Audie
Veteran Member
Let's see one of our heroes of the working class try
to manage a business
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Income Inequality.
- Thread starter Kfox
- Start date
to manage a business
PureX
Veteran Member
Oh, of course they're far too lazy and stupid to do that! Only the deserving elites can handle that kind of responsibility! (... and reward.)
EconGuy
Active Member
Might I respectfully suggest that "equality" has a specific meaning and while I I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment that this question is in large part a moral question, equality might have consequences you hadn't considered?
Take for example the staggered start on a runners track.
Is this equal?
Clearly, the runner in the outside lane is farthest up on the track. If we're just looking at the starting positions, this clearly isn't equal. Compared to shorter races. If the start were equal, they'd all be side by side (which would give the clear advantage to the inside runner). But then that depends on what the goal is. If the goal is to make everyone run the same distance, then staggering the start is equitable, but is almost assured not to result in an equal outcome.
The point is, staggering the track is a way to ensure an equitable start so each has an equal chance of winning.
Now I think I know what you meant when you said equal, you want each person to, metaphorically speaking, run the same (equal) distance, but if we use the term equal, it's easy for your detractors to take a different meaning (honestly or dishonestly), specifically equality of outcome rather than an equitable start.
I would say things differently to avoid traps set by those who appose either ideas of equity or inequality.
Every person should receive a basic minimum opportunity. I accept that there are some in society who will, metaphorically, start farther up on the track and will probably even win, that's ok, what I want is everyone have a chance to finish the race without unnecessary impediments.
Now that's all very metaphorical, and really depends on a persons beliefs and goals within society, and that is a much longer conversation.
Respectfully,
EG
Last edited:
EconGuy
Active Member
Let's see a business guy try to weld like this...
Your point?
See, what the Welder does is create value, what the business man does is collect people who create real value and then try to earn surplus value from their work. Now, you could rightly argue that the manager of a business can make the welders products available to more people and that in itself has value.
But at the end of the day, a manger who wants to run a welding business is nothing without welders, while the Welder can create value with or without the manager.
Respectfully,
EG
Last edited:
I'll run with a five point plan, to try to avoid boredom;
1) drop any thought that we can 'solve' income equality. What we can do is move it a baby step in the right direction.
2) implement an actual minimum wage that means SOMETHING, as opposed to current joke levels. This wouldn't be $50, but should be more than the price of a cheeseburger at McDonalds.
3) cap CEO wages. It can be an extravagent cap, I don't much mind. But unfettered growth of CEO (and other director position wages) doesn't help anyone. Apart from the CEO. He's helped.
4) focus less on fixing the short term and more on social mobility. Ultimately I care less if some people are rich, and some poor, if I feel like things are an actual meritocracy. That would include better education and health access. In US terms, that would include revisiting school funding models, and having charter schools (with some limitations).
5) wear 'tax the rich' dresses to the Met Gala. Okay, so the last one doesn't really help, but you'll get some clicks...
I'll admit, I've seen some pretty bad bonus structures that seem guaranteed to promote crappy behaviour.I omitted the lol,, and ****sarcasm****
But I'm lucky...mine at team orientated bonuses, and basically either all the managers will get them, or none. So I am encouraged to work with my interstate colleagues, and to help promote their people, just as they are with mine.
Not perfect, but much better than some other models I've seen.
There is 'manager' and there is 'manager'. I get paid pretty well, but I'm kinda a middle manager. Even allowing that the execs aren't 'managers' in the way we mean here, there is still a level of senior management above me.
And some of our clients have 'managers' who are basically just small team leaders without local government and the not for profit sectors. Their working conditions are often...ya know...less stressful, and a bit more old-fashioned. But they're not highly paid.
Well...it's a solution.
I'd need them to identify clearly what the cutoff point for 'rich' is before I know whether I'm on board, or running away screaming in terror.
Audie
Veteran Member
We see a lot lot of fundamentalist / creationist
mindset in your posts.
Other aspects could be pointed out, but just
in this post you follow the formulae with
the misplaced sarcasm, and reliance on making
up something to criticize, being, like a typical
creationist, at a loss for something real with
which to find fault.
And the pure double distilled certainty that
you know things you don't know. Like the
actual reason I said what I did.
And the creationist disinclination to ask rather than
assume.
Last edited:
EconGuy
Active Member
Sure, there are poor managers and wealthy ones, but as a group it would be false to say that as a group, managers don't make much more than workers (the post I responded to), when in fact, as a group managers are one of the wealthiest occupations. of course, if we took the top 10 wealthiest managers in the country, they'd probably make more than the bottom 50% of all managers, but my point still stands.
Respectfully,
EG
Then why do companies pay for managers?
If the idea is to make the most profit then the owners of the company are failing in their mission by hiring managers.
Or perhaps you simply don't understand the value a manager adds to the company.
Last edited:
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
If this is the best we can do with someone with financial accumen, then we are doomed.
1. Why not drop the whole deranged idea of income inequality? That might be a great start! What I find disturbing is "a baby step in the right direction". What does that even mean? We carry on the current trend of financial brinksmanship in the spirit of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion and damned the torpedoes?
2. Do try to be serious. It's not hard. Your vague idea is without merit. Don't you think that across the board pay raises just might affect the cost of EVERYTHING? Then we will need to revisit this drivelling notion yet again.
3. So... if you were offered 25 million to save Netflicks from itself would you turn it down? Would you instead demand a lower wage to be fair to those below you. *rolls eyes* An inane idea, at best.
4. Social mobility? Oh, good grief. So, you see a meritocracy as being desirable. On that we do agree but meritocracy runs directly into D,E & I which is pretty well eroding business sense, or over-riding, most certainly. The problem is those who blather on and on about income disparities and inequality are normally proponents of DEI (Diversity, Equity & Inclusion). I'm afraid you cannot have you cake and eat it too.
5. Actually, this one highlights the disconnect that many on the left have over financial matters. AOC has little to no understanding of Finance and yet merrily trots out worn out molty Marxist talking points... as if those talking points are meaningful. If she is the smart one in her district.... sheesh... that is not good....
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Have you never had a job raise nor know anyone who did?
Audie
Veteran Member
I would absolutely fail at my first
attempts at welding. I might catch on,
and I might not.
I spent 9 years in business management.
It was quite a learning curve but i found
out I was a quick learner and liked it.
No doubt a number of people who
are "workers" could do very nicely as
middle or upper level management.
Training, personality, innate ability etc
would determine who is suited and who is not.
To narrow " management" down to examole-
You may or may not be familiar with
some of the pitfalls involved In taking an
invention to market.
One bit of advice is, don't invent something.
There's lots of inventions already.
Turns out the inventor is seldom any good at
develooing and marketing.
I know someone who made a huge advance in
holography. He should be worth a fortune.
If he had partnered with a savvy businessman
he would be. As it is he lost everything.
You seem to be suggesting that managers are
parasites and bring no value, that each worker
could do better as a one man cottage industry.
Are you sure that's realistic?
Last edited:
averageJOE
zombie
Take a drive through Skid Row.
EconGuy
Active Member
Quite the contrary. I acknowledged one example (of many) where managers can bring value, or value add, if you prefer. That said, can we agree that the amount of money a person extract from a business as a manager (or a welder for that matter) is not necessary indicative of the value I bring to it?
If we imagine the opposite, where welders form unions and demand a much higher piece of the profit relative to managers by creating supply demand pressures where one might not normally exist. I think there is a point at which workers could get greedy if given the chance.
If that's true, then the problem is how can profit between value creators and those that add value (and even owners) be equitably determined? Economies, all other things being equal tend towards inequity because the few that control most of the money have political and economic power and use that power to extract a greater share of value in the owner/ worker relationship. Managers, as a group tend to be higher up in the higherachy as part of the value they bring to an owner is extracting the maximum profit from the least amount expenditure.
That sounds reasonable, and usually it is, until it isn't.
Heyo
Veteran Member
It's really simple, as Tesla is a corporation, the government just takes the stock and acts like any other shareholder.
It's minimally more complicated if it's a civil law association. Then the government would appoint a director and probably try to sell it. Or change it into a corporation and sell the stock, preferably to the workers. (Which is what heirs would possibly also do.)
The idea is so simple yet so revolutionary people have a hard time to grasp it. And there seems to be a psychological barrier.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
"Nice" stereotype.
Ditto above.
Just let 'em suffer, right?
You seem to be totally unaware that those collecting such benefits have to prove they're seeking employment unless they are disabled.
What nonsensical drivel you spout, and stereotyping is a form of dishonesty btw.
Heyo
Veteran Member
It's local slang for all kind of labour leasing. You have your "wage slaves" and you lend them out. One of the best bosses I ever had was a "slave trader". Only ever cared about money, no micromanaging, no complaints as long as he got his share.