employer desire to pay less) is the best way to do this. It ensures that the pay is not too low, and not too high.


LOL you are a blithering moron. Cost of living has increased much more than the average pay. These products that "dictate" the wages people make have gone up in price...pay has not. We went over this a few weeks back when you claimed that on average Americans were making more money than they were a decade ago...when they are making the same as they were 10 years ago and cost of living has gone up some 25%.

Sadly the only way to equalize pay in the workforce is to mandate profit sharing within a company. Meaning all profits are shared among every person involved in the company equally. So little Joe Blow doesn't get a 500 dollar Christmas bonus for doing all the work, while the Monopoly Man sits back and collects his 500K bonus for sitting on his pompous pig ass signing agreements to have Joes job moved to Mexico where Juan Gomez can be paid half Joes wage, and doesn't get a Christmas bonus.

But that is too @#%^ing communist even for me. But it is a lot better than the current system of Rich Pig making all the choices depending on what his fat @#%^ing off shore wallet says.

God dammit you are stupid.

But hey lets keep rewarding the fat pigs for moving jobs to other countries, while they retain the profits, tax free in foreign tax havens, milking the money back through Investments that they pay a fraction of the national income taxes on.



Edited, Jan 24th 2013 11:24pm by rdmcandie
Smiley: lol So @#%^ing oblivious I'm almost pissing myself laughing. There are far less companies out there acting like this than are companies who do, yet you act and speak like this is the norm. Is it uncommon? No, not at all. Is it the majority? Not even fucking close.


Hey don't @#%^ on me. I know its not the majority, but Mr. Brain Sperge up there seems to think the majority of folks on Foodstamps abuse them. When its not even @#%^ing close. I just felt like playing @#%^ing brain sperge too. Besides what the hell do you know, we live in Canada, we just sell companies to foreign states instead.

To lay down a Gbajism on your canuck ass. The majority of the people doing it are doing it so there.



Edited, Jan 25th 2013 10:40am by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#413 Jan 25 2013 at 7:35 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
LOL you are a blithering moron. Cost of living has increased much more than the average pay. These products that "dictate" the wages people make have gone up in price...pay has not. We went over this a few weeks back when you claimed that on average Americans were making more money than they were a decade ago...when they are making the same as they were 10 years ago and cost of living has gone up some 25%.


Again, that's you misunderstanding the data. I tried to explain where you went wrong, but as they say, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

Quote:
Sadly the only way to equalize pay in the workforce is to mandate profit sharing within a company.


Why is equalizing pay an important objective though? Should the guy who works the fryolator at McDonalds get the same pay as the guy with the PhD who's busy discovering a cure for cancer? No? Then "equalizing pay" is the wrong objective.

Quote:
Meaning all profits are shared among every person involved in the company equally.


Except that the guy who designs the product has a greater contribution to those profits than the guy who pushes the "go" button on the machine that builds that design, and both of them have more contribution than the guy who empties the trash cans. Trying to insist that everyone should get an equal share of the result is a moronic idea. Unless your objective is to transform our industry into a bunch of people emptying trash that is. I keep pointing this out (in many many threads): You cannot discount the fact that the worker is also greedy. He wants to earn the most money while doing the least work. That's the counter to the greed of the employer. If I get the same share of profits whether I sit on my butt doing nothing or if I come up with brilliant solutions to profit altering problems, why should I spend the effort? On a more macro scale, why should a student bother to spend time/money/effort obtaining a degree if he's going to make the same money emptying trash cans as he will designing products?

What you're proposing is completely unworkable. Top to bottom.

Quote:
So little Joe Blow doesn't get a 500 dollar Christmas bonus for doing all the work, while the Monopoly Man sits back and collects his 500K bonus for sitting on his pompous pig ass signing agreements to have Joes job moved to Mexico where Juan Gomez can be paid half Joes wage, and doesn't get a Christmas bonus.


If Monopoly Man's actions affected the bottom line profits of the company 1000 times more than Joe Blow, then he absolutely should get a bonus that's 1000 times larger. I know that this is hard for some people to grasp, but different people's jobs actually have different real value added to the output of a business. If I write a simple shell script that reduces the fuse time of our parts from 18 seconds per part to 9 seconds per part, and thus halves the amount of production time for a given run of parts (we're talking tens of millions of dollars here btw, and this is a real story), shouldn't my contribution be considered as vastly more important than the guy who loads the trays of parts into a machine and pushes a button? I mean, without him, my work wont matter (cause someone has to push the button, right?), but ultimately one of us can be replace far more easily, and one of us can't. Anyone can push a button. A much smaller set of people can be handed a programming problem that's affecting production times and solve it in a fast and efficient manner.

Different people and different jobs *must* be paid different salaries. Otherwise the whole system falls apart. And while this may seem "unfair" when viewed in an exceptionally simplistic way, it not only isn't, but it's the best and most fair way to do things.

Quote:
But hey lets keep rewarding the fat pigs for moving jobs to other countries, while they retain the profits, tax free in foreign tax havens, milking the money back through Investments that they pay a fraction of the national income taxes on.


Yeah. Let's not repeat half baked myths and misunderstandings about how finances work though. Cause that would be crazy!

Edited, Jan 25th 2013 5:51pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#414 Jan 25 2013 at 7:50 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

Of course it does. What do you think it's based on? Random number generator?


Really? You think labor costs are related to the value of the item being produced? So worker A manufactures charcoal briquettes, worker B cuts large jewelry diamonds. Worker B should be paid 1000 times worker A? Fuck, we KNEW you were stupid but really?


How many pounds of charcoal briquettes does worker A manufacture in the same time that worker B cuts a pound of diamonds though? And how do the operational and raw materials costs surrounding those things compare?

Quote:
Edit: Don't bother with the explanation, BTW. We all know what it'll be, that you were simply stating the bone crushingly obvious in such an obtuse and obfuscated way that no one can tell. "No, smash, the value of the good OR service they produce, the service is cutting diamonds" I understood this already, it's also wrong and so poorly phrased as to be painful, so please don't feel the need to expound.


Swing and a miss. It's based on the profit delta resulting from the labor. If total costs to produce a good *except* for compensation for my workers is X, and total gross revenue from sales of that good is Y, then the upper bound on what I can pay my workers is Y-X. That upper bound represents zero profits for the company and maximum pay for the workers. Now, unless I went into business just for the fun of it (and have no need for a buffer in case of bad years), I'm going to want *some* profits, so actual pay will be less than that upper bound. How much less depends on the flexibility of the labor itself. Obviously, unskilled labor that can be replaced easily will demand the least amount of wages, while skilled and hard to replace labor will demand the highest wages.


I think what many people fail to grasp here is that assuming we want an economy that is best at producing useful and valuable goods for those living in it, we want to maximize the efficiency of the workforce. The best way to accomplish that is to allow everyone within that workforce to compete for jobs and pay. When they have to do this, they will tend to work at a higher level and be more valuable. We want workers who are more valuable to be compensated with higher salary precisely because if we don't then we will have fewer valuable workers. And fewer valuable workers means less efficient resource use and higher relative costs for goods compared to quality. We don't really "win" by fighting for so--called "workers rights" in a way which harms that competitive labor market. We all lose, in fact. And not the rich fat cats, but everyone who buys products within the economy. It's a mistake to push for the apparently simplistic goal of better pay for workers, if the result is that the pay we get doesn't actually buy us as much. And I'm not just talking about inflation here, but actual relative quality/utility versus cost.


I'd rather get a smaller slice of a bigger pie than the other way around. And I think if most people stop and think about it, they'd come to the same conclusion.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#415 Jan 25 2013 at 8:11 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
One way to achieve fairness (and motivation!) to workers is to give workers shares in the company as part of their pay packet . You don't socialise or communise the company by giving the entire company to the workers, but you make all of them - even the cleaners - very modest stockholders in the place. As minority stockholders each worker would get a modest but real dividend that theoretically gets bigger if the company as a whole is more productive and successful. These would be real shares. After a worker leaves they would be able to hold onto their share (meaning that the long term health of the company is in their best interests), or sell the shares.


I think you'd be surprised how many publicly traded companies do exactly this.

Quote:
A prominent economist once made the very same argument sometime in the 80's or 90's. The executive boards enthusiastically misinterpreted his firm suggestion to mean that the executive board employees in public companies should be assigned shares in a company, thusly that theoretically well performing boards would be rewarded by the capital gains of their shares or share options.


While I'm sure a small handful of companies did what you say, most provide shares/options as part of bonus pay at nearly all levels of employment. While purely anecdotal, everyone I've ever known in my life who worked (full time) at a publicly traded company received some form of stock as part of their bonuses. I've always found it interesting just how wrong most people who don't work in large corporations are about how those corporations treat their employees.

Interestingly enough, the big businesses least likely to provide stock options to employees are not the free market ones, but the ones most burdened by labor union workforces. The unions don't want shares as compensation apparently. Not sure why exactly, but I suspect it's because they don't want their members to actually have a vested interest in the success of the company. Makes for a conflict of interest if your entire organization requires an "us vs them" mentality among the workforce. I suspect most people's perceptions of "evil big corporations" involve exactly those businesses engaged in industries with a heavy union presence, and I don't think this is accidental. I'd assume that if we asked for examples of mean companies not compensating their employees fairly, we'd get a list of car companies, oil companies, steel/mining companies, etc. Probably not a whole lot of computer companies, or software companies, or investment/banking companies, would be on that list.

Should make one wonder where the labor market problem really is.

Quote:
I think a reasonable division would be 10% total of the issued shares being held by the entire workforce of that company. I realise that this system would require frequent share issues: probably once every year or two, with a public offering included to keep the balance at 10% employees-90% public shareholders. But I think the gains to productivity would be well worth the paperwork.


Yup. Again, many companies do this already. I don't know if 10% is an accurate number, but the principle is absolutely in practice in the industry. It's odd to me that so many people think it should be, but isn't. And yes, I absolutely agree that this is a great way for the workers to share in the profits of the company they work for. Also, most companies have some form of employee stock purchase plan in which they'll automatically deduct a percentage of the workers pay (chosen by the worker) and use it to buy shares in the company. Some people choose to avail themselves of this, and some don't. Also, even if your company isn't publicly traded, or has such a program in place, there is absolutely nothing at all preventing any worker from setting aside a percentage of their earnings and investing it themselves. If you do this and get used to it, you wont miss the money, and you're building your own future. But again, many people will sit there and complain about the rich investors making bank on the profits of evil business, while they get nothing, when they had every opportunity to get the exact same return on investment if they only made a choice to do so.


I guess I just don't understand why someone would rather tear down those who take risks and reap good fortune because of it instead of taking the same risk themselves. Is it jealousy? Lack of understanding of the process? I mean, if making money on investments is such an unfairly automatic thing, then why aren't they investing themselves? Why not take advantage of the same means of lifting yourself up instead of attacking others who do make that choice? Again, I honestly don't get this.

Edited, Jan 25th 2013 6:13pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#416 Jan 25 2013 at 8:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Quote:
Again, that's you misunderstanding the data. I tried to explain where you went wrong, but as they say, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.


Oh allow me to apologize for not trusting your take on the data. I forgot you have such a strong understanding of data and facts.

Quote:
Why is equalizing pay an important objective though? Should the guy who works the fryolator at McDonalds get the same pay as the guy with the PhD who's busy discovering a cure for cancer? No? Then "equalizing pay" is the wrong objective.


Well holy sh*t I learned something. I was totally unaware that McDonalds actively engaged in cancer research. The relevancy of the comparison is absolutely palpable I must say even I did not see the connection. Well done.


You are mentally inept in being able to understand what you are discussing. Then again, we already came to that conclusion with your "data" that totally discredited your personal position. Like @#%^ dude get a clue, you are an idiot.

But hey its cool, you make me laugh, and yes I do like laughing at people who are less intelligent than me, and yes it does make me feel better doing so.

Go back to Rush he had a nice segment on today about Texas going purple, you should study up for the next congressional threads when Texas goes Blue.


Edited, Jan 25th 2013 9:18pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#417 Jan 25 2013 at 8:22 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
Why is equalizing pay an important objective though? Should the guy who works the fryolator at McDonalds get the same pay as the guy with the PhD who's busy discovering a cure for cancer? No? Then "equalizing pay" is the wrong objective.


Well holy sh*t I learned something. I was totally unaware that McDonalds actively engaged in cancer research. The relevancy of the comparison is absolutely palpable I must say even I did not see the connection. Well done.


I was talking about the concept of "equalizing pay" in general with that part of my response. You would have a great point if I'd completely ignored the issue of different pay levels within the same business. But since I did respond to that exact aspect of the issue in the next part of my response, you kinda don't.

Why not respond to the part where I addressed exactly that which you were talking about?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#418 Jan 25 2013 at 8:35 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Gbaji,

You're awfully busy with posts. Reminds me of me and the Almaji days. I'll give you some advice. There's at least ONE person that you could probably save some of your time posting. Hint: It's not me. I'm just saying.

Edited, Jan 26th 2013 4:35am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#419 Jan 25 2013 at 8:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Quote:
I was talking about the concept of "equalizing pay" in general with that part of my response. You would have a great point if I'd completely ignored the issue of different pay levels within the same business. But since I did respond to that exact aspect of the issue in the next part of my response, you kinda don't.


No you did ignore it that is why I laughed. You just compared 2 completely different organizations and lumped them into the same pay scale. Profit Sharing does not flow between two companies. McDonalds has its profits, Big Pharm Cancer Research has its.

Frycook gets a share of McDonalds Profits, Cancer dude gets his share from his big Pharm Corp. Its not equal pay. It is equal distribution of the profits of the company. You know after Joe collects his yearly pay, and After Corporate pig collects his yearly pay.

Instead of Corporate Pig stashing the remaining 2 billion into investors off shore accounts. Everyone in the company gets a share of that 2Billion, because well they all @#%^ing worked for it together. Its why its called profit sharing.

As for addressing what I was talking about... you aren't anywhere close to what I was talking about. You seem to have this misconception that Profit Shares = Paychecks. You are again not understanding what you are discussing. If R&D guy makes more money big deal, at least at the end of the year The guy who actually puts the product together, gets the same slice of the pie for his product.

This Profit at the end of the year is the perceived valuation of his labor in the market. You keep claiming that this is how it works...but it doesn't The guy who pushes the Go button, he doesn't get his share of the valutation of a product, because he doesn't get a slice of the profits. (granted some companies do this. Like Magna International, which is why people like it and don't let unions in).

I mean @#%^ why do you always need your hand held. A simple google could tell you what profit sharing is.

Go learn something for a change

____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#420 Jan 26 2013 at 10:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,152 posts
Why is equalizing pay an important objective though? Should the guy who works the fryolator at McDonalds get the same pay as the guy with the PhD who's busy discovering a cure for cancer

Unequivocally yes, assuming they do as much work. Labor is the only thing with real value. Everything else is a corruption of that designed to move wealth to a small segment of the population.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#421 Jan 26 2013 at 11:50 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
As a former worker of McDonalds and a student of science, I object to the idea of equalizing the pay between the two. The relevance of the hours worked heavily outweighs the hours worked. Forgive me if I misunderstood your point.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#422 Jan 27 2013 at 7:59 AM Rating: Default
****
9,258 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Why is equalizing pay an important objective though? Should the guy who works the fryolator at McDonalds get the same pay as the guy with the PhD who's busy discovering a cure for cancer

Unequivocally yes, assuming they do as much work. Labor is the only thing with real value. Everything else is a corruption of that designed to move wealth to a small segment of the population.


Finding a cure for cancer requires a lot more labour than deep frying processed potato product. That's a terrible comparison.
____________________________
Master Meleagant Driftwood of Stromm, Warrior of the 69th level(EQ)
Rhyys, Human Warrior of 67th level(WoW)

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#423 Jan 27 2013 at 8:10 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Even if it were the same amount of labor hours, the pay shouldn't be equal. One requires much more education and training than the other. Not to prop up cancer research, but that also holds true for any technical job that an average person just can't grasp in an hour introduction.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#424 Jan 27 2013 at 10:32 AM Rating: Decent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,054 posts
Considering a cancer researcher at a top tier Research I institute is probably putting in an insane 80-100 hours a week, I'd say no.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#425 Jan 27 2013 at 11:29 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Why is equalizing pay an important objective though? Should the guy who works the fryolator at McDonalds get the same pay as the guy with the PhD who's busy discovering a cure for cancer

Unequivocally yes, assuming they do as much work. Labor is the only thing with real value. Everything else is a corruption of that designed to move wealth to a small segment of the population.

Trolling aside, that may be the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard you say. Throwing away the undeniable fact that someone finding a cure for cancer is absolutely doing more "work" than someone serving up french fries, a big part of the labor cost is based on the employee's education. Someone with a PhD has spent far more time and money educating themselves as to be able to perform such non-trivial tasks and the compensation is invariably based more on this fact than on the actual labor performed.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#426 Jan 27 2013 at 12:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,156 posts
I'm not sure I believe it, but you all seem to think this is some kind of novel position.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#427 Jan 27 2013 at 11:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,894 posts
You are all bumping into one of the many extremely good reasons that your first degree (or other tertiary training) should be free. And if you are made redundant, why you should be able to receive a second tertiary training of some sort free.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#428 Jan 28 2013 at 2:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Sage
**
643 posts
Quote:
Why is equalizing pay an important objective though? Should the guy who works the fryolator at McDonalds get the same pay as the guy with the PhD who's busy discovering a cure for cancer? No? Then "equalizing pay" is the wrong objective.

You are absolutely correct. The guy making fries deserves much more than somebody trying to cure cancer. If I want fries now, I can get them. If I want my cancer cured, I get told "not yet, come back later". So obviously one guy is producing and the other isn't.
#429 Jan 28 2013 at 8:50 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,094 posts
Freedom Fries.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#430 Jan 28 2013 at 9:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,373 posts
xantav wrote:
Quote:
Why is equalizing pay an important objective though? Should the guy who works the fryolator at McDonalds get the same pay as the guy with the PhD who's busy discovering a cure for cancer? No? Then "equalizing pay" is the wrong objective.

You are absolutely correct. The guy making fries deserves much more than somebody trying to cure cancer. If I want fries now, I can get them. If I want my cancer cured, I get told "not yet, come back later". So obviously one guy is producing and the other isn't.


Pffttt, whatever. We cure cancer everyday.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#431 Jan 28 2013 at 4:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Sage
****
4,041 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
You are all bumping into one of the many extremely good reasons that your first degree (or other tertiary training) should be free. And if you are made redundant, why you should be able to receive a second tertiary training of some sort free.


Unfortunately, the American dream of success is contingent on having people below you to step upon on your way up. If everyone is given the same opportunities for success, how else would we have an exorbitant amount of fast food employees to lord our superiority over as they serve us our coronaries wrapped in waxed paper? Why else do I slave 40+ hours a week in a tiny room in front of a computer but for the health insurance to keep my family afloat in case of crisis? It could always be worse. I could be a slave filling the food troughs for more superior humans.
#432 Jan 29 2013 at 4:24 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,152 posts
Unfortunately, the American dream of success is contingent on having people below you to step upon on your way up. If everyone is given the same opportunities for success, how else would we have an exorbitant amount of fast food employees to lord our superiority over as they serve us our coronaries wrapped in waxed paper? Why else do I slave 40+ hours a week in a tiny room in front of a computer but for the health insurance to keep my family afloat in case of crisis? It could always be worse. I could be a slave filling the food troughs for more superior humans.

That's surprisingly accurate.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#433gbaji, Posted: Jan 29 2013 at 5:50 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Unfortunately, a good portion of the labor and "equal pay" arguments are based on the concept that an hours worth of labor should be worth the same regardless of what is actually accomplished in that hour. When people argue that it's unfair that the guy working the assembly line makes so much less than the CEO of the company they are making this exact argument. Yes, it is absurd, but there are an alarming number of people who believe it, and an unfortunately even larger number of people who don't recognize what exactly they're actually arguing for (cause they hide it behind vague claims about "fairness" and "equality" and whatnot) and buy those arguments instead of being skeptical about them.
#434 Jan 29 2013 at 6:30 PM Rating: Excellent
******
21,717 posts
gbaji wrote:
Unfortunately, a good portion of the labor and "equal pay" arguments are based on the concept that an hours worth of labor should be worth the same regardless of what is actually accomplished in that hour. When people argue that it's unfair that the guy working the assembly line makes so much less than the CEO of the company they are making this exact argument.


Yeah, no.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#435 Jan 29 2013 at 6:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
9,189 posts
gbaji wrote:
When people argue that it's unfair that the guy working the assembly line makes so much less than the CEO of the company they are making this exact argument.


No, they aren't. Thinking that it's ridiculous for an average CEO to make 380+ times the wage of the lowest paid workers in their company is not the same as thinking that all workers should get paid the same. In 1980 the average CEO made roughly 42 times the salary of the lowest paid worker on average. Suggesting that today's ratio is out of whack is not the same as suggesting everyone should get paid the same. Given that average salaries have not kept pace with inflation it's entirely reasonable to question why CEO pay continues to skyrocket.

You're conflating two entirely different arguments.

Edited, Jan 29th 2013 4:38pm by Olorinus
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#436 Jan 29 2013 at 6:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
9,189 posts
While looking up the gap I found this cute little article from raging socialists the chartered accountants association of Canada:

Quote:
Despite a zero return for investors, Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott has been receiving US$9 million a year for the past six years. His case is typical and is justified by studies comparing his compensation with that of his peers. But did someone on the Wal-Mart board compare his compensation with that of the average Wal-Mart employee? Of course not. Is Scott’s work worth that of 400 line workers? Who can say?

In Europe, business leaders are paid far less: 30 to 40 times the average employee’s salary. Despite this lower CEO pay, the performance of European companies is comparable to that of North American companies.


Quote:
By rewarding CEOs too generously, companies contribute to cutting them off from reality and feed the myth of the imperial CEO. Greater equality within the senior management team would lead to more solidarity and cohesion in large companies.


I thought it was cute. Even the math geeks think it's out of whack.
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#437gbaji, Posted: Jan 29 2013 at 7:02 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) No. I'm showing you how those arguments are similar. Assuming, of course, that you aren't just complaining about CEO salaries for the sake of complaining, and actually expect something to be done about it, then you are arguing *for* some non-market based method of determining relative pay. Even if that's not your intent, you lend support to such things by parroting how bad such inequities are. What do you think this accomplishes? It's entirely about trying to argue for a command methodology to determine cost/pay rather than a market one. In that way, both arguments are for the same thing. The scale and specific application are different, but the thinking behind them are the same.
#438 Jan 30 2013 at 10:12 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,152 posts
No, it's not. But the argument being used to justify both positions is the same one. You're arguing based on how hard the persons job appears to be, and not much much value the person provides for those who pay their salaries. Given that the company's board of directors decides how much salary the CEO will be paid, and it's their money on the line, how the hell can you just eyeball that they've decided to pay that CEO 380 times more than the guy cleaning the toilets and assume that there's something unfair going on?

Well there is the small fact that most boards are populated by CEOs of other companies, and guess who sits on their boards? They guy they're determining compensation for. Executive compensation is horribly, horribly, broken in the US. It's not a secret. Most CEOs have little to no positive impact on profits, although, of course, a bad one can destroy a company fairly quickly. Coin flips on big decisions would have far better outcomes for most companies, but of course, coins rarely get CNBC interviews and the like.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#439 Jan 30 2013 at 10:29 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,094 posts
gbaji wrote:
But the person who should decide how much something is worth should always be the person who's paying for it.
I tried that argument at Best Buy today, but they absolutely refused to let me, the person paying, have a 60in TV for a dollar.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#440 Jan 30 2013 at 10:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,152 posts
But the person who should decide how much something is worth should always be the person who's paying for it.

Right because economies are demand based. Oh wait, is that what you meant? Because when you diametrically oppose your other positions it's hard to keep track.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#441gbaji, Posted: Jan 30 2013 at 6:07 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Yes, they can. Which makes one wonder why those with the most to lose would intentionally choose to increase their odds of losing money. Even though we tend to look at those CEO salaries as huge, they are peanuts compared to the potential gains/losses to those sitting on those boards. Even if what you claimed was true (which it isn't), the idea that 5 guys would each be CEO of one company, earning a 10 million dollar salary and sit on the boards of the companies CEO'd by the other four, paying them the same salary, and that this would in any way benefit them is ridiculous. They'd each lose vastly more money than they'd gain doing this. A large publicly traded company might have 10 billion dollars in outstanding shares. The board would represent a majority of those shares. Why on earth would any one of them (much less a majority which would have to make the decision) risk that volume of cash in order to get a 10 million dollar a year salary, doubly so when gains on their shares are capital gains, while the salary is income and taxed higher?
#442gbaji, Posted: Jan 30 2013 at 6:12 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Did you buy the TV at the price they asked for? If you did, then that was a fair price. If you didn't then you weren't the one paying for it. It's like magic!
#443 Jan 30 2013 at 6:15 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
But the person who should decide how much something is worth should always be the person who's paying for it.

Right because economies are demand based. Oh wait, is that what you meant?


No, it's not. I'm talking about one aspect of economics, not "economies" as a whole. And the phrase "demand based" is far too broad. But good try!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#444 Jan 30 2013 at 10:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Gbaji wrote:

But the person who should decide how much something is worth should always be the person who's paying for it.

Smasharoo wrote:
Right because economies are demand based. Oh wait, is that what you meant?



No, it's not. I'm talking about one aspect of economics, not "economies" as a whole. And the phrase "demand based" is far too broad. But good try!


So you're really saying that the person paying for something should only get to be the one who decides how much its worth when its not inconvenient for your other economic philosophies?

Hypocrite.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#445 Jan 31 2013 at 1:52 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Quote:
Um... Boards of Directors are made up of those investors (or their proxies) in the corporation with the highest collective controlling shares of the company. That's why they get to make such decisions. Now, if they want to waste 10 million dollars paying an incompetent friend of theirs a massive salary, also ensuring that the company does less well than it would otherwise, then that's their money to waste.


But wait I thought pay was representative of the value of your labor??...you mean all this time having rich friends can land you a sweet gig almost like being born with a silver spoon in hand or something.





Edited, Jan 31st 2013 2:53am by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#446 Jan 31 2013 at 6:14 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Gbaji wrote:

But the person who should decide how much something is worth should always be the person who's paying for it.

Smasharoo wrote:
Right because economies are demand based. Oh wait, is that what you meant?



No, it's not. I'm talking about one aspect of economics, not "economies" as a whole. And the phrase "demand based" is far too broad. But good try!


So you're really saying that the person paying for something should only get to be the one who decides how much its worth when its not inconvenient for your other economic philosophies?

Hypocrite.


Of course he's a hypocrite. In the other thread, he said that tips were mandated and not at the choice of the customer. I argued that the customer pays a tip based on the value of a waiter's service, not some default rate. Now he's saying that the person who's paying for something decides on how much something is worth, which is exactly what I said.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#447 Jan 31 2013 at 9:46 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,094 posts
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
But the person who should decide how much something is worth should always be the person who's paying for it.
I tried that argument at Best Buy today, but they absolutely refused to let me, the person paying, have a 60in TV for a dollar.
Did you buy the TV at the price they asked for? If you did, then that was a fair price. If you didn't then you weren't the one paying for it. It's like magic!
Your logic is completely make believe and only small children would believe it?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#448 Feb 03 2013 at 1:36 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,557 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Unequivocally yes, assuming they do as much work. Labor is the only thing with real value. Everything else is a corruption of that designed to move wealth to a small segment of the population.

There were a few responses to this comment, all equally as cringe-worthy. You're paying people for caloric expenditure, regardless of results. You can't have an economy composed solely of people alternatively assembling and disassembling the same car.
#449 Feb 03 2013 at 2:56 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
or can we?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#450 Feb 04 2013 at 3:55 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
So you're really saying that the person paying for something should only get to be the one who decides how much its worth when its not inconvenient for your other economic philosophies?


Nope. I'm saying that the person paying should always be the one to decide if the thing is worth the asking price to him. He doesn't get to declare the worth of something for everyone on the planet (otherwise, how do we decide gets this magical power over everyone else?). Just how much he's willing to pay. And he does this by deciding whether to buy that thing or not. If the price is too high, he wont buy it.

Collectively, the potential buyers of a good or service will influence the prices because the seller wants to sell it and thus must attempt to find a price at which people will buy. But this isn't determined by fiat. Each individual makes his own decision about the relative cost of something versus his own perceived value of that thing. No one person gets to make the determination for everyone, just for himself. That's the whole point of a free market. No one commands the prices. The market does.

This is a very basic economic concept. Are you really unaware of it, or just playing?

Edited, Feb 4th 2013 1:57pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#451 Feb 05 2013 at 9:02 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,094 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm saying that the person paying should always be the one to decide if the thing is worth the asking price to him.
Which is completely different from "the person who should decide how much something is worth should always be the person who's paying for it," but I guess it's because you're just poorly communicating. What a lucky scapegoat for you.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 77 All times are in CDT
ElneClare, Samira, stupidmonkey, TirithRR, trickybeck, Anonymous Guests (72)