Has anyone suggested 'tearing down?'
If your aim is to take from the rich, that's what your doing. Don't focus on them. Focus on helping those in the lower margins.
Has anyone suggested 'tearing down?'
Has anyone suggested 'tearing down?'
If your aim is to take from the rich, that's what your doing. Don't focus on them. Focus on helping those in the lower margins.
Has anyone suggested 'tearing down?'
If your aim is to take from the rich, that's what your doing. Don't focus on them. Focus on helping those in the lower margins.
The aim is not to 'take from the rich' - the aim is to achieve fair pay for vulnerable workers, workers that do essential, productive work, building wealth for the company, yet workers who lack leverage, so are easily exploited.
Doing that would not make the rich suffer, would not crash the economy...in fact it would be a start towards building a better, a fairer world and a thriving economy because more workers would have money to spare.
It is not a question of Microsoft stealing money from its customers but of corporations making huge profits and not paying the people responsible for the products, its employees, part of the profits. Like everything, this trend started in 1980 when we changed the political economics that governs our economic policies from one that favors the workers to one that favors the owners, the stockholders. The problem with this change is that eventually, the workers notice that they are being screwed over and they start striking-out irrationally and doing things like voting for a completely incompetent President like Donald Trump. And one-half of a million people die because of his incompetence. More people die in one year than the US lost in three and one-half years of World War II.
The aim is not to 'take from the rich' - the aim is to achieve fair pay for vulnerable workers, workers that do essential, productive work, building wealth for the company, yet workers who lack leverage, so are easily exploited.
Doing that would not make the rich suffer, would not crash the economy...in fact it would be a start towards building a better, a fairer world and a thriving economy because more workers would have money to spare.
And yet just take one example: amazon. The vast majority of their profits are driven by their AWS division, which was primarily created by their highly paid programmers and engineers. Their online store has razor thin margins. Amazon profits very little from their warehouse workers, who will mostly be replaced by robots soon enough.
The aim is not to 'take from the rich' - the aim is to achieve fair pay for vulnerable workers, workers that do essential, productive work, building wealth for the company, yet workers who lack leverage, so are easily exploited.
Doing that would not make the rich suffer, would not crash the economy...in fact it would be a start towards building a better, a fairer world and a thriving economy because more workers would have money to spare.
And yet just take one example: amazon. The vast majority of their profits are driven by their AWS division, which was primarily created by their highly paid programmers and engineers. Their online store has razor thin margins. Amazon profits very little from their warehouse workers, who will mostly be replaced by robots soon enough.
Agreed. Most of the companies doing very well and driving the "wealth gap" (Amazon, Apple, paypal, and ect) pay their workers very well. Even the Amazon warehouse jobs are significantly better than the alternative. A warehouse opened up in a small town in Oregon a couple years ago and literally thousands of workers applied.
My question to DBT: what is fair pay? The real issue here is that there really isn't any deep conspiracy to hold down wages! The real issue is the competition and automation are driving down low skilled jobs. I'm not against unions and collective bargaining. But these act to really put a bandaid on the problem and don't solve anything long term. If we really wanted to help people in low skilled positions, we'd make it easier to get skills, encourage trade school and night school, lower barriers, encourage entrepreneurship and etc.
Instead of tearing down we could try to build up; by limiting immigration to protect American workers from wage deflation and encouraging an American first policy. Ah, whatever. Biden is president. American last.
Has anyone suggested 'tearing down?'
If your aim is to take from the rich, that's what your doing. Don't focus on them. Focus on helping those in the lower margins.
Do you think Eisenhower, a Republican President, was a Bolshevik? Seriously, are you that obtuse?
And yet just take one example: amazon.
Did Bill Gates rob people every time they purchased a PC with a copy of Windows in the 90's? Programmers at Microsoft certainly got paid quite well (in fact, they got paid so much that people were protesting the gentrification that resulted to accomodate high numbers of wealthy workers).
Does Jeff Bezos rob me every time I use Amazon to save money and access more variety?
They get wealthy from the large number of customers. Revenue is their main driver of profit. The profit margins for Amazon are razor thin.
I don't get robbed each time I buy something. In fact, I'm made better off. You lose extreme credibility when you call a normal transaction akin to theft or slavery.
The nature of business is to maximize profits and minimize costs. Charge the consumer according to demand, which is not necessarily value, while keeping production cost down. Workers who have little or no leverage (except through collective action and bargaining) are open to cost cutting.
Has anyone suggested 'tearing down?'
Has anyone suggested 'tearing down?'
The OP does. You just don't recognize the destruction you're asking for.
Same question I always ask. Sounds good, how exactly do you enact it and who sets how it is redistributed.
A worse case scenario was the Chinese Cultural Revolution.
The Russian and Chinese communist attempts at forcing an equality failed catastrophically. Large scale famine in both cases.
In practcal terms what is a quantifiable definition of redistribution? What is the endpoint? Without tat it will just be anoter slippery slope into the unknown.
The problem with progressives is they are never able to precisly articulate details. It ends up being political sound bites and propaganda.
Why do you believe that? Of course their activities benefit society. Deployment of resources away from immediate consumption in favor of increasing productive capacity and thus of increasing long-term consumption happens because Wall St. traders make it happen.And the income of Wall St. traders is a better target than the income of top surgeons and entertainers. NOT because Wall St. traders are "evil", but simply because their activities do not benefit society.
That's not a question; that's a tautology. Regardless of how much Microsoft pays its employees, you will label every dollar of that payment "wages" rather than "profit". So you always get to say "They aren't paying their employees part of the profit". Businesses are damned if they do and damned if they don't pay their employees well, based on ideologues' word games. You are peddling unfalsifiable metaphysics.It is not a question of Microsoft stealing money from its customers but of corporations making huge profits and not paying the people responsible for the products, its employees, part of the profits.