3 ms·

It's not stealing or immoral. When you were hired, you agreed to terms that were favorable to you. This usually includes forfeiting some of the profit you creat

It's not stealing or immoral. When you were hired, you agreed to terms that were favorable to you. This usually includes forfeiting some of the profit you create.

prolikewh0a 8y ago
>you agreed to terms that were favorable to you. This is out of touch with reality. A lot of people don't have a choice. >This usually includes forfeiting some of the profit you create. Why isn't it going back to the people who made the profit in the first place? That seems very immoral.
- chii 8y ago
  > Why isn't it going back to the people who made the profit in the first place? The boss does deserved share, since he/she took a risk in spending on equipment or other costs (including your wages). The question is not whether it's moral or not, but how much is taken. I think everyone agrees is immoral to take 100% (slavery), but it's also wrong to take 0%. I say democracy has been good in the past in deciding. Why not use it for this determination of fairness?
  - prolikewh0a 8y ago
    >The boss does deserved share, since he/she took a risk in spending on equipment or other costs (including your wages). The workers still create the profit. Surplus value after the equipment & supplies needed are paid for is under most circumstances never seen by the people who actually created the profit, the workers. The boss, the owner, deserves to be paid maybe at a higher rate than others, sure depending on your views (socialists would argue against this and advocate for democracy in the workplace with Co-Ops), but to take most or all of the profit when you didn't create it? That's quite immoral.
  - nahnahnah3 8y ago
    Capitalism is not a democracy. By your very logic, it is voluntary authority and thus unfree participation. > Why not use it for this determination of fairness? Plenty of reasons. For right now, let's just pretend we can ignore the historical bloody origin of capitalism and state, resulting in the forced removal of the occupants, stealing the original inhabitants land, property, people and inherited birthright, renting it back to them in the form of tribute, gold or money. A racket. Simply, capitalism must rely on supply and demand to determine cost and price. However, there is no way to measure value, especially of a product. How much does a sunset cost? Or a nice dinner with friends and family? Or celebrating events? Or a quiet afternoon nap, how much does that all cost? Or how much are you willing to pay the capitalist who is able to monopolize the very air you breathe? Thus you have infinitely valuable bread, which guarantees human life, that will never be eaten because it costs more than what can be afforded. Extrapolate this, include a bit of competitive sprinkles and you will soon have an economic, social and political ticking time bomb.

It's not stealing or immoral. When you were hired, you agreed to terms that were favorable to you. This usually includes forfeiting some of the profit you create.

prolikewh0a 8y ago

>you agreed to terms that were favorable to you. This is out of touch with reality. A lot of people don't have a choice. >This usually includes forfeiting some of the profit you create. Why isn't it going back to the people who made the profit in the first place? That seems very immoral.

chii 8y ago
> Why isn't it going back to the people who made the profit in the first place? The boss does deserved share, since he/she took a risk in spending on equipment or other costs (including your wages). The question is not whether it's moral or not, but how much is taken. I think everyone agrees is immoral to take 100% (slavery), but it's also wrong to take 0%. I say democracy has been good in the past in deciding. Why not use it for this determination of fairness?
- prolikewh0a 8y ago
  >The boss does deserved share, since he/she took a risk in spending on equipment or other costs (including your wages). The workers still create the profit. Surplus value after the equipment & supplies needed are paid for is under most circumstances never seen by the people who actually created the profit, the workers. The boss, the owner, deserves to be paid maybe at a higher rate than others, sure depending on your views (socialists would argue against this and advocate for democracy in the workplace with Co-Ops), but to take most or all of the profit when you didn't create it? That's quite immoral.
- nahnahnah3 8y ago
  Capitalism is not a democracy. By your very logic, it is voluntary authority and thus unfree participation. > Why not use it for this determination of fairness? Plenty of reasons. For right now, let's just pretend we can ignore the historical bloody origin of capitalism and state, resulting in the forced removal of the occupants, stealing the original inhabitants land, property, people and inherited birthright, renting it back to them in the form of tribute, gold or money. A racket. Simply, capitalism must rely on supply and demand to determine cost and price. However, there is no way to measure value, especially of a product. How much does a sunset cost? Or a nice dinner with friends and family? Or celebrating events? Or a quiet afternoon nap, how much does that all cost? Or how much are you willing to pay the capitalist who is able to monopolize the very air you breathe? Thus you have infinitely valuable bread, which guarantees human life, that will never be eaten because it costs more than what can be afforded. Extrapolate this, include a bit of competitive sprinkles and you will soon have an economic, social and political ticking time bomb.