Richest 2% hold half of world's assets

[Money2Burn]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, nevermind. If money2burn's dad did it, that means everyone can. Hell, someone somewhere at sometime once won the lottery. Why don't all factory workers do that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when is success guarunteed in life? And who gave everyone the right to be successful?

[Dan.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So why dont they start their own business? We live in a capitalist society but theres nothing stopping the 'workers' from starting their own business.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have the necessary capital to open your own company? I'll wager large sums that the overwhelming majority of factory workers don't, and the system is designed to keep it that way. The people are paid enough to survive and keep coming back to the job, not to save up and start their own business.

Perhaps I'll put it this way. I'm sure most factory workers would like to own their own business, but don't have the intellect or the fiscal responsibility to create a succesfull one, so they keep working at the factory resenting their evil bosses who are stealing from them

[/ QUOTE ]

fyp

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm, that doesn't disprove my point. Being ignorant (aka, unknowledgeable) does not mean you can be subject to exploitation.

Edit: but I'm glad you're able to say "...that are stealing from them." So atleast you acknowledge the theft.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, nevermind. If money2burn's dad did it, that means everyone can. Hell, someone somewhere at sometime once won the lottery. Why don't all factory workers do that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not everyone can and will, but everyone has the opportunity. Analogizing success with the lottery is disingenuous at best. Success isnt random, it is a very predictable outcome of some very basic attributes, attitudes and principles.

[Dan.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, nevermind. If money2burn's dad did it, that means everyone can. Hell, someone somewhere at sometime once won the lottery. Why don't all factory workers do that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when is success guarunteed in life? And who gave everyone the right to be successful?

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said that everyone had to be successful. By why should we have a system in place that prevents those at the bottom from ever being successful?

Edited for Copernicus' post: Everyone should be given the opprotunity, but not everyone is given the chance. Currently the working class are subject to a system designed to keep them in the working class.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, nevermind. If money2burn's dad did it, that means everyone can. Hell, someone somewhere at sometime once won the lottery. Why don't all factory workers do that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when is success guarunteed in life? And who gave everyone the right to be successful?

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said that everyone had to be successful. By why should we have a system in place that prevents those at the bottom from ever being successful?

[/ QUOTE ]

We dont and your proposition is disproven by example every day of the week.

[Money2Burn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, nevermind. If money2burn's dad did it, that means everyone can. Hell, someone somewhere at sometime once won the lottery. Why don't all factory workers do that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when is success guarunteed in life? And who gave everyone the right to be successful?

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said that everyone had to be successful. By why should we have a system in place that prevents those at the bottom from ever being successful?

[/ QUOTE ]

We dont and your proposition is disproven by example every day of the week.

[/ QUOTE ]

nh sir, you beat me to it.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
The capitalist are, as the ACist like to say, holding a gun and saying: be exploited or starve.

[/ QUOTE ]
Lol. There's no gun, real or figurative. Almost everyone must work in order to survive. Very, very few are in a position to never have to work a day in their lives. The capitalist offers the worker a deal: Take a smaller cut of the revenue up front, or risk your capital the way the entrepreneur is. Since the worker doesn't want to risk his capital, he takes the deal. No exploitation.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What would it matter if the boy had a lawn to mow otherwise?

[/ QUOTE ]
A lot. If he wouldn't have a lawn to mow if not for you, didn't you provide a value to him and thus entitled to some profit?
[ QUOTE ]
No, you're paying for convience.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why isn't the kid you paid to mow the lawn for paying for convience? Let's say he was sitting in his basement smoking weed and I told him he could mow a lawn.
[ QUOTE ]
If you hired Real Estate Company A for 10% commission and they in turn contract Company B for 4% comission, and then Company B sells the home. Company A robs Company B of 6% comission.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why isn't company B paying for the convience of company A finding houses to sell?

[/ QUOTE ]
it's really disappointing to me that none of the resident marxists on the board are commenting on this.

[Propertarian]

Worker controlled firms have some clear advantages. Contrary to the hierarchial and authoritarian capitalistic firm, worker controlled firms are and will tend to be democratically run, as all powerful institutions should be, all else being equal. Studies indicate that satisfaction with work is higher amongst those employeed in worker-run firms than capitalist firms.

Furthermore, if the workers are the owners, suddenly their own income depends on how well the firm is doing. Not only does this lead to a predictable increase in productivity, it eliminates the need for much of the army of managers, supervisors, "industrial psychologists", "personnel managers" etc. who don't produce much of anything themselves, but instead serve to ensure that workers will continue to produce quantity and quality for the capitalist. These people would then "be free" to perform other, productive, tasks.

However, worker controlled firms have some distinct disadvantages as well. Most people do not have very much wealth, and their paycheck will depend on how well the firm is doing. They can't afford to to have the firm fail, or they won't be able to pay the bills; they could "lose everything". Hence, they will be unwilling to take risks; which means that innovation will decline. Also, given our current "safety net" (lack thereof of a decent one), some workers will face unnecessary deprivation because of business failure; no matter how careful a business is, even though caution lessens the chances that a business fails, it can still fail (most businesses, in fact, do fail).

In my judgement, the capitalist firm is still necessary and useful because of the 2nd reason, and hence we should not switch to a society of worker owned firms. But, I'd just like both sides of this debate realize that worker-controlled firms have positives and negatives relative to capitalist firms; we can almost never avoid trade-offs.

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, if the workers are the owners, suddenly their own income depends on how well the firm is doing. Not only does this lead to a predictable increase in productivity, it eliminates the need for much of the army of managers, supervisors, "industrial psychologists", "personnel managers" etc. who don't produce much of anything themselves, but instead serve to ensure that workers will continue to produce quantity and quality for the capitalist. These people would then "be free" to perform other, productive, tasks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure I understand how worker ownership eliminates much management. Suppose Ford is worker owned. You still need managers and supervisors to coordinate and oversee the physical labor. Their intellectual services keep the firm afloat. Won't the ownership workers elect supervisors and managers so that their business indeed will not fail? Their tasks are very "productive".