It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Wall Street, Economic Vamparisme, Why Profitting Off Others Is Bad

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Ok, I want to check in with some of you and see if I've made a proper assessment on how this system functions, and if I'm right, this is the biggest issue we face economically.

I starts with the idea that you can profit off of someone else's labor while laying them less than the value of the labor they produce.

So company A) Macdonalds IPOs and officers stock options to potential investors. In turn an investor buys X amount of stock from company A. Now the investor has options to make money on this stock. He can collect dividends (profit sharing), or wait and see if the stock increases in value.

So now what happens is the company takes a share of its profits and pay investors a dividend for whatever percentage these dividends are offered at.

So what's happening here the employees are working everyday to produce a profit and in turn that same profit is then payed out to someone who has little to no involvement in the company other than the initial investment. So now the employees are producing a specific value for the company and rather than share that value with more of the economy and the people who actually work to create it they take the money and give it to someone who just has a tonne of money sitting around and gives it to them instead.

This works against the economy by pooling the dollar supply into fewer hands while keeping the actual employees themselves in a state of poverty.

If they made so only the employees could invest into the company and buy options then those employees would actually be working towards their own benefit and the money supply would t Poop upwards into fewer and fewer hands creating slowing down the circulation of money.

Ok... Let's hear it.
edit on 1/21/2016 by onequestion because: (no reason given)

edit on 1/21/2016 by onequestion because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 08:07 PM
link   
So when aa company loses money for the year are you going to lower the employee wages?



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22


Imagine the service you'd get if the cashier had a stake in the company?

That's their incentive to create and market a quality product.
edit on 1/21/2016 by onequestion because: (no reason given)

edit on 1/21/2016 by onequestion because: (no reason given)

edit on 1/21/2016 by onequestion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 09:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
Ok, I want to check in with some of you and see if I've made a proper assessment on how this system functions, and if I'm right, this is the biggest issue we face economically.

I starts with the idea that you can profit off of someone else's labor while laying them less than the value of the labor they produce.

So company A) Macdonalds IPOs and officers stock options to potential investors. In turn an investor buys X amount of stock from company A. Now the investor has options to make money on this stock. He can collect dividends (profit sharing), or wait and see if the stock increases in value.

So now what happens is the company takes a share of its profits and pay investors a dividend for whatever percentage these dividends are offered at.

So what's happening here the employees are working everyday to produce a profit and in turn that same profit is then payed out to someone who has little to no involvement in the company other than the initial investment. So now the employees are producing a specific value for the company and rather than share that value with more of the economy and the people who actually work to create it they take the money and give it to someone who just has a tonne of money sitting around and gives it to them instead.

This works against the economy by pooling the dollar supply into fewer hands while keeping the actual employees themselves in a state of poverty.

If they made so only the employees could invest into the company and buy options then those employees would actually be working towards their own benefit and the money supply would t Poop upwards into fewer and fewer hands creating slowing down the circulation of money.

Ok... Let's hear it.


First off, businesses don't create jobs just for the hell of it. Jobs are a by product of the company needing a service to be completed. Your assumption that the employees hired to perform that job are paid less than they are worth is flawed. As has been stated time and time again, wages are simply where the supply and demand intersect as far as labor is concerned.

It is nothing new to offer employees shares in the company. Most companies do it all the way down to the lowest paid employee.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion




If they made so only the employees could invest into the company and buy options then those employees would actually be working towards their own benefit and the money supply would t Poop upwards into fewer and fewer hands creating slowing down the circulation of money.


Sounds like you are talking about a worker cooperative

List of worker cooperatives in the USA

Or employee owned companies
List of employee owned companies



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

That is fine and dandy till the "supply" started coming from free trade agreements. Now wages are reflecting the competition with slaves in "developing" countries.

I guess is easier to and more profitable to lower the lifestyle expectations of 1 billion people to the level of the other 6 billion with crappy lifestyes, than it would be the other way around.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 09:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

Your completely wrong.

In order for the employer to profit off the labor of that employee he has to pay him less than the value he actually produces.

I recommend reading more.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: interupt42

Yup. Great model it would benefit all of society greatly.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Investments can make or break a business.

I do believe in employee profit sharing though, if possible.

It's just not always feasible for a company to offer shares to every employee.

BUT, why can't that same employee be smart and buy stocks himself...if the complaint is that others are profiting off of their work, why not profit from it yourself...

Just a thought



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 09:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Chickensalad

Then the answer is simple, the company shouldn't exist.

If the company can't afford to share its profits with its employees then it shouldn't be in business.

Our current system is flawed horrendously



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion


"In order for the employer to profit off the labor of that employee s/he has to pay the employee him less than the value he actually produces the amount agreed upon at the time of hiring."

Fixed.

p.s. If the employee is valuable they will quickly gain more pay and recognition, or another employer will recognize the employee's value and pay them more, or the employee will try their own hand at their own business.
edit on 21-1-2016 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 09:30 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

Start your own business and compete against it then. Otherwise you're just an sunday afternoon armchair CEO.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 09:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Chickensalad

Then the answer is simple, the company shouldn't exist.

If the company can't afford to share its profits with its employees then it shouldn't be in business.

Our current system is flawed horrendously


Wages are a part of that profit.

Your logic on this statement is severely flawed my friend.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 09:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Edumakated

Your completely wrong.

In order for the employer to profit off the labor of that employee he has to pay him less than the value he actually produces.

I recommend reading more.


I suggest you read more. Any employee that is not producing more than they cost is not worth employing. If a company has too much dead weight like that they will quickly find themselves out of business. Sometimes companies will keep employees if they are at least covering their cost, but once their costs exceed their production the business is losing money.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 09:39 PM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA

I don't necessarily disagree. Globalism can be bad. However, unless the American consumer is willing to pay more for goods and services, companies will continue to look for ways to cut costs which includes moving manufacturing, etc overseas.

US consumers talk a good game until they actually have to make a choice with their wallet.

Personally, I don't mind paying more for goods and services from companies that employ Americans and are locally owned businesses. However, the reality is the vast majority of consumers are always looking to save a buck regardless of the long term costs.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Regardless of what you were taught about economic theory, the fact is that if you hire someone and pay them a value equal to that of what they produce then you won't make any money.

It's really simple.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 09:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
a reply to: onequestion

Start your own business and compete against it then. Otherwise you're just an sunday afternoon armchair CEO.


I have stated this time and time again. You get these folks constantly complaining about how evil businesses are and how they don't pay their employees a living wage, the CEO makes too much, etc.

The last time I checked there was nothing stopping these whiny libs from raising capital to start a business in any industry they wish and running the company as they see fit. They can pay all their employees a living wage. Cap the CEOs salary. Lower prices, etc. Yet, you never see any of them putting up capital to exploit this hole in the market place. If it is so easy and profit margins are too high, then by all means I don't see why they don't start their own companies.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

It's not the CEO it's holding stock in the company and Profitting off of doing nothing and all of the actual laborers not seeing a fair return on their labor.

Your perspective is a joke.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 09:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Edumakated

It's not the CEO it's holding stock in the company and Profitting off of doing nothing and all of the actual laborers not seeing a fair return on their labor.

Your perspective is a joke.


Your lack of basic economics is a joke. Seriously, go pick up a copy of Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics and then reassess your opinions on the matter.

What do you consider to be a fair return on labor? Is not an agreed upon wage fair to both employee and employer? No one is forced to work at any company. If you don't think the wages being offered are fair, find another company to work for.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 09:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

You have no idea what your talking about.

Your discussing a currently flawed economic system and basing your theory on that and I'm discussing one of the flaws of that system and how it should work in a world where people get a fair share.

I'm sick of this economy along with the majority of the earths population.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join