Capitalism requires the money that companies earn to be less than the money companies pay out to their workers

Capitalism requires the money that companies earn to be less than the money companies pay out to their workers.

This fact alone is why Capitalism is an immoral system.

What is that I hear? Could it be the sound of Sup Forums being BTFO?

>Capitalism requires the money that companies earn to be less than the money companies pay out to their workers.

Try putting together a normal sentence first you twat

revenue > wages

it's as simple as that dumbass

No its not immoral because the capital that is receives it invested into the companies infrastructure. The boss is even lucky to make any money considering the government places taxes and regulations on them. He/She also has to pay their workers a decent wage or lse they wont be working for him

(unless you're an illegal whos willing to work for even less)

It means employees can't be payed with money that doesn't exist.

so you're saying that capitalism requires that labour costs exceed revenue?
wat?

I don't think you know what morals mean

It does exist. It's just used to grow the business by investing in capital.

Then how will they invest in bettering the company and investing in growing the company so they can hire more people? what about the owner and management? they work to, just not on the floor
anything else would be immoral.

>Capitalism requires the money that companies earn to be less than the money companies pay out to their workers.

Tune your bot, retard.

are you blind?
dont be such a leaf

Post Taylor's feet

Yeah no shit you colossal retard. Good god, the bait around here is so shitty now that Trump has locked the election down.

>retarded post
>taylor swift poster
checks out

>Then how will they invest in bettering the company and investing in growing the company so they can hire more people?
This is exactly my point. That scenario is impossible in Capitalism. The model prevents you from having revenue = wages even thought that is the moral outcome.

So you agree with me? Good. I'm glad you now realize Capitalism must be immoral for it to function.

>Capitalism requires the money that companies earn to be less than the money companies pay out to their workers.

You mistyped something right?

It's no wonder you guys support Capitalism. You seem to only be able to read at a 4th grade level.

Bait threads have really dropped off the edge in quality these past few days. I'm not even entirely sure what point the OP is trying to trigger us with.

>labor is 100% of all business costs
>businesses should make no profit
This is what liberals actually believe

Your claim:

company earnings < employee wages

Can you elaborate a little bit more on how this is possible?

>That scenario is impossible in Capitalism. The model prevents you from having revenue
wut?

whats immorale about letting people own?

>Capitalism requires the money that companies earn to be less than the money companies pay out to their workers.

Perhaps you are thinking about marxist economics as applied by Khrushchev?

under-rated post

Wages are not the only expense of a company, if they did pay 100% of profit as wages they wouldn't last a day.

Capitalism does not dictate who is the capitalist and who is the worker. The choice is yours to make. If you believe your own rhetoric then your company will have the best valued service/widget on the market because you will not be including a profit in your pricing structure and in a free market your company should dominate...until a profit making company that has invested in R&D comes up with a mote cost efficientr service/widget and puts you out of business.

thanks for the image senpai

> with a moRe cost efficient service/widget

Why is TayTay so perfect?

that is the opposite of my claim
It's impossible for revenue = wages and still grow the company through investment
I knew someone would knitpick this. in addition to wages I'm including rent, interest, etc

>whats immorale about letting people own?
I never claimed that

>2018
>not being a stubborn neet rebel consuming resources without giving a goddamn thing back to society

thank you for your service

What? All business requires that. Non profit or profit.
Can you name a business that has no expenses outside of wages?

because her soul is pure

How can you state that revenues=wages is moral? Why? Morality is such an abstract concept how can you define it like so?

why?

You're clearly not factoring in any of those things given your retarded statement.

Hi /leftypol/

>Capitalism requires the money that companies earn to be less than the money companies pay out to their workers.
no it doesn't

there's nothing stopping you from starting a business that shares 100% of the profits with the workers

That makes zero sense.

many businesses don't have workers at all. if businesses could, all would be completely automated.

Why the hell do you think revenue should = wages?

Nice labor theory of value you have there commie faggot.

This is stupid.
The other money is invested and the cycle repeats.

Not really. In a "perfect capitalistic system", the extra money is spent entirely on manufacturing costs, labor, and research (i.e. a CEO gets paid for the value of their work, not 10x-100x that, and pays the laborers accurately, not 1/10th of their worth; there is no 'extra money' since all profit goes into improving the product or service).

Sup Forums completely and utterly btfo for all time

how will drumpftards ever recover

you misunderstand my post. read through the rest of my statements to get a clearer understanding.
People work in order to receive utility in the form of wages. Businesses are unable to return all of the money that the workers made which means that the Capitalist model withholds utility from people who have earned it. revenues = wages does not have that problem, however revenue = wages is not possible in capitalism. I'm basing this around utilitarianism.

>there's nothing stopping you from starting a business that shares 100% of the profits with the workers
Yes there is: the market. Those businesses would fail.

I'm not advocating for revenues = wages because I realize that is impossible. I'm just saying that for Capitalism to be moral it would need to develop a system where revenues = wages

see: You are forced to withhold utility from workers because you are unable to invest and grow the company if you didn't.

>Not really. In a "perfect capitalistic system", the extra money is spent entirely on manufacturing costs, labor, and research
You're making my point for me. That in capitalism money needs to be spent in areas that don't go back to the workers in order for the company to grow, i.e. research/investment.

This. The only reason we see such inequality is because the state fucks up the incentives of business owners by preventing competition.

The purpose of a company is to make money for its employees and owners, not to make money for itself.

You realize that the "perfect capatilistic system" is capitalism, right?

>Yes there is: the market. Those businesses would fail.
How do you draw this conclusion? Instead of an owner keeping the profits the profits get split up. That has no bearing on whether or not the business fails.

Literally nothing is stopping you from starting a business that shares 100% of the profits

Actually it's because it turns out there are several critical flaws in the system. The state should intervene a LOT more, not less, to fix those. Flaws include collusion and underhanded tactics based on misdirection and lies being significantly more effective that producing something better or caring about the customer.

and I'm saying it's immoral. what's your point?

in order for the company to make money for it's employees and owners it must grow the company. in order to grow the company it must withhold money from it's employees and owners.

because the business would not be able to grow which means that it would lose out to other competition

Laissez-faire Capitalisme is bad, yeah thanks.

OP is retarded but his point is actually right

Shareholders get part of the revenue (dividends) for the solely reason a paper says they own a share of the company, without contributing anything in the production at all, they literally get a cut of the workers production while they masturbate on anime, how is that not inmoral?

Oh I just noticed the typo in my original post. I did mean to say more not less.

>researchers are not employees
They contributed to the funding of the company (in principle). The system is flawed here, but not that much.

There is no such thing as "earned", the concept of "deserving" something is completely made up by us because it helps society work smoothly, but it has no philisophically moral qualtities whatsoever.

OP, you seem to believe that the people in manufacturing deserve the full profit of the products they manufacture. How can you justify this? How can you justify withholding money from the foremen, managers, executives, engineers, etc.? They work too, and thye don't do it for free. And how can you justify shutting out investors? Without them none of the workers would be making any money, so shouldn't they receive a return on their investment?

tl;dr you're a "labour theory of value" communist and you should fuck off back to /lit/ or /reddit/ or wherever the fuck you came from.

female perfection

>because the business would not be able to grow which means that it would lose out to other competition
A) Growing a business is not necessary for capitalism.
B) Not necessarily. A business could invest in itself and still share profits. The decision could be made by an owner, or the owner could ask the employees to vote and then do what they decide. There is no law against any of that.

...and employ more people, yes. A growing company is a good thing for the economy and for the average person no matter how you spin it.

Those aren't flaws, those are strategies that would be suboptimal if corporations were actually beholfen to consumers, which they are not.

does she really needs to shave her armpits? i think hair barely grows for her and would barely stand out because of blondness

No one is forcing a company to take loans. You can keep your company private and even never let the value increase, just pay out higher salaries.

shareholders distribute risk. If the company loses half its value lots of people lose a little money instead of 1 person losing everything.

They are flaws from a game theoretic perspective where the goal is optimizing the social welfare function.

Doing otherwise would require printing money out of thin air. Is that what you are all about?

The shareholders are the owners. They take risk. Employees get paid no matter what. That's the deal. Everybody involved agreed to it, and that's why it's not immoral.

>it must withhold
Nothing is being withheld. The workers are paid according to a predetermined wage or salary. The money that is invested in the business never belonged to the workers so it cannot be withheld.

>I'm just saying that for Capitalism to be moral it would need to develop a system where revenues = wages
no it fucking doesnt

Shareholders risk capital and are paid for that risk. There is no 100% guarantee that a company will make $$$ and your capital will be returned.

>Nortel?

If that's the opposite of your claim then you mistyped something.

...did you want to try that again?

Because you said they bring in less than what is only part of a company's overhead, and if that were true, companies wouldn't even be a thing.

The argument is most likely that the risk to reward is disproportionate.

>retained earnings, paying investors, and operating expenses are immoral
have your mum post a webm of you hanging yourself plz

Disproportionate how? Anybody that believes that is free to invest, but if they think it is some Free Money Promised Land they'll probably end up disappointed

Again, these are only "flaws" because the state makes it so corporations aren't beholden to their customers, you have to realize that even though there may be initial inventive for business owners to do this stuff, it would be cancelled out by the consumer's self-interest as these behaviors harm the very people that sustain these companies. Not a good long-term business model.

>society should realign itself with my subjective morals and opinions
>>>/leftypol/

if that is correct just put all your money in the stock market and you'll be a billionaire in 0.024837 seconds

>this meme again
Give me a billion dollars and I'll turn it into 100 billions in a year.

They share the risk of losing something they shouldnt even have to begin with?

It's actually the lack of state intervention (that is - pure capitalism) that makes it so corporations aren't beholden to their customers.

research and development is different than actually producing the product that is sold to the consumer. It's a form of investment.
If someone does an action that creates wealth is it not their wealth? Capitalism is based around this in most areas. For example: the copyright/patent system. Your Idea, your money! But with the wage system it's: your work, mostly your money. Why the inconsistencies?

>A) Growing a business is not necessary for capitalism.
what... Competition is the driving force of capitalism, and it manifests itself in the form of growing a business. There's other forms of competition in Capitalism too, but this is the main form that is necessary for resources to be handled efficiently.
>B) Not necessarily. A business could invest in itself and still share profits. The decision could be made by an owner, or the owner could ask the employees to vote and then do what they decide. There is no law against any of that.
You keep coming up with different hypothetical situations saying that they're all possibilities. Yet none of them have ever happened because people know that it would be a poor decision and they'd fail.

Why does hiring another employee right the wrong of withholding money from the original set of employees? The new employees all fall prey to the same thing. Your argument is that more employment is inherently a good thing even under bad arrangements.

Are you admitting that Capitalism is immoral?

The predetermined wage takes into the account the money that they need to withhold in order to grow the business. The money used to invest was created by employees, it didn't just come out of thin air.

nice argument

I did: see the post I quoted above as well.

Usually you greentext the sarcastic part, so I can't tell if you actually think that or what

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise at all.
You have a bit more work to do.

>They share the risk of losing something they shouldnt even have to begin with?
Why shouldn't a shareholder own a share that they bought?

it's a good thing I made 11 posts after that. you can read them if you want. or just shitpost some more if you'd rather continue doing that, I don't mind.

How is that, when the state is involved corporations get a large safety net of stolen wealth plus the ability to gain unfair advantages due to the states unfair monopoly on force. Without the state, or with a small state, corporations woild have no such safety net and therefore be completely dependant on the people they are trying to screw over.

Only retards think otherwise. Investing with large amounts of money is guaranteed (p < 0.05) path to riches. The problem is the 'large amounts of money' part, as usual.
Another way to phrase it is that people who invest do NOT take risks on any single investment, they're basically dropping $100 worth of pennies all over the place, and even a single of those pennies is enough to net them $1000.

>revenues = wages does not have that problem, however revenue = wages is not possible

Do you have any idea what you are saying?
A=B is fine
B=A is not possible
Is this some kind of quantum math that is only taught to snowflakes?

I want to understand, but you are wrong at the molecular level. Therefor your grand unified theory about things you clearly don't understand is, by default, wrong.

I don't believe in a state enforced copyright/patent system. It should be privately upheld if it exists at all.

It is not only immoral, it is unsustainable.

When the capital meant as a proxy to trade becomes a product itself, then it can be bought, sold, and speculated against. This destroys the conservation law that makes Supply and Demand work.

Also, by having rent, where the product is never sold, patent and other monopoly protection which destroys competition, and wage, which allows the production itself to be sold in the same market, destroys the law of conservation, and the rate of exchange of conservation called the law of consistency.

Together, the loss of these laws takes away any rational basis for Capitalism to function, leaving only corruption and deception as its market force.

This is why economics tells us nothing, and so many economic theories contradict: it is the reflection of the desires of the players, not of any underlying logic.

good goy, anti-monopoly laws don't exist! forced monopoly laws are reality! good good goy! in free capitalism, monopolies are totally bad and totally not literally optimal.

>all of the money that the workers made
the workers did not make all that money, they only helped in making some of the money. There needed to be supplies to create a product, someone needed to take the initiative and organize a company and sell a high demand product. A lot more goes into a product than labor alone.

>research and development is different than actually producing the product
You're right, it's more valuable because that's where the product gets its value, which is why researchers are paid.

>is it not their wealth
They didn't sell the product. They didn't market it. They didn't design it. They didn't imagine it. They just assembled it. Therefore, they did not create it, and so the wealth that is created does not belong solely to them.

>competition is the driving force of capitalism
And a business can be competitive without growing. Change =/= growth.

>Why does hiring another employee right the wrong of withholding money
>The predetermined wage takes into the account the money that they need to withhold
There is no money being withheld, period. I repeat, there is no money being withheld. See above.

>But with the wage system it's: your work, mostly your money. Why the inconsistencies?

There is no inconsistency. I offer to give you a sum of $$$ to do X amount of labor and if you agree we have a contract. You are free to leave any time you please.

capitalism is cool

The only reason anti-monopoly laws exist in the first place is because the state creates monopolies. Also I'm a jew, so... good jew?

>You are free to leave any time you please.
That is not true in the great majority of cases.

>what... Competition is the driving force of capitalism, and it manifests itself in the form of growing a business. There's other forms of competition in Capitalism too, but this is the main form that is necessary for resources to be handled efficiently.
You're attributing a whole shitload more to capitalism than what it is. It's just agreements between people. Pic related!

>You keep coming up with different hypothetical situations saying that they're all possibilities. Yet none of them have ever happened because people know that it would be a poor decision and they'd fail.
The reason these situations are hypothetical is because nobody wants to do all the work and risk of starting a business just to give the profits away. But there is literally nothing stopping you from doing that, if you want. If you think a business should share 100% of its profits then start a business that shares 100% of its profits.