On Mar 31, 9:54 pm, Coffee's For Closers <USENET2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> In article <fsovna$qv...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> ar...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
>
> > > forbisga...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> > >> I disagree about Capitalist begin greed-driven.
> > >> I don't see getting a return on capital as greed-driven.
> > >> If some laborer wants to use my capital without compensating
> > >> me then that laborer is greedy. I've worked hard for what
> > >> I have and I've done my best to make sure my transactions
> > >> are fair for all parties (to my own detriment). Damn the
> > >> greedy people who see the results of my hard work and call
> > >> me greedy.
> > (K): Working hard and getting compensated for the work IS NOT the
> > definition of 'capitalism'. That's called LABOUR and its greatest
> > proponents are average working people and labour unions.
>
> > Would you please give us all an example of a "laborer wanting to use
your
> > capital without compensating YOU".
>
> The technical, academic term is, "Goofing Off." Expecting to
> receive an honest day's pay WITHOUT contributing an honest day's
> work.
>
> I have actually met people who believe that that is the function
> of an hourly wage. Particularily a legal minimum wage. To
> "guarantee" that s/he will receive a certain amount of money
> (based on need), even if s/he negligently fails or WILLFULLY
> refuses to contribute a commensurate dollar value of work
> results.
>
> Their attitude is that, a job is about getting paid do time, NOT
> to do work. And that, they were entitled to a livable income,
> solely to show up and be physically present in a place they
> didn't like being.
>
> Some actually got hostile towards me for my willingness to work
> on straight commission or piecework type structures. They
> claimed that it was immoral for an employee's paycheque to be
> based on his/her productivity. And that I was immoral for being
> such an employee.
>
> Or worse, some claimed that, it is physically impossible for a
> person to accomplish even minimum wage worth of work. And that,
> survival required having an employer magically subsidise them, by
> paying more than the actual value of their labour.
>
> Of course, a lot of that hostility was really about how "unfair"
> it is when some people are able to earn more than others, by
> having a better attitude and work ethic. And how "unfair" it is
> when some people can succeed (or even just survive) on commission
> or piecework, while others "can't" handle it.
>
> > It's almost always the other way around..... capitalists/employers
> > exploiting the labourer and not wanting to compensate him/her with
decent
> > wages.
>
> Nobody has any god-given entitlement to "decent wages." In
> grown-up Reality, workers tend to get market rate wages, based
> upon supply and demand. Someone with a bad attitude and poor
> work ethic, is going to be penalised. Including on a more basic
> level than wage amount. Because there isn't any god-given
> entitlement to be employed at all. Especially when failing or
> refusing to contribute appropriately to an employer.
>
> --
> Earn Money With Your Web Sitehttp://www.WebSponsorZone.Net
> Web Site Advertising Directory
you have just defined why third world countries have such strong
stable economies that are the envy of the world.
|
