4 ms·

Sorry dude, that's how economies work. Investors agree to buy shares in exchange for the right to sell those shares later. Employees agree to work in exchange f

Sorry dude, that's how economies work. Investors agree to buy shares in exchange for the right to sell those shares later. Employees agree to work in exchange for a salary; if they can find a larger salary elsewhere, they're free to pursue it. If employees want to buy some part of a company, they can do that as well (assuming they can persuade someone with shares to sell them) and then they'll earn (or lose) RoI just like other investors.

maxxxxx 8y ago
"Sorry dude, that's how economies work." There is no natural law that says things have to be that way. The economy is man made and when you look a different countries you'll see that there is a lot variation. There is no natural reason that for example investment income should be taxed lower than employment income. You could come up with a law that requires a certain share of the company's profits to be distributed to employees instead everything going to shareholders. There are lot of things that can be tweaked. In general I object to the idea that people who have a lot of money (earned or inherited) create more value than the people working for them. Both sides play a role in this economy and deserve to be respected as value creator.
- weberc2 8y ago
  > In general I object to the idea that people who have a lot of money (earned or inherited) create more value than the people working for them. Both sides play a role in this economy and deserve to be respected as value creator. Right. Efficient economies do reward people according to the value they create. I'm pushing you toward one of the following arguments: 1. Returns on investment are artificially high (relative to wages) because of an inefficiency in the economy 2. We should introduce inefficiency in the economy in order to keep RoIs artificially low (relative to wages) If (1), then please describe the inefficiencies (you mentioned one possibility--taxes on investment income). If (2), what good could come of this?
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    I don't think inefficiency is the right word. How do you determine efficiency of an economy? One person's efficiency may be the other person's loss. It's more about value judgements. Things that should be reevaluated in my view: * The primacy of shareholders. Workers should be recognized as stakeholders in a company * Preferential tax treatment of investment income * Inheritance tax * Health care * Retirement options In general I would like to see the balance of power shifted back a little towards workers.
    - weberc2 8y ago
      The issue isn't whether or not we want good things for working class people; it's how to make things better without devestating the economy. It turns out that if you do things like forcibly dilute shares for each new worker, it has ramifications which may actually exacerbate poverty. The trick is show how your proposal will succeed without disastrous consequences. :)
ionised 8y ago
> Sorry dude, that's how economies work. No, it's how this economy works. There is natural law saying we have to do it this way.

maxxxxx 8y ago

"Sorry dude, that's how economies work." There is no natural law that says things have to be that way. The economy is man made and when you look a different countries you'll see that there is a lot variation. There is no natural reason that for example investment income should be taxed lower than employment income. You could come up with a law that requires a certain share of the company's profits to be distributed to employees instead everything going to shareholders. There are lot of things that can be tweaked. In general I object to the idea that people who have a lot of money (earned or inherited) create more value than the people working for them. Both sides play a role in this economy and deserve to be respected as value creator.

weberc2 8y ago
> In general I object to the idea that people who have a lot of money (earned or inherited) create more value than the people working for them. Both sides play a role in this economy and deserve to be respected as value creator. Right. Efficient economies do reward people according to the value they create. I'm pushing you toward one of the following arguments: 1. Returns on investment are artificially high (relative to wages) because of an inefficiency in the economy 2. We should introduce inefficiency in the economy in order to keep RoIs artificially low (relative to wages) If (1), then please describe the inefficiencies (you mentioned one possibility--taxes on investment income). If (2), what good could come of this?
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  I don't think inefficiency is the right word. How do you determine efficiency of an economy? One person's efficiency may be the other person's loss. It's more about value judgements. Things that should be reevaluated in my view: * The primacy of shareholders. Workers should be recognized as stakeholders in a company * Preferential tax treatment of investment income * Inheritance tax * Health care * Retirement options In general I would like to see the balance of power shifted back a little towards workers.
  - weberc2 8y ago
    The issue isn't whether or not we want good things for working class people; it's how to make things better without devestating the economy. It turns out that if you do things like forcibly dilute shares for each new worker, it has ramifications which may actually exacerbate poverty. The trick is show how your proposal will succeed without disastrous consequences. :)

ionised 8y ago

> Sorry dude, that's how economies work. No, it's how this economy works. There is natural law saying we have to do it this way.