Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12

# Owner/Worker relation

 Posts: 25,980 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/12/2011 10:47:10 AMPosted: 6 years agoWe have Chris, the capital owner, and Steve, the skilled laborer.Chris has the assets (whether it be equipment, or the capital to purchase equipment) to do a job, but he himself has no idea how to use it (lacks the skill). So with the equipment, but no skill, lets say his marginal value is \$10/hr (just an arbitrary number).Steve has the labor skills, but not all the nice fancy equipment, so that is a big limit on him. So with the skill, but no equipment, lets say his marginal value is \$10/hr aswell.But let's say the two get together and work together, putting Chris' equipment with Steve's skill. This allows them to have a marginal value together of \$50/hr (which is \$30/hr greater than if they worked independently). Let's say, for the sake of argument, they pick the middle, they each get \$25/hr.They can agree to some middle ground so that they both benefit. This is in the manner that free trade is idea. Everyone clearly benefits, there are no evil motives and no real issues. Hooray!But this only works if there is balance. Let's say there are 100 Chris' and 100 Steves. They can pair up just fine, every one benefits, balance is maintained. But let's say that 1 more Steve comes into the picture (so there are not 101 Steves). That 1 extra Steve does not have a partner, so is stuck at \$10/hr. Obviously, he would prefer to make more, so he can go to 1 Chris, and under another Steve to accept only \$24/hour (\$1/hr less). This then forces that other Steve into the \$10/hr level, and so he'll go and under cut another Steve, and the cycle will continue untill all 100 Steves are down to \$10.01/hour and 1 Steve is at \$10/hr (the one without a partner).A simple imbalance of a single Steve, throws the entire situation off to the extreme. Of course, the same is true the other way. A single extra Chris, throws the Chris' pay to the other extreme (so that the owners are making so much less).Because the balance is so easily thrown to one extreme or the other (rather than a system that naturally finds balances), the Chris' and Steve's will naturally form a conflict, rather than a cooperation with each other.It would be benefitial for the 101 Steves to get together and pay 2 of them to not use the equipment (form a union). This will push the ratio in their favor, and thus cause their wages to skyrocket (up to \$39.40/hr each, including the two not working with equipment, math can be shown if anyone needs it).Then the Chris's will likely do the same (since it would be benefitial to them) and form a trust, when some of them refuse to offer there capital (to shift the ratio back into their favor).This will continue to go back and forth until we are back at the beginning of everyone working independently.So what gives?"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
 Posts: 19,299 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/12/2011 11:32:20 AMPosted: 6 years agoReal Chrisses don't hire just one worker.The frictional costs of the supposedly rational behavior are high.New competitors enter the labor market every day, such costs will never be solved.The gap might not be that large between Chris's offered salary and Iblis the Chris of another industry.1 cent/hour is no incentive to submit to the annoyance of having an employer.No matter what, we know that actual wages don't work out that way from experience, so it doesn't really matter why. ^_^.It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
 Posts: 25,980 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/12/2011 12:27:24 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 5/12/2011 11:32:20 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:Real Chrisses don't hire just one worker.If their equipment only accomodates 1 worker they do. But lets say their equipment accomodates 100 workers. All that does is shift where that balance point is. It doesn't change that the system is designed to fall out of balance, rather than into balance.The frictional costs of the supposedly rational behavior are high.New competitors enter the labor market every day, such costs will never be solved.The gap might not be that large between Chris's offered salary and Iblis the Chris of another industry.1 cent/hour is no incentive to submit to the annoyance of having an employer.Whatever that "annoyance" is, is really minimal (and really depends on the employer, obviously the Chris's can just give the equipment, leave, and pick up their share of the check at the end of the week, so there is no real annoyance). Let's say that the "annoyance" is not \$0.01/hr, but \$2/hr, then the extreme that gets pushed to is \$12/hr, rather than \$10.01/hr.You still have the issue where the Steve's form a union to pay people to not work because it is more benefitial to them.No matter what, we know that actual wages don't work out that way from experience, so it doesn't really matter why. ^_^.The point was more to express why there is a natural conflict between employer and employee, rather than a natural co-operation. Which I think if farely apparent when looking at that relationship in the real world."Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
 Posts: 19,299 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/12/2011 12:31:41 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 5/12/2011 12:27:24 PM, OreEle wrote:You still have the issue where the Steve's form a union to pay people to not work because it is more benefitial to them.That would merely encourage an increase in the supply of Steves.No matter what, we know that actual wages don't work out that way from experience, so it doesn't really matter why. ^_^.The point was more to express why there is a natural conflict between employer and employee, rather than a natural co-operation.No, a conflict would be bullets, not a 12 dollar wage.It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
 Posts: 25,980 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/12/2011 12:37:27 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 5/12/2011 12:31:41 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:At 5/12/2011 12:27:24 PM, OreEle wrote:You still have the issue where the Steve's form a union to pay people to not work because it is more benefitial to them.That would merely encourage an increase in the supply of Steves.Creating people is kinda hard and time consuming. And likely is not benefitial (given the cost to raise a child).No matter what, we know that actual wages don't work out that way from experience, so it doesn't really matter why. ^_^.The point was more to express why there is a natural conflict between employer and employee, rather than a natural co-operation.No, a conflict would be bullets, not a 12 dollar wage.That's happened in work places before."Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
 Posts: 7,254 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/12/2011 1:31:57 PMPosted: 6 years agosounds to me like supply and demandMe -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it. kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host! Me -haha you apparently don't know my history Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant! Me - i was being completely sarcastic Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos
 Posts: 25,980 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/12/2011 1:38:38 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 5/12/2011 1:31:57 PM, askbob wrote:sounds to me like supply and demandNot really. Supply and Demand says that things will naturally fall towards an equilibrium, while this shows that things fall away from the equilibrium.The entire problem is driven by one main factor, the object of obtaining maximum \$."Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
 Posts: 19,299 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/12/2011 2:11:18 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 5/12/2011 12:37:27 PM, OreEle wrote:At 5/12/2011 12:31:41 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:At 5/12/2011 12:27:24 PM, OreEle wrote:You still have the issue where the Steve's form a union to pay people to not work because it is more benefitial to them.That would merely encourage an increase in the supply of Steves.Creating people is kinda hard and time consuming. And likely is not benefitial (given the cost to raise a child)You don't get Steves by giving birth. Steve is apparently some sort of skilled manufacturing worker. You get more Steves by offering incentives for some of the millions of spare people already born anyway to acquire Steveish skills. One such incentive is the opportunity to be paid not to work by some dumb shortsighted union.That's happened in work places before.Just about anything has happened somewhere on some small scale. But it doesn't have anything to do with your argument.It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
 Posts: 25,980 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/12/2011 2:39:53 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 5/12/2011 2:11:18 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:At 5/12/2011 12:37:27 PM, OreEle wrote:At 5/12/2011 12:31:41 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:At 5/12/2011 12:27:24 PM, OreEle wrote:You still have the issue where the Steve's form a union to pay people to not work because it is more benefitial to them.That would merely encourage an increase in the supply of Steves.Creating people is kinda hard and time consuming. And likely is not benefitial (given the cost to raise a child)You don't get Steves by giving birth. Steve is apparently some sort of skilled manufacturing worker. You get more Steves by offering incentives for some of the millions of spare people already born anyway to acquire Steveish skills. One such incentive is the opportunity to be paid not to work by some dumb shortsighted union.You still have a limited population. And even then, adding more Steves does not do anything to the situation. It is still inclined to fall out of balance, rather than into a balance.Of course, the fact that more Steves can be "made" also goes that more Chris's can be "made".That's happened in work places before.Just about anything has happened somewhere on some small scale. But it doesn't have anything to do with your argument.It was a joke, regarding that you equated conflict with bullets, while certainly bullets (implying deadly violence) are a form of conflict, not all conflict involves bullets."Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
 Posts: 2,736 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/12/2011 2:55:04 PMPosted: 6 years agoHur hur arbitrage hur hurStep 1: Predict profit opportunities, such as "exploited" workersStep 2: Take advantage of said profit opportunitiesStep 3: ???Step 4: ProfitThings that are so interesting: http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org...
 Posts: 19,299 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/12/2011 3:14:39 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 5/12/2011 2:39:53 PM, OreEle wrote:At 5/12/2011 2:11:18 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:At 5/12/2011 12:37:27 PM, OreEle wrote:At 5/12/2011 12:31:41 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:At 5/12/2011 12:27:24 PM, OreEle wrote:You still have the issue where the Steve's form a union to pay people to not work because it is more benefitial to them.That would merely encourage an increase in the supply of Steves.Creating people is kinda hard and time consuming. And likely is not benefitial (given the cost to raise a child)You don't get Steves by giving birth. Steve is apparently some sort of skilled manufacturing worker. You get more Steves by offering incentives for some of the millions of spare people already born anyway to acquire Steveish skills. One such incentive is the opportunity to be paid not to work by some dumb shortsighted union.You still have a limited population.Lol I don't think that's a major limiting factor in the real world.And even then, adding more Steves does not do anything to the situation.It wrecks the union's wallet.Of course, the fact that more Steves can be "made" also goes that more Chris's can be "made".What's your point homes? Where's the incentive and what's the consequence? *grins evilly*That's happened in work places before.Just about anything has happened somewhere on some small scale. But it doesn't have anything to do with your argument.It was a joke, regarding that you equated conflict with bullets, while certainly bullets (implying deadly violence) are a form of conflict, not all conflict involves bullets.Gief mutally agreeable example of conflict.It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
 Posts: 11,204 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/12/2011 6:50:47 PMPosted: 6 years agoThe worker can always you know get a loan and buy the assests himself. Or save money.Open borders debate: http://www.debate.org...