Moral/Economic question

Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4160
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Moral/Economic question

Since I purchased my house I have been commuting a lot further to work at the appraisal company. For those of you who don't have the privilege, commuting sucks. I used to like driving a lot but I am really getting sick of it and now that I have a place of my own, staying in hotels is far less attractive. Today, it occurred to me that there really is no reason for me to be working anymore- this is what other people exist for.

 

When I invested, I insisted on doing the work mainly because I wanted to understand the business I was investing in and the company was really shorthanded at the time. Now that it is successful, they don't really need me and I could live perfectly comfortable without the salary I am drawing. I am quite comfortable that I know enough about the business to be an absentee owner. This got me thinking, what is the good left wing/progressive thing to do?

 

Unemployment is really high in Ohio. I could hire someone pretty cheap to do what I am doing and still collect an obscene profit. So I would be contributing to lowering unemployment and be giving a deserving person the means to support their family, while freeing myself of the responsibility of having to work.  


However, I am often told that capitalists are evil because they make tons of money doing nothing but "pushing papers" while the little man is suffering and doing "all the hard work". So using that belief, it would be most moral for me to continue doing the work myself. After all, at least now I am "working hard" to earn some of my money. If I quit, I wouldn't really be working at all.

 

I guess the main question is this: Is it more moral to make a profit without working at all while providing a person with a job, or to do the physical labor yourself and therefore deny someone else the job? 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Personally, I would

Personally, I would definitely hire someone to do the work and completely free my time, so that I have a valuable asset as opposed to a job. That is what I would prefer to do, so to me, that is functionally what is most "moral."

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:I guess

Beyond Saving wrote:

I guess the main question is this: Is it more moral to make a profit without working at all while providing a person with a job, or to do the physical labor yourself and therefore deny someone else the job? 

 

I once had a 50 mile one way commute.  Moving was too expensive at the time - as in where I lived my house was valued at about 1/3 the lowest priced house in the town where I worked.  Sucks.  During one ice storm, it took us 6 hours to drive that 50 miles.  Most of it spent waiting for the sanding trucks - as they sanded and sanded and sanded.....

As for to work or not --- do what you damn well please.  I'd be happy to do your job for you and work for a pittance.  I'm sure you can find someone equally desperate nearby.  On the other hand, if you have visions of being bored out of your gourd - go do some work.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
 Either way is fine in my

 Either way is fine in my book.  I'm not sure what I would if I were in the same situation, I don't so much identify myself with WHAT I do, as to HOW I do it.  As for the 'hard working' thing... I hate lazy people!  Due to my culture and  upbringing I have a strong gang like mentality bias, because of this, I have an irrational dislike for 'ratting out' your coworkers.  I'm the sucker that ends up doing all the extra work, while making more or less the same money as everyone else in my department, just to live up to some idealistic self-set moral standard.  

Sometimes being aware of the irrationality makes it no less difficult to sidestep.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
If you could

 

find some one reliable who won't take advantage of you, and you can afford it, why not pull back a bit and telecommute for a while and see how you like it.

People pretend this is not so, but the money cycle is necessary. When some numb nuts buys a ferrari, there's money going to the technicians, designers, painters, parts manufacturers, tyre people, service people and all the rest.

Money tends not to sit around. It gets spent and in this spending it drives multiple layers of the economy. So long as you're not using child slave labour, do what you want. Spend your time thinking of fun ways to put your money into other people's pockets. 

Think of capitalism as a form of self perpetuating charity...

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Since I

Beyond Saving wrote:

Since I purchased my house I have been commuting a lot further to work at the appraisal company. For those of you who don't have the privilege, commuting sucks. I used to like driving a lot but I am really getting sick of it and now that I have a place of my own, staying in hotels is far less attractive. Today, it occurred to me that there really is no reason for me to be working anymore- this is what other people exist for.

 

When I invested, I insisted on doing the work mainly because I wanted to understand the business I was investing in and the company was really shorthanded at the time. Now that it is successful, they don't really need me and I could live perfectly comfortable without the salary I am drawing. I am quite comfortable that I know enough about the business to be an absentee owner. This got me thinking, what is the good left wing/progressive thing to do?

 

Unemployment is really high in Ohio. I could hire someone pretty cheap to do what I am doing and still collect an obscene profit. So I would be contributing to lowering unemployment and be giving a deserving person the means to support their family, while freeing myself of the responsibility of having to work.  


However, I am often told that capitalists are evil

I'd say you're often told that overly wealthy capitalists are cynical, self serving and shortsighted, and lets face it, you couldn't have done a better job of proving them right here.. hey?

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

because they make tons of money doing nothing but "pushing papers" while the little man is suffering and doing "all the hard work". So using that belief, it would be most moral for me to continue doing the work myself. After all, at least now I am "working hard" to earn some of my money. If I quit, I wouldn't really be working at all.

Congratulations on completely missing the point. You make money already that doesn't come from hard work, and you're comfortable with labelling your projected profit "obscene" which is morally ambiguous in itself. The point of questioning the capitalist ethos is why have an obscene profit where a tidy one would provide equally well and probably translate to a bigger contribution to the community by you. A man who's working hard every day to provide some good or service can say that's his contribution to the good of the society that supports his lifestyle, but since you aren't working hard for that "some" money, what's yours?

 

Quote:

I guess the main question is this: Is it more moral to make a profit without working at all while providing a person with a job, or to do the physical labor yourself and therefore deny someone else the job? 

It's moral to be contributing in some way that justifies what you recieve, right? isn't that the essence of right wing arguments against social welfare? So why not apply that to yourself for once and stop bitching about the left trying to take your precious money away from you. If, in your own words, your share is obscene, then by your own standard your contribution should be equally so. Is it?

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4160
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Congratulations

Eloise wrote:

Congratulations on completely missing the point. You make money already that doesn't come from hard work, and you're comfortable with labelling your projected profit "obscene" which is morally ambiguous in itself. The point of questioning the capitalist ethos is why have an obscene profit where a tidy one would provide equally well and probably translate to a bigger contribution to the community by you. A man who's working hard every day to provide some good or service can say that's his contribution to the good of the society that supports his lifestyle, but since you aren't working hard for that "some" money, what's yours?

Well it is all mine (well actually I split the profits with 3 other co-owners) but it is all ours. I would expect it would cost me around 40-50k/year to hire someone to take my place with the physical labor and do the rest over the phone. So should I limit myself to that and continue working?  

 

Eloise wrote:

It's moral to be contributing in some way that justifies what you recieve, right? isn't that the essence of right wing arguments against social welfare?

Well from the evil right wing perspective I contributed far more to the company than anyone else when I wrote the check that started it and paid everyones salaries for 6 months before we got our first client without any guarantees on a return. 

 

Eloise wrote:

So why not apply that to yourself for once and stop bitching about the left trying to take your precious money away from you. If, in your own words, your share is obscene, then by your own standard your contribution should be equally so. Is it?

I would say that my contribution was obscene as well, it is the largest check I have ever written in my life but that is besides the point. I am still confused as to what you think I ought to do. It seems like no matter what I do I will be criticized by the leftys. Without collecting my obscene profits from other businesses, I could never have imagined investing in starting this one up which means we wouldn't be having this conversation because it wouldn't exist. So now, I have two choices- work for no real gain for anyone other than my personal fulfillment or leave and let someone else work the job while I go off and probably invest in something new. I guess that in your opinion I should continue working my job at say the 40k salary and sell off everything else I own (maybe give the proceeds to charity or something) and never create another business again?


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Eloise

Beyond Saving wrote:

Eloise wrote:

Congratulations on completely missing the point. You make money already that doesn't come from hard work, and you're comfortable with labelling your projected profit "obscene" which is morally ambiguous in itself. The point of questioning the capitalist ethos is why have an obscene profit where a tidy one would provide equally well and probably translate to a bigger contribution to the community by you. A man who's working hard every day to provide some good or service can say that's his contribution to the good of the society that supports his lifestyle, but since you aren't working hard for that "some" money, what's yours?

Well it is all mine (well actually I split the profits with 3 other co-owners) but it is all ours. I would expect it would cost me around 40-50k/year to hire someone to take my place with the physical labor and do the rest over the phone. So should I limit myself to that and continue working?  

Well to be frank, that's a choice best made on the basis of your personal choice, and not really of any consequence to left values otherwise. The question that would come from the left, really, is not who are you going to pay to do this existing work, but, what purpose is all this 'other' money you're talking about going to? Whether you work or you don't, is the money your making doing anything purposeful in society?

What makes us lefties cranky more than anything is money that serves no more purpose than being a big number, a notch in someones belt. This system was intended for greater things than that, is all.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Eloise wrote:

It's moral to be contributing in some way that justifies what you recieve, right? isn't that the essence of right wing arguments against social welfare?

Well from the evil right wing perspective I contributed far more to the company than anyone else when I wrote the check that started it and paid everyones salaries for 6 months before we got our first client without any guarantees on a return. 

All very well, but how's this company serving the common good? or is it just serving you an obsecene profit? What I mean is, think about that capital you invested initially, clearly a huge amount, have you put that money to work solely for the return you're getting now? If so, that's fine, its what capitalism is about, but it leaves you no room to be indignant when someone questions whether you have made an equitable contribution to society by it.

Beyond Saving wrote:

It seems like no matter what I do I will be criticized by the leftys. Without collecting my obscene profits from other businesses, I could never have imagined investing in starting this one up which means we wouldn't be having this conversation because it wouldn't exist. So now, I have two choices- work for no real gain for anyone other than my personal fulfillment or leave and let someone else work the job while I go off and probably invest in something new. I guess that in your opinion I should continue working my job at say the 40k salary and sell off everything else I own (maybe give the proceeds to charity or something) and never create another business again?

In my opinion you should make the choice as to whether to work that job based on your own personal goals. You have a right to be happy and fulfilled and you have done the best you know how to earn that as well. So good on you, no criticism applies.

If you genuinely want to understand where I am coming from then you might have to be open to seeing things in a way you don't want to. I would have all obscene profits turned voluntarily to any number of means of improving and bettering the community good. Starting a new enterprise could easily be one of those things.

Ultimately, the question to me is not how much money you have or even if you've earned it, but what are you going to do with it? The one thing that would most offend my sensibilities is to have it sit around getting us all nowhere.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


sourkroutamen
sourkroutamen's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2011-04-08
User is offlineOffline
So if you hire someone, he

So if you hire someone, he gets a needed job, you are saved the effort, you make money, the left looks down on you.

If you do it yourself, nobody gets a needed job, you are stuck doing the physical work, you make money, and the left looks down on you. Is it more complicated than that?

I don't think the left cares so much about this decision actually as it cares about what happens to your "obscene profit."


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
sourkroutamen wrote:So if

sourkroutamen wrote:

So if you hire someone, he gets a needed job, you are saved the effort, you make money, the left looks down on you.

If you do it yourself, nobody gets a needed job, you are stuck doing the physical work, you make money, and the left looks down on you. Is it more complicated than that?

Try, the left doesn't give a rats. Someone is going to work and someone is going to get paid. It's one job, ffs. Squabbling over the minutuae is merely the caricature that the right wishes to foist on those who disagree with them, it's a straw man.

 

sourkroutamen wrote:

I don't think the left cares so much about this decision actually as it cares about what happens to your "obscene profit."

Bingo. Why play this down? If this profit is truly "obscene" then what is it's place in a reciprocal society? Enlighten me?

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4160
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:All very well,

Eloise wrote:

All very well, but how's this company serving the common good? or is it just serving you an obsecene profit?

It is appraising houses for property taxes which I am told go for many programs that are absolutely vital to society. Personally, I would rather see property taxes disappear but I lost that battle. I invested solely for the obscene profit and I kind of liked the idea of making money off the system that so many criticized me for trying to destroy when I was active in politics. So according to the left, my company makes a vital contribution to society. Personally, I think it is a complete waste for society and little would make me happier if this particular company was made irrelevant by the repeal of property taxes.  

 

Eloise wrote:

If you genuinely want to understand where I am coming from then you might have to be open to seeing things in a way you don't want to. I would have all obscene profits turned voluntarily to any number of means of improving and bettering the community good. Starting a new enterprise could easily be one of those things. Ultimately, the question to me is not how much money you have or even if you've earned it, but what are you going to do with it? The one thing that would most offend my sensibilities is to have it sit around getting us all nowhere.

What do you think capitalists do with money? I don't know anyone with serious money who puts their money in a mattress. I take my profits from one enterprise and start another one or I use it to purchase something I desire which as AE points out hires a lot of people but for the most part I don't consume much. That hasn't spared me the criticism of the left. Which is why I started thinking about what their opinion would be, because I honestly am not sure. On one hand I am constantly told it is exploitive to hire workers and make a profit on them, on the other I am told that us evil business people are responsible for the poor economy because we are not hiring. 

 

Eloise wrote:

Try, the left doesn't give a rats. Someone is going to work and someone is going to get paid. It's one job, ffs. Squabbling over the minutuae is merely the caricature that the right wishes to foist on those who disagree with them, it's a straw man.

How best to understand the macro than to understand the micro? This is what confuses me most about the left in general. I am constantly told that I ought to do "whats best for society" and think about the "common good" but when it comes to the details of exactly WHAT I should do I rarely get a good answer. I think the error many on the left make is that they fail to recognize that macro economics is the sum total of micro economics. Every minor decision adds up to make the overall economy. I believe the most effective way to understand any economy is to understand the smallest decisions being made and why they are being made.  


For example, I recently asked on this site what I should pay my employees since I am always told that the common worker is exploited and not paid enough. I can go into great detail of exactly how I determine how much to pay a given employee. The left generally completely fails to tell me how I should determine payscale, but they often criticize what I am doing. Nor does anyone tell me exactly how to determine whether a profit is appropriate or obscene. I don't understand how they think that a company is going to come into existence at all if people like me don't take our obscene profits and gamble on new businesses.

 

  

 


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Do what you will but harm no

Do what you will but harm no one. Simple and pagan.


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:It is

Beyond Saving wrote:

It is appraising houses for property taxes which I am told go for many programs that are absolutely vital to society. Personally, I would rather see property taxes disappear but I lost that battle. I invested solely for the obscene profit and I kind of liked the idea of making money off the system that so many criticized me for trying to destroy when I was active in politics. So according to the left, my company makes a vital contribution to society. Personally, I think it is a complete waste for society and little would make me happier if this particular company was made irrelevant by the repeal of property taxes.  

 

Well you've gotta love it for the irony, at least. Smiling

I'm not naive enough to think that tax dollars are going to vital services in your country, that's fairly obviously not been true for some time. Strangely either wing of politics blames each other for this, right says that government is a special interest cash cow in and of itself, while the left argues back that it only got that way coerced (and enabled) by the power of monolithic capitalism. Either way, we're both screwed.

I would like to see property investment dead as much as you might like to see it untaxed. We're really polar on that issue, it seems cause I believe there is no ambiguity in whether profiting from an arbitrary claim over the fundament of reality is unethical, it just is. We didn't make the earth, seriously, it made us; the idea of owning it is shonky enough, let alone the gall to impose a premium on others for it. You can have your world where space itself is a deniable commodity, I personally cannot see how that will ever not be ultimately equal to taking lives.

 

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

What do you think capitalists do with money?

I believe capitalists do various things with money. Some of those things are wholly offensive, like subverting policy of the people's government for singular ends or land investment for an "as purchased" market inflated return; some things stink just a little bit, like investing cynically in some high end grab at a pool of bureaucratic slush... (naming no names Sticking out tongue) purely for the large return; some things are really quite good, like investing in new products and services, contributing to charitable interests and of course creating job opportunities for the up and coming.

Beyond Saving wrote:

but for the most part I don't consume much.

I'd rather you did to be honest. When people don't consume, other people get laid off. It's not automatically better to consume less than others, especially when you have a far greater share of the means to do so. 

As a lefty, almost nothing pisses me off more than the markets' propensity to give the top 1% of earners less reason to spend. In the desire to attract middle class spending producers give basically a free living to the richest class. Money the top tier would otherwise spend on goods and services that the lower classes produce is removed from the economy in a cyclic fashion, leaving ever smaller amounts for the lower earners to cut each others lunch over. Same goes for politicians recieveing a salary package few can dream of in addition to all expenses paid living, it's a farce. There's nothing more a drain  on the good of society than money going by the truckload where it's never going to be reinvested into the community.

/rant

So, that aside, if you don't have personal needs and wants equal to your money I would have you find another way to get it out there moving us all along in some way. I can't in right conscience just stamp approval on low consumption, per se.

Beyond Saving wrote:

How best to understand the macro than to understand the micro? This is what confuses me most about the left in general. I am constantly told that I ought to do "whats best for society" and think about the "common good" but when it comes to the details of exactly WHAT I should do I rarely get a good answer. I think the error many on the left make is that they fail to recognize that macro economics is the sum total of micro economics. Every minor decision adds up to make the overall economy. I believe the most effective way to understand any economy is to understand the smallest decisions being made and why they are being made.  

 

Well there's more than one way to skin the animal, is all I'm saying. So you had better make a choice that suits your personal goals, your happiness contributes to the good of society too. When you're pleased with your decision that's one more cheery fulfilled human on the planet and that does us all good. And either way you go it's a means to a positive outcome from the perspective of the left, if you're going to stay at the job and take in more cash then turn whatever you don't need to some good end, somewhat, equivalent of hiring an out of work joe. If you stay home and hire someone else it's all good you're offering up an opportunity he/she wouldn't otherwise have and their money is sure to go towards keeping someone else, also, in a productive position. 

So you see I do have an eye on the micro of the situation. It's just different to what you were expecting.

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

For example, I recently asked on this site what I should pay my employees since I am always told that the common worker is exploited and not paid enough. I can go into great detail of exactly how I determine how much to pay a given employee. The left generally completely fails to tell me how I should determine payscale, but they often criticize what I am doing.

I would answer that by saying you should determine it thus:

1. Add up what it's gonna cost the employee to live healthily and maintain his/herself, professionally in the job.

2. Add to that a fair incentive for loyal service.

3. Add to that a bonus scheme contingent on performance.

1+2+3 is a realistic and fair salary for anyone.

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Nor does anyone tell me exactly how to determine whether a profit is appropriate or obscene.

As a rule of thumb, I'd say a profit is obscene if its beyond your imagination to do new stuff with it, and where it exists entirely as an end in itself. Especially the latter, regardless of the size.

 

 

  

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4160
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Beyond Saving

Eloise wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

but for the most part I don't consume much.

I'd rather you did to be honest. When people don't consume, other people get laid off. It's not automatically better to consume less than others, especially when you have a far greater share of the means to do so. 

As a lefty, almost nothing pisses me off more than the markets' propensity to give the top 1% of earners less reason to spend. In the desire to attract middle class spending producers give basically a free living to the richest class. Money the top tier would otherwise spend on goods and services that the lower classes produce is removed from the economy in a cyclic fashion, leaving ever smaller amounts for the lower earners to cut each others lunch over. Same goes for politicians recieveing a salary package few can dream of in addition to all expenses paid living, it's a farce. There's nothing more a drain  on the good of society than money going by the truckload where it's never going to be reinvested into the community.

/rant

So, that aside, if you don't have personal needs and wants equal to your money I would have you find another way to get it out there moving us all along in some way. I can't in right conscience just stamp approval on low consumption, per se.

Sure, but even though I don't consume much, mostly by personal choice (I really do want a personal jet but I don't have enough yet) my money is always moving. There simply isn't much you can do with money to take it out of the economy. Even leaving it sitting in a money market my money is benefiting the bank allowing them to loan more out. Probably the only way to keep money from circulating is to keep it in the closet, which as far as I know only drug dealers and mobsters do. I suppose I could light cigars with Benjamins but I'm not that cynical yet.   

 

Eloise wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

For example, I recently asked on this site what I should pay my employees since I am always told that the common worker is exploited and not paid enough. I can go into great detail of exactly how I determine how much to pay a given employee. The left generally completely fails to tell me how I should determine payscale, but they often criticize what I am doing.

I would answer that by saying you should determine it thus:

1. Add up what it's gonna cost the employee to live healthily and maintain his/herself, professionally in the job.

2. Add to that a fair incentive for loyal service.

3. Add to that a bonus scheme contingent on performance.

1+2+3 is a realistic and fair salary for anyone.

 

 

Hmmmm.... interesting. That is basically what I do except I don't worry about #1, how is it even possible for me to know how much a prospective employee needs? I make an offer based on how much I am willing to pay for an employee with the skills they have. It is up to the prospective employee to say yes, no or make a counter offer if they think that the amount I offered is not enough. If the prospective employee does not think they are worth more, I don't see any reason for me to believe they are. It really isn't that different from deciding what to offer to purchase a car. You judge quality and the number of similar cars out there, look at the market and what other similar cars go for and make an offer, usually with the intention of leaving some bargaining room if the seller demands more. 

 

Eloise wrote:

As a rule of thumb, I'd say a profit is obscene if its beyond your imagination to do new stuff with it, and where it exists entirely as an end in itself. Especially the latter, regardless of the size.

 

Beyond my imagination? I have a pretty big imagination. I imagine if I was as wealthy as Bill Gates I could still find plenty to do with it. I would be like Richard Branson and build myself a spaceship. I don't know if it would be useful but it would be cool. As far as the end in itself, I guess I am a little guilty of that. I make money because making money is fun, and what else is there to do while I am on this world? Although for me it is more about the gamble. I have always been a gambler at heart and sometimes long for the days when every penny I had was at risk. I enjoy investing in new businesses because it is fun to watch them grow. Once they are working I have a tendency to get bored with them and move on, which is why I generally stick to investing rather than actually building it personally. I was a complete failure as an owner/operator because I quit as soon as I started making a profit.

 

Originally, I was kind of looking for a more traditional american style leftist in this thread i.e. one who will scream that they aren't anti-capitalism yet criticize capitalism when it is working. I would be interested in going further into the issue of benefits/negatives of private property ownership but don't have time this morning. How would you envision a world without private property working?  


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 Well, have yo considered

 

Well, have yo considered growing the company? You would know the business far better than I could but if you are solely working houses today, adding another market segment might make it viable to open a second office closer to home. Certainly, I don't have to tell you all that much about the value of diversity.

 

Just for grins, let's say that you can get some action in the commercial real estate market. Every time you find a strip mall owner who can reasonably use your services, that means that next year, rents don't go up quite as much. Of course, you are not responsible for the secondary effects on the local economy but if a number of small businesses have a bit more cash, that will help the community out in some real ways.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Making money out of nothing

Making money out of nothing is bad. But working in a lousy job with commuting and not giving the job to someone who needs it more is not good either. What is work for, anyway? The less work, the lesser GDP, the less it costs our planet that keeps us alive. I think it's the duty of all self-reliant people to stop regular work as soon as possible and start with self-realization.

My advice is, stop working, settle down, hire someone. BUT make sure you do it properly, hire someone who won't hate your guts for living of his labor. And if there will be any initiative against speculation and exploitation as such, support it. (like the resource-based economy, you know) Hiring one worker won't hurt anyone and will help you, the real problem is with people who do it en large and make their lives hell. 

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Originally, I was kind of looking for a more traditional american style leftist in this thread i.e. one who will scream that they aren't anti-capitalism yet criticize capitalism when it is working. I would be interested in going further into the issue of benefits/negatives of private property ownership but don't have time this morning. How would you envision a world without private property working?  

 

I don't have a clue as to who you are talking about.  </sarcasm>

If you were Bill Gates, I would have some choice words for you - like why aren't you helping out people in your own country a little more?  Or if you were one of the big banks that has lots of money and is not loaning it out to people. 

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/04/21/stingy-megabanks-swimming-in-cash/?section=money_topstories wrote:

Still, it's clear the banks are not lending quite as freely as their press release claims would have you believe. And the declines are all the more striking because they come when the banks, like their perk-addicted CEOs, are swimming in cash.

 

Note the article is dated April 21, 2011 and is from CNN.  I don't know if CNN is considered right or left anymore.  And I don't particularly care.

I don't believe there was ever a time when no one "owned" any of the property.  Maybe the closest is the "commons" in England, or even farther back to nomadic hunter gatherers.  No, the hunter gatherers probably thought of "their" grounds and fought off other groups.  And the "commons" were actually owned by the local nobility.  The enclosure of the commons in England killed a lot of people and drove some of the early immigration to the US - and it strongly influenced our property laws.

The "commons" were held for grazing and farming, not usually for living space.  This concept is probably not where Eloise was headed.

There are some religious communities that do not have personal ownership.  Though for the governmental agencies, the property is said to be "owned" by the church.  The Hudderites, the Amish, eg.  I am familiar with one of the Hudderite colonies in Washington state.  They seemed to be content.

But I notice - everyone wants to have a space they can call their own.  If you rent, it is "your" apartment.  If you own, and have a mortgage, it is still "your" house as long as you can still make the payments.  Hell, even in cubicle land (aka corporate America), it is "your" cubicle and "your" workstation and "your" chair, etc.

Anyway, back to the original question - I gave you my answer.  For one lousy job, for a guy who can't afford his own jet, who cares?  It isn't all that much impact on the economy.  It will make a big impact on the person you hire.  So be generous, give someone who is out of work a job.  No skin off your nose from the sounds of it.

And, I am not anti-capitalism.  I am with Adam Smith.  Without regulations, the "captains of industry" will collude to set prices and wages.  And for the free market to be free, they must be prevented from doing so.  I am also repelled by Milton Freeman's example of Hong Kong.  Without active tax and regulatory support, the middle class will almost totally disappear.  In Hong Kong, in the 1980s, they had the most unregulated market in the world.  And the middle class was almost all ex-patriots from other countries, assigned to the Hong Kong offices of very large corporations.  I wouldn't like to see that happen in the US.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3123
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
The problem with leftists

The problem with leftists like Eloise's philosophy is that it rewards failure and does not reward what works. So in the long run, it is not what is best for everyone.

B.S. has created an efficient business, he provides a valuable service that does not require a great deal of his time to make money. That's efficiency. Hard work does not equal efficiency.

 

The leftist seem to advocate things like minimum wage, unions, guaranteed right to work. Things that reward inefficiency, lack of innovation and failure. In the long run bad for society and the economy.

So I don't think you should have any moral problems with not working and making money off investments. If you want to help others, you should volunteer to teach what you know about business.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


nutxaq
nutxaq's picture
Posts: 399
Joined: 2008-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:I guess

Beyond Saving wrote:
I guess the main question is this: Is it more moral to make a profit without working at all while providing a person with a job, or to do the physical labor yourself and therefore deny someone else the job? 

If you're going to pay this person a fair wage for the work that they do and not cut corners and overload them with work at every turn in the interest of increasing your profits then by all means retire and enjoy the fruits of your labor.

What you seem to miss is that the objection of most progressives is that so many employers spend a lot of money and energy trying to game the system and their employees in the interest of increased dividends and short term gain rather than spending that money on measures that would keep their work force safe and well compensated and therefore more likely to stay loyal and do a good job.

"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon

Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4160
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
nutxaq wrote:Beyond Saving

nutxaq wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
I guess the main question is this: Is it more moral to make a profit without working at all while providing a person with a job, or to do the physical labor yourself and therefore deny someone else the job? 

If you're going to pay this person a fair wage for the work that they do and not cut corners and overload them with work at every turn in the interest of increasing your profits then by all means retire and enjoy the fruits of your labor.

What you seem to miss is that the objection of most progressives is that so many employers spend a lot of money and energy trying to game the system and their employees in the interest of increased dividends and short term gain rather than spending that money on measures that would keep their work force safe and well compensated and therefore more likely to stay loyal and do a good job.

 

Define "fair wage"


nutxaq
nutxaq's picture
Posts: 399
Joined: 2008-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:nutxaq

Beyond Saving wrote:

nutxaq wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
I guess the main question is this: Is it more moral to make a profit without working at all while providing a person with a job, or to do the physical labor yourself and therefore deny someone else the job? 

If you're going to pay this person a fair wage for the work that they do and not cut corners and overload them with work at every turn in the interest of increasing your profits then by all means retire and enjoy the fruits of your labor.

What you seem to miss is that the objection of most progressives is that so many employers spend a lot of money and energy trying to game the system and their employees in the interest of increased dividends and short term gain rather than spending that money on measures that would keep their work force safe and well compensated and therefore more likely to stay loyal and do a good job.

 

Define "fair wage"

What kind of work is it? What's the going rate for that kind of work? If you're talking about manual labor above and beyond flipping burgers or making latte's it should be in the $10-$15 /hr. range with benefits to start. If overtime is worked, overtime should be paid.

"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon

Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3501
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: Define

Beyond Saving wrote:


 

Define "fair wage"

   I don't know if there is an incontrovertible scientific definition of what constitutes a fair wage since that probably depends more upon whether you are the one paying the wage or receiving the wage. 

    I would say that a fair wage would be a wage that is in proprtion to an employees level of training, experience in a particular field, and the actual amount of work performed.

  Should the Chancellor of a university who has put forth the considerable effort in terms of time and money to acquire a doctorate,  who oversees all the administrative needs of that institution and who functions as the figurehead of that institution be paid more than the janitor who picks up trash and sweeps the floor ?

  The actual dollar amount isn't what I'm considering but that simply that some employees are more irreplaceable than others and their wage should reflect their level of expertise or lack of it.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4160
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
nutxaq wrote:What kind of

nutxaq wrote:

What kind of work is it? What's the going rate for that kind of work? If you're talking about manual labor above and beyond flipping burgers or making latte's it should be in the $10-$15 /hr. range with benefits to start. If overtime is worked, overtime should be paid.

 

Appraising houses, not so much physical labor as it is mental. Market demands would make me pay 40-50k for someone with a little experience so that is around $20/hour. The position wouldn't pay overtime because it would be salaried and the work load varies. Some weeks they might have to work 60 hours, and others they might only work 20, and around the holidays usually won't work at all. The work schedule is far more dependent on how much has to get done and what the deadline is than the number of hours. I'm paying them to get a job done, so whether they get it done in 10 hours or 60 hours doesn't make a difference to me.

 

Does it make a difference to you how much I am making over what the worker is getting paid? IOW, do you believe that my decision on how much to pay should be related to how much money I am making? Because if your standard is $10-$15/hr, virtually everyone in the state with a serious job gets paid more than that, yet I hear plenty of people talking about their greedy bosses.


nutxaq
nutxaq's picture
Posts: 399
Joined: 2008-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:
Appraising houses, not so much physical labor as it is mental. Market demands would make me pay 40-50k for someone with a little experience so that is around $20/hour. The position wouldn't pay overtime because it would be salaried and the work load varies. Some weeks they might have to work 60 hours, and others they might only work 20, and around the holidays usually won't work at all. The work schedule is far more dependent on how much has to get done and what the deadline is than the number of hours. I'm paying them to get a job done, so whether they get it done in 10 hours or 60 hours doesn't make a difference to me.

 

Does it make a difference to you how much I am making over what the worker is getting paid? IOW, do you believe that my decision on how much to pay should be related to how much money I am making? Because if your standard is $10-$15/hr, virtually everyone in the state with a serious job gets paid more than that, yet I hear plenty of people talking about their greedy bosses.

If there's a balance between overtime worked and being able to leave early when it's slow then salary is reasonable. In my instance I work in metal sales and make $45k paid on an hourly basis + bonuses. There is no such thing as time off because it's slow. I expect to be compensated for time spent above and beyond the standard 8-5 M-F. If I'm going to sacrifice my free time to make you rich I'm going to be compensated for it.

As the boss you should make more, but this thing we have going in America where the guy at the top makes 400 times what the guy at the bottom makes is sickening. No one needs that much money and the guy at the bottom could have a higher standard of living without making a dent in the lifestyle of the guy at the top.

"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon

Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4160
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
nutxaq wrote:As the boss you

nutxaq wrote:

As the boss you should make more, but this thing we have going in America where the guy at the top makes 400 times what the guy at the bottom makes is sickening. No one needs that much money and the guy at the bottom could have a higher standard of living without making a dent in the lifestyle of the guy at the top.

So is ok for me to make say 10 times what an average employee makes with a couple of dozen employees but not ok for Jim Skinner (CEO of McDonalds) to make $14 million with some 400,000+ employees under him? How do you determine what is too much other than just a feeling?

 

How do you determine what amount of money is an amount that no one needs?