The future of the Forex industry - page 52
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
I see, you're a non-partisan socialist, juggling inaccurate terms (sometimes even confusing income and profit), unable to define the criteria for a fair exchange, but only wanting someone richer to pay for your life without giving a decent adequate contribution to the business of the Factory in return.
That's the whole point of socialists: they always want everything for free, hiding behind ideas of supposedly fairness.
But in fact you yourself understand that life puts everything in its place, and if your income is low, then really you are to blame for this, and it does not depend on what flags are fashionable to wave now.
You keep getting personal. For the second time I remind you that I am talking about the average level of wages and the correlation of that level with the salary of an entrepreneur. Let's say everyone in the factory makes an adequate contribution. So what? They still do not have the opportunity to receive adequate wages under the current system, because the lion's share is taken by the owner of the enterprise. So don't keep repeating the same thing, saying that the employee must make an adequate and decent contribution.
Actually, this is a far-fetched example. In real life, if there is such a big difference in efficiency, the second factory would go bankrupt in a heartbeat if the entrepreneur failed to convert production to a different product.
Of course this is a speculative example, but what is important is the principle itself, in which you are now trying to slip away using any excuse.
Well, with the proposed wage system, bankruptcy will happen even faster, as low wages will cause an exodus of labour to those companies where wages are more acceptable.
The factories pay the same wages, there are no other factories here, where will they go?
I wrote that the entrepreneur, because he invested in the plant, has a good equity stake and receives dividends. I do not understand why you read my messages in a row?
Then why are you trying to appeal to net profits to raise wages?
Well since 100% of the company is owned by its sole owner, all the net profit is his, have you recognised that now?
It's about wage ratios. If the average employee's salary is 10 times less than the entrepreneur's it counts, the employees are living?
What difference does it make how much an entrepreneur gets paid?
They get a normal factory wage.
If I make 10 times what you make, does that make you feel bad? (apparently so...)
And if an entrepreneur gets 1000 times the average salary of an employee then he is not living. Here's a prime example of capitalist Drimmer's prejudice.)))
It makes absolutely no difference how many times the owner's profit is greater than the employee's salary.
Get used to counting other people's money!
You keep getting into personalities. This is the second time I have reminded you that I am talking about the average wage and the ratio of that level to the entrepreneur's wage.
OK, let's talk about the average wage... Why do you think the average wage should have any effect on the owner's profits?
Let's say everyone in the factory makes an adequate contribution. So what? They do not have the opportunity to receive adequate wages under the current system, because the lion's share is taken by the owner of the company. So do not say the same thing over and over again that an employee must make an adequate and decent contribution.
They already have an adequate salary set by the market, some companies pay above the market average on purpose, you see, a person always wants more and more.
The owner has the absolute right to take the lion's share or even all of the net profit! - It already belongs to him - that is what you do not understand.
The contribution of the employees is incommensurably small compared to that of the entrepreneur, who invested his own money in setting up the company, took risks with it, devised the product/service, found solutions with contractors, rebuilt the business by trial and error, and much more.
Then a socialist (Mr. Khorosh) comes and says: this entrepreneur is living too fat, let's cut his net profit, I want to live well!
😆
... If your income is low, it is really your own fault, and it has nothing to do with what flags are waving these days.
In the eighties I worked at the OKB IKI (Space Research Institute). I participated in projects on creation of astronomical X-ray telescopes. So, some employees of the Design Bureau were involved in joint projects with the French and were interested in their salaries. At that time I received 250 p + bonus <=30%. And a Frenchman of about the same skill level was getting $5000. On the other hand I was well-respected at the Design Bureau and was one of the best schematic designers, so I was given the task of developing more complicated blocks. I was awarded a copyright for one of my circuit designs and the Design Bureau paid a measly $200 for it.
Can you now think whether I was to blame for the fact that I was paid so low wages compared to the Frenchman? At present the situation has improved somewhat, but it has not changed fundamentally.
In the eighties I worked at the OKB of IKI (Space Research Institute). I took part in projects to build astronomical X-ray telescopes. So, some of the design bureau employees were involved in joint projects with the French and were interested in their salaries. At that time I received 250 p + bonus <=30%. And a Frenchman of about the same skill level was getting $5000. On the other hand I was well-respected at the Design Bureau and was one of the best schematic designers, so I was given the task of developing more complicated blocks. I was awarded a copyright for one of my circuit designs and the Design Bureau paid a measly $200 for it.
Can you now think whether I was to blame for the fact that I was paid so low wages compared to the Frenchman? The situation has improved somewhat nowadays, but it has not changed fundamentally.
I am sorry.
You were just talking about your own experience but:
Theoretically you could have used your circuit design and copyright to create your own unique product or service.
So you are complaining about the shortcomings of socialism...
In the eighties I worked in the OKB of IKI (Space Research Institute). I took part in projects to build astronomical X-ray telescopes. So, some of the design bureau employees were involved in joint projects with the French and were interested in their salaries. At that time I received 250 p + bonus <=30%. And a Frenchman of about the same skill level was getting $5000. On the other hand I was well-respected at the Design Bureau and was one of the best schematic designers, so I was given the task of developing more complicated blocks. I was awarded a copyright for one of my circuit designs and the Design Bureau paid a measly $200 for it.
Can you now think whether I was to blame for the fact that I was paid so low wages compared to the Frenchman? Nowadays the situation has improved somewhat, but it has not changed at all.
Of course I am!
Of course this is a speculative example, but what is important is the principle itself, in which you are now trying to slip away using any excuse.
The factories pay the same wages, there are no other factories here, where will they escape to?
And then why are you trying to appeal to the net profit to increase wages?
Well, since 100% of the company is owned by its sole owner, the entire net profit is his, now have you admitted that?
What difference does it make how much the entrepreneur gets paid?
They get a normal factory salary.
If I get 10 times more than you, does that make you feel bad? (I guess so...)
It does not make any difference how many times the owner's profit is greater than the employee's salary.
Stop counting other people's money!
Even now it is not the same (compare the average salary in Moscow and in some backwater town, where there is one factory. I am describing a hypothetical situation that would arise if my proposals are legally framed. And you are transferring everything to the existing situation. So why would you refer to an existing situation when arguing? It sounds like mockery or mockery.
You don't have to mention net profits at all. Simply divide the amount of money that an entrepreneur spends on personal consumption (not including stock dividends) by 10 and you have the average wage of his employees.
Ну и поскольку 100% предприятия принадлежит его единственному владельцу, то вся чистая прибыль его, теперь-то Вы это признали?Again you are referring to the current situation. If it is the way it is now, it doesn't mean that it can't or can't be changed.
Are you a god to make such an unquestioning statement? From the capitalist's point of view all workers are idlers and freeloaders and get paid for nothing. You better ask them whether their wages are normal or not.
Абсолютно нет никакой разницы, во сколько раз прибыль владельца больше ЗП работника. Отучайтесь считать чужие деньги!Your position is known to me. If you are not using hired labor then everything you have earned is yours and no one will count your money. But if you are using hired labor then you need to count it so that the workers will receive a fair wage for their labor.
In a thief's gang, if someone is a thief, he gets a fink in the rib. I tolerate a moderate amount of thieving on the part of the entrepreneur, but 1,000 times is too much, for which he may one day, as in 17, be hoisted up by the workers on a pitchfork).
Of course I am!
Yeah, it's my fault for making you hungry).
Even now it is unequal (compare the average salary in Moscow and in some Mukhosransk, where there is one factory. I am describing a hypothetical situation that would arise if my proposals will be legislated. And you are transferring everything to the existing situation. So why would you refer to an existing situation when arguing? Sounds like sneering or mocking.
Again you are trying to get away with it, the details are unimportant, the principle is important, but even if you are talking about Mukhosransk, who is to blame that the residents of Mukhosransk are unable to pull themselves together and move to a better place, so let them suffer, no one will solve their problems for them.
You could leave out the net profit altogether. Simply divide the amount of money that the entrepreneur allocates for personal consumption (not including stock dividends) by 10 and you get the average wage of his employees.
The entrepreneur's personal consumption comes from his own net profit, and the employees have nothing to do with it, they don't need to look at other people's money.