Why is it okay for a worker to get paid $20 dollars an hour even though the business owner is making $40 an hour off that worker?
Isn't that theft? Isn't profit theft from the worker?
It similar to how taxes are theft. Profit is like a tax you pay to your employer.
Other urls found in this thread:
twitter.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
Heh,
Get lost,
Gommie
why not own a business then?
But as the worker you don't pay for any overhead. You don't have to rent or buy the workspace, pay taxes on it, pay for materials, pay for legal fees, pay for insurance etc. etc.
The only thing as a worker you are paying for is your time.
Who bought the land, building, machinery, and materials for the worker to work with?
You wouldn't be making any money at all if it wasn't for your employer.
Capital risk. If the product the business is selling doesn't sell, or doesn't make profit, the business owner goes out of business, and all of his risked capital is lost. The wage earner earns a wage regardless of how well the products sell or not.
Not an argument
Maybe you don't have starting capital or sufficient starting capital for a high end industry
Let's assume that there is a profit even after paying for all overhead. That is, of course, the goal of a business owner, isn't it?
Profit is what is left over for the business owner after the costs you have mentioned. I am not talking about revenue, I am talking about profit.
Nope, the wage earner loses his job if the product doesn't sell well. He is taking risk too.
The business owner shoulders tremendous risk in order to run a business.
An employee who fails and is fired can go and try new work. His only real loss is the potential income and the time spent at his old job.
An employer who fails will likely see his whole life destroyed. Massive debt, everything he owns leveraged to pay for his failed business.
Risk has value. That value is the profit from a successful business.
On top of this, of course, is the overhead, materials and other expenses that an employer must pay on top of the worker's wages.
We can discuss whether large corporation's CEOs and other high paid members shoulder an equivalent amount of risk to their take home pay. Or if they add that much value to the company. But the essential point that an employer takes home more money per hour than an employee is a very obvious consequence of how much failure affects each party.
But you don't want a real answer, you just want to shitpost, don't you?
Because the worker signed a contract to work for $20 an hour? What are you, fucking retarded?
Basically this ... The beauty of capitalism is you get to choose where you want to work, and how. If you don't like your working conditions or pay, you're always free to leave and search elsewhere.
Fuck off Communist scum.
>b-but muh laborer exploitation!!!!
The beauty of capitalism is that you are forced to work for one business or another on pain of starvation and homelessness.
FREEDOM TM LIBERTY TM
I will give you that employment is better than serfdom where you cannot even switch lords.
But employment is still theft from the worker.
You can run your own business and be self-employed.
Why is it okay for two people/corporations to enter into a seemingly lopsided contract?
Test
Not an argument.
underrated post
>why are we not protecting people from their own stupidity by not allowing "lopsided contracts"
See, the thing that communists always forget is that an employee is also free to form their own business.
My Father was a machinist his whole life. When he was 45 he decided he wanted to open his own shop. He got another 4 partners together, they all mortgaged their homes and they opened a shop. My Dad ran it for 5 years then sold his shares. My father is now a millionaire because of that. A million dollars isn't much these days, but he was a farm kid, he went from being a farm kid, to being a millionaire using the exact same resources every other person has access to, as a tradesman no less.
I could mention, as others have, how the employer is fronting all the risk in the business.
But it's irrelevant. The worker gets paid $20 an hour because if he demands a raise, his employer can fire him and find someone else to do the job just as well for $20 an hour. How much profit he earns for his employer is irrelevant.
Stories like this warm my heart. feelsgood to see the fruits of hard work
Start your own business, and make $40 an hour.
You should tell your boss all this, user. He will be impressed with the unassailable logic of your argument and give you a big raise.
>MUH SURPLUS LABOR!
sage
i don't have the money otherwise i would
i am just making ends meet barely
and socialism seems interesting to me right about now
Cmon buddy,you arent getting 20 an hour to make tendies.
>fronting all the risk in the business.
came here to post this
somewhat ironically, if you want to gain a better understanding over why "m-muh rich bosses don't deserve that money" is complete bullshit, try dealing drugs. nothing teaches you the importance of factoring risk into your operations more than being a middleman.
The contract the worker signed probably has something to do with it.
>Maybe you don't have starting capital or sufficient starting capital for a high end industry
You answered it yourself, the owner is the one that has put up their capital for the business. They take the risks that the workers never would.
Your employer would have no incentive to give you a job if he didn't profit from it. Employment is a mutually beneficial relationship. You get a steady paycheck, and your employer earns a profit on his business. Your paycheck is paid to you whether or not the employer realizes any profit from you during the pay period, and this is a very good thing for employees.
Employment is voluntary. Your employer doesn't owe you a job, and you don't owe your employer your labor. If you don't like your job or think that its "fair", nothing is stopping you from quitting.
If you can get a better wage at a different employer, nothing is stopping you from perusing that. If you can't, your current wage is likely the fair market value, and your employer has no incentive to pay you more than that.
Holy FUCKING shit I'm triggered
So it's almost as if it takes something like idk entrepreneurship to start a business, and it's easier to join one than start one. Like maybe the owner invests time and capital.. Hang on I'm onto something
What if ok what if you could join the employ of someone instead of investing your own capital and time? Hm hm yes yes that sounds good, but how is it fair if I reap the same benefits as the owner, since I didn't invest my own time and capital to do the job I'm doing? Quite the conundrum we're in hmm hmm...
Wait a minute what if like
The owner takes a portion of how much I make, in return for giving me the capital to perform my function? I mean I didn't buy the forklift or the warehouse or the office space and desks and phone.. Wait no that thinking is bad. My employer is stealing from me, government pls fix this
And how did these job creators end up with all this capital. Where does capital and money come from?
In american re ently there seems to be a confusion regarding the purpose of a capitalist economy.
People are beginning to believe, wrongly, that a companies pupouse of operation is to employ workers and provide wealth to the upper echelon of operwting officers. The idea that a buisness is formed in order to pay workers, provide for their welfare, and fund their wellbieng. This is patently false.
A companys purpose is to create a product or service to provide to the consumer for profit. In turn profit is used as capital to continue providing the product or service. Wages and earning may be given to the employee out of the profit but that is not the intended purpose.
A company creates jobs, employees create product, product creates profit, and the cycle feeds itself. The fact that workers cannot live without mkney mea s they must be paid. But a workers wage is NOT the primary purpose of a company.
One plays an important role with many responsibilities and different work load.
The other has smaller responsibilities and work load.
>ISN'T THAT THEFT THO
Why are socialists so goddamn annoying?
twitter.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
>Isn't profit theft from the worker?
Are you fucking kidding me, you commie fucktard?
Capital can come from investors. They risk their money and expect a cut of the profit in return.
Check'd and kek'd. Death to the commie scum.
Where did capital originate? Did it fall out of the sky?
Read fucking Wealth of Nations and your shitpost questions will get answered 15 minutes into the reading
Maybe they are better at handling money than you? Maybe they saved money and worked several jobs while you only work one. Most Americans don't even have $1000 in their saving account, I certainly hope you are saving.
Maybe they got it as a loan from a bank where they had to put their house up as collateral for said loan, meaning that if the business goes bottoms up, the bank is going to take that house to get a return on their investment.
My family has owned 2 businesses at different points in their life. Both have been sold and my parents have retired. If their business was slow for a few months, they made sure their employees were paid before they were, and there were several times that they were paid less. Are you willing to do that for your employees?
Why are Marxists stuck in the 19th century? They act like we're still a manufacturing economy, when we haven't been one for decades.
>*this is what union members actually believe*
someone stole it from the workers who earned it...
>being this dumb
I bet you even went to college.
>not an argument
I don't argue with literal retards.
>this is what history has proven
What incentive would there be to hire people in the first place if you couldn't make money off of their labor?
>it's irrelevant. The worker gets paid $20 an hour because if he demands a raise, his employer can fire him and find someone else to do the job just as well for $20 an hour.
...
STOP CALLING ME A COMMIEE REEEEEEEEEE
I'm NOT COMMUNIST I"M SOCIALIST
I WANT TO ABOLISH CAPITALISM BUT KEEP DEMOCRACY
I HATE AUTHORITARIANISM
I WANT FULLY AUTOMATED LUXURY GAY SPACE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM
why can't you understand that we don't need a Stalin. We just do democratic decisionmaking through referendums. It's that fucking easy. No repression whatsoever.
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Lmao pinkos btfo
capitalism is a pyramid scheme. the people at the bottom do all the work the people at the top reap the rewards
BINGO.
Capital is dead labor stolen from dead laborers.
Stop being a commie and people will stop calling you one.
> FULLY AUTOMATED LUXURY GAY SPACE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM
If you want luxury earn it for yourself rather than demand that others give it to you simply because you exist, commie.
>it's irrelevant. The worker gets paid $20 an hour because if he demands a raise, his employer can fire him and find someone else to do the job just as well for $20 an hour.
>Stolen
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
ITT: Shitters
skilled labor is hard to find. only talentless hacks too afraid to develop some marketable skills complain about "muh bosses profits".
...
I'm My Dad had his house as an asset, which he remortgaged twice. He entered in partnership with several other people who each remortgaged too. Lastly he got a business line of credit, which required the collateral of THE ENTIRE BUSINESS AND EVERYTHING IT OWNED to set up. If the business had defaulted every thing it owned would go to the bank, and my Dad would have had a double mortgaged home he couldn't afford at 45.
Its not like this is an easy thing to do, but it is possible. It takes tremendous risk. Its why being a successful business pays so much.
>I don't have the money
Exactly! Your boss has gambled a lot of money on this company being succesful.
Man, why try to spread this kike communist bullshit here, if not to rile folks up. Another troll.
You can have security or freedom. You don't get to choose both
What is upkeep for 500 Alex
>losing job
>losing business
One is not like the other.
Hey now, who wouldn't want to risk everything on something that has a high chance of failing?
>It similar to how taxes are theft. Profit is like a tax you pay to your employer.
Absolutely.
All of that wealth created is from the work done by the worker.
What actually happens is this - for the first six hours of a day, the worker takes wood, nails etc. and makes tables from them. The tables are sold for more than the price of the wood, nails, the cost of hammer wear etc. The worker keeps all the wealth he creates as wages.
Then the last two hours of the day the worker keeps none of the wealth he creates. The heir expropriates it as profit. The heir has the worker working for free, taking all the wealth from that time.
To think about the material too much makes not much sense. Especially as they are trying to move these things into software, intellectual property etc. It is not about things, it is a social relationship where the heir who does not work exploits the worker who does.
so the business owner should not be rewarded for his business risk. the employee has no risk, he gets paid even when the owner does not make a profit. you assume the business owner always makes a profit
it cant be theft when there is permission if the employee contract for such an arrangement
oh yea, you are a fucking idiot
Was waiting for this
/thread
you dont have a job if your employer isnt making profit. youre a fucking mosquito or tick or vampire or some shit. a nigger thats what you are. why would you want to bite the hand that feeds you?
Sorry I didn't know this was a safe space for nazis. Sorry to hurt your feelings with free speech and a political discussion.
a made up saying with no evidence behind it. Conservatives would probably buy that on a t-shirt so maybe you have something!
Explain please i don't know what you mean
You. I like you.
This is like saying I should be thankful that my lord let's me be a serf for him. I bet you would have argued for feudalism if you were around back then you fucking teacher's pet
>thinking a business owner doesn't work
The thing is though that the owner took the risk while the worker isn't risking as much to make money. It's kind of like sales, the owner gets a % of the sales for managing the lot and producing advertising/a book of business that the salesmen can the profit on
In an ideal situation the system is symbiotic between the owner, the government and the employee. In our current society the government acts like a thug, the owner has run through 1000 shitty workers who have stolen from the business and the workers feel like they are getting janked by the owner and the government.
Profit is the excess any business makes, revenue minus expenses. Captial costs are a kind of expenses. And since the owner does in fact make money by the growth of his assets even if he does not turn a profit, captial risk is accounted for.
Let's be honest, the real reason is far more practical than moral. No one would give a shit about running a business if they couldn't make money.
damn, i should try farming. thats actually pretty good.
youve got 3 options, make your own business, work for someone else, or starve to death. you arent some philosopher and your great idea and ideals amount to dick in the real world. you smoke weed dont you? write this nonsense you currently believe in down and stick it somewhere to read in about 10 years and laugh at how stupid you were and then burn it because your thought process right now is embarrassing.
This is true, and it's also perfectly fine to make money. The owner however should always keep in mind that his success is predicated on the success of his workers. If his workers feel trapped or like they aren't valued, they will quit.
I'm a business owner who manages a company with a 250k book of business, 65% profit.
This, I don't know where this bullshit attitude of 'the guy at the bottom does all the work' comes from.
Most decent sized businesses have a 2% profit margin, not 66%.
Youre confusing the inverse relationship between risks and return. Risk does not have value. Risk means volatility in the future price of an asset, which can either be much lower or higher than the initial value.
How much risk the business owner takes depends on how much of his captial he has invested and what he has invested in. There are in fact practically risk free investments like government bonds or investing in blue chips that still turn a profit.
The transaction of work for pay is consensual, and the wages are agreed upon. Therefore it isn't theft. Case closed, now scram before I call old Joe McCarthy.
Profit is not captial. Captial required to expand companies is called capital cost.
You need to listen to >I get $22 an hour
>Union
>Plus insurance, benefits, work. comp., ext. I cost my company $80 per hr.
>My company charges $120 an hr to have me on the job.
Who's the one making money?
Who's got the easier ride?
>workers will quit if they feel trapped or aren't value
Haha no. I'd bet my life savings most workers have a chip in their shoulder. The number of people who enjoy their jobs is negligible.
>250k book of business
Their net assets are worth 250k?
>65% profit
On what? Initial captial? Per annum? That's ridiculous
OP is retarded
You get paid what your labor is worth poorfag. Otherwise everyone would get minimum wage.
Why doesn't the worker go and produce $60 of value on his own?
Why doesn't a competitor offer him $40, drop his price by $10, put his competition out of business, and still make a good profit?
Why am I bothering to respond to this?
Thats because you know you suck and you're letting envy drive you're reasoning. Stop being a covetous faggot and get a better job you fucking loser.
Who is stopping you from working for yourself?
consent and property rights
if you're making 20 bucks an hour, shut the fuck up and be happy
The business owner is doing the worker a favour giving him even that much
Do you think that maybe owning a business carries some level of risk? Who do you think is beholden to the use of starting capital?
oh it's because at the beginning before anyone else paid anyone he probably did everything.
>losing job = financial burden of starting a business
Wew lad. Kill yourself communist faggot.
No, my business book is worth 250k. That means I have 250k in business contracts recurring through the next year.
65% profit is the figure I generate on my businesses.
As for workers, if you treat your workers as loved children, they will work for little and give their soul to the company. If you treat your workers like disposable pieces of shit, you get what you give out.
Wow that wasn't who I meant to quote.
Giant faggot, rape my face, etc
I hear this whiny shit everyday from the lazy, sorry motherfucker I work with. "I just made _____ 8000 dollars and he's only paying me 800 this week". Blah, blah, blah. You don't pay overhead. You don't pay rent, insurance, vehicles, gas, tires, maintenance, you don't go out and make sales, you don't make the appointments. You basically go out, buy a part turn a wrench, and he can barely get you to do that while you drive around in the truck he provides you everyday and let's you drive it home. You sound like a Fucking nigger. This is America and you can be anything you want to be. You can start you're own business, but guess what, you don't know how and you're too lazy to find out.
Not to mention that once you start a business, you're trapped in it until you die, you sell it off, or the business fails.
Owners must respect their workers for what they do for growing the companies bottom line, the workers need to respect that the owner's very life is on the line if the business fails. If everyone is respectful of each other, and people aren't stabbing each other in the back trying to pull every last ounce of productivity out of the lemon, we would all get ahead in this world. Instead, it's libtards vs. conservashits always at each other's throat because neither one takes the time to understand the other.
I agree that the current system is leaving everyone unhappy
So you take 2/3 of what the workers produce--for doing what--ordering them around? You are a leech no better than jamaal and shaniqua
So you like consent. Would you uphold the validity of a contract that required work for 45 years? Would you force the worker to work for 45 years with whips? Let's assume the worker agreed beforehand but changes his mind during his 20th year
So do you think Zuckerberg's time is worth 100,000 times more than yours? Or do you think he is being overcompensated somehow?