wealth inequality

[Machismo]

Ideally I think the US should make worker unions actually work (I've heard you have them but they are accused of being corrupt?), here in Sweden we don't have any minimum wage law but our lowest wages are still much higher when compared to the US - much thanks to unionization, the laborers can be much more effective in organizing themselves in order to bargain for better work conditions.

Ideally, the government shouldn't be involved at all. I'm absolutely fine with unionization, and believe that is precisely how it should operate.

[melodramocracy]

If it's not taking away the company's money, then where is the money coming from? Are you going to pay it?

No, your expense margin is going to pay it.

[Endus]

There is a such thing as the company's money, they are the ones paying the wages. You want to force them to pay more... of their money.

Try reading posts before responding. There's revenue, but some proportion of that revenue is spent on wages, and some is taken out in profits. Changing those proportions isn't "taking the company's money", because they never had more of the revenue that's being distributed. That they might have had a higher percentage of prior revenue is irrelevant.

[Machismo]

The government is acting as a workers union for the people, in a sense.

But the government has authority over both sides of the bargaining table, making it inherently unfair. They have the threat of force behind them, something the other side simply cannot contend with.

- - - Updated - - -

No, your expense margin is going to pay it.

And I believe that belongs to the company, does it not?

- - - Updated - - -

Try reading posts before responding. There's revenue, but some proportion of that revenue is spent on wages, and some is taken out in profits. Changing those proportions isn't "taking the company's money", because they never had more of the revenue that's being distributed. That they might have had a higher percentage of prior revenue is irrelevant.

The revenue belongs to the company, it's their money.

[RickJamesLich]

Not for "doing nothing".

I'm just saying that a CEO working a 50-60 hour week isn't "working harder" than the janitor putting in the same hours. That's complete nonsense.

There are other factors too besides just working hard, like having the knowledge and professional background in your field.

Like with the CEO and the janitor for example.... we see in Venezuela, the President is a guy who used to be a bus driver lol. Much in the same way, the CEO has to make many hard decisions both financially and ethically that impacts the lives of all involved whereas the janitor just has to clean stuff. A good CEO can mean the difference between a company growing massively, or going out of business. There are no similarities between that and the janitor.

[Mayhem]

Good for them. Should they be punished for being lucky?

No, a luck based society is awesome. You know what, let´s also make away with democracy and let the rich rule without the poor ones interfering, and when we´re at it, how about only the poor pay taxes. Sounds swell, doesn´t it?

[Machismo]

No, a luck based society is awesome. You know what, let´s also make away with democracy and let the rich rule without the poor ones interfering, and when we´re at it, how about only the poor pay taxes. Sounds swell, doesn´t it?

I never said any of those things. I simply see no reason to punish someone for being lucky.

[Endus]

The revenue belongs to the company, it's their money.

This, again, is false. You're confusing revenue with profits.

[Machismo]

Well, that's part of the issue though, isn't it?

Lobbyists have done a great job removing powers of collective bargaining and such from the american worker. I've worked in places that flatly said, "Say the word 'union' out loud and you will be fired, no questions asked."

So at some point the average worker has to find some way of taking that power back, but you're essentially saying that it's wrong for them to do so. You're "consistent" in that you don't want the government benefiting corporations OR workers, but your stance suggests that we should just leave all the things in place that the government already did to benefit the corporations.

Essentially you've walked in on two people having a fight - and one of them has the upper hand and has their boot on the throat of the other - and you say, "Woah, guys, look. I don't think you should put your hands on each other anymore, ok?" when the guy on the floor tries to get that boot off of him.

If a company refuses to hire anyone who is part of a union, that is their choice. They don't need the government to push legislation to make that happen.

I don't want to leave corporatist legislation in place, I find it highly beneficial to get rid of such laws. I want to get rid of as many laws as possible.

[Mayhem]

I never said any of those things. I simply see no reason to punish someone for being lucky.

It´s not punishment either, so i don´t know what you´re saying and what you aren´t.

[Machismo]

This, again, is false. You're confusing revenue with profits.

Nope, I'm not confused in the slightest.

Revenues belong to the company. They pay out their costs from those revenues, including wages. At every point, until that money is given to vendors, suppliers, employees, the government (taxes), and other expenses, that is their money.

If the revenue does not belong to the company, to whom does it belong?

- - - Updated - - -

It´s not punishment either, so i don´t know what you´re saying and what you aren´t.

You'll notice that I was asking a question in my previous response to the other poster.

[Endus]

Nope, I'm not confused in the slightest.

Revenues belong to the company. They pay out their costs from those revenues, including wages. At every point, until that money is given to vendors, suppliers, employees, the government (taxes), and other expenses, that is their money.

If the revenue does not belong to the company, to whom does it belong?

It belongs to those they owe it to. The government, in taxes, their suppliers, for products/services rendered, their employees, in wages. This is why, if they don't pay those things, those parties can sue and have the government force the company to pay those amounts. Because those monies belong to those other parties.

Increasing the amount spent on wages is no different than increasing the amount spent on office supplies. It's a cost of doing business. It is not "taking the company's money".

[Mayhem]

You'll notice that I was asking a question in my previous response to the other poster.

Yep, and they aren´t being punished.

[melodramocracy]

And I believe that belongs to the company, does it not?

So you believe companies should have no overhead? Fascinating.

[Tijuana]

Why do you keep replying to things that you clearly haven't even read?

He clearly said, defending the ones WHO USE CRONY CAPITALISM. Not all of them, as if they've universally committed some crime.

Seriously. Fuck, man. It's fine to disagree, I've enjoyed the talk with Machismo for instance, but you keep replying to shit without even reading it, it's giving me a headache.

If you are having trouble following along, maybe this topic isn't for you. /shrug

[Machismo]

It belongs to those they owe it to. The government, in taxes, their suppliers, for products/services rendered, their employees, in wages. This is why, if they don't pay those things, those parties can sue and have the government force the company to pay those amounts. Because those monies belong to those other parties.

It does not belong to them until they pay it. You feel like they should pay more to their employees, and you want to use the government to force them to do it. That's where the problem lies... you want to take more of the money, that by your definition actually belongs to the company since it's not alloted for employees), and give it to the employees.

Of course, you run into a slight problem, since even if a company has zero revenues, they still have financial obligations to all those other entities. Therefore, it makes no sense to assume that their revenue automatically belongs to someone else... when it could just as easily be their liquid assets. Either way you look at it, it's the company's money until they pay it out. They had voluntary agreements with everyone on what they would be paying them, and that includes vendors, suppliers, employees... etc. Yet here you are, wanting to get right in the middle of that, and give more to one of those.

- - - Updated - - -

So you believe companies should have no overhead? Fascinating.

I didn't say that at all. I'm merely saying that until the company pays that money out, it's theirs.

[Endus]

It does not belong to them until they pay it.

Again, blatantly false.

Go on; refuse to pay your employees. When they sue, go to court and use the defense "it's our money until we decide to pay it". You'll lose so fast you'll be spinning like a Looney Tunes cartoon character.

Why? Because it's their money, and you have no right to keep it from them.

[Machismo]

Again, blatantly false.

Go on; refuse to pay your employees. When they sue, go to court and use the defense "it's our money until we decide to pay it". You'll lose so fast you'll be spinning like a Looney Tunes cartoon character.

Why? Because it's their money, and you have no right to keep it from them.

I didn't say they would refuse to pay their employees. I'm saying you want to inject yourself into the equation, and demand they pay their employees more. At no point did I say the company should not pay its expenses. You are being disingenuous... which is nothing new.

[skannerz22]

keep hearing about this... yet rockefeller was worth approx 10x what bill gates is worth in today's money.

and rothchilds are 1000x more than rockerfeller :/

just think of rockerfeller as the lanisters in their prime
and rothchilds as the iron bank

[Tijuana]

It belongs to those they owe it to. The government, in taxes, their suppliers, for products/services rendered, their employees, in wages. This is why, if they don't pay those things, those parties can sue and have the government force the company to pay those amounts. Because those monies belong to those other parties.

Increasing the amount spent on wages is no different than increasing the amount spent on office supplies. It's a cost of doing business. It is not "taking the company's money".

But what you suggest, is that the business buy the most expensive office supplies, with no eye on quality. Why should a business just arbitrarily pay their workers above market? Why are workers suddenly unable to negotiate for higher wages, and seek new employment if they don't get them?

I keep banging this drum but you won't answer: what makes you think that employers wanting to pay the lowest wages is not a constant throughout all known history of man? Since the dawn of civilization, employers have always and will always want to pay the lowest wages. In addition, the employee will always want higher wages. The employee making himself desirable to other employers, as well as his or her own, is the means by which they achieve their wage goals. These are natural market forces, and have been constant throughout history, and will remain so forever. What about any of this, specifically, do you think is different today than it ever has been?