Is making money from the labor of others wrong?

[zoidberg]

This is in related to distribution of wealth thread (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=162363). Some posters have expressed that it is wrong for people to get rich off of the labor of others. I'd like to explore that topic a little further.

When a bank makes a loan, an individual buys a share of a company, or an entrepreneur opens a business; they are potentially going to profit from the labor of others. A bank makes money from the interest that eventually has to be paid by somebody's labor. The value of a security is at least theoretically linked to the profitablity of a company - a condition that requires somebody to labor. A smart entrepreneur will only hire an additional employee if that decistion will be profitable. All these are cases of people profiting from the labor of others - and they are all essential to the functioning of our economy. So theoretically, why should people getting rich off of the labor of others wrong? When I worked in the private sector, I knew that people were making money from my work. That was fine by me because if they weren't, I'd be out of a job. So why should I feel guilty because I want my stocks to increase in value?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

1. don't feel guilty for wanting your stocks to increase in value

feel guilty for pushing the same economic rhetoric that Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrinch do. Rich people are not being oppressed in America, and corporations are not being weighed down by big government bureaucrats, despite what the Republicans and Libertarians say.

[aquart]

19. No, they're not. But they should be.

[zoidberg]

22. Where did I say rich people are being oppressed?

Perhaps you are reading something into the post that is not there.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

41. I'm sorry

It's just I've heard this same rhetoric from Rush Limbaugh and the Randroids so often, I didn't realize that you were drawing a fine distinction between good, liberal pro-corporate policies and bad, conservative pro-corporate policies. I guess I assumed by your posts, what you choose to focus on, and the sides you take as a typical libertarian position?

Next time, when someone repeats the rhetoric of the pro-corporate right wing, I won't judge so quickly that that person is in fact a right-winger.

[zoidberg]

49. I consider myself a libertarian

I usually don't post on the drug/gay marriage/privacy type threads because I agree with 99% of what people say and it's much more fun to debate a minority position than a majority postition. :)

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

50. Are you a registered Democrat?

Wouldn't you be happier in the Republican party, their "Liberty Caucus" or the LP?

[zoidberg]

55. I'm not registered in a party

Not even sure if my state (Virginia) has party registration. I like some of what Ron Paul has to say, but the current strain of mainstream Republicans are as far from libertarian economically as many of the more socialist Democrats are. So given the obvious problems I have with the GOP on many social issues, I really wouldn't fit in.

But thanks for making me feel so welcomed.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

59. Why are you posting zoidberg?

WHO IS WELCOME ON DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND, AND WHO IS NOT

We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals.

This is a "big tent" message board. We welcome a wide range of progressive opinion. You will likely encounter many points of view here that you disagree with.

We ban conservative disruptors who are opposed to the broad goals of this website. If you think overall that George W. Bush is doing a swell job, or if you wish to see Republicans win, or if you are generally supportive of conservative ideals, please do not register to post, as you will likely be banned.
---------------

Libertarianism is pretty much the opposite of progressivism, so why are you here again? I certainly don't mean to make you feel welcome, if I wanted to argue with libertarians there are a billion forums for that. I come here to talk to other progressives and Democrats.

[zoidberg]

63. Perhaps I don't see your logic

There is a difference between being a conservative and a libertarian. I support free markets and free trade. If that somehow disqualifies me from posting here, then I'll gladly go elsewhere. But there are several other posters who defend the capitalist system. Should they leave as well?

To the best of my knowledge, I have not disrupted. I don't think that Bush is doing a swell job, nor do I believe that I've given anyone reason to believe that I'm of that opinion. I also don't wish to see Republicans win. Perhaps you can point out what your problem is. Is my avitar offensive to you?

I troll the Justice board sometimes and notice there is a rather strong pro-gun contingent on this board. Should they be banned for not towing the party line on guns?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

69. libertarianism is anti-progressive

I'm obviously not the judge of the rules at DU, and most of DU thinks I'm an ass anyway, but it seems to me that capitalist Democrats are certainly welcome, progressive who are not Democrats are certainly welcome, but I don't see why anti-progressive non-Democrats are allowed to come to DU and spam us with right-wing libertarian propaganda.

Don't worry, you're in good company though, there are a lot of you.

[zoidberg]

70. I guess I've found an issue where I agree with most of DU

n/m

[Demobrat]

2. I have no problem with people making money off of my labor

as long as I get a fair cut. When I was freelancing, I knew very well that my clients were marking up my work and reselling it at a profit. That was the whole point. As long as they didn't get more than me, I was fine with it. Still am now that I'm employed fulltime. If the company can mark up my work and make a profit, more power to all of us. Again, as long as I get paid and treated fairly.

[Robin Hood]

3. The real question is?

Why should the laborer be paid disproportionately less than the person who is sitting on their ass waiting for their interest to pay off?

[Blue_Chill]

10. The answer is 'risk' and 'motivation'

Why should the laborer be paid disproportionately less than the person who is sitting on their ass waiting for their interest to pay off?

A person who accepts a job (labor) has no or very little risk. The person either making a loan or investing is risking his/her assets on the enterprise's success. With higher risk comes higher reward, which leads to motivation. If higher risk did NOT lead to higher reward less would take the risk and the economy would shrink.

[Robin Hood]

13. I know that argument well and am starting not to believe it.

When concerning real estate, there is little to no risk involved. Real Estate is almost guaranteed to appreciate. It's far from playing the penny stocks.

[zoidberg]

17. Then I've got some strip malls in Houston to sell you

Of course real estate purchases involve risk. Look at all the empty offices around the country. Do you think those properties are shooting up in value? During the late 90s you could have made the same argument about tech stocks. But it would have been just as wrong as it is now.

[Robin Hood]

21. Real estate is still the best bet for your investments.

No matter the occasional slumps, Real estate will always perform, guaranteed. Hey, as long as people keep having a bunch of children per family, these people are going to need a home to sleep in and a strip mall to buy their crap from.

[Muddleoftheroad]

54. Opportunity cost

Sure, maybe in 20 years you might even make money, but meanwhile you have to maintain the property, pay taxes and find tenants. You also lost the chance to spend or invest your money elsewhere -- opportunity cost.

[Blue_Chill]

18. Something can always go wrong

Ask those that were hit by ELF (earth liberation front) if they had banked on having the homes weeks away from sale being burned to the ground. Risk is certainly less in some areas, but whenever large sums of money are involved in an enterprise there is always a risk.

The problem with capitalism that I see is that most don't have the chance to take a risk thus they never get the option of a large reward. Joe Sixpack is not going to get a million dollar loan to start a business or invest in one 90% of the time. Most will never reach a point in their lives where they can take advantage of the system (in a good way) because some the gigantic corporations have all the markets cornered.

[Robin Hood]

28. Well, if you want to go that route.

You are assuming that the laborer has no risks. When in fact the laborer is at the greatest risk because of industrial accidents and general wear and tear on the body from doing such grueling and brutal work, day in and day out, for pennies on the dollar of what the investor is making.

Laborers should at least be compensated better than the 8-10 dollars an hour that they typically get. They deserve at least 20.00 an hour for doing the jobs that no one else wants to do.

[Blue_Chill]

37. 20 an hour?

Would that be 41,600 + overtime for any form of labor? Answering the phone at the pizza joint? Sweeping the floor at the ford plant?

Do you really think they would ever see that money, or do you think they would eliminate the jobs?

In reality such a min wage would result in massive unemployment.

[Robin Hood]

40. I tend to separate labor from service jobs.

Labor to me means someone digging a ditch for a living. Somene woh is using physical strength all day to do their job. Those people are not properly compensated for the enrgy that they put out.

As far as resulting in massive unemployment. You can blame that on our represetatives for not standing up to corporations when they move their jobs to other countries that have no labor standards. Our representatives need to tell these companies that if they want to sell their crap here, they better make it here or go away.

[Muddleoftheroad]

57. Sorry

Almost anyone can dig a ditch, not everyone can operate a computer, handle office tasks, etc. People are paid what the market will bear. If you are good, you earn more. If not...

[Robin Hood]

77. Almost anyone can dig a ditch?

The same can be said for Computers, office workers etc.. I've dug ditches, driven commercial trucks and have an MCSE certification. So, almost anyone can do anything. That is not an argument, it is classism.

[Yupster]

72. Soon when you call the local pizza joint

I wouldn't be surprised if the call is picked up in Manila, and the order will be sent to the local store via computer - for far less than $ 10 an hour.

[starroute]

35. Risk is not a permanent condition

Capitalism developed in the 1800's primarily because the new economic opportunities of the time -- railroads, factories, oil wells -- required a large investment with a significant possibility of failure. It became necessary, in effect, to increase the potential payoffs in order to entice people to put their money into such risky ventures.

But before that, when economies were land-based, those sort of risks did not exist -- and neither did capitalism. And in the post-industrial future, investment may once more cease to be such a gamble.

It's only for us here in between that the model of economics-as-crapshot exerts such a fascination. But we're the anomaly, not the norm.

[ma4t]

88. This is almost too silly for words

"Capitalism developed in the 1800s....before that, when economies were land-based, those sort of risks did not exist -- and neither did capitalism."

I wonder what sort of risk the Venetian merchants faced in the Middle Ages when, on any voyage, they could face the loss of both cargo and ship. How about the ancient Greeks or Phoenicians? Do you suppose those who underwrote the trading caravans in the time of Sargon faced no risk? (After all they were land-based enterprises.) The use of the term "capitalism" to describe a market-based economy may date from the 1800s but the sort of economy described by that term has existed ever since Og the Caveman decided to trade one of his spear points for a fresh hide. (sarcasm off)

I suppose this post will get me banned but I just can't abide such ignorance.

[starroute]

90. Trading ventures then were the closest thing to capitalism now

Check out the history of capitalism and you'll find things like the East India Company cited as the most direct model for present-day corporations. But they were unusual in their time because they required a large up-front investment with the prospect of, at best, a long-term payoff and at worst the possibility of a total loss.

But until the 1800's, there were no corporations as we know them today, and that is because there were no capital-intensive industries. There were no visionary enterpreneurs setting out to build highways or dig canals or lay railroad tracks or equip factories. Most businesses could be launched by individuals or partnerships and could grow modestly on the basis of their own profits. They had no need of permanent outside investors. As a result, most people worked either for themselves or for small-scall businessmen, not for large corporations.

Please, spare me your sarcasm. No matter what you may choose to think, conditions have not been eternal and unchanging ever since the days of Ogga the Cavewoman. The world economy as we know it today is a very recent invention. And capitalism, in particular, looks more than anything like an offshoot of the Industrial Revolution -- a passing expedient generated by the need to construct essential infrastructure in a quick-and-dirty manner. It is not a viable long-term way for people to live.

[ma4t]

95. perhaps there is some confusion over terms here

Starroute seems to equate the rise of capitalism with the emergence of large public corporations. While it is certainly true that such corporations are part of capitalism as currently practiced in most free-market economies it is not true that there was no capitalism prior to their advent.

Yet even if one accepts starrouts's definition there are plenty of counter-examples to the assertion that large corporations did not exist prior to the 1800s. Starroute provides one such example in the East India Company. Another would be the (failed) attempt to establish a colony in Virginia. The Venetian merchant enterprises that I cited earlier are another example where the capital involved was beyond the means of most individuals. The Dutch mercantile enterprises of the 17th century provide another. Read the Icelandic sagas and see examples cited there where several family groups would collectively finance trading expeditions. All of these were corporations in fact if not in name. (Granted, many of them may have been subchapter 'S' corporations were they to be established in the current time.)

To restate my point, "capitalism" in the sense of describing a market-based economy with freedom of trade is really just a word for "the way things usually work and have usually worked since antiquity". The only notable exceptions were those places and times where the governmental authority unduly restricted the free exchange of goods and labor. In other words, capitalism is the state that will generally prevail if there is no outside interference.

No sarcasm is expressed or implied in this post.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

47. this is a great one!

Yes, rich people take a greater risk because angry hippies might burn down their real estate holdings, causing them to lose money. Therefore, they are justified in their exploitation. Genius really, call Rush immediately, you can get this line on the radio tomorrow.

[Yupster]

71. I bet

you don't live in West Texas. Being upside-down in your mortgage has always been a way of lifeout here.

[ArkDem]

34. >is risking his/her assets <

wouldn't that be called capital?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

38. no risk???? what???

Laborers put their bodies - their assets - on the line everyday in dangerous jobs, but you are saying it's the bosses who possibly lose money who are taking the risk? What planet do you live on again?

[Nederland]

31. Better questions

Why would the laborer allow such a situation to continue? Is he a slave, unable to quit his job? Is he and his fellow laborers prevented from striking for higher wages? Are they prevented from quiting enmass and starting their own company?

[zoidberg]

46. Lack of competition?

Don't get me wrong, I'm on your side. But if one employee has a monopoly on employees, then the workers in the area might not have a choice but to work for slave wages.

The more probably explanation is that there are plenty of people who are willing to do any type of work. If I put up a help wanted sign for a job that required little skill but much manual labor, I'm sure I'd get plenty of people interested regardless of pay. So there is pretty much a limitless supply of cheap labor, so if a whole factory goes out on strike there will be plenty of people to hire to take their place.

[Nederland]

51. Good point

The government has a role to play whenever a monoploy forms and people no longer have options. It should either break up the monopoly a la AT&T, or it should impose controls on prices and wages. I see nothing inconsist with this: Capitalism's success is predicated on the existence of competition. If no competition exists, the system is no longer a Capitalist one.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

53. this sounds like the "love America or leave it" argument

Hey, if you don't like America's strong regulations on corporations, you aren't a slave, you can leave the country anytime.

" Is he and his fellow laborers prevented from striking for higher wages?"

In many many cases, yes they are. The US has a long history of shooting into crowds of striking workers, remember?

[Nederland]

62. Strawman

In many many cases, yes they are. The US has a long history of shooting into crowds of striking workers, remember?

Suffice to say that I completely support a workers right to strike.

[Fovea]

4. It is wrong

That is an overly simple question.

It is a matter of degree. When the persons profiting from your labor require you to work without adequate healthcare, overtime, vacation, or any of the things that they themselves consider due rewards of their labor, yes it is.

When they collude to remove, or threaten to remove jobs from a community because they are not getting enough subsidy from that community, yes it is.

When they support policies that prevent you from obtaining the means to improve your conditions through collective bargaining, yes it is.

[Brian Sweat]

16. It is not an overly simplistic question

You are trying to change the question.

[transeo]

5. Only if the workers are exploited

and treated unfairly. As long as the workers are given a decent wage and benefits, there is nothing wrong with the situation. People need jobs and companies need workers. We can't have either without the other.

[zoidberg]

9. How do you define 'decent' and 'unfair'?

I agree with you in principle. Nobody should make money from slave labor. But if an extra worker adds $10/hour in revenue for the company, it would be hard to give the worker what most people consider decent wages and benefits.

I guess it would be more reasonable to say that an employee should receive a certain percentage of the value he adds, but that would be hard to determine in every case.

[Brian Sweat]

27. It's like pornography

I know it when I see it.

[Nederland]

43. Great

So if America wants to know what's decent or fair, they just ask you? Sounds like a workable system to me...not.

[Yupster]

73. And it would be brutal if you worked for Revlon

who has lost money for about 10 quarters in a row.

Most workers couldn't afford to pay their share of the company's losses and go without pay for months at a time.

[Mairead]

6. You're confusing correlation with causation

Just as Nederland did in hs paean to Capitalism.

A house built to order under Capitalism is not built because of Capitalism...people under other economic systems also have houses built.

Your bank loan could just as easily be made by a credit union as a commercial bank, and the share could be in a cooperative business. In both cases, profit is fully distributed, not concentrated. When profit is fully distributed, everyone gets the full value of their work.

[zoidberg]

11. The system is very important

I don't know about you, but I work to make money and I postpone consumption (i.e. save) because I want my money to 'earn' more money. I'm not going to save a dime under your system. Who is going to lend their money if they aren't going to make a profit from it?

[Mairead]

80. The system is indeed important

When you borrow money, do you look for the highest interest rate so that the lender makes money? Or do you look for the lowest?

I bet you look for the lowest.

Naturally you want to borrow at a low rate and lend at a high rate. That's the capitalist pump. It works well for the wealthy, who have lots of spare money to lend, but badly for working people, who often must borrow. (If you need a car to get to work, then you need it now and cannot save your pennies til you have the price)

So if you are a working person, it's better not to have to borrow from the rich guy who's going to charge you whatever he can for the privilege. One way to get around that has been to borrow a few dollars each from many other working people, ones who don't need a car right at the moment.

Thus the credit union. The goal is not to pump money from other people's pockets, but to have a source of money when you need it. It's a different way of looking at the world, just as looking at jobs as a way for the many to live rather than the few to grow rich is a different way of looking at things.

Which view you prefer depends on your priorities and how skillful you are at perceiving realities.

If you're a member of the Have-a-Littles, and imagine that you are among the top earners because you really don't have a clear idea about what the numbers actually are, then maybe you're going to try to pump money yourself, not realising that even if you can pump pennies from the Have-Nothings, you're supporting the Have-a-Lots who can pump dollars from your own pockets the moment they get the chance. That's the kind of thinking we used to call 'penny-wise and pound-foolish' at home. If you really are a member of the Have-a-Lots, then you have to decide whether you want to be a pump owner and live in 'chronic terror' as Fr Dowling put it, or instead work for a world in which there are neither pumps nor terror.

[Nederland]

48. Of course not

A house built to order under Capitalism is not built because of Capitalism...people under other economic systems also have houses built.

Of course not, and I never said it was. Regardless of the economic system, a house is built because somebody wants to build it. The question is, what system provides a person with the most incentive to build a house? The answer to that is definately not a system where the profit to be made from building the house belongs not to the person that built it, but to whomever the majority decides it should belong.

When profit is fully distributed, everyone gets the full value of their work.

Wrong. In the system you described on the other thread, you specified that profits are distributed according to majority vote. What ensures that the majority will vote to give each person the full value of their work? What ensures that the majority won't sit back and do nothing and then vote themselves the profits? Answer: nothing.

[Mairead]

81. You're a bit fixated on that fear

Try this: imagine that you need a house. Instead of paying someone to do it, you get together with 20 or 30 guys from work and you build it together, with the promise that they each have a claim on you for a similar amount of effort when they need something built.

Where is the profit?

It's been distributed. The fact that nobody 'made money' on the housebuilding means that everyone got the full value of their work.



What ensures that the majority won't sit back and do nothing and then vote themselves the profits? Answer: nothing.

Let's presume your worst fears would be true (I don't think they are, but we can pretend). If you give the power to decide into the hands of the minority instead, what ensures that they won't sit back and do nothing and then vote themselves the profits? Oh, that's right...that's what in fact they do today. In what way is that better?

[Nederland]

85. Response

Try this: imagine that you need a house. Instead of paying someone to do it, you get together with 20 or 30 guys from work and you build it together, with the promise that they each have a claim on you for a similar amount of effort when they need something built.

Where is the profit?

It's been distributed. The fact that nobody 'made money' on the housebuilding means that everyone got the full value of their work.

Here is the interesting thing about this idea: its perfectly legal in a Capitalist economy. Why then, doesn't everybody do it? Why is it that this casual method of "promising" future labor occurs only among Quakers and a handful of ideologues? If this is a "better" way of building houses, everyone would do it this way. They don't because its not a better way.

The truth of this really comes home when you observe that in a Socialist economy, the Capitalist method of financing house building would likely be illegal. I find it compelling that in a Capitalist economy the Socialist way of doing this is not illegal, but in a Socialist economy the Capitalist way of doing things is. The reason is simple: given free choice, people will overwhelmingly choose Capitalism. Capitalism has nothing to fear from Socialism, because in head to head comparision it loses out.

Let's presume your worst fears would be true (I don't think they are, but we can pretend). If you give the power to decide into the hands of the minority instead, what ensures that they won't sit back and do nothing and then vote themselves the profits? Oh, that's right...that's what in fact they do today. In what way is that better?

This statement is so ignorant of the way things work in American business I don't even know where to begin.

[starroute]

91. That's really not an answer

People getting together to help one another build houses or boats or anything else is not socialism or anything like it -- it's just normal human mutual assistance. It's the way most of the world's work was accomplished for tens of thousands of years.

Things started to change with the rise of civilization. If you were pharaoh, you could call up thousands of people to build your pyramid, but they didn't have an equivalent ob on you. But when they weren't off doing the king's work, most people were still helping each other out, just the same as always.

The real differences now are that (1) we no longer live in tribes or villages where everyone feels an obligation to help each other out and (2) many of the things we might want done are dependent on specialized skills or expensive equipment that are not widely available. As a result, we now have to go to professionals for the goods and services we need -- strangers, rather than members of a circle of mutual support.

Money was invented as a way to expedite dealing with strangers. With money, services don't have to be directly reciprocal -- person B can do a job for person A, then use their wages to make a purchase from C, and so forth. And money, having a guaranteed value in itself, frees you from the need to trust that someone you barely know will return your service when you ask.

The profit motive is another result of the need to deal with strangers. I may be glad to do favors for my friends and neighbors and relations (or at least ashamed to refuse) because I know them and like them and expect they will help me out as well. But why should I do a favor for someone I've never met? The profit motive is a substitute incentive to get me to bust my ass for someone I don't know and might not like if I did.

The profit motive has been a great motivator to get people to work and produce things. But the trouble with it is that the human element is totally lacking. Or to put it another way, profit is essentially amoral. Once people stop working to help each other and work only for money, all sorts of nasty results become possible -- from despoiling the environment, to exploiting workers, to pushing yourself to slave 60 hours a week in order to afford the consumer goods they dangle before your eyes to keep you running in the hamster wheel.

I don't know any good answer to all of this. The nature of our world seems to be that we are inevitably dependent on strangers, and that isn't likely to change. But if we can start to perceive the ways in which we mediate that dependence as rather rickety improvisations, rather than sophisticated signs of progress, we may become able to come up with more flexible and human systems to maintain our complex society.

[Nederland]

92. Money

Money was not invented as a way to expedite dealing with strangers. Money was invented to make all transactions more efficient. Money allows a person who grows apples sell those apples for a universal exchange medium that can be used to purchase absolutely anything. Without money, if the apple grower needs shoes, they need to find a shoemaker that needs apples, or a third party that wants apples and has something the shoemaker wants, or a fourth party that has something the third party wants etc.

It has nothing to do with dealing with strangers. It has to do with efficiency.

[Mairead]

94. I'm going to have to stop talking with you

When you manufacture stuff in your head, such as your completely false ideas about socialism, and put it out as though it were self-evident truth that absolutely everyone in the world knows - how can I possibly compete? You're getting your raw material for free, whereas I have to mine reality by hand for it. That's too big an imbalance for me!

[Sinistrous]

7. I think you fell into a trap.

The phrasing of your question implies an extreme position (I am not saying it is yours).

The question might better be phrased: Is it wrong to hire a person to perform a task necessary for the proper functioning of an enterprise, provided that the person receives proper compensation (broadly defined).

Alternatively, "Is it wrong to expect a return on an investment that enables another to hire a person to perform a task necessary for the proper functioning of an enterprise, provided that the person receives proper compensation (broadly defined)".

The answer, of course, is that it is not wrong.

[zoidberg]

12. I phrased an extreme position because some took an extreme position

If I asked the more broadly phrased question, there wouldn't be much controversy. But there are those of the opinion that anybody profiting from the labor of others is wrong, and I wanted to try to understand their position and see how they expect an economy to work without this 'exploitation'.

[aquart]

23. Extreme positions are stupid, sweetie.

That may be your problem.

Arguing an idiocy is idiotic.

[Sinistrous]

93. I apologize -- My choice of words was very poor.

I know that was not your position.

Re-reading my attempt at an answer, I guess it should have been addressed to those who made the initial formulation and not to you.

And, your approach (of posing the controversial position) did obtain the discussion you hoped for.

Kudos on an excellent thread.

[Warpy]

8. Making a legitimate profit on one's investment

in land and equipment through the labor of people who use both is not wrong. It becomes exploitation when those people are paid less than it takes them to live on, while the owner lives like a sultan. This is called "immoral," for all you lurking Freepers who think morality begins and ends with sex, and only concerns other people.

Such exploitation is usually its own worst enemy, as the people who labor to produce the goods and services can no longer afford to purchase them. As they become too sick and debilitated by bad diet and poor living conditions to keep on working efficiently, productivity suffers. For all you Freepers lurking out there, this is called "killing the golden goose." A greedy owner will keep what he's stolen from his workers, but the flow of money will stop.

We're seeing the culmination of this today, with a huge increase in the working homeless, a stagnant economy, and continuing loss of jobs. You see, money flows most freely upward, as profit is taken at every level. It never "trickles down," but once it reaches the top, just keeps chasing itself as it inflates the price of rare items like fine art and ancient wines that the wealthy sell each other.

It's the Repuglican way. It doesn't have to be this way, as in fact it wasn't when the New Deal reforms were firmly in place. When those were in force, the rich still got richer, albeit at a slower rate, and the rest of us lived quite decently. Profit was made, but we working folks still got enough food, shelter, and medical care to stay productive.

[jody]

14. An interesting question but it's not the same as "distribution of wealth"

Economic models based upon a "perfect economic person" produce results that are never realistic.

The marketplace for labor, products, and services is not fair. It's more like roulette where a few gain control of government and pass laws favorable to themselves. With a miniscule advantage compounded over time, the house or in this case the corporatists will end up with all the chips. That's why AWOL's handlers are pushing to eliminate estate taxes, capital-gains taxes, corporate taxes, and dividend taxes.

As stated by so many economists, the reason for disparity in wealth is an inefficient and ineffective market place.

I don't have a problem with anyone making a fair profit off the labor of others. I do have a problem when someone stacks the deck against labor so they can keep the working masses perpetually ignorant and in debt. That very thing happened after the War Between the States ended and landowners kept former slaves uneducated and in debt -- that's called economic bondage and I oppose such policies.

On a much larger scale, those who pull AWOL's strings are creating a national debt that keeps the working masses in bondage.

:shrug:

[TreasonousBastard]

15. Short answer-- no.

Long answer-- it depends.

We all profit off of each other. That's the point of a capitalist system. Capital provides jobs, and jobs provide product, which provides more capital. Labor and capital are not entirely separate entities, and they often overlap, as with freelancers and small businesses.

The question is always one of balance. At what point does either capital or labor suck enough out of the system to throw it out of kilter?

At this point in the US, workers are becoming technically more productive, but aren't getting any of the rewards of increased productivity. All that increased productivity is returning to capital. It is very much out of balance.

[sandnsea]

20. The money invested is more valuable than the labor

That's the problem I have with the current attitude on capitalism in the US. The business owner deserves more protections and more benefits because he has the greater risk, money. Truthfully, he has a lesser risk because his company is probably incorporated and if it bankrupts, it doesn't hurt him personally. He can easily have quite an accumulation of wealth personally, walk away from a business, and the ones who really suffer are the workers. Nobody wants to talk about the worker who stuck by the boss, took a smaller paycheck at the beginning of the venture, scraped by for a few years without any benefits, all to help the business grow as much as anything the boss did. Now we worship the money put into the business, not the laborer supporting a family which used to be the backbone of the country. Alot of laborers accept less and less and express undying gratitude to the boss for his meager existence. In my own business I've had more than one client cry about minimum wage and how broke they are; only to see them buy brand new vehicles, take a trip to Europe, add onto their home, etc. Yeah, they're broke. And when you get up to the multi-million dollar corporate level, it's much, much worse. There's nothing wrong with making money from someone else's labor; but when you create slave labor conditions while you're preening in the Caribbean, that's wrong and everybody used to know it.

[aquart]

26. Some people used to to know it.

Some never will.

[jody]

30. Outstanding point, reduced risk via incorporation. Corporations exist

under the sovereign power of "We the People". The corporatists have gotten control of our government and passed laws allowing people like Ken Lay of Enron to legally steal.

The game is "Heads corporatists get richer, Tails the working masses get poorer". Don't forget the savings and loan debacle under Reagan and Bush -- the corporatists stole between $500 billion and $1 trillion.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

45. never forget these CEOs are also collaborating with dictators

When you get past the BS stories about hard working small business owners, you realize you are dealing with multinational networks of extremely wealthy people who are propping up dictators, laundering drug money, and exploiting the weakest people in the world. None of them believe in capitalism nor a free market, they are authoritarians and fascists. We have the Coca-Cola looking the other way as their sub-businesses are MURDERING union organizers in Colombia everyday, and then their CEOs come back here and tell us about the wonders of capitalism.

They don't take their own rhetoric seriously, why should we? And as for the college capitalists, they are as odious as the college commies were back in the Soviet Empire days - rich snotty kids who have hardly worked a day in their life repeating slogans written by people they never met. Which is more disgusting?

[jody]

58. Good point, there are the "multinational and national corporations" vs.

the "intrastate and local corporations". The little corps are being used as shills for the big corps.

Multinational corporations created the "Chamber of Commerce" and the "National Association of Manufacturers" as a forum to advance their own agenda for a corporate state. They also created the "American Legion" as a US version of Mussolini's black shirts. The American Legion even made Mussolini a honorary member.

The "one half per centers" now own 42% of our financial wealth and they have never wavered in their inexorable push toward a corporate state.

AWOL and his mob are just the latest threat. They'll be followed by another and another and .......... Freedom will never be free.

[Yupster]

74. On many small businesses, especially restaurants

the only person who doesn't get paid is the owner. He works the longest hours and doesn't take any pay while the restaurant is trying to get off the ground. When the restaurant finally fails (which most do), the waiter and busboy got paid and move on to their next job. The owner lost his shirt and probably never saw a dime in profit.

[sandnsea]

76. bullshit

I've known too many business owners to even begin to buy into this. What they do is incorporate, take out a loan and if the business fails, they simply walk away. I moved into an office building where I found out the previous occupant hadn't even paid for the CARPET! That's right, everything he did, he did on credit and never paid for any of it. That was an extreme case, but starting businesses on loans and bankrupting the corporation in case of failure, is the customary way to go.

In addition, when I hire a worker I don't think they owe me gratitude because I'm "giving" them a job. They are doing me a favor either because they know things I don't know that enhances my business OR they enable me to service more clients which enhances my business. The Republican Party has done a great job brainwashing the public into worshipping business; and labor and their families have suffered as a result. Labor makes businesses successful, mine or that of employees. Money is no subsitute for skilled labor.

[zoidberg]

78. Skilled labor doesn't have a problem

Unskilled labor is where the problems come in. Wages continue to rise and unemployment continues to be low for those with college degrees (although down from the insane boom times of a couple years ago). Even my friends who have graduated in the IT field last year have all found decent jobs.

Unfortunately, the unskilled workers in this world are quite replaceable. It's bad business to pay somebody $15 an hour when there are twenty people just as qualified who would gladly work for $10. How do you convince the businessman to do otherwise?

[Mairead]

84. "Even my friends who have graduated in the IT field last year"

Right. But it's the 'graduated last year' that's the key, not the 'skilled'. There is a lot of 'skilled' among the jobless in the US.

[Democat]

82. Your think most small business owners don't invest in their own business?

Post some statistics that back up your claim that small business owners don't invest their own money and time into their business.

Your claims are ridiculous. Small business owners put their own money and time into their businesses and when they fail, which most of them do, they lose everything they put into it.

The idea that "incorporation" means that business owners are protected from any loss is naive.

The fact that you've known a few people who have run out on their loans doesn't prove anything. Post some statistics.

[tom_paine]

24. No, but abusing the workers to make your profit is, IMHO

n/t

[Brian Sweat]

25. I support free market economics

Capitalism is a natural result of free market economics. So I do not think that it is wrong for the owner of a business to make a profit of the labor of those hired to work for the business.

In a perfectly free market, the workers would be able to leverage a decent wage, health care and safe working conditions from their employers. The problem is that there is no such thing as a perfectly free market. There are always road blocks that usually favor those with power. In this country we have a government that runs the economy in such a way as to make sure that there will always be a supply of workers. As a result, workers are limited in what they can demand from employers. So we need controls to make sure that the workers are not exploited.

[aquart]

33. Crap, sweetie. Delusional crap at that.

A free market is regulated only by market forces. WHAT are those market forces? DEATH. If too many people are killed by a product, sales are likely to go down (except in the case of tobacco where addiction matters more than death).

A free market functions for profit and profit only. If a profit can be declared while the corporation pollutes air, water, land, and human bodies, the corporation will do so and take the money. The nation is debited with illness and DEATH. And all expenses proceeding therefrom. Halliburton is going to declare lovely profits from Iraq but the United States will be bankrupt making them possible.

A free market is exempt from morals because the only moral is profit on the theory that a rising tide raises all boats. Anybody who is swept overboard, too damn bad. Anyone thrown overboard to lighten the load, too damn bad.

A market is a resource for a nation. Like water. It needs to be regulated strictly to prevent drought and flood which bring DEATH. No market should be free to harm a nation. No assumption should ever be made that a market is harmless.

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

39. Yes, delusional crap

I'm not sure how many people were killed by seeing Gigli, but, after looking at the box office figures, it must have been quite a few.

According to your brilliant market theory.

[Loonman]

29. It's a vicious and necessary cycle

Your a star-belly sneech you suck like a leech
You want everyone to act like you
Kiss ass while you bitch so you can get rich
But your boss gets richer off you
Well you'll work harder with a gun in your back
For a bowl of rice a day
Slave for soldiers til you starve
Then your head skewered on a stake
Now you can go where people are one
Now you can go where they get things done
What you need my son:

Is a holiday in Cambodia
Where people dress in black
A holiday in Cambodia
Where you'll kiss ass or crack

--dKs

[starroute]

32. The question is who is making money for what

It's easier to visualize the situation if you take it out of the employer-employee relationship.

If an artist pays an agent or manager a percent for their services, that's fair, because the agent is working to earn their cut. And the more the agent earns for the artist, the more they make themself. An agent with many clients may end up earning more than any one of them, but I would never call that exploitation.

On the other hand, business managers have also been known to exploit artists -- for example, by adding their own names as co-writers of songs -- and that definitely is exploitation. Or when a company pays writers or artists at a flat rate to do work-for-hire, and the artist never sees another penny no matter how successful the work is, that's even more unfair.

Everyone has a common-sense feel for the proper role of middlemen in mediating between people who do creative work and their audience. But somehow that common sense disappears when it comes to employers and employees.

I suspect it's because the owners and managers have managed to pass themselves off both as the true creators -- the people with the ideas and the plans -- and as the middlemen who get things done, and see no reason not to remunerate themselves for both jobs. The employees are then reducted to low-level functionaries -- equivalent, say, to the typist who might be hired by an author (in pre-computer days) to put a manuscript into submittable form, but who plays no role in its ultimate success or failure.

I really believe that people should be paid in proprotion to their creative contribution to a venture. If someone founds a new corportion, or initiates an entire industry, they do have the right to profit by it. But the nonentities who run most businesses have very little claim to the obscene salaries they expect to receive for no creative contribution at all.

The problem, of course, is how to shift our society towards creativity as a standard of relative worth and away from hierarchy.

[Nederland]

36. No

But given my comments on the previously mentioned thread that should come as no surprise.

[Dob Bole]

42. No, people sell their labor to their employers

Exploiting, or not giving a fair price for people's labor, is wrong.

[StandWatie]

44. I don't know about "wrong"

I would say anyone making money on sheer capitalism is a parasite but not "wrong".

[zoidberg]

52. So if you have a 401k...

Then you are a parasite? Oh well.

[StandWatie]

56. in real terms, yes

you are a drag on labor being paid for producing nothing.

[Nederland]

61. Grin

So if you have a 401k then you are a parasite?

Only if it goes up in value. If it goes down then you were exploited. :)

[Wonk]

60. How do you feel about slave labor if it helps your stock values? nt

[Jim Warren]

66. Haha

Good one, 'cause that's where this kind of doe-eyed "Is it wrong..." feel-good shit goes.
Just ask yourself if you want to be somebody's chump.

[zoidberg]

67. I wouldn't buy stock in companies that I know use slave labor

But I'm guessing our definition of slave labor might be quite different. If somebody willingly stops what they are now doing to take a job somewhere else, then I don't consider it slave labor.

There are cases where companies force people - even children - to work against their will. That should obviously be outlawed and strictly enforced internationally. But if a factory opens in Vietnam and people leave their fishing boats to work for what we would consider low wages, I don't have a problem with it.

[Rex]

64. Depends, are you including business ethics or any kind of

moral code into this question? Or is the lack of any mention of ethics/morals your real statement?

[OKNancy]

65. All I've got tos say is..If my employees don't like it

they can go somewhere else. I pay damn good wages and as a matter of fact they make more than I do after I pay on my debt.

Most businesses are small ones like mine, and I've often thought about quitting. If I do, there will be four adult women and three teenages without jobs that pay up to $35.00 an hour.

[Democat]

83. Read the poster up the page

Someone makes the claim that small business owners have no risk because you can just incorporate and that protects you from any risk or loss, even if you business goes under.

I'm not making this up, scroll up.

[OKNancy]

89. Well they are not informed

You can't just "incorporate" at the drop of a hat. I know when I had to borrow money, I had to guarentee it personally. Also, many small businesses use equity on their home because the interest rates are cheaper.

I'm an "S" corp, so that if someone sues me, they can only go after the assests of the business, not me personally. However the debts I have are all personal in nature.

I took a huge risk opening my business, and I've been doing it for twenty-eight years. I do it for the love of it, and because my job is rewarding. HOWEVER, lots and lots of people want to work for me, so my employees know they have it good.

Edit: typo

[Skittles]

68. NO

but making money EXPLOITING the labor of others most definitely IS WRONG.

[kentuck]

75. Yes, mostly...

Because most labor in this country is not done on a voluntary condition. It is done out of necessity because of the economic structure we have set up, in which we glorify entrepreneurism and capitalism and convince each other that there is nothing wrong with exploiting other people with minimum wages, no health benefits, etc.
Labor, as we all know, is not worth as much as capital. Why is that? For without labor, there would be no capital. Labor creates all wealth. Why is it so disrespected? Why is it so acceptable to accept that disrespect?

[buddhamama]

79. black and white answer

can't apply.

it is more complicated than that.

my problem is to the extent the 'orginator' or business owner gets rich off the labor of others,and the control they than have over the masses. it is exploitation.

workers are currently fighting to keep their health care costs down or get insurance through their employer,while the fat cat at the top is making millions. hmmm. there is a cycle to this too, because those at the top tend to stay there. not necessarily because of their skills or hard work but because of their position in society.

[jiacinto]

86. You shouldn't

And I don't think anyone here has said that.

[rman]

87. It's not a matter of either/or;

When cooperating, all benefit from others labour.

The workers benefit from the guy who set up the business, and the business could not function without the workers (so the businessman benefits from the workers).

The question is how much each should benefit; the sharing can be fair or unfair.