Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Fair enough. But we're right back to where we started - workers deserve a fair share of the profit produced.
Why do they deserve a share of the profit?
When you accept a job offer, it's a verbal contract. You agreed to do X work for X wages. Unless part of your agreement was profit sharing, then the employer is not obligated to give that to you. You want to change the deal after the fact.
If profit sharing is important, then you decline job offers that don't offer profit sharing. But you can't agree to work for somebody and then start making up your own benefits while you work for them. You make that arrangement before you take the job.
I can't go to my employer and tell him I "deserve" six weeks of vacation a year. That's not what we agreed on. I agreed to work for him for two weeks of vacation a year. Now I can ask for him to change his policy, but he would have to change that policy for all his employees, and it's certainly not something I deserve, because what I deserve is what I agreed to do the work for.
Give me a brake. Jeeze! Companies change the fkn rules all the fkn time so put that shit back up in your closet on the top shelf, way in the back. And workers deserve good pay and bennies because with out the workers?...the employer would have nothing.
Then we're getting somewhere. If he's no more responsible, is he equally responsible or less responsible?Unlike the investor, he literally puts his life and health on the line.Everyone you mention is a worker. All deserve a fair share for their work.Interesting perspective.
To me, the people who do the work produce the wealth. The investors are the catalyst smoothing the way from raw product to finished product. They only supply the tools. The people using those tools do all the work that produces the wealth. Without them, the finest tools in the world are useless and worthless.
This is typical half-truth deception. You think design and innovation isn't work? You think the guy pushing the button on the mold press in an assembly line is the only guy who works? He creates the wealth?
Truth is that the "workers" are needed but so are the engineers, the investors, the managers, and the CEOs. Take any one out of the equation and no wealth is created.
Shareholders don't do a lick of work. Their share of the profits don't rise to the level of those doing the work.
Garbage, they take the risks. What risk dies the ditch digger take? He still gets paid for his hours. The shareholders could lose everything. They most certainly deserve their share.
Investors risk only replaceable funds.
I know. I am an investor and have been for 35 years. That's how I retired young.
The worker no more puts his life and health on the line than the investor. Investing could increase stress levels, and loss can be devastating to both mental and physical health.
The point I'm making is that the worker is no more responsible than any other part of the whole in creating wealth. That is the truth.
Worker compensation isn't determined in a vacuum. Workers' production value is relative to the profitability of the enterprise. The better job they do, the more profitable the operation and compensation should reflect that.
Compensation is a term of employment that needs to negotiated based on their value, not based on a calculus factoring how little people will accept vs cost of employee turnover.
Agreed. And the people who gave them more than they were worth are responsible for the demise.Fair enough. But we're right back to where we started - workers deserve a fair share of the profit produced.
Why do they deserve a share of the profit?
When you accept a job offer, it's a verbal contract. You agreed to do X work for X wages. Unless part of your agreement was profit sharing, then the employer is not obligated to give that to you. You want to change the deal after the fact.
If profit sharing is important, then you decline job offers that don't offer profit sharing. But you can't agree to work for somebody and then start making up your own benefits while you work for them. You make that arrangement before you take the job.
I can't go to my employer and tell him I "deserve" six weeks of vacation a year. That's not what we agreed on. I agreed to work for him for two weeks of vacation a year. Now I can ask for him to change his policy, but he would have to change that policy for all his employees, and it's certainly not something I deserve, because what I deserve is what I agreed to do the work for.
Give me a brake. Jeeze! Companies change the fkn rules all the fkn time so put that shit back up in your closet on the top shelf, way in the back. And workers deserve good pay and bennies because with out the workers?...the employer would have nothing.
And vice versa. The difference in financial reward is the difference in financial risk. The workers only deserve what is in proportion to their work. Workers getting pay and bennies disproportionate to their value is what killed whole industries in this country.
Then we're getting somewhere. If he's no more responsible, is he equally responsible or less responsible?Unlike the investor, he literally puts his life and health on the line.Everyone you mention is a worker. All deserve a fair share for their work.This is typical half-truth deception. You think design and innovation isn't work? You think the guy pushing the button on the mold press in an assembly line is the only guy who works? He creates the wealth?
Truth is that the "workers" are needed but so are the engineers, the investors, the managers, and the CEOs. Take any one out of the equation and no wealth is created.
Shareholders don't do a lick of work. Their share of the profits don't rise to the level of those doing the work.
Garbage, they take the risks. What risk dies the ditch digger take? He still gets paid for his hours. The shareholders could lose everything. They most certainly deserve their share.
Investors risk only replaceable funds.
I know. I am an investor and have been for 35 years. That's how I retired young.
The worker no more puts his life and health on the line than the investor. Investing could increase stress levels, and loss can be devastating to both mental and physical health.
The point I'm making is that the worker is no more responsible than any other part of the whole in creating wealth. That is the truth.
Germany has free tuition like California used to have, and they are doing well overall.You cannot tax the rich enough to pay for college for everyone. Everyone will end up paying higher taxes for it, just like in the countries that already have "free" college.In California there was no tuition for state residents. Then Ronald Reagan became governor in '67 and one of his first decrees was establishing tuition for everyone. That priced college out of my reach and the reach of many young men who then were drafted and sent to Viet Nam. Some of them came home, still unable to afford the high cost even with the GI Bill stipend of $175/moIf Germany & several other countries can do it, then why not the richest country in the world????
7 countries where college is free
Hillary's plan might help get things back to normal, for everyone in the country.
If you're actually asking me, my first priority is value. Cost is secondary. It doesn't matter if I'm buying a service, a product or a company. Getting full value for every dollar I spend is more important than number of dollars involved.Worker compensation isn't determined in a vacuum. Workers' production value is relative to the profitability of the enterprise. The better job they do, the more profitable the operation and compensation should reflect that.
Compensation is a term of employment that needs to negotiated based on their value, not based on a calculus factoring how little people will accept vs cost of employee turnover.
No, that's exactly what it's determined on.
Let me ask: do you pay people that work for you more than they are worth? If your transmission goes in your car, and you get three estimates, do you choose the highest one? If you need a lawn care company and get three estimates, do you choose the one that will cut your lawn for $25.00 a cut, or the one that charges $85.00 a cut?
Nobody overpays people that work for them, so why would you expect employers to?
Of course the rich need others to make money, as Al pointed out the obvious.
Why do you need to compare to the negative extreme; getting desperate?
How about Germany & other northern EU countries, where there's more equality, as well as respect for laborers and consumers.
Unfortunately, USA-style greed & business non-ethics is invading EU with global economic & IT trends.
.
If you're actually asking me, my first priority is value. Cost is secondary. It doesn't matter if I'm buying a service, a product or a company. Getting full value for every dollar I spend is more important than number of dollars involved.
They we've come to the point where we have differing opinions.Then we're getting somewhere. If he's no more responsible, is he equally responsible or less responsible?Unlike the investor, he literally puts his life and health on the line.Everyone you mention is a worker. All deserve a fair share for their work.
Shareholders don't do a lick of work. Their share of the profits don't rise to the level of those doing the work.
Garbage, they take the risks. What risk dies the ditch digger take? He still gets paid for his hours. The shareholders could lose everything. They most certainly deserve their share.
Investors risk only replaceable funds.
I know. I am an investor and have been for 35 years. That's how I retired young.
The worker no more puts his life and health on the line than the investor. Investing could increase stress levels, and loss can be devastating to both mental and physical health.
The point I'm making is that the worker is no more responsible than any other part of the whole in creating wealth. That is the truth.
In most cases he's less tesponsible, since you asked.
Germany has free tuition like California used to have, and they are doing well overall.
.
They we've come to the point where we have differing opinions.
It may be because I worked my way up through the ranks, but I believe I understand value of labor.
Since you're asking me personally, I have to say I would have to consider all the factors. I'm a careful man and think things through.If you're actually asking me, my first priority is value. Cost is secondary. It doesn't matter if I'm buying a service, a product or a company. Getting full value for every dollar I spend is more important than number of dollars involved.
You are trying to drift off. So let's assume you are getting the same value for your dollar on all three estimates, which one do you choose?
You and I could be twins. What are we arguing about?You and I could be twins. What are we arguing about?They we've come to the point where we have differing opinions.
It may be because I worked my way up through the ranks, but I believe I understand value of labor.
I'm a worker myself. I work for a small company which just about doubled in size since I started 22 years ago. But I don't expect my employer to pay me more money than he could pay somebody else to do the same job. I don't care how much my employer makes. What I care about is that he provides me with the pay and benefits we agreed on. If I become dissatisfied with our original agreement and he refuses to renegotiate, then I have the option to make that arrangement with somebody else; perhaps his competition.
As I recall, the tuition for the University of California system went from zero to $750 per semester ($5,400 today). There were no student loans in those days. We worked our way through college, but a $10,000+/yr nut right out of the blue was catastrophic for a teenager.In California there was no tuition for state residents. Then Ronald Reagan became governor in '67 and one of his first decrees was establishing tuition for everyone. That priced college out of my reach and the reach of many young men who then were drafted and sent to Viet Nam. Some of them came home, still unable to afford the high cost even with the GI Bill stipend of $175/moIf Germany & several other countries can do it, then why not the richest country in the world????
7 countries where college is free
.
Hillary's plan might help get things back to normal, for everyone in the country.
wasn't college like 4 grand per year back then?
i'm going to have to call BS on that story
how about reducing tuition at colleges and books are so fucking overpriced it's insane...reduce the cost of those.
As I recall, the tuition for the University of California system went from zero to $750 per semester ($5,400 today). There were no student loans in those days. We worked our way through college, but a $10,000+/yr nut right out of the blue was catastrophic for a teenager.In California there was no tuition for state residents. Then Ronald Reagan became governor in '67 and one of his first decrees was establishing tuition for everyone. That priced college out of my reach and the reach of many young men who then were drafted and sent to Viet Nam. Some of them came home, still unable to afford the high cost even with the GI Bill stipend of $175/moIf Germany & several other countries can do it, then why not the richest country in the world????
7 countries where college is free
.
Hillary's plan might help get things back to normal, for everyone in the country.
wasn't college like 4 grand per year back then?
i'm going to have to call BS on that story
how about reducing tuition at colleges and books are so fucking overpriced it's insane...reduce the cost of those.
Can't, its a Democratic party cash cow and students are their targets.
Why can't we appreciate a win-win philosophy?This is the leftist hypocrisy: If a worker goes out to earn the most that they can, that's admirable. If a company does the same, it's evil.Of course the rich need others to make money, as Al pointed out the obvious.
Why do you need to compare to the negative extreme; getting desperate?
How about Germany & other northern EU countries, where there's more equality, as well as respect for laborers and consumers.
Unfortunately, USA-style greed & business non-ethics is invading EU with global economic & IT trends.
Germany has free tuition like California used to have, and they are doing well overall.You cannot tax the rich enough to pay for college for everyone. Everyone will end up paying higher taxes for it, just like in the countries that already have "free" college.In California there was no tuition for state residents. Then Ronald Reagan became governor in '67 and one of his first decrees was establishing tuition for everyone. That priced college out of my reach and the reach of many young men who then were drafted and sent to Viet Nam. Some of them came home, still unable to afford the high cost even with the GI Bill stipend of $175/moIf Germany & several other countries can do it, then why not the richest country in the world????
7 countries where college is free
Hillary's plan might help get things back to normal, for everyone in the country.
.
They we've come to the point where we have differing opinions.Then we're getting somewhere. If he's no more responsible, is he equally responsible or less responsible?Unlike the investor, he literally puts his life and health on the line.Garbage, they take the risks. What risk dies the ditch digger take? He still gets paid for his hours. The shareholders could lose everything. They most certainly deserve their share.
Investors risk only replaceable funds.
I know. I am an investor and have been for 35 years. That's how I retired young.
The worker no more puts his life and health on the line than the investor. Investing could increase stress levels, and loss can be devastating to both mental and physical health.
The point I'm making is that the worker is no more responsible than any other part of the whole in creating wealth. That is the truth.
In most cases he's less tesponsible, since you asked.
It may be because I worked my way up through the ranks, but I believe I understand value of labor.
Neither is street repair "free" for drivers who use the road the most. It's about infrastructure, and no-tuition college for smart students (usually only 18 yrs old) who qualify is an investment in social infrastructure.And Germany pays higher taxes than we do. California is pretty high as well. Free college isn't free.Germany has free tuition like California used to have, and they are doing well overall.You cannot tax the rich enough to pay for college for everyone. Everyone will end up paying higher taxes for it, just like in the countries that already have "free" college.In California there was no tuition for state residents. Then Ronald Reagan became governor in '67 and one of his first decrees was establishing tuition for everyone. That priced college out of my reach and the reach of many young men who then were drafted and sent to Viet Nam. Some of them came home, still unable to afford the high cost even with the GI Bill stipend of $175/moIf Germany & several other countries can do it, then why not the richest country in the world????
7 countries where college is free
Hillary's plan might help get things back to normal, for everyone in the country.
