 |
Sandybestdog
Registered: Jun 2007
Posts: 886 |
01-02-09 08:55 PM
Quote from trendlover:
http://www.flixya.com/post/bbkshop/...ting_a_Free_Car
Sandy, look here. You can get a car for free, or let a company shrink wrap your car for advertising. They pay you money too. So when you deliver your pizza, you will be paid for 2 jobs. Not sure is this a real advertising way or not, but look at all the websites they give you.
Thanks for that. Does anybody have any experience with this? Most of the links were dead or just other portals, but a couple seemed legit. I read the FAQ and it seems that they usually don’t have steady advertising programs. Also I got the impressions that they only accept newer cars, which I certainly don’t have. Otherwise it seems like a great idea.
|
| |
|
Edit/Delete • Quote • Complain |
Sandybestdog
Registered: Jun 2007
Posts: 886 |
01-02-09 09:00 PM
Quote from trendlover:
Sandy, then there will always be people at the bottom who make less, even with your system.
That’s right. I’m not about equal pay, just equal opportunity. Obviously the system is not perfect and never will be. Just like in any other company there will be people who do more than their fair share and others that won’t. But ask yourself, which system would you rather be apart of?
|
| |
|
Edit/Delete • Quote • Complain |
marketsurfer
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5444 |
01-02-09 09:02 PM
Quote from Sandybestdog:
Hey jaska$$ you contridicted yourself. First you say my ideas are Communist and then you say my idea of reinvesting profits is the stock market. I don't think Communism has a stock market. Which one is it? I don’t think Communism rewards you directly by how well your individual business has done. And in Communism the STATE owns all production, NOT the workers. Do you sit there and listen to Sean Hannity all day or something? You sound very ignorant.
Let me get this straight. The current system works like this. The company hires employees to do a job and pays them just enough so they won’t quit, and the employees works a job just enough so they don’t get fired. Incentive is absent. Efficiency is almost non existent. The customer doesn’t receive the experience that they should. I propose a different system whereby the employees have a direct impact in the profits and losses of the company and share it accordingly. Obviously a new hire in high school is not going to receive the same bonus check as the General Manager who has been there a couple of years. Then when it’s time to build and expand the business, instead of getting an investor to put up the money who simply cares about his return on investment, the employees would instead become partners in the expansion. You think system 1 is better than number 2? Can I get some feedback from everybody else, I don’t understand this.
You are right, smart work pays off not necessarily hard work. So I want to exploit the weaknesses of other businesses. Very few low wage jobs offer any sort of bonus or advancement opportunities. Yet there is great money making opportunities in these areas.
BTW if I’m ever able to do anything like this and ever have a large business, we will never go public. The stock market is the worst thing for a business. All the investors care about is money. They don’t care if the employees get screwed over so they can get a dividend. They don’t care how the business makes money, they just want results and will dump you as soon as you don’t live up to their expectations. That’s how it goes I guess, but I won’t be apart of it. The profit that’s split won’t be company wide, it will be on a per store basis.
funny! I felt bad for you at first, but no longer.
no contradictions here.
Please don't argue economics or anything with me, unless you know what you are talking about. You have no clue of what you speak and that is likely why you have not advanced. Here is a brief overview of the marxist/communist ideal, it fits your beliefs perfectly. any questions?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production
Marxist analysis of ownership of MoP within capitalism
The analysis of people's relationships with the means of production is one element that stands at the basis of Marxism. Marxists argue that those means of production participate in the process of exploiting labor for surplus value.[1] To the question of why classes exist in human societies in the first place, Karl Marx offered an historical explanation that it was the cultural practice of Ownership of the Means of Production that gives rise to them. This explanation differs dramatically from other explanations based on "differences in ability" between individuals or on religious or political affiliations giving rise to castes. This explanation is consistent with the bulk of Marxist theory in which Politics and Religion are seen as mere outgrowths (superstructures) of the basic underlying economic reality of a people. To remain consistent with these principles, an explanation as to why classes exist in a society must derive from causes that are essentially economic in nature, and appeal to the alleged underlying reality of material production.
There are two subtle but important points to the Ownership of the Means of Production. The first being that owning the Means of Production is not the same thing as owning physical property, nor is it equal to owning money. Rather OMP refers to a cultural practice in which a few individuals within a larger corporation (or company) control and decide what is done with the entire profit created by that corporation. If one were to define the word "Corporation" as a particular kind of "group of people" then to later say that a few select individuals "own the corporation" then, by substitution, one must be saying that those select individuals own the group of people. In any case, this apparent paradox only arises when one confuses the owning of property with the owning of a corporation. When keeping these two kinds of ownership separate, the paradox of "owning people" evaporates.
The conclusion ultimately reached is that while the "owners" of a corporation only contribute a tiny fraction of the total labor and time in creating profit, they have complete control over that profit and how it is used. The practice of OMP in human societies is then a type of game where some people are labeled owners (Marx used the term, Bourgeoisie) and other people are labeled workers (Marx used the term, Proletariat). The bourgeoisie have complete control over both how the proletariat are paid in wages and complete control over how the profit from production is used, thus giving rise to a class division.
Contrarian interpretations of this practice might state that wages paid to workers are subsumed under the regular costs of maintaining business. However, Marx considered it a reification to treat labor as just another "factor" in production; it implied an inversion of means and ends, so that people were effectively used as things.
Marx's terms are often employed in economic analysis by socialists who advocate public ownership of some or all of the means of production. The affinity between labor movement causes and this advocacy is very strong - and often shared by social democrats, socialists, communists and greens. Marx's analysis in particular helped to make clear the key differences between capital and "labor".
Marxists define economic systems in terms of how the means of production are used, and which social class controls them. Thus, in capitalism, the means of production are controlled by the bourgeoisie, (the "capitalists" - the owners of capital). In the pure ideal of socialism, such as that "communism" was/is supposed to be, the MoP are controlled by the workers production collectives directly. In fact this situation has only been historically realized temporarily such as in the Israeli kibbutz or the early Soviets before the entrenchment of the communist party as a "New Class", or in isolated or preliminary form such as in the final phase of the Second Spanish Republic, or various experimental utopian communities.
|
| |
|
Edit/Delete • Quote • Complain |
MrktObserver4u
Registered: Nov 2006
Posts: 172 |
01-02-09 09:19 PM
Quote from gnome:
That's convoluted!
How about save your money, build up some capital and learn to invest.
Then you can spend the earnings on your capital over and over again... not to mention the capital necessary to sustain your life when you no longer have an income from employment.
There is no such thing as investing. Only speculation.
|
| |
|
Edit/Delete • Quote • Complain |
Sandybestdog
Registered: Jun 2007
Posts: 886 |
01-03-09 05:51 PM
Quote from karol88:
You make some very good points, and there's money to be made in the DC region and plenty of immigrants willing to work for half of the minimum wage. This makes things much more difficult for honest businesses to compete with the greedy ones.
Maybe its going to be easier to understand if you look at it from the employer point of view: he makes the pizza, he pays all the bills, he pays for the products, the ads, etc....and gives you $5 an hour weather he sells one or 10 pizzas an hour. If he only sells one pizza in that 1 hour: he is taking a cut on his part, he's giving away the potential profit to you. If he sells many pizzas during one hour, you're also making money because you'll get more tips. So from his point of view it's a win-win situation. That $2 delivery charge pays for the $5 he pays you, which is a rip off, but the employer figures that if there are very little or no sales he can still guarantee you the $5 an hour. ( You mentioned earlier that they make you work during off time, that's bad, and if they do, you should be getting paid the same per hour as the other employees that work at the shop).
Also, most business don't make ANY profits during the first 3 years (I think that's the standard, correct me if I'm wrong), and even if they finally start making money, they are not too eager to give it away in good salaries and bonuses...simply because they remember the difficult times and know that the good times will not last forever, not to mention that most are in debt. They would have no choice if there was no unemployment, and no immigrants willing to work for less....and this is not the case.
You have some great aspirations and ideas, but I think it's difficult to judge the situation if you have never been in the position of a business owner. It's not as easy as you think. as a business owner you will come to the realization that 90% of all businesses and people that work for them are there only to make money, and not there to improve the world. This will be the people you're dealing with, and it will make you sick! Once we realize it, it's much easier to become bitter and selfish just like them...it's a vicious cycle....unfortunately 
I wish you all the best, and hope you can start a profitable business one day, survive the competition while you rewarding and treating your employees right 
You make some very good points. Very well thought out unlike many others around here who just make blanket statements. I think it just all comes down to supply and demand. There are so many people out there that need jobs, they can pay however much they want and treat people how they want because there is always someone else at the door willing to do it for less. The turnover at these place is very high. There are many risks to starting a business and they should be rewarded when the business succeeds. But I think you’re right most owners and employees just care about themselves and not improving anything. Employers hire people who work just enough to not get fired and pay them just enough so they won’t quit.
I have started several very small businesses and know the challeges they face. A few years ago I had a small store in the mall that didn’t work out at all. Even something like that required a lot of capital. I am very aware of the costs in doing business.
BTW the delivery charge is a scam. The price of delivery is already included in the pizza. It used to be that a pizza cost $10 and the customer paid $10 and they driver kept 86 cents for mileage (that’s what I get, it varies). Now, the pizza costs $10 plus a $2 delivery charge. The customer pays $12 and the driver keeps 86 cents. You see the scam? They are charging for delivery and not giving it to the one that incurrs the cost of delivery. They keep it for themselves. Of course the charge is not stated anywhere on the menu or advertisements, and naturally customers think I get it and tip less. On top of that when the states raised the minimum wage, instead increasing the pay, they just decreased the drivers pay $1 to pay for the instore people who they needed to pay more, and then made the driver claim their tips to get them above the minimum wage. So minimum wage goes up and pay goes down. That’s messed up. And they are still required to do other things in the store like cook and clean and answer phones for that $4.50 an hour. Anyways I’ve had enough of it and will start looking for a new job next week. It’s not worth it anymore. I’m not here to complain to get sympathy, I’m trying to point out some reasons why people don’t save.
|
| |
|
Edit/Delete • Quote • Complain |
Sandybestdog
Registered: Jun 2007
Posts: 886 |
01-03-09 05:58 PM
Quote from marketsurfer:
funny! I felt bad for you at first, but no longer.
no contradictions here.
Quote from marketsurfer:
funny!!
these ideas are nothing new
they are directly from the marx and lenin playbook.
it's called communism when the workers own the means of production. communism failed.
Quote from marketsurfer:
ps. that system you mention, where employees can reinvest their bonus checks is old news, it's called the STOCK MARKET.
That’s not a contridiction? Oh well.
Quote from marketsurfer:
Please don't argue economics or anything with me, unless you know what you are talking about. You have no clue of what you speak and that is likely why you have not advanced. Here is a brief overview of the marxist/communist ideal, it fits your beliefs perfectly. any questions?
You say I don’t know what I’m talking about, but haven’t actually pointed to anything I’ve said and contridicted it. You just called my ideas Communist. The very premis of Communism is that it discourages incentive and those that produce more are forced to give to those that produce less. Is this what I am proposing? What I propose is giving people incentive to perform better and increase efficiency. Your idea of the status quo discourages incentive. Don’t blame me the next time you go to a fast food joint and they messed up your order because they are only getting $7 an hour and don’t care about anything.
That’s ok if you want to critisize my ideas. The college professor of the ceo of FedEx told him his idea would never work and gave him an F. Who’s laughing now? He saw an opportunity and so do I.
Quote from marketsurfer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production
Marxists define economic systems in terms of how the means of production are used, and which social class controls them. Thus, in capitalism, the means of production are controlled by the bourgeoisie, (the "capitalists" - the owners of capital). In the pure ideal of socialism, such as that "communism" was/is supposed to be, the MoP are controlled by the workers production collectives directly. In fact this situation has only been historically realized temporarily such as in the Israeli kibbutz or the early Soviets before the entrenchment of the communist party as a "New Class", or in isolated or preliminary form such as in the final phase of the Second Spanish Republic, or various experimental utopian communities. [/B]
I disagree with the wording of this. The premise of Communism is not that the workers controlled the means of production, but that the government does. The government is not the people. In Communism the government fundamentally own all of the wealth and decide how it will be redistributed while meanwhile taking a large cut for themselves. In my system the workers will in essence have a direct ownership interest in the success or failure of their work and the business as a whole. Plus those that are lazy will be kicked out The incentive is there so how can it be Communist? Please try to answer points directly this time instead of making broad statements that are untrue.
|
| |
|
Edit/Delete • Quote • Complain |
| Receive
an email whenever a new post is added to this thread by subscribing
to it. |
|
|
|
|
