Where did it all go wrong?

[Zetsu]

In regards to running a business with reasonable bounds that's something I can't really agree on, I do admit I loathe like the idea of a big business just buying out a competitor, but without big business or capitalism, we'd really wouldn't have smart phones, computers, video games, etc.  I really believe if the US didn't burn their money in wars, their cities would look a lot more prosperous.  The thing is business looks really rewarding from a non-businessman's perspective, but in the end it's really similar to gambling, just that we don't notice the fact that average business goes bankrupt in 5 years.

Great point.



I fully agree that a future society must be economically flexible enough in order to achieve the things you've described above.



We must have a society that thrives on and rewards invention and innovation. But we cannot persist with unhindered and unbridled accumulation of wealth whilst people struggle with their daily lives. It is the opposite end of the spectrum with the welfare you mention at the other.



Welfare does not improve society, but neither do multi-billionaires.We should not have ultra rich people flying in space and wallowing on private islands while the people that create the wealth live in hovels and holiday in caravan parks. At the moment we allow Bezos, Musk, Gates, Branson and their ilk to use humans as profit points, either as workers or customers. They manipulate politicians and the populace far too much.



Communism collapsed because it is a flawed system. As will capitalism. We can learn from China's strategy of merging the two forms into a single model, although we must avoid using dictatorship as the control mechanism. China modelled and developed its new socialist/capitalist path from Singapore, and so should we.



Our governments are failing because they have been diverted by splinter groups, minorities and social pressure groups. They have forgotten who drives the economy and pays the taxes. This has encouraged even more dissenters to bleat for "justice" and thus drive governments further into dead end alleys of ineffective social management.



Trying to govern whilst accommodating diametrically opposed social enclaves is a fool's errand. We have been forced to create an "inclusive" society in which the previously excluded now control government policy. This, in my view, was the tipping point.



We can be compassionate, caring, inclusive and supportive of all people...but only those who accept that generosity with good grace and respect, and share our community values. Those that don't may need to find other societies more fitting to their extremism.

I do understand your concern in regards to using other people to help the rich make money.  But what if I tell you that welfare only drains tax payers money and weakens people's will to self-improve, while the rich can revolutionize and/or help change the life of almost everyone with their amazing goods and service, not only that but they can provide an extremely stable paying job for many people, and provide a bargaining chip against China in case of a trade war.  In fact if I wasn't disabled I'd rather work at McDonalds instead of running my own business since we only earn enough everyday just to pay off the overhead.  The truth is it seems unethical to build an organization of people to make money, but as long as everyone is doing it and pay people for their work, like for eg paying people to build their home or assemble their PC at a shop, while business organizations are only doing the exact same thing, in the end they just pay people for their work based upon market prices, workers don't own the shares of the business, just like once we paid a company of workers to build a house for me, the workers don't also own our home.  And tb fair if the rich can't buy their private island, jet plane, boat, etc, no on will ever invest, hence making the modern world develop like 5x slower, etc.

[cc]

True. If business people could not and did not  make good return then other people don't work at all

[Bricktop]

I do understand your concern in regards to using other people to help the rich make money.  But what if I tell you that welfare only drains tax payers money and weakens people's will to self-improve, while the rich can revolutionize and/or help change the life of almost everyone with their amazing goods and service, not only that but they can provide an extremely stable paying job for many people, and provide a bargaining chip against China in case of a trade war.  In fact if I wasn't disabled I'd rather work at McDonalds instead of running my own business since we only earn enough everyday just to pay off the overhead.  The truth is it seems unethical to build an organization of people to make money, but as long as everyone is doing it and pay people for their work, like for eg paying people to build their home or assemble their PC at a shop, while business organizations are only doing the exact same thing, in the end they just pay people for their work based upon market prices, workers don't own the shares of the business, just like once we paid a company of workers to build a house for me, the workers don't also own our home.  And tb fair if the rich can't buy their private island, jet plane, boat, etc, no on will ever invest, hence making the modern world develop like 5x slower, etc.

We agree on the issue of welfare as a regular source of income and a lifestyle choice (not as an immediate assistance for people thrown into difficult circumstances...there are genuine cases that demand support).



And we agree that business investors deserve a return on their investment.



But I still maintain that the current inequitable situation where massive profits are generated from the efforts of workers who do not get to share in those profits is unsustainable, and unjust.



As it stands in our current economic structures, not only do business owners in SOME (not all, I agree) reap huge rewards, but people who take no active part in the business, that is the shareholders, also share in those profits whilst the workforce that generate that wealth are excluded.



Marx was wrong in so many ways, but his core principle had merit. The workforce is excluded from the profits of the employer. This is the equation that needs to be revised. Of course, there are problems that need to be overcome (should employees also share in the losses, should they have input in business strategy development, how can a business owner draw investment from external shareholders and so on).



But the relationship between the workforce and profit must change. Already we are seeing employees in the US, and to a lesser extent elsewhere, just walking away from their jobs. They have had enough of making other people wealthy. That system has had its day, and its better to plan for change now than wait for change to be forcibly applied.



(Great discussion, Zetsu!!!)

[Zetsu]

I do understand your concern in regards to using other people to help the rich make money.  But what if I tell you that welfare only drains tax payers money and weakens people's will to self-improve, while the rich can revolutionize and/or help change the life of almost everyone with their amazing goods and service, not only that but they can provide an extremely stable paying job for many people, and provide a bargaining chip against China in case of a trade war.  In fact if I wasn't disabled I'd rather work at McDonalds instead of running my own business since we only earn enough everyday just to pay off the overhead.  The truth is it seems unethical to build an organization of people to make money, but as long as everyone is doing it and pay people for their work, like for eg paying people to build their home or assemble their PC at a shop, while business organizations are only doing the exact same thing, in the end they just pay people for their work based upon market prices, workers don't own the shares of the business, just like once we paid a company of workers to build a house for me, the workers don't also own our home.  And tb fair if the rich can't buy their private island, jet plane, boat, etc, no on will ever invest, hence making the modern world develop like 5x slower, etc.

We agree on the issue of welfare as a regular source of income and a lifestyle choice (not as an immediate assistance for people thrown into difficult circumstances...there are genuine cases that demand support).



And we agree that business investors deserve a return on their investment.



But I still maintain that the current inequitable situation where massive profits are generated from the efforts of workers who do not get to share in those profits is unsustainable, and unjust.



As it stands in our current economic structures, not only do business owners in SOME (not all, I agree) reap huge rewards, but people who take no active part in the business, that is the shareholders, also share in those profits whilst the workforce that generate that wealth are excluded.



Marx was wrong in so many ways, but his core principle had merit. The workforce is excluded from the profits of the employer. This is the equation that needs to be revised. Of course, there are problems that need to be overcome (should employees also share in the losses, should they have input in business strategy development, how can a business owner draw investment from external shareholders and so on).



But the relationship between the workforce and profit must change. Already we are seeing employees in the US, and to a lesser extent elsewhere, just walking away from their jobs. They have had enough of making other people wealthy. That system has had its day, and its better to plan for change now than wait for change to be forcibly applied.



(Great discussion, Zetsu!!!)

I don't know how much net profit does the average board members make when it comes to big brands, but what if I tell you that my dad's business, he only makes an average of only 10% net profit, while the other 90% all goes to overhead, and there are over 1200 employees at his company and factory.  It might be hard to believe but most western companies are decaying internally with a lot of financial struggles, the 10% NP my dad makes is already above average for a manufacturer, while supermarkets only make about 1% NP.



The harsh truth is that with advance machineries these days, hard work alone is not enough, if you ask all the investors around the world what is the most valuable machine in the universe, they'll say it's the human brain, simply being a problem solver, by solving issues in less than half a day that no one else in the business can fix.



If the employees want a piece of the pie, it's not impossible but they'll have to do what every other share holder has been doing the whole time, which is to invest and take liability, or start up their business from the ground and upwards.  There's absolutely no way a investor will let a group of individuals gaining part of their shares by doing basic labour.



In regards to using money to help people just temporary due to they're on the verge of killing themselves or other people or some life and death situation, that's something I fully agree with you Bricktop and wouldn't mind putting more of my money into.  In fact I'm one of those people, they offered me welfare since they considered me as severely disabled, while I told them it's really unnecessary, it's been the 6th time they ask me to take welfare support.

[Anonymous]

I do understand your concern in regards to using other people to help the rich make money.  But what if I tell you that welfare only drains tax payers money and weakens people's will to self-improve, while the rich can revolutionize and/or help change the life of almost everyone with their amazing goods and service, not only that but they can provide an extremely stable paying job for many people, and provide a bargaining chip against China in case of a trade war.  In fact if I wasn't disabled I'd rather work at McDonalds instead of running my own business since we only earn enough everyday just to pay off the overhead.  The truth is it seems unethical to build an organization of people to make money, but as long as everyone is doing it and pay people for their work, like for eg paying people to build their home or assemble their PC at a shop, while business organizations are only doing the exact same thing, in the end they just pay people for their work based upon market prices, workers don't own the shares of the business, just like once we paid a company of workers to build a house for me, the workers don't also own our home.  And tb fair if the rich can't buy their private island, jet plane, boat, etc, no on will ever invest, hence making the modern world develop like 5x slower, etc.

We agree on the issue of welfare as a regular source of income and a lifestyle choice (not as an immediate assistance for people thrown into difficult circumstances...there are genuine cases that demand support).



And we agree that business investors deserve a return on their investment.



But I still maintain that the current inequitable situation where massive profits are generated from the efforts of workers who do not get to share in those profits is unsustainable, and unjust.



As it stands in our current economic structures, not only do business owners in SOME (not all, I agree) reap huge rewards, but people who take no active part in the business, that is the shareholders, also share in those profits whilst the workforce that generate that wealth are excluded.



Marx was wrong in so many ways, but his core principle had merit. The workforce is excluded from the profits of the employer. This is the equation that needs to be revised. Of course, there are problems that need to be overcome (should employees also share in the losses, should they have input in business strategy development, how can a business owner draw investment from external shareholders and so on).



But the relationship between the workforce and profit must change. Already we are seeing employees in the US, and to a lesser extent elsewhere, just walking away from their jobs. They have had enough of making other people wealthy. That system has had its day, and its better to plan for change now than wait for change to be forcibly applied.



(Great discussion, Zetsu!!!)

Inequality seems to be getting worse with climate capitalism..



It's all about massive subsidies to a select few..



The rest of us get higher energy and fuel costs.

[Anonymous]

[media]The workforce is excluded from the profits of the employer. [/media]

Are they. As a wellsite consultant I made three hundred grand US a year. I was flown anywhere in the world I wanted. I had every perk there is. I never put up any capital. I never had to spend my own money on upfront environmental costs. I never had to buy a lease or secure any capital.  



I believe I shared in the profits of my employer. That is if there were any. When I was a national country manager for oilfield service companies abroad, I got incentive pay which is typically how senior middle and higher management is paid.



I was part owner of an oilfield service company. I made more money as an employee than I did as an owner.

[Anonymous]

I do understand your concern in regards to using other people to help the rich make money.  But what if I tell you that welfare only drains tax payers money and weakens people's will to self-improve, while the rich can revolutionize and/or help change the life of almost everyone with their amazing goods and service, not only that but they can provide an extremely stable paying job for many people, and provide a bargaining chip against China in case of a trade war.  In fact if I wasn't disabled I'd rather work at McDonalds instead of running my own business since we only earn enough everyday just to pay off the overhead.  The truth is it seems unethical to build an organization of people to make money, but as long as everyone is doing it and pay people for their work, like for eg paying people to build their home or assemble their PC at a shop, while business organizations are only doing the exact same thing, in the end they just pay people for their work based upon market prices, workers don't own the shares of the business, just like once we paid a company of workers to build a house for me, the workers don't also own our home.  And tb fair if the rich can't buy their private island, jet plane, boat, etc, no on will ever invest, hence making the modern world develop like 5x slower, etc.

We agree on the issue of welfare as a regular source of income and a lifestyle choice (not as an immediate assistance for people thrown into difficult circumstances...there are genuine cases that demand support).



And we agree that business investors deserve a return on their investment.



But I still maintain that the current inequitable situation where massive profits are generated from the efforts of workers who do not get to share in those profits is unsustainable, and unjust.



As it stands in our current economic structures, not only do business owners in SOME (not all, I agree) reap huge rewards, but people who take no active part in the business, that is the shareholders, also share in those profits whilst the workforce that generate that wealth are excluded.



Marx was wrong in so many ways, but his core principle had merit. The workforce is excluded from the profits of the employer. This is the equation that needs to be revised. Of course, there are problems that need to be overcome (should employees also share in the losses, should they have input in business strategy development, how can a business owner draw investment from external shareholders and so on).



But the relationship between the workforce and profit must change. Already we are seeing employees in the US, and to a lesser extent elsewhere, just walking away from their jobs. They have had enough of making other people wealthy. That system has had its day, and its better to plan for change now than wait for change to be forcibly applied.



(Great discussion, Zetsu!!!)

I don't know how much net profit does the average board members make when it comes to big brands, but what if I tell you that my dad's business, he only makes an average of only 10% net profit, while the other 90% all goes to overhead, and there are over 1200 employees at his company and factory.  It might be hard to believe but most western companies are decaying internally with a lot of financial struggles, the 10% NP my dad makes is already above average for a manufacturer, while supermarkets only make about 1% NP.



The harsh truth is that with advance machineries these days, hard work alone is not enough, if you ask all the investors around the world what is the most valuable machine in the universe, they'll say it's the human brain, simply being a problem solver, by solving issues in less than half a day that no one else in the business can fix.



If the employees want a piece of the pie, it's not impossible but they'll have to do what every other share holder has been doing the whole time, which is to invest and take liability, or start up their business from the ground and upwards.  There's absolutely no way a investor will let a group of individuals gaining part of their shares by doing basic labour.



In regards to using money to help people just temporary due to they're on the verge of killing themselves or other people or some life and death situation, that's something I fully agree with you Bricktop and wouldn't mind putting more of my money into.  In fact I'm one of those people, they offered me welfare since they considered me as severely disabled, while I told them it's really unnecessary, it's been the 6th time they ask me to take welfare support.

Your old man sounds like an old school business owner. A true hard working entrepreneur. Guys like your dad are the salt of the earth. My problem is with the fake entrepreneurs like Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, Al Gore and Jack Dorsey. They are protected oligarchs.

[Anonymous]

[media]The workforce is excluded from the profits of the employer. [/media]

Are they. As a wellsite consultant I made three hundred grand US a year. I was flown anywhere in the world I wanted. I had every perk there is. I never put up any capital. I never had to spend my own money on upfront environmental costs. I never had to buy a lease or secure any capital.  



I believe I shared in the profits of my employer. That is if there were any. When I was a national country manager for oilfield service companies abroad, I got incentive pay which is typically how senior middle and higher management is paid.



I was part owner of an oilfield service company. I made more money as an employee than I did as an owner.

My husband is the shop manager where he works..



He can earn bonuses in good years.....though they are taxed about fifty per cent.

[Anonymous]

[media]The workforce is excluded from the profits of the employer. [/media]

Are they. As a wellsite consultant I made three hundred grand US a year. I was flown anywhere in the world I wanted. I had every perk there is. I never put up any capital. I never had to spend my own money on upfront environmental costs. I never had to buy a lease or secure any capital.  



I believe I shared in the profits of my employer. That is if there were any. When I was a national country manager for oilfield service companies abroad, I got incentive pay which is typically how senior middle and higher management is paid.



I was part owner of an oilfield service company. I made more money as an employee than I did as an owner.

My husband is the shop manager where he works..



He can earn bonuses in good years.....though they are taxed about fifty per cent.

If you manage people typically part of your pay is incentive based. The more people a person manages, the more their pay is bonuses and incentives.

[Bricktop]

[media]The workforce is excluded from the profits of the employer. [/media]

Are they. As a wellsite consultant I made three hundred grand US a year. I was flown anywhere in the world I wanted. I had every perk there is. I never put up any capital. I never had to spend my own money on upfront environmental costs. I never had to buy a lease or secure any capital.  



I believe I shared in the profits of my employer. That is if there were any. When I was a national country manager for oilfield service companies abroad, I got incentive pay which is typically how senior middle and higher management is paid.



I was part owner of an oilfield service company. I made more money as an employee than I did as an owner.

And that should never change. You were good at your job and produced results. Reward must follow.



Can you lend me a few bucks...??? ac_unsure

[Zetsu]

I do understand your concern in regards to using other people to help the rich make money.  But what if I tell you that welfare only drains tax payers money and weakens people's will to self-improve, while the rich can revolutionize and/or help change the life of almost everyone with their amazing goods and service, not only that but they can provide an extremely stable paying job for many people, and provide a bargaining chip against China in case of a trade war.  In fact if I wasn't disabled I'd rather work at McDonalds instead of running my own business since we only earn enough everyday just to pay off the overhead.  The truth is it seems unethical to build an organization of people to make money, but as long as everyone is doing it and pay people for their work, like for eg paying people to build their home or assemble their PC at a shop, while business organizations are only doing the exact same thing, in the end they just pay people for their work based upon market prices, workers don't own the shares of the business, just like once we paid a company of workers to build a house for me, the workers don't also own our home.  And tb fair if the rich can't buy their private island, jet plane, boat, etc, no on will ever invest, hence making the modern world develop like 5x slower, etc.

We agree on the issue of welfare as a regular source of income and a lifestyle choice (not as an immediate assistance for people thrown into difficult circumstances...there are genuine cases that demand support).



And we agree that business investors deserve a return on their investment.



But I still maintain that the current inequitable situation where massive profits are generated from the efforts of workers who do not get to share in those profits is unsustainable, and unjust.



As it stands in our current economic structures, not only do business owners in SOME (not all, I agree) reap huge rewards, but people who take no active part in the business, that is the shareholders, also share in those profits whilst the workforce that generate that wealth are excluded.



Marx was wrong in so many ways, but his core principle had merit. The workforce is excluded from the profits of the employer. This is the equation that needs to be revised. Of course, there are problems that need to be overcome (should employees also share in the losses, should they have input in business strategy development, how can a business owner draw investment from external shareholders and so on).



But the relationship between the workforce and profit must change. Already we are seeing employees in the US, and to a lesser extent elsewhere, just walking away from their jobs. They have had enough of making other people wealthy. That system has had its day, and its better to plan for change now than wait for change to be forcibly applied.



(Great discussion, Zetsu!!!)

I don't know how much net profit does the average board members make when it comes to big brands, but what if I tell you that my dad's business, he only makes an average of only 10% net profit, while the other 90% all goes to overhead, and there are over 1200 employees at his company and factory.  It might be hard to believe but most western companies are decaying internally with a lot of financial struggles, the 10% NP my dad makes is already above average for a manufacturer, while supermarkets only make about 1% NP.



The harsh truth is that with advance machineries these days, hard work alone is not enough, if you ask all the investors around the world what is the most valuable machine in the universe, they'll say it's the human brain, simply being a problem solver, by solving issues in less than half a day that no one else in the business can fix.



If the employees want a piece of the pie, it's not impossible but they'll have to do what every other share holder has been doing the whole time, which is to invest and take liability, or start up their business from the ground and upwards.  There's absolutely no way a investor will let a group of individuals gaining part of their shares by doing basic labour.



In regards to using money to help people just temporary due to they're on the verge of killing themselves or other people or some life and death situation, that's something I fully agree with you Bricktop and wouldn't mind putting more of my money into.  In fact I'm one of those people, they offered me welfare since they considered me as severely disabled, while I told them it's really unnecessary, it's been the 6th time they ask me to take welfare support.

Your old man sounds like an old school business owner. A true hard working entrepreneur. Guys like your dad are the salt of the earth. My problem is with the fake entrepreneurs like Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, Al Gore and Jack Dorsey. They are protected oligarchs.

Thanks Herman  ac_cool , unlike that evs, experience and professional folks like you understand him and makes me feel grateful for having such an awesome dad.  You've pretty much nailed it since this year would be his company's 53th anniversary, and he is no doubt one of those old fashion workaholics, but one thing I really learn to admire him is that he spent millions and millions of dollars to help out poor and unfortunate people, donated money to build roads, temples, schools etc and never told anyone or the family about it, until I heard from people that witness his good deeds.



Another funny thing is today I bought my Mazda to the dealership to replace the tires only to find out afterwards they scratch 3 out of 4 of my rims, which made my OCD flag popped, lol.  The mechanic kept on saying it's not his fault nor caused by him, but I clean the wheels every week and I know that the scratches weren't there before the tire installation.  Long story short I didn't wanted to make a big deal out of it but they didn't offer me any solutions, so I ask the dealership manager to call me back.  Funny thing is when the manager called it turned out to be one of my dad's friends, simply to say I feel pretty lucky to be the boss's son,  ac_cool and there are a other similar cases, lol.

[Zetsu]

[media]The workforce is excluded from the profits of the employer. [/media]

Are they. As a wellsite consultant I made three hundred grand US a year. I was flown anywhere in the world I wanted. I had every perk there is. I never put up any capital. I never had to spend my own money on upfront environmental costs. I never had to buy a lease or secure any capital.  



I believe I shared in the profits of my employer. That is if there were any. When I was a national country manager for oilfield service companies abroad, I got incentive pay which is typically how senior middle and higher management is paid.



I was part owner of an oilfield service company. I made more money as an employee than I did as an owner.

My thoughts exactly too, I know little to nothing about how the oil industry or other corporations run, but all I can be quite sure is there are lots of job posts out there that are more rewarding than being a boss if we take input and reward into perspective.  But one thing I agree with you brother is the government shouldn't interfere with the economy or as little as possible, I'm just so glad I went back to buying a diesel instead of going for an EV.

[Anonymous]

The workforce is excluded from the profits of the employer.

Are they. As a wellsite consultant I made three hundred grand US a year. I was flown anywhere in the world I wanted. I had every perk there is. I never put up any capital. I never had to spend my own money on upfront environmental costs. I never had to buy a lease or secure any capital.  



I believe I shared in the profits of my employer. That is if there were any. When I was a national country manager for oilfield service companies abroad, I got incentive pay which is typically how senior middle and higher management is paid.



I was part owner of an oilfield service company. I made more money as an employee than I did as an owner.

My understanding is the reason oil and gas can offer such salaries is that workers are so productive. I've heard that entry level labourers can earn over one hundred grand a year Canadian.



I've had this argument about wages and productivitity with ignorant leftists. Employers are not opposed to higher wages. But, higher wages must accompany more productivity. This is why in provinces that have raised their minimum wages a lot quxikly small business owners respond by adding more responsibility to employees.

[Anonymous]

Part of the problem is that progressives keep running good paying industries to other countries. If we don't produce oil, gas and coal for steel, other countries will.

[Bricktop]

Employers are not opposed to higher wages.

I do not agree.



Employers do everything they can to keep their employees wages as low as possible to maximise profit. This is the essence of running a business.



Keep costs down.



Employees are treated exactly the same way as plant and equipment. Invest as little as possible for maximum output.



Employees trade off a certain degree of security in their job for the LOWEST possible wage.



In Australia, some companies are making record profits, but staff wages have not risen. The whole contract of employment in capital systems is based on the worker subordinated to the corporation. The playing field is uneven. Some claim that employees have the right to move their labour to a higher paying business, but in practice this is nowhere near as easy as it's made out to be.



The recent situation in the US which has 4 million workers just walking away from their job is being mirrored elsewhere. People are become weary of high demand for little reward.