The Inexplicable Success of Capitalist Indoctrination

[Koldo]

No, but like I said the employees are compensated and work there voluntarily. The company would not exists without the founders.

Likewise, the company wouldn't exist without so many other people working.

How so?

If a capitalist loses all of their capital, they have to become a regular employee. That's the actual risk involved.

 

[Koldo]

Can you show me how?

Sure.
Let's use your example:

"Generic Budget:
Item A - $1000
Item B - $500
Item C - $2000
Social Services - $3000

I need $975 to raise everyone's pay to above the poverty line, so I propose 15% cuts to all items:

Item A - $1000 * 15% = $150
Item B - $500 * 15% = $75
Item C - $2000 * 15% = $300
Social Services - $3000* 15% = $450

$150+$75+$300+$450 = $975

Final budgets:
Item A - $850
Item B - $425
Item C - $1700
Social Services - $2550
Social Services 2 - $975

So people are above poverty line $975 + social services at $2550 = $3525 total."


You are missing the $450 dollars from social services 1 than you just cut. Where is that money coming from?
Joe needed only $975 because he was receiving $3000 from social services 1. Now that you cut social services 1 down to $2550, he needs 975+450 (the ammount you cut from social services 1). You've found a way to find the $975, but where's the extra $450 coming from?

Ok, I would not support that.

Why not?

 

[Revoltingest]

If a capitalist loses all of their capital, they have to become a regular employee. That's the actual risk involved.

Another option is to become a contractor.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Likewise, the company wouldn't exist without so many other people working.

No, the company continues to exist because of the employees but the company was not started by the employees. No one employee is necessary to keep the company operating.

If a capitalist loses all of their capital, they have to become a regular employee. That's the actual risk involved.

No, the risk is losing their capital.

 

[Koldo]

No, the company continues to exist because of the employees but the company was not started by the employees.

Different people are responsible for different parts. So what?

No one employee is necessary to keep the company operating.

Likewise, Microsoft doesn't need Bill Gates to keep operating.

No, the risk is losing their capital.

And thus become an employee like the others.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Sure.
Let's use your example:

"Generic Budget:
Item A - $1000
Item B - $500
Item C - $2000
Social Services - $3000

I need $975 to raise everyone's pay to above the poverty line, so I propose 15% cuts to all items:

Item A - $1000 * 15% = $150
Item B - $500 * 15% = $75
Item C - $2000 * 15% = $300
Social Services - $3000* 15% = $450

$150+$75+$300+$450 = $975

Final budgets:
Item A - $850
Item B - $425
Item C - $1700
Social Services - $2550
Social Services 2 - $975

So people are above poverty line $975 + social services at $2550 = $3525 total."


You are missing the $450 dollars from social services 1 than you just cut. Where is that money coming from?
Joe needed only $975 because he was receiving $3000 from social services 1. Now that you cut social services 1 down to $2550, he needs 975+450 (the ammount you cut from social services 1). You've found a way to find the $975, but where's the extra $450 coming from?

No, I think you misunderstood my example. The $3000 represents the total budget of the program, The $975 represents all the money needed to raise everyone above the poverty line. It's not a literal $975. It represents billions. My example just shows where you can get that money from. If everyone was above the poverty line social services would be less right?

Why not?

I don't think forcing employers to pay higher wages is a good thing. Minimum wage is one thing, but if you start increasing the minimum wage excessively then no one will want to do the hard or sucky jobs. The job wages get compressed and there is no real difference in pay for different jobs. If I can make $25/hr restocking books at a library or $25/hr collecting garbage in the heat all day which one would you choose?

 

[Revoltingest]

I observe that the left minimizes the value of
entrepreneurs who take great risks by investing
much money & time in fledgling businesses for
rewards to be had further down the road.
Entrepreneurs don't deserve their gains because
the employees perform the labor...while earning
a wage, investing no money.

Yet without the entrepreneur's ambition, talent,
& resources, the businesses wouldn't even exist.
So they believe they're entitled to ownership of
the business. The employees are entitled to the
wage they accepted for the work performed.
Infrastructure used is paid for by property taxes
the business pays....& if things go well, income
taxes paid.

These are fundamentally irreconcilable views.

 

[Koldo]

No, I think you misunderstood my example. The $3000 represents the total budget of the program, The $975 represents all the money needed to raise everyone above the poverty line. It's not a literal $975. It represents billions. My example just shows where you can get that money from. If everyone was above the poverty line social services would be less right?

It is still the same underlying rationale. If when drawing poverty lines any given social program is taken into consideration, cutting that social program entails drawing the poverty line up higher.

I don't think forcing employers to pay higher wages is a good thing. Minimum wage is one thing, but if you start increasing the minimum wage excessively then no one will want to do the hard or sucky jobs. The job wages get compressed and there is no real difference in pay for different jobs. If I can make $25/hr restocking books at a library or $25/hr collecting garbage in the heat all day which one would you choose?

I don't know how it is in the US, but here in Brazil the sucky jobs in general earn pretty close to minimum wage in general (unless you work as a contractor). Why do people do it then? Because they don't really have much of a choice when they can't find a better job.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

It is still the same underlying rationale. If when drawing poverty lines any given social program is taken into consideration, cutting that social program entails drawing the poverty line up higher.

So for you no matter how much people are paid social services will always be needed? This is a question.

I don't know how it is in the US, but here in Brazil the sucky jobs in general earn pretty close to minimum wage in general (unless you work as a contractor). Why do people do it then? Because they don't really have much of a choice when they can't find a better job.

But this is not what I am talking about.

 

[Koldo]

So for you no matter how much people are paid social services will always be needed? This is a question.

No.

Imagine you have a son that is living in poverty, even though you give him 300 dollars worth of grocery purchases per month. He still needs 200 extra dollars to be out poverty. So, you talk with your two brothers and settle on an agreement to further help your son: You are going to stop giving him grocery, but you and your brothers will each give your son a 100 dollars per month (300 dollars total). Your son still needs the same 200 extra dollars to be out of poverty, right? It is pretty much the same situation, right? That's why I keep saying you just can't cut from a social program.

But this is not what I am talking about.

Then what are you talking about?

 

[Heyo]

I observe that the left minimizes the value of
entrepreneurs who take great risks by investing
much money & time in fledgling businesses for
rewards to be had further down the road.

I observe that the right overemphasizes the
value of entrepreneurship and especially of
capital investment.

Entrepreneurs don't deserve their gains because
the employees perform the labor...while earning
a wage, investing no money.

How much more is an investor's money worth
than the work an employee does? When a
corporation gains enough money to put out a
10% dividend, shouldn't they have also given
a 10% raise to the employees?

Yet without the entrepreneur's ambition, talent,
& resources, the businesses wouldn't even exist.
So they believe they're entitled to ownership of
the business. The employees are entitled to the
wage they accepted for the work performed.
Infrastructure used is paid for by property taxes
the business pays....& if things go well, income
taxes paid.

There's the next injustice, income from work
is taxed much higher than income from being
lazy. (I.e. "letting one's money work".)

These are fundamentally irreconcilable views.

Yep.

 

[Revoltingest]

How much more is an investor's money worth
than the work an employee does?

The comparison is unnecessary.
The employee is fully paid for their work.
If they want more, they could put in equity.
Those who don't shouldn't expect more
than their pay.

When a
corporation gains enough money to put out a
10% dividend, shouldn't they have also given
a 10% raise to the employees?

Because employees should be paid enuf
to attract necessary workers. More than
that is unnecessary. The owners who
risked capital deserve a return on their
risked investment.

There's the next injustice, income from work
is taxed much higher than income from being
lazy. (I.e. "letting one's money work".)

Not always. Capital gains tax can exceed
100% when adjusted for inflation (ie,
currency devaluation).

Without potential for great reward, there's
little incentive to start a new business or
even improve one. If the commies get their
way, & the workers get the profit, they'll
discover that few will want to hire them.
Ya gotta consider the hideous unintended
consequences of wonderful plans.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

No.

Imagine you have a son that is living in poverty, even though you give him 300 dollars worth of grocery purchases per month. He still needs 200 extra dollars to be out poverty. So, you talk with your two brothers and settle on an agreement to further help your son: You are going to stop giving him grocery, but you and your brothers will each give your son a 100 dollars per month (300 dollars total). Your son still needs the same 200 extra dollars to be out of poverty, right? It is pretty much the same situation, right? That's why I keep saying you just can't cut from a social program.

He is getting $300 plus 85% of $300. So now he is getting $555 and is not in poverty. I proposed to cut 15% of social programs not all of it.

 

[Koldo]

He is getting $300 plus 85% of $300. So now he is getting $555 and is not in poverty. I proposed to cut 15% of social programs not all of it.

You are ignoring the underlying rationale: cutting any part of a social program and replacing it with money leads to pretty much the same situation. You are just cutting part of the budget of a social program to fund part of the budget of another social program. Thus, cutting social programs like that is redundant. The money has to come from somewhere else.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

You are ignoring the underlying rationale: cutting any part of a social program and replacing it with money leads to pretty much the same situation. You are just cutting part of the budget of a social program to fund part of the budget of another social program. Thus, cutting social programs like that is redundant. The money has to come from somewhere else.

Yes, I showed how it works. People would recieve more in the end and be above the poverty line. How does my math from your example not work?

 

[Koldo]

Yes, I showed how it works. People would recieve more in the end and be above the poverty line. How does my math from your example not work?

Let's suppose that the poverty line, as in my example, is at 500$, and we indeed cut the initial 300$ in goods by 15% ending up with 255$. Then, we add an extra 300$ in cash, thus reaching 555$. I shall call this scenario A.

Let's now suppose a different but similar situation. The poverty line is set at 500$ too, but the initial 300$ in goods doesn't get any cuts. Then, we add an extra 255$ in cash (since the goods didn't get any cut, this person is getting less cash in exchange), thus reaching 555$. I shall call this scenario B.

In both cases, we got people out of poverty. In both case cases, people are getting 555$ in a mix of cash and goods. In what way was cutting the goods in scenario A necessary towards getting people out of poverty?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Let's suppose that the poverty line, as in my example, is at 500$, and we indeed cut the initial 300$ in goods by 15% ending up with 255$. Then, we add an extra 300$ in cash, thus reaching 555$. I shall call this scenario A.

Let's now suppose a different but similar situation. The poverty line is set at 500$ too, but the initial 300$ in goods doesn't get any cuts. Then, we add an extra 255$ in cash (since the goods didn't get any cut, this person is getting less cash in exchange), thus reaching 555$. I shall call this scenario B.

In both cases, we got people out of poverty. In both case cases, people are getting 555$ in a mix of cash and goods. In what way was cutting the goods in scenario A necessary towards getting people out of poverty?

Yes, that works too. You are just getting more money from the other budget line items. That is a decision for politicians, but both scenarios obtain the goal.