they have to found the business and organise all the management, and such skills are worth more than the workers
If you wanted to show that his actual labor is more valuable, you'd have to have him doing something a worker couldn't do.
WendyDarling wrote:Prom wroteIf you wanted to show that his actual labor is more valuable, you'd have to have him doing something a worker couldn't do.
How's about he's working a full time job outside his company to subsidize the daily expenses of his company and purchase supplies for the first year as well as full time hours plus at his company, he's using the equity in his home to pay for the first six months of ins., equipment, rent, util., and salaries, plus he has personal loans levied against his vehicle and life insurance policy to cover some of the expenses for the second six months. I don't understand why you guys don't get the idea of risk versus reward. Risk it for the biscuit, but most complainers don't have the balls to go all in. Already listed three things that workers are not doing or offering to do to compete with the labor of the owner which stretches back to all his earnings, savings, investments up to and after he opens his doors. Workers need to buy into the business for which they work, to earn greater amounts. I think the business owners should ask each of their employees to invest at least two thousand dollars into their place of work to help it sustain for success. The more capital a worker invests into his job, the more the job pays. Having employees invest in their livelihood seems to be power for the workers to ensure their work place thrives rather than fails like 99% of the businesses when they start out or even later on during economic downturns, sounds Marxist to me.
But Marx became a radical communist later on, so there's that too.
Fixed Cross wrote:Ive read Marx and its not what you say it is.
Marx is a slave-revolt theory based on Hegel, who is the slave-revolt logician.
There can never be a slave revolt that makes things better because they don't provide for the role the slave has to play after he has won.
Marxist actions always result in rulership of self-loathing, resentful people. This is why the wise Jesus said to leave to Caesar what is his.
The only beauty is in how literally reality of Marxist conquest follows what the theory implies, sad side-effect is how little of what is intended is accomplished.
What is lacking in Marx is a recognition of value outside of the paradigm of master-servant. Thats a very poor way to look at things.
Admit it.
WendyDarling wrote:How's about he's working a full time job outside his company to subsidize the daily expenses of his company
WendyDarling wrote:I think the business owners should ask each of their employees to invest at least two thousand dollars into their place of work to help it sustain for success. The more capital a worker invests into his job, the more the job pays. Having employees invest in their livelihood seems to be power for the workers to ensure their work place thrives rather than fails like 99% of the businesses when they start out or even later on during economic downturns, sounds Marxist to me.
WendyDarling wrote:But Marx became a radical communist later on, so there's that too.
Fixed Cross wrote:Marx is a slave-revolt theory based on Hegel, who is the slave-revolt logician.
promethean75 wrote:Wendy I'm familiar with your argument and I'll tell ya why it doesn't hold with the marxist. Wealth accumulated either through inheritance or through profiting from buying labor, that gets lost in taking a 'risk', is wealth that the capitalist appropriated and did not create. Meaning he's technically 'risked' what somebody else made.
Say I had a mil that I made off my sweatshop. I invest half of it in another business venture and fail. The risk I took was greater than any blue collar worker ever took, but I never worked a lick to make any of the money I lost. I literally haven't even been to the sweatshop factory and dont even know who runs it. I got guys who handle that for me. Really it's no problem because one of my other companies makes that much in profit in one day.
The 'risk' in the abstract is certainly greater- that's a shit ton of money. But 'risk' by itself is meaningless unless we are able to evaluate the kind of 'loss' that is occurring. A good quick but crude example of what I mean is... we'd consider a man with only five dollars who lost two, to have experienced a more significant loss than a billionaire who lost a million.
So I'd sooner have sympathy for a worker who risked having car trouble for having to drive 75 miles to work every day, than a millionaire who lost a hunerd grand on a bad call.
How is the Entrepreneur, the ones who actually start the business and own it, "extraneous"?
He is the most essential core of the business! Without the Capitalism, there is no business! Without the ownership, there are no factories, no economy, no work at all!
Return to Society, Government, and Economics
Users browsing this forum: WendyDarling