Who told you that? I've never heard anyone make such a claim.
-
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!
What does it mean to be paid "what your worth"?
- Thread starter EconGuy
- Start date
You would be surprised at how often that happens. I've personally known of 3 guys who owned a business, and for several months before the business shut down, the owner was getting paid less than his employees.
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
Same. I've said things that may come off that way, like that there is a formula to some successes - which I do believe. But I'm secretly a socialist
They've been saying that for 100 years already. The reality is; people will always find something to do.
I often see memes like this which give me an indication of how capitalists see things:
This is actually fairly common. You've never heard people say things like this? It's commonly used in the capitalists' line of argumentation, that socialists simply don't know as much about the so-called "science" of economics. Instead of simply conceding that they have a different moral and ethical philosophy, they decide to hide behind the mantle of science and take on a supercilious, haughty approach. On numerous occasions, I've heard capitalists draw an analogy between their position and that of evolutionists arguing against creationists. This is the central focus of the entire capitalist ideology.
And you've never heard of it? Strange.
Alien826
No religious beliefs
You're confusing "something to do" with "work".
To me, work is something that I need to do to survive. The need for that would go away. Of course people would not simply do nothing all day. They would engage in things that are called "hobbies" today. I suppose a small scale industry where people were paid to do things for others might arise, but the point is that it would not be necessary.
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
I often see memes like this which give me an indication of how capitalists see things:
This is actually fairly common. You've never heard people say things like this? It's commonly used in the capitalists' line of argumentation, that socialists simply don't know as much about the so-called "science" of economics. Instead of simply conceding that they have a different moral and ethical philosophy, they decide to hide behind the mantle of science and take on a supercilious, haughty approach. On numerous occasions, I've heard capitalists draw an analogy between their position and that of evolutionists arguing against creationists. This is the central focus of the entire capitalist ideology.
And you've never heard of it? Strange.
I've heard of such ideas, I have them myself (minus the bias against socialists)... however I think comparing it to capitalists thinking of success in a capitalist system as something as guaranteed as mathematics is a Straw Man.
Possibly, although if they're going to take a certain line of argumentation and use it, then they should be prepared to be called on it. Keep in mind that I don't really believe these are actual economists actually making these arguments. It's the non-economists who are also extremely pro-capitalist partisans making these arguments.
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
Fair.
I actually think that capitalism works somewhat, and that in many cases where people cry "foul", the system is actually functioning correctly. So it gets a bad rap.
At the same time, I don't love capitalism. I'm fairly progressive and I'm ready for socialism, Universal Basic Income, robots, etc, etc.
I agree that capitalism does work - for some. It's worked here in the U.S. and in other Western countries which got an early start on the industrial revolution. Slavery also worked, and so did colonialism and imperialism. Feudalism worked.
And, despite all the fearmongering propaganda put forth by capitalists, socialism also works and has worked in the past.
Of course, there are a multitude of variant factors which determine what works and what doesn't work, though I don't generally buy into the generally abstract "systemic" explanations as to why one system "works better" than another system.
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
Socialism seems to work better for the common man (despite the gripes from the common man about it that you sometimes see). Capitalism works better for elites, elitists, the lucky and fortunate, people of a certain mindset with "luck" on their side, etc, etc, etc.
That is complicated.
A potentially ethical way of working out the value of a worker is to (legally) consider their time spent in the company as a share of control over it. You require every company to issue controlling stock to employees based on the time they have worked in it. I am not talking about stock that produces dividends but stock which strictly gives employees a vote in how the business is run. Then you discuss laws determining how much of every company must be employee controlled as time progresses. You also have to regulate whether employees may sell this stock or not. I suggest not, although I think it would be fine if it could be inherited. It would be an obvious thing for businesses to try to get around this by automatically buying back the shares, so I think such a system would not work if these shared could be sold or the vote sold. A new company will not be employee owned, but as it grows and gains employees this will change...assuming that the government can implement this idea.
This should provide means of giving workers enough voice within their companies to get a good representation of their value as workers.
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
I've seen where some companies try to do a form of "employee ownership". Usually it works well for a few years (sometimes 5-10 or so years), then the top people in the company, for some reason, decide they want to actually be a corporation, and to just "humor" the people down low with the lower people's ideas of things being employee owned. Then over time, there is a further separation of groups, and you end up with something that resembles a corporation, but a corporation that is particularly bitter.
No; I have never heard anything like that. However, if it is fairly common, you should be able to provide a link or outside source that claims economics to be an exact science; right?
Socialism and capitalism are not moral or ethical philosophies, they are economic philosophies.
Are these things said by the people you hang out with? Or are there actually economists who make such a claim! If this is the claim of economists, you should be able to provide a link supporting this; right?
It's implied in the methods of argumentation they use.
The bottom line is that they are philosophies.
People in this forum say things like this.
But here's one for you:
Is this controlling stock in lieu of wages? Or do they get the same wages AND controlling stock?
What happens when employees vote to run the business in a way that causes the business to lose money and shut down? All the initial investors will lose everything, whereas the employee will only lose his job, and is free to join another company and help run it into the ground too! Does that sound fair to you?
Perhaps you are misunderstanding what they mean.
Thus far I haven't heard a single person make the claim.
This is different. This does not imply economics to be an exact science.
How does the Government owning everything work better for the common man? Because most of the commen men I see don't like the idea of the government running everything.
What else could it possibly be implying?
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
Your post sounds like you think the government keeps all the money.
Granted, I admit... the government or operatives decide how to distribute the wealth in socialism. But the wealth should get distributed (if it isn't, sounds like a corrupt government and not socialism at all).