I ain't talkin' about what was going on a hundred years ago, I'm talking about today. Who are these people today determining my present and future?Let's go straight to the top.
-
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
It is not awful of me, it’s realistic of me! Just because a person knows how to work on cars doesn’t mean he will always have good ideas on how the business should be run. If management chooses to give him such a voice; fine! But management should not be forced to give him such a voice.
But you are not forced to give them a voice on how to run your company; big difference.
Why is that a good idea? Especially after getting fired.
So if I understand you correctly, after say…. 100 years in business, the vast majority of the people with these type of shares are people whose father, or grandparents passed shares to their children; and these children and grand children have no interest in the company because they work elsewhere; and the people who actually work at the company and have a vested interest will only be a small percentage of these type of shareholders. Is this correct?
That is no argument. 'If management chooses to give him a voice' will never happen. It doesn't happen, so that if is pointless air.
"Awful for" not "Awful of". Tiny violin.
No, that is not correct.
I thought your scenario was management was required by law to give him a voice by giving him voting shares in the company. Did I misunderstand something here?
What is wrong with what I said?
I think it would not happen that way, and besides it need not be inheritable for the plan to work. If it were inheritable, however, the cap would still remain and the vote share would still be shared with people working in the company. They would be able to continue spending time working, but the dead would not. Because the dead cannot do labor the inherited vote would be decreasing because of those living and working. (Unless the company stopped having workers.)
The total vote increases towards the cap as the total amount of work increases, but when that cap is reached it can only be redistributed not increased overall. Therefore the living can decrease the vote of the inheritors.
You said you like the idea of being able to inherit shares; so let’s go with that.
Yeah; but eventually it will get to the point where ex-employees and people who inherited shares will outnumber those who are current employees, and as time goes on, the percentage of current employees will become a smaller and smaller percentage of the 30% cap. Do you agree?
What are you talking about dead people? Ex-employees will pass their shares to somebody else before they die. Dead people are not a factor here.
Last edited:
I do not agree, because the employees will continue to labor while the inheritors will not. Therefore the vote of the inheritors must be shrinking relative to those working.
Excuse me I'm referring to the possible heirs. As they are not working, their share of the vote is decreasing because of the workers that are putting in time. If the cap is 30% then they are getting a smaller portion of that as time goes on, because the total amount of employee labor is increasing, ever increasing. An explanation follows:
Suppose an employee dies who has banked 6000 hours of labor and has 5% portion of the time that all employees have worked so far. This means their 6000 banked hours represent 5% of the current total employee vote control; but they are dead and can no longer increase their portion. Neither can their heirs. Meanwhile the total number of hours continues to increase, causing their portion to be relatively smaller compared to the whole. A spreadsheet or database can track this. The total number of worked hours so far is 20 x 6000 = 120,000 hours; however lets say that over the next 5 years the total increases to 240,000 hours. Now their total percentage of the control is only 2.5%, assuming nobody quits. Therefore an ever decreasing control is inheritable, its value approaching zero in the far future.
Imagine two groups; group A and group B.
Group A represents the people currently working for the company, Group B represents people who used to work for the company, or has inherited stocks from people who used to work there.
Group B is constantly being replenished by the people of group A who have the most experience with the company thus the most shares; and group A is replacing those experienced people with people who will not start accruing shares for many years to come. Assuming the number of people working for the company remains the same, group B will always have more shares than group A. Does this make sense to you? If not; explain why.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Wealth is created from productive work, no matter who owns the means of production. The difference is in the distribution of that wealth.
So why does the government distribute more wealth to the super rich compared to the others?
Heyo
Veteran Member
Because they are paid to do that.
Who pays the government to make some people super rich, while allowing others to remain middle income or even poor?
Heyo
Veteran Member
The super rich, of course. It's a you-rub-my back-I-rub-your's deal. The rich pay for the campaign and get tax cuts in return. That way the rich profit and the politicians profit. (Basically, the rich also did bribe some judges so that it is now legal to bribe politicians in the US.)
We are not talking about the USA where people are allowed to own the means of production thus making those people rich, We're talking about in Socialist countries where the government owns the means of production.
Heyo
Veteran Member
You were. I guess I misunderstood you post #93.
Yeah; in post #93 I spoke of a place where the means of production is owned by the Government; obviously not a place like the USA.
Heyo
Veteran Member
And of super rich people - which should not exist in socialism.
But wealth would be created in both systems. (Though, due to human nature, less under socialism.)
So who was he talking about when he said tax the rich?
Heyo
Veteran Member
I don't know, maybe @Snow White was just as confused about what they were talking about as was I.
Irregardless of that confusion, my statement about where the wealth comes from, holds true. No matter who holds the stock, the wealth is created by the people working for the corporation. In capitalism, that wealth is syphoned off by the capitalist who is then taxed to get to at least a part of that money. In socialism all the money goes into the treasury.
In theory that should lead to socialist countries having lower taxes as the state makes its money by owning stock. In practise that doesn't work as the state usually isn't as ruthless in running a business.* Workers in state owned corporations usually get for free for what workers working for a capitalist have to fight as the state refrains from exploiting the workers.
The conclusion is the mixed economy where most of the corporations are run by capitalists with the state holding minority stakes, possibly a blocking minority.
Ideally another blocking minority would be held by the workers.
*Except in Monaco where "the state" (the Grimaldi family) owns the casino which basically pays for all state expenses. Monaco is a known tax heaven.
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
You can be rich in socialism, just in a less pronounced way than with capitalism.