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.
I see the issue here. You live in a little tiny world of engineering where you think you are the indispensable part and have no concept of what it takes to run a business. You only understand the w-2 mentality. The book "the e myth" describes people like you who think they are the company and without them the company ceases to exist, get angry and strike out on their own. They soon go belly up because all they know is engineering and nothing about sales, marketing, running a business.
Walk into any shop and look at the labor rates posted on the wall. Then ask the mechanic if he is getting paid that same wage as posted.
The overhead is not what the owner makes it, it is what is needed to run the business. If it was what the owner makes it, it would be zero, why would he choose to have overhead?
He has rent that he pays market rent for, equipment, soft costs like insurance, medical etc.
The more you post, the more we get a picture of the type of person you are.
There are enough engineers looking for jobs that no one has to hire one like you who has an attitude.
I'm sure you think I'm wrong, but then so far no one has hired you for what you think you're worth.
Of course the mech is not making 80 hr but when a mechanic makes 20 hr and the bill rate is 80 you will never convince me the shop has 60 hr in over head even including a reasonable profit.
These are exploitive situations.
Of course over head is not 0 but there are things the owner can do to minimize these expenses. Because we live in an ever growing ruthless society anyone who has even slight leverage (maybe they own a metal building or what ever) they are going to fleece the crap out of would be entrepreneurs. I say build your own building but up your equipment stock and intellectual property. People going off half cocked will likely fail.
Last edited by pittsflyer; 02-20-2019 at 04:19 PM..
If the producers control the sale and production, then they control how costs are distributed for their own labor, and how much they want to sell along with how much they want to produce.
That is a separate dynamic from differentiating labor from capital which is what industrial corporatism does. It is the same concept as worker control of the means of production. And comparing it to farming where the needs of producers rather than shareholders control what is sold and for how much (labor value theory).
Obviously farms are changing, but I hope to god you understand what I’m saying.
Farms are certainly changing. And many of them do become corporations. But they all exist to make money. Just like any other business. Whether you are a small one-man carpenter shop, or IKEA - which of course was started by a carpenter. And all of these businesses, whether they are small or large, produce their product for consumers. Which means they have to know what the consumers want. They have to know the market. I may start a farm.or a business “ for myself”... but that business will die if I don’t correctly address what the market wants.
Last edited by ChessieMom; 02-20-2019 at 04:42 PM..
With that attitude, I can see why you're unemployed.
The consumer.
As a farmer, you have to grow what consumers demand, and not what you want to grow.
You're certainly free to grow tarot, or sugar beets or turnips, but you will fail.
Consumers don't want tarot, or sugar beets or turnips, and if they don't want them, you can't sell them, and if you can't sell them, then you can't pay the mortgage on your farm, or your water or electric bill, or buy the things you and your family needs.
Even in your freaked-out differently twisted world where there is no money, you will still fail.
As a boot-maker, I'm not going to trade a pair of boots for a bushel of tarot that I have no need for, don't want, can't use, and don't like.
The only farmers who farm for themselves are subsistence farmers, yet oddly, the goal of every subsistence farmer is not to be a subsistence farmer, and the only way they can do that is by growing an excess of crops that consumers demand, so they can sell or trade the excess.
That's exactly what the OP wants, a return to Neolithic days.
I know a helluva lot more than you'll ever know.
I'm probably talking over your head, but I used to walk beans and detassle corn, cut tobacco, hang tobacco, milk cows. I still farm. I have 20 acres. I grow potatoes and corn, because that's what consumers want. I grow sugar beets, too, but only as silage for my cows. My horses like it, too. They like sweet stuff, like carrots. I don't actually do the work, since I have other people willing to do it for me. I have chickens and geese as well. I like goose eggs for breakfast.
Only a truly warped person would believe that.
The Soviets were poor, because they didn't allow Capitalism.
The Soviet planned economy failed. They never met their quotas. Nowhere is that more evident than the 1970s.
The Soviet planned economy had a production quota for oil, N Million barrels per year.
A percentage of the oil quota was allocated for the export market, to sell on the world market to get cash the Soviets didn't have so they could buy and import the things they needed.
A percentage was also allocated for military use, industrial use, the transportation sector, and consumers.
The amount allocated for consumer use was always very small, so very little gasoline was produced and the Soviets always ran out of gasoline during the month, leaving the Soviet people stranded.
Because the Soviets never met their oil quotas, they had hard choices to make.
A reduction in oil quotas meant the Soviets didn't have enough oil to sell on the world market, and that reduced the amount of much needed cash, and that prevent the Soviets from buying goods on the world market for import.
To get around that, the Soviets cut oil allocations to other sectors of the economy and diverted it for export.
One of the sectors cut was transportation, specifically agricultural transportation.
From July on, there was no oil refined into diesel for use by farming equipment or the trucks that transport crops from fields to markets.
By October, US satellites were beaming photos of Millions and Millions of acres of wheat just rotting in the fields.
A lot of people thought the Soviets were hoarding oil in preparation for war, but that wasn't the case at all.
For the Soviets, it was more cost-effective to let the wheat rot in the fields, and use the oil to sell on the world market, and then buy wheat from the US, than it was to spend the money to refine that oil into diesel for farm and transportation use.
The Carter Administration approved the sale of US wheat to the Soviets.
What security?
They constantly ran out of food for the month; out of consumer goods for the month; out of gasoline for the month and out of many other things.
Where is the security standing in long lines to get the last of the bread for the month?
How is standing in long lines an efficient use of people's time?
The Black Market was alive and well, and all of those governments lost $Billions in revenues every year, because of the Black Markets.
Like I said, you don't know what you're talking about.
You never visited the East Bloc, never lived there, never worked there, never did business there and don't understand the pathetic lives those people had, denied most everything, because the State couldn't afford to produce it.
You wouldn't have lasted 10 minutes there, before being on your hands and knees begging to go anywhere but there.
A typical breakfast for people in the East Bloc was warm water and sugar.
That's because they didn't have anything else.
That is strange as the Russians are one of the few places rare gases are distilled. A topping unit to pull diesel is not that complex. Sounds more like internal corruption.
Also the proliferation of homeless in the us is growing and if republicans get there way and start auto wage garnishments for student loans things are going to get pretty solviet looking so what will these people have to loose?
Last edited by pittsflyer; 02-20-2019 at 04:36 PM..
I don’t need to because I never did. I clearly stated that revenue, whether it comes from sales or other forms of money holding, must account for labor costs.
That means a company must account for the cost of labor to produce something, not just follow the imaginary free markets.
The point being revenue does not determine pay, labor costs determine revenue. Now you’re deflecting.
And what you clearly stated was wrong.
Revenue does not account for labor costs. Gross profit accounts for labor costs.
Revenue is determined by what customers pay the company for their product/service, regardless of that company’s labor costs.
Of course it’s important for companies to run their labor-to-revenue ratios to improve their labor efficiencies/business model, but that’s not the same as your incorrect statement that “labor costs determine revenue.”
Revenue does not account for labor costs. Gross profit accounts for labor costs.
Revenue is determined by what customers pay the company for their product/service, regardless of that company’s labor costs.
Of course it’s important for companies to run their labor-to-revenue ratios to improve their labor efficiencies/business model, but that’s not the same as your incorrect statement that “labor costs determine revenue.”
You are massively wrong here, most of what you say is propaganda, and is just not based in reality.
For corporations to invest and plan for the future, they need a strict profit margin goal. In turn they have price managers who assign costs based on overhead costs like labor payment.
The consumers have little to do with it as marketing and market placement is planned before hand, and prices do not freely fluctuate based on demand. If a product is not doing good, it is more likely to be pulled off the market, or limit inventory space as to keep up with projections.
If large businesses operated like you imagine, and cut prices based on demand, having clearance sales frequently, and allowing profits to massively fluctuate quarter by quarter, the company will go bankrupt by the end of the year as they have no cash base to invest in future production, inventory space, and overseas expansion/lower cost of shipping, etc.
Again, there is a reason economics and business are taught separately.
Farms are certainly changing. And many of them do become corporations. But they all exist to make money. Just like any other business. Whether you are a small one-man carpenter shop, or IKEA - which of course was started by a carpenter. And all of these businesses, whether they are small or large, produce their product for consumers. Which means they have to know what the consumers want. They have to know the market. I may start a farm.or a business “ for myself”... but that business will die if I don’t correctly address what the market wants.
No, a one man carpenter shop is nothing like IKEA.
In IKEA, pricing, sales, and production are handled by the desires of the shareholders. If the producers controlled the movement of commodities, they'd limit production and pricing to fit their own production capacities and personal needs. Furthermore there would be little desire for global dominance of the market, as that would require a deprecation in labor value.
Traditionally a farm showed a model of sales where the producer controlled the goods, and the production of cash crops reflected the needs of the farmer, not the consumer.
In a corporate economy, dominating consumption, whether it is from the civilian sector, or from the private industry/state, is the main goal of internal planning, pricing, and investment.
Farms today are becoming more corporate as industrial food producers like Tyson require high production at low costs, buying up local farms for control of the market. But traditional the labor/capital dynamic was different for a farmer than a corporate worker.
What’s left is political. In fact those who are successful now are so because they played the politics right.
Ahhh the other 96% of engineers who are employed are all only that way because they played politics rights, and the one who brags about never working hard for someone else just happens to remain unemployed because of the politics.
Remember what I said about constantly making excuses for failure?
With that attitude, I can see why you're unemployed.
The consumer.
As a farmer, you have to grow what consumers demand, and not what you want to grow.
You're certainly free to grow tarot, or sugar beets or turnips, but you will fail.
Consumers don't want tarot, or sugar beets or turnips, and if they don't want them, you can't sell them, and if you can't sell them, then you can't pay the mortgage on your farm, or your water or electric bill, or buy the things you and your family needs.
Even in your freaked-out differently twisted world where there is no money, you will still fail.
As a boot-maker, I'm not going to trade a pair of boots for a bushel of tarot that I have no need for, don't want, can't use, and don't like.
The only farmers who farm for themselves are subsistence farmers, yet oddly, the goal of every subsistence farmer is not to be a subsistence farmer, and the only way they can do that is by growing an excess of crops that consumers demand, so they can sell or trade the excess.
That's exactly what the OP wants, a return to Neolithic days.
I know a helluva lot more than you'll ever know.
I'm probably talking over your head, but I used to walk beans and detassle corn, cut tobacco, hang tobacco, milk cows. I still farm. I have 20 acres. I grow potatoes and corn, because that's what consumers want. I grow sugar beets, too, but only as silage for my cows. My horses like it, too. They like sweet stuff, like carrots. I don't actually do the work, since I have other people willing to do it for me. I have chickens and geese as well. I like goose eggs for breakfast.
Only a truly warped person would believe that.
The Soviets were poor, because they didn't allow Capitalism.
The Soviet planned economy failed. They never met their quotas. Nowhere is that more evident than the 1970s.
The Soviet planned economy had a production quota for oil, N Million barrels per year.
A percentage of the oil quota was allocated for the export market, to sell on the world market to get cash the Soviets didn't have so they could buy and import the things they needed.
A percentage was also allocated for military use, industrial use, the transportation sector, and consumers.
The amount allocated for consumer use was always very small, so very little gasoline was produced and the Soviets always ran out of gasoline during the month, leaving the Soviet people stranded.
Because the Soviets never met their oil quotas, they had hard choices to make.
A reduction in oil quotas meant the Soviets didn't have enough oil to sell on the world market, and that reduced the amount of much needed cash, and that prevent the Soviets from buying goods on the world market for import.
To get around that, the Soviets cut oil allocations to other sectors of the economy and diverted it for export.
One of the sectors cut was transportation, specifically agricultural transportation.
From July on, there was no oil refined into diesel for use by farming equipment or the trucks that transport crops from fields to markets.
By October, US satellites were beaming photos of Millions and Millions of acres of wheat just rotting in the fields.
A lot of people thought the Soviets were hoarding oil in preparation for war, but that wasn't the case at all.
For the Soviets, it was more cost-effective to let the wheat rot in the fields, and use the oil to sell on the world market, and then buy wheat from the US, than it was to spend the money to refine that oil into diesel for farm and transportation use.
The Carter Administration approved the sale of US wheat to the Soviets.
What security?
They constantly ran out of food for the month; out of consumer goods for the month; out of gasoline for the month and out of many other things.
Where is the security standing in long lines to get the last of the bread for the month?
How is standing in long lines an efficient use of people's time?
The Black Market was alive and well, and all of those governments lost $Billions in revenues every year, because of the Black Markets.
Like I said, you don't know what you're talking about.
You never visited the East Bloc, never lived there, never worked there, never did business there and don't understand the pathetic lives those people had, denied most everything, because the State couldn't afford to produce it.
You wouldn't have lasted 10 minutes there, before being on your hands and knees begging to go anywhere but there.
A typical breakfast for people in the East Bloc was warm water and sugar.
That's because they didn't have anything else.
The amount of falsehoods, distractions, lies, and propaganda in this post, along with willful ignorance is upsetting.
Firstly your description of the soviet system is exactly that of a corporation in terms of planning/modeling. And that is not a mistake. The private industry modeled production not out of free market competition, but from economic planning and cooperation between producers (what is known as logistics, subsidiaries, and 'free trade').
But you go further, you ignore any reason as to why the eastern bloc was poor and is still poor. Imagine you had a multinational corporation competing against another multinational corporation, but you have access to 20% of the world markets (in terms of gdp), while your competitor has a monopoly on the other 80%. Then you ignore why the east was so historically poor compared to the west, you ignore where the brunt of the destruction happened (the soviet union and China), and you ignore that starting off the eastern bloc didn't have access to the martial plan or capital from the richest country in the world, the United States.
Then you still don't wonder why the east is so poor today, or why a majority of them outside of Poland and Romania want to go back. You further ignore that I don't want a planned economy, and as such am not promoting the soviet system. I am only claiming that you oppose the efficiency of a state planned economy, because you value market choice as the greatest factor for human economics, a morally blind position you are incapable of defending.
But then you pivot to farms, a position I have explained clearly, as seen in my last post, not in terms of whether farmers sell their produce for profit (of course they do), but of the relationship between labor and capital in traditional farming that doesn't exist in the industrial sector (but again farming is turning into a corporate structure as well). You further ignore all data as to why NATO (specifically the US) had to compete with the soviets abroad, not out of national security terms (Pakistani genocide, Iran-Contra, etc.) but in order to bankrupt the soviets who needed to spend a third of their GDP on military research and funding. And that only touches on corruption.
But Mircea, the best part is you still have ignored the bulk of my post, and I am not surprised as to why.
No, a one man carpenter shop is nothing like IKEA.
In IKEA, pricing, sales, and production are handled by the desires of the shareholders. If the producers controlled the movement of commodities, they'd limit production and pricing to fit their own production capacities and personal needs. Furthermore there would be little desire for global dominance of the market, as that would require a deprecation in labor value.
Traditionally a farm showed a model of sales where the producer controlled the goods, and the production of cash crops reflected the needs of the farmer, not the consumer.
In a corporate economy, dominating consumption, whether it is from the civilian sector, or from the private industry/state, is the main goal of internal planning, pricing, and investment.
Farms today are becoming more corporate as industrial food producers like Tyson require high production at low costs, buying up local farms for control of the market. But traditional the labor/capital dynamic was different for a farmer than a corporate worker.
Can You Understand What I Am Saying?
I understand that you have no idea what makes people tick. You should probably move to an island.
Last edited by ChessieMom; 02-20-2019 at 06:20 PM..
With that attitude, I can see why you're unemployed.
The consumer.
As a farmer, you have to grow what consumers demand, and not what you want to grow.
You're certainly free to grow tarot, or sugar beets or turnips, but you will fail.
Consumers don't want tarot, or sugar beets or turnips, and if they don't want them, you can't sell them, and if you can't sell them, then you can't pay the mortgage on your farm, or your water or electric bill, or buy the things you and your family needs.
Even in your freaked-out differently twisted world where there is no money, you will still fail.
As a boot-maker, I'm not going to trade a pair of boots for a bushel of tarot that I have no need for, don't want, can't use, and don't like.
The only farmers who farm for themselves are subsistence farmers, yet oddly, the goal of every subsistence farmer is not to be a subsistence farmer, and the only way they can do that is by growing an excess of crops that consumers demand, so they can sell or trade the excess.
That's exactly what the OP wants, a return to Neolithic days.
I know a helluva lot more than you'll ever know.
I'm probably talking over your head, but I used to walk beans and detassle corn, cut tobacco, hang tobacco, milk cows. I still farm. I have 20 acres. I grow potatoes and corn, because that's what consumers want. I grow sugar beets, too, but only as silage for my cows. My horses like it, too. They like sweet stuff, like carrots. I don't actually do the work, since I have other people willing to do it for me. I have chickens and geese as well. I like goose eggs for breakfast.
Only a truly warped person would believe that.
The Soviets were poor, because they didn't allow Capitalism.
The Soviet planned economy failed. They never met their quotas. Nowhere is that more evident than the 1970s.
The Soviet planned economy had a production quota for oil, N Million barrels per year.
A percentage of the oil quota was allocated for the export market, to sell on the world market to get cash the Soviets didn't have so they could buy and import the things they needed.
A percentage was also allocated for military use, industrial use, the transportation sector, and consumers.
The amount allocated for consumer use was always very small, so very little gasoline was produced and the Soviets always ran out of gasoline during the month, leaving the Soviet people stranded.
Because the Soviets never met their oil quotas, they had hard choices to make.
A reduction in oil quotas meant the Soviets didn't have enough oil to sell on the world market, and that reduced the amount of much needed cash, and that prevent the Soviets from buying goods on the world market for import.
To get around that, the Soviets cut oil allocations to other sectors of the economy and diverted it for export.
One of the sectors cut was transportation, specifically agricultural transportation.
From July on, there was no oil refined into diesel for use by farming equipment or the trucks that transport crops from fields to markets.
By October, US satellites were beaming photos of Millions and Millions of acres of wheat just rotting in the fields.
A lot of people thought the Soviets were hoarding oil in preparation for war, but that wasn't the case at all.
For the Soviets, it was more cost-effective to let the wheat rot in the fields, and use the oil to sell on the world market, and then buy wheat from the US, than it was to spend the money to refine that oil into diesel for farm and transportation use.
The Carter Administration approved the sale of US wheat to the Soviets.
What security?
They constantly ran out of food for the month; out of consumer goods for the month; out of gasoline for the month and out of many other things.
Where is the security standing in long lines to get the last of the bread for the month?
How is standing in long lines an efficient use of people's time?
The Black Market was alive and well, and all of those governments lost $Billions in revenues every year, because of the Black Markets.
Like I said, you don't know what you're talking about.
You never visited the East Bloc, never lived there, never worked there, never did business there and don't understand the pathetic lives those people had, denied most everything, because the State couldn't afford to produce it.
You wouldn't have lasted 10 minutes there, before being on your hands and knees begging to go anywhere but there.
A typical breakfast for people in the East Bloc was warm water and sugar.
That's because they didn't have anything else.
That attitude insulates me from low paying degrading jobs, so I would say that's a good thing. Because I refuse to take mcjobs you are trying to twist it into a negative when I see it as a positive.
I will accept the appropriate job commensurate with my skills, experience and education as well as certs that are hard to get.
If I could leave my area I would have a good job, the area is the issue.
So if there is no food you starve and then you dont have to deal with these problems anymore. The Russians developed nukes so that they would have leverage in the future. Threat of ending the world is the only thing that gets peoples attention.
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.
