What happens when Socialists run out of other people's money

Discussion of current events
User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 1709
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: What happens when Socialists run out of other people's money

Post by cassowary » Tue Jan 16, 2018 6:55 pm

neverfail wrote:
Tue Jan 16, 2018 2:53 pm
cassowary wrote:
Mon Jan 15, 2018 5:44 am


The idea that Marx and the average worker believed in was false.
Cass; how do you bloody-well know what the average worker believes? You have never given me the impression that you have ever mixed much with these. At least never enough to develop empathy with working people. You are probably unaware of it but virtually every one of your posts that I have ever read is literally steeped in class prejudice.
From you, of course. You are the one who just told me that Marx was not the first to believe that capital oppresses the workers. The workers would have realized it before he did. Let me try to find your exact words:
neverfail wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2018 7:34 pm
cassowary wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2018 9:21 pm
The idea Marx gave birth to was that the capitalists exploit the working class. The owners, through their firms, get rich out of the labor of the workers.
I question whether Marx "gave birth" to that idea at all. In his day there would have been no shortage of workers and even some middle class sympathizers who had already arrived at the same conclusion.
cassowary wrote:
Mon Jan 15, 2018 5:44 am
The capitalist and his employees are actually partners to beat the competition.
Herein lies the rub cassowary - the competition! When the going gets tough and the management looks for cost-cutting measures, the capitalist/employer's temptation is to screw the workers by making at least some redundant; putting others on shorter hours and/or reducing hourly pay rates. In all cases it means an oftentimes tragic loss of income to employees. The typical free enterprise business in a Western country is still structured like an old fashioned absolute monarchy (i.e. a royal tyranny where the boss is King Shit) and not (as your post romantically alludes to) a co-operative commonwealth where both the risks and rewards are equably shared.

Need I say any more?
You forget that the employer is also suffering from losses or at least reduced profit. Both are suffering if they don't beat the competition. You don't see the whole picture and only see things from the employee's point of view.

Such an attitude means the employer suffer losses while the employee suffers none of the hardship. It is only fair that both suffer together during bad times because his capital enables him to create jobs for the employees.

Both employer and employee must suffer together the bad times and enjoy together during the good times. You can see that with the tax cuts, many employers are sharing the good times with their employees. Walmart is the latest company to announce a bonus and a raise in pay. They are doing this out of business necessity.

If not, their employees run away to more generous employers. So capitalisms is a good way to distribute growing wealth. Focus on growing wealth and not class warfare. To do that, both employer (ie the capitalist) and the employee must unite to beat the competition. The more profitable the company, the more they can afford to pay their employees.

neverfail
Posts: 1751
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: What happens when Socialists run out of other people's money

Post by neverfail » Wed Jan 17, 2018 1:35 am

cassowary wrote:
Mon Jan 15, 2018 5:44 am
The idea that Marx and the average worker believed in was false.
Cass; how do you bloody-well know what the average worker believes? You have never given me the impression that you have ever mixed much with these. At least never enough to develop empathy with working people. You are probably unaware of it but virtually every one of your posts that I have ever read is literally steeped in class prejudice. [/quote]
cassowary wrote:
Tue Jan 16, 2018 6:55 pm
From you, of course. You are the one who just told me that Marx was not the first to believe that capital oppresses the workers. The workers would have realized it before he did. Let me try to find your exact words:
neverfail wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2018 7:34 pm
cassowary wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2018 9:21 pm
The idea Marx gave birth to was that the capitalists exploit the working class. The owners, through their firms, get rich out of the labor of the workers.
I question whether Marx "gave birth" to that idea at all. In his day there would have been no shortage of workers and even some middle class sympathizers who had already arrived at the same conclusion.
Thanks for the acknowledgement that you have learned something from me after all.

cassowary wrote:
Mon Jan 15, 2018 5:44 am
The capitalist and his employees are actually partners to beat the competition.
Herein lies the rub cassowary - the competition! When the going gets tough and the management looks for cost-cutting measures, the capitalist/employer's temptation is to screw the workers by making at least some redundant; putting others on shorter hours and/or reducing hourly pay rates. In all cases it means an oftentimes tragic loss of income to employees. The typical free enterprise business in a Western country is still structured like an old fashioned absolute monarchy (i.e. a royal tyranny where the boss is King Shit) and not (as your post romantically alludes to) a co-operative commonwealth where both the risks and rewards are equably shared.

Need I say any more?
cassowary wrote:
Mon Jan 15, 2018 5:44 am
You forget that the employer is also suffering from losses or at least reduced profit. Both are suffering if they don't beat the competition. You don't see the whole picture and only see things from the employee's point of view.

Such an attitude means the employer suffer losses while the employee suffers none of the hardship. It is only fair that both suffer together during bad times because his capital enables him to create jobs for the employees.

Both employer and employee must suffer together the bad times and enjoy together during the good times. You can see that with the tax cuts, many employers are sharing the good times with their employees. Walmart is the latest company to announce a bonus and a raise in pay. They are doing this out of business necessity.

If not, their employees run away to more generous employers. So capitalisms is a good way to distribute growing wealth. Focus on growing wealth and not class warfare. To do that, both employer (ie the capitalist) and the employee must unite to beat the competition. The more profitable the company, the more they can afford to pay their employees.
You still miss the point. The average private enterprise corporation is still structured like an absolutist monarchy. Big decisions are made by both the salaried top management and the boards of directors representing shareholders' interests in which employees (or their representatives have no say yet which still affect and disaffect their lives - yet these are still expected to wear it meekly. Not in the West. As long as employees remain regarded and treated as disposable hirelings and not made equal partners in the enterprise, they will not have a shared interest but competing ones.

Employers who will not treat their staff as partners will end up turning them into adversaries.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 1709
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: What happens when Socialists run out of other people's money

Post by cassowary » Wed Jan 17, 2018 7:03 am

neverfail wrote:
Wed Jan 17, 2018 1:35 am

cassowary wrote:
Mon Jan 15, 2018 5:44 am
You forget that the employer is also suffering from losses or at least reduced profit. Both are suffering if they don't beat the competition. You don't see the whole picture and only see things from the employee's point of view.

Such an attitude means the employer suffer losses while the employee suffers none of the hardship. It is only fair that both suffer together during bad times because his capital enables him to create jobs for the employees.

Both employer and employee must suffer together the bad times and enjoy together during the good times. You can see that with the tax cuts, many employers are sharing the good times with their employees. Walmart is the latest company to announce a bonus and a raise in pay. They are doing this out of business necessity.

If not, their employees run away to more generous employers. So capitalisms is a good way to distribute growing wealth. Focus on growing wealth and not class warfare. To do that, both employer (ie the capitalist) and the employee must unite to beat the competition. The more profitable the company, the more they can afford to pay their employees.
You still miss the point. The average private enterprise corporation is still structured like an absolutist monarchy. Big decisions are made by both the salaried top management and the boards of directors representing shareholders' interests in which employees (or their representatives have no say yet which still affect and disaffect their lives - yet these are still expected to wear it meekly. Not in the West. As long as employees remain regarded and treated as disposable hirelings and not made equal partners in the enterprise, they will not have a shared interest but competing ones.

Employers who will not treat their staff as partners will end up turning them into adversaries.
Why should the employees make the decisions when they do not own the company? This is tantamount to them taking over the company. This is unfair becasue the shareholders own the company. They invested their hard earned money in the company. Suppose, I started out as a cook and spent twenty years to save up enough money to start a restaurant.

I am risking my hard earned savings. The business may fail. But I employ cooks, waiters and spent my savings on furnishing my restaurant. The employees do not risk their capital. At most, they lose their jobs and can always find another. If my business goes bust, my capital is forever lost. The decision making must be made by whoever owns the business.

So, you are partly right in that the interests of employer and employee can never be fully aligned. That is why many companies give share options to their employees to align their interests. If the employees want to be part owner of the business, he can save up to buy stocks, if it is a publicly listed company. But their interests are aligned to the extent that if the company does well, their wages go up. If the company goes broke, they lose their jobs.

Your idea is pure Marx who preached that the workers are entitled to take over the assets of production. This is so unfair. The owner in my hypothetical restaurant saved up for years before starting his restaurant. After it succeeds against the odds, you feel the employees are entitled to take over.

Your sense of entitlement that you have the right to take over other people's property is exactly why Socialism fails. Why work hard to earn, save and invest in a business if my property can be taken away by those who did not put in the effort then why should I bother to work hard, save and invest? No jobs will be created and poverty is the result.

neverfail
Posts: 1751
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: a rich country where social democracy has worked.

Post by neverfail » Wed Jan 17, 2018 11:06 pm

cassowary wrote:
Wed Jan 17, 2018 7:03 am


Why should the employees make the decisions when they do not own the company? This is tantamount to them taking over the company. This is unfair becasue the shareholders own the company. They invested their hard earned money in the company.
Can I detect a tone of righteous indignation in your response cassowary?

More than just the shareholders are stakeholders in the operation of a company. What about creditors whom have supplied goods on delayed payment credit? Well, employees are in the same broad category. Shareholders p-lace their spare cash at risk but employees are staking their livelihood on the company remaining solvent. So why should they not have a say as to how the firm is run? Are you saying that all wisdom lies with the board of directors? The top management? I think not!

Should? I did not say they should. I would suggesting that it would be a good idea if they did it in their own best interests. In 1975 while the guest of friends of the family in the Federal Republic of Germany they had this very principle of employees' participation in management with worker's representatives at every important decision. It ensured industrial peace: not the sort of widespread industrial disputation endemic in the workplaces of the Anglo democracies at the time where we did not have this kind of workplace social democracy. Thanks to my German friends I caught a glimpse of it in action myself and was favourably impressed.

It did not bring down capitalism in the Federal Republic as this nation had a near consistent track record of being the strongest economy in Europe since the Allies restored sovereignty to it in 1949-50. West Germany's post WW2 prosperity was built of this regime of participatory worker-management collaboration.

It surprises me to learn that you are ignorant of this.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 1709
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: a rich country where social democracy has worked.

Post by cassowary » Wed Jan 17, 2018 11:18 pm

neverfail wrote:
Wed Jan 17, 2018 11:06 pm
cassowary wrote:
Wed Jan 17, 2018 7:03 am


Why should the employees make the decisions when they do not own the company? This is tantamount to them taking over the company. This is unfair becasue the shareholders own the company. They invested their hard earned money in the company.
Can I detect a tone of righteous indignation in your response cassowary?

More than just the shareholders are stakeholders in the operation of a company. What about creditors whom have supplied goods on delayed payment credit? Well, employees are in the same broad category. Shareholders p-lace their spare cash at risk but employees are staking their livelihood on the company remaining solvent. So why should they not have a say as to how the firm is run? Are you saying that all wisdom lies with the board of directors? The top management? I think not!

Should? I did not say they should. I would suggesting that it would be a good idea if they did it in their own best interests. In 1975 while the guest of friends of the family in the Federal Republic of Germany they had this very principle of employees' participation in management with worker's representatives at every important decision. It ensured industrial peace: not the sort of widespread industrial disputation endemic in the workplaces of the Anglo democracies at the time where we did not have this kind of workplace social democracy. Thanks to my German friends I caught a glimpse of it in action myself and was favourably impressed.

It did not bring down capitalism in the Federal Republic as this nation had a near consistent track record of being the strongest economy in Europe since the Allies restored sovereignty to it in 1949-50. West Germany's post WW2 prosperity was built of this regime of participatory worker-management collaboration.

It surprises me to learn that you are ignorant of this.
I thought you meant "should" from my reading of your last post complaining that the modern firm is run like a absolute monarchy with the workers having now say. It is good practice to consult the workers, but the final decision should be made by the owner.

Employees do not own the company. If the firm shuts down, they do not lose their livelihoods. They can always find other jobs. Nor do they lose their savings. The owners lose their savings that they invested in the company and that is permanent. I am not sure why you're bringing up the creditors. They loaned money to the firm. If the firm goes bust, they lose their money too. So their position is closer to the owners than the employees, except that they are entitled to a fixed return. The owners earn a variable return being the residue of cash inflows after all other people, including workers, have been paid. The owners get paid last.

If the workers want to have a say in running the company, they should invest their own money in it and become one of the owners too. It is wise to consult the employees. But the final decision must be make by the owner of the company. That's because he is the one who loses his shirt if his company fails.

neverfail
Posts: 1751
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: a rich country where social democracy has worked.

Post by neverfail » Thu Jan 18, 2018 2:24 pm

cassowary wrote:
Wed Jan 17, 2018 11:18 pm


I thought you meant "should" from my reading of your last post complaining that the modern firm is run like a absolute monarchy with the workers having now say. It is good practice to consult the workers, but the final decision should be made by the owner.

Employees do not own the company. If the firm shuts down, they do not lose their livelihoods. They can always find other jobs. Nor do they lose their savings. The owners lose their savings that they invested in the company and that is permanent. I am not sure why you're bringing up the creditors. They loaned money to the firm. If the firm goes bust, they lose their money too. So their position is closer to the owners than the employees, except that they are entitled to a fixed return. The owners earn a variable return being the residue of cash inflows after all other people, including workers, have been paid. The owners get paid last.

If the workers want to have a say in running the company, they should invest their own money in it and become one of the owners too. It is wise to consult the employees. But the final decision must be make by the owner of the company. That's because he is the one who loses his shirt if his company fails.
I can see that you view the plight of redundant employees through rose coloured spectacles cassowary; not from hard experience. One of these days you should try being in their shoes yourself and see whether it is so easy for them as you imagine!

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 1709
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: a rich country where social democracy has worked.

Post by cassowary » Thu Jan 18, 2018 5:15 pm

neverfail wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2018 2:24 pm
cassowary wrote:
Wed Jan 17, 2018 11:18 pm


I thought you meant "should" from my reading of your last post complaining that the modern firm is run like a absolute monarchy with the workers having now say. It is good practice to consult the workers, but the final decision should be made by the owner.

Employees do not own the company. If the firm shuts down, they do not lose their livelihoods. They can always find other jobs. Nor do they lose their savings. The owners lose their savings that they invested in the company and that is permanent. I am not sure why you're bringing up the creditors. They loaned money to the firm. If the firm goes bust, they lose their money too. So their position is closer to the owners than the employees, except that they are entitled to a fixed return. The owners earn a variable return being the residue of cash inflows after all other people, including workers, have been paid. The owners get paid last.

If the workers want to have a say in running the company, they should invest their own money in it and become one of the owners too. It is wise to consult the employees. But the final decision must be make by the owner of the company. That's because he is the one who loses his shirt if his company fails.
I can see that you view the plight of redundant employees through rose coloured spectacles cassowary; not from hard experience. One of these days you should try being in their shoes yourself and see whether it is so easy for them as you imagine!
Redundancy comes about when the company cannot compete against its competitors. It is thus in the interest of the workers to help the company compete. A profitable company creates jobs and rising wages. A loss-making company creates redundancy and lower pay. I am trying to avoid redundancy.

neverfail
Posts: 1751
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: a rich country where social democracy has worked.

Post by neverfail » Fri Jan 19, 2018 2:33 pm

cassowary wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2018 5:15 pm


Redundancy comes about when the company cannot compete against its competitors. It is thus in the interest of the workers to help the company compete. A profitable company creates jobs and rising wages. A loss-making company creates redundancy and lower pay. I am trying to avoid redundancy.
I am trying to avoid redundancy. Cass, you just made the freudian slip that exposes your hand of cards.

As an employer you care enough about your employees not to want to see any of them suffer redundancy due to no fault of their own. Well, you must have a heart as it would take the heartless brute of an employer to get any pleasure out of serving his employees redundancy notices. Unfortunately,k such employers do exist.

However, your apparent rejection of the German model of worker participation in management, despite the fact that it arguably strengthens German capitalism by enabling employees to "see things from the perspective of management" and act accordingly also informs me that you insist on remaining the king of your own little castle.

Your viewpoint is not detached from your situation in life but constitutes a defence of it. Am I right?

Post Reply