NationStates Jolt Archive

How to build a stronger capitalist nation.

Do away with the minimum hourly wage currently in place and replace it with a mandate the states "All corprations must divide at least 33.3% of it's gross profits amongst it's employees according to (time + review points +positional points) or per part manufactured or job done (correctly) (eg. If company makes $100 a part or job, the employee gets $33.33)

Why will this work?

1. The employees will care more about how the company is doing finacially.The more productive and customer friendly they will become, because it will be reflected in their wallets. Don't you think that guy at McDonald's would be more likely to try to get the orders right, or the girl behind the checkout counter would be faster and friendlier if they thought that bringing customers back would mean more cash at the end of the week. If they know that the more orders they take and the more burgers they make the more the buisiness makes and the more they make. Alot (ok....most) people making a low hourly wage is more likely to try to dodge work and not care if things are done right or not. Less customers = Less work!!!

2. It brings the people to a higher level of caring about how their government regulates buisiness laws that affects profits of the corprations.The people will vote for something that will make their pockets deeper. (eg. Do you think the insurance rates would be as out of control if the workers paychecks would have shrank year after year of the hikes? Most corps. just kept absorbing the costs year after year. For the most part, the people as a whole didn't see it or didn't care.)

3.This approach would get more done with less people. More would be willing to make 15 bicycles a day instead of 10 if it meant more $$$, and the peer pressure on the lay-abouts would be greater. They would make sure that the lazy ones and the screw-ups would be well known to the management. Also they would want less people to be hired on because of the bigger split.

Ah no... Not again...

Ah no... Not again...
what do you mean "not again!" ....lol

what do you mean "not again!" ....lol
Seriously dude, powerful government types has been done to death. Then resurrected. Then mowed down by an MG42. Then reassembled Frankenstein style. Then burned down by an angry mob. Then reconstituted by tiny nanpomachines. Then deconstructed by tiny nanomachines etc.

Time to pick this to pieces.

The percentage you chose is abhorently low. It should be around 90% to reflect current wages. Profit margins are much smaller than you think them to be. In the UK a supermarket called Tescos takes, £1 out of every £8 spent in the economy. Which gave it revenues of £33.6bn (1E9), but it had profits of £1.6bn. A profit margin of about 5%. If we crudely consider that Tesco's expenditures are a 50-50 split between wages and purchasing costs (products are sold at retail are _generally_ sold at twice that of the wholesale price. This leaves the rest to be spent on wages, advertising and other less significant expenditures). This means that Tescos spends roughly £16bn on wages. Under your system they would only spend £6bn. Economy go kaput as no one have any money to spend on things.

1) Your system would make people more productive or friendly to customers, but it would eliminate team spirit. I can imagine workers sabotaging each others work so that they are seen as more productive and propotionally get a higher wage.

2) I beg to differ about corparations absorbing taxes, on the whole they tend to pass them on in the form of higher pirces. Besides profits aren't the exclusively most important thing. Ideas such as sustainability and welfare, education and blue sky scientific research are many things corparations tend to ignore in the pursuit of short-term profit. For instance, the EU common fisheries policy is what stops fishermen from fishing their livelyhoods out of existance.

3) Improved effiency means less jobs. Less jobs mean higher unemployment which can be used to supress wages by playing workers off against each other. Lower wages mean less to be spent in the economy which means prices are affected both by increased supply and reduced demand. Economy goes kaput. Which is why service industries are so important. They soak up labour shed by agriculture and manufacturing. But there has to be an educated workforce, which capitalism tends to avoid, to work in this sector.

(socialism may have been overdone, but free-market capitalism is what drove people to socialism in the first place. So perhaps it's best not to just go straight back to free-market capitalism)

And finally after all that - Do we live to work or work to live? In my eyes there is more to life than work, profits and consumption. Even the founding fathers or Neo-classical economics and marginalism agree me... or I agree with them... whichever.

What makes you think that workers' pay comes from profits?

Your scheme will ruin investments. Why would anyone invest when the returns are stolen by the government? Following on from the investment problem will come a lack on innovation.

The workers will simply leave the country. Bad government, especially stupid economic policies, will drive emigration.

For instance, the EU common fisheries policy is what stops fishermen from fishing their livelyhoods out of existance.

Actually, it only makes them try to hide their catch. The only ones who won't overfish are those not smart enough to do it. Exclusive ownership of fishing rights to a territory is what would stop overfishing, no one craps on his own doorstep, but if it a common area, they will crap all over the place.

3) Improved effiency means less jobs.

Were that the case, almost no one would have a job now, as compared with 100 years ago. Improved efficiency simply means more production. You should read Hazlitt (Google "Economics In One Lesson" leaving the quotation marks in, there will be a pdf with the book).

(socialism may have been overdone, but free-market capitalism is what drove people to socialism in the first place. So perhaps it's best not to just go straight back to free-market capitalism)

No it wasn't. It is simply the second oldest political con: "Give up your liberty, and you will have security"

How to build a stronger capitalist nation.

Do away with the minimum hourly wage currently in place ...
If you had stopped right here, you would have been fine.

Exclusive ownership of fishing rights to a territory is what would stop overfishing, no one craps on his own doorstep, but if it a common area, they will crap all over the place.
Except when they try to fish in their neighbour's territory of course. And then there's the question of how to allocate the rights to certain blocs of sea in the first place.

You should read Hazlitt (Google "Economics In One Lesson" leaving the quotation marks in, there will be a pdf with the book).
What is it with you and that guy? Have you ever even bothered to read a non-free market economist?
What about Amartya Sen, or Joseph Stiglitz?

And why are you "Number 3" now?

If you had stopped right here, you would have been fine.

No. A basic minimum wage is essential to our economy and to decent civilization.

No. A basic minimum wage is essential to our economy and to decent civilization.

Well it posses problems when say China won't we do and they have products 1/10th our price.

I hate to see someone in America/Britian make minimum wage but I mean its sad if the person lacks any skills that would make him worthwhile to better positions.

And why are you "Number 3" now?

The previous Number 3 met with an "accident".

Well it posses problems when say China won't we do and they have products 1/10th our price.

I hate to see someone in America/Britian make minimum wage but I mean its sad if the person lacks any skills that would make him worthwhile to better positions.

We shouldn't engage in a race to the bottom wage with other nations, particularly not the third world. We will lose the race and the economic battlefield.

Why will this work?

1. The employees will care more about how the company is doing finacially.The more productive and customer friendly they will become, because it will be reflected in their wallets. Don't you think that guy at McDonald's would be more likely to try to get the orders right, or the girl behind the checkout counter would be faster and friendlier if they thought that bringing customers back would mean more cash at the end of the week. If they know that the more orders they take and the more burgers they make the more the buisiness makes and the more they make. Alot (ok....most) people making a low hourly wage is more likely to try to dodge work and not care if things are done right or not. Less customers = Less work!!!


and yet waiters that earn little and rely on tips in the US do not seem to work harder or act more civil to clients. they just exepct an automatic tip. (IME)

I just saw my regulerly used nick used used here.

I love the Hierophant tarot card.

Hierophant is even part of my Email addresses.

I am recognised as a Hierphant by the Spiritual Huminism church.

I just wanted to say hi to a fellow Hierophant.

No. A basic minimum wage is essential to our economy and to decent civilization.
Depends on what problem you want a minimum wage to solve. I, and many others, consider it to be an impediment to entry-level employment.

What makes you think that workers' pay comes from profits? Uh? I pretty sure I didn't say that... Oblige me and expand on your point, please.Your scheme will ruin investments. Why would anyone invest when the returns are stolen by the government? Following on from the investment problem will come a lack on innovation.Well investment still happens and investment returns are currently being taxed. Care to explain the difference between gross profits/interest and net profits/interest for me? The workers will simply leave the country. Bad government, especially stupid economic policies, will drive emigration.I do believe the EU has a lot of what you would call 'stupid economic policies', like the working time directive, but the EU has a net immigration rate according to the CIA. Places like France and Germany have net immigration rates, whereas the new accession countries, which have laxer economic laws, have net emmigration rates.Actually, it only makes them try to hide their catch. The only ones who won't overfish are those not smart enough to do it. Exclusive ownership of fishing rights to a territory is what would stop overfishing, no one craps on his own doorstep, but if it a common area, they will crap all over the place.So it works in theory, but not in practice? I do believe the same can be said for capitalism. Whilst we in the 1st world have become richer its seems to have come at the expense of the third world. Where is this magical hand distributing benefits to all? Oh, right, yes... Smith was actually very pessimistic about capitalism and its ability to improve society. Perhaps it's time we had a look at mercantalism and its theory that profit comes at an expense of another.Were that the case, almost no one would have a job now, as compared with 100 years ago. Improved efficiency simply means more production. You should read Hazlitt (Google "Economics In One Lesson" leaving the quotation marks in, there will be a pdf with the book).It's completely true. Compare Feudal England to modern day UK. Today we have less than 2% of the workforce producing 60% of Britain's food needs. Whereas, in the feudal society you would have been lucky to have 2% of the workforce not working the land. What is experienced is job transfer, from: Agarian; to Industrial; to Service-based. Now what happens when we get higher amounts of automation in the? Will there always be more space in the services industry to accomodate these extra workers?

Now I really must question just how much you've read around the subject of economics. You do realise that most economic modeling is founded on pages of assumptions. Change just one and the model collapses. Are we, as humans, really that predictable? Is economics justified in calling itself a science?
No it wasn't. It is simply the second oldest political con: "Give up your liberty, and you will have security"So you adovocate a society at complete liberty, like stateless, anarchic, society? Whoops, sorry, I forget there's no such thing as society is there. :P
Now answer me this, 'Is the state legitimate?'.

Well investment still happens and investment returns are currently being taxed. Care to explain the difference between gross profits/interest and net profits/interest for me?

As a previous poster said, margins are very small. Returns on investment are even smaller, some profits get ploughed back into the business, for expansion, or research etc. So, a very small amount gets returned, under your system, one third of it gets stolen by the government. Why would they invest, when return are cut even more.

I do believe the EU has a lot of what you would call 'stupid economic policies', like the working time directive, but the EU has a net immigration rate according to the CIA. Places like France and Germany have net immigration rates

They also have cradle-to-grave welfare, and that is what brings the immigrants, largely from the Middle East and Africa, who enter, and remain unemployed.

whereas the new accession countries, which have laxer economic laws, have net emmigration rates.

They have more liberal laws, but have not developed the market to support them, so they seek other markets.

Whilst we in the 1st world have become richer its seems to have come at the expense of the third world.

Wrong. Western ventures in the third world have costed, not profitted.

Perhaps it's time we had a look at mercantalism and its theory that profit comes at an expense of another.

Except that it simply doesn't work that way. People trade because they believe they will benefit from it.