Well, I believe I will jump out of this now. Does not seem to be getting anywhere and I think BS hit it right on the head. You see, I do not care about the "greater good", either! I care about me. I went to school for me. I spent twenty years in business for me. I sacrificed for me.  The thing about all this talk on socialism is that it stifles greatness. Spreading the wealth is a fine sentiment but it give no incentive to the great to be great. I could not care less about the "plight of the struggling laborer". We all have our lot in life.

Now, I realize that last comment opens me up for a bunch of nastiness but I suppose I will accept that. The truly great men (and women) in the world are better. They strive to be more. To accomplish more. They strive for greatness. Some people do not have these lofty aspirations. They are content to be mediocre. Worse, there are those that would have the few be great and the mediocre be allowed to reap the benefits. No thank you. I do not care for what one person believes is "right". That makes NO difference to me. Fairness can go that way as well. If I am better, and I produce more and I accomplish greatness, I do not see why I should share that with a slug. I want more. I earned every bit. I stood above the others. I took the risk. That is how it is. If a company recognizes that and rewards me, that is just as it should be.

I do not advocate "firing" someone because I find a guy that can do his job "10 minutes faster". I advocate hiring that faster guy, too! Now I have TWO guys working and , with any luck, the slower one will find motivation in competition. If not, he can stay in his position so long as he DOES HIS JOB!! The faster guy may get promoted, who knows? I suppose it depends on how valuble time is to my company! As long as you are doing what you are paid to do, you should feel relatively safe. In difficult times, the faster guy might be more valuble? This is business not a contest to save people's feelings. Don't like that? OPEN YOUR OWN BUSINESS and do it YOUR way.

Maybe. Or maybe they start out in such positions. The thing is, not all people start at the bottom, and it would be interesting to see how many corporate leaders started out as "the guy that screws on the tail light". And even if all people would start out at the bottom and rise to the top, would it still justify all their privileges? The high wages and the insane amount of power they hold in a company? I dont think so. And even if a CEO runs the company for a year and fails... With all the rewards and bonuses he gets, he has enough money that would suffice you or me for years.

And just a note, CEOs that rise to that position dont own the company in most cases, but are employed by the owners of the company to lead it. As for the owners... Well, dont even get me started on them.

Over here the rights and duties of the employer and the employee are clearly defined by law. If an employee screws up bad enough that the employer has a valid reason to fire him/her, that will happen and the unions cant do shit. Unfortunately, the unions cant do shit about other things as well, like an employer getting outside his/her rights and demanding more from employee than is allowed.

Ok, moving on to Tim...

I was actualy shocked to hear that a factory worker over there gets 75 $ per hour. Thats the amount of money that I make in two days of work. But that aside, I hardly think that the guy who gets 75$ per hour would be a bigger reason for the high prices of cars than the guy that gets a couple of thousand $ per month + all the insanely high rewards. I mean, if we put all those numbers that we saw in the Blah thread together... A CEO gets more money than all the factory workers put together! Maybe if a CEO would get a regular wage, the cars could be much more affordable, without having to make cuts at the bottom, where it most hurts. Not to mention that 75$ is not a lot in a car that may cost a few thousand $ as a finished product. If it is 75$ per car anyway, because I can hardly imagine that screwing on a single component (like the now infamous "tail light") would take an entire hour. Havent you guys heard of norms?

Employment. Well, yes, you have to prove it. And you can work hard and try hard, but so can the other guy. Its a competition where there are few winners but many losers. And of course, the employer is the one that will ultimately decide who gets the job. And of course, I agree that we shouldnt go firing people because a new candidate has been found after the old one was already employeed. That is a matter of job security, and with it social security.

Social equality is in my opinion definately something that we should work for. From experiences in my country, social equality is a quarantee of a peacefull society, with considerably lower crime rates, suicide rates, ect. A society like we have now, with competition on every corner, and massive class divisions does completetly the opposite.
As for the pros and cons of a socialist system... Well, as far as Im concerned the worst kind of socialism is better than the best kind of capitalism. Its not all crazy Ivans with nukes, you know.

Moving on to Freeze... (3 on 1! It aint a fair fight! :D)

Ot goes back to basic capitalist economics. Thats not the only kind of economics, and as I said a lot of time before, it is not without alternatives. The thing is, that people of all proffesions contribute to the wealth of a society, and even though someones work might be valued less in terms of money, it doesnt mean that we can do without it.

		Head banger wrote:
		Strat, your right in the difference between decent wage and decent life.  A wage may help make a decent life, but its not the end all.  your right too that education by itsself doesnt qualify you for any job.  the work a person is willing to do is a part of them, and their character, but its sure not the only thing.  but, rarely do people rise to leadership positions, and hold them for any length of time without leadership skills.  some are learned, mistakes get made, but if you dont have the basic skills, you either own the company, or your daddy does.  and in those cases, if you dont know your shit, you fail, and the company does too.   unions, question, do your unions defend all workers who recieve dicipline?  even if they did do the wrong thing?  ours do.  they take dues and contribute them to political causes, without asking the membership, spend money on the leaders trips, not that they help the workers any.  today, a union is just like any business, selling a "service" not a physical product.  but they just sell, and are just there to make money, just as a business is.  in fact, the unionized office workers of a union near here went on strike to complain about the way they were treated there.       _strat_ wrote: You can open up another window, go to JP.com and have it right there... But anyway, I wanted us to relocate here, because this is the thread for it, and we were going on in a general discussion one. Ok, to the point: Value as a human being was not my point either. The point was that the education you need to have to do a certain job, does not automaticaly make you fit for that job. If we take a CEO, a manager, or even an ordinary boss, whats the thing you would expect from them? Well, expertise is one, and I grant you that can be pretty much learned. But what about the things like leadership abilities, organisational abilities, being a responsible person... etc.? Those things are a matter of character if they are of anything. And as I said the ONLY thing that a good education proves about you, is that you are willing to learn and work. There is MUCH more to a person, and much more to the work that the person does. The pros and cons of capitalism are actualy very much connected to the entire issue that we have been discussing lately. And it is connected to the next point as well: unions. Now, I dont know how your unions work, so I can speak for our unions, and say that they do a very good job, within their abilities in the current socio-economic system. They are always the first to point out corruption, and the first ones to defend the rights of the working class. I think that we would have it a lot worse, if it wasnt for our unions. As for life... We have choices, sure. But the thing is that in any society, our choices collide with the choices of others. The example that I gave earlier about five people applying for a job and only one getting it is perfect for this. All want it, but only one gets it. The choice is in the hands of the employer, not the candidate. Tho my comment was of course on how to value decent life, when I pointed out that we value it by the lives of the people around us, and that is also my argument for promoting social equality. Oh, and mybe we should talk about religion? We agree on that. Ok, now, ill probably stick around for awhile, but dont be surprised to have me MIA until next morning. Its pretty damn late here.      Deep Freeze wrote: OK strat, I will try to comment on your Blah post but, as you well know, I have a rather feeble mind and I cannot recall everything you mentioned. I agree that a degree does not automatically make you intelligent. I have met some "dumb-ass" college people, too. As for your value as a human being, I do not remember EVER saying anything about value. If I did, I need to apologize NOW because value was never my point. The pros and cons of capitalism are ANOTHER issue all together. I am aware of your opinion. I respect it. Don't agree with it, but then you and I rarely agree. That is OK. I do not care for unions. They had their time and did what they needed to do MANY years ago. They are as corrupt as the high-level corporate managers you so despise, in my humble opinion. And as for having a decent life, I believe your life is what you make of it.  I do not expect any corporation to do anything more than let me try my best and get as far as I can. I do not wish to be a CEO, either!  WAY too much work and responsibility for me! As I said, I like my weekends.

Umm... IDK, but from my experiences, the only thing that is valued in my work is the result, and the time it takes me to to a certain task. My own commitment, or my special skills, or how hard I work matter only to the extent that is neccesary to make what I have to.

More equaly... Ok, maybe bad expression on my part. What I was aiming for is that the power should not be concentrated in such a narrow circle of people. That, and, the people who hold actual power should answer to the people at the bottom. Thats my idea of it anyway... I dont expect that system to come back again, no matter how well it actualy worked (because it did work well, infact). So the two of you can stop worrying. Im not about to grab an AK-47 and start a revolution.

The decisions can always be made, even if it takes a while longer, and includes more compromises. But compromises are inevitable when a group of people has to live together. In this particular case that you provided (Ford), lets just assume that he gambled and failed. Of course, we now know that he succeded, but what if he didnt? Well, his company would like as not fail, people would lose their jobs, and we would never know that a guy called Henry Ford ever existed. It would be interesting to see a statistic of such cases. How many succeded, and how many failed. And out of those that failed, what were the consequences of the failures?

And of course, everywhere there are experts. Design is the dominion of designers. Marketing of margeting specialists, management of managers. I never said that is inherently wrong, its just the hieratchical structure of bussineses, and the disproportionate partition of responsability and profit that I have a problem with.

When it comes to politics, tho, I think that things change a lot. There were not talking about a single business, but about the soceity as a whole. Basic human rights. Everyone is born with equal rights, regardless of race, gender, nationality, ect. Or gay rights. Im against the entire population deciding wheter its ok for two men to marry each other. Its their buisines, not of the rest of us. The entire point of me advocating collaborative decision making (and even that only to certain extents) is to ensure a fair and open society. Not the opposite.

Wine: I dont need a penguin in a suit to tell me which wine is good and which is not. That is a matter of personal opinion, and fuck the expert. That is way only the expenses in the procces of getting that bottle to the shelf in a store should matter.

Moving on to Freeze (always saving the best for last ;)

No, we hadnt dropped anything. Infact... I have holidays starting thursday, so were only just begining.

Life not fair... I guess its true. But is that a reason not to try to make it just a little bit fairer? And some fairness exists, thats for sure. It exists in (some of) the laws, and (some of) the most widely accept morals. Why not try to have more?

Certain people shouldnt have the power of decision, and even those that have, shouldnt have the power to decide anything, I agree. But, I explained all this above, and I cant be bothered to type it all again.

As for feasible way of operating a business... I HATE to go on about it... But we had it. And it worked. It was a feasible way of operating businesses. Not exactly the way I explained above, but there was a great level of collective decision making. And it was the most industrious and prosperous time in our history. Granted, there was a great level of state planning that coordinated the economy as a whole, and that failed every now and then, but in general it was a lot better than having a privately owned economy that we have now, where we have CEOs screwing up companies, selling them abroad, and cashing in the profits.


OK, 25 mins to midnight, and Im off to bed. See you lot in the morning.

		Head banger wrote:
		yep, the mechanic went to school for 4 years, and takes upgrading courses every year.  The other thing with a mechanic that you have to recognize is that your paying for him (or her) and his tools.  a mechanic has to own basic hand tools, my mechanic figures he owns $20,000 worth.  now, the education of a mechanic is thru aprentiship, where he is paid a bit while he is learning, not like getting a degree.  but in value of those 2 comitments, a mechanic is paid quite well.  a general labourer, well, might work hard, but anyone is capable of that, paid less.  you value the work the person does, the effort, and the skill, and the comitment to learning that skill.   if the power is more equaly shared, how do you make decisions?  when henry ford started producing the model T, it came in black, and in one configuration.  there were no diferences.  that car is what made ford a major player today.  now he owned the company, took the risk of spending all his money, but the decision making process was the same as if he was a CEO, he decided.  what if everyone decided?  design would take longer, costing money in lost sales.  what if such a simple decision as to sell 5 colours instead of 1?  well the cost of the car would have gone up $50, moving it out of many peoples range.  why?  you would need equipment to paint different colors, or if you decided to paint each days production one colour, you would have to move the production slower 4 days a week, because the reason he used black is it dried the fastest.  colaborative decision making is fine, but when said company is losing ,money and has to lay off people, you wont find people laying themselfs off, and you create conflict or ineficiencys.  can top down be too dictatorial, sure, but its the fastest method of decision making.  politicaly, even though we are in a democracy, our head of government can make decisions without consultation, because if he had to determin what everyone wanted, then do it, it would be to late.  and what if what the people wanted wouldnt work?  after all, the people here might want to invade the USA, but he could quickly determine that we would get killed.  should he do a bad thing because the people want it?  if decisions were colaborative, blacks in the states might still be slaves. sure, we can research that wine, but how does it taste?  after all, a beter tasting wine should cost more no?  what if the store is staffed by wine experts, that can help you make choices, food pairings, etc?  they should be able to charge more, right, after all, they are selling their expertise, not just wine.  if you want expertise, you go there, if you know what you want, you go to the store that has a 19 year old kid and a cash register, find what you want and get out.        _strat_ wrote: True, but that mechanic also had to learn some things he needs. A modern internal combustion engine is complicated as fuck. Just like I had to learn my work, and just like a (for example) an IT guy has to learn all sort of shit about computers, before he can do his job properly. The question here would again be: why does one guy earn 500€/month, and someone else 5000 or more? And we ve been through that... The problem is really the hierarchical structure of bussineses. I know, someone has to organise things, someone has to decide about this and that... But all that could be imo done without the parasites (yes, I still say that they are parasites) at the top. Not to mention that if power would be more equaly shared, more people would need to fuckup to have the same result as a fuckup of one person has now.  We can always do a little research "behind the scenes" of that bottle of wine. How much did the materials cost (from grapes, glass, the label, etc.), how much did the store pay for it, and was that fair in respect to how much did it cost to produce the bottle, how much of the final price did the store take for themselves, and is that in accordance to the expenses they had with it... Its complicated, but we can quickly determine if someone is taking more than his/her fair share of it.      Head banger wrote: yes their starting point may be higher than ours.  I guess I dont compare well, because I started with my company before I went to school, so, 9 promotions and one graduation later, I am here, second in comand over three provinces and a few hundred employees.  yay.  not!! the starting point is higher because they have learned some things they need.  they dont need to actualy know how to screw in said taillight.  I supervised a mechanic, I dont know how to re build an engine, nor do I care.  I know how to supervise people, manage costs, build business, find efficiencies.  thats what I did then.   fair is a point of view.  is the price of that botle of wine fair?  if you think so, you buy it, if you dont, you dont.  you might think it fair, but not be able to aford it.  then you make a new decision, can I borow the money and what will it cost me.  now personaly, I think that borowing for wine is idiocy, but thats my value judgment. companies lose money and continue for a few reasons.  they made money in the past and have savings. they think they can make money again, so borow to get to the good times again.  the cost to disolve the company could be more than the yearly opperating losses.      _strat_ wrote: Or more likely, he would stay there. The fact is that the high positions are a the dominion of the elites. And I would bet a lot that there are a lot of managers that get to their position straight from schools. Maybe they dont become CEOs right away, but their starting point is way higher than ours. If people pay for it, that doesnt automaticaly mean that its fair. If these companies lose money, why do they still exist?      Head banger wrote: they probably dont start out as the guy screwing in the tail light.  he would start in sales, accounting, lower managment, enginering, and rise from there.  depending on the industry, and his individual skills, he would need some level of schooling, and the drive, then he has to get in the door, and show what he can do.  I bet that no one goes straight from school to the CEO chair of any company of any size.   the guys who can and will put in that effort are rare, and those with the skills to match are more rare, so they get to demand more.  same as pro athletes.  fair?  well, people pay it, therefore its fair. your right, the owners hire thwm, most companies are owned by shareholders, like me, and the $75 is a historical bit of foolishness.  but, the labour costs to build a car are only a minor part of it.  disigning it costs billions, the parts, tooling and factories billions more.  fact is that most cars sold by these companies lose money.  have for years.   and three on one isnt unfair, its just the way it is.      _strat_ wrote: Maybe. Or maybe they start out in such positions. The thing is, not all people start at the bottom, and it would be interesting to see how many corporate leaders started out as "the guy that screws on the tail light". And even if all people would start out at the bottom and rise to the top, would it still justify all their privileges? The high wages and the insane amount of power they hold in a company? I dont think so. And even if a CEO runs the company for a year and fails... With all the rewards and bonuses he gets, he has enough money that would suffice you or me for years. And just a note, CEOs that rise to that position dont own the company in most cases, but are employed by the owners of the company to lead it. As for the owners... Well, dont even get me started on them. Over here the rights and duties of the employer and the employee are clearly defined by law. If an employee screws up bad enough that the employer has a valid reason to fire him/her, that will happen and the unions cant do shit. Unfortunately, the unions cant do shit about other things as well, like an employer getting outside his/her rights and demanding more from employee than is allowed. Ok, moving on to Tim... I was actualy shocked to hear that a factory worker over there gets 75 $ per hour. Thats the amount of money that I make in two days of work. But that aside, I hardly think that the guy who gets 75$ per hour would be a bigger reason for the high prices of cars than the guy that gets a couple of thousand $ per month + all the insanely high rewards. I mean, if we put all those numbers that we saw in the Blah thread together... A CEO gets more money than all the factory workers put together! Maybe if a CEO would get a regular wage, the cars could be much more affordable, without having to make cuts at the bottom, where it most hurts. Not to mention that 75$ is not a lot in a car that may cost a few thousand $ as a finished product. If it is 75$ per car anyway, because I can hardly imagine that screwing on a single component (like the now infamous "tail light") would take an entire hour. Havent you guys heard of norms? Employment. Well, yes, you have to prove it. And you can work hard and try hard, but so can the other guy. Its a competition where there are few winners but many losers. And of course, the employer is the one that will ultimately decide who gets the job. And of course, I agree that we shouldnt go firing people because a new candidate has been found after the old one was already employeed. That is a matter of job security, and with it social security. Social equality is in my opinion definately something that we should work for. From experiences in my country, social equality is a quarantee of a peacefull society, with considerably lower crime rates, suicide rates, ect. A society like we have now, with competition on every corner, and massive class divisions does completetly the opposite. As for the pros and cons of a socialist system... Well, as far as Im concerned the worst kind of socialism is better than the best kind of capitalism. Its not all crazy Ivans with nukes, you know. Moving on to Freeze... (3 on 1! It aint a fair fight! :D) Ot goes back to basic capitalist economics. Thats not the only kind of economics, and as I said a lot of time before, it is not without alternatives. The thing is, that people of all proffesions contribute to the wealth of a society, and even though someones work might be valued less in terms of money, it doesnt mean that we can do without it.      Head banger wrote: Strat, your right in the difference between decent wage and decent life.  A wage may help make a decent life, but its not the end all.  your right too that education by itsself doesnt qualify you for any job.  the work a person is willing to do is a part of them, and their character, but its sure not the only thing.  but, rarely do people rise to leadership positions, and hold them for any length of time without leadership skills.  some are learned, mistakes get made, but if you dont have the basic skills, you either own the company, or your daddy does.  and in those cases, if you dont know your shit, you fail, and the company does too.   unions, question, do your unions defend all workers who recieve dicipline?  even if they did do the wrong thing?  ours do.  they take dues and contribute them to political causes, without asking the membership, spend money on the leaders trips, not that they help the workers any.  today, a union is just like any business, selling a "service" not a physical product.  but they just sell, and are just there to make money, just as a business is.  in fact, the unionized office workers of a union near here went on strike to complain about the way they were treated there.       _strat_ wrote: You can open up another window, go to JP.com and have it right there... But anyway, I wanted us to relocate here, because this is the thread for it, and we were going on in a general discussion one. Ok, to the point: Value as a human being was not my point either. The point was that the education you need to have to do a certain job, does not automaticaly make you fit for that job. If we take a CEO, a manager, or even an ordinary boss, whats the thing you would expect from them? Well, expertise is one, and I grant you that can be pretty much learned. But what about the things like leadership abilities, organisational abilities, being a responsible person... etc.? Those things are a matter of character if they are of anything. And as I said the ONLY thing that a good education proves about you, is that you are willing to learn and work. There is MUCH more to a person, and much more to the work that the person does. The pros and cons of capitalism are actualy very much connected to the entire issue that we have been discussing lately. And it is connected to the next point as well: unions. Now, I dont know how your unions work, so I can speak for our unions, and say that they do a very good job, within their abilities in the current socio-economic system. They are always the first to point out corruption, and the first ones to defend the rights of the working class. I think that we would have it a lot worse, if it wasnt for our unions. As for life... We have choices, sure. But the thing is that in any society, our choices collide with the choices of others. The example that I gave earlier about five people applying for a job and only one getting it is perfect for this. All want it, but only one gets it. The choice is in the hands of the employer, not the candidate. Tho my comment was of course on how to value decent life, when I pointed out that we value it by the lives of the people around us, and that is also my argument for promoting social equality. Oh, and mybe we should talk about religion? We agree on that. Ok, now, ill probably stick around for awhile, but dont be surprised to have me MIA until next morning. Its pretty damn late here.      Deep Freeze wrote: OK strat, I will try to comment on your Blah post but, as you well know, I have a rather feeble mind and I cannot recall everything you mentioned. I agree that a degree does not automatically make you intelligent. I have met some "dumb-ass" college people, too. As for your value as a human being, I do not remember EVER saying anything about value. If I did, I need to apologize NOW because value was never my point. The pros and cons of capitalism are ANOTHER issue all together. I am aware of your opinion. I respect it. Don't agree with it, but then you and I rarely agree. That is OK. I do not care for unions. They had their time and did what they needed to do MANY years ago. They are as corrupt as the high-level corporate managers you so despise, in my humble opinion. And as for having a decent life, I believe your life is what you make of it.  I do not expect any corporation to do anything more than let me try my best and get as far as I can. I do not wish to be a CEO, either!  WAY too much work and responsibility for me! As I said, I like my weekends.