Skip to main content

View Diary: Federal taxes lowest since 1950 (196 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I am simply stating a fact (0+ / 0-)

    Wages and profits are a zero-sum game. The only way one goes up, is if the other goes down. The only way you make money, is if your employees don't. And vice versa.

    would they be willing to work for nothing when we had an un-profitable week/month/year ?  Would they accept negaive pay if when we went throug a time of loss ?

    I'm quite sure they would---if they were part-owners. After all, stockholders do. And unlike most stockholders, employees actually do most of the company's work.

    But I'm curious--when you have an extra-profitable week/month/year----do you give it to your employees?

    •  Of course I don't give it to them.. (0+ / 0-)

      .. any more than I'd expect them to pay ME when the company loses money.

      As for ownership stake for employees.. you can't just GIVE that to them. If they want to buy into the company .. that's fine (and is how I'm puting my long-term employee into a position to eventully own the company)

      •  of COURSE not (0+ / 0-)

        Of course I don't give it to them

        Why the heck should you--it's not like they did nearly all the work for it or anything . . . .

        Remember what I said before about the zero-sum game? There you go.  They want the money--you want the money. One of us will get it, one of us won't. And since the workplace can't run without the workers but CAN run without the owners, there is only one way that argument can end.

        As for ownership stake for employees.. you can't just GIVE that to them.

        Sure we can. We outnumber the owners by a few hundred thousand to one. We also already control the entire company--nothing gets done anywhere unless one of us does it. It is a mere legal fiction that the owner actually owns the company---the employees do. Always have.  If you doubt who really runs a factory, then perform a simple experiment----have the owner go on vacation for a month, and see how much work gets done. Then have all the employees go on vacation for a month, and see how much work gets done. That will demonstrate pretty clearly who is necessary, and who is not.

        Of course I don't expect any corporado to GIVE the company to us.  I expect we'll simply TAKE it.

        Then the owner can find a job like everyone else.

        •  Just TAKE the company assets.. (0+ / 0-)

          .. be intersting to see how you go about doing that..

          As for employee compensation: Paying them exaclty what their labor earns for the company, would be as pointless as charging only total cost of the ingredients for a pizza. No profit.. no company, and NONE of us has a job..

          •  it's been done before (0+ / 0-)

            Sometimes politely (as when the British nationalized lots of industries) and sometimes not nicely (as when oil nations nationalized all the foreign oil company assets). It was also done radically (as when revolutions in various countries nationalized the land and gave it to the landless, or nationalized the factories and gave them to the employees).

            As for employee compensation: Paying them exaclty what their labor earns for the company, would be as pointless as charging only total cost of the ingredients for a pizza. No profit.. no company, and NONE of us has a job..

            I have no intention of paying them "exactly what their labor earns".  After all, stock shareholders don't get paid according to the share of labor they did---since they do no labor at all.

            Employees, of course, DO all the labor, and each of them is as important to running the company as anyone else (if you doubt that, then send a few workers home for a month and see how the work goes).  So they'd all get equal shares in their company. (And it is "theirs" just as much as it is yours, by virtue of the fact that it was their work that built it.)

            •  I've never discounted employee importance.. (0+ / 0-)

              .. you're becoming non-sensical..

              •  I'm quite sure you do (0+ / 0-)

                After all, you can't make a single dime without them. I',m also sure you view your machinery and equipment as equally as important, since you can't make a single dime without them either.

                People, of course, are not equipment--but that's how they are viewed by owners anyway.  They're just an expense, just another thing the owner has to cost out if he wants to make a profit, no different than a computer terminal or a tow-motor or a conveyor belt. For an owner, giving his employees more money makes no more sense than giving his pizza ovens more money.

                Please note that this is not a morality argument--it simply is the way it is.  It is how every owner MUST treat his employees--because if he doesn't, he loses out to those who do.

                The difference between equipment and workers, of course, is that workers can organize and fight back.

            •  To make sure I'm getting this straight.. (0+ / 0-)

              .. when you hire someone to paint your house.. you're expecting him to tell YOU how the work will be done; tell you what to pay him.. and are prepared for him to take ownership of your house if you disagree ?

              •  straw man (0+ / 0-)

                When I hire someone to paint the house, I am not hiring him to make profits for me.

                Now if I own a painting compnay and hire someone to paint houses to make money for me, then yes, I expect him to have an equal share with me and all the other people in the company as to how the work is done (though I'd be inclined to give the painter more say in that than the secretary or the owner, since the painter is the guy actually doing the work who knows how best to do it), and I expect every share holder to get an equal share of the income or losses. And I fully expect them to take ownership of the company if the employer doesn't agree.

                •  Sooo... (0+ / 0-)

                  .. let's say you're the painter.. and have saved up enough money to buy a truck, ladders, painting equipment, and want to expand your horizons. You hire two young painters, and put YOUR money (possibly the truck too as collaterall) to bond these young painters, so you can big on large painting contracts. YOU do all the legwork securing a contract; YOU pay these guys out of YOUR pocket until there's adequate cash-flow. You spend lotsa time dealing with potential customers, and negotiating lines of credit at paint suppliers; and making sure perfect records are kept.

                  The painters say... "hmmm, we're doing all the painting".. knock on your door and say, "we out vote you two-to-one" .. "this comany is ours, truck, credit-lines, contracts and all... Go find yourself a job".

                  Is that how it works ?

        •  And a curious question.. (0+ / 0-)

          How does the company come into existance at all.. without owners/investors ?

          •  the companies are already there (0+ / 0-)

            The only way new ones form now is by budding off of old ones, or through mergers or joint ventures of old ones.

            After all, nobody can decide one day to go out and borrow a trillion bucks from investors to start their own megacorporate company to compete with Ford or British Petroleum.

            You are still locked into that whole small-business Adam-smithian world. It no longer exists.

            •  Budding, merging, joint ventures.. (0+ / 0-)

              ,, are all based around net-worth and assets.. the stuff the owners OWN. They sell out.. the stock goes worthless, and you taker-overs are standing in a factory with no working capital (they aint comin' back).. no way to keep an inventory.. no lines of credit.. and very soon.. no customers.

              •  as I said before (0+ / 0-)

                I have no intention of BUYING their stock shares from them. I intend to TAKE them. So it won't be me who is standing there without any money or assets--it'll be the former stockholders.  I and my fellow employees will have the entire factory and all its assets.  They'll have nothing.

                They'll have to get a job like a mere mortal.

                •  If you TAKE them.. (0+ / 0-)

                  .. what do you suppose becomes of their value..

                  The ability for a company to secure suppiers, and lines of credit, is based on what the company is worth.

                  And lets not forget the importan life-line of being able to sell corporate bonds... who in their right mind would by bonds in a company whose stock is worthless ?

                  •  the value stays the same (0+ / 0-)

                    The factory still produces shoes or cars or widgets, and they still have the very same value to people that they always had.

                    Oh, you mean its stock value to people who want to buy shares?  Who cares---if they're not in the company and don't do any of the work, they don't deserve any share.

                    •  It does not produce a THING.. (0+ / 0-)

                      .. without CASH in hand.. (lemme guess.. at the same time you find a way to claim ownership of shares..you have friends at the bank who will just turn the cash over to you)... it can't insure, or bond, or do ANYthing withoud being financially sound.. including stock the warehouse with raw materials..

                      This conversation is turning bizarre..

                      •  it's only bizarre because (0+ / 0-)

                        you are continuing to view it in a social framework which would then no longer apply.  It's sort of like the deposed King of France looking at the French Republic and asking "but how the heck will you communicate the King's decisions to the people?"

                        Surprise.

                        Sadly, I expect you absolutely will not like anything at all that I would like to do.  Just as the King of France absolutely did not like anything the French Republic did.

                        But, like the French Republic, I have the advantage of not needing your permission.

                        •  and with that, I bid adieu (0+ / 0-)

                          This is a topic that we cannot discuss--we can only talk past each other, because we are literally in different worlds with different interests and goals. There is no resolution to it but to duke it out within the workplace--one of us will win, the other one won't. (shrug)

                          And now I must log off.  Unlike some people, I do all my own work, and have no employees to do my work for me.

                          •  Fare welll... (0+ / 0-)

                            aside from contention, it's been entertaining..

                            I'll just finally ask how one just takes shares of stock?

                            Do you got to every brokerage and force them to print documentaion of ownership that will have any legal standing ? Do you then just send notes to all the small stockholders whose 401Ks caontain that stock and demand that they surrender it ?

                            I mean.. seriously..

                          •  Oh wait... (0+ / 0-)

                            .. I think I get it now..

                            Your world requires a revolution that would wipe-out the stock market, yet still leave enough of the economy intact to support the factory.. and that the engineers, sales reps and accountants wouldn't jump ship... and you'd all go about your maerry way making better livings. Am I close ?

                            That's a string of 'ifs' each of which is more than unlikley,, with a pardox or ten thrown in.

                •  Just try it. (0+ / 0-)

                  If you lose your disc or fail to follow commands, you will be subject to immediate de-resolution. That will be all.

                  by SpamNunn on Sat Jan 29, 2011 at 07:18:49 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  I run a business, not a commune. (0+ / 0-)

          If you lose your disc or fail to follow commands, you will be subject to immediate de-resolution. That will be all.

          by SpamNunn on Sat Jan 29, 2011 at 07:18:06 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site