19.5% of America is on Welfare?

[TruthNotBS]

Businesses should pay their own employees more so that their own employees buy
more of what they produce?

Exactly, capitalists in general, should pay their employees a living wage that creates more disposable income, for them to spend on......on what? Think? On the goods and services that employers are selling. Hello? You hurt the market when you pay workers less, and they have to scrap by to survive. Starvation wages, doesn't create a healthy economy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Exactly, capitalists in general, should pay their employees a living wage that creates more disposable income, for them to spend on......on what? Think? On the goods and services that employers are selling. Hello? You hurt the market when you pay workers less, and they have to scrap by to survive. Starvation wages, doesn't create a healthy economy.

If I pay my employees 10% more, will my sales increase 10%?

 

[dblack]

If I pay my employees 10% more, will my sales increase 10%?

Easily solved. We just need a law requiring employees to buy the product they help produce.

 

[hadit]

In the UK it is the same. The reason is that wages are too low and that people in work cant survive on their wages.
In effect it is a handout for shit employers.

Why aren't you demanding higher prices from the government?

 

[TruthNotBS]

If I pay my employees 10% more, will my sales increase 10%?

In the long run, it will expand your business because consumers will have more money to spend on your products. However, even if you had to accept a 10% reduction in your profits, that would be worth it for the community. You don't live in a vacuum, you live in a country with millions of other people. Most of your fellow Americans are working-class people, and if you hurt them, by paying them crap wages, that hurts the country and hence you as a capitalist. You're not the center of the universe or of the market economy, human labor is. Without wage labor, there's no market or profits. The economy is created to serve the public good, not a small group of capitalists.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In the long run, it will expand your business because consumers will have more money to spend on your products. However, even if you had to accept a 10% reduction in your profits, that would be worth it for the community. You don't live in a vacuum, you live in a country with millions of other people. Most of your fellow Americans are working-class people, and if you hurt them, by paying them crap wages, that hurts the country and hence you as a capitalist. You're not the center of the universe or of the market economy, human labor is. Without wage labor, there's no market or profits. The economy is created to serve the public good, not a small group of capitalists.

In the long run, it will expand your business because consumers will have more money to spend on your products.

In the long run? How long?

However, even if you had to accept a 10% reduction in your profits,
Why do you feel a 10% increase in wages would only reduce profits by 10%?
Is it because you're totally clueless about business and economics?

Most of your fellow Americans are working-class people, and if you hurt them, by paying them crap wages, that hurts the country
If stupid government policies drive me out of business, that hurts my fellow Americans, the country and me too.

You're not the center of the universe or of the market economy,

And neither are idiots inside and outside of government.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

No, we don't touch that food. It's toxic.

Good for you, but you missed the point. California businesses are closing because they can't profit with increased labor costs.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

It’s a meeting open to the public. Why do you oppose freedom of speech? Are you a Fascist?

What f-ing meeting? Are you drunk or high?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

In the long run, it will expand your business because consumers will have more money to spend on your products. However, even if you had to accept a 10% reduction in your profits, that would be worth it for the community. You don't live in a vacuum, you live in a country with millions of other people. Most of your fellow Americans are working-class people, and if you hurt them, by paying them crap wages, that hurts the country and hence you as a capitalist. You're not the center of the universe or of the market economy, human labor is. Without wage labor, there's no market or profits. The economy is created to serve the public good, not a small group of capitalists.

Commie, can you tell me when communism has ever worked?

 

[TruthNotBS]

In the long run, it will expand your business because consumers will have more money to spend on your products.

In the long run? How long?

However, even if you had to accept a 10% reduction in your profits,
Why do you feel a 10% increase in wages would only reduce profits by 10%?
Is it because you're totally clueless about business and economics?

Most of your fellow Americans are working-class people, and if you hurt them, by paying them crap wages, that hurts the country
If stupid government policies drive me out of business, that hurts my fellow Americans, the country and me too.

You're not the center of the universe or of the market economy,

And neither are idiots inside and outside of government.

Paying workers more doesn’t necessarily kill your profits, it often stimulates consumer demand and grows the overall market. Sure, it might not happen overnight, but that’s how a healthy economy works over time. Henry Ford, no socialist icon, famously understood that if he wanted people to buy his cars, his own workforce needed decent wages. It’s called the multiplier effect, more cash in the hands of consumers means more revenue potential for businesses, including yours.

Spare me the bullshit sob story about “stupid government policies” driving you out of business. If your entire business model rests on paying starvation wages, that’s a problem for both you and society. When wages are too low, we wind up with an underpaid populace that can’t buy homes, can’t invest in education, and can barely afford the necessities of life. That’s not a sustainable economy. In reality, capitalism is constantly “bailed out” by the public sector, through subsidies, tax breaks, or outright bailouts.

Most importantly, you’re not an island or living in a vacuum. Your company’s success depends on the broader community having enough disposable income to purchase what you’re selling. Treat your workforce like shit, and eventually, you’ll run out of customers who can actually afford your products or services. If that’s the hill you want to die on, fine do that, but don’t act shocked when your short-sighted stupid, sociopathic approach backfires. Paying a living wage and accepting a slight profit margin change isn’t “ignorance”; it’s long-term thinking that acknowledges we’re all interdependent in this economy.

You’re also conveniently ignoring the fact that in a 21st-century world of advanced automation, AI, and impending AGI, we don’t need capitalists soaking up all the profits for themselves. If machines can do the heavy lifting (and a lot of the brainwork, too), then what exactly do we need a handful of privileged, greedy capitalist assholes for? They’re nothing but worthless middlemen extracting wealth from the system. If businesses can run themselves with minimal human oversight, we could easily transition to a system where production is democratically managed and owned, by the American People (it becomes their commonwealth).

 

[TruthNotBS]

Commie, can you tell me when communism has ever worked?

Appealing to the past as if it’s the unchangeable blueprint for the future is a logical dead end. Nobody would argue that because airplanes didn’t exist two thousand years ago, they’d never exist at all. By the same token, dismissing communism, especially in an era of advanced automation and AI, because “it didn’t work in the past” ignores how drastically conditions have changed. Look at capitalism: it certainly didn’t pop up fully formed and triumphant. It took centuries of upheaval, technological progress, and even brutal exploitation before it replaced feudalism and entrenched itself as the dominant system.

Why wouldn’t the same logic apply to other systems? If we’re on the brink of an age where machines can handle most (if not all) productive tasks, the entire premise of wage labor, and by extension, a capitalist system, gets weaker by the day. Writing off the possibility of a different mode of production simply because prior attempts haven’t matched an ideal scenario is about as shortsighted as claiming powered flight was impossible in the 1400s. Conditions matter, technology matters, and history keeps marching forward. That’s not “wishful thinking”; it’s recognizing that social and economic systems evolve in response to changing material realities.

 

[initforme]

Good for you, but you missed the point. California businesses are closing because they can't profit with increased labor costs.

Understood. But then font hire.

 

[Unkotare]

Understood. But then font hire.

"Font hire"?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Appealing to the past as if it’s the unchangeable blueprint for the future is a logical dead end. Nobody would argue that because airplanes didn’t exist two thousand years ago, they’d never exist at all. By the same token, dismissing communism, especially in an era of advanced automation and AI, because “it didn’t work in the past” ignores how drastically conditions have changed. Look at capitalism: it certainly didn’t pop up fully formed and triumphant. It took centuries of upheaval, technological progress, and even brutal exploitation before it replaced feudalism and entrenched itself as the dominant system.

Why wouldn’t the same logic apply to other systems? If we’re on the brink of an age where machines can handle most (if not all) productive tasks, the entire premise of wage labor, and by extension, a capitalist system, gets weaker by the day. Writing off the possibility of a different mode of production simply because prior attempts haven’t matched an ideal scenario is about as shortsighted as claiming powered flight was impossible in the 1400s. Conditions matter, technology matters, and history keeps marching forward. That’s not “wishful thinking”; it’s recognizing that social and economic systems evolve in response to changing material realities.

airplanes work

Now answer my question. When are we fighting?

 

[otto105]

Something’s wrong when 20% of Americans need government assistance to survive.

What is the percentage of rural white residents on the dole in dates line WV or AK?

 

[TruthNotBS]

airplanes work

Now answer my question. When are we fighting?

You missed the point. Just because you assume something can't work today, doesn't imply it won't actually work in the future under different conditions. Capitalism didn't replace chattel slavery or feudalism overnight, and neither will marketless socialism or communism replace capitalism in a single attempt or event. We're now at the cusp of a new era of advanced automation and AI, hence we're entering into the socialist age.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

You missed the point. Just because you assume something can't work today, doesn't imply it won't actually work in the future under different conditions. Capitalism didn't replace chattel slavery or feudalism overnight, and neither will marketless socialism or communism replace capitalism in a single attempt or event. We're now at the cusp of a new era of advanced automation and AI, hence we're entering into the socialist age.

When has it ever worked? We are talking communism not socialism. Human nature won’t allow it to work. You missed the pt. So the answer is NEVER, correct? Yes or no?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Paying workers more doesn’t necessarily kill your profits, it often stimulates consumer demand and grows the overall market. Sure, it might not happen overnight, but that’s how a healthy economy works over time. Henry Ford, no socialist icon, famously understood that if he wanted people to buy his cars, his own workforce needed decent wages. It’s called the multiplier effect, more cash in the hands of consumers means more revenue potential for businesses, including yours.

Spare me the bullshit sob story about “stupid government policies” driving you out of business. If your entire business model rests on paying starvation wages, that’s a problem for both you and society. When wages are too low, we wind up with an underpaid populace that can’t buy homes, can’t invest in education, and can barely afford the necessities of life. That’s not a sustainable economy. In reality, capitalism is constantly “bailed out” by the public sector, through subsidies, tax breaks, or outright bailouts.

Most importantly, you’re not an island or living in a vacuum. Your company’s success depends on the broader community having enough disposable income to purchase what you’re selling. Treat your workforce like shit, and eventually, you’ll run out of customers who can actually afford your products or services. If that’s the hill you want to die on, fine do that, but don’t act shocked when your short-sighted stupid, sociopathic approach backfires. Paying a living wage and accepting a slight profit margin change isn’t “ignorance”; it’s long-term thinking that acknowledges we’re all interdependent in this economy.

You’re also conveniently ignoring the fact that in a 21st-century world of advanced automation, AI, and impending AGI, we don’t need capitalists soaking up all the profits for themselves. If machines can do the heavy lifting (and a lot of the brainwork, too), then what exactly do we need a handful of privileged, greedy capitalist assholes for? They’re nothing but worthless middlemen extracting wealth from the system. If businesses can run themselves with minimal human oversight, we could easily transition to a system where production is democratically managed and owned, by the American People (it's their commonwealth).

Paying workers more doesn’t necessarily kill your profits, it often stimulates consumer demand and grows the overall market.

Ok. Now why did you think a 10% increase in wages only reduces profit by 10%?

Henry Ford, no socialist icon, famously understood that if he wanted people to buy his cars, his own workforce needed decent wages.

Cool story, but that's not why he raised wages.

Spare me the bullshit sob story about “stupid government policies” driving you out of business.
Aren't you cute?

If your entire business model rests on paying starvation wages, that’s a problem for both you and society.

Tell me again how "starvation wages" are worse than zero wages.

When wages are too low, we wind up with an underpaid populace that can’t buy homes, can’t invest in education, and can barely afford the necessities of life.

Should an employer pay less, the same or more than the employee adds in value?

 

[TruthNotBS]

When has it ever worked? We are talking communism not socialism. Human nature won’t allow it to work. You missed the pt. So the answer is NEVER, correct? Yes or no?

Again, you continue to miss the point. Socialism is the process that leads to communism. Communism is a stateless society without socioeconomic classes or the need for money:

"A communist society would entail the absence of private property and social classes,[1] and ultimately money[6] and the state (or nation state).[7][8][9]"
Source: Communism - Wikipedia

Note: There's a distinction between private and personal property. Private property is all property that is used to exploit human labor for profit. Property that is for personal or public, rather than to exploit human labor for profit, is permitted in communism.

Socialism is the revolutionary process or initial stage that leads society into communism. Socialism can exist with markets, but eventually it moves into its more communist stage, where it doesn't need markets anymore thanks to technology. That's where we're now heading, thanks to advanced automation and AI. The USSR or Soviet Union was the United Soviet Socialist Republic. It was socialist, not communist yet. The goal is communism, the process is socialism.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Again, you continue to miss the point. Socialism is the process that leads to communism. Communism is a stateless society without socioeconomic classes or the need for money:

"A communist society would entail the absence of private property and social classes,[1] and ultimately money[6] and the state (or nation state).[7][8][9]"
Source: Communism - Wikipedia

Note: There's a distinction between private and personal property. Private property is all property that is used to exploit human labor for profit. Property that is for personal or public, rather than to exploit human labor for profit, is permitted in communism.

Socialism is the revolutionary process or initial stage that leads society into communism. Socialism can exist with markets, but eventually it moves into its more communist stage, where it doesn't need markets anymore thanks to technology. That's where we're now heading, thanks to advanced automation and AI. The USSR or Soviet Union was the United Soviet Socialist Republic. It was socialist, not communist yet. The goal is communism, the process is socialism.

I know what it is. You don’t. Correct the SU was socialist. It failed. You can’t even answer a simple question. You aren’t very bright.