Please explain labor value theory to me. How are workers having

means of production spontaneously generate and then evil capitalists steal them with magic and force people to work for them

>>133106607
Well put for a leaf

>>133106505
lets say we have a factory
lets say it employs a thousand people

now lets say it creates wealth of a million whatever
those thousand people who do all the hard work and struggle to live from month to month in crappy conditions will get a few hundred bucks a month while the boss who does nothing will get a crapton of money and live in luxury

it might make sense in context of this civilizational system ,but it is unfair from a basic human level to have a system like that

>>133107319
But the workers did not create the machines someone else did

>>133106607
>means of production spontaneously generate

No, means of production are bought with capital

>then evil capitalists steal them with magic

No, they buy the MOP with capital

> force people to work for them

Correct. People have two choices: to work or die of starvation.

The problem is that the ownership of land and amassment of wealth is generally arbitrary. Someone made the means of production but it wasn't the guy who now owns them.

>>133107624
>But the workers did not create the machines someone else did

That "someone else" is labour.

>>133107712
>not working for yourself
Must be a pleb

File: communism.png (495KB, 800x480px) Image search: [Google]

495KB, 800x480px

>>133107319
Exactly this. Imagine a bridge, the pavement part is the worker. I'm really bad at engineering so I don't know how any of the other parts work, so logically we can just get rid of them.

>>133107712
What if I make my own shovels and then pay people $6 an hour to dig ditches while charging my clients $7?

>>133107624
workers do all the work
therfore they deserve their fair share instead of getting a pitiful piece, while their overlord gets 1000x they do without doing any of the work

>>133107712
>People have two choices: to work or die of starvation.

This is a law of nature. Hydration, nutrition, shelter have to be extracted from nature. If you dont work you die of starvation.

>>133107788
>That "someone else" is labour
Ok but how are the current workers having their labor stolen?

>>133107797
>not working for yourself
>Must be a pleb

Yes, you do have a choice of working for yourself. Albeit much more likely be unfruitful without any prior capital. This does not however invalidate my point.

>>133107908
They did not do all of the work
Somebody else built the machines

>>133107995
By not receiving the full value of their labour.

>>133107319
>>133107908
wrong. the increased productivity of many workers comes from CAPITAL, that was financed by the owner by their own money or risk based loans.

the only time productivity has improved but is in the hands of the worker and not machines has been in HIGHLY SKILLED PROFESSIONS. Who do get paid a lot.

>>133108079
then why dont they build their own factory

>>133108079
But their labor does not include building the machines

>>133108054
yes, the workers have built the machines with their work, just in another factory

>>133108084
owner's capital comes from workers' work

>>133108054
> They did not do all of the work

"All the work" in this scenario means the work necessary to produce the product being sold (not make all the machines necessary to produce the product).

If you want to cry about not getting "fair share" start something on your own. Build a factory, buy equipment and keep looking for deals to keep your factory alive while paying goverment their portion of your income as well as worker healthcare etc(europe)

>>133108156
Because they don't have the necessary capital.

>>133108156
that would just mean becoming one of the 1% who live off other's work

>>133108221
But those are different workers
They have nothing to do with the workers there now

>>133108079
you cannot define the full value of their labor in a modern setting without wage negotiations. either person to person which lets and individual mke the case of their own value OR unionism (not government backed cause that fucking demolishes an industry) that fights for the collective group ( below average workers benefit/above average workers lose out )

>>133108333
and they got their fair share taken from them too by those who didnt do any of the work

>>133108265
And after all this work keep your salary same as other labourers who for example connect toy parts

>>133108014
It doesn't, but I think you could better word this bit:
>> force people to work for them
>Correct. People have two choices: to work or die of starvation.

People do indeed have to work or die, that is nature. But offering a job isn't forcing someone to work for you unless it's offered at gunpoint. Picking a shitty option over a worse option (foraging, starvation) is still a choice.

>>133108274
>dont have enough capital to buy a saw and start trimming trees

>>133108227
the machines actually do a lot of the work, the labor just operates them to an extent

>>133108312
this is described well

>>133107903
You are only charging your clients $7? You can fuck right off. You need to be charging at least $12. Remember, you are required to pay taxes, workers compensation insurance, workers health insurance, overhead, maintenance and repairs of the shovels you created, unemployment insurance, and more. Making only $1 to manage all of that is not worth it. You might as well pick up a shovel and make $6.

>>133108408
How do you know?
What if I buy the machines directly from the person that makes them?

>>133108312
One day the workers will join together, build their own machines and reap all the benefits of their own labor
of course, nobody will build machines on the promise of future success, so we'll need someone with money to fund the operation. We also can't expect the everyman to have international business connections, so we'll need one of those high society types - maybe he can provide the start-up cash, too!
Yeah, and once he takes his cut for providing the workers the funds to create the means of production and market the goods, then we'll have perfect communism.

>>133108333
trolling or just stupid?

>>133108221
Those workers were already paid to operate machines that made the parts for the machine, and the source machines were paid for by investors who bore the risk of paying for those machines and thus earn the higher profit.

>>133106505
they're going to have to find some other explanation soon when automation takes over...

on one hand they ought to be happy to have their pleb level universal income but I reckon they'll mostly be pissed that they're not able to find jobs anymore despite previously arguing that such jobs were exploitative

>>133108538
are you implying that machines are made by someone's home workshop

because they are not, they are made in factories that exploit workers

>>133108657
yes, they were paid by the wealth creted by the workers who got almost nothing from tehir share of work

>>133108682
They could be

>>133108558
You can fucking have ownership over the means of production. it's called investing. If you want to own a share of the machines in a compny you work for then buy their fucking shares. Oh wait you don't want to earn a stake, you want to be given one the moment you get assigned to the job by your neighborhood commissar.

>>133108774
no, they fucking couldnt
do you even know what factory machines are?

>>133108221
if you're going to discount that putting capital at risk deserves some reward then why don't all these workers just do that themselves - put their money where their mouth is and form a co-op of some sort to do the same thing?

>>133108911
Could one person make a shovel?

>>133108419
>But offering a job isn't forcing someone to work for you unless it's offered at gunpoint.

Unless you have the necessary capital to start your own venture, you MUST work for someone, and at this point you have two choices: WORK FOR SOMEONE or DIE; and this is no different than being offered to work at gunpoint.


For the vast majority (read: 95%+ of population) it is absolutely WORK FOR SOMEONE or DIE. Please tell me how is this a choice? how is this free will? How is fair?

File: fixedmuhwork.png (1MB, 748x960px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 748x960px

>>133106505
>muh labor value
this is a lie, the first socialists didn't believe that they created value, but that culture and civilisation had created value and that they should demand a bigger share of the loot because those creators were dead

read the ragged trousered philanthropists

and they were wrong anyway because really it was stolen by imperialists or gained by destroying the competition

>>133106505
This meme is deceiving. That big bag of money is used as investment on equipment, business expenses and hiring more people.

Do you think all of AT&T's money, for example, is owned by one person? It's not. It's held by the corporation as a whole and is used to reinvest in new cell phone towers, excavators, fiber optic research, hiring new scientists to study said fiber optic research.

That's how business works.

>>133109058
You dont have enough capital to buy a computer and do free lance programming?

>>133109037
>if you're going to discount that putting capital at risk deserves some reward
sure is nice to risk the value someone else created

>co-op of some sort to do the same thing
thats exactly the goal

>>133109058
You can risk and take a loan to start your venture,nobody is stoping you

>>133109054
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=factory+machines
were talking about where the real value is
not in some cheap buck made by a person shoveling

>>133108682
I think you're also discounting the professional salarymen/engineers here

if a production line is mostly automated then the guy's who have to push buttons or carry out some mundane repetitive task are hardly adding a huge amount of value given they can be easily replaced by any old indian or chink should that factory be relocated

you're claiming that they're being exploited but in reality if they're in a union and in a western country it is likely the other way around and the workers together with their union and labour laws are extracting far more from the employers than they're actually worth - see for example the US car industry

File: PacAtackGraphic.jpg (186KB, 1600x1055px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 1600x1055px

>>133109105
No it's not.

>>133106505
Labor theory of value is an outdated theory that tells hat price of goods for exhange is determined by labor that was spent. you mixes all in one.

marxists told that labor theory of value is outdated and proposed to talk about added value.

marxists and all type of socialists tell that added value is stolled by capitalists and it created crisis. because workers buy goods that they produce with markup (that includes profit of capitalist).

means of productions were created by worker, they became capital assets because they were bought by capitalist.

the only problem is that socialists were lunatics and proposed wrong solutions

>>133109247
you know what's really cucky

demanding wealth for the working class instead of for yourself

even marx only saw the proles as a means to an end

>>133109301
So shovels are not part of the means of production?

>>133108835
>If you want to own a share of the machines in a compny you work for then buy their fucking shares

own a share of the machines in a compny you work for =/= owning the means of productions. Wage labour still exists. Workers don't receive 100% of their labour, exploitation is still there.

File: 1483769454382.jpg (88KB, 1190x906px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 1190x906px

>>133109247
This might be the worst false equivalence I've ever seen, not even sure what the train of thought it

>>133109305
there's a reason why communism has never been succesful in the developed west m8
its because what i just described is appliable in less developed areas
in the west there are labour laws and better standards of living so people are satisfied

If working for yourself was easy, everybody would do it. Most 9-5 weekday workers refuse to put in a second more of work that is required to make your own business run. Most people just want to get off at 5 to drink beer and watch football. Capitalism allows people of all walks of life to live in some degree of luxury. Without Capitalism, you aren't watching football and drinking beer after business hours. YOU are doing marketing for your business on your own dime and time. YOU are maintaining and repairing your means of production on your own dime and own time. All of a sudden, you have no time to watch football and drink beer because the second you stop working on your own time and own dime, your competitor is and you're no longer picking up any work.

Working for yourself requires WAY more personal sacrifice than 95% of the working population is willing to make.

Isn't it funny how it's always the communists and socialists who aren't the ones who will actually go out and become self-employed?

>>133106505
If you don't like it, create your own means of production. I have about $3,000 of tools in the back of my $10,000 work ute. These are my means of production that I paid workers to make for me. What entitles you to my shit, just because I paid someone else to make it?

>>133109305
>if a production line is mostly automated then the guy's who have to push buttons or carry out some mundane repetitive task are hardly adding a huge amount of value given they can be easily replaced by any old indian or chink should that factory be relocated
now this still stands
its called the alienation of workers from the means of production

>>133106505
If you know being a tard ass worker without money, why you dont educate yourself and be the boss by yourself?

All in all that is still possible to do in capitalism.

Btw. if you work for companies like BMW etc. you'll get a shitload of money for simple ass work.

>>133109681
>>133109810
that would just mean becoming teh exploiter yourself

>>133108764
So why should worker B be allowed to benefit from the unrewarded work of worker A?
Worker B did not build the machine, nor did he pay for it. How is that fair?

>>133107319

And in a free market the worker says 'fuck this, I'm going to quit and find a job where my skills will be worth more'.

Then they leave that factory and go to work in one of the many competing factories (because it is easy, without over regulation, to set up a factory) where the employer has increased wages and benefits to poach skilled labour from his competitors.

Labour is a commodity. We have to treat it as such. Left to it's own devices employers have to compete for quality labour and standards improve for everybody.

But no... Let's stifle competition, force employers to adhere to a minimum wage pricing millions out of the labour market and see how that works out. Oh, what's that? Ridiculous levels of unemployment, welfare dependency and economic woes.

>>133106505
Worker do small operation. Ten workers do ten different operations - doing that detail, assembling, driving, selling. They can do only their operation. Dude, who owns entire factory, knows how to organize this ten workers. He also owns all material beings on this factory, machines, resources etc. And he hires workers to do this operations. Basically, he offers some payment in exchange for worker doing that operation. Worker agrees to work for that money. So workers are basically sell their labor for monthly amount of money. They never own what they make, cause they was never owning resources and machines they used to make what they make since very beginning. And they don't pay neither for resources, nor for machines.

>>133107712
>Correct. People have two choices: to work or die of starvation.
Under communism they only have the starve option.

Why hasnt anybody shopped a nose in the bag what the fuxk pol you dissapoint me you had one (1) job

>>133109913
if lets say a thousand workers work on something which creates lets say million
in collectivism each would get a thousand
they all work for what they get so its in their benefit to to work properly, not to mention the social pressure

>>133106505
Do you have any idea how much it costs a CEO to employ all those people? Can you please explain why you think YOU deserve the lions share?

>>133108307
>building your own factory is the work of someone else
Someone has never been in a management position.

>>133109868
Who am I exploiting? If paying someone for my tools is exploitation, then what would you call someone simply taking my tools in the name of seizing the means of production?

>>133107808
Is that the MK7 or MK8 version? Can't tell

File: Jesus-coins-of-the-bible-Phoenician-Tyrian-mint-125BC-66AD-AR-Silver-Shekel-Tetradrachm-Inscription-Tyre-Judas-betrayed-Jesus-30-pieces-of-silver.jpg (262KB, 1772x1054px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 1772x1054px

>>133106505
I think that's only true in some sectors.

My wife and I own a business which happens to have a very shallow profit margin; 53% of the gross income is going towards payroll. I do not get paid and my wife earns less than every staff member.

Capitalism isn't the enemy; greed is.

>>133109968
>And in a free market the worker says 'fuck this, I'm going to quit and find a job where my skills will be worth more'.
>Then they leave that factory and go to work in one of the many competing factories (because it is easy, without over regulation, to set up a factory) where the employer has increased wages and benefits to poach skilled labour from his competitors.

so they find a nicer exploiter
youre advocating to creat a nicer exploitation environment here

>>133107319
Those workers, if they are capable, will be able to leave the factory/whatever and start their own if they want, especially since they've learned the processes.

The problem here is Patents.
Patents exist because people can't keep secrets. If the product is simple enough that any layman can disassemble it and make a copy, then you shouldn't be able to patent is considering it probably didn't take you very much effort to design it in the first place.

But complex technology would be cept safe by high wages. You pay people for loyalty and they will keep your secrets safe, instead of patents.

>give me your redpills /leftypol/
Specifically, the work you do is always worth more than what you are paid, because the capitalist can sell whatever it is you produce for more than you were paid in wages. The productive forces of our society are controlled by a tiny elite instead of by the people, so what ends up happening is that millions of proles sweat their lives away while the porky bastards windsurf in Hawaii.
To put it in terms you might be more familiar with, capitalists are the ultimate welfare queens.
>my stance on hatred of jews and niggers will never change.
To say that your position on any topic will never change is to declare yourself to be beyond reason. That said, those "jews" and "evil niggers" are your natural allies regardless of what you think about them, because they are being exploited just like you are. The leftist position on racism is as much about pragmatism as it is about a commitment to equality.

The basic gist is that capitalism is inherintly broken.
Companies want to make as much money as possible which means paying works the smallest amount possible.
Eventually workers can't afford to buy things, meaning the whole system collapses.
Currently with automation we are going to see a huge loss of jobs that will make the concept of full employment obsolete - so who is going to buy things?
Communism isn't some grand fucking conspiracy about race or western civilization - its just a question of economics.

>>133109301
Way to undervalue the work of the shovel man. Typical capitalist scum.

>>133110102
>>133110170
the work the workers are going to do is going to be exploited through the years
if not it wouldnt be of any good for you to start in teh first place

>>133106505
Because stop being a dumb faggot pleb and make your own god damn means of production, you stupid commie faggot

>>133109868
marxists were not againt exploiters because they are bad. marx wanted to use state capitalism and totalitarian dictatoship as a tool to get to his communism lol

they criticize so-called "capitalistic exploiters" because of crisis of overproduction (by overinvesting to get richer). and they promised that they can solve this problem by replacing them with 1 exploiter temporary

practice showed that their solution in addition to simple business required Mass Murders and Shit

thats why such marxistic bullshit today is close to lunacy

File: IMG_2944.jpg (63KB, 768x384px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 768x384px

>>133106505

I think that image is inaccurate. That one worker didn't make that amount of wealth for the capitalist. That big fucking bag has to get distributed to the other potentially hundreds of employees. This illustration is an over-exaggeration.

>>133110225
>Those workers, if they are capable, will be able to leave the factory/whatever and start their own if they want, especially since they've learned the processes.
becoming the exploiters themselves


>You pay people for loyalty and they will keep your secrets safe
thinking that money can buy loyalty is naive
there will always be that one individual

>>133110296
This isn't actually an answer, m8

>>133110208

How is trading your labour for a decent wage that allows you to eat, sleep and live in relative comfort make you exploited?

If you want more go out and work for it.

What's really stopping you and your comrades from starting a business together and sharing the profits? What is stopping you, other than incompetence and laziness, from building your own factory and operating it as a cooperative?

If it's so easy to get it all set up you guys shouldn't have any trouble.

People go into business for themselves all the time. But no, you lack the initiative so you want someone else to take the risk, do the work and provide the start up capital so that you can come in and claim you deserve a full share of all the profits.

You're a fucking lunatic.

>>133110296
So people shouldn't have to work? What the fuck are you on about.
Try to be make sense, please. I know it's hard for a socialist to try hard, but come on man.

>>133110446
Anarchist faggot detected. This thread needs to be abandonded.

>>133110398
marx was a petite burgeois upper class autist out of touch with the common man
about communism marx himself has distanced himself from it in practice when he saw waht are "the proletarians" turning it into


of course marxism can never work, its insane

>>133106505
>labor value theory
It was rejected for bein antiscientific in 1890's, anyone who uses it today is just deranged from modern economic science. Economic mainstream is using marginal utility, as it makes sense since all people value things differently.

>>133109868

No why exactly?

A good friend of mine got a start-up company with now 120 employees and they all get the same amount of money. Thats his philosophy and they do a great job since 2 years.

>>133110513
yes they should work
they should work and be the masters of what they produce instead of it going into 1%'s pockets

>>133110513
>>133110607
im not a socialist, im simply a law student who took sociology classes at very good renowned professors where i live

this topic is close to me cause im a distributist

>>133108312
>Totally ignores what was said
>Shoots him after reiterating that the worker filling bags or attaching lugnuts on an assembly deserve the same pay as the guy funding the whole process and keeping the factory and business running at all levels

>>133110794
thats why commies will never be succesful in the west
good conditions of work and good life standards so nobody complains

>>133110512
The problem is a lot of people think the world and other people owe them something just because they exist.
Typical parasite mindset - gib, gib, gib

>>133106505
Ask on /leftypol/ on infinite chan.

>>133109224
except you know, working class are mostly cowards and mindless drones

>>133110512
>How is trading your labour for a decent wage that allows you to eat, sleep and live in relative comfort make you exploited?
the worker doesnt control what he produces
that creates alienation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_alienation - check this out, its a good tehory, dont dismiss it solely cause its marx

>>133106505
>Please explain labor value theory to me.

Lies. Economic value is a subjective function of rational needs, irrational desires, and objective scarcity.

>>133110833
>renowned professors
Sounds more like crackpot professors who have no grounding to their theories. What you are repeating is typical communist propaganda designed to undermine the middle/upper class of business owners and investors by driving up the price of labor for no reason.
There is no reason because everything inflates in price when base labor is expensive, and this increase WILL be seen by the worker when they go to spend their "increased" paycheck. Turns out when everyone is paid more, no one is.

>>133110995
of course they are
thats why they will never succed at anything except fucking things up
thats why they need good leadership instead of a supranational big merchant cabal we have today

File: laughing nigel.jpg (86KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 500x500px

>labor theory of value

>>133106505
Blockchain

>>133110931

I hate them. I really do. They feel that they are entitled to things just because they exist.

They're 99% total fucking failures, in every respect, as well.
I've not met a 'communist' or 'socialist' who wasn't mentally ill, heinously ugly, a brony, autistic or just plain stupid.

Seriously take a look around at any communist rally or convention and all you will see are unwashed, intentionally disfigured mutants that have no success of any metric at all in their lives.

The fact that they have the audacity to stand there and tell everyone else how things should be run is laughable.

>>133109668
yep

oh veyy communism

File: СССР-времен-плакаты-картинки с надписями-прикольные надписи-смешные объявления_183051671.jpg (96KB, 600x796px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 600x796px

>>133110446
Starting your own business where you could potentially pay a higher wage is exploitation after all.
The only way forward of course is to destabilize your country and overthrow its government and ensure a new ruling class of party members who control all goods and labor and who live in luxury much like the former boug factory owners, but its different because things are free and distributed at the parties discretion, we got cool posters, and you gotta wait in breadlines now, way cool.
Marxism definitely works, communist leaders NEVER EVER live in luxury while their people have no food, communism definitely isn't a form of disguised aristocracy where the people have voluntarily given up all their rights in exchange for coming under the care of new rulers.

>>133111122
its really not
sociology gets a bad name because of the crap they do in us universities, but its really good and useful, opens up your worldview by giving you additional perspective

what im advocating for is an economic system based on small business cooperatives
im against the socialist bullcrap myself

>>133110246
>meaning the whole system collapses.
But you know, communism doesnt collapse.

>>133111404
marxism never works, its utter bullshit created by a bunch of smart people to fool an aimless horde driven by wish for a fairer world,
which ends up creating another exploitation system, this time led by uncle stalin and mao instead of by the uncle sam or the king

its unsustainable in theory, in practice its a dupe

How can workers be entitled to 100% of surplus labor when capital expenditures (both maintenance and expansion) can only be paid out of surplus labor?

>>133110512
>What's really stopping you and your comrades from starting a business together and sharing the profits? What is stopping you, other than incompetence and laziness, from building your own factory and operating it as a cooperative?
go ahead and tell that to a poor person struggling to make a living

tis easy for well off middle upper class fellers like us, but for poorfags its just a dream

>>133106505

Labor theory of value is the idea that opportunities have no value. Joe Laborer would never be able to produce at the level he is producing absent the investment by the factory owners, and Marx says that doesn't matter, he still deserves everything.

In this way, Marxism destroys the incentive to invest. No large scale production occurs except at gunpoint once the owning classes leave or are purged.

>>133111406

We have small business cooperatives. They exist because of the free market. They'd do better under a truly free market where people are totally free to create enterprise in a way they see fit.

Literally if you want to start a business manufacturing your own product, paying your workers with an even share of the profit, there is nothing to stop you besides perhaps over regulation and government interference which is EXACTLY what you get more of under socialist/communist governments.

The way to improve the economy is not to abandon capitalism but to remove the constraints which stop it functioning as intended as it did 100 years ago giving rise to some of the most prosperous nations on the planet and the greatest advances in quality of life ever seen.

>>133111406
>small business cooperatives
problem with that is people with resources will naturally want to grow their businesses as long as they can, people who want to get a bigger share and work for it will take it-- and a government enforced measure to keep all businesses "small" is just unwieldy. what about businesses that benefit from economies of scale?

>>133111806
the system we have is not run on small business cooperatives
its mainly run by international big businesses the free market creates by removing constraints for them

constraints which could favour local small businesses "evil protectionists" (like trump) want to impose are removed so international big business can trample everything in front of them

>>133111700

There are loans, initiatives and all other kinds of fundraising avenues these days. Look at kickstarter. If you have a genuinely good idea people will support you.

I do agree that it is harder than it should be though but that's not a problem of capitalism it's a problem of over regulation and bureaucracy that makes starting a business an endless series of hoops to jump through, licenses to purchase, laws to comply with... That's what truly prices it out of the average man's grasp. That's what needs to change if we want to see economic improvement.

>>133111864
thats why on local level they need to be regulated in organizations in which everyone will have a vote

its called the guild system

How does the labor theory of value account for non-physical work?
One person with a new invention or a good business decision can generate more value than hundreds of workers, can't they?

>>133112076
exactly, and why
because of the big business ran by big cats that keep strangling everyone else by having state impose measures in their benefits

they have the money - they pay the state, they take down the small locals with cheap prices

my "centrist" solution would be
>UBI
>Progressive income tax rate
>Very low transaction (sales) tax
>No corporate tax
>High Cap gain tax
>Remove all welfare (except UBI)
>Shorten the time you need to go to school (like say 6 years tops for every person), everything else can be learned online

>>133106505
The value of something is the full sum of labor put into it. As an example the value of a house is the value of
>The labor to gather and process base materials
>They labor spent getting those materials to the construction site
>The labor spent building the house

Its a system almost exclusivly used by marxists who have no concept of supply and demand. That house being more expensive in a suburban vs rual community or that there may be a shortage of treated wood is totally lost on the commies. As for value of labor itself, a mill worker who can fill a 50 lb bag of flour, stack it on a pallet, and wrap the finished pallet in plastic is going to be much easier to replace than the guy tracking grain in the silos, managing deliveries in and out, and keeping the whole operation legal under Uncle Sam. When the bag man decides he wants $15 an hour there are 3 guys outside ready to keep doing it for 10.

>>133106505
>dammit, I have this massive bag I bought from a mate full of materials that I can't carry
>wait there's a fella
>excuse me mister, I am in need of help and will pay you for your services
>"what's the pay?"
>£5 to help me carry this bag to my warehouse a mile from here
>"*inspects size of the bag*"
>"I'll do it for £30"
>no, I can't afford that sir
>but I can spare up to £10, if you're willing
>"£25"
>£15?
>"..."
>"£15 and a cup of coffee"
>done deal, let's do this

There you go.

>>133112237
>>133112097
yeah but what you're saying is like saying we have to go back to the 1500-1700 ways of doing things

we have the internet now, technology, people can outsource things to other people to streamline business processes

the world aint what it was. "big cats" are not really that many

>>133112242
>UBI
is too easily abusable, will decrease productivity and will simply keep the poor people down, ABSOLUTELY impossible in the west cause mass immigration
you remove welfare and add something with the same effect

>Progressive income tax rate
will bring down the middle class

>>133110833
You're a fucking idiot. The 1% are those that built their businesses from the ground up and/or kept it running with investments of their own money. It's thanks to them that you'd even be able to work.

>>133112469
>yeah but what you're saying is like saying we have to go back to the 1500-1700 ways of doing things
no, im saying doing things today, according to contemporary needs, but with examples in the past

>the world aint what it was. "big cats" are not really that many
completely wrong
the one percent is richer than it ever was and getting richer with each year

>>133112242
school is a fucking joke, but people need it for socialization and indoctrination-- so they dont become autists when they grow up. we need to teach just the basics then they can all go to school online

that'll make society/the economy truly entrepreneurial with less people thinking that being top of the class is something relevant

>>133112595
1% are soros, rothshilds and similar
if you want to advocate for them go on

>>133112647
nobody needs indoctrination
it is only used to further interests of the 1% and everybody would be better off without it

do you really think that before the state parents didnt know how to raise their kids,
they knew, and better than the state does today

>>133112864
>>133112700
>>133112507
>>133112646

confirmed shill thread or just a fucking autist not wanting to lose an argument

>>133112700
It is also Gates, Trump, and Cuban. There are good and bad people in the 1% and it's just the same for the 99%. At least show some gratitude that they would even pick your worthless Croat ass off the street and give you a wage.

Want to earn a bigger piece of the pie? Invest in the company. Share the risk that the owner does and then and only then will you be entitled to the same payoff.

>>133112994
thank you my dear 1% masters soros, rothschild gates and similar who want mass immigration into west, ultra feminism pushed and mass censorship

>>133112242
>UBI
it's designed to grant you enough wealth to live a decent life, so what's stopping me and millions of citizens from quitting our jobs?
On the side, who's paying?
>Progressive income tax rate
Like we already have, or more specific? Taxes are already too high.
>very low transaction tax
So who's paying for the UBI?
>No corporate tax
Not corporations then, but if not them, who?
>high cap gain tax
So people are disincentivised from working, or they acquire their capital in a country that doesn't have those taxes. Again, who's left to pay for UBI?
>Remove all welfare (except UBI)
That won't be enough to leverage UBI, but a good idea for all countries nonetheless.
>Shorten the time you spend in school, everything else can be learned online
What good is school when you can learn everything online? Social interaction is a skill you can acquire by going outside.

But again, the one key issue.
WHO IS PAYING FOR IT???
I ask because we're in the shit we are today thanks to Babyboomers who had the brilliant idea to just leverage the debt to their grandchildren.

>>133113100
Literally not an argument. 0/10

>>133113204
neither is what you wrote an argument

>>133108657
where did the investors get their money, then?

>>133113249
Except you're dismissing my argument as SJW DA JOOS shit without actually refuting it. What I find funny is that you have such a profound lack of understanding of capitalism and you're trying to defend communistic ideals while also calling people Jewish SJW's.

Stupid fucking Croat. No wonder your country is irrelevant.

>>133113505
By operating the business themselves/taking out a loan/inheriting a fuck ton of money.

>>133112363
>carrying a bag full of manure
50 shekels or no go Ivan.

>>133113558
ive come to see the day when pol sides with soros and the rothschilds
now i can die in peace

LTV is commonly expressed as "capital + labor = worth". If capital is physical materials (which is quite literally everything in the physical universe), and the labor is work done with those materials, then all work must create value, always. Otherwise the LTV formula is not true.

So imagine a capitalist hires a bunch of workers to dig up a plot of dirt, and when they reach a set amount of inches down, they then are directed to fill the hole again and repeat the process. LTV says they are creating capital despite the fact that at the end of the work day, nothing was created and nothing has changed. Simply put, there is a higher order of values that we operate under, which labor can only be said is somewhat related but is not the whole picture.

>>133106505
wtf i hate capitalism now

>>133113684
I'm not siding with Soros or the Rothschilds. You're making blatantly false statements regarding capitalism and I'm telling you how you're wrong. Soros and the Rothschilds are capitalist but they're also fucking evil. Communism wouldn't change that. Communism just means they don't have to share any of their wealth because they'd be running the state. Capitalism is a tool that reflects the intentions of those that use it. You can easily become as wealthy as them if not moreso just as long as you capitalize on a good idea, make smart investments, or both.

>>133106505
Why don't the workers simply make goods with their own labor and sell them, for 100% of the profit?

What's that? They want to be paid next week? They don't want to pay $500 for the raw materials to be manufactured into consumer goods? They don't want to buy the $5000 piece of equipment needed to process the raw materials into consumer goods?

Then maybe they should go work for someone else. There's nothing stopping any "workers" from becoming their own boss besides laziness. If they really gained all the skills needed to make money like the "capitalist class," they could easily work for themselves.

>>133108312
>workers who each add a fragment of worth to a product get paid fragments of their work's worth
>this invalidates the CEO's argument

File: companies.jpg (14KB, 284x178px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 284x178px

>>133114002
nice stories
too bad tis different in practice

File: companies.png (316KB, 970x588px) Image search: [Google]

316KB, 970x588px

>>133114334
fuck
shitty picture
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brendancoffey/2011/10/26/the-four-companies-that-control-the-147-companies-that-own-everything/#39acf285685b

>>133114511
Always archive it
https://archive.is/p77hl

>>133106505
>live in corporationist economy with banking jewery
>be surprised you don't earn as much as you should do

File: DD0cyOEUIAApWcL.jpg (57KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 720x720px

Holy ahit. Half of yoy fags are fucking commies. Neck yourself. Here I am Self employed landscaping and excavation company. Built from scratch. Years of hardship and allmost going broke several times. Finally getting ahead and thinking about hiring. This fuck thaf I hire is gonna be thinking that he does all the work and I do nothing? Fucking ludicrous.
Also on a side note I am supposed to check my privilege

>>133114511
It's entirely your fault if you don't take the initiative to build wealth. Your meme pictures prove nothing other than how stupid you are.

>>133114601
Replace Socialism with Syndicalism
Replace capitalism with Socialism.

>>133115290
>"y don't you become a millionaire?"

Teenagers like you will have a very rude awakening

>>133115210
Capitalists are the people who earn their living solely trough investments returns. You are obviously not a capitalist. You are little more then proletariat

Don't deceive yourself.

>>133106505
>>133107319
>wealth created by labor
Labor alone creates nothing. Also, those thousand people can easily be replaced by another thousand unskilled laborers looking for work, so their labor isn't that valuable as it is so easily replaceable.

>it is unfair from a basic human level
nice meme

>>133115464
U wut? If you don't like your current wage, do something else. It's pretty fucking simple. Get off your lazy ass and make yourself valuable.

>>133115674
My end goal is to have employees work for me. Including management, all while I revert back to my natural NEET lifestyle earning money off of my invested time and money. Would I then be a capitalist?
>Inb4 you cant do that as a landscaping company

>>133107319
>thinks innovation, taking risks, and employing others is doing nothing
You're a fucking nigger

>>133116353
yes

>>133110076
But did they all do the same amount of work? Should they all get exactly 1 equal share? What if one worker has put in more time and skill and education and contributed way more to earn the Million for the workers- should he not get a larger share than someone with no skills who contributed barely anything?

>>133106505
But the "worker" doesn't exist in an isolated system. So, for some product 'x', lots of people work to ship it, assemble it, stock it, mine it, etc. It's not just one guy, and he can't claim all the sales on said product.

>>133112700
Those are the top 0.0001%
There's a lot of decent people in the top 1-5% who have put a lot of effort into building and maintaining businesses, and teaching their families how to keep it going. Not all of them are disgusting greedy assholes (although power and wealth can corrupt some people).

>>133107624
He is not saying give all the money to the workers, he is saying give them a little more. So a rich person makes 800,000 instead of 1,000,000, big deal he can still live a nice life but a poor person making 20k instead of 10k will live a much better enjoyable life.