|
leon trout
Estimated Prophet



Registered: 09/13/12
Posts: 1,089
Loc: The Timbers of Fennario
Last seen: 3 years, 9 months
|
Re: R U OK with this? [Re: fapjack]
#18916242 - 10/01/13 01:27 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I do however equate what they make to their worth as an employee.
so, their worth as an employee directly impacts their profit... got it...
Quote:
Not all stockholders work. Are they not deserving of their dividends?
um, no, they are not... they had a little money, now they are getting paid simply because they had that money... that's not doing work, that's not helping anybody, that doesn't jibe with your earlier statement: Quote:
I do however equate what they make to their worth as an employee.[
-------------------- “I read somewhere that 77 per cent of all the mentally ill live in poverty. Actually, I’m more intrigued by the 23 per cent who are apparently doing quite well for themselves.” ~ St. Jerome of Marin
the bus come by & i got on, that's when it all began
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,465
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 4 hours, 11 minutes
|
Re: R U OK with this? [Re: Enlil] 1
#18916245 - 10/01/13 01:28 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said:
Quote:
The Ecstatic said: slavery being illegal is a governing regulation.
My point exactly.
and what point is that, exactly?
--------------------
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,987
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
|
Quote:
leon trout said: um, no, they are not... they had a little money, now they are getting paid simply because they had that money...
Stockholders get paid in exchange for providing CAPITAL. They paid the company cash so that the company could use that money to make more money. Do you think it's fair for the corporation to take the capital and not live up to its end of the bargain?
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,987
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:
Enlil said:
Quote:
The Ecstatic said: slavery being illegal is a governing regulation.
My point exactly.
and what point is that, exactly?
You made a claim about what happens when a market is "devoid of governing regulation", but no such market exists...so how would you know?
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
fapjack
Title



Registered: 07/26/07
Posts: 16,574
Loc: Central New Jersey
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
|
Re: R U OK with this? [Re: Enlil]
#18916264 - 10/01/13 01:31 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
The capital loaned to them by banks, loaned to them by the US government? Isn't that socialism?
--------------------
|
The Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 33,590
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 2 hours, 55 minutes
|
Re: R U OK with this? [Re: Patlal]
#18916267 - 10/01/13 01:32 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Patlal said: Soon the walmart employee salary thing won't be an issue. They'll replace cashiers with self checkout machines. That'll cut like 80% of their workforce.
Which is fucked in a way cause 72% of Walmart's cashiers are women
waiters and waitresses are being phased out as well. Soon, these base level jobs, that at one point kept the middle class strong, and is now keeping the poor afloat, will be simply nonexistent.
When resources and jobs are gone, people in this country are really gonna wish we paid attention to the rest of the world in implementing a socialist system of government.
--------------------
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,987
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: R U OK with this? [Re: fapjack]
#18916268 - 10/01/13 01:32 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
fapjack said: The capital loaned to them by banks, loaned to them by the US government? Isn't that socialism?
That's a lot of speculation. Not all shareholders provide leveraged capital. On the contrary, most shareholders provide capital from their 401(k) plans.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
nicechrisman
Interdimensional space wizard



Registered: 11/07/03
Posts: 33,241
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
|
|
Quote:
The Ecstatic said:
Quote:
Patlal said: Soon the walmart employee salary thing won't be an issue. They'll replace cashiers with self checkout machines. That'll cut like 80% of their workforce.
Which is fucked in a way cause 72% of Walmart's cashiers are women
waiters and waitresses are being phased out as well. Soon, these base level jobs, that at one point kept the middle class strong, and is now keeping the poor afloat, will be simply nonexistent.
When resources and jobs are gone, people in this country are really gonna wish we paid attention to the rest of the world in implementing a socialist system of government.
That is a very good point.
And a good point about the "self checkout". I always do my best to avoid these in grocery stores even if it means waiting in line longer. I don't support putting people out of work. And oftentimes cashiers are cute females
-------------------- "Cosmic Love is absolutelely ruthless and highly indifferent: it teaches its lessons whether you like/dislike them or not." John C. Lily
|
leon trout
Estimated Prophet



Registered: 09/13/12
Posts: 1,089
Loc: The Timbers of Fennario
Last seen: 3 years, 9 months
|
Re: R U OK with this? [Re: Enlil]
#18916295 - 10/01/13 01:39 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said: Stockholders get paid in exchange for providing CAPITAL. They paid the company cash so that the company could use that money to make more money. Do you think it's fair for the corporation to take the capital and not live up to its end of the bargain?
what you describe here is gambling... i'm perfectly ok with gambling, but it should be allowed across the board... if the wall street fucks (yes, i lump stockholders in with them) are allowed to take people's money with a promise of potential dividends based upon performance, then i should be able to lay a benjamin on the Saints minus fourteen... i'm not, because our gov't considers that immoral & illegal... if it's not okay for me to gamble on football, then why is it okay for random shareholders otherwise unassociated with a comany to gamble on stocks?..
-------------------- “I read somewhere that 77 per cent of all the mentally ill live in poverty. Actually, I’m more intrigued by the 23 per cent who are apparently doing quite well for themselves.” ~ St. Jerome of Marin
the bus come by & i got on, that's when it all began
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,465
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 4 hours, 11 minutes
|
Re: R U OK with this? [Re: Enlil]
#18916305 - 10/01/13 01:41 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said:
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:
Enlil said:
Quote:
The Ecstatic said: slavery being illegal is a governing regulation.
My point exactly.
and what point is that, exactly?
You made a claim about what happens when a market is "devoid of governing regulation", but no such market exists...so how would you know?
Historically, slavery was a much more acceptable practice prior to government regulation.
We may not have a current example of a society devoid of governing regulation (except perhaps Somalia), but we do have historical examples of societies devoid of governing regulation [related to slavery].
The conclusion should be obvious. It's called extrapolation.
--------------------
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Quote:
leon trout said:
Quote:
I do however equate what they make to their worth as an employee.
so, their worth as an employee directly impacts their profit... got it...
Quote:
Not all stockholders work. Are they not deserving of their dividends?
um, no, they are not... they had a little money, now they are getting paid simply because they had that money... that's not doing work, that's not helping anybody, that doesn't jibe with your earlier statement:
Quote:
I do however equate what they make to their worth as an employee.[
It jibes quite nicely.
Were they worth more to the employer, he'd likely pay them more. If they're worth more and the employer doesn't pay them more... they are free to move on.
In the case of the stockholders it doesn't matter that they had that money. It's theirs. It doesn't matter if the legally earned or were given it.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
KingKnowledge
Around



Registered: 03/30/13
Posts: 2,876
Loc: East Coast
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
|
|
Earlier today when I was pondering vinsue's question, I called my producer friends and they agreed to make a movie out of a hyperbole of this idea. I even got Matt Damon in it!
But in all seriousness, corporate greed is something that has been around for years. It seems that no matter how hard we want it to end, it won't. Money is powerful. Seems like a revolution's in order.
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
|
|
psi
TOAST N' JAM


Registered: 09/05/99
Posts: 31,467
Loc: 613
|
|
Quote:
KingKnowledge said: Earlier today when I was pondering vinsue's question, I called my producer friends and they agreed to make a movie out of a hyperbole of this idea. I even got Matt Damon in it!
Looks kinda cool, have you seen it? Apparently it came out on bluray yesterday so I may try to torrent it.
|
millzy


Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 12,409
|
|
to the op: no, i'm not okay with it. i don't suspect a universe exists where walmart's profits would be effected in a way that they would be forced to passing down those costs to its consumers.
it also seems to me that some - perhaps many - small business owners have somehow allowed themselves to be fooled into thinking that their companies are anything close to the order of magnitude of walmart, apple or fossil (two other companies i might add that pay their employees dogshit). the fact of the matter is that most businesses are plankton swimming in an ocean of leviathans.
moreover, there also seems to be this pernicious attitude that being a business owner somehow entitles one to having cheap labor. labor is an expense, and if you the business owner can't afford to pay for that expense then your business should stay a certain size until you can. if you're in the printing business and you need a new bad ass printer in order to step up your production and increase your profits, do you expect to be able to make a call to hewlitt-packard and convince them to just give you that equipment simply because you're in the printing business and need it? why should it work any different for living, breathing people who put their trust in you to give them steady work while they help you build your dream?
besides, paying workers wages that they can't live on hurts all of us because it keeps them dependent on the social safety net, which we all have to pay for. since the 90's the cost of living has skyrocketed while wages, especially minimum wage, have pretty much stagnated to where the poor now aren't even on the chart. middle class families are now in the shit. and this isn't because profit isn't being generated. it's because of greed and this idiotic free market huur-derpspeak that has infected our culture and allowed these huge companies to operate the way they do with impunity.
-------------------- I'm up to my ears in unwritten words. - J.D. Salinger
|
UnholyChild666
I'M GOD

Registered: 03/26/06
Posts: 8,940
Loc:
|
Re: R U OK with this? [Re: vinsue]
#18916459 - 10/01/13 02:23 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
minium wage is above poverty wage
--------------------
"I am the Highest Power the leader of the pack" Actiavte My Dream Sequence Machine GOD of the hologram earth
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
Re: R U OK with this? [Re: millzy]
#18916463 - 10/01/13 02:24 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|

different schools of thought.
|
The Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 33,590
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 2 hours, 55 minutes
|
Re: R U OK with this? [Re: millzy]
#18916470 - 10/01/13 02:25 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
well said.
Contrary to popular belief, rich people dont create jobs, consumers do. The more money changing hands the better, but thats not the case right now.
--------------------
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,987
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
|
Quote:
leon trout said: what you describe here is gambling... i'm perfectly ok with gambling, but it should be allowed across the board... if the wall street fucks (yes, i lump stockholders in with them) are allowed to take people's money with a promise of potential dividends based upon performance, then i should be able to lay a benjamin on the Saints minus fourteen... i'm not, because our gov't considers that immoral & illegal... if it's not okay for me to gamble on football, then why is it okay for random shareholders otherwise unassociated with a comany to gamble on stocks?..
First, gambling isn't illegal in the U.S. Some states have made it illegal, but it certainly isn't illegal federally.
Second, I don't see your point. Certainly, investors take a risk, but that doesn't make it okay for corporations to suddenly change the rules after the investor has already put his money up. The deal has always been that in exchange for capital NOW, the corporation will strive to make profit and share those profits in the future. For the corporation to suddenly decide that they are okay making less profit at the expense of the shareholders is no different than me changing the rules of a bet after you've already placed your money.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
Re: R U OK with this? [Re: Enlil]
#18916479 - 10/01/13 02:26 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
yes,yes, it's not fair for them to be forced to change.
the system still sucks major ass dingles.
|
|