Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Regardless, you've stripped my comment of all context and attempted to fabricate one on your own. I never said that the gains from shareholders should go to non-shareholders, I said that the shares are too concentrated in too few hands.
I expect FAR more from someone with "PhD" in their name.
We'd better take a look and follow what those great states, North Korea and Cuba have accomplished by abolishing private capital! Such fantastic examples of societies that have done away with exploitation!
We'd better take a look and follow what those great states, North Korea and Cuba have accomplished by abolishing private capital! Such fantastic examples of societies that have done away with exploitation!
"abolish private capital" ? you'll fit in well in N. Korea, knock yourself out
"abolish private capital" ? you'll fit in well in N. Korea, knock yourself out
You made the blanket statement that it is unethical to exploit people. Isn't, under your statement, private industry, private capital and private business exploitation? Isn't socialism the ultimate goal?
If not, feel free clarify. What are your limits on exploitation?
It appears that you don't really understand how a wage subsidization works. But I am happy to help out.
We'll use Wal-Mart as an example, because that is the evil corporation that those with little understanding of economics love to hate.
Wal-Mart has employees who qualify for various levels of public assistance, and this is used as "evidence" that Wal-Mart gets a wage subsidization from the government. However, that is not the case, and this is why:
Wal-Mart pays at least a market determined rate for all of their labor. In some instances they pay more than a market determined rate, but in no instance do they pay less (this is also true for EVERY company in the US, but we will limit our discussion to just Wal-Mart).
In order for Wal-Mart to receive a wage subsidization from the government, two things must be occurring. 1) They would have to be paying less than a market determined rate, and 2) they would have to be receiving payment from the government to make up the difference between that market determined rate, and what they are actually paying.
Since neither #1 nor #2 is happening, it is clear that Wal-Mart is not getting their labor subsidized by the government.
QED
When employees of Wal-Mart or any other company get public assistance, it isn't the company that is having their labor subsidized, but rather, it is the employee that is having their lifestyle subsidized.
Companies like Wal-Mart force a lot of their people to work part time so although they might make a kind of sort of half decent wage to survive, they aren't getting 40 hours a week. This forces a lot of their employees to rely on govt assistance more. It's also very hard to find a second job when you're working part time in retail from what I have been told. The schedules always end up conflicting with each other, and the companies don't care.
Companies like Wal-Mart force a lot of their people to work part time so although they might make a kind of sort of half decent wage to survive, they aren't getting 40 hours a week. This forces a lot of their employees to rely on govt assistance more. It's also very hard to find a second job when you're working part time in retail from what I have been told. The schedules always end up conflicting with each other, and the companies don't care.
The employees at Walmart are free to find employment anywhere they wish. They aren't forced to do anything.
The employees at Walmart are free to find employment anywhere they wish. They aren't forced to do anything.
Sure buddy, let's implement a nationwide service workers union like some other countries have then we'll see what's up. Of course the corporate shills don't want that. America is all about screwing over its workers. That's pretty much the crux of the matter.
Sure buddy, let's implement a nationwide service workers union like some other countries have then we'll see what's up. Of course the corporate shills don't want that. America is all about screwing over its workers. That's pretty much the crux of the matter.
Which was about a chain of 4 posts removed from its context, that neither you nor the fake PhD seems to have tied back to.
You're right, I haven't read through 20 pages of posts here. The way these forums work, is the discussion evolves as it goes on, with numerous contributors making various claims.
Your blanket statement that "it is unethical to exploit people" is the point I'm discussing. If you think that is an inaccurate statement, then we are in agreement. If you care to reiterate your point, and argue your case, that is fine, if you choose not to and ignore others' posts, that's perfectly fine, too.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
