Fu*%face Von Clownstick

Semantics. Henry Ford for example: Did he “exploit” people, or did he offer them a job producing something they could be proud of, while enabling thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands at this point) of employees to earn a good living, buy a house in the burbs, and put their kids through school?
 
I put in one unit of work, I get one share back, the whole pie. 1:1. Employees put in one then get back a fraction of one, bosses put in one, they get back more than one. Bosses get 2 pizzas for the price of one, workers make one pizza and just get a slice. :envidioso:rico::cry: Some bosses get thousands, millions, billions of pizzas. Who can eat that many pizzas? No one.
 
One doesn't become a billionaire honestly. Full stop. Exploitation is the only way to become that rich.
Yea, put them on an island alone, but with enough food, water, and shelter to survive, and lets see them be anymore successful than any one else put in that scenario. They could only achieve that by using other people.
Becoming a billionaire ain't so hard when you get a $413,000,000 leg up from daddy dearest.

 
I put in one unit of work, I get one share back, the whole pie. 1:1. Employees put in one then get back a fraction of one
So if you owned a company, you’d take home exactly as much as your lower or average paid employees? Good luck.

There are reasons owners make more. They have the idea. They have the skill. They take the risk. They bought the equipment.
 
I never could seem to make more than my employees, maybe one reason I quit being an employer! Lol.
I saw a restaurant owner couple weeks ago that this would be true of. Dude has been running a popular/steady spot for a couple decades or more, and still the main cook etc. His car is the same shitty ‘08 Forester which now has a busted window, if you divided his income by hrs worked I’d bet it’s less than a server. But he is a nice guy and few get rich running one restaurant.
 
So if you owned a company, you’d take home exactly as much as your lower or average paid employees? Good luck.

There are reasons owners make more. They have the idea. They have the skill. They take the risk. They bought the equipment.
I thought he was notorious for stiffing contractors and being overall kind of a ruthless terrible employer?

I like the Arizona ice tea owner, he recently was asked why it’s still 99cents, he’s like, well, we don’t have debts, we make money, so let’s just keep doing it like this.
 
The last three years I ran my own farm, after I paid out my investor and all the employees, and then calculated my hourly rate out of what was left.

$10/hr

I netted less than that the two years prior as I was investing deeply into the business.

I make half the annual income now as an employee, but I work 1/6 the hours. I didn't feel like I was paying my employees well enough either. The one full time guy was even more badly underpaid than the seasonal temps.

In hindsight, I saw how I could have do it soooo much better. I have since had a season running a test plot with all the insight I gained on that farm, and I figured out how to make farming worth it, and that's what my wife and I are developing. I never felt like I should be paying anyone less than I did. In fact I wanted to pay them more, and my business partner was too greedy, which is why I made him buy me out after a few years. Me making less than my employees rate was a result of various factors. I chose the path, and I don't blame anyone for how hard it was to make money at that time. There were MANY factors/cicumstances contrinbuting to how things were.

A lot of people deserve more than they get, and some people take a lot more than they deserve, all the while telling themselves that they do actually deserve their takings. I understand some making more than others, but no matter how brilliant your idea is, if you can't execute your idea the plan without other people's help, then they are no less important to the plan than the guy who came up with the idea. Now if you are the idea man, and you put in two units of labor for everyone elses one unit, you should make more than the lowest level employee, but if that means paying them less than 1/3 of the idea man's share, then you are crossing into exploitation. If you can't afford to pay that, then you can't afford so much help. Do the work youself and earn that money.

The initial investment to get the business started should be repaid with some additional return, but for the investor to earn income in perpetuity is exploitation.

Just because we are all hostages of a system built by people who all died generations ago doesn't make it the right to do things, and it is certainly not the best way. To argue that this system is the best that has ever been and is therefore good is assinine.

We can do much better.
 
So if you owned a company, you’d take home exactly as much as your lower or average paid employees? Good luck.

There are reasons owners make more. They have the idea. They have the skill. They take the risk. They bought the equipment.
So none of your employees are skilled? Remind me never to hire your company, and good luck with that.

What is the risk the owners take? That the business will fail? Sounds like bad management for one, and really, the only risk in that is that you have to go back to being an employee!

Sounds to me like your beef is really with the investor class. They are taking more than their fair share, which is the source of the injustice you percieve. It's not because employees want too much. It's because the bankers want too much.
 
Last edited:
No offense intended, that's nonsense.

Huge stress and financial risk to the owner who is commonly taking physical risk, as well, in our industry with its small operations.

Does an employee ever risk paying to do tree work?

How many dollars does an employee invest to show up for work?
Some clothes.


How much financial responsibility does an employee bear?



If it is so easy and even, why don't all employees choose the ownership option? It's The USA, after all. The land of choice and opportunity.
 
No offense intended, that's nonsense.

Huge stress and financial risk to the owner who is commonly taking physical risk, as well, in our industry with its small operations.

Does an employee ever risk paying to do tree work?

How many dollars does an employee invest to show up for work?
Some clothes.


How much financial responsibility does an employee bear?



If it is so easy and even, why don't all employees choose the ownership option? It's The USA, after all. The land of choice and opportunity.
I am not sure if we are on the same page here, but I did say that the owner is definitely entitled to more than the employees, especially when he does more work. The specifics will vary from one company to another of course, but if you bought the equipment, you should be repaid for that from the company's earnings, and with some additional compensation because I do believe in incetivising that kind of thing, but a modest and finite extra. The company should thereafter pay all associated costs for the ongoing operation of the equipment, not the operator, and those expenses have to come before anyone gets paid.

I can address more hypotheticals individually if you are curious for more specific ideas, but again, I did say that you should earn more for the extra you put in, but remember that if I am talking about how something should be, that hinges on other things also being in that ideal state that we should always be aiming for. Owners earning more than 10x what their employees make is nonsense. Not that you can't do it if you want, but I think that is crossing into greed.

I am always aiming for the best possible outcome, but I know there will be stages between here and there, but just because something is better than it used to be doesn't mean it's as good as it could be.
 
Donny and Elon’s brazen quid-pro-quo



 
Not knocking you Rico, and NOT standing up for Trump either. There all wallowing in the swamp.
What I do want to mention is about the source of the vid. He's a kunt too.
Different sources. Same outcome. You feel better now?

It would seem that some are wallowing more than others. So much for the constitutions foreign emoluments clause.




 

New threads New posts

Kask Stihl NORTHEASTERN Arborists Wesspur TreeStuff.com Teufelberger Westminster X-Rigging Teufelberger
Back
Top Bottom