|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 23 2014 14:02 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 13:54 xDaunt wrote:
My point is that you weren't arguing for a change in the status quo like you are now pretending. You were erroneously describing the status quo using an absolutely bizarre concept of ownership as others have pointed out. Yeah, I was arguing for a change in the status quo. I thought that was pretty obvious when I argued a different definition of ownership right from the get-go of this conversation. Not sure why mine is a bizarre concept of ownership when it's based on the facts of who generates value for the company, not to mention my version isn't so reductionist as to assume only the stockholders control the company. (To own something is to control it, wouldn't you agree? Since workers for the most part control the company - its value and its production and maintenance - they own the company in my view. This ownership is not represented in the current legal standard, and as such this argument is anti-status quo). I hope this may clarify some points or shed light on my thought process.
Pay attention to your tenses. Again, you are describing how things are -- the status quo -- not how they should be. That it is so clearly wrong just makes it amusing. Workers do not have absolute control over the company like you are pretending. The control that they have is effected solely through the will of the actual owners. When owners will that the workers no longer have control, then workers lose their control. That is true control and ownership.
|
On January 23 2014 14:01 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 13:48 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 13:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 13:11 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 12:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 12:25 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 11:40 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:30 Cheren wrote:On January 23 2014 11:21 Adreme wrote:
[quote]
The reason is very simple because your average worker is easy to find and can be replaced at the drop of a hat. The requirements of the job are what determine your pay, to simplify it the harder it is to fill your job the more you are worth. Most low wage jobs are low wage because they require very little to no education or specific degree. There is of course a little more to it at the higher ends but at its core your value is determined by how easily replaceable you are (and what the market says you are worth but that would take longer to explain).
Of course unions exist to try to help the workers get as much as they can because as I just said the value of any individual worker is usually minimal at best but as you basically stated a company can not handle losing all its workers at once.
Pretty much yeah, workers are paid at market value for the most part. CEO pay has a lot more variables than supply/demand, there's cultural values of how much a CEO should be paid (the debate we're having right now), there's the personal charisma or connections of the CEO in question, and other intangibles. On January 23 2014 11:26 Roe wrote:
[quote]
Doesn't really matter though does it? We were talking about who does the work and who owns the company. It's most logical to assume the workers, rather than the directors of a corporation, are the ones who bring value to the company because they work at the lowest level nearest to the market (which is the source of the company's value) or the production of goods to be sold in the market. I'm not talking about low wage jobs per se, but simply the class of people known as the workers. Since they intrinsically (not extrinsically) own the company they deserve the decision of who directs them at the top level. It's hard to objectively measure value added by any one employee no matter what level they're at in any company. People like you are going to say low level employees, and people like xDaunt are going to say CEOs and directors. It's a he-said/she-said argument. No it's not. It's a simple fact that by removing the working class of a company you have no company, you have no income, you have virtually no value. They are the ones who in actuality make the money. The directors have somehow gotten the power to steal that value from the workers and redistribute it themselves. This would be fine, in fact, if the workers had say in who taxed their income. But they do not have representation in exchange for their taxation  Yeah, and if you get rid of the suppliers you have no income. And if you get rid of the equipment you have no income. And if you get rid of the customers you have no income. What does any of that have to do with ownership? So you agree that ownership is much more complex than dictatorship of the directors? No, and I have no idea why you are trying to reinvent what ownership means. Because the directors don't solely own the company edit: I'm using your definition of ownership aren't I? Just the people who own the company, which means they control the value of the company. Directors aren't really owners at all - they're fiduciaries who act on behalf of shareholders (the legal owners) and in accordance with corporate bylaws. I'm not sure what you mean by "control the value" but shareholders exert control over the corporation by controlling who sits on the board and the board controls the executive team that runs it (at least in theory, in reality many boards are somewhat impotent, which is somewhat fitting because they tend to all be old men  ). But anyways, shareholders are the residual claimants - meaning they're the last to get paid (if at all). It makes sense to give them ownership authority since it would be all too easy to otherwise simply not pay the residual claimant... which would make the whole endeavor a non-starter. Another way to look at it is that there is only one class of owner - the shareholders. But there are many people affected by the corporation - the stakeholders. You're not sure what it means to control the value of a company? Aren't you supposed to be a business man of some sort? Listen Johnny, I'm not interested in defending the status quo. I've spent the past page or so arguing against that. But to help you out, why does a shareholder have ownership of a company? If you keep confusing activities and people that create value within a company with who has control over various decisions, you're going to confuse everyone here and maybe even yourself. I'll try to convey to you, Roe, exactly why your thoughts are very much aligned with a Marxist ideal. Why your average Joe would presume you read and agreed with him. Marx wrote the most famous book with your argument, alleging that this economy exploits the labor class, the little guy that is the real cause of their profits and created value. The employer is just laying claim to them and he is heavily criticized. I'm trying to simplify since you say you have never read him. When you say, Show nested quote +No it's not. It's a simple fact that by removing the working class of a company you have no company, you have no income, you have virtually no value. They are the ones who in actuality make the money. The directors have somehow gotten the power to steal that value from the workers and redistribute it themselves. , a casual observer really might think you're quoting Das Kapital chapter and verse. That's all.
Well don't get me wrong, the "little guy" isn't the sole cause of profits/produce, of course the directors and management form an integral part of the company. But the current system heavily favours and entrenches the upper levels.
I see why some would take my arguments as Marxist, but I don't intend them to (or at least I didn't just come back from book club reading das kapital). Marx (from your interpretation at least) has a good empirical point here; the worker is the one directly interacting with the market, and is the closest one in the company to the transfer of money from, say, the customer, to said company. Thus, he has control, in fact the greatest amount of control, in whether or not that money gets into the company. Since he controls the flow of value to the company, he has that responsibility and deserves proper recognition for it, and proportional power in the company.
I do think there's a good point that you can't deny here (and it's worth some rambling thoughts) - that your basic assumption that the market dictates what companies do - actually hinges on the fact that workers are the baseline of production for the company. In fact, if you took this notion to heart, you would bring the system closer to that market dictating ideal! But instead for some strange reason you rely on the notion that the market dictates what directors do, who are so far removed from the process.
As I briefly mentioned earlier, it would be better if all members of the syndicate (err I mean company! ) could vote on who manages, directs, executes, etc.. And it would be mostly a worker driven process, workers electing workers to become managers, etc... But they need this in legislation because it is their property rights at stake. Yes, I believe their property to be taken away as if they were taxed - except the taxman is in front of the cashier intercepting their income and delivers it to the king (or a group of Oligarchs) who later distributes it as he wishes. And don't get me wrong again, I'm not arguing for everyone making the same wage, or management making less than workers.
|
Does someone has any proof highly paid executive produce more "value" (what is value in modern economics, I fear I have no idea) than basic workers ? 400 times more for a CEO ?
Plus don't ever read Smith or Ricardo guys, you wouldn't like it.
|
On January 23 2014 14:19 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 14:02 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 13:54 xDaunt wrote:
My point is that you weren't arguing for a change in the status quo like you are now pretending. You were erroneously describing the status quo using an absolutely bizarre concept of ownership as others have pointed out. Yeah, I was arguing for a change in the status quo. I thought that was pretty obvious when I argued a different definition of ownership right from the get-go of this conversation. Not sure why mine is a bizarre concept of ownership when it's based on the facts of who generates value for the company, not to mention my version isn't so reductionist as to assume only the stockholders control the company. (To own something is to control it, wouldn't you agree? Since workers for the most part control the company - its value and its production and maintenance - they own the company in my view. This ownership is not represented in the current legal standard, and as such this argument is anti-status quo). I hope this may clarify some points or shed light on my thought process. Pay attention to your tenses. Again, you are describing how things are -- the status quo -- not how they should be. That it is so clearly wrong just makes it amusing. Workers do not have absolute control over the company like you are pretending. The control that they have is effected solely through the will of the actual owners. When owners will that the workers no longer have control, then workers lose their control. That is true control and ownership.
I'm sorry I'm being so cryptic. I never said workers have absolute control over the company. What I'm arguing is to change how people think of ownership, but also to change the rights of ownership. Again, I'm not sure how that is describing how things are.
True ownership would be to control what you produce. In one case a worker produces a paying customer's money, since it's the worker's money they decide how it is distributed through the system. OR they could have representation in management (by voting) whereby management decides how the money gets distributed.
Oh and I'm glad you're amused. It's a good thing you included that since it was so important for the world to know, and such a constructive line of text.
|
On January 23 2014 14:21 corumjhaelen wrote:
Does someone has any proof highly paid executive produce more "value" (what is value in modern economics, I fear I have no idea) than basic workers ? 400 times more for a CEO ?
Plus don't ever read Smith or Ricardo guys, you wouldn't like it.
Here is a really easy example: a sales executive who is able to secure a multi-hundred million dollar sales contracts is a worth a fuckton more to a company than a technician who helps build the product that is to be sold.
|
On January 23 2014 14:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 14:21 corumjhaelen wrote:
Does someone has any proof highly paid executive produce more "value" (what is value in modern economics, I fear I have no idea) than basic workers ? 400 times more for a CEO ?
Plus don't ever read Smith or Ricardo guys, you wouldn't like it. Here is a really easy example: a sales executive who is able to secure a multi-hundred million dollar sales contracts is a worth a fuckton more to a company than a technician who helps build the product that is to be sold.
Here's a really easy example, a sales executive that doesn't have anything to sell is worthless.
|
On January 23 2014 14:37 ddrddrddrddr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 14:33 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 14:21 corumjhaelen wrote:
Does someone has any proof highly paid executive produce more "value" (what is value in modern economics, I fear I have no idea) than basic workers ? 400 times more for a CEO ?
Plus don't ever read Smith or Ricardo guys, you wouldn't like it. Here is a really easy example: a sales executive who is able to secure a multi-hundred million dollar sales contracts is a worth a fuckton more to a company than a technician who helps build the product that is to be sold. Here's a really easy example, a sales executive that doesn't have anything to sell is worthless.
Yep, it's not "easy" at all. Obviously the fact that the company is able to provide a product, a marketing strategy and so on has to count for "something".
Edit : and I'm not going to start on how exchange can't create value anyway, because that would obviously be a silly theorical point :p
|
On January 23 2014 14:37 ddrddrddrddr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 14:33 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 14:21 corumjhaelen wrote:
Does someone has any proof highly paid executive produce more "value" (what is value in modern economics, I fear I have no idea) than basic workers ? 400 times more for a CEO ?
Plus don't ever read Smith or Ricardo guys, you wouldn't like it. Here is a really easy example: a sales executive who is able to secure a multi-hundred million dollar sales contracts is a worth a fuckton more to a company than a technician who helps build the product that is to be sold. Here's a really easy example, a sales executive that doesn't have anything to sell is worthless.
Oh please. Technicians are easily replaceable. Ace sales people aren't. And that's the point. Executives aren't paid shitloads of money just because they have fancy titles. They have specific, scarce skills that are highly valuable -- many multiples more valuable than ordinary workers.
|
On January 23 2014 14:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 14:37 ddrddrddrddr wrote:On January 23 2014 14:33 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 14:21 corumjhaelen wrote:
Does someone has any proof highly paid executive produce more "value" (what is value in modern economics, I fear I have no idea) than basic workers ? 400 times more for a CEO ?
Plus don't ever read Smith or Ricardo guys, you wouldn't like it. Here is a really easy example: a sales executive who is able to secure a multi-hundred million dollar sales contracts is a worth a fuckton more to a company than a technician who helps build the product that is to be sold. Here's a really easy example, a sales executive that doesn't have anything to sell is worthless. Oh please. Technicians are easily replaceable. Ace sales people aren't. And that's the point. Executives aren't paid shitloads of money just because they have fancy titles. They have specific, scarce skills that are highly valuable -- many multiples more valuable than ordinary workers.
But if they are valuable because of scarcity, maybe they're actually paid more than the value they produce ?
Also I love your dismissal of "technicians" (who apparently have no diploma), and you're justification of high pay because of high added value because of high pay, it's obviously great logic and not at all ideology.
|
On January 23 2014 14:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 14:37 ddrddrddrddr wrote:On January 23 2014 14:33 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 14:21 corumjhaelen wrote:
Does someone has any proof highly paid executive produce more "value" (what is value in modern economics, I fear I have no idea) than basic workers ? 400 times more for a CEO ?
Plus don't ever read Smith or Ricardo guys, you wouldn't like it. Here is a really easy example: a sales executive who is able to secure a multi-hundred million dollar sales contracts is a worth a fuckton more to a company than a technician who helps build the product that is to be sold. Here's a really easy example, a sales executive that doesn't have anything to sell is worthless. Oh please. Technicians are easily replaceable. Ace sales people aren't. And that's the point. Executives aren't paid shitloads of money just because they have fancy titles. They have specific, scarce skills that are highly valuable -- many multiples more valuable than ordinary workers.
Why do you compare sales EXECUTIVE with a technician? Try your senior engineers. Don't act like it's either customer facing or code monkey. You want to draw up a plan to sell something? Guess where your talking points comes from. Guess where your figures come from. Guess where your entire product comes from.The sales plan is drawn up form the point of inception of a new product, and business decisions go hand in hand with engineering capabilities. It's the sales team that have most of their work done for them, not the other way around.
|
I'm feeling an incoming engineer vs business school fight incoming, that's a bit beside my point but I think it can be a pretty fun sort of mud wrestling. With engineers winning at the end obviously 
|
On January 23 2014 14:20 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 14:01 Danglars wrote:On January 23 2014 13:48 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 13:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 13:11 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 12:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 12:25 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 11:40 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:30 Cheren wrote:
[quote]
Pretty much yeah, workers are paid at market value for the most part. CEO pay has a lot more variables than supply/demand, there's cultural values of how much a CEO should be paid (the debate we're having right now), there's the personal charisma or connections of the CEO in question, and other intangibles.
[quote]
It's hard to objectively measure value added by any one employee no matter what level they're at in any company. People like you are going to say low level employees, and people like xDaunt are going to say CEOs and directors. It's a he-said/she-said argument. No it's not. It's a simple fact that by removing the working class of a company you have no company, you have no income, you have virtually no value. They are the ones who in actuality make the money. The directors have somehow gotten the power to steal that value from the workers and redistribute it themselves. This would be fine, in fact, if the workers had say in who taxed their income. But they do not have representation in exchange for their taxation Yeah, and if you get rid of the suppliers you have no income. And if you get rid of the equipment you have no income. And if you get rid of the customers you have no income. What does any of that have to do with ownership? So you agree that ownership is much more complex than dictatorship of the directors? No, and I have no idea why you are trying to reinvent what ownership means. Because the directors don't solely own the company edit: I'm using your definition of ownership aren't I? Just the people who own the company, which means they control the value of the company. Directors aren't really owners at all - they're fiduciaries who act on behalf of shareholders (the legal owners) and in accordance with corporate bylaws. I'm not sure what you mean by "control the value" but shareholders exert control over the corporation by controlling who sits on the board and the board controls the executive team that runs it (at least in theory, in reality many boards are somewhat impotent, which is somewhat fitting because they tend to all be old men ). But anyways, shareholders are the residual claimants - meaning they're the last to get paid (if at all). It makes sense to give them ownership authority since it would be all too easy to otherwise simply not pay the residual claimant... which would make the whole endeavor a non-starter. Another way to look at it is that there is only one class of owner - the shareholders. But there are many people affected by the corporation - the stakeholders. You're not sure what it means to control the value of a company? Aren't you supposed to be a business man of some sort? Listen Johnny, I'm not interested in defending the status quo. I've spent the past page or so arguing against that. But to help you out, why does a shareholder have ownership of a company? If you keep confusing activities and people that create value within a company with who has control over various decisions, you're going to confuse everyone here and maybe even yourself. I'll try to convey to you, Roe, exactly why your thoughts are very much aligned with a Marxist ideal. Why your average Joe would presume you read and agreed with him. Marx wrote the most famous book with your argument, alleging that this economy exploits the labor class, the little guy that is the real cause of their profits and created value. The employer is just laying claim to them and he is heavily criticized. I'm trying to simplify since you say you have never read him. When you say, No it's not. It's a simple fact that by removing the working class of a company you have no company, you have no income, you have virtually no value. They are the ones who in actuality make the money. The directors have somehow gotten the power to steal that value from the workers and redistribute it themselves. , a casual observer really might think you're quoting Das Kapital chapter and verse. That's all. Well don't get me wrong, the "little guy" isn't the sole cause of profits/produce, of course the directors and management form an integral part of the company. But the current system heavily favours and entrenches the upper levels. I see why some would take my arguments as Marxist, but I don't intend them to (or at least I didn't just come back from book club reading das kapital). Marx (from your interpretation at least) has a good empirical point here; the worker is the one directly interacting with the market, and is the closest one in the company to the transfer of money from, say, the customer, to said company. Thus, he has control, in fact the greatest amount of control, in whether or not that money gets into the company. Since he controls the flow of value to the company, he has that responsibility and deserves proper recognition for it, and proportional power in the company. I do think there's a good point that you can't deny here (and it's worth some rambling thoughts) - that your basic assumption that the market dictates what companies do - actually hinges on the fact that workers are the baseline of production for the company. In fact, if you took this notion to heart, you would bring the system closer to that market dictating ideal! But instead for some strange reason you rely on the notion that the market dictates what directors do, who are so far removed from the process. As I briefly mentioned earlier, it would be better if all members of the syndicate (err I mean company! ) could vote on who manages, directs, executes, etc.. And it would be mostly a worker driven process, workers electing workers to become managers, etc... But they need this in legislation because it is their property rights at stake. Yes, I believe their property to be taken away as if they were taxed - except the taxman is in front of the cashier intercepting their income and delivers it to the king (or a group of Oligarchs) who later distributes it as he wishes. And don't get me wrong again, I'm not arguing for everyone making the same wage, or management making less than workers.
Sounds like fantasizing about what *could be* ...
How are you going to have a company without traditional equity? What fills that void? You can't remove something without describing the replacement!
|
On January 23 2014 14:47 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 14:43 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 14:37 ddrddrddrddr wrote:On January 23 2014 14:33 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 14:21 corumjhaelen wrote:
Does someone has any proof highly paid executive produce more "value" (what is value in modern economics, I fear I have no idea) than basic workers ? 400 times more for a CEO ?
Plus don't ever read Smith or Ricardo guys, you wouldn't like it. Here is a really easy example: a sales executive who is able to secure a multi-hundred million dollar sales contracts is a worth a fuckton more to a company than a technician who helps build the product that is to be sold. Here's a really easy example, a sales executive that doesn't have anything to sell is worthless. Oh please. Technicians are easily replaceable. Ace sales people aren't. And that's the point. Executives aren't paid shitloads of money just because they have fancy titles. They have specific, scarce skills that are highly valuable -- many multiples more valuable than ordinary workers. But if they are valuable because of scarcity, maybe they're actually paid more than the value they produce ? Also I love your dismissal of "technicians" (who apparently have no diploma), and you're justification of high pay because of high added value because of high pay, it's obviously great logic and not at all ideology.
Who would rationally pay more for a service than the value that would actually be realized from receiving the service? Obviously, no one would.
Technician is a bit of a term of art. It merely refers to someone who has a particular skill. A technician could be someone with a Ph.D. just as it could be someone with a high school diploma. The important concept to understand is that technicians are almost always replaceable.
|
On January 23 2014 15:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 14:20 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 14:01 Danglars wrote:On January 23 2014 13:48 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 13:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 13:11 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 12:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 12:25 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 11:40 Roe wrote:[quote] No it's not. It's a simple fact that by removing the working class of a company you have no company, you have no income, you have virtually no value. They are the ones who in actuality make the money. The directors have somehow gotten the power to steal that value from the workers and redistribute it themselves. This would be fine, in fact, if the workers had say in who taxed their income. But they do not have representation in exchange for their taxation Yeah, and if you get rid of the suppliers you have no income. And if you get rid of the equipment you have no income. And if you get rid of the customers you have no income. What does any of that have to do with ownership? So you agree that ownership is much more complex than dictatorship of the directors? No, and I have no idea why you are trying to reinvent what ownership means. Because the directors don't solely own the company edit: I'm using your definition of ownership aren't I? Just the people who own the company, which means they control the value of the company. Directors aren't really owners at all - they're fiduciaries who act on behalf of shareholders (the legal owners) and in accordance with corporate bylaws. I'm not sure what you mean by "control the value" but shareholders exert control over the corporation by controlling who sits on the board and the board controls the executive team that runs it (at least in theory, in reality many boards are somewhat impotent, which is somewhat fitting because they tend to all be old men ). But anyways, shareholders are the residual claimants - meaning they're the last to get paid (if at all). It makes sense to give them ownership authority since it would be all too easy to otherwise simply not pay the residual claimant... which would make the whole endeavor a non-starter. Another way to look at it is that there is only one class of owner - the shareholders. But there are many people affected by the corporation - the stakeholders. You're not sure what it means to control the value of a company? Aren't you supposed to be a business man of some sort? Listen Johnny, I'm not interested in defending the status quo. I've spent the past page or so arguing against that. But to help you out, why does a shareholder have ownership of a company? If you keep confusing activities and people that create value within a company with who has control over various decisions, you're going to confuse everyone here and maybe even yourself. I'll try to convey to you, Roe, exactly why your thoughts are very much aligned with a Marxist ideal. Why your average Joe would presume you read and agreed with him. Marx wrote the most famous book with your argument, alleging that this economy exploits the labor class, the little guy that is the real cause of their profits and created value. The employer is just laying claim to them and he is heavily criticized. I'm trying to simplify since you say you have never read him. When you say, No it's not. It's a simple fact that by removing the working class of a company you have no company, you have no income, you have virtually no value. They are the ones who in actuality make the money. The directors have somehow gotten the power to steal that value from the workers and redistribute it themselves. , a casual observer really might think you're quoting Das Kapital chapter and verse. That's all. Well don't get me wrong, the "little guy" isn't the sole cause of profits/produce, of course the directors and management form an integral part of the company. But the current system heavily favours and entrenches the upper levels. I see why some would take my arguments as Marxist, but I don't intend them to (or at least I didn't just come back from book club reading das kapital). Marx (from your interpretation at least) has a good empirical point here; the worker is the one directly interacting with the market, and is the closest one in the company to the transfer of money from, say, the customer, to said company. Thus, he has control, in fact the greatest amount of control, in whether or not that money gets into the company. Since he controls the flow of value to the company, he has that responsibility and deserves proper recognition for it, and proportional power in the company. I do think there's a good point that you can't deny here (and it's worth some rambling thoughts) - that your basic assumption that the market dictates what companies do - actually hinges on the fact that workers are the baseline of production for the company. In fact, if you took this notion to heart, you would bring the system closer to that market dictating ideal! But instead for some strange reason you rely on the notion that the market dictates what directors do, who are so far removed from the process. As I briefly mentioned earlier, it would be better if all members of the syndicate (err I mean company! ) could vote on who manages, directs, executes, etc.. And it would be mostly a worker driven process, workers electing workers to become managers, etc... But they need this in legislation because it is their property rights at stake. Yes, I believe their property to be taken away as if they were taxed - except the taxman is in front of the cashier intercepting their income and delivers it to the king (or a group of Oligarchs) who later distributes it as he wishes. And don't get me wrong again, I'm not arguing for everyone making the same wage, or management making less than workers. Sounds like fantasizing about what *could be* ... How are you going to have a company without traditional equity? What fills that void? You can't remove something without describing the replacement!
I'm sorry, by traditional equity what exactly do you mean? (so we can get our definitions in line)
It may seem like fantasy, but you seem to be deeply entrenched in the system, so any change is bound to cause shivers up your spine. Well, at least I don't see the fantastical aspect of it.
On January 23 2014 15:07 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 14:47 corumjhaelen wrote:On January 23 2014 14:43 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 14:37 ddrddrddrddr wrote:On January 23 2014 14:33 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 14:21 corumjhaelen wrote:
Does someone has any proof highly paid executive produce more "value" (what is value in modern economics, I fear I have no idea) than basic workers ? 400 times more for a CEO ?
Plus don't ever read Smith or Ricardo guys, you wouldn't like it. Here is a really easy example: a sales executive who is able to secure a multi-hundred million dollar sales contracts is a worth a fuckton more to a company than a technician who helps build the product that is to be sold. Here's a really easy example, a sales executive that doesn't have anything to sell is worthless. Oh please. Technicians are easily replaceable. Ace sales people aren't. And that's the point. Executives aren't paid shitloads of money just because they have fancy titles. They have specific, scarce skills that are highly valuable -- many multiples more valuable than ordinary workers. But if they are valuable because of scarcity, maybe they're actually paid more than the value they produce ? Also I love your dismissal of "technicians" (who apparently have no diploma), and you're justification of high pay because of high added value because of high pay, it's obviously great logic and not at all ideology. Who would rationally pay more for a service than the value that would actually be realized from receiving the service? Obviously, no one would. Technician is a bit of a term of art. It merely refers to someone who has a particular skill. A technician could be someone with a Ph.D. just as it could be someone with a high school diploma. The important concept to understand is that technicians are almost always replaceable.
Everybody is replaceable. There's no 'unique snowflake', whereby only that person can do a certain job.
|
On January 23 2014 15:08 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 15:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 14:20 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 14:01 Danglars wrote:On January 23 2014 13:48 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 13:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 13:11 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 12:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 12:25 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Yeah, and if you get rid of the suppliers you have no income. And if you get rid of the equipment you have no income. And if you get rid of the customers you have no income.
What does any of that have to do with ownership? So you agree that ownership is much more complex than dictatorship of the directors? No, and I have no idea why you are trying to reinvent what ownership means. Because the directors don't solely own the company edit: I'm using your definition of ownership aren't I? Just the people who own the company, which means they control the value of the company. Directors aren't really owners at all - they're fiduciaries who act on behalf of shareholders (the legal owners) and in accordance with corporate bylaws. I'm not sure what you mean by "control the value" but shareholders exert control over the corporation by controlling who sits on the board and the board controls the executive team that runs it (at least in theory, in reality many boards are somewhat impotent, which is somewhat fitting because they tend to all be old men ). But anyways, shareholders are the residual claimants - meaning they're the last to get paid (if at all). It makes sense to give them ownership authority since it would be all too easy to otherwise simply not pay the residual claimant... which would make the whole endeavor a non-starter. Another way to look at it is that there is only one class of owner - the shareholders. But there are many people affected by the corporation - the stakeholders. You're not sure what it means to control the value of a company? Aren't you supposed to be a business man of some sort? Listen Johnny, I'm not interested in defending the status quo. I've spent the past page or so arguing against that. But to help you out, why does a shareholder have ownership of a company? If you keep confusing activities and people that create value within a company with who has control over various decisions, you're going to confuse everyone here and maybe even yourself. I'll try to convey to you, Roe, exactly why your thoughts are very much aligned with a Marxist ideal. Why your average Joe would presume you read and agreed with him. Marx wrote the most famous book with your argument, alleging that this economy exploits the labor class, the little guy that is the real cause of their profits and created value. The employer is just laying claim to them and he is heavily criticized. I'm trying to simplify since you say you have never read him. When you say, No it's not. It's a simple fact that by removing the working class of a company you have no company, you have no income, you have virtually no value. They are the ones who in actuality make the money. The directors have somehow gotten the power to steal that value from the workers and redistribute it themselves. , a casual observer really might think you're quoting Das Kapital chapter and verse. That's all. Well don't get me wrong, the "little guy" isn't the sole cause of profits/produce, of course the directors and management form an integral part of the company. But the current system heavily favours and entrenches the upper levels. I see why some would take my arguments as Marxist, but I don't intend them to (or at least I didn't just come back from book club reading das kapital). Marx (from your interpretation at least) has a good empirical point here; the worker is the one directly interacting with the market, and is the closest one in the company to the transfer of money from, say, the customer, to said company. Thus, he has control, in fact the greatest amount of control, in whether or not that money gets into the company. Since he controls the flow of value to the company, he has that responsibility and deserves proper recognition for it, and proportional power in the company. I do think there's a good point that you can't deny here (and it's worth some rambling thoughts) - that your basic assumption that the market dictates what companies do - actually hinges on the fact that workers are the baseline of production for the company. In fact, if you took this notion to heart, you would bring the system closer to that market dictating ideal! But instead for some strange reason you rely on the notion that the market dictates what directors do, who are so far removed from the process. As I briefly mentioned earlier, it would be better if all members of the syndicate (err I mean company! ) could vote on who manages, directs, executes, etc.. And it would be mostly a worker driven process, workers electing workers to become managers, etc... But they need this in legislation because it is their property rights at stake. Yes, I believe their property to be taken away as if they were taxed - except the taxman is in front of the cashier intercepting their income and delivers it to the king (or a group of Oligarchs) who later distributes it as he wishes. And don't get me wrong again, I'm not arguing for everyone making the same wage, or management making less than workers. Sounds like fantasizing about what *could be* ... How are you going to have a company without traditional equity? What fills that void? You can't remove something without describing the replacement! I'm sorry, by traditional equity what exactly do you mean? (so we can get our definitions in line) It may seem like fantasy, but you seem to be deeply entrenched in the system, so any change is bound to cause shivers up your spine. Well, at least I don't see the fantastical aspect of it..
Capital contribution that represents the residual claimant.
|
On January 23 2014 15:07 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 14:47 corumjhaelen wrote:On January 23 2014 14:43 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 14:37 ddrddrddrddr wrote:On January 23 2014 14:33 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 14:21 corumjhaelen wrote:
Does someone has any proof highly paid executive produce more "value" (what is value in modern economics, I fear I have no idea) than basic workers ? 400 times more for a CEO ?
Plus don't ever read Smith or Ricardo guys, you wouldn't like it. Here is a really easy example: a sales executive who is able to secure a multi-hundred million dollar sales contracts is a worth a fuckton more to a company than a technician who helps build the product that is to be sold. Here's a really easy example, a sales executive that doesn't have anything to sell is worthless. Oh please. Technicians are easily replaceable. Ace sales people aren't. And that's the point. Executives aren't paid shitloads of money just because they have fancy titles. They have specific, scarce skills that are highly valuable -- many multiples more valuable than ordinary workers. But if they are valuable because of scarcity, maybe they're actually paid more than the value they produce ? Also I love your dismissal of "technicians" (who apparently have no diploma), and you're justification of high pay because of high added value because of high pay, it's obviously great logic and not at all ideology. Who would rationally pay more for a service than the value that would actually be realized from receiving the service? Obviously, no one would.
"Obviously". You're still running in circles, can't you see it ? They're being paid a lot because they deserve to be paid a lot because they're paid a lot, plus an appeal to "economic common sense" that honestly makes no much sense.
To take a common sense "example" if someone is in a position of monopoly, you might actually have to pay more his product than what its value is, and compensate that loss with margin elsewhere.
|
On January 23 2014 15:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 15:08 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 15:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 14:20 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 14:01 Danglars wrote:On January 23 2014 13:48 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 13:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 13:11 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 12:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 12:25 Roe wrote:
[quote]
So you agree that ownership is much more complex than dictatorship of the directors? No, and I have no idea why you are trying to reinvent what ownership means. Because the directors don't solely own the company edit: I'm using your definition of ownership aren't I? Just the people who own the company, which means they control the value of the company. Directors aren't really owners at all - they're fiduciaries who act on behalf of shareholders (the legal owners) and in accordance with corporate bylaws. I'm not sure what you mean by "control the value" but shareholders exert control over the corporation by controlling who sits on the board and the board controls the executive team that runs it (at least in theory, in reality many boards are somewhat impotent, which is somewhat fitting because they tend to all be old men ). But anyways, shareholders are the residual claimants - meaning they're the last to get paid (if at all). It makes sense to give them ownership authority since it would be all too easy to otherwise simply not pay the residual claimant... which would make the whole endeavor a non-starter. Another way to look at it is that there is only one class of owner - the shareholders. But there are many people affected by the corporation - the stakeholders. You're not sure what it means to control the value of a company? Aren't you supposed to be a business man of some sort? Listen Johnny, I'm not interested in defending the status quo. I've spent the past page or so arguing against that. But to help you out, why does a shareholder have ownership of a company? If you keep confusing activities and people that create value within a company with who has control over various decisions, you're going to confuse everyone here and maybe even yourself. I'll try to convey to you, Roe, exactly why your thoughts are very much aligned with a Marxist ideal. Why your average Joe would presume you read and agreed with him. Marx wrote the most famous book with your argument, alleging that this economy exploits the labor class, the little guy that is the real cause of their profits and created value. The employer is just laying claim to them and he is heavily criticized. I'm trying to simplify since you say you have never read him. When you say, No it's not. It's a simple fact that by removing the working class of a company you have no company, you have no income, you have virtually no value. They are the ones who in actuality make the money. The directors have somehow gotten the power to steal that value from the workers and redistribute it themselves. , a casual observer really might think you're quoting Das Kapital chapter and verse. That's all. Well don't get me wrong, the "little guy" isn't the sole cause of profits/produce, of course the directors and management form an integral part of the company. But the current system heavily favours and entrenches the upper levels. I see why some would take my arguments as Marxist, but I don't intend them to (or at least I didn't just come back from book club reading das kapital). Marx (from your interpretation at least) has a good empirical point here; the worker is the one directly interacting with the market, and is the closest one in the company to the transfer of money from, say, the customer, to said company. Thus, he has control, in fact the greatest amount of control, in whether or not that money gets into the company. Since he controls the flow of value to the company, he has that responsibility and deserves proper recognition for it, and proportional power in the company. I do think there's a good point that you can't deny here (and it's worth some rambling thoughts) - that your basic assumption that the market dictates what companies do - actually hinges on the fact that workers are the baseline of production for the company. In fact, if you took this notion to heart, you would bring the system closer to that market dictating ideal! But instead for some strange reason you rely on the notion that the market dictates what directors do, who are so far removed from the process. As I briefly mentioned earlier, it would be better if all members of the syndicate (err I mean company! ) could vote on who manages, directs, executes, etc.. And it would be mostly a worker driven process, workers electing workers to become managers, etc... But they need this in legislation because it is their property rights at stake. Yes, I believe their property to be taken away as if they were taxed - except the taxman is in front of the cashier intercepting their income and delivers it to the king (or a group of Oligarchs) who later distributes it as he wishes. And don't get me wrong again, I'm not arguing for everyone making the same wage, or management making less than workers. Sounds like fantasizing about what *could be* ... How are you going to have a company without traditional equity? What fills that void? You can't remove something without describing the replacement! I'm sorry, by traditional equity what exactly do you mean? (so we can get our definitions in line) It may seem like fantasy, but you seem to be deeply entrenched in the system, so any change is bound to cause shivers up your spine. Well, at least I don't see the fantastical aspect of it.. Capital contribution that represents the residual claimant.
Why should that change?
|
On January 23 2014 15:18 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 15:07 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 14:47 corumjhaelen wrote:On January 23 2014 14:43 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 14:37 ddrddrddrddr wrote:On January 23 2014 14:33 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 14:21 corumjhaelen wrote:
Does someone has any proof highly paid executive produce more "value" (what is value in modern economics, I fear I have no idea) than basic workers ? 400 times more for a CEO ?
Plus don't ever read Smith or Ricardo guys, you wouldn't like it. Here is a really easy example: a sales executive who is able to secure a multi-hundred million dollar sales contracts is a worth a fuckton more to a company than a technician who helps build the product that is to be sold. Here's a really easy example, a sales executive that doesn't have anything to sell is worthless. Oh please. Technicians are easily replaceable. Ace sales people aren't. And that's the point. Executives aren't paid shitloads of money just because they have fancy titles. They have specific, scarce skills that are highly valuable -- many multiples more valuable than ordinary workers. But if they are valuable because of scarcity, maybe they're actually paid more than the value they produce ? Also I love your dismissal of "technicians" (who apparently have no diploma), and you're justification of high pay because of high added value because of high pay, it's obviously great logic and not at all ideology. Who would rationally pay more for a service than the value that would actually be realized from receiving the service? Obviously, no one would. "Obviously". You're still running in circles, can't you see it ? They're being paid a lot because they deserve to be paid a lot because they're paid a lot, plus an appeal to "economic common sense" that honestly makes no much sense. To take a common sense "example" if someone is in a position of monopoly, you might actually have to pay more his product than what its value is, and compensate that loss with margin elsewhere.
Please tell me: who is going to pay $1,000.00 to receive a basic shoe shine? No one. The value isn't there. The same principles apply to labor dynamics. No employer is going to pay an employee more than the value of the employee's services to the employer. In fact, the employer will always pay the employee less than the value of his services so as to reap a surplus. This is obvious to anyone who has worked a day in the private sector.
|
On January 23 2014 15:22 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 15:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 15:08 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 15:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 14:20 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 14:01 Danglars wrote:On January 23 2014 13:48 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 13:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 13:11 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 12:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
No, and I have no idea why you are trying to reinvent what ownership means. Because the directors don't solely own the company edit: I'm using your definition of ownership aren't I? Just the people who own the company, which means they control the value of the company. Directors aren't really owners at all - they're fiduciaries who act on behalf of shareholders (the legal owners) and in accordance with corporate bylaws. I'm not sure what you mean by "control the value" but shareholders exert control over the corporation by controlling who sits on the board and the board controls the executive team that runs it (at least in theory, in reality many boards are somewhat impotent, which is somewhat fitting because they tend to all be old men ). But anyways, shareholders are the residual claimants - meaning they're the last to get paid (if at all). It makes sense to give them ownership authority since it would be all too easy to otherwise simply not pay the residual claimant... which would make the whole endeavor a non-starter. Another way to look at it is that there is only one class of owner - the shareholders. But there are many people affected by the corporation - the stakeholders. You're not sure what it means to control the value of a company? Aren't you supposed to be a business man of some sort? Listen Johnny, I'm not interested in defending the status quo. I've spent the past page or so arguing against that. But to help you out, why does a shareholder have ownership of a company? If you keep confusing activities and people that create value within a company with who has control over various decisions, you're going to confuse everyone here and maybe even yourself. I'll try to convey to you, Roe, exactly why your thoughts are very much aligned with a Marxist ideal. Why your average Joe would presume you read and agreed with him. Marx wrote the most famous book with your argument, alleging that this economy exploits the labor class, the little guy that is the real cause of their profits and created value. The employer is just laying claim to them and he is heavily criticized. I'm trying to simplify since you say you have never read him. When you say, No it's not. It's a simple fact that by removing the working class of a company you have no company, you have no income, you have virtually no value. They are the ones who in actuality make the money. The directors have somehow gotten the power to steal that value from the workers and redistribute it themselves. , a casual observer really might think you're quoting Das Kapital chapter and verse. That's all. Well don't get me wrong, the "little guy" isn't the sole cause of profits/produce, of course the directors and management form an integral part of the company. But the current system heavily favours and entrenches the upper levels. I see why some would take my arguments as Marxist, but I don't intend them to (or at least I didn't just come back from book club reading das kapital). Marx (from your interpretation at least) has a good empirical point here; the worker is the one directly interacting with the market, and is the closest one in the company to the transfer of money from, say, the customer, to said company. Thus, he has control, in fact the greatest amount of control, in whether or not that money gets into the company. Since he controls the flow of value to the company, he has that responsibility and deserves proper recognition for it, and proportional power in the company. I do think there's a good point that you can't deny here (and it's worth some rambling thoughts) - that your basic assumption that the market dictates what companies do - actually hinges on the fact that workers are the baseline of production for the company. In fact, if you took this notion to heart, you would bring the system closer to that market dictating ideal! But instead for some strange reason you rely on the notion that the market dictates what directors do, who are so far removed from the process. As I briefly mentioned earlier, it would be better if all members of the syndicate (err I mean company! ) could vote on who manages, directs, executes, etc.. And it would be mostly a worker driven process, workers electing workers to become managers, etc... But they need this in legislation because it is their property rights at stake. Yes, I believe their property to be taken away as if they were taxed - except the taxman is in front of the cashier intercepting their income and delivers it to the king (or a group of Oligarchs) who later distributes it as he wishes. And don't get me wrong again, I'm not arguing for everyone making the same wage, or management making less than workers. Sounds like fantasizing about what *could be* ... How are you going to have a company without traditional equity? What fills that void? You can't remove something without describing the replacement! I'm sorry, by traditional equity what exactly do you mean? (so we can get our definitions in line) It may seem like fantasy, but you seem to be deeply entrenched in the system, so any change is bound to cause shivers up your spine. Well, at least I don't see the fantastical aspect of it.. Capital contribution that represents the residual claimant. Why should that change?
If they don't have ownership rights, they have no means for ensuring payback.
|
On January 23 2014 15:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 15:22 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 15:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 15:08 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 15:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 14:20 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 14:01 Danglars wrote:On January 23 2014 13:48 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 13:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 13:11 Roe wrote:
[quote]
Because the directors don't solely own the company
edit: I'm using your definition of ownership aren't I? Just the people who own the company, which means they control the value of the company. Directors aren't really owners at all - they're fiduciaries who act on behalf of shareholders (the legal owners) and in accordance with corporate bylaws. I'm not sure what you mean by "control the value" but shareholders exert control over the corporation by controlling who sits on the board and the board controls the executive team that runs it (at least in theory, in reality many boards are somewhat impotent, which is somewhat fitting because they tend to all be old men ). But anyways, shareholders are the residual claimants - meaning they're the last to get paid (if at all). It makes sense to give them ownership authority since it would be all too easy to otherwise simply not pay the residual claimant... which would make the whole endeavor a non-starter. Another way to look at it is that there is only one class of owner - the shareholders. But there are many people affected by the corporation - the stakeholders. You're not sure what it means to control the value of a company? Aren't you supposed to be a business man of some sort? Listen Johnny, I'm not interested in defending the status quo. I've spent the past page or so arguing against that. But to help you out, why does a shareholder have ownership of a company? If you keep confusing activities and people that create value within a company with who has control over various decisions, you're going to confuse everyone here and maybe even yourself. I'll try to convey to you, Roe, exactly why your thoughts are very much aligned with a Marxist ideal. Why your average Joe would presume you read and agreed with him. Marx wrote the most famous book with your argument, alleging that this economy exploits the labor class, the little guy that is the real cause of their profits and created value. The employer is just laying claim to them and he is heavily criticized. I'm trying to simplify since you say you have never read him. When you say, No it's not. It's a simple fact that by removing the working class of a company you have no company, you have no income, you have virtually no value. They are the ones who in actuality make the money. The directors have somehow gotten the power to steal that value from the workers and redistribute it themselves. , a casual observer really might think you're quoting Das Kapital chapter and verse. That's all. Well don't get me wrong, the "little guy" isn't the sole cause of profits/produce, of course the directors and management form an integral part of the company. But the current system heavily favours and entrenches the upper levels. I see why some would take my arguments as Marxist, but I don't intend them to (or at least I didn't just come back from book club reading das kapital). Marx (from your interpretation at least) has a good empirical point here; the worker is the one directly interacting with the market, and is the closest one in the company to the transfer of money from, say, the customer, to said company. Thus, he has control, in fact the greatest amount of control, in whether or not that money gets into the company. Since he controls the flow of value to the company, he has that responsibility and deserves proper recognition for it, and proportional power in the company. I do think there's a good point that you can't deny here (and it's worth some rambling thoughts) - that your basic assumption that the market dictates what companies do - actually hinges on the fact that workers are the baseline of production for the company. In fact, if you took this notion to heart, you would bring the system closer to that market dictating ideal! But instead for some strange reason you rely on the notion that the market dictates what directors do, who are so far removed from the process. As I briefly mentioned earlier, it would be better if all members of the syndicate (err I mean company! ) could vote on who manages, directs, executes, etc.. And it would be mostly a worker driven process, workers electing workers to become managers, etc... But they need this in legislation because it is their property rights at stake. Yes, I believe their property to be taken away as if they were taxed - except the taxman is in front of the cashier intercepting their income and delivers it to the king (or a group of Oligarchs) who later distributes it as he wishes. And don't get me wrong again, I'm not arguing for everyone making the same wage, or management making less than workers. Sounds like fantasizing about what *could be* ... How are you going to have a company without traditional equity? What fills that void? You can't remove something without describing the replacement! I'm sorry, by traditional equity what exactly do you mean? (so we can get our definitions in line) It may seem like fantasy, but you seem to be deeply entrenched in the system, so any change is bound to cause shivers up your spine. Well, at least I don't see the fantastical aspect of it.. Capital contribution that represents the residual claimant. Why should that change? If they don't have ownership rights, they have no means for ensuring payback.
I don't remember arguing they shouldn't have ownership rights
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
