The future of the Forex industry - page 11
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
There is individual labour and there is collective labour. But with collective labour you can steal some of the individual labour from each participant unnoticed.
Why convince us of the honesty of capitalist labor? Labor for everyone? Yyyy.
So what's unfair?
The participants agreed to work, the worker works and the owner of the company pays him a salary as agreed, and the worker may leave at any time to go to another plant
and it's a bad form to humiliate.
There is individual labour and there is collective labour. But with collective labour you can steal some of the individual labour from each participant unnoticed.
Why convince us of the honesty of capitalist labor? Labor for everyone? Yep.
In general, no offense, but your reasoning resembles the following situation:
A cleaner comes to work at a high-tech company and complains that her salary is low while the others are high.
Collective effort! - She says: "The company earns a lot, so give me a raise!
But what right does she have to claim a high-tech product? (but what right does she have to claim a high-tech product?)
her only role is to scrub the floor
that's why the salary is so high
so what
it's like the Marshall Plan has become a mantra that supposedly explains everything.
but the fact of the matter is the economic recovery from the hole in the ground
no matter what the plan was or who was involved
Japandismantled the Zaibatsu, the feudal-militaristic clan-corporations, demonopolisation, free trade, land reform, liberal labour laws, tax reform. Are you suggesting that all these measures could not have influenced the economic breakthrough? Then what is the reason in your opinion? Because without a reason a hair will not fall off your head :-)
In general, no offence, but your reasoning is reminiscent of the following situation:
A cleaner comes to work at a high-tech company and complains that her salary is low while others' is high.
Collective effort! - She says: "The company earns a lot, so give me a raise!
But what right does she have to claim a high-tech product? (but what right does she have to claim a high-tech product?)
her only role is to scrub the floor
that's why the salary is so low
Don't try to put me at the level of a cleaning lady.
Eh. There are cool ones. With high salaries))))))
Japandismantled the Zaibatsu, the feudal-militaristic clan-corporations, demonopolisation, free trade, land reform, liberal labour laws, and tax reform. Are you suggesting that all these measures could not have influenced the economic breakthrough? Then what is the reason in your opinion? Because without a reason a hair on your head won't fall off.)
Zaibatsu was a brake and they were right to start the reforms (even if some people think they just mutated into keiretsu).
the reasons are known: reforms, prohibition of cartels + favorable tax environment + accessible credit over lending + fanatical striving for technology and encouragement of quality improvement + a very mega good political climate (no business pressure) + tremendous hard work, adequate social policy and the Korean war helped as well 😁
no subsidies for the unprofitable = inefficient must die
promotion of exports of everything possible - it became profitable to max out and sell
antitrust requirements were relaxed after SCAP went out of control and then the era of corporations started which also helped them (domestic integration)
that is, if you create a favorable environment where it is profitable for people to work, then they work and earn
Russian economist Leontiev should not be forgotten, his model of intersectoral balances was very useful for the Japanese
but who says it is excessive? please, think about this phrase - what is excessive? who defines the degree of excessiveness? is wealth above a certain value something bad? but isn't the pursuit of happiness and wealth something natural and inherent in man? okay, let's not talk about golden toilets - that's bad taste - but aren't human needs infinite? - the subject is always going to demand more and more pleasures and benefits, both tangible and intangible (which are even more expensive!)
And why should the salary of an ordinary salaried employee be comparable to that of a manager/owner/partner?
It is not correct, because there is unemployment and the salary is not just a matter of the owner's discretion, it should be obvious, if I set the salary of an accountant at the same level as the cashier in Pyatiyochka, who would come to me? - No one - so I can't set the salary arbitrarily, otherwise I'll have to do everything myself...
The problem of the low wage earners is their own problem, not that the evil capitalist decided so... and why should they get paid more? - let them develop and become more unique - then they can demand higher wages
Why 10? What is the basis for that number?
No, robbery is when there is a forced weaning or coercion to an unprofitable deal, here they themselves have agreed to this level of PZ, what kind of robbery?
Hint: It's really all about people comparing themselves to others and they are just jealous that someone gets a lot more, that's all.
I consider wealth excessive if accumulated funds are dozens of times greater than the ability to spend them, guided by the principle of reasonable sufficiency.
I don't believe that all rank-and-file employees and cleaners should have the same salary. Certainly professionals should have higher salaries. I just don't agree with the huge gap between the average salary of employees and company owners. And ten times is my purely personal and, of course, subjective opinion. But in my opinion such a wage gap would be fair.
I think the low wages in Russia and the big difference in average wages between employees on the one hand and the main managers and owners of the company on the other hand is also connected to the fact that companies have no trade unions or no unions at all. And even if there are trade unions, they are toothless and their leaders are being encouraged by the owners or managers of the companies.
Don't try to put me on the level of a cleaner.
Eh. There are cool ones. With high salaries))))))
you just have to realise that the more successful and valuable are rewarded more and that's okay.
Wealth is excessive if the funds accumulated are tens of times greater than the ability to spend them, based on the principle of reasonable sufficiency.
That doesn't happen in practice, does it?
one day you want one thing and the next day you want a lot more and it's always like that.
I don't think that all employees and cleaning staff should have the same salary. Of course, it should be higher for specialists. I just don't agree with the huge gap between the average salary of employees and company owners. And ten times is my purely personal and, of course, subjective opinion. But I think such a wage gap would be fair.
And why shouldn't the owner be paid more than ten times as much? (or any other number)
what is the reason?
I think the low wages in Russia and the large wage gap between employees on the one hand and the main managers and owners of the company on the other hand is due to the fact that trade unions do not operate in companies or do not exist at all. Even if there are trade unions, they are toothless and their leaders are well-fed by the owners or managers.
This is the case with trade unions, and with any unions in Russia in general, and everything is extremely fragmented and depressive, and people are passive.
zaibatsu was a brake and they were right to start these reforms (although some believe that they have essentially just mutated into keiretsu).
and the reasons are known: reforms, prohibition of cartels + favourable tax environment + affordable credit over lending + fanatical pursuit of technology and all kinds of encouragement of quality improvement + a very mega good political climate (no business pressure) + tremendous hard work, adequate social policy and the Korean war helped as well 😁
no subsidies for the unprofitable = inefficient must die
promotion of exports of everything possible - it became profitable to max out and sell
antitrust requirements were relaxed after SCAP went out of control and then the era of corporations started which also helped them (domestic integration)
that is, if you create a favorable environment where it is profitable for people to work, then they work and earn
Russian economist Leontiev is also worth remembering: his model of balance sheets is very useful for the Japanese.
It is profitable to work only where there is work.
I lost all respect for you after your last post.
You think I misunderstood you.
transcendreamer:
and why shouldn't the owner be paid more than 10 times as much? (or any other number)
What is the reason?
One person can't bring more than 10 times as much value to a company as the average employee brings in. I just don't think it's realistic.