Ethics

[vodkazvictim]

85% of all new businesses never make it past the first year. You have a 2/3 chance it won't make it past the 3rd. Past 5 years is 50-50. It takes money to invest in and float a business. Under your model no one will have any money to take on this risk. That's because if they make too much you want to take it away from them.

Here's a quick example of how your 10% fails. The boss making $3000 a week because bottom makes $300. In 3 years we get to $3250 and $325 respectively. They need to hire another person. What do they pay him? If they pay him $300 the boss has to take a pay cut. If they start him at $325, is it fair to everyone that worked there for 3 years to have a new guy start at the same salary?

All for the collective people, huh? Let's say business is down and we need to cut expenses. I'll cut 15% of my salary at the top if everyone at the bottom cuts theirs too. Or do I just fire people because I can't afford to carry the load because I haven't been paid enough to float the salaries? Or are you to say that it's a one way street and the only risks and limits are at the top and the bottom has the final say in all rules and decisions?

Yes I want to take it away from them - to invest in new business (although some of course will go to fund other things such as healthcare).
At current I believe the failure rate is so high because of the unfair competitive edge the big boys have.
If only big business can invest in new business, then surely this kills innovation?

Thank you for providing a counter-example and for the rather more civil air of this post.
If he's doing the same job, then yes, it is fair.
Here's another example; in a minimum wage job Joe and Jim make $8/hour. after 2 years their boss hires John to join them at minimum wage. Is THAT unfair? Because I'm not seeing a difference. If it is unfair then would you like to argue that John should be paid less than minimum wage?

An alternative to that scenario would be to give your workers a small percentage payrise each year, so that the rest of the team is on $350 while the boss is on $3250 and when the new boy joins he joins at $325. How does that sound?

In that situation, when the chips are down, a 15% paycut from the salary of everyone, boss or not, seems reasonable, assuming that the boss isn't getting, for example 450 times more than the average exmployee.
How do you feel about that? Do we have some common ground there?

 

[bobjustbob]

Large businesses wouldn't come about if they didn't already invest in smaller ones and innovations. That's how they expand and create new jobs. Nothing stops anyone from starting their own but the incentive to to do so would be hampered by your limitations. The risk is not worth the rewards. If I open a store and can only make 10X what I pay my cashiers then why should I open a second location if I can't collect a salary from it?

Competition from the big boys is only one reason for business failure. Here's an incomplete list of others:

Lack of capitol.
Poor planning.
Dysfunctional management.
Bad location.
Lack of desire for product.
Poor marketing.
Bad Execution.
Financial Neglect.
Uncontrolled Growth.
The math just doesn’t work.
Operational inefficiencies.
Inexperience.
Bad partners.
The economy.
You start your business for the wrong reasons.
Over-expansion.
Inability to adapt to a changing marketplace.
Pricing too high or low.

After 2 years Joe and Jim should be making more than minimum wage. They deserve regular reviews and pay increases and shouldn't have anything to do with my salary. But if I bring on John at $8 I can't get a raise. It's worse in your second scenario. While you guys all get a raise to $350 I deserve $3500. Hire the guy at $325 and I get a cut to $3250. Doesn't make sense to hire him.

Cutting 15% would be a disaster. Employees would be flying out the door and the business would collapse. A 15% cut is going to hurt the lower level staff more than me at the top. A boss with money would reach into his pocket. Keep the business floating and not make the pay cut.

 

[vodkazvictim]

Large businesses wouldn't come about if they didn't already invest in smaller ones and innovations. That's how they expand and create new jobs. Nothing stops anyone from starting their own but the incentive to to do so would be hampered by your limitations. The risk is not worth the rewards. If I open a store and can only make 10X what I pay my cashiers then why should I open a second location if I can't collect a salary from it?

We have often seen business combat innovation; for example blanket patents in pharmecuticals.
Plenty stops people from starting their own business.
I worked with an Italian chef of incredible talent and skill.
He only got to start it after a guy invested half a million pounds.
There are many other talented chefs who can't raise the money to start their own business. You see the comparison I'm making here?

Competition from the big boys is only one reason for business failure. Here's an incomplete list of others:

Lack of capitol.
Poor planning.
Dysfunctional management.
Bad location.
Lack of desire for product.
Poor marketing.
Bad Execution.
Financial Neglect.
Uncontrolled Growth.
The math just doesn’t work.
Operational inefficiencies.
Inexperience.
Bad partners.
The economy.
You start your business for the wrong reasons.
Over-expansion.
Inability to adapt to a changing marketplace.
Pricing too high or low.

I agree with all those reasons. But I believe we both agree that over-competition from big business is one that should be eliminated.
Frankly, if I knew of a way to eliminate those reasons, I would be happy to enact it, but sadly I don't

After 2 years Joe and Jim should be making more than minimum wage. They deserve regular reviews and pay increases and shouldn't have anything to do with my salary. But if I bring on John at $8 I can't get a raise. It's worse in your second scenario. While you guys all get a raise to $350 I deserve $3500. Hire the guy at $325 and I get a cut to $3250. Doesn't make sense to hire him.

Yes, they should, but there are many jobs where workers earn minimum wage for years on end.
Why do you (business owner) deserve $3500? How much more work do you do than the guys on minimum? The only thing you did apart from running the company was take the risk to start it.
Doesn't make sense to hire him? Well you must have decided to hire him if you needed the work done, otherwise why would you have chosen to make the outlay?
The issue as I see it is that you appear insistent on paying everyone else minimum wage.
Now that may make you profit, or it may scare the better workers off elsewhere, but in a world where minimum wage isn't enough to live on, why should so many be stuck on it?

Cutting 15% would be a disaster. Employees would be flying out the door and the business would collapse. A 15% cut is going to hurt the lower level staff more than me at the top. A boss with money would reach into his pocket. Keep the business floating and not make the pay cut.

I don't believe employees would be flying out the door; Employees are under attack all the time and a lot of the time they put up with it.
I remember back when I was in sales with a major home improvement company and they cut our commision. I was the only guy who left and I had to delay that until I had somewhere to go.

I'm a little confused, a post back...

All for the collective people, huh? Let's say business is down and we need to cut expenses. I'll cut 15% of my salary at the top if everyone at the bottom cuts theirs too. Or do I just fire people because I can't afford to carry the load because I haven't been paid enough to float the salaries? Or are you to say that it's a one way street and the only risks and limits are at the top and the bottom has the final say in all rules and decisions?

I had the impression that you'd object to a 15% cut levied on the boss but nobody else. Was I wrong?

 

[meesterperfect]

The rich and the not so rich are already taking care of poor people and not so poor people in many ways in many parts of the world.
In the USA that's for sure. They have been for almost half a century now.
The question is how much is enough? how much is enough money taken from one and given to another before we get to stop seeing posts like these on this board?
A show of appreciation is just a pipedream I know, but how much redistribution is enough?

A life boat that can hold 60 might be able to hold 70., maybe 80. Try putting 90 or 100 on it and everybody drowns.

 

[vodkazvictim]

The rich and the not so rich are already taking care of poor people and not so poor people in many ways in many parts of the world.
In the USA that's for sure. They have been for almost half a century now.
The question is how much is enough? how much is enough money taken from one and given to another before we get to stop seeing posts like these on this board?
A show of appreciation is just a pipedream I know, but how much redistribution is enough?

A life boat that can hold 60 might be able to hold 70., maybe 80. Try putting 90 or 100 on it and everybody drowns.

Statistics or STFU.

 

[meesterperfect]

statistics on what? the life boat theory?
that in America taxes support entitlement programs like food assistance?
that most people I have seen on some sort of welfare are flipping fat?

Show me a statistic that I am wrong.

 

[Rattrap]

Show me a statistic that I am wrong.

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever.

So...

Statistics or STFU.

 

[bobjustbob]

If you think bosses don't work any harder than the guy mopping the floor than you have never been a boss. Your day doesn't start and end at the time clock. The phone can ring at any time, and it does. If no one below you can resolve a situation you must do it yourself. The guy pushing the broom or stocking the shelves doesn't give a rat's ass if there is no one to ring the register or take in a delivery or service a customer. They don't get phone calls in the middle of the night that the alarm is ringing and have to come to the store because the police are waiting. Even when you are on vacation, situations will call you back.

The idea that every job should pay a living wage is preposterous. Delivering a newspaper or washing a dish does not command such a price. Employers pay for skills. They are happy and willing to teach people and give them more money. That's how you get to the living wage. Otherwise work longer hours delivering and washing.

I'm glad that Chef got his restaurant. But here's where your plan fails. The guy with the money will be there by his side to help him in any way he can. If you just hand him the money, where is his support? Chef better do more than just cook food though. Otherwise he is not worth investing in from any standpoint. Let's say the same guy wants to get 10 more chefs into their own restaurants. Should he still only earn 10X what dishwashers make?

The hate for Big Pharm astounds me. The money that it takes to get a drug on the market is astronomical. A decade of labs with techs and scientists and testings that may not produce a safe or effective product. Do you think that they should just hand out the final formula to the guy next door to start stamping the stuff out? Go spend 5 years building and spending money on designing the perfect mouse trap just to have another guy take it apart and start building it on his own the very next day. Or go write a book just to have me slap my name on it to sell on my own. It all works the same way.

Bottom line is when you limit growth you limit incentive. People will only do so much for what they are paid. Studies have shown that pay increases, no matter how large or small, will show a spike in productivity for only a short time and then level out to prior production. Slap a limit on a boss and you will get no incentive to do more.

 

[vodkazvictim]

statistics on what? the life boat theory?
that in America taxes support entitlement programs like food assistance?
that most people I have seen on some sort of welfare are flipping fat?

Show me a statistic that I am wrong.

Lifeboat theory is long discredited. I see no need to continue arguing against your points when Rattrap has done it better and more succinctly than I could below.

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof



So...

Marry me :iloveyou:

If you think bosses don't work any harder than the guy mopping the floor than you have never been a boss. Your day doesn't start and end at the time clock. The phone can ring at any time, and it does. If no one below you can resolve a situation you must do it yourself. The guy pushing the broom or stocking the shelves doesn't give a rat's ass if there is no one to ring the register or take in a delivery or service a customer. They don't get phone calls in the middle of the night that the alarm is ringing and have to come to the store because the police are waiting. Even when you are on vacation, situations will call you back.

I believe you're thinking of the middle management - the guys that get a mere £21K and work 6 days a week, or end up working so many hours that they're effectively getting below minimum wage.
I believe that the middle management types are exploited as much as or sometimes more than than the guys on the bottom;
I've seen guys working so much that they pass out, or suffer erectile dysfunction, or have nervous breakdowns.

The guys that annoy me are the ones that sit at the top, get paid ridiculous amounts and do nothing (EG hester, barclay's bob, fabrice de tourre, etc.
I don't know which workers at the bottom you think don't give a rat's arse (OK, I admit I have worked with some like that when I've been in retail and hospitality, but more frequently you work with guys who help you when you're overloaded and you do the same for them.
I should also add that I've worked for plenty of managers who hide in the office when it's busy, who don't do their paperwork and even once in hospitality I worked for a guy who called in the whole Crimbo/New Year period sick! (a sin so carinal in hospitality that it defies belief).

The idea that every job should pay a living wage is preposterous. Delivering a newspaper or washing a dish does not command such a price. Employers pay for skills. They are happy and willing to teach people and give them more money. That's how you get to the living wage. Otherwise work longer hours delivering and washing.

Why is it preposterous? Ethically speaking, people need to be paid enough to live. Remember that extra hours aren't always available.
Not only that, but if people can't make ends meet then they may be forced to turn to crime.
And once you have a criminal record, who is to say that you can ever go back to the straight and narrow in a system like the one we have?
If you do some research you'll notice that in peacetime England has high unemployment - an employers employment market.
However, during world war 2 when the nation was under threat Keynesian economics was utilised and EVERYBODY was employed because MAXIMUM productivity was need to protect the nation.
What does this show? That the system we have now is not maximally efficient in terms of production and strength for the country and benefits the few rather than the many.
So really, what's good about that system?

I'm glad that Chef got his restaurant. But here's where your plan fails. The guy with the money will be there by his side to help him in any way he can. If you just hand him the money, where is his support? Chef better do more than just cook food though. Otherwise he is not worth investing in from any standpoint. Let's say the same guy wants to get 10 more chefs into their own restaurants. Should he still only earn 10X what dishwashers make?

How can the guy with the money help? He's just a rich guy, (he got rich in finance), all he can do is supply the cash.
Fab knows hospitality, so it's better that he does things his own way unimpeded.

The hate for Big Pharm astounds me. The money that it takes to get a drug on the market is astronomical. A decade of labs with techs and scientists and testings that may not produce a safe or effective product. Do you think that they should just hand out the final formula to the guy next door to start stamping the stuff out? Go spend 5 years building and spending money on designing the perfect mouse trap just to have another guy take it apart and start building it on his own the very next day. Or go write a book just to have me slap my name on it to sell on my own. It all works the same way.

Really?
I believe I justified my feelings towards big pharma by talking about their blanket patents.
Blanket patents often cover entirely different drugs that they haven't actually created, merely hypothesized or prototyped and that have the same effect.
Let me tell you something; here in Leicester there is a unit that specialises in care for premature babies.
GSK have attempted to take over and split up this unit in an attempt to maximise profits, despite the fact that legally they can't as it is charity funded. They're getting their way, too, even though they have used lies to try to get their way.
Now you may say; hold on, they know best! This will make things better! But the DOCTORS who DO THE WORK and who therefore KNOW IT BEST, say that it's a disastrous plan.
The result will be BABIES DYING FOR THE SAKE OF A PROFIT MARGIN.
Forgive me the caps lock, merely my way of emphasizing a particular thing.

Bottom line is when you limit growth you limit incentive. People will only do so much for what they are paid. Studies have shown that pay increases, no matter how large or small, will show a spike in productivity for only a short time and then level out to prior production. Slap a limit on a boss and you will get no incentive to do more.

How does my plan limit growth? by increasing opportunities to start new businesses I would've thought it would stimulate growth?
In the current world I believe businesses don't expect to make a profit for the 1st 2 years, so how would limiting pay for the guy at the top limit growth?
If growth is so good under the current system? Why is the global economy flatlining?
Japan's been dead for 20 years! And they work hard there; so hard that they have a term for overwork; "Karoshi".
So how can a system that works employees to death and results in a flatlining economy for 20 years be good?
If those studies are correct then why not awarded a tiny pay increase annually? Small spike in production annually and incentive to build a future in the company.
Why do you seem so wedded to the idea of paying as little as possible? Look at Aldi; they pay significantly more than competitors and they're growing while others are faltering.

 

[bobjustbob]

You have me all wrong thinking that I want to hold down anyone's pay. My argument is for everyone to grow top to bottom without limits. There shouldn't be anyone restricted from doing anything with any dollars that they have earned. It is wrong and removes the incentive to grow. Restricting earnings does not allow the individual to take risks. Let's go back to the restaurant. In both models the Chef can save it on his own and start his new place. Make it a boom and open up another 2? By your model he can't do it on his own since he won't be able to save enough money or find another backer...except for the governing bodies that decide who to hand money to. In my model he can get the same or another money man to get it going. The money man has a vested interest into the success. Having that money man by your side is an asset. He may not know how to run a restaurant but when Chef starts to see problems, he can go to money man to find solutions. One on one reacting to situations with a rapid plan. Money man may have resources to bail out the situation. Your model has the Chef going to an agency, being put on a list for some board to make a decision. A bunch of paper pushers that have stacks of other Chefs with their restaurants in trouble. Going back to the statistics of business failures, where is all of this government money going to come from after most of it goes down the tubes on failed ventures?

If minimal work, skills, and wage is enough for a living then there is no reason to do anything more. No reason to go to school or learn a skill or a trade. Pretty nice life pumping gas for all of the comforts of home. I'd jump on that right now and so would a billion others. Is your economic plan ready for that?

Aldi is a great corporation. I don't know how much they pay their workers but what I do know about their business operation. That they run a lean, mean organization. I also know that the top 4 richest people in Germany are owners of Aldi.

 

[Sam Fisher]

You have me all wrong thinking that I want to hold down anyone's pay. My argument is for everyone to grow top to bottom without limits. There shouldn't be anyone restricted from doing anything with any dollars that they have earned. It is wrong and removes the incentive to grow. Restricting earnings does not allow the individual to take risks. Let's go back to the restaurant. In both models the Chef can save it on his own and start his new place. Make it a boom and open up another 2? By your model he can't do it on his own since he won't be able to save enough money or find another backer...except for the governing bodies that decide who to hand money to. In my model he can get the same or another money man to get it going. The money man has a vested interest into the success. Having that money man by your side is an asset. He may not know how to run a restaurant but when Chef starts to see problems, he can go to money man to find solutions. One on one reacting to situations with a rapid plan. Money man may have resources to bail out the situation. Your model has the Chef going to an agency, being put on a list for some board to make a decision. A bunch of paper pushers that have stacks of other Chefs with their restaurants in trouble. Going back to the statistics of business failures, where is all of this government money going to come from after most of it goes down the tubes on failed ventures?

If minimal work, skills, and wage is enough for a living then there is no reason to do anything more. No reason to go to school or learn a skill or a trade. Pretty nice life pumping gas for all of the comforts of home. I'd jump on that right now and so would a billion others. Is your economic plan ready for that?

Aldi is a great corporation. I don't know how much they pay their workers but what I do know about their business operation. That they run a lean, mean organization. I also know that the top 4 richest people in Germany are owners of Aldi.

Bob, great explanation. Now... if you really think about it, the same analogy you used to counter VV, can be used to explain the problems with OBAMA CARE.

 

[bobjustbob]

Bob, great explanation. Now... if you really think about it, the same analogy you used to counter VV, can be used to explain the problems with OBAMA CARE.

Oh, that fucking mess shoved up our asses? I'll tell you what Sam, I'm willing to go half way on this. If by the time this kicks in and we are able to pay for all of this wonderful stuff then I am with it. Personally, I wouldn't bet that horse running against elephants at Gulfstream Park.

 

[vodkazvictim]

You have me all wrong thinking that I want to hold down anyone's pay. My argument is for everyone to grow top to bottom without limits. There shouldn't be anyone restricted from doing anything with any dollars that they have earned. It is wrong and removes the incentive to grow. Restricting earnings does not allow the individual to take risks. Let's go back to the restaurant. In both models the Chef can save it on his own and start his new place. Make it a boom and open up another 2? By your model he can't do it on his own since he won't be able to save enough money or find another backer...except for the governing bodies that decide who to hand money to. In my model he can get the same or another money man to get it going. The money man has a vested interest into the success. Having that money man by your side is an asset. He may not know how to run a restaurant but when Chef starts to see problems, he can go to money man to find solutions. One on one reacting to situations with a rapid plan. Money man may have resources to bail out the situation. Your model has the Chef going to an agency, being put on a list for some board to make a decision. A bunch of paper pushers that have stacks of other Chefs with their restaurants in trouble. Going back to the statistics of business failures, where is all of this government money going to come from after most of it goes down the tubes on failed ventures?

If minimal work, skills, and wage is enough for a living then there is no reason to do anything more. No reason to go to school or learn a skill or a trade. Pretty nice life pumping gas for all of the comforts of home. I'd jump on that right now and so would a billion others. Is your economic plan ready for that?

Aldi is a great corporation. I don't know how much they pay their workers but what I do know about their business operation. That they run a lean, mean organization. I also know that the top 4 richest people in Germany are owners of Aldi.

Top to bottom?
But when are the top ready to hand down money to the bottom at the expense of profit? Very rarely. Aldi do by paying more than average and that is why they're successful.

No restrictions on doing anything with what we've earned? So what if I want to buy a child?

Aside from the fact that in my model the government may well choose to invest in him...
Why can't he open another two restaurants in my model? If he's paying himself 10 times what the lowest paid staff member is earning and still makes enough money, then surely he can open another two restaurants. Why not? I don't understand how my model restricts growth. If he pays his staff minimum wage and can only pay ten times as much then he has a choice (under my model); reinvest the money in the business or let the government take it as excess earnings. Surely the choice is obvious; reinvest? Please explain how I'm wrong.
Please also explain how the money man who doesn't know hospitality can help with anything other than money

when any of his Chefs start to see problems, he can go to money man to find solutions

(albeit I can't but acknowledge that knowing how to handle money is important).

Wait wait wait...
We've seen financial bubbles created and popped to vast detriment by disastrous private investment, yet you're automatically assuming that government investment will be a flat out failure?
You said yourself that under the current model of private investment most companies don't make it, so are you then asserting that government planning is somehow worse?
I'll bet that the government will invest smartly and spread investments evenly rather than repeating the current pattern of throwing all the money into one area.

Talking of where all the money will come from when it's dissapeared on failed business ventures, I'd like to remind you of a few things;
1: The state bailed out the banks. The banks would have collapsed if the state had not, so where does the money come from to pay for your private businesses, given that many pay negative tax (forgive the italics, I decided caps lock was too rude).
2: What happens when a business falters? The state turns it over to worker's control because it's inherantly better and more efficient than private ownership. Example: Hawker aircraft. Now before you laugh at that, stating that america makes the best aircraft, I should point out that the Harrier your american marines use was developed by none other than... Hawker Siddeley!
Still, nevermind, because at least The F35 slated to replace the harrier is an all american model, right? Well... no.
You see the F35s vertical fan system is copied from the Yakolev design Beaureu's Soviet Era "Freestyle" aircraft. They paid for the engineering data.

There is plenty of reason to do more.
Minimum wage or not everybody seeks to better themselves, to do better, to be more constructive and creative.
That aside, minimum wage will always be minimum wage and as such the incentive will always be there to do better to earn more money. I can't believe that you'd seriously pump gas if the system changed to my way tomorrow, but bear in mind, when I say that people should be able to live on minimum wage, I mean survive, not live a life of luxury.
Under the current system, all the money pools at the top and stays there, resulting in socio-economic paralysis.
Talking of the current system, you've got an idea of what I'm espousing; what do you desire? What kind of arrangement do you think would work? You haven't stated.

Aldi is indeed a great company and I estimate that on the bottom rung of the ladder, they pay at least 10-20% more than their rivals pay for their equivelant worker; they pay more than minimum wage.
And as you said; they are indeed a great company; lean and mean. I know a manager at Aldi and whenever I talk to his workers or see him in there he's working hard, not sitting in the back office. They work, they work hard, the emphasis is on productivity, and look how well they do.
Their employees are happy because they get to work hard, get paid better than average and can take pride in their work (may sound bizzarre, but the staff at my local Aldi take pride in their work and I know they always do a good job, so it must be working).
The owners of Aldi may be the richest people in Germany, but lets face it; they deserve it.
Why? Because Aldi provides productive employment, conducts itself rather better than it's rivals and provides quality service at low cost. So they have the lean, mean organisation you admire (and frankly, so do I) with the provision of service to society that I admire.

Bob, great explanation. Now... if you really think about it, the same analogy you used to counter VV, can be used to explain the problems with OBAMA CARE.

cunttard is agreeing with you. THAT is a warning sign.

 

[eponymous]

This started out to be an interesting discussion with intelligent thoughts being exchanged. It would be nice to continue that way but it's hard now.

You just described 99% of all discussion threads that have ever existed, both on Freeones and elsewhere.

 

[bobjustbob]

I like Sam. Sure, he has no sight towards the middle but I swing towards the right and follow the basic philosophies.

It's hard to judge Aldi for me since I am only exposed to the USA market. What they do and how their business is set up outside of here I just don't know. Never been to one outside of here. Don't know the market or competition or shopping habits of anyone not on my land. It may be the same or very different. From what they are doing here, they offer far less selection and conveniences for their customers vs the competition. That's not a bad thing since what they do carry in their stores is always a better value in the cart. Aldi is not a one stop shopping place. We here are accustomed to making only one trip to the market for everything. Shopping at local bakeries and butchers, and produce markets is a pain in the ass because it's making extra trips. For me and my lifestyle, I love the locals because I like to shop. Pick out the good stuff and come back next week to see what's new. Tell you the truth? If I could start a business right now, it would be a butcher-sandwich shop in my town. Where I live is pretty populated but to find a butcher you have to drive 10 miles. Aldi does have their share of stores in my market area. They have no impact on the competition yet still do business.

It only takes 11 employees to run an Aldi. They all do everything from ringing to cleaning bathrooms to unloading trucks to stocking shelves. Those people deserve any extra they get paid. The managers get good but not spectacular pay. There isn't a lot of office stuff. They don't hire, fire, or promote employees. Very little burden other than putting the key in the door and making sure the place is stocked and clean. Much, much more burden and responsibilities at the competitors.

Yes, the government bailed out the banks and auto industry. That money was paid back with interest. If those restaurants goes under in 2 years will the government be paid back? Give them all another half million dollars and prey for the best? People that know how to make money are the best to know how to make more. Not government bureaucrats. When I go to the track I get a program. Amongst the statistics are lists of professionals with their selections. There is also the consensus of all money wagered setting the final odds. If you only bet the favorites or pro selections you are guaranteed to be a loser. The winner in the long run is the guy that takes those choices into consideration but uses his own knowledge to take the risks. Most times the best bets are the ones you never make. You don't have to bet every race. There will always be another chance on the next page.

Money that pools at the top is ready to invest and it does happen. Build their own business or buy one that they can improve. Money makes money. From the big conglomerates to you and I in a 401k.

Sure as hell I'd pump gas to get all of the basics you think the collective citizens deserve under your model. Describe that living that your wage should support. What do we deserve to have? Lump me into your boat and tell us what we all get.

 

[vodkazvictim]

I like Sam. Sure, he has no sight towards the middle but I swing towards the right and follow the basic philosophies.

It's hard to judge Aldi for me since I am only exposed to the USA market. What they do and how their business is set up outside of here I just don't know. Never been to one outside of here. Don't know the market or competition or shopping habits of anyone not on my land. It may be the same or very different. From what they are doing here, they offer far less selection and conveniences for their customers vs the competition. That's not a bad thing since what they do carry in their stores is always a better value in the cart. Aldi is not a one stop shopping place. We here are accustomed to making only one trip to the market for everything. Shopping at local bakeries and butchers, and produce markets is a pain in the ass because it's making extra trips. For me and my lifestyle, I love the locals because I like to shop. Pick out the good stuff and come back next week to see what's new. Tell you the truth? If I could start a business right now, it would be a butcher-sandwich shop in my town. Where I live is pretty populated but to find a butcher you have to drive 10 miles. Aldi does have their share of stores in my market area. They have no impact on the competition yet still do business.

Aldi describes it's product range as broad, but not unnessecarily deep (why do you need a choice of 180 different brands of toothpaste, 140 of which are mint flavoured?)
Aldi runs much more efficiently than competitors; at my local Aldi I often see the boss out on the floor working hard.
I know a guy who worked for Marks and Spencer's who got fired for having tonsilitis (illegally, that is. Fired because he couldn't speak to customers, because of his tonsilitis). The assistant manager was suspended around the same time for leaving work to bet on horses when he should have been working. This guy is a hard worker, but only the assistant manager got re-hired.
Aldi is good and cheap and sometimes their stuff is good quality, but for the best, you should always see a specialist.

It only takes 11 employees to run an Aldi. They all do everything from ringing to cleaning bathrooms to unloading trucks to stocking shelves. Those people deserve any extra they get paid. The managers get good but not spectacular pay. There isn't a lot of office stuff. They don't hire, fire, or promote employees. Very little burden other than putting the key in the door and making sure the place is stocked and clean. Much, much more burden and responsibilities at the competitors.

Really? 'cos the way I hear and see it from someone I know who's worked in both, the managers at competitors are lazy and simply used to saying "do this" to a minion, whereas Aldi managers lead by example AND do all the extra work of a manager.

Yes, the government bailed out the banks and auto industry. That money was paid back with interest. If those restaurants goes under in 2 years will the government be paid back? Give them all another half million dollars and prey for the best? People that know how to make money are the best to know how to make more. Not government bureaucrats. When I go to the track I get a program. Amongst the statistics are lists of professionals with their selections. There is also the consensus of all money wagered setting the final odds. If you only bet the favorites or pro selections you are guaranteed to be a loser. The winner in the long run is the guy that takes those choices into consideration but uses his own knowledge to take the risks. Most times the best bets are the ones you never make. You don't have to bet every race. There will always be another chance on the next page.

That money hasn't been paid back here and I wasn't aware that it has been paid back in the usa, so source please?
The way I see it the banks were bailed out in the '80s and then again recently. The guys who do the immediate work know best how to do the work, but with a large corporation you get some guy who sits in an office making all the decisions and making a mess of things. A good example of profit-focussed business failing to do the job as well as a results-orientated organisation is the British olympics G4S/army fiasco.
If, by people who know how to make money, you're referring to the bankers, then I have to point out that they lost all their money.
I propose funding the guys who know how to do the job right because that way they make more money.
2 cases I consider parralell:

A restaurant opens.
It becomes a chain.
Quality goes down in order to drive up profits.
Customers desert the restaurant in favour of a new one that has opned that focuses more on quality than footfall.
Repeat.

Ford opens.
They sell many cars.
Quality goes down in order to drive up profits.
Customers desert Ford in favour of Toyota.
Repeat.

Money that pools at the top is ready to invest and it does happen. Build their own business or buy one that they can improve. Money makes money. From the big conglomerates to you and I in a 401k.

I don't have a 401K.
Most people don't.
Trickle down theory is disproven.

Sure as hell I'd pump gas to get all of the basics you think the collective citizens deserve under your model. Describe that living that your wage should support. What do we deserve to have? Lump me into your boat and tell us what we all get.

People who do basic jobs should be able to afford acceptable living with services such as police, fire protection and healthcare (after all, it's in the interests of the rich to keep the poor healthy because disease spreads) and basic education for their children.

Capitalism isn't working and never will long term but I think this may be a step in the right direction; maybe rather than attempt to fix attempting models which are broken, we should lay the foundations for what right looks like. In effect, lets draft a new constitution: I'll lay some things down and you do the same. Lets see if we can agree:

1: People should be able to live an acceptable life without working themselves into an early grave (an honest days pay for an honest days work). To accomplish this I'm open to suggestions, including any, all or none of the folowing. Whatever works)
A: Linking top rate of income to bottom rate of income - you may not earn more than 10X as much as anyone else.
B: Income dependant tax bands: 0-10% income =pay no tax. 10%+ pay 10%. 20% = pay 20%, 30 = pay 30% and so on up to 90%+ where you'd pay 90% tax.
So for example if the maximum permissable income was £100,00 per annum then the minimum would be £10,000 P/A and the bottom layer would pay no tax while the top layer would pay 90% tax. Remember that this is just an idea and I'm happy to play about with the ratios as long as we don't end up with a situation like we have now; some people having more money than God while others work hard and have nothing.

2: Everybody should pay tax. EVERYBODY.

3: Politians' incomes should be published from the moment they take office until their deaths. Any conflict of interest must be identified and eliminated.

4: A business should be able to open no more than 1 large and 1 small location in any 1 city (for example a large walmart and a ctreet corner mini walmart (this should stop one business or a cartel of businesses from dominating the market and keep business competitive, encouraging value, choice and innovation. Here in the UK 1 pound in every 7 spent goes to the big four; Asda, Tesco, Morrisons or Sainsburies. As a result they have the power to avoid paying tax, fuck over employees and label horsemeat as beef and sell it to the customer).

5: Prostitution must be legal (you can't stop the world's oldest business, so why not control it for the greater good?).

6: Everybody must at a certain age go through something like a citizen service program.
Eg; at 16 you get a choice; be an army conscript for a year or pioneer or hospital assistant for 2 years. I make the two year penalty because otherwise you'll have people spending an equal amount of time in the pioneers & hospitals without having all the risk an army conscript would face. Not fair.
So why would I make this happen? Because society is fractured; we have little to no societal cohesion and we're seeing the fallout from that. If the rich boys have to serve alongside the poor then they will recognise the poor as people rather than merely being a resource. The poor in turn will see that the rich are also sometimes forced to sufer, lessening resentment leading to unrest and possible revolution.
As all the corporations buying politicians are run by people with children who may well choose to go into the army, we will be less reluctant to commit the army to extract other countries wealth reserves and instead it will be more likely that the army will be used for the correct reasons; defending the country.

7: People who do basic jobs should be able to afford acceptable living with services such as police, fire protection and healthcare (after all, it's in the interests of the rich to keep the poor healthy because disease spreads) and basic education for their children.

8: Everybody who can prove that they are of sound mind and marksman ship skills should have the right to carry a weapon for self defense. Otherwise only the criminals are armed. I'm sure I don't need to tell you that governments are always much more scared of fucking over heavily armed people than unarmed people.

9: A law of instant recall must be extant; should the people wish, they can vote and if the vote passes, they may recall (in effect fire) their politicians from office at any time.
Get caught with your hands in the till? Fired. Get caught fucking your secretary? Fired. Only people of the highest moral character should be permitted to lead a country.

 

[bobjustbob]

Lots of things you brought up to address. Many of your things limit growth for even the small guy. 1 large and 1 small store per company per city? If I make the best sandwich in my area and can do the same thing in 4 more locations, why should I be outlawed to do this? More people can enjoy my same great product. I can get the same meat and bread to these locations and teach others to make the same sandwich. As a consumer you don't have to travel a distance for what you want. Me as boss will me monitoring the quality for each location. I don't have to watch every sandwich being made. Employ people to do that and spot check them. I now employ 5 times as many people and can move them up the ladder for another location.

Your pay and tax scale does the same thing and contradicts it's self. First you say the bottom 10% pay no taxes and then say everyone should pay taxes. Make 10K at the bottom level with no tax and take 90% of the 100K limit. Run a company for the same pay as the kid hired to wipe tables for the summer part time? It just doesn't make sense.

I would lower the minimum wage for those working with companies less than a year or 6 months. Perhaps by 30%. Once with the same company for more than that time a new minimum wage kicks in. Add benefits for those at that level like a medical plan and stock options and retirement plan. I thought you were familiar with the 401k plan in the USA. More than half the full time working people here either have a plan built into their government jobs, a company sponsored plan or the 401k. Part timers are also offered the option with many private companies even at minimum wage. These savings plans can be used before retirement. The best being to take a loan from them. You become your own bank. Take a loan out for 10K and pay back interest at 6% TO YOURSELF. No bank in the middle to take your money or make decisions for approval. It's your money and you decide what you want to do with it. Most 401K has the employer match your contributions. You decide what to invest it in, not a government.

Medical expenses are way too high. Tort reform needs to be addressed and implemented. This with competition in the health insurance industry will drive down the costs. I, as a single man, shouldn't pay extra for my insurance if I don't have a child or work in a high risk business or lifestyle. The same with taxes. Level the playing field. If my company depends on the roads being maintained then a proportion of the roads use should be balanced towards those that use them the most. No complaint there. Local businesses use less roads and should get the break. If I drive 100 miles to make my check then I should pay more.

Politicians incomes? Yea, open book. That's where the crooks are.

Education should be free provided from local and state taxes. Some from the federal level too. Every child should be mandatory for education till 18. College education should have much lower interest rates down to 2%. That will kill many birds with one stone. Kids who don't want to go to school past16 don't enter the full time workforce. The get 2 extra years of education to learn something. Those 2 years are important since they are that much more mature and can have a better mind to make decisions. Those 2% loans won't be much of a burden. Many businesses help pay for higher education here for classes within the model of company growth.

Prostitution should be legalized. I will never agree with the moral aspects of it but I don't have to use that service. Regulate it for those that do to keep it safe medically.

Mandatory service? I don't think so. Voluntary service looks much better than mandatory. Like above, use that time for education. More time will be spent at home and they can learn what it is to be a good human being from mom and dad.

I have no problem with your gun thing. Take a course and register yourself and your guns. Do what we can to keep guns in the safe possession of those responsible.

Instant recall of politicians sounds nice. Find them guilty first and the next election year vote the replacement in. Don't wait till their term ends.

Back to the personal income tax. At the minimum wage no tax. Raise it up to a maximum of 35% on salary set at 350K. Capitol gains about the same scale. Corporate tax I would like to see cut down to 28%. The company has more money to work with and those that take the cash out of the company pay more. 35% on their gains. Doesn't hurt the little guy who invested in the company as a worker. Plus simplify the tax codes to get those loopholes out. Jet trips for summits are not necessary to conduct business. Neither are $100 lunches or face time on the golf course. Chop that shit out. We can do the negotiations over the phone in this day and age.

 

[vodkazvictim]

I'd like to start this by apologising for my tardiness in replying (and in general - LOLZOMGBBCOMGWTF?!).
I've recently started a new job. During week 1 my time was go to work, do 8 hours, go to the gym, head home, eat, sleep. I managed to fit in a dinner party. Same in week two, but with Valentines day slotted in. In the weekend I travelled halfway around the country seeing family. So I really didn't have the time to give your post the reply it deserves.

Lots of things you brought up to address. Many of your things limit growth for even the small guy. 1 large and 1 small store per company per city? If I make the best sandwich in my area and can do the same thing in 4 more locations, why should I be outlawed to do this? More people can enjoy my same great product. I can get the same meat and bread to these locations and teach others to make the same sandwich. As a consumer you don't have to travel a distance for what you want. Me as boss will me monitoring the quality for each location. I don't have to watch every sandwich being made. Employ people to do that and spot check them. I now employ 5 times as many people and can move them up the ladder for another location.

1 small and 1 large may limit the small guy, for which reason I'm prepared to put some flex in that limit, but note that if there is no limit (or too large a limit) then the big guy will dominate the market, which won't even let the small guy start up.
What you addressed there was the small limitation my quota placed on the small guy, rather than the fact that my quota permits the small guy to start a business, whereas an overly large quota (or none at all) leads to the big guy dominating the playing field, disallowing the small guy from starting a business and resulting in a lower quality product for a higher price for the people.
So lets raise it to 2 small and 1 large outlet per town. Agreed?

Your pay and tax scale does the same thing and contradicts it's self. First you say the bottom 10% pay no taxes and then say everyone should pay taxes. Make 10K at the bottom level with no tax and take 90% of the 100K limit. Run a company for the same pay as the kid hired to wipe tables for the summer part time? It just doesn't make sense.

I'm willing to play with the ratios, my point is that those who do the work should be able to live on the work they do. History has shown that too much oppression of the working class results in revolt. No happy ending from that.
Lets say the guy wiping tables in the summer makes 1K. He pays no tax. he gets 1K for the year.
The guy at the top, owns the business, he makes 100K (remember - I'm happy to play with the ratios as long as it doesn't become ridiculous and the poor can live upon their wages).
He pays 90K tax, takes home 10K a year - 10 times as much as the kid who wipes the tables.

I would lower the minimum wage for those working with companies less than a year or 6 months. Perhaps by 30%. Once with the same company for more than that time a new minimum wage kicks in. Add benefits for those at that level like a medical plan and stock options and retirement plan. I thought you were familiar with the 401k plan in the USA. More than half the full time working people here either have a plan built into their government jobs, a company sponsored plan or the 401k. Part timers are also offered the option with many private companies even at minimum wage. These savings plans can be used before retirement. The best being to take a loan from them. You become your own bank. Take a loan out for 10K and pay back interest at 6% TO YOURSELF. No bank in the middle to take your money or make decisions for approval. It's your money and you decide what you want to do with it. Most 401K has the employer match your contributions. You decide what to invest it in, not a government.

The result of which would be that people would have to hesitate EVEN more by switching the job, which kind of fucks around with your argument that the best employees will just leave the company in search of better wages.
Sorry - never been to america and have limited understanding of your situation there, which is what is giving you the upper hand with the american examples and inversely giving me the upper hand with British examples.

Medical expenses are way too high. Tort reform needs to be addressed and implemented. This with competition in the health insurance industry will drive down the costs. I, as a single man, shouldn't pay extra for my insurance if I don't have a child or work in a high risk business or lifestyle. The same with taxes. Level the playing field. If my company depends on the roads being maintained then a proportion of the roads use should be balanced towards those that use them the most. No complaint there. Local businesses use less roads and should get the break. If I drive 100 miles to make my check then I should pay more.

I'm really having a problem with this one in that I agree greatly with what you say.
You're right: Medical expenses ARE too high. But having healthcare offered by private companies will only keep costs high or raise them.
You're right: people shouldn't pay for other people's medical care, but the best method so far seen to supply medical care to the nation is an NHS style system where everybody pays. Thing is, if the poor get sick, they pass it to the rich, so the rich pay indirectly. not to mention the fact that not keeping workers healthy results in falling priductivity.
You're right: The playing field does need to be levelled. As of right now, I see no problem with your idea on roads for small businesses.

Politicians incomes? Yea, open book. That's where the crooks are.

You're right, but they're not in it alone; look who works with them to commit the crimes; businessmen, bankers and lawyers.
Why? it's a product of the Capitalist system

Education should be free provided from local and state taxes. Some from the federal level too. Every child should be mandatory for education till 18. College education should have much lower interest rates down to 2%. That will kill many birds with one stone. Kids who don't want to go to school past16 don't enter the full time workforce. The get 2 extra years of education to learn something. Those 2 years are important since they are that much more mature and can have a better mind to make decisions. Those 2% loans won't be much of a burden. Many businesses help pay for higher education here for classes within the model of company growth.

Yeah, I think we agree enough here.

Prostitution should be legalized. I will never agree with the moral aspects of it but I don't have to use that service. Regulate it for those that do to keep it safe medically.

Agree, again.

Mandatory service? I don't think so. Voluntary service looks much better than mandatory. Like above, use that time for education. More time will be spent at home and they can learn what it is to be a good human being from mom and dad.

Mum and dad don't always teach best.
When I say mandatory national service, note that I do not mean mandatory national service in teh army. We've seen the problems produced by a lack of mandatory service.

I have no problem with your gun thing. Take a course and register yourself and your guns. Do what we can to keep guns in the safe possession of those responsible.

Good. Just one thing though, just to make my point and niggle you: Capitalism will continually attempt to drive down the requirements for gun licenses so that more guns can be sold and more profit made. Who cares how many die when there's profit to be made?

Instant recall of politicians sounds nice. Find them guilty first and the next election year vote the replacement in. Don't wait till their term ends.

Good. I like that we're agreeing here.

Back to the personal income tax. At the minimum wage no tax. Raise it up to a maximum of 35% on salary set at 350K. Capitol gains about the same scale. Corporate tax I would like to see cut down to 28%. The company has more money to work with and those that take the cash out of the company pay more. 35% on their gains. Doesn't hurt the little guy who invested in the company as a worker. Plus simplify the tax codes to get those loopholes out. Jet trips for summits are not necessary to conduct business. Neither are $100 lunches or face time on the golf course. Chop that shit out. We can do the negotiations over the phone in this day and age.

Ah... now this is what I was talking about when I talked about playing with the ratios.
I see a lot of sense in what you say, but I have to wonder; will the chiefs of industry still earn more than small countries while the workers starve and suffer unnescessarily?
Shouldn't there be a scale on business tax so that the little guy pays less and the big guy more?
$100 lunch? Really? What kind of cheapskate company are you working with? $1000 is more like it and $10K hardly unknown.

 

[bobjustbob]

As an aside, a few times with different companies an aggressive supervisor came into the lunch room and started talking about what he wanted us to do when we got back. Each time me or another employee stood up and asked "Is this a meeting or our lunch time? If it's our lunch time then talk business when we clock back in." Shut them fuckers right up. Another time we were on break outside having a smoke. One of these guys comes out and starts reprimanding one of the workers about something. I stopped him saying that he was on his break and it was also unprofessional to reprimand someone in front of other employees. He later came to me saying that he didn't like how I was out of line questioning his authority. I repeated that he was the one out of line and if he did it again I would report both incidents to his boss. If you let them do it once they will think they can always do it.

The employee/employer relationship is a 2 way street. Worker takes the job with a basic understanding of their duties and responsibilities. They are to do as the boss guides them. All of this is with the understanding that situations and priorities change. The employee must be flexible and let the supervisor set the priorities. However, the employee must be realistic of 8 hours of work and responsibility. Example below.

Years back working in a market I was solely for refrigerated foods in a store. It was just me. From receiving deliveries to filling shelves to organized storage to resets to cleaning. All me. Sometimes I had nothing to do. This would depend upon seasonal ups and downs or delivery schedules. It was my duty to go to my boss at these times and alert them so they could use me in other areas. All with the understanding that if when my delivery comes in I am ultimately responsible for my primary area (basically because no one wanted to put on a coat and work in there.) Times and days for my availability varied depending upon scheduling.

One of the senior managers had this idea that since I had spare time I should be responsible for another area. It never came directly to me but my supervisors were getting the push from him to lump on this added responsibility. I wasn't blind to it. One day I got my supervisor to admit that this was the plan. I stopped the senior manager before he ran out the door to go home. I told him that it was his choice of priorities. My area or the new area. Either way would be fine with me.If he wanted both from me then I am not the man to do that and find someone else to take that on. He backed down since he knew that his decision would be his responsibility.

Shit like this is a part of the workplace. It isn't oppression, it's part of getting the most out of your workers. I've been on both sides. Workers should understand that 40 hours of pay is for 40 hours of work. Doubling your pay will never get you to do double the same work. Tasks and responsibilities command better pay.

I open a pizza place with 8 tables. A cook, a cashier, someone to wipe tables, a delivery guy, and me to help out where needed. It's across the street from the same kind of place. People like my pizza and service so much that I put him out of business. Should I feel guilty about this because the customers like me better than him? I expand and put up the cost to double the size and employ twice as many people. Why shouldn't I make more money? I bought the equipment and buy twice the food and pay twice the rent and responsible for twice the supervision. If I can do this in 2-5-10-20 locations then why shouldn't I be able to do it? My pizza is better and the customers say so because they buy them.

Who makes refrigerators in your model? How do they get the money to do this? 90% of the profits goes to the government so no capitol can be acquired to start up. By your model 90% of what I make goes open to bids by the government for the table wipers to start another pizza place. I think you have a serious jealousy of people that make more money than you. At a certain income level they are all become crooks. Greed and dishonest people are at all levels of society. You can get cheated by an auto mechanic, the guy that sells you coffee, or your paper boy. Accept the fact that some people make more money than others. People take different paths in life. Sometimes it's luck. Sometimes opportunities presented. Sometimes it's hard work and perseverance. Don't scorn these people and think they owe you something. Find something that you can do to put yourself over this.

 

[vodkazvictim]

As an aside, a few times with different companies an aggressive supervisor came into the lunch room and started talking about what he wanted us to do when we got back. Each time me or another employee stood up and asked "Is this a meeting or our lunch time? If it's our lunch time then talk business when we clock back in." Shut them fuckers right up. Another time we were on break outside having a smoke. One of these guys comes out and starts reprimanding one of the workers about something. I stopped him saying that he was on his break and it was also unprofessional to reprimand someone in front of other employees. He later came to me saying that he didn't like how I was out of line questioning his authority. I repeated that he was the one out of line and if he did it again I would report both incidents to his boss. If you let them do it once they will think they can always do it.

You're correct.

The employee/employer relationship is a 2 way street. Worker takes the job with a basic understanding of their duties and responsibilities. They are to do as the boss guides them. All of this is with the understanding that situations and priorities change. The employee must be flexible and let the supervisor set the priorities. However, the employee must be realistic of 8 hours of work and responsibility. Example below.

Years back working in a market I was solely for refrigerated foods in a store. It was just me. From receiving deliveries to filling shelves to organized storage to resets to cleaning. All me. Sometimes I had nothing to do. This would depend upon seasonal ups and downs or delivery schedules. It was my duty to go to my boss at these times and alert them so they could use me in other areas. All with the understanding that if when my delivery comes in I am ultimately responsible for my primary area (basically because no one wanted to put on a coat and work in there.) Times and days for my availability varied depending upon scheduling.

One of the senior managers had this idea that since I had spare time I should be responsible for another area. It never came directly to me but my supervisors were getting the push from him to lump on this added responsibility. I wasn't blind to it. One day I got my supervisor to admit that this was the plan. I stopped the senior manager before he ran out the door to go home. I told him that it was his choice of priorities. My area or the new area. Either way would be fine with me.If he wanted both from me then I am not the man to do that and find someone else to take that on. He backed down since he knew that his decision would be his responsibility.

Shit like this is a part of the workplace. It isn't oppression, it's part of getting the most out of your workers. I've been on both sides. Workers should understand that 40 hours of pay is for 40 hours of work. Doubling your pay will never get you to do double the same work. Tasks and responsibilities command better pay.

So when will we see employers understanding the same and paying a reasonable rate?
What about all the times employees have played fuckabout with workers paychecks?

I open a pizza place with 8 tables. A cook, a cashier, someone to wipe tables, a delivery guy, and me to help out where needed. It's across the street from the same kind of place. People like my pizza and service so much that I put him out of business. Should I feel guilty about this because the customers like me better than him?

No. Did I ask you to? No. Does monopoly mean good things? No.

I expand and put up the cost to double the size and employ twice as many people.

Why do you have to put up the cost if you can comfortably expand without doing so?

Why shouldn't I make more money?

I think you misunderstand; I don't object to people making more money, I object ot monopolies and people making massive amounts of money providing poor products while other people starve (eg Bill Gates)

I bought the equipment and buy twice the food and pay twice the rent and responsible for twice the supervision. If I can do this in 2-5-10-20 locations then why shouldn't I be able to do it?

You can't do it in 20 locations. The best you can hope for is to hire people to supervise the other locations for you.

My pizza is better and the customers say so because they buy them.

But once the other guy s out of business, they won't have a choice. Then you'll raise prices and lower quality.

Look, these examples aren't working. Look at the world around you. It is the product of the inevitable backsliding of Capitalism into what we have now. And it is broken.
Look at all those corporations with monopolies supplying shit, treating people like shit and delaying progress, all in the cause of profit.
Capitalism doesn't work. For all that Capitalist will hark on about the ethics of rewards for hard work, it is always the bosses that get rewarded for the workers work.

Why should people have to work like dogs to make ends meet? Why should they have to work themselves into an early grave to be succesful? Why can't people work to make ends meet and work hard to be succesful?
If Capitalism is so good, then why isn't it working?

Who makes refrigerators in your model? How do they get the money to do this?

Define my model, are we talking about Socialism or the blueprint of a state started by the constitution we were discussing? If it's the blueprint, then many competing manufacturers make the fridges and they get start up money from government.

90% of the profits goes to the government so no capitol can be acquired to start up.

Who says 90% of the profit goes to government? And if it did, then government could just supply the capitol to start yo a new industry

By your model 90% of what I make goes open to bids by the government for the table wipers to start another pizza place.

I don't know how you arrive at that figure, but you know what? Yes we need more competition, because competition is what makes Capitalism work. No competition means nothing good comes about from Capitalism

I think you have a serious jealousy of people that make more money than you.

Money isn't so important to me. People dying for a profit margin? More so.

At a certain income level they are all become crooks

Thanks for making my point for me! By not allowing anyone to make that level of income (eg 100 times more than base salary) then we can eliminate the crooks.

. Greed and dishonest people are at all levels of society

true

. You can get cheated by an auto mechanic

Don't you mean by his boss who owns the garage?

, the guy that sells you coffee

How?

, or your paper boy

How? :wtf:

. Accept the fact that some people make more money than others

I accept it. I just feel that some people shouldn't be having spare private jets following them around in case their main private jet breaks while most of the world starves. It's called Morality.

. People take different paths in life. Sometimes it's luck. Sometimes opportunities presented. Sometimes it's hard work and perseverance. Don't scorn these people and think they owe you something.

Well, actually, they do owe me something; they can pay their taxes, for a start. Then they can stop monopolising the economy so that I can pay reasonable and competitive prices for things. Then they can stop bribing my government into fucking me over. I could go on.

Find something that you can do to put yourself over this.

I do plenty. What do you do?