Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 34

Thread: There Are 85 People Who Are As Wealthy As Half The WORLD, Oxfam Reports

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Barr View Post
    I'd put a bit more stock in what Vanity Fair has to say about the minimum wage if they weren't doing things like this.
    Vanity Fair, or other left or right media platforms are not very important for me, and if you are reading my threads, I post both.

    In this case the author of this article is making a good point from my perspective.
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

    Voltaire


  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Franc Tireur View Post
    Well, the question is: If the overwhelming majority of companies are not capable of absorbing huge increases in costs do they deserve to be in business? (sorry I need again to make an exaggeration to make my point, but think about the reasoning. Unfortunately with this argument, it is an open door of abuses to avoid absorbing a decent living cost for their workers/employees and managers.
    I understand the exaggerations, but this is one of the most naive statements I have ever seen you make. Businesses are not in business to support government needs and social programs. No one who is successful has ever started a business to create jobs and spread the wealth. That is not greed, because most often there is not much wealth generated by a business. The wealth is concentrated with the successful risk takers who have made the right decisions. That percentage is very small. Most successful entrepreneurs have failed at most of their ventures until coming up with a workable idea. Many have lost their life savings in the process. Success cannot be calculated in advance because there are too many variables and unpredictable results. Sometimes success is simply a matter of being in the right pace at the right time with the right product.

    Many businesses operate on very slim margins. 95% of restaurants fail within the first 10 years, most often taking a family's entire savings with the collapse. Grocery stores operate on a 5% net margin. If you raise their costs by 5%, the only choice they have is to raise their prices, which means everyone pays the cost.

    Take a look at these numbers. They do not include restaurants, but do cover several other industries.

    Startup Business Failure Rate By Industry | Statistic Brain

    The problem with any business is that once you have invested your money and find the business is not profitable, it is hard to get out because you lose almost everything you invested. You cannot do it with someone else's money because both banks and venture capitalists require a personal guarantee for loans made to small businesses. If you get a loan, your only choice to get out of that is to file bankruptcy, which means no one will ever invest in your ideas again.

    You should start a business and hire some employees in order to fully understand how much risk is involved, and how difficult it is to make money.

    Quote Originally Posted by Franc Tireur View Post
    Be careful, my viewpoints aren't Socialist, nor fully Capitalistic. What represent my viewpoints is a way of thinking toward Mutualism taking a slide of the best part of Capitalism and a slide of the best part of the Mutualist philosophy from Pierre-Joseph Proudhon which probably will bring much more fair societies for all.
    I don't know very much about his philosophies, but Mutualism sounds a lot like Socialism. Most of these types of preachers have never owned or operated a business. They may have a lot of ideas that sound good, but no practical knowledge or experience. His Wikipedia page describes him as a Libertarian-Socialist, which sounds like an oxymoron. there were a lot of economic philosophies like that back in the 1880s when he lived. Most, like communism, have failed miserably.

    These statements about him are disturbing at best.

    His best-known assertion is that Property is Theft!

    He was the first person to declare himself an anarchist, and is among its most influential theorists
    The articles about minimum wage from liberal publications all fail to address a major important point. Almost no one works for minimum wage. Waiters and waitresses are included in the minimum wage figures, but waiters and waitresses make most of their money from tips. Minimum wage keeps the cost of restaurant food down, which is important because restaurants have the highest failure rate of any business. Owning a restaurant is like walking a tightrope for the first time between two high-rise buildings and without a safety net.
    Last edited by TopDogger; 26 January, 2014 at 13:07 PM.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin


  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by TopDogger View Post
    I understand the exaggerations, but this is one of the most naive statements I have ever seen you make. Businesses are not in business to support government needs and social programs. No one who is successful has ever started a business to create jobs and spread the wealth. That is not greed, because most often there is not much wealth generated by a business. The wealth is concentrated with the successful risk takers who have made the right decisions. That percentage is very small. Most successful entrepreneurs have failed at most of their ventures until coming up with a workable idea. Many have lost their life savings in the process. Success cannot be calculated in advance because there are too many variables and unpredictable results. Sometimes success is simply a matter of being in the right pace at the right time with the right product.
    Well, look the European companies, they pay much more things compared to US companies, and they survived. I will not make comparison with the actual economic situation which is more about wrong policy than anything else.

    The problem is exacerbating wealth concentration at the expense of the workers/employee and the society.
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

    Voltaire


  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by TopDogger View Post
    I don't know very much about his philosophies, but Mutualism sounds a lot like Socialism. Most of these types of preachers have never owned or operated a business. They may have a lot of ideas that sound good, but no practical knowledge or experience. His Wikipedia page describes him as a Libertarian-Socialist, which sounds like an oxymoron. there were a lot of economic philosophies like that back in the 1880s when he lived. Most, like communism, have failed miserably.
    Mutualism is not socialism, because Mutualism do not involve the government and redistribution which avoid mandatory policies, fraud and waste of money. You can see Mutualism every day in the front of your own eyes in US, Credit Union is an example among others and much more of that in Europe in local banks, insurances, industries, etc. I do not agree that it is a failed philosophy. It just depends how greedy the people are minded and willing to accept this philosophy.

    As far as Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, he was the founder of this philosophy, and said some truths about governments in general, that's about all. Some others were inspired by its philosophy and were successful, because today you can still seeing some of that.

    I believe that Mutualism is compatible with any system, I will say that it is the cherry on a cake.

    Sure this kind of philosophy date back from the 19th century, but I think it is a great resource for inspirations.
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

    Voltaire


  5. #25
    I did not say mutualism is a fail policy. I said communism is a failed policy. Communism has not worked well anywhere and oppresses the Proletariat (the people) and depresses an economy much more than the elitist Bourgeoisie class that Marx warned about. Plus the communist leaders just take the place of the Bourgeoisie class.

    It sounds like mutualoism is much more compatible with socialism than with capitalism.

    The problem with the credit union example is that it is a non-profit type of organization. Non-profits can be run honestly and most seem to have the right intention, but more often than not they are created as a tax shelter and structured to pay the executives hundreds of thousands of dollars in salaries. Check out the top executive salaries for major charities in the USA and you will see the same problems that you see with major corporations.

    Top 25 Compensation Packages from the Charity Rating Guide

    I don't know of any credit union executives that are doing this, but too many non-profits are created simply to avoid taxation and reward the creators with huge salaries.

    Average Credit Union CEO Pay Now $256,339: CUES Survey
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin


  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by TopDogger View Post
    I did not say mutualism is a fail policy. I said communism is a failed policy. Communism has not worked well anywhere and oppresses the Proletariat (the people) and depresses an economy much more than the elitist Bourgeoisie class that Marx warned about. Plus the communist leaders just take the place of the Bourgeoisie class.
    Communism is a failed policy, that's right.

    It sounds like mutualism is much more compatible with socialism than with capitalism.
    Absolutely not, and that put us back in what I said earlier about war class and disdain from the upper class toward middle class.

    To simplify, Capitalism is the accumulation of wealth for the investors (public corporations) and entrepreneurs (for the private corporations). Mutualism is the same concept, except that the investors and the entrepreneurs are the workers/employees and in some cases external investors may put their money. The concept is that everybody have an interest and have motivation to grow the enterprise with the goal that the wealth will have equal repartition for the worker entrepreneurs In general in mutualism, profits are reinvested in the company equipement or/and labor. You can often find workers entrepreneurs (Investors) and general worker (like any company). I don't see any socialism in this legal structure, it is like saying public corporation is socialism...

    I guess you are making an amalgame between mutualism and non-profit organization, that's not the same!
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

    Voltaire


  7. #27
    It looks like I worked for a mutualism entrepreneur for many years and did not know it. He reinvested almost everything back in the company, gave employess generous bonuses, and we had a profit sharing plan. When the company had a good year, the company contributed a percentage of our wage to a profit sharing plan. But we did not get anything when the company did not do well. Most people also had stock options that we cashed in when the company was sold.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin


  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by TopDogger View Post
    It looks like I worked for a mutualism entrepreneur for many years and did not know it. He reinvested almost everything back in the company, gave employess generous bonuses, and we had a profit sharing plan. When the company had a good year, the company contributed a percentage of our wage to a profit sharing plan. But we did not get anything when the company did not do well. Most people also had stock options that we cashed in when the company was sold.
    Well in general, mutualism worker entrepreneurs pay much more than a regular company, that's what the philosophy is about. It is a concept that many people are not aware of, the goal is in a similar spirit of Henry Ford who paid more his workers, so they were able to buy his cars.

    In my opinion it is a great way to grow an economy, the problem is that people having capital are greedy and want the wealth for themselves. Look where we are now, today even China grow is falling, Chinese people will lose jobs and we have already destroyed our western industries. What lesson can we learn from that? Do you think that our politicians and the wealthy will do something about it? I am very pessimistic about it until people do not understand the whole game.

    It is not about political left or right which a tiny wealthy people control via different ways (banks, multi national corporations, politicians, political parties, etc). People need to think above that and reject the wealthy people manipulations and to take their independence back.
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

    Voltaire


  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Morgan Hill, California
    Posts
    41
    I fail to see why you keep bringing up Henry Ford.

    You do recognize that Ford raised his workers' pay and reduced their workshift hours voluntarily, right? He made those decisions to benefit his business. The benefit to the employees was a side effect of those decisions, not a reason to make them.

    1) By raising wages, he ensured that he would have an eager supply of top-notch talent available to hire. Unproductive employees could easily be let go without the worry of how to replace them.

    2) By reducing the workday to eight hours, he was able to run three factory shifts rather than two in order to more fully utilize his physical plant.

    Voluntary business decisions are far different from some government imposing its will on companies with its full power to force the companies to comply.

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Barr View Post
    I fail to see why you keep bringing up Henry Ford.

    You do recognize that Ford raised his workers' pay and reduced their workshift hours voluntarily, right? He made those decisions to benefit his business. The benefit to the employees was a side effect of those decisions, not a reason to make them.

    1) By raising wages, he ensured that he would have an eager supply of top-notch talent available to hire. Unproductive employees could easily be let go without the worry of how to replace them.

    2) By reducing the workday to eight hours, he was able to run three factory shifts rather than two in order to more fully utilize his physical plant.

    Voluntary business decisions are far different from some government imposing its will on companies with its full power to force the companies to comply.
    I keep bringing up Henry Ford, because it is a successful entrepreneur story and a business model. Now I know that every businesses are different and business models shouldn't be forced by any government.
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

    Voltaire


Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •