"It’s Time for Major Wealth Redistribution — Yes, I Mean It."

[Loren Pechtel]

Explaining the power imbalance between an individual worker and management is a no brainer.

If a business is able to freely draw from a pool of suitable applicants, the unemployed, an applicant or worker has no real bargaining power. The employer sets the pay rate, 'we offer x dollars per hour' on a take it or leave it basis.

What is the applicant or worker going to do, demand more?....ha, ha, sorry, goodbye. Is the manager going to grant extra pay out of the goodness of his heart? Rarely if ever happens.

Think about it. Try to imagine yourself in that position. it's called empathy and a basic understanding of how power structures work.

It's basic stuff. I explained it before. It shouldn't need repeating.

Your argument only applies if there is too much unemployment.

Note, also, that there are various skilled fields where the practitioners have the choice of being an employee or doing it on their own. If there really was the imbalance you talk about this would cause a big shift towards doing your own business. Note that there are also hybrid cases where workers can work with an employer for a percentage of their receipts rather than a salary. Again, if there was the imbalance you think there is you would see a lot of shift towards that sort of arrangement.

Reality check: My wife used to work under such an agreement. A coworker got jealous and wanted the same sort of agreement, thinking he would be making a lot more money. Oops--he discovered the reality was that his income didn't shoot up and that he often would get paid months later as he got paid when the office got paid. You do make somewhat more that way because you are assuming some of the risk the employer normally assumes. (When you're an employee you are paid for doing your work, if the company doesn't get paid it doesn't come out of your check. Something goes wrong and you're just sitting on your ass, the employee gets paid.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Redistribution is not necessarily a case of 'tearing down' or making the rich poor. If done properly, productive work, fair pay for all, it is a means of improving society, the economy and the human condition. A positive thing. A building up.

You're tearing down the capital that drives innovation.

Wrong. Innovation in industry comes from profits. When profits are turned into innovation, they are no longer profits. Only taxation on profits at the end of the year would be increased.

Look at my Space-X example. Space-X didn't come from a business spending on innovation rather than profit. Space-X came from the owner deciding to spend his personal money on his pet idea.

 

[DBT]

Explaining the power imbalance between an individual worker and management is a no brainer.

If a business is able to freely draw from a pool of suitable applicants, the unemployed, an applicant or worker has no real bargaining power. The employer sets the pay rate, 'we offer x dollars per hour' on a take it or leave it basis.

What is the applicant or worker going to do, demand more?....ha, ha, sorry, goodbye. Is the manager going to grant extra pay out of the goodness of his heart? Rarely if ever happens.

Think about it. Try to imagine yourself in that position. it's called empathy and a basic understanding of how power structures work.

It's basic stuff. I explained it before. It shouldn't need repeating.

Your argument only applies if there is too much unemployment.

No it doesn't. The only exception to the power imbalance is if someone has highly prized skills, and these individuals are in short supply. Then the shoe is on the other foot, it is the employer who becomes the supplicant.....come work for us, we'll shower you with money, perks, lurks, a company vehicle, generous bonus and pension plan.

Ordinary workers have no such leverage, yet do essential work, serve customers, clean rooms and facilities, drive delivery trucks....without which the business does not function.

This doesn't need explaining over and over. You either know it's true but are in denial, or live on a different planet.

 

[bilby]

Wrong. Innovation in industry comes from profits. When profits are turned into innovation, they are no longer profits. Only taxation on profits at the end of the year would be increased.

Look at my Space-X example. Space-X didn't come from a business spending on innovation rather than profit. Space-X came from the owner deciding to spend his personal money on his pet idea.

There's no such thing as 'personal money'. Money is a measure of debt owed by civilisation to its participants, and as such belongs to civilisation.

Typically civilisations have a government of some description that has the role of rebalancing those debts if they slip out of alignment with the government's opinion of what is owed to whom.

When the government is a dictatorship, that opinion is the personal opinion of the dictator, which tends to be problematic. When the government is a democracy, government opinion is, at least in principle, public opinion.

Why is Elon Musk owed a personal space exploration organisation? Or any other similarly expensive indulgence?

The 'free market' argument holds that the aggregate of all the small earnings he made from PayPal transactions (amongst other things such as his family providing some of their wealth from emerald mining using slave labourers, and various other sources of wealth) adds up to his having that level of IOU outstanding from society. Similarly, a popular musician or actor is 'owed' the aggregated billions of small sums paid by people who enjoy their performances.

But no developed nation has a government that agrees. Every one of them feels that a proportion of that debt is not owed to the holder. They re-balance his entitlement by taking a proportion of society's money from those who have more than they 'deserve', and destroying it. This process is called 'taxation'.

They also re-balance the entitlements of people for whom the free exchange of goods and services in return for societal endebtedness fails to provide the entitlements they deserve. They do this by creating 'money', and giving it to those deemed 'deserving'. This is called 'government spending'

Typically there is a further attempt to balance the 'tax' and 'spend' portions of government activity with economic growth, to maintain a controlled rate of inflation - that is, an approximately stable value for money over time, erring on the side of a slight reduction, rather than increase, in that value (value being here defined by the quantity of money needed to obtain the same goods and/or services at different times).

So the question 'Should Elon Musk be allowed to have a personal space program?' has nothing to do with 'his money', because he doesn't use his money - he uses the USA's money, the dollar. And whether he should be allowed enough of those US dollars to run a personal space program is a matter for government opinion, which in a representative democracy should at least to some degree align with public opinion.

And therefore the response 'he has earned his money and can spend it however he chooses' fails to even address the question. The question is, at its heart, 'how much of the money he has should he be allowed to keep?'. And almost every currency issuing authority in modern history has (and continues to have) the response 'not all of it'.

Which gets us back to the real question. Do you think the public in general and aggregate are happy to let Musk run a personal space program, despite never having seen his name on any ballot, nor his personal space program as a ballot proposition?

The idea of "personal money" being nonsensical, it really shouldn't form any part of the answer to that (or similar) questions.

 

[ZiprHead]

Wrong. Innovation in industry comes from profits. When profits are turned into innovation, they are no longer profits. Only taxation on profits at the end of the year would be increased.

Look at my Space-X example. Space-X didn't come from a business spending on innovation rather than profit. Space-X came from the owner deciding to spend his personal money on his pet idea.

And when he spent his personal money on his pet idea that money wasn't taxable.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Yes, you keep saying that, over and over. But you never explain why a power imbalance implies "market value" means anything other than "what they get paid"; you never explain why a power imbalance implies that whatever it is you mean by "market value" is measurable rather than metaphysical; and you never explain why a power imbalance implies "the current wage is theft" rather than the more prosaic "the wage will go up if the workers vote for a union".

Explaining the power imbalance between an individual worker and management is a no brainer.

If a business is able to freely draw from a pool of suitable applicants, the unemployed, an applicant or worker has no real bargaining power. <snip> I explained it before. It shouldn't need repeating.

The Underpants Gnomes' business plan:

Gnome: Phase 1 is power imbalance. Phase 3 is workers are paid less than their market value.

Kyle: Sooo, what's phase 2?

Gnome: Phase 1 is power imbalance.

Based on all these idiotic, historically inaccurate and plain cruel hypotheses, the libertarian (does bomb admit to being a libertarian, I forget) arguments about the free market would extend to pretty much any situation.

So why shouldn't we:
- eliminate all environmental regulations?
- get rid of traffic regulations?
- Eliminate the FAA and let airplane manufacturers do what they want?
- etc....

The free market is bullshit, and we know what happens (remember the early industrial revolution, or are you ok with sending your kids to work in the coal mines?). It's like the gop that keeps arguing that trickle down economics and tax cuts for wealthy do anything except put more money in the pockets of the wealthy. It's been shown false, it's been tried dozens of times in the US (and is on going in several failing states), and yet, they insist that it 'works'.....

 

[Gospel]

When they stop getting paid to say it works they will no longer insist.

 

[RVonse]

Wrong. Innovation in industry comes from profits. When profits are turned into innovation, they are no longer profits. Only taxation on profits at the end of the year would be increased.

Look at my Space-X example. Space-X didn't come from a business spending on innovation rather than profit. Space-X came from the owner deciding to spend his personal money on his pet idea.

And when he spent his personal money on his pet idea that money wasn't taxable.

But the point is that Musk would not have had any personal money and minimal assets to spend if he had been taxed heavily for paypal. Even with all the amount he had, SpaceX barely survived the 2008 downturn. Blowing up rockets was very expensive for him.

 

[laughing dog]

And when he spent his personal money on his pet idea that money wasn't taxable.

But the point is that Musk would not have had any personal money and minimal assets to spend if he had been taxed heavily for paypal. Even with all the amount he had, SpaceX barely survived the 2008 downturn. Blowing up rockets was very expensive for him.

Mr. Musk's wealth is estimated at roughly 25 billion. Taking half of it would leave him well over 12 billion - more than enough to play around with Space X.

 

[RVonse]

Explaining the power imbalance between an individual worker and management is a no brainer.

If a business is able to freely draw from a pool of suitable applicants, the unemployed, an applicant or worker has no real bargaining power. The employer sets the pay rate, 'we offer x dollars per hour' on a take it or leave it basis.

What is the applicant or worker going to do, demand more?....ha, ha, sorry, goodbye. Is the manager going to grant extra pay out of the goodness of his heart? Rarely if ever happens.

Think about it. Try to imagine yourself in that position. it's called empathy and a basic understanding of how power structures work.

It's basic stuff. I explained it before. It shouldn't need repeating.

Your argument only applies if there is too much unemployment.

But that is pretty much the normal state now. Or at least that is what the fed is trying to tell us. Even before the pandemic they were telling us inflation is what we need and without their quasi constitutional help buying up corporate debt (and other maneuvering) we will certainly have deflation and massive unemployment.

There are many who say we are now in a permanent lost decade of low interest, deflation and high unemployment similar to Japan.

 

[ZiprHead]

And when he spent his personal money on his pet idea that money wasn't taxable.

But the point is that Musk would not have had any personal money and minimal assets to spend if he had been taxed heavily for paypal. Even with all the amount he had, SpaceX barely survived the 2008 downturn. Blowing up rockets was very expensive for him.

Mr. Musk's wealth is estimated at roughly 25 billion. Taking half of it would leave him well over 12 billion - more than enough to play around with Space X.

Musk is an outlier. What does the Walton family do with their money, other than fund right-wing think tanks that promote low taxation and anti-union efforts?

How about hedge fund and vulture capital CEOs that make money tearing businesses apart and making people unemployed?

 

[RVonse]

And when he spent his personal money on his pet idea that money wasn't taxable.

But the point is that Musk would not have had any personal money and minimal assets to spend if he had been taxed heavily for paypal. Even with all the amount he had, SpaceX barely survived the 2008 downturn. Blowing up rockets was very expensive for him.

Mr. Musk's wealth is estimated at roughly 25 billion. Taking half of it would leave him well over 12 billion - more than enough to play around with Space X.

But Loren's point was that SpaceX would not have been founded in the first place without enormous seed money provided by Musk. Angel capital would never have touched this kind of investment.

 

[RVonse]

Mr. Musk's wealth is estimated at roughly 25 billion. Taking half of it would leave him well over 12 billion - more than enough to play around with Space X.

Musk is an outlier. What does the Walton family do with their money, other than fund right-wing think tanks that promote low taxation and anti-union efforts?

How about hedge fund and vulture capital CEOs that make money tearing businesses apart and making people unemployed?

Now you are getting at something. Let some of the billionaires keep their money but tax the hell out of the real scoundrels.

 

[masterpeastheater]

Explaining the power imbalance between an individual worker and management is a no brainer.

If a business is able to freely draw from a pool of suitable applicants, the unemployed, an applicant or worker has no real bargaining power. The employer sets the pay rate, 'we offer x dollars per hour' on a take it or leave it basis.

What is the applicant or worker going to do, demand more?....ha, ha, sorry, goodbye. Is the manager going to grant extra pay out of the goodness of his heart? Rarely if ever happens.

Think about it. Try to imagine yourself in that position. it's called empathy and a basic understanding of how power structures work.

It's basic stuff. I explained it before. It shouldn't need repeating.

Your argument only applies if there is too much unemployment.

Note, also, that there are various skilled fields where the practitioners have the choice of being an employee or doing it on their own. If there really was the imbalance you talk about this would cause a big shift towards doing your own business. Note that there are also hybrid cases where workers can work with an employer for a percentage of their receipts rather than a salary. Again, if there was the imbalance you think there is you would see a lot of shift towards that sort of arrangement.

Um, for how many people is this starting your own business thing a real option? Even for skilled workers, starting a business takes a good deal of CAPITAL that most don't have. THAT is why there is no big shift toward having your own business, not because working for someone else isn't shitty

 

[DBT]

If everybody could start their own business....who would do the grunt work?

 

[Jayjay]

If everybody could start their own business....who would do the grunt work?

Grunts, inc.

 

[steve_bank]

If everybody could start their own business....who would do the grunt work?

Illegal immigrant and PHDs in history and sociology.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Explaining the power imbalance between an individual worker and management is a no brainer.

If a business is able to freely draw from a pool of suitable applicants, the unemployed, an applicant or worker has no real bargaining power. The employer sets the pay rate, 'we offer x dollars per hour' on a take it or leave it basis.

What is the applicant or worker going to do, demand more?....ha, ha, sorry, goodbye. Is the manager going to grant extra pay out of the goodness of his heart? Rarely if ever happens.

Think about it. Try to imagine yourself in that position. it's called empathy and a basic understanding of how power structures work.

It's basic stuff. I explained it before. It shouldn't need repeating.

Your argument only applies if there is too much unemployment.

No it doesn't. The only exception to the power imbalance is if someone has highly prized skills, and these individuals are in short supply. Then the shoe is on the other foot, it is the employer who becomes the supplicant.....come work for us, we'll shower you with money, perks, lurks, a company vehicle, generous bonus and pension plan.

Ordinary workers have no such leverage, yet do essential work, serve customers, clean rooms and facilities, drive delivery trucks....without which the business does not function.

This doesn't need explaining over and over. You either know it's true but are in denial, or live on a different planet.

You're making my point! Low unemployment, market forces favor the worker.

It's just what we are seeing amongst the unskilled is not low unemployment.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Wrong. Innovation in industry comes from profits. When profits are turned into innovation, they are no longer profits. Only taxation on profits at the end of the year would be increased.

Look at my Space-X example. Space-X didn't come from a business spending on innovation rather than profit. Space-X came from the owner deciding to spend his personal money on his pet idea.

....

The idea of "personal money" being nonsensical, it really shouldn't form any part of the answer to that (or similar) questions.

You're missing the point.

ZiprHead claimed that innovation came from business putting money to research rather than profit. I was pointing out that that's not how it worked with Space-X. Space-X came about because one individual took a pile of money he made as profit from one company and used it to create a totally separate company.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And when he spent his personal money on his pet idea that money wasn't taxable.

But the point is that Musk would not have had any personal money and minimal assets to spend if he had been taxed heavily for paypal. Even with all the amount he had, SpaceX barely survived the 2008 downturn. Blowing up rockets was very expensive for him.

Mr. Musk's wealth is estimated at roughly 25 billion. Taking half of it would leave him well over 12 billion - more than enough to play around with Space X.

Space-X only made it to space on the very last launch they had funding for. One more failure and space would be a very different place.