heckler73
Well-Known Member
Any black graduate of physics today is technically "smarter" than Newton.
And this one in particular is a hell of a lot smarter than you (and me, for that matter).
What are your thoughts on a basic income?
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
And this one in particular is a hell of a lot smarter than you (and me, for that matter).
They know more, they aren't smarter.
And yup, he is a lot smarter than me. My beliefs do not preclude that the smartest man on the planet might be black, but in the top 1000, blacks will be proportionally under-represented.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i am not interested in discussing your 32% FAIR tax scam on every single product you buy.
no one is.
It's 23%, not 32%. I see you've been reading sources that make shit up, no wonder it comes so naturally to you.
Edit- I know you've read something critical and criticizes the plan because it is true that if you calculate it a certain way it does come up to 32%. the problem with that is it only makes sence if the fair tax were an exclusively calculated tax, but it is an inclusive tax, calculated the same way as our income tax.
Something costs $100. Exclusive tax adds the tax to it at the check out.
In the fair tax, that 100 price is what you are asked to pay at the register.
23% makes that $77.
Under an exclusive tax, if a 77 item is taxed up to 100, that is 32%.
But it's a poor argument because the tax is included (hence inclusive tax) in the price tag.
You've been warned, dont make me make you look like an idiot again.
It's the same process used to assign what percentage we prescribe to our income tax rates.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
see4
Well-Known Member
I would think the best way to stir up business is by tapping the shoe of other men in airport bathroom stalls. But that got popularized by some dimwit Senator, so I'm not sure that works as well anymore. skeche? Does that still work?
see4
Well-Known Member
That man is smarter than most of us on RIU, collectively.
DNAprotection
Well-Known Member
not a hard question at all...
once you give the corpsgov the unwarranted authority over the fundamentals of your everyday life, some would call a 'nanny state' etc then anything goes in terms of suckling from that teat...
to many examples to name, but one of the most glaring examples for me is that we allow unwarranted authority to tell us what plants we can or cannot grow in effort to satisfy our own needs/necessities etc...and then even when we seem displeased with such regulation we choose legislation over litigation to 'make things right' and in effect totally turning our backs on our self evident unalienable naturally inherent rights protected by the 1st and 9th amendments...
so yes we all deserve a 'basic income' in the trade off...seems like sour milk from a sour teat 2me but its what you all seem 2want so who am i to argue
Doer
Well-Known Member
Please. No management, no labor.
The Roman Century, 80 men + management could build a certainly length of palisade wall in a day, and do that every day. But, only with the aid and "comfort" of management. Some division of labor must occur. Some dig, some fell trees, others pack dirt, sharpen posts. etc. Some have to bring food and water. Management is the glue, of necessity.
Management brings trained decision makers and in all history effort begins with management.
Labor is only a useless mob, without direction from leaders.
burgertime2010
Well-Known Member
The inverse would have to be true as well. No labor, nothing to manage. I guess the two are co-dependent.
Doer
Well-Known Member
It is the coin we call group effort, you need both sides of the coin, or you have nothing.
And even the made up class division is a false, Karl Marx slant, to get himself published and maintain his bourgeoisie lifestyle.
burgertime2010
Well-Known Member
Just sellin books? I love it.
I've been busy making money, but we'll call this my holiday indulgence. Too much work, not enough running my mouth.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Effective managers are leaders, not bosses. Laborers with experience make the best managers. The boss needs you, you don't need him.
Doer
Well-Known Member
No. You are just parsing terms as if there is a difference. That is just wong.
When labor strikes, they can kill the business, but the business has choices and plenty need the pay. The strikers need the pay.
The Business cannot pay them with no accountability for the direction and decisions. There has to be management and the management better know leadership formally, not seat of the pants.
My teams go sideways without me. A fact. And they know and appreciate that. And I can get pretty damn bossy, if needs be. And I have successfully defended myself in deposition for being bossy. But, mostly I try to be the bulldozer to clear the obstacles and a cheerleader.
I also need to be a loveable, technical mascot that has to be keep out of trouble.
I keep them and they keep me, out of trouble. That is REAL, not some theory or slogan.
Yet, I am nothing without these teams. Jobless, in fact. And as a Manager I am on similar teams, but with other Managers and VPs are the shot callers, but they get their teaming from the CEO and staff.
Karl Marx rightly noticed an imbalance in his day. But, it got fixed in the USA. Unions came and went. We have no unions in Tech. Plenty of labor. Unions are possibly done in the USA, especially the leach of Public Employee Unions.
When labor quits, only the production stops. Managers fill in, and scabs are brought on. The business does not fail and so labor never was the means of production.
Labor is only a part of production. Finance and sales go on. New inventories and labor forces are created from saved wealth.
Labor cost drive automation. Automation lowers the requirement for base labor, but increased production and so required a better level of labor.
Labor never stood a chance here. It is a false choice. Heads or Tails of the same coin? Senseless.
What support do you have for the proposition that "Laborers with experience make the best managers"? How are you measuring?
Leading isn't the only thing managers do. You can be a poor leader, but still me an effective manager.
I have known plenty of managers that were successful, but who couldn't lead worth a shit. A good manager will find the good natural leader and ally himself with them. Many times the assistant manager is the leader doing the wishes of the manager who is really good at planning and organizing things and who sees the value in delegation of authority.
Often times former laborers get in the ditches and become laborers again, which can garner some amount of respect from current laborers, but its just for show by smart management.
heckler73
Well-Known Member
If I'm not mistaken, I believe he meant labourers have the potential to make the best managers because of the fact they have intimate knowledge of those little details from the bottom-up which a pencil-pusher doesn't think of in their analyses from the top-down. However, it is case dependent; some firms or operations may not even have a labour component, in which case such arguments are irrelevant.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Thanks for pointing out who benefits from society being peopled by the desperate.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
you are right, management does not create wealth, nor does it produce anything by itself.
CAPITAL is wealth, and capital is needed to pay people to build factories, produce goods and move them to their destination before the first sale is made. that is how capital creates the mechanisms by which labour produces the goods which result in More Wealth for the capitalist, and Some Wealth for the labourers
if it turns out that nobody wants what capital hired labour to produce, labour still got paid, but capital is left with a stack of useless products and they have to come up with a new idea, for which they must once again pay labour, even if the next idea flops too.
capitalism is risking some of what you got, on a chance to get more, but without that initial outlay of Capital, labour has no job, and thus no pay.
management doesnt create wealth but thats not their job. they MANAGE. keeping the system working, assigning labour it's tasks, keeping track of what has been done and what needs to be done yet, and yes, ensuring that labour gets paid, which shockingly enough, always happens BEFORE capital gets paid.
the bolsheviks learned to their dismay that the slogans you chant are wrong.
they fired all the managers and put the capitalists against the wall, and then it turns out "The Workers" didnt have the skills that management uses, nor the insight and scheming power that capitalists use to make a society function.
china learned a similar lesson as they endlessly relocated farmers to industrial factory towns and declared them to be factory workers, and took factory workers to the sticks handed them a shovel and told em to "get with the farming".
very few members of "labour" have the skills needed to be a manager, and almost none of them have the skills needed to be capitalists or industrialists.