Is it possible to make a profit without ripping off a worker? If you paid a worker the full value of what he created...

Is it possible to make a profit without ripping off a worker? If you paid a worker the full value of what he created, the sale price, you would have no profit.

pic unrelated

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers'_self-management
youtube.com/watch?v=Ag43uW4AOFc
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

If the worker has agreed to a wage then they are not getting ripped off.

I mean besides self-employment. Of course, self-employed people are not ripping off any workers to make a profit because they have no employees.

what if the worker had no choice but to accept wage labour because he didn't want to lose his house or car?

that's not much of a choice

He could choose to lose his house or car, he's not being forced.

The labor theory of profit is incoherent. Far from getting ripped off, they are getting a job.

What is stopping him from mortgaging his home, or saving up all his money, and risking financial ruin in order to start a company himself that may fail?

This is like saying people weren't forced in the soviet union because they could choose to go to gulag

There are such things as risk and responsibility and they are worth money.

The employee takes a reduction in pay for a reduction in risk.

Why is this so god damn complicated?

Your false premise is built into your shitty question
>you must rip someone off in order to profit by definition
HURRR

No, it's a concious choice. Don't want to pay mortgage/property tax? Don't buy a house. Don't want to pay for car insurance? Don't buy a car.

If he willingly bought the house and car knowing that he had the responsibility to pay for them, and an employer is offering a wage that the man can use to do so, then nobody's getting ripped off.

But he is being coerced. If I said to a chick that she had to suck my dick or lose her house, that would be considered blackmail. But if an employer wants you to metaphorically suck dick for your house, that's capitilism

You are completely overlooking the value YOU add to the product (by enabling,/managing production).
If you pay the worker the FULL value of the product, you are ripping yourself off.

Why is he losing his house? Is he just an idiot? How does this company somehow have a monopoly on every job?

Who is forbidden by law from starting a business? People just don't like risking their life savings on something that may financially ruin them so they take the safe option for lesser pay and look for work.

They're not getting ripped off, they're making a choice.

management means telling others what to do. That's not value creating work.

You are right. The company doesn't have a monopoly. He can choose whichever dick he wants to suck. But he does have to suck this or that dick, so to speak.

Define value creating

Without management etc they wouldn't be getting raw materials at as cheap a price, or be able to sell the product at such a high price and depending on the product's complexity the individual workers may not have had the contacts, initiative or ingenuity to find others to complete it with.

You're being reductionist. I say this as a socialist.

And direction and management, by the way, is not just about ordering people around. It's about thinking waht to produce, where and how, look at how to sell it, and other decision making like when to expand or upgrade the technology.
Don't you think all that has value?

That's like being in shark infested waters and you have to suck someone's dick in order to be saved and some organs harvested by the Albanian underworld. Sure, you weren't forced but the choice wasn't truly voluntary.

>If you paid a worker the full value of what he created
The worker does not create. He merely assembles the different components (which he neither owns nor has any choice any choice in design and selection) and produces a product that is to the specification of its actual creators: the designers of the product and how it is manufactured. The worker is a tool and the value of his contribution is the time and energy he puts into his specific task as part of the overall manufacturing plan.

I never understand why Cred Forums is so hesitant to accept that capitalism and the government bureaucracy that enforces property rights is making life utterly miserable and that life is made worse than it has to be. I just accept this and laugh at our ridiculous predicament. There is no need to be so defensive. Just accept the fact that capitalism is needlessly cruel and just plain stupid many times, without rhyme or reason. There is no point to all the suffering it creates. It has no higher purpose. Not all pain results in gain. We are living in a system that makes most people miserable for no reason. If you don't think people are miserable, just look at Cred Forums and /robot/. Suffering has no inherent value and should not be worshipped for its own sake. Acceptance of the reality of our pointless suffering is the ultimate red pill and the first step toward a solution.

commis pls go
You are not welcome here.

then manage yourself
no one says you have to work for anybody

Why are you using Hrithik Roshan's photo?

he's hot :-)

Pic related is literally everyone else who isn't a leftist economist.

A worker takes no risk; once has produced the product, he gets his wage. The owner, however, has to sell this product and manage all of the details that entails. He may or may not make money off the product. The worker might not make the full amount of the profit, but he also took no risk.

what better alternative is there?

Reguardless of my stance on this, absolutely. I work at a resauraunt that makes $25 million a year, and pays their employees $13/ hour. And that's only at one of their locations. It's more than enough.

Look up some meta-analyses on how worker production in the last 50 years had skyrocketed, but worker wages have roughly stayed the same. The proportion of work/company profit is growing wider and wider. The whole "$15.00 minimum wage argument will kill industry!" Argument is a fucking meme. Bit ad usual, Cred Forums will respond to this post with baseless name calling rather than real math.

The only math that needs to be involved is a discussion on the value of risk vs reward.

That's not an accurate assessment.
Setting aside capitalism, there is a value (whatever number you want to put on that) on creating opportunity and organizing labor.
That value is what the entrepreneur gains after paying his employees.

If the worker had the time or skills or knowhow or capital to be selling their own product than they fucking would be, you retarded faggot.

Dammit Nature, stop coercing me! I don't want to move my ass to survive!

>risk vs reward
So business. That's pretty fucking vague.

It absolutely is!

A manager is there to help guide workers in the best way possible. When my group comes in, often times if I'm not around they're sitting around, wasting time, hardly doing shit. When I'm able to give them things to do, utilize them as a player would his pieces on a chess board, I can make a bigger impact on the overall production of our business for the day and drive revenue and cash flow.

You applied for a job, you do a job and get a guaranteed wage. You think that entitles you to a percentage of their profits?

How about you wager your life savings then forging a company that may fail and leave you financially destitute. Then when some snot nosed kid fills out a job resume you can explain to him why he doesn't get a percentage of the $25 million your company is making.

owner can hire someone to sell the product and manage the business. Choosing to run the business is a choice for an owner not a necessity.

>The worker creates wealth and the owner leeches off it
I see this meme on here a lot but it's wrong every single time it's posted. Take pretty much any job imaginable and you'll find that someone's work is literally worthless WITHOUT the boss there to provide something, be it the mine or the factory to work in or the tools to work with. If you are working a job where you yourself produce a product and your boss takes some of what it's worth, why not just sell that product yourself?

Take almost any service job. What intrinsic value does being a waitress or being a ticket-stand attendant have? You're not producing any sort of product, and there's really no skill involved. Even for more skilled service jobs, such as being a plumber or electrician, what you'll find a lot of the time are family owned companies with people who know their shit. If you do work for a business as a skilled serviceman, there will usually be some sort of benefit (ie the business provides the tools for repairing the pipes, wires, etc.)

Of course it is, OP dipshit.

You're inferring the labor of the worker is always in equal value to the profit margin of the product. Which is totally incorrect in a retarded moron simpleton sort of way.

With my products, if there's, say, $5 to be made, my wife and I get about $2, the two people who worked on the order between stocking/picking/packing/shipping split about $1.50, and rent/utilities/advertising/operating costs get the other $1.50.

I have about $50k in liabilities that I take risk on that my employees do not, and have another $50k I'd be on the line for if things went south. Something that low-rung folks need to understand is that the more you risk, the more you gain, and when you put forth zero risk (being an employee) compared to maximum risk (being the company founder and employer who is liable for all that goes wrong), you aren't entitled to the same payout.

There is no system where everyone is equal, has never been, will never be, and anyone who thinks it can be created needs to be shot in the back of the head for their own good.

Is this how you stop a commie thread dead in its tracks?

i'm not a commie, i believe in democracy.

the reason i am not responding too much is i'm preparing for work tomorrow.

Lefty/pol/ BTFO

>Is it possible to make a profit without ripping off a worker? If you paid a worker the full value of what he created, the sale price, you would have no profit.
>muh marxist profit = paying the worker less than what he's worth
kys

That implies the employer adds no value to the product.

The employer provides the venue for the worker to work, manages the venue, secures distribution, and makes management decisions to ensure distribution.

That does entitle the employer to profit even disregarding the fact that employees are selling their labour to the employer, which means that despite being the manual creator of the product, their labour and the fruits thereof belong to the employer.

Do you have a response to my post?

Most workers dont actually create a product though. Also, youre a faggot nigger and youre going to be homeless when your parents die.

workers have no value
they are mouthbreathing idiots trained to complete simple tasks, which they cant even do correctly half the time

You take a portion of the value of the worker's labor as compensation for the risk you take by starting the business and keeping it running.

If the worker wants to earn the full value of his work, he can go into business for himself.

he can also pull out his dick, try to get it sucked by others and risk getting it cut off....

See what I am saying?

Yes it was. Just because you don't *want* to go into the shark filled waters doesn't mean you *have* to suck the man's dick. Sometimes people do things they don't want to do.

So these people that are getting their dick sucked by all these poor wageslaves, how did they get to be in that position?

Read my first post again retard. I said "Reguardless of opinion," meaning that it doesn't matter what I think and wages are at the company's discretion. I was answering the question in the OP that if they chose to, the company could afford to pay more and still make a lot of money, that's it!

Jesus christ everyone on this board is so quick to act like they're some fucking 60 year old boomer. It's cringeworthy.

Saved

Hundreds of years of Jewish bankers profitting off of European wars.

Don't worry, though. Capitalism is nearing its end.

Europe is waking up. This time, we won't fail.

So the only people that own businesses or have employees are Jews?

The company shouldn't have to pay more than you're worth, you come off as entitled. Also, spelling 'regardless' incorrectly multiple times is concerning, and makes me wonder if you are a minority.

I outright stated that I don't think they should pay me more, but that if they wanted to, they would be capable of doing so. Jesus fuck what is your problem? You have the reading comprehension skills of a nigger.

SEIZE


SEIZE NOW

The risk of the owner and investors in founding of the business requires significant reward. The employee had no stake in the risk.

The person with the Big Idea that the company is based on requires a reward. The employee had no part in the Big Idea.

You need to take econ 101 for the rest.

sage

A pianist means hitting keys on a piano. That's not the vibration of strings creating sound.

With some businesses, risk isn't a worry for the heads of the business. The heads of those businesses know that they will be rewarded for reckless risk-taking and that they'll probably get government aid if their recklessness catches up to them.

>all employers are risking their livelihoods
The biggest ones know that they have welfare on which to fall back.

Not an argument.

So why is it impossible for workers manage their own enterprise cooperatively?

>There is no system where everyone is equal, has never been, will never be, and anyone who thinks it can be created needs to be shot in the back of the head for their own good.
See a psychologist. You've got anger issues.

Nice meme.

Let's take a fictional business, and say that it's owned cooperatively by the workers. What does this mean? Who makes decisions? Decides how much everyone is paid? Is everyone paid equally? If so, why? Is the janitor's work equally as important as the manager's, or the accountant's? Please elaborate on what you mean when you talk about a cooperatively owned enterprise.

I mean, businesses owned and started by multiple people are things that already exists. Either friends or family, you see it all the time with local businesses like restaurants or plumbing companies, or with something larger like a law firm.

Total non-argument in response to a valid post.

>the full value of what he created
This is the fundamental flaw of labour theory of value. The guy on the assembly line is not creating things by himself. He is assembling the parts, which were manufactured somewhere else by a different team of workers, using materials harvested halfway across the world by a different crew of men, and when he is finished assembling it that product will be put on a store shelf by another group of employees, where it will be bought by the consumer. And that does not include the people driving freight trucks, trains, flying airplanes, sailing ships etc. or any of the management making decisions about purchasing parts and materials, hiring/firing, pay, equipment purchases, training, etc. nor does it include the investment of the factory and store owners in said factories, stores, and equipment.

If you're paying him well you're not ripping them off, and it's still very possible to make profit

A non-specialized piano can't play itself. Even so, what joy is there in listening to mechanical, robotically generated music in a pale imitation of skill and nuance?
A business, on the other hand, can be run perfectly well by the same people who perform the work itself, or by representatives elected by those people.

That isn't exploitation, that is reality. It's like complaining that you die if you don't eat.

Anyway, you misunder stand how value works. A worker's labor isn't worth anything more than what he sold it for. That's economic science, the labor theory of value is probably false.

co-ops attempt to solve this issue

>what is farming

Please see , I'd like to hear more about your thoughts on co-operatives.

>Who is forbidden by law from starting a business?

Anyone who wants to start a bank, or an insurance company, or their own casino or lottery are forbidden by law, because it's impossible to do any of those things unless you rent your own senator.

Just about every avenue for easy money is blocked off entirely, or has such massive fees for "regulations" that mortals simply are no longer able to form those businesses.

The Jew made their billions before regulations existed. Then they made sure no one else could follow them. They didn't just pull the ladder up behind them, they set the ladder on fire, dumped out a bag of caltrops, then put seven giganiggas high on PCP at the bottom to make damn sure you're not getting past.

It isn't. Go found such a business with your own money and find out. It is perfectly legal and if it works betters an our system you will thrive.

So iPhones, internet access, cars, and TV create misery?

Go live in some socialist shithole, then come back and tell me how bad "poor" people have it in the US.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers'_self-management
Pay would be determined democratically or through debate in most cases.

Most poor people in the USA don't have cars or fancy TVs. Some areas don't even have electricity, clean water, or even running water in some areas.

> You still can't pay them the full price then because equipment costs the cost if top soil and seed buildings licences repairs property taxes security and many more

God you're an idiot

The only employee-owned businesses in my area have shit hiring processes and horrible performance on the part of the employees

I live in a large city in an otherwise dirt poor part of the country. I drive all over the state, to communities large and small, and I have yet to find a single community where electricity and running water weren't as ubiquitous as grass and blue sky. The only places where what you say are true are places truly removed from civilization, which is an entirely different dynamic from the topic of this thread.

>he thinks citing wikipedia is an argument

Look, I never said in the first place that it's impossible for workers to manage their own enterprise cooperatively, but what I can say is that there's probably a reason that you don't see too many of them, and I imagine it's because they're less effective.

No, I'm just sick of brain-dead commie/socialist fags and their delusions being repeated like a broken fucking record.

If you haven't figured out those systems are failures, then you really can't do the world any good by existing. Prove me wrong - protip: you can't

one day (((capitalism))) will come tumbling down and the only one with a bullet in their skull will be you

Stay mad and broke, commiefag. Can I toss you a crust of bread for your daily meal?

The thing is the profit. Money is a scam. Oz burns.

Your analogies are shit.

>A business, on the other hand, can be run perfectly well by the same people who perform the work itself

Then why don't they? Because at anytime they want, workers could collectively pool their assets and form a cooperative partnership entity, owned by the workers. The option to do it is right there, farmers do it all the time. There's nothing stopping workers from doing that.

I spoke with a business organization attorney and professor a week ago specifically about this. He wrote the treatise and codified law that 14 states have adopted regarding cooperative partnership entities as a matter of making them more homogenous nationally. Pretty much the only knowledgeable person in the very niche legal field. In his view being dumbed down to green text

>the equity of ownership and voting power are inherently incompatible with each other
>value provided by one producer is not indicitave of their return and thus no incentive is placed for the most substantial possible stakeholders to participate
>therefore financial backing is often difficult and immediately places an adversarial competition against the partnership
>they very rarely sustain beyond a few years before the largest equity holders bail due to being strong armed by minor producers into price and volume fixings

Essentially, the guy who wrote the laws about cooperatives that will be used for the next several decades thinks they are shit.

...So does anybody want to talk about c-cooperative partnerships?

...

Capitalists can only amass wealth if workers don't. There is nothing incoherent about this - it's an observable reality.

Wealth is incentive.
If you lose money from starting a business why make a business?

You're talking about Marx's idea of exploitation in which a capitalist must pay a worker less than the full value of the worker's labor in order to make a profit. Semantically, it's a loaded term because people really don't like the term exploitation and they have a negative reaction to it. The problem is that there really aren't any good alternatives to "exploitation". You could try running a cooperative factory where all the workers are also owners, but that's going to be unstable and messy once more than a small number of people are involved. You could try running the organization as a nonprofit, but that's going to really screw with incentives. The state could own the factory, but profits would get transferred to the government's funds, so we're back to there being exploitation.

Ultimately a capitalist is taking on risk by owning a firm, hiring people, and providing a good or service, so that risk has to be compensated in order to get someone to do it. There doesn't appear to be a good alternative, in a large firm, to exploitation.

>be worker
>make 50k/yr (as example)
>live off 40k
>buy 10k worth of stock
>now make money via dividends from ownership

Congrats you are now a capitalist

The value the worker gives is the labor to build the product. The value you provide is selling the product and taking on the risk that the product won't sell and that you won't make money. The worker gets paid either way. This question is retarded. You are retarded.

Workers can own and manage. Bosses are unnecessary.

It's kind of funny that threads like this will illicit the same response from so many people so similarly

>that's it I'm going to learn this commie faggot a thing or two and stop this Tom fuckery right here with labor theory analysis and economic principles

I wish there was a place specifically for that (inb4 /biz/, it's all just crypto coin shills and underage asking how to double money in a week)

>He had been droning along about "value," comparing the Marxist theory with the orthodox "use" theory. Mr. Dubois had said, "Of course, the Marxian definition of value is ridiculous. All the work one cares to add will not turn a mud pie into an apple tart; it remains a mud pie, value zero. By corollary, unskillful work can easily subtract value; an untalented cook can turn wholesome dough and fresh green apples, valuable already, into an inedible mess, value zero. Conversely, a great chef can fashion of the same material a confection of greater value than a commonplace apple tart, with no more effort than an ordinary cook uses to prepare an ordinary sweet.
>"These kitchen illustrations demolish the Marxian theory of value- the fallacy from which the entire magnificent fraud of communism derives- and illustrates the truth of common-sense definition as measured in terms of use."
>Dubois had waved his stump at us. >"Nevertheless- wake up, back there!- the disheveled old mystic of Das Kapital, turgid, tortured, confused, and neurotic, unscientific, illogical, this pompous fraud Karl Marx, nevertheless had a glimmering of a very important truth. If he had possessed an analytical mind, he might have formulated the first adequate definition of value... this planet might have been saved endless grief."

>The worker gets paid either way.

The capitalist gets paid, the worker gets fired, and the company is liquidated.

What is this from, user?

"Not having a car" or "not owning a house" are not equivalent to "must go to gulag." Not even close.

People talk about profit sharing but overlook the times when companies have losses. Most employees are not interested in sharing in the loss, ie having to PAY the company. Think of the airline industry rsalary of 50k", and then at the end of the year, "we need 10k back."

(Based on $5 billion loss in 2008 and approx 500,000 employees)

youtube.com/watch?v=Ag43uW4AOFc

Fuck me, that is one hot motherfucker

the book is based

That's what this string of companies is attempting to do. Also interesting are Ricardo Semler efforts in this area.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation

You could simply pay them a percentage on every item sold. Depending on how much work you do, it could be little, or a lot. That would probably be the closest solution to what you are asking. Though it wouldn't be very smart.

The worker gets paid for the work he did. When that company is liquidated the worker has nothing at risk except employment. The person who invested the capital to start the business loses everything. I sincerely hope you are a troll or you are, in fact, retarded.

Well no shit; I've wanted to read it for a while and now I have to. Thanks m8

That's the kek worthy beauty of a cooperative. Literally the first year this happens, it becomes
>what cooperative agreement
And suddenly everyone is "insolvent"

Well that's how it's done now. Labor cost is factored into the cost to produce a product along with machine burden, fixed asset depreciation and operational expenses. Once the cost to produce is determined, then the profit margin is established which is redirected to investing in capital assets to the corporation and/or dividends to the shareholders.

>it was my job for a while to calculate that labor cost

Indeed. /biz/ is full of retarded teens/early twenties who think they'll all be millionaires from day trading. The only solid way to invest is value investing.

God what a shit experiment /biz/ was. Literally "math major 300k starting" and nothing of value.

Hoping to make it big in the future with IP holdings personally, but that's a dream for 20 years down the line.

When companies have losses, workers get laid off and management still somehow get their bonus.

Shhh, don't let verifiable facts get in the way of the business pity party!

>full value of what he created
What if we pay car pre-assembly robot #2418 the full value of the car it created? Nobody else did, that specific robot did because someone set him off doing 1 of the thousands of tasks involved in created that car dreamed up as a project by the capitalist.

Sometimes, they do, sometimes they don't; that's at the will of the shareholders when they vote at shareholder meetings. You should also consider the idea that an executive might have minimized losses that were bound to occur, and that's why they were kept around. Additionally, companies can also defer their losses in some fashions to be paid by future income in order to maintain the employee number instead of downsizing. There's your somehow.

Not really pity; it's just financial analytics. Not trying to suck corporate cock here, just saying that
>uuhh corporations are bad and shit
Falls apart when critics of corporations don't know anything about business organization law or economics. I'm fine with corporations getting fucked, but I like to know what I'm talking about.

>When that company is liquidated the worker has nothing at risk except employment.

"The worker gets paid either way" until he doesn't. Got it.

If a worker deserved all the profit then that worker must also have the means of production which would make them a competitor not a worker.

>this is what economic leftists believe
>somebody has to have the government approve their work as valuable before they can be paid for it

Fucking kek

By sucking a lot of dicks so that their kids wouldn't have to, or just sucking a few dicks but with a technique so extraordinary they got paid extra for it