No. I was just pointing out that a lot of that $82 or whatever dollars actually goes toward expenses. I mean quite a lot.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No. I was just pointing out that a lot of that $82 or whatever dollars actually goes toward expenses. I mean quite a lot.So are you claiming that only owners of businesses add value? I have saved my company literally millions of dollars, do I not add value since I don't own the building I work in?
No one claimed otherwise. But the question is did he earn the money he made?
If you win at PowerBall did you earn it? If you win at a poker game did you earn it. At every other type of gambling the term used is "won". But for some reason those who gamble in the finance sector "earn" their money.Did people give him the money voluntarily of their own free will?
Did he participate in a market process where the rules are well known?
If you win at PowerBall did you earn it? If you win at a poker game did you earn it. At every other type of gambling the term used is "won". But for some reason those who gamble in the finance sector "earn" their money.
What does that have to do with anything? The skilled poker player is more apt to win, but it's still called his winnings.
No one claimed that he is no entitled to it.He is still entitled to them. People played the game knowing the rules-- he earned it.
No one claimed that he is no entitled to it.
By your increasingly loose definition of "earn" lottery winners earned their money.
@ the people calling me out for not including buns etc. I included that when I said minus upkeep, because I cannot accurately predict that number. In addition, I know that one person does not make all the burgers, which is why I only gave 20 burgers as an example. Clearly a fast foot restaurant turns out more than 20 burgers an hour, so I picked a reasonable number for one person to contribute. If anything, the division of labor means they should have higher wages.
None of you have tried to demonstrate that the wealthy have earned they're share. It's one thing to say he deserves 2 million because he supplies a job, but can you back that up? If one guy overlooks 10 McDonalds, why is he inherently adding magnitudes more value than the combined income of 10 individual family owned restaurants? You can't just argue that it's because it's a bigger company either, because it prevents other new restaurants from sprouting up. The larger a pool is, the more you can adapt to changes in the market. Rather than nitpicking my numbers, why don't you argue against the intent?
Right. The voluntary exchange of value for value is the key here. If umaro opens up umaroburger next door to Mcdonalds and pays its employees $10 per hour with benefits, he has created a competetion for empolyees that Mcdonalds will have to match or risk losing many of the employees it has. There is a big IF however. Umaroburger has to put forth a product that rivals Mcdonalds in quality and price. If the CEO falis to do so and goes out of business, what has really been accomplished? The CEO has risked everything and the employees nothing. That is why he has earned his pay, whatever it is.No one has to demonstrate anything. If an employee who makes 20 burgers feels they should be entitled to more than they can negotiate their value-for-value with their risk-taking employer, or they can go out into the market and take a risk by selling burgers for other than guaranteed ROI. To the extent that their product is valued, they will be able to exchange that value for other value.
'Value' is determined by us, living in freedom. When you buy a burger you are handing over value-for-value. If you pay 40 dollars for that burger, then that burger was worth 40 dollars to you. There are no emperors of value who determine how much a burger is worth, at least as long as we live in a free country.
When you go to your employer and say, "I will stick burgers in a bag for 7.50 an hour," that is value-for-value. If an employee and employer have both reached an agreement, then they have reached an agreement, and that is as good as it gets. By definition, it is perfect. Each has agreed to exchange value for value. If an employee agrees without believing that he is receiving value for value, then he is the fool. If an employer agrees without believing that he is receiving value for value, then he is also the fool. In fact, in exchanges for value for value, it is entirely possible(and I'd say the normal case) that both parties believe they are receiving at least value for value or even higher(ie, win-win), and that defines 'value.'
Well, when I'm declared emperor, or you're declared emperor or the citizens of Bangladesh are declared emperors, whoever is declared emperor, 'the' emperor will point his gun at us plain free citizens and declare for us all what 'the' OneSizeFitsAll National Uber-alles Price "should be" for sticking burgers in a bag. Until then, I'll live in Freedom, and decide what is worth what.
God save us from these puddingheads and their penguin armed grasp on reality.
No one has to demonstrate anything. If an employee who makes 20 burgers feels they should be entitled to more than they can negotiate their value-for-value with their risk-taking employer, or they can go out into the market and take a risk by selling burgers for other than guaranteed ROI. To the extent that their product is valued, they will be able to exchange that value for other value.
'Value' is determined by us, living in freedom. When you buy a burger you are handing over value-for-value. If you pay 40 dollars for that burger, then that burger was worth 40 dollars to you. There are no emperors of value who determine how much a burger is worth, at least as long as we live in a free country.
When you go to your employer and say, "I will stick burgers in a bag for 7.50 an hour," that is value-for-value. If an employee and employer have both reached an agreement, then they have reached an agreement, and that is as good as it gets. By definition, it is perfect. Each has agreed to exchange value for value. If an employee agrees without believing that he is receiving value for value, then he is the fool. If an employer agrees without believing that he is receiving value for value, then he is also the fool. In fact, in exchanges for value for value, it is entirely possible(and I'd say the normal case) that both parties believe they are receiving at least value for value or even higher(ie, win-win), and that defines 'value.'
Well, when I'm declared emperor, or you're declared emperor or the citizens of Bangladesh are declared emperors, whoever is declared emperor, 'the' emperor will point his gun at us plain free citizens and declare for us all what 'the' OneSizeFitsAll National Uber-alles Price "should be" for sticking burgers in a bag. Until then, I'll live in Freedom, and decide what is worth what.
God save us from these puddingheads and their penguin armed grasp on reality.
I guess if you loosen the definitions of words enough you can say whatever you want and be truthful.They did-- they took on an enormous risk and got really, really lucky. Doesn't mitigate the fact that they risk their $1 entrance fee.
I guess if you loosen the definitions of words enough you can say whatever you want and be truthful.
I guess if you loosen the definitions of words enough you can say whatever you want and be truthful.
And you can count on the Libertarian crowd defining things in the way that benefits the rich the most.
I've seen some left-leaning Libertarians I can deal with, but the Ayn Rand crowd are plutocrats, plain and simple.
Well, you have just demonstrated in that one sentence a greater understanding of Ayn Rand than TheNewWorldMan has demonstrated in dozens of posts. He attacks her because he doesnt know what else to lash out at. Even he gets tired of his constant assault on the evil rich.From what little I've read of Ayn Rand-- she is more laissez fare. Value for value.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?