That doesn’t follow.
What’s wrong with “undeserved profits”?
Why/how are they unnatural?
Please provide a definition for “unacceptable working hours”, not an explanation as to who would determine “unacceptable working hours”.
So, under socialism, you can have both collective ownership of all the means of production and individual ownership of some of the means of production?
If there was no exploitation, there would be no profit for the owner.
How does it not follow? In a capitalist business i.e. a business that is privately owned, the workers will not be payed for what they produce because the owner reaps profit.
They don’t deserve it. What’s wrong with theft? What’s wrong with murder? You think you’re so damn witty for asking these meaningless, redundant questions that lead to nowhere but more questions from you.
You have no moral objection to slavery? You don’t see anything unnatural with a human owning another human? You don’t see ducks owning other ducks, you don’t see cows owning other cows. It doesn’t happen in nature, it is unnatural.
I cannot tell you because it is preference. In socialism you can work as long as you want, or not work at all. If worker A works ten hours but only produces 10 shirts. He will be payed for the 10 shirts not the 10 hours.
As long as no exploitation is involved. So that individually owned business would be a one person business most likely, unless the business owner would pay the workers for what they produce. The workers would not settle for anything less seeing other workers get payed higher wages for the same work.
Again, we’ve discussed this earlier. The owner isn’t exploiting due to profit. You seem to ignore my points entirely on the nature of the owner/entrepreneur. face palms
The whole Marxist/socialist concept of “exploitation” is an absurdity anyway.
If you feel the need to pontificate about “exploitation” of wage labor by capitalist entrepreneurs, I might just as aptly point out the exploitation of the entrepreneur by the worker. After all, the worker is taking advantage of the entrepreneur’s previous labor and thrift in accumulating capital, his willingness to take risks, his organizational and leadership abilities, his vision and his talent for discerning and predicting consumer demand, in order to secure a greater share of material wealth than the worker would be able to attain acting on his own. He is absolved of the needs to save and invest, to assume risk, and to cultivate skills of leadership and management. He may focus his efforts upon those skills central to his trade. His compensation is certain, defined by contract; while it lacks the potential that the entrepreneur enjoys for great profit, it also lacks the possibility of loss that the entrepreneur must bear. He is free to spend his entire income on consumption goods if he likes, without shouldering the responsibilities of setting aside savings for capital and planning for future production which are some of the entrepreneur’s most basic duties.
Without all the services and advantages provided by the entrepreneur, that enable the worker to increase the productivity of his skills, the worker is either forced to assume those duties himself, though he may be ill-suited to them, or to blunder blindly ahead without capital or direction.
Still believe that the “lazy” entrepreneur is superfluous and does not contribute significantly to the value of the final product?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Ok, now try proving it. Remember: you can’t just assert it. Evidence is required, little one. And evidence is sorely lacking for your stance. So, pray grace us with your wisdom.
’
How very tedious, you have resorted to your typical retort of ‘nu-uh’.
NO U!
Quite.
next.
What if I suggest that no one is deserving and that you get… what you get, regardless of who you are or however important you think you may be.
So how exactly do you intend to pay for the rent of capital, the interest on the loan, and provide an incentive for risk taking when the price = variable cost, and nothing goes to cover fixed costs or the normal profit?
They are paid for the value they add to the transaction and product. But there is also a share of value added by the enterpreneur and the management, and you need to go to pay for the materials and fixed cost. So wages != price.
Murder is wrong because it is a violation of self-ownerhip. If you cant justify your ethics they should be assumed to be wrong.
Ever get the feeling that we’re just making fun of you?
It’s not an assertion?
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Boycotts/NikeThird_facts.html
For arguments sake let’s say they made the cheapest shoe Nike has on their website which is twenty dollars.
Now how many shoes do you think they make in a day? They obviously make more expensive shoes but you can do the math on how much they are exploited even if they just make the cheapest model. Even if an American under the minimum wage laws produce these shoes, they are exploited 13 dollars.
And what’s the average rent per month in those places. How much is a pound of rice? And so on? Remember, prices and wages are interval zeros, not real zeros.
Also, it’s still not exploited if the gains are not wholly passed on to the workers as it’s passed on to the entrepreneur, his/her investors, and other related persons.
Let me use an analogy so you can understand what value the capitalist adds through assuming risk.
One of the jobs I do to pay for college is to occasionally clean the bathrooms at the local grocery store (among other tasks I do there). There is a lot of capital available to me to perform that task, including not only the bathroom itself, but the mop & bucket, broom and dustpan, all sorts of cleaning supplies, running water, paper towel, etc. I do not own that capital, the stockholders who own the corporation that owns the store do.
Now suppose that the customers who normally use that bathroom decide to go to the bathroom at home, or clean up their own mess instead of paying me to do it. I am out of tha particular job, but I can just transfer deparments or apply somewhere else. But the capital that has been invested in that paticular job has depreciated. And how did the stockholders finance that capital? Either through their own peronal savings, or through a loan. And now the savings or collateral to that loan has lost value. So the stockholders have lost money.
Investing in capital is risky business, it isnt a one way gravy train like socialists want you to think. And the value added by capitalists is that they assume that risk, so the worker doesnt have to go into debt or put his own savings on the line.
It is simply an assertion. The website, while a nice emotive plea, isn’t evidence. So show that there is exploitation. Remember: EMOTIVE PLEAS DO NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE IS EXPLOITATION. YOUR HURT FEELINGS DON’T DEMONSTRATE EXPLOITATION. Get it now? You need logical argumentation, not sob-stories.
These questions are all meaningless because I am not arguing for worker self management in a capitalist system.
Any profit collected in capitalism that comes from worker exploitation is undeserved.
The workers creates the product itself. The owner does add a value but the owner’s job could easily be replaced with a democratic collective.
I wasn’t meaning for you to work at the website and base your whole reply on it.. I did show that there was exploitation. I show you the wages, and I showed the cheapest product they made. Leaving a difference of about 18 dollars, some of that goes to transporation but the rest goes to profit. Which is exploitation. The worker produces more than they are payed for also known as exploitation. How is that not exploitaition?
The owner adds value being the person who thought up the use in the first place. And the owner continues to adjust the firm’s capital to ensure that firm’s purpose continues to be sustainable. Thus, ensuring there are jobs for workers in the first place. SIGHS
This could easily be replaced with democratic control. The worker which produces the products and capital in the first place, ensures the owner collects profit and has a business.
Not to suggest that there is anything close to a free-market in modern capitalism today, but if this is the case, then why hasn’t it?
I could answer that in terms you might not like, that it has partially delivered all of its worth to a competitive system through successful corporations like Wal-Mart which give much power to localize employees at the expense of a great deal of loss with central control. But again, I don’t know how much you’ll agree with that.
Much like the “Austrian Business Cycle Theory” has already delivered most of its worth to modern neoclassical business cycle theories in the competitive field of ideas.
EDIT: Also, I think you largely over-estimate the potential for worker cooperatives. Though the idea of localized knowledge is a great one that even the most adement of “conservative types” supported, it has a great many flaws. Transaction costs, for example, seem to be the main block for democratic collectives to overcome.