Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 237
  1. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by tormos View Post
    Berzee, I would argue that if the person who owns the company you work for (assuming that you work for a company rather than being self employed/owning your own company) makes any money at all you are inherently not being paid fairly
    Last edited by Zaboomafoozarg; 21-04-2013 at 07:43 PM.

  2. #102
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Nalano's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    NY f'n C
    Posts
    9,917
    Quote Originally Posted by Zaboomafoozarg View Post
    What?

    It's a classic Marxist argument that profit is by definition the value of a laborer's efforts that is not remunerated to him by the capitalist he is employed under.
    Nalano H. Wildmoon
    Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
    Attorney at Lawl
    "His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen

  3. #103
    Quote Originally Posted by Nalano View Post
    What?

    It's a classic Marxist argument
    There's your problem.

  4. #104
    Lesser Hivemind Node
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    978
    Quote Originally Posted by TechnicalBen View Post
    The best jobs are those asking for 5 years experience in a field that only existed for 6 to 12 months. Like "5 years PS4 programming experience". ;)
    .
    A lot of the silliness in vacancy advertisements is because they're created by HR drones who get lost on any technical subject beyond Microsoft Office. Hence the wonderful adverts for Red Hat Certified Lino technicians. Not sure when they started making carpets ...

  5. #105
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Nalano's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    NY f'n C
    Posts
    9,917
    Quote Originally Posted by Zaboomafoozarg View Post
    There's your problem.
    Whoa! I nearly got plastered by that kneejerk.
    Nalano H. Wildmoon
    Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
    Attorney at Lawl
    "His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen

  6. #106
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Nalano View Post
    What?

    It's a classic Marxist argument that profit is by definition the value of a laborer's efforts that is not remunerated to him by the capitalist he is employed under.
    Which of course implies that the act of running/managing a company is without value.

  7. #107
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    975
    Quote Originally Posted by arccos View Post
    Which of course implies that the act of running/managing a company is without value.
    The implication is that its vastly overvalued, and it is.

  8. #108
    Quote Originally Posted by arccos View Post
    Which of course implies that the act of running/managing a company is without value.
    Managers are paid a wage, the implication is actually that sitting on shares and drawing dividends while doing nothing for the company yourself is without value.

  9. #109
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Hypernetic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    2,154
    Quote Originally Posted by arccos View Post
    Which of course implies that the act of running/managing a company is without value.
    It implies nothing of the sort. Owning a company is not the same as managing a company.

    I could go out and buy some factory making whatever, hire a crew, a plant manager, etc, and literally do nothing at all ever again and get a check every month.

    The implication is that such a system is flawed. And it is.

  10. #110
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Nalano's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    NY f'n C
    Posts
    9,917
    Thank you, not-dumb people.
    Nalano H. Wildmoon
    Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
    Attorney at Lawl
    "His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen

  11. #111
    Quote Originally Posted by Hypernetic View Post
    It implies nothing of the sort. Owning a company is not the same as managing a company.

    I could go out and buy some factory making whatever, hire a crew, a plant manager, etc, and literally do nothing at all ever again and get a check every month.

    The implication is that such a system is flawed. And it is.
    That's a curious example to pick to illustrate the problems with private ownership. If you did "nothing at all, ever again" you likely wouldn't be getting cheques for all that long. You'd have to invest in the business to make it a success. You are, at least, taking some financial risk for that share of the profits. I'm not saying it's not a flawed system in that regard - I hate how much control "people with money" have over start-ups, holding them to ransom and carving off large slices of someone else's idea just because they have the money to get the thing off the ground - but to say that doesn't represent any value whatsoever is a bit of a misnoma.

    I have more of a problem with the sort of activity we had in the UK around a particular chain of care homes (can't remember the name off the top of my head). They used to own all - or most - of the homes they operated, until a hedgefund bought them and sold off all the property to make a quick buck. They put in place rental deals so they could stay in the same buildings, but after the financial crisis the rents went up and homes started going bust. That sort of asset stripping, especially of a socially important company like a care home provider, is pretty despicable.

    I remember reading Iain Banks' Transitions, in which one of the main characters speculates that, amongst all the universes he visits, the ones which suffered the most recent financial crisis tended to be the ones which had invented the limited company, which essentially allows owners to divest risk from themselves to the company they have either bought or created, whilst still giving them access to the company's profits.
    Last edited by RandomTangent; 22-04-2013 at 01:51 PM.

  12. #112
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Nalano's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    NY f'n C
    Posts
    9,917
    Quote Originally Posted by RandomTangent View Post
    That's a curious example to pick to illustrate the problems with private ownership. If you did "nothing at all, ever again" you likely wouldn't be getting cheques for all that long. You'd have to invest in the business to make it a success. You are, at least, taking some financial risk for that share of the profits. I'm not saying it's not a flawed system in that regard - I hate how much control "people with money" have over start-ups, holding them to ransom and carving off large slices of someone else's idea just because they have the money to get the thing off the ground - but to say that doesn't represent any value whatsoever is a bit of a misnoma.
    You're only making the point that people with money have a comparable amount of power compared to those who provide labor, but that is not the same as providing a comparable amount of effort. Indeed, I believe you are misconstruing "financial risk" for labor.
    Nalano H. Wildmoon
    Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
    Attorney at Lawl
    "His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen

  13. #113
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus soldant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Terra Australis Incognita
    Posts
    4,416
    Quote Originally Posted by RandomTangent View Post
    If you did "nothing at all, ever again" you likely wouldn't be getting cheques for all that long. You'd have to invest in the business to make it a success. You are, at least, taking some financial risk for that share of the profits.
    That's true, but really from a shareholder's perspective your financial risk is the value of the shares, if you're just reaping dividends and not re-investing (as you're encouraged to do by most of the larger outfits) then you are effectively getting money for doing no continuous activity. But as you say it's also a financial risk to buy the shares in the first place, particularly for new startups, and the average shareholder (who contrary to popular opinion isn't always an industry tycoon bathing in money every night) doesn't have significant power anyway.



    Rampant, unrestricted capitalism is bad (I'm apparently right-wing by RPS standards and even I think that) but outright fear and demonisation of things like investment (any and all investment, since apparently we're not drawing lines here) is absurd. There are problems with the current system but I see zero evidence that we'd be better off under a Marxist (or otherwise) system.
    Nalano's Law - As an online gaming discussion regarding restrictions grows longer, the probability of a post likening the topic to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea approaches one.

  14. #114
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,828
    I am going to do something novelty: ask the question of the topic.

    Why your games are made by childless 31 years old white men?

    Because if you work 80 hours a week, theres not much time to make childrens. And if you are childrens and you are asked to work 80 hours a week, maybe you will consider to move your experience somewhere else.

    Everyone is invited to make games. The tools hare free. Compilers, education, graphic tools... all these tools are free to download from the Internet. If only 31 years old without children make games, is because are the only ones stupid enough / strong enough, to make games.

    Anyway, how much is true on that? I have seen womens in photos of teams of game devs. I have seen photos of game devs with age 39+. I have heard of lots of game companies doing normal hours.

  15. #115
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Nalano's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    NY f'n C
    Posts
    9,917
    Quote Originally Posted by soldant View Post
    (who contrary to popular opinion isn't always an industry tycoon bathing in money every night)
    At least in the US, amounts invested into stocks - both in terms of real dollars and in terms of percentage of income - is negligible for the bottom 90%. For all intents and purposes, it pretty much is the domain of cigar-chomping tycoons, who may or may not wear top hats.
    Nalano H. Wildmoon
    Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
    Attorney at Lawl
    "His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen

  16. #116
    Quote Originally Posted by Nalano View Post
    You're only making the point that people with money have a comparable amount of power compared to those who provide labor, but that is not the same as providing a comparable amount of effort. Indeed, I believe you are misconstruing "financial risk" for labor.
    I'm not intending to equate the two, or misconstrue one for the other. I'm claiming that labour has value, but so does the willingness to take financial risk. I.e. labour is not the only commodity with value to a company. Let's say the owner of an SME re-mortgages his house in order to invest in his business - to expand or create a new product or whatever. Someone has to have access to that capital and be prepared to take that risk - to risk losing it - in order for that expansion or new product to happen. That capability and willingness represents value to the business. I'm not ranking that value compared with labour, I'm just acknowledging that it exists.

    EDIT: I think perhaps your comment relates to hypernetic's comment about "do[ing] nothing at all ever again". I took that to mean adding value to the company, not just to mean expending physical effort or doing work. I.e. just taking a cheque without contributing anything at all to the business. I suppose I'm advocating the position that labour is not the only way to contribute to, or add value to, a business.
    Last edited by RandomTangent; 22-04-2013 at 03:34 PM.

  17. #117
    Quote Originally Posted by soldant View Post
    That's true, but really from a shareholder's perspective your financial risk is the value of the shares, if you're just reaping dividends and not re-investing (as you're encouraged to do by most of the larger outfits) then you are effectively getting money for doing no continuous activity. But as you say it's also a financial risk to buy the shares in the first place, particularly for new startups, and the average shareholder (who contrary to popular opinion isn't always an industry tycoon bathing in money every night) doesn't have significant power anyway.
    I'd agree with all of that.

    Quote Originally Posted by soldant View Post
    Rampant, unrestricted capitalism is bad (I'm apparently right-wing by RPS standards and even I think that) but outright fear and demonisation of things like investment (any and all investment, since apparently we're not drawing lines here) is absurd. There are problems with the current system but I see zero evidence that we'd be better off under a Marxist (or otherwise) system.
    I agree with this too. I'm no proponent of the massive wealth equality gap here in the UK - and in other developed countries - or huge wage multipliers between bottom and top level staff. I think the free market has plenty of other problems too. That said, I'm not persuaded that because it has its flaws, the whole thing has to be ripped out and replaced with something radically different. I'm not persuaded that it can't simply be made better by incorporating ideas from elsewhere in the political ideological spectrum. Nor am I persuaded that it is unremittingly bad and has done nothing but bring pain and misery to millions. The truth is in shades of grey, imo, rather than black and white.
    Last edited by RandomTangent; 22-04-2013 at 03:37 PM.

  18. #118
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Nalano's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    NY f'n C
    Posts
    9,917
    Quote Originally Posted by RandomTangent View Post
    EDIT: I think perhaps your comment relates to hypernetic's comment about "do[ing] nothing at all ever again". I took that to mean adding value to the company, not just to mean expending physical effort or doing work. I.e. just taking a cheque without contributing anything at all to the business. I suppose I'm advocating the position that labour is not the only way to contribute to, or add value to, a business.
    You're going about it the wrong way; or, rather, you're answering the wrong question.

    The end goal is not to add value to a business. The end goal is to be justly compensated for one's efforts. The end goal is to make a living.
    Nalano H. Wildmoon
    Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
    Attorney at Lawl
    "His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen

  19. #119
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Berzee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Nalano
    The end goal is to make a living.
    Oh good then! I've achieved the end goal already.
    The dues must be for New Game+
    Last edited by Berzee; 22-04-2013 at 04:07 PM.
    Support for my all-pepperjack-cheese food bank charity drive has been lukewarm at best.

  20. #120
    Quote Originally Posted by Nalano View Post
    You're going about it the wrong way; or, rather, you're answering the wrong question.

    The end goal is not to add value to a business. The end goal is to be justly compensated for one's efforts. The end goal is to make a living.
    One's accumulated wealth - which, as in the example I gave, might simply be in home ownership - is, at least in part, representative of the sum-total of their life's efforts thus far. With the exceptions of investments and interest, it is just the unspent share of their labour. You could see it as deferred labour. In other words, define "efforts" above. At least in part, your wealth is a consequence of your effort. By investing it in a risky proposition, you risk writing off that effort; having nothing to show for it.

    And I'm not assuming an end goal. I don't think there exists a common end goal which applies, or should apply, to every individual. In the context of the example under discussion, I was just attempting to flesh out the "evil mill owner" caricature. In order for a business to create useful products and therefore to survive, it requires more than just labour. In other words, most owners are not just exploiting other people's labour for profit. The are contributing something to the company, usually financially, and therefore to the prospects and personal wealth of the employees of that company.
    Last edited by RandomTangent; 22-04-2013 at 04:33 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •