At the factory where I work, every worker makes $1000 dollars worth of product per day. Out of that...

At the factory where I work, every worker makes $1000 dollars worth of product per day. Out of that, the worker gets $100 per day. $200 goes toward raw material cost and overhead like building rent, equipment, while $100 goes toward various taxes. The remaining $600 goes toward middle managers, upper managers, their work-secretaries, their blowjob-secretaries, sales, marketing, HR, diversity officers, shareholders, retained earnings.

Do you think this is a fair situation? Do you think spending $600 out of every $1000 on useless leeching activities is an efficient way of doing things?

I mean, i understand that it is efficient in the sense that it makes managers and shareholders rich. But it is efficient in the sense of making our society better off as a whole?

Shouldn't this money be given to the workers so that the workers are are not stressed about finances and can devote more time for creativity and innovating new products that will benefit society?

pic unrelated

Without any of those people at the top, your shitty little operation would fall apart and you'd all be out of a job. You are the idiots they hire to press buttons and turn raw materials into finished products, you have no clue how to run a business and all of the finely tuned mechanisms of shareholder relationships, finance, etc. Obviously the boss/people who started the operation should be paid more, they started the business and assembled all of the resources and shit, you haven't done jack shit, you're an easily replaceable employee.

Nobody would buy a factory if they couldn't make money from its operation. Heavy machinery ain't cheap.

listen, i understand that this is how the world works now but i am asking whether you think this is a good idea or whether there should be any changes?

There's no way to make these corporations bend to your will, only way that could happen would be if the government put some sort of regulation on the company. But as we know, nations willl whore themselves out for a company to build a production plant in their country so that will never happen. It's like we need some form of government, and a leader that cares about the people and their well-being, rather than filling their own pockets. And last time that happened it was in the 1930s

If they are selling at $1000 for every $200 they use for material expenses, that's 5.00X profit rate. That is basically the standard amount of profit required in most industries to have a viable product and keep your company afloat.

If all that bothers you, start your own company, so you can spend the money how you like.

Your calculations are way way off .
I own my own business , your forgetting a whole lot of costs . Also The owner is taking all the risks . If the business goes belly up you just find another job . The Business owner is out all kinds of money or possibly bankrupt . bis risk big reward . Why should you who is taking 0 risk get any of the owners reward .

What, are you working like for Apple?
In reality, to get 1000$ usually they are using 800$ for it.
And dont forget all the costs to desingning and planning new products.

After all, you are just a stupid guy with a very little/none responsibility just pushing the buttons correct order.

The managerment and beyond that resonsibility grows, an salary at the same time.
That means shut the fuck up and be happy you had that job with no responibilitied what so ever.

wtf im a socialist now

Business owner here. People are lazy, do jackshit, have so little imagination and just want to be told exactly step by step how to do their job.

Theres a reason I get paid more. I spent 5 years working on my own. When I got round to hiring people I wanted to hire equals, the kind of people who would work to make the company stronger and problem solve etc. All I got applying were retards who want to make money without thinking too much.

I honestly don't feel bad for them that I pay them so little. They have the same opportunities as I do.

look at is this way
how many mistakes would it take for each person to be fired?
then calculate what $ they should be making
special case for owner: if things go belly up, guess who goes into the negatives, everyone below caps out at zero; so shouldn't that be taken into account?

Also
>go work some more generous place
>dont buy the products
>if jealous of shareholders, buy shares

POO

There is a company that payed everyone the same.
From the CEO to the janitor.
They were called Solyndra!

Did you pay for the factory?
Did you pay for the machines?
Did you pay for distribution?
Did you buy the raw materials?
Did you make a contract with the other employees?
Did you make accounting checks?
Did you run ads on local radio and TV?
Did you make deals with other businessmen?
Did you pay taxes over those products?
Did you get the business permits?

No?
Then stop complaining, you're making a contract where you exchange labour for money. The product isn't yours, you're not the most important piece, you didn't make all of it. You're literally being paid to move a few parts around which any inbred fuck up can do.
So shut up and get back to work, Pablo.

Honestly, the system is good the way it is right now. Let's focus on middle-class companies since globalist multinationals follow different rules.

- A good company is not going to waste money on HR, sales, marketing, secretaries and the like. Believe me, these people get cut out of if possible. You can thank leftists for cost-factors like diversity officers.
All of these make absolute shit wages, by the way.

- When the company is doing well it looks like the people at the top get too much money, but what you don't see is what happens to them during bad years or if the company goes bankrupt. You also don't see how fucking stressful the job is and how much work goes into it when you're already at home with your family or buddies.

- If you think it's infinitely better to run a company yourself - then do it. Most companies start with two things: An idea and a loan. You don't need to be a rich 1%er to start a company.

- With every dollar you are paid more, the risk increases that you will lose your job entirely because most companies already cannot compete in the globalized market when it comes to labour cost.

And these are just a few pointers out of many. I can't stand the entitlement of workers and their attitude of "nobody here but me is even doing anything, because I'm swinging the hammer".

Also:
"Shouldn't this money be given to the workers so that the workers are are not stressed about finances and can devote more time for creativity and innovating new products that will benefit society?"
You wouldn't do shit with the fucking money you lying piece of shit.
You're a fucking factory worker because you had no other choice or you were too fucking lazy to pursue a creative job, I bet you have ZERO practical skills aside from the specific work you do at the factory.
You know what you'd do with the extra money? Buy video games and more beer. Maybe pay a hooker.

If you want investment to come to you, you must first prove you're worthy of it.

remember goy socialism is bad, you must slave away to make us rich. This is the American dream, capitalism works and is superior to socialism and communism. Now vote for republicans to give me more corporate taxcuts and make us billionaires even more money.

Oh look, its this thread again

You're a favella

Bolshevik jew spotted.

>shouldn't
Not your place to decide. The shareholders put up the initial investment, the company is their property.

Also, your numbers are a lie. No factory has those sorts of ratios.

supply & demand
machinery
investments
risk you don't see
costs you don't see
muh lazy management doing work you don't see

What is risk?

>inb4 fear of unemployment is equal risk to taking out big loans to run a business.

while I'll agree there's some dead weight near the middle, I;ve climbed the ladder from factory floor to middle management, and I can tell you that

1) my job is largely unnecessary, as are most middle management positions.Being honest. it;s not like im gonna lose it posting on here
2) Sales, HR, marketing, and Bookkeeping are all very legitimate positions that are absolutely essential to maintain the company as it runs. It is really hard to see the forest through the trees, especially when you;re standing among the roots, but when you see the bigger picture and how hard many of these people work to keep orders coming in, keep employees honest, get payrolls and employee needs filled, you'll realize that it's not as simple as "oh, I do all the grunt work, me super valuable, why need other people?"

and really, the picture you paint of where the money goes is Grossly inaccurate.

If every worker makes $100 for the company, then ~560$ goes straight to the government BEST case scenario. the rest gets distributed from there. this is in the US - it's a lot worse overseas.

>underrated post

meant $1000 dollars - 560 goes to gov't. you get me f a m

I can learn, if I can learn, I suppose I can teach, if they can learn I can teach them. If this holds true to more than ten generations, I can streamline the bloat. If I can streamline the bloat, I can pay them and myself more while also increasing shareholder revenue.

>I want sixteen threads a day about black IQ scores but if i see a thread questioning capitalism, i get triggered
I wasn't aware this was a safe space for capitalists and fascists. Sorry to hurt your feelings.

>I can learn

Maybe. most can;t. there really is a reason most factory workers are factory workers.

>if I can learn, I suppose I can teach

Also not true. capable teachers are few and far between.this is the one thing that college taught me more than anything

>I can streamline the bloat. If I can streamline the bloat, I can pay them and myself more while also increasing shareholder revenue.

What you are describing is almost exactly the "lean startup" movement. I really think a lot of people would be surprised at how efficient many modern corporations are. some legacy corps aren't this way yet, but they are changing to survive - they'll have to, or they'll die.

>makes his retarded thread
>gets fucked in 5 seconds because no one else is retarded
You don't think this would get boring if done repeatedly?
Just give up with this bullshit and accept it:
You're only worth what society thinks you're worth, if you think it's wrong then go out and prove it, otherwise accept that you're really a fuck up and that your contributions don't warrant this "great american dream" you think you're entitled to.

I bought an arsenal and a three day kit, once november passes and I get some leeway I'm gonna look at make the trasition into the morning shift so I have nights off to attend some industrial tooling workshops to get access to the vocational skills and workspaces required to pursue my project idea

I've seen the prospects for business survival before, there's a reason I haven't taken out a large loan yet.

Really man? I respect that, good luck and work hard.

Your real question should be:

Are middle managers, upper managers, secretaries, sales, marketing, HR, and shareholders actually worth the $600 per day?


once you answer that question you can move onto other questions

welcome to capitalism.
if you don't like it please feel free to open your own company and compete against your jew overloards

>Do you think spending $600 out of every $1000 on useless leeching activities is an efficient way of doing things?

go ahead and make your own company and do things differently if you want

good luck competing

Responding to this argument is a lot like responding to the "wage gap" argument, but it's more complex. I think I'll address the wage gap first as a clear example.

Socialist: "Women make 77 cents per dollar, this is a conspiracy!"

Me: "You should educate yourself on Social Darwinism. Business structures don't appear because of "muh conspiracy", they appear because everything was tried, and the working model is what could survive and reproduce."

"With respect to the wage gap issue, if a business could really cut 23/100 of its salary expenditures, which are the majority of some business models, by only employing women- and be just as efficient- this would quickly become the preferred business model. Since it hasn't happened, we can infer that there are reasons it hasn't happened. Naturally, someone has tried this- and it couldn't survive and reproduce. In a largely open market society, the reasons for its failure probably have more to do with "inefficiency" than with "patriarchy."

Now, to respond to your argument directly:

Middle managers: These are necessary because workers are not going to manage their affairs effectively through workers' councils. This has been tried.

Upper managers: Same thing with respect to middle managers, but also probably reflects some degree of return on investment for risks taken.

Secretaries: Those are needed.

Sales and marketing: Did you think your product is going to sell itself at $1,000 a day?

Shareholders: You didn't risk your money to open the business; they did. If you want to try a business model where the workers are the investors, try it.

Retained earnings: Again, they took the risk. If investors didn't earn, there wouldn't be investment.

You're also forgetting about R&D, and business expansion. A business with 6/10ths of its income going upstream is probably expanding, doing research, or making money for the investor.

The first two are good. The third is also good, because rich successful investors just make new investments and make new jobs for people like you.