- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 42,744
- Reaction score
- 22,569
- Location
- Bonners Ferry ID USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
No it wouldn't, that would be a different discussion.
Of course it would be a different discussion. A discussion where your point is openly wrong instead of hidden behind the false morality that you have when you focus on inheritance. Let me ask you a question. If a person builds a company, like Wal-Mart, from the ground up...not inheriting it...do they have the right to the millions that they make? Do they have the right to dictate how much thier employee's make and not give into demands if they do not want to?
Sure ... but they arn't being paid for mental labor, they are being paid for just controling capital, if they do management work, its fine to get compensation for that, but just owning capital isn't labor, and most of their money comes from just controlling capital.
Do you really think that it doesn't take mental labor to control the company? Do you think that there isn't mental labor involved in controlling capitol?
Thats bull****, it's not individual rights vrs collective rights ... Corporations are not individual entities, the are social entities and economics is a social activity, also its not mob rule, unless all democracy is mob rule, the difference is monarchy, i.e. either everyone in the corporation has a say or it's just the boss, i.e. democracy vrs dictatorship, this has nothing to do with individual rights, that's a strawman.
I never stated that Corporations are individual entities. The way that you have been argueing though is that there are two sides in this paradigm. The CEO (one person) and the employee's (talking as if they are one). "The CEO should give employee's more money" or "The CEO should give employee's more benefits". Not because they deserve it but because they have a right to it "because those employee's are more important than the CEO" (note that I am paraphrasing here)
And yes, economics is a social activity. One that includes more than those employee's. It includes every single person alive. But like every social activity there is always those on the top, and those on the bottom. That will never change and is impossible to get rid of...even with unions.
What about the individual right of the worker to have a say about what happens to the wealth he helps produce ... The point is a boss will pay himself the most amount possible and the workers the LEAST amount possible, thats not a meritocracy, a democracy is much of a meritocracy.
The worker has no right to say what happens to the wealth he helps produce. He abrogates that by agreeing to work for someone else for a certain amount of pay. Even the companies administrators do not have that right. Only the owner does. Anyone else has to have his permission. The only way that a worker has that right is if they own the company.
Lets look at it this way. Does the individual employee have to pay any other employee? Does the individual employee have to pay the manufacturing costs? Does the individual employee have to pay the electric bill? The permits? Does the individual have to worry about whether thousands of products will sell or not? Does the individual employee have to worry about negative publicity that could loose customers? Does the employee have to pay for the products that are bought wholesale? Does the grocery night stocker have to worry about making sure that the electronics section is stocked?
I could go on and on with that list. But in all of them the answer is No. The employee does not have to do any of that. The only thing that the employee has to do is do the ONE job that they are assigned to. The one job in hundreds that are required of such companies like Wal-mart. The owner of the company has to make sure that all of that is accomplished. He/She normally does that by hiring other people to make sure its done. But if its constantly not then it must be brought before his/her attention so that he/she can remedy the situation. Along with remedying the situation that made that situation get all the way up to him. (just one small example of how a CEO's job includes more than just controlling capitol) A CEO has to worry and take care of the whole company, the individual worker that you are mostly talking about only has to worry about one thing.
So, with that said...why should the employee, who again only takes care of one small detail among hundreds, have a "right" to dictate the wealth that his/her already compensated work goes towards?
Because the work in a cooperative ... I don't get you're point?
Perhaps I didn't understand your point? Maybe you could expand on it?
You have to move from the place where you spend most of the day ... yeah.
Umm...not sure of your point here. I sense sarcasm here....Are you saying that moving from one job to another in the same area is too much?