Change My Mind: A Society Cannot "Work" Itself to Equality

[Bballfan123]

After thinking about it, I just do not see how hard work, and I'm being specific here, can solve inequality.

No tldr but here is summary
A Boss or Owner will NOT allow his employees to profit more than him under ANY circumstances. This is more or less a law of the universe. There are very rare occurrences such as a machinist working 80 hrs a week for a year making more than his supervisor, but in 99.999% of cases the Boss will PROFIT more in EVERY circumstance than a rank and file Employee. Because they have more than one Employee, all the Profits flow to the Boss and it is IMPOSSIBLE to solve this issue, if you consider it an issue.


Example

Walmart pays their employees an average of $27(approx.)
Walmart generates $54 in money per hour per employee. So the shareholders are collecting 50% of the money. As the shareholders are generally richer they can do things like buy apartments houses fast food locations grocery stores. Everything.

Better example a small machine shop wit. 5 employees one owner. One supervisor 4 regular employees.
The workers make $25/hr. The supervisor makes $35/hr.
The company owner will not under any circumstances let his employees make more than him- he collects say 60% of income. 40% of the money earned by the business goes to the employee (this may be even overly generous, ufc pays 17%).
Let's say each employee generates $50 of net revenue per hour worked. So with 5 employees the boss is making (250 - 25*4 - 35) = $115/hr for each hour his shop is open. Minus bills he is making let's say $75/he in profit.
Owner has say $1 million and owns a home and car. He has no bills. No rent. His mortgage is lower than his employees' rent. He can use this $75/hr to purchase his employees apartments. His employees are giving him 25% of their money in rent.

So after purchasing the apartment he is now making

25 + 75 = $100/hr in pure profit.

Meanwhile his employees are pocketing after their expenses let's say $5/hr. That would be $600 per month a pretty good savings for working class.

Under this situation the MORE the workers work the greater the gap between the Owner and his Employees. Every hour they go to work his money is increasing much faster than each of theirs is, both individually and collectively.

These numbers are made up but for any business it seems to hold true. The Owner or shareholders ALWAYS 100% of the time will get richer faster than their employees will as long as their business stays open and is profitable. Which 99% of businesses are especially small local ones. No one's gonna keep a machine shop running unless it's generating profits.


Basically I think "workism" is corporate brainwashing and the only way to reverse inequality is to start your own business and NOT work for others. Or taxes. But I do not think you can "bootstrap" your way to Equality. It's just impossible mathematically.

Change my mind

 

[moreorless87]

 

[Get To Da Choppa]

After thinking about it, I just do not see how hard work, and I'm being specific here, can solve inequality.

No tldr but here is summary
A Boss or Owner will NOT allow his employees to profit more than him under ANY circumstances. This is more or less a law of the universe. There are very rare occurrences such as a machinist working 80 hrs a week for a year making more than his supervisor, but in 99.999% of cases the Boss will PROFIT more in EVERY circumstance than a rank and file Employee. Because they have more than one Employee, all the Profits flow to the Boss and it is IMPOSSIBLE to solve this issue, if you consider it an issue.


Example

Walmart pays their employees an average of $27(approx.)
Walmart generates $54 in money per hour per employee. So the shareholders are collecting 50% of the money. As the shareholders are generally richer they can do things like buy apartments houses fast food locations grocery stores. Everything.

Better example a small machine shop wit. 5 employees one owner. One supervisor 4 regular employees.
The workers make $25/hr. The supervisor makes $35/hr.
The company owner will not under any circumstances let his employees make more than him- he collects say 60% of income. 40% of the money earned by the business goes to the employee (this may be even overly generous, ufc pays 17%).
Let's say each employee generates $50 of net revenue per hour worked. So with 5 employees the boss is making (250 - 25*4 - 35) = $115/hr for each hour his shop is open. Minus bills he is making let's say $75/he in profit.
Owner has say $1 million and owns a home and car. He has no bills. No rent. His mortgage is lower than his employees' rent. He can use this $75/hr to purchase his employees apartments. His employees are giving him 25% of their money in rent.

So after purchasing the apartment he is now making

25 + 75 = $100/hr in pure profit.

Meanwhile his employees are pocketing after their expenses let's say $5/hr. That would be $600 per month a pretty good savings for working class.

Under this situation the MORE the workers work the greater the gap between the Owner and his Employees. Every hour they go to work his money is increasing much faster than each of theirs is, both individually and collectively.

These numbers are made up but for any business it seems to hold true. The Owner or shareholders ALWAYS 100% of the time will get richer faster than their employees will as long as their business stays open and is profitable. Which 99% of businesses are especially small local ones. No one's gonna keep a machine shop running unless it's generating profits.


Basically I think "workism" is corporate brainwashing and the only way to reverse inequality is to start your own business and NOT work for others. Or taxes. But I do not think you can "bootstrap" your way to Equality. It's just impossible mathematically.

Change my mind

Of course the world will never be equal, even in supposedly equal communist countries. Like Napoleon the pig said, all animals are equal, and some animals are more equal than others.

 

[BisexualMMA]

A Boss or Owner will NOT allow his employees to profit more than him under ANY circumstances. This is more or less a law of the universe. There are very rare occurrences such as a machinist working 80 hrs a week for a year making more than his supervisor, but in 99.999% of cases the Boss will PROFIT more in EVERY circumstance than a rank and file Employee. Because they have more than one Employee, all the Profits flow to the Boss and it is IMPOSSIBLE to solve this issue, if you consider it an issue.

Change my mind

Yes and no. An employee is contractually guaranteed their wages and the business owner takes the risk of starting the business and while the owner gets the profits the owner also eats the losses. Restaurant after restaurant opens up and the owner takes a bath and closes it down out some hundreds of thousands of dollars with nothing but memories to show for it. The waiters and dishwashers didn't make George Soros money...but they did get paid the whole time.

 

[Lucas1980]

Yes and no. An employee is contractually guaranteed their wages and the business owner takes the risk of starting the business and while the owner gets the profits the owner also eats the losses. Restaurant after restaurant opens up and the owner takes a bath and closes it down out some hundreds of thousands of dollars with nothing but memories to show for it. The waiters and dishwashers didn't make George Soros money...but they did get paid the whole time.

That was a great post...

 

[lowlife]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought this was fairly common knowledge at this point? Owners would have to be willing to share more revenue or stake in the company, and currently there is no real incentive for them to do so. Quite the contrary actually, they are incentivized to hoard more and more. I read that sometime around 2030 we will see the world's first trillionaire.

 

[kahiljabroni]

I don't understand. You want everyone to make the same amount of money?

 

[lowlife]

Yes and no. An employee is contractually guaranteed their wages and the business owner takes the risk of starting the business and while the owner gets the profits the owner also eats the losses. Restaurant after restaurant opens up and the owner takes a bath and closes it down out some hundreds of thousands of dollars with nothing but memories to show for it. The waiters and dishwashers didn't make George Soros money...but they did get paid the whole time.

this is a great example on a smaller level. At what point do you move past "I'm taking all the risk?" Like once you get to Jeff Bezos level what is the actual risk/reward?

 

[BisexualMMA]

this is a great example on a smaller level. At what point do you move past "I'm taking all the risk?" Like once you get to Jeff Bezos level what is the actual risk/reward?

Ain't easy to do...I guess maybe when your hobnobbing with Ep and Ghislaine or when you (or your Dad) already have the pull to sway government policy and whatnot a percent or two in the favor of your business.

You gotta get out of that aspiring restaurant / gym / convenience store owner class and into that upper upper upper upper upper "government bails you out anyway if you fail" class. Not a lot of upward mobility from working Joe into the uncrowned royalty though.

 

[jeff7b9]

Equity (equality of outcome) is a myth, dangled in front of idiots to get them to fall for bad political agendas.

You will never have equality of input so why would you expect equality of outcome? If you think about it it doesn't make sense.

Real equality is equality of opportunity, which again is currently sitting under a giant pile of horseshit and race hustling politics.

Barring an apocalypse of biblical proportions our society is unlikely to ever get even remotely close to what people think of when the word "equality" comes up, as we are on a trajectory where the wealth gap is getting exponentially bigger and the relatively few who have excess wealth are hoarding it.

Even the proposed ideas for attempting to even things out are entirely horseshit. If the wealthy part with (some of) their (excess) wealth, they will only do so for POWER, never out of the goodness of their heart on any meaningful scale and the primary reason they would trade wealth for power is they know they can in return leverage the power for more wealth.

 

[lowlife]

Equity (equality of outcome) is a myth, dangled in front of idiots to get them to fall for bad political agendas.

You will never have equality of input so why would you expect equality of outcome? If you think about it it doesn't make sense.

Real equality is equality of opportunity, which again is currently sitting under a giant pile of horseshit and race hustling politics.

Barring an apoacolyose of biblical proportions out society is unlikely to ever get even remotely close to what people think of when the word "equality" comes up, as we are on a trajectory where the wealth gap is getting exponentially bigger and the relatively few who have excess wealth are hoarding it.

Even the proposed ideas for attempting to even things out are entirely horseshit. If the wealthy part with their wealth, they will only do so for POWER, never out of the goodness of their heart on any meaningful scale and the primary reason they would trade wealth for power is they know they can in return leverage the power for more wealth.

Agreed, and I think when most people say "equality" what they really mean is "fairness." At some point the disparity just becomes ridiculous.

 

[Bballfan123]

Yes and no. An employee is contractually guaranteed their wages and the business owner takes the risk of starting the business and while the owner gets the profits the owner also eats the losses. Restaurant after restaurant opens up and the owner takes a bath and closes it down out some hundreds of thousands of dollars with nothing but memories to show for it. The waiters and dishwashers didn't make George Soros money...but they did get paid the whole time.

1. If an employer blatantly refuses to pay an employee because they are an asshole there is honestly very little the employee can do short of physical violence. After 30 days of non payment they may request a hearing hire a lawyer and contest it in court. Meanwhile their bills and late fees pile up. Regardless of the outcome the employee is worse off. I have had an asshole boss refuse to pay me for hourly work bc I quit no notice bc he was a dick (I am legally allowed to do this I live in a right to work state even if I walk off the job I am contractually owed the hours I already worked, is it as he could fire me with no notice) and honestly there's no much you can do in the immediate moment to get the money. Besides calling them 900 times a day like I did.

That's a fair point. For starting off businesses yeah there is a lot of risk. But what about a machine shop that's been open for 50+ years with paid off equipment, no investments, minimal taxes? That seems to be more typical that a restaurant. In that scenario the business Owner has basically no risk. His contracts are established, he has healthy margins, he's not really risking his finances in any way. For established businesses there's almost no risk and 100% profit.

There's nothing WRONG with this. It's just something I realized

 

[Bballfan123]

I don't understand. You want everyone to make the same amount of money?

No, I just don't like the messaging that is pushed. Basically society is unequal and we all need to work a lot to get "back on track" financially. I don't think working overtime is going to help the situation as the Owner is still gonna rake in way more than 50% of the money at the end of the year.

A society can't "work hard" to get equality

 

[fica]

After thinking about it, I just do not see how hard work, and I'm being specific here, can solve inequality.

No tldr but here is summary
A Boss or Owner will NOT allow his employees to profit more than him under ANY circumstances. This is more or less a law of the universe. There are very rare occurrences such as a machinist working 80 hrs a week for a year making more than his supervisor, but in 99.999% of cases the Boss will PROFIT more in EVERY circumstance than a rank and file Employee. Because they have more than one Employee, all the Profits flow to the Boss and it is IMPOSSIBLE to solve this issue, if you consider it an issue.


Example

Walmart pays their employees an average of $27(approx.)
Walmart generates $54 in money per hour per employee. So the shareholders are collecting 50% of the money. As the shareholders are generally richer they can do things like buy apartments houses fast food locations grocery stores. Everything.

Better example a small machine shop wit. 5 employees one owner. One supervisor 4 regular employees.
The workers make $25/hr. The supervisor makes $35/hr.
The company owner will not under any circumstances let his employees make more than him- he collects say 60% of income. 40% of the money earned by the business goes to the employee (this may be even overly generous, ufc pays 17%).
Let's say each employee generates $50 of net revenue per hour worked. So with 5 employees the boss is making (250 - 25*4 - 35) = $115/hr for each hour his shop is open. Minus bills he is making let's say $75/he in profit.
Owner has say $1 million and owns a home and car. He has no bills. No rent. His mortgage is lower than his employees' rent. He can use this $75/hr to purchase his employees apartments. His employees are giving him 25% of their money in rent.

So after purchasing the apartment he is now making

25 + 75 = $100/hr in pure profit.

Meanwhile his employees are pocketing after their expenses let's say $5/hr. That would be $600 per month a pretty good savings for working class.

Under this situation the MORE the workers work the greater the gap between the Owner and his Employees. Every hour they go to work his money is increasing much faster than each of theirs is, both individually and collectively.

These numbers are made up but for any business it seems to hold true. The Owner or shareholders ALWAYS 100% of the time will get richer faster than their employees will as long as their business stays open and is profitable. Which 99% of businesses are especially small local ones. No one's gonna keep a machine shop running unless it's generating profits.


Basically I think "workism" is corporate brainwashing and the only way to reverse inequality is to start your own business and NOT work for others. Or taxes. But I do not think you can "bootstrap" your way to Equality. It's just impossible mathematically.

Change my mind

Not everybody can make same salary or work same job but problem today peoe with bigger salary deside for smaller salary by coming here or there and rising prices to wich they are confoetable a d pricing out lower salary

 

[IDL]

After thinking about it, I just do not see how hard work, and I'm being specific here, can solve inequality.

No tldr but here is summary
A Boss or Owner will NOT allow his employees to profit more than him under ANY circumstances.

Your very first rationalization is incorrect so I'd say you are starting off with a false premise.

Do you know how many businesses fail and the owner actually loses money, or works really hard to barely break even?

Also, 'equality' (of outcome) doesn't make sense anywhere. It is nonsensical from the getgo so if you try to make sense of it you will go mad because it can't be done.

 

[Bballfan123]

Not everybody can make same salary or work same job but problem today peoe with bigger salary deside for smaller salary by coming here or there and rising prices to wich they are confoetable a d pricing out lower salary

Of course! It all makes sense!

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Change my mind

You sound poor.

 

[BisexualMMA]

For starting off businesses yeah there is a lot of risk. But what about a machine shop that's been open for 50+ years with paid off equipment, no investments, minimal taxes? That seems to be more typical that a restaurant. In that scenario the business Owner has basically no risk. His contracts are established, he has healthy margins, he's not really risking his finances in any way. For established businesses there's almost no risk and 100% profit.

There's nothing WRONG with this. It's just something I realized

The business owner here may seem to have no risk as a going concern...but if he sells his business, the person who pays market value for this company with all assets and no liabilities will pay a ton and needs to make a profit somehow. The original owner, if they still own it, took the risk and it paid off. If they still have the company, are they really to be treated differently from someone who pays through the nose to buy this all assets no liabilities enterprise and now has to get a return somehow?

 

[fica]

[QUOTE="Bballfan123, post: 172703296, member: 576753"] Of course! It all makes sense! [/QUOTE] Just say it you are not smart enough to comprehend reality about which i posted. It is reality that higher payimg people sometimes deside for less paying people what food housing and cost in that neighboorhood will be

 

[Contempt]

After thinking about it, I just do not see how hard work, and I'm being specific here, can solve inequality.

No tldr but here is summary
A Boss or Owner will NOT allow his employees to profit more than him under ANY circumstances. This is more or less a law of the universe. There are very rare occurrences such as a machinist working 80 hrs a week for a year making more than his supervisor, but in 99.999% of cases the Boss will PROFIT more in EVERY circumstance than a rank and file Employee. Because they have more than one Employee, all the Profits flow to the Boss and it is IMPOSSIBLE to solve this issue, if you consider it an issue.


Example

Walmart pays their employees an average of $27(approx.)
Walmart generates $54 in money per hour per employee. So the shareholders are collecting 50% of the money. As the shareholders are generally richer they can do things like buy apartments houses fast food locations grocery stores. Everything.

Better example a small machine shop wit. 5 employees one owner. One supervisor 4 regular employees.
The workers make $25/hr. The supervisor makes $35/hr.
The company owner will not under any circumstances let his employees make more than him- he collects say 60% of income. 40% of the money earned by the business goes to the employee (this may be even overly generous, ufc pays 17%).
Let's say each employee generates $50 of net revenue per hour worked. So with 5 employees the boss is making (250 - 25*4 - 35) = $115/hr for each hour his shop is open. Minus bills he is making let's say $75/he in profit.
Owner has say $1 million and owns a home and car. He has no bills. No rent. His mortgage is lower than his employees' rent. He can use this $75/hr to purchase his employees apartments. His employees are giving him 25% of their money in rent.

So after purchasing the apartment he is now making

25 + 75 = $100/hr in pure profit.

Meanwhile his employees are pocketing after their expenses let's say $5/hr. That would be $600 per month a pretty good savings for working class.

Under this situation the MORE the workers work the greater the gap between the Owner and his Employees. Every hour they go to work his money is increasing much faster than each of theirs is, both individually and collectively.

These numbers are made up but for any business it seems to hold true. The Owner or shareholders ALWAYS 100% of the time will get richer faster than their employees will as long as their business stays open and is profitable. Which 99% of businesses are especially small local ones. No one's gonna keep a machine shop running unless it's generating profits.


Basically I think "workism" is corporate brainwashing and the only way to reverse inequality is to start your own business and NOT work for others. Or taxes. But I do not think you can "bootstrap" your way to Equality. It's just impossible mathematically.

Change my mind

So you're saying that the people that have actually invested in a business want more of a return than those who have zero invested or risked in a business?

You don't say?