(http://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/images/cartoon01.gif)
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/images/cartoon01.gif
Love it
I think that is missing a few important pieces. Building O&M, supply chain management, training, benefits, etc.
So let's take our cartoon as the basis to analyze your claims acme. The gentleman in the suit puts forward $105 on training and benefits for those doing the work. In 3 days, subtracting the $15 a day (in wages), and adding the $35 the workers have produced, they have paid back the initial $105 invested in his training and benefits. On day 4, the cartoon remains true. Inset anything else you like, an office, a camera to monitor the workers, tools and equipment, even a large bank loan, etc. So long as the business is profitable, at some point the surplus produced will be larger than the initial capital invested, and the 'punch line' of the cartoon remains sound.
Quote from: acme54321 on August 29, 2013, 01:02:53 PM
I think that is missing a few important pieces. Building O&M, supply chain management, training, benefits, etc.
Not to mention property and business taxes to pay for things like bike lanes, parks, street cars, and assorted other goodies.
Okay, so now let's say the man in the suit has invested $140 into the business, since we must take into consideration his investment into government programs (although that's not really how things work), on day 5, the cartoon remains true.
Of course in reality what's going on is that - to stay true to the cartoon - the man in the suit has $50 at the end of the workday, at his disposal. $5 goes to the taxes you referred to, $30 to himself and maintaining his investments, and $15 to the workers. So by the end of day 1, the workers have paid for the bike lanes and taxes.
Taxes paid in the initial investment are replaced, if the business is profitable, after X amount of days. And taxes on profits are payable specifically because of the $35 surplus in the cartoon.
I guess the cartoon doesn't cover the fact that the employee making the products had asked for a raise and was told the company couldn't afford it. He thought about making the products on his own, but was afraid to carry the entire burden of owning a business on his own. So then the employee making the products really started working faster and began, not only meeting his quota, but also making enough so that he could take $75 worth of product home daily and selling them at a deep discount on a reputable online auctioning site. Thus making approximately $45 daily on his side job.
The owner, unsure of why his inventory is out of control, sales are stagnant yet the shop seems to be working at full capacity hires an inventory control manager to solve the issues.
It doesn't take long before the ICM and the worker are in cahoots, cooking books and both are now making twice what the owner is and slowly putting him out of business.
Creditors are calling, sales are abysmal and the company turns belly up. Now all three are unemployed.
Who's going to end up on their feet first and why?
The cartoon covers the general operations of capitalistic production, whereas your contrived story covers something extremely particular and fastidious. The story also didn't consider what would happen if King Arthur and his Knights stormed Human Resources. Nevertheless, even in your story, if the particular employee earns $45, instead of $15, then the man in the suit earns $105, instead of $35. And the cartoon yet again remains true.
What's the point again? That business owners aren't supposed to make money? That his motivational skills are lacking? or WTF is the tall skinny dude walking around asking questions?
Ooohhhh!!!! Shiny....
So in the cartoon what's stopping the worker from going out and producing this product on his own?
Quote from: acme54321 on August 29, 2013, 01:27:37 PM
So in the cartoon what's stopping the worker from going out and producing this product on his own?
Start up capital most likely. A Mfg business is not cheap to get of the ground.
Quote from: stephendare on August 29, 2013, 01:24:29 PM
or who paid for the roads, the rails or the ports?
or any of that public infrastructure.
The public in general pays for the infrastructure, which includes docking $ out of the $35 and $15. That too is entirely congruent with the cartoon, and was already explained above. We can list all the taxes you like, the explanation is still sufficient.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 29, 2013, 01:27:10 PM
What's the point again? That business owners aren't supposed to make money? That his motivational skills are lacking? or WTF is the tall skinny dude walking around asking questions?
Ooohhhh!!!! Shiny....
If you struggle to understand the point of a generalized cartoon, I don't think a longer and more detailed elaboration will be to your benefit at this time.
Quote from: stephendare on August 29, 2013, 01:29:41 PM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 29, 2013, 01:27:10 PM
What's the point again? That business owners aren't supposed to make money? That his motivational skills are lacking? or WTF is the tall skinny dude walking around asking questions?
Ooohhhh!!!! Shiny....
where do you het the idea that he isnt supposed to make any morey at all?
Not at all. Is there a min/max that an owner's supposed to make?
Quote from: acme54321 on August 29, 2013, 01:27:37 PM
So in the cartoon what's stopping the worker from going out and producing this product on his own?
The privatized means of production are generally owned by a few. In a feudal society, the answer to your question would be not much. In a capitalist society, if the workers try to take over the productive operation...well we all know which side the cops will be on.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 29, 2013, 01:31:58 PM
Quote from: stephendare on August 29, 2013, 01:29:41 PM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 29, 2013, 01:27:10 PM
What's the point again? That business owners aren't supposed to make money? That his motivational skills are lacking? or WTF is the tall skinny dude walking around asking questions?
Ooohhhh!!!! Shiny....
where do you het the idea that he isnt supposed to make any morey at all?
Not at all. Is there a min/max that an owner's supposed to make?
The more pertinent question is, why after his capitalist investment has been paid, is he still the owner?
Quote from: Uncle Marx on August 29, 2013, 01:32:28 PM
Quote from: acme54321 on August 29, 2013, 01:27:37 PM
So in the cartoon what's stopping the worker from going out and producing this product on his own?
The privatized means of production are generally owned by a few.
So you're saying that the employee can or can't produce the products on his own?
QuoteIn a feudal society, the answer to your question would be not much. In a capitalist society, if the workers try to take over the productive operation...well we all know which side the cops will be on.
Take over? Like storming the factory? Sure.
What if they (the employees) were to get together, form a co-op, purchase a lot and building and machinery next door and then produce the same product only to sell it at a lower price? Sounds like competition to me. The cops don't need to be involved.
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 29, 2013, 01:29:26 PM
Quote from: acme54321 on August 29, 2013, 01:27:37 PM
So in the cartoon what's stopping the worker from going out and producing this product on his own?
Start up capital most likely. A Mfg business is not cheap to get of the ground.
Cheshire is also right! Not to mention if the worker starts up the business again using 'start up capital' and reproduces the whole process, we again get the cartoon. Just this time the former worker is the man in the suit.
Quote from: Uncle Marx on August 29, 2013, 01:33:37 PM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 29, 2013, 01:31:58 PM
Quote from: stephendare on August 29, 2013, 01:29:41 PM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 29, 2013, 01:27:10 PM
What's the point again? That business owners aren't supposed to make money? That his motivational skills are lacking? or WTF is the tall skinny dude walking around asking questions?
Ooohhhh!!!! Shiny....
where do you het the idea that he isnt supposed to make any morey at all?
Not at all. Is there a min/max that an owner's supposed to make?
The more pertinent question is, why after his capitalist investment has been paid, is he still the owner?
Because he can make $35/day to tell people to work faster.
Non-Redneck, I'm new to the forum, so I won't quote you, since I'm afraid I'll butcher the layout.
Question 1:So you're saying that the employee can or can't produce the products on his own?
Except for a basic one sided relationship with nature (e.g., crafting a bow from a tree, alone), production of goods and services is almost always a social process. Almost nothing we consume, and produce, is done alone. Even if I were to try to build a shack on my own, it's doubtful I also made the hammer, nails, wood, etc., or that the idea of a shack came to me without some form of education, upbringing, etc.
Question 2: General experience is that the competitor is the one that can afford to momentarily lower the price because they are operating with a large surplus and have a larger credit line to the bank. Their interest is thus to put the co-op out of business as quickly as possible. But in general, if that competition were not to exist, I would say nothing is stopping them, and the cartoon no longer makes sense in that context.
Quote
Because he can make $35/day to tell people to work faster.
Or they could make $50 a day without his harassment. One seems prima facie superior.
Or even $40 a day, and enjoy a longer lunch, vacation, and a democratically negotiated working contract.
After all, real democracy is the road to socialism.
So do tell.... What's the point of this little story?
Quote from: Uncle Marx on August 29, 2013, 01:31:09 PM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 29, 2013, 01:27:10 PM
What's the point again? That business owners aren't supposed to make money? That his motivational skills are lacking? or WTF is the tall skinny dude walking around asking questions?
Ooohhhh!!!! Shiny....
If you struggle to understand the point of a generalized cartoon, I don't think a longer and more detailed elaboration will be to your benefit at this time.
I want to thank you Uncle Marx... for pointing out the beuty of the political cartoon. The cartoonists ablity to in a simple yet complex manner to provoke thought. From precolonial times through the present it remains an american masterpiece. We have quite a collection... 8)
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,2625.0.html
I'm off to work and class comrades. I hope to continue this discussion in the future!
I thought you had done away with class, Tovarich.....
Quote from: Uncle Marx on August 29, 2013, 01:42:45 PM
Quote
Because he can make $35/day to tell people to work faster.
Or they could make $50 a day without his harassment. One seems prima facie superior.
Yes. But you're making too many assumptions.
First, they can't make $50/day immediately, because there seems to be that little bit about starting capital that they'll have to invest or borrow, but either way, they will have to pay out before making the full profit. By the time they do become profitable, there's always the chance that competitions moves in next door and drastically changes the original dynamic.
QuoteOr even $40 a day, and enjoy a longer lunch, vacation, and a democratically negotiated working contract.
Now you're just BSisg with life-work balance that doesn't take into account any outside parameters. The cartoon doesn't explore this at all and is only assuming our personal value of monies. Maybe the worker, at $15/day, is living in the lap of luxury and doesn't need or want for any more.
QuoteAfter all, real democracy is the road to socialism.
Only if that's what the majority wants.
BTW, highlight what you want to quote and then click on the 'quote bubble' above the sad face.
Response 1.
The same assumptions apply to the cartoon, of course there is start up capital in both cases. Nevertheless I agree with you that in a capitalistic market, co-ops will always be facing stronger and already developed competition that has every interest in ensuring they don't succeed. Obviously the cartoon says nothing about this, and we are having a discussion outside the bounds of said cartoon.
Response 2.
I'm not BSing, I'm addressing issues outside the cartoon, which seems to be your interest. In general, the standard of living in the US is quite poor. In general global analysis, when juxtaposed to other major industrial countries, US workers have the least vacation, lowest rates of pay, poorer schooling, less access to healthcare.
I think if workers had a more democratic say in what was going on in the workplace, some of these would definitely be aleviated.
Response 3.
US citizens love democracy, for the most part.
I'm a labor guy but this is ridiculous. I own a business first of all few times in history has the bottom line (Profit) been 70% or the startup costs not taken years and a fair amount of risk to pay back and likely takes multiple investment cycles before a true ROI is reached. You can support labor having good conditions and fair pay without trying to spin that the Capitalist is the beneficiary of a one way relationship.
And if you look at it from the cartoons point of the owner is doing the heavy lifting as actually selling the products is the most important step in business. If you can sell there is something out there to sell but just be able to produce products even if they are useful does not involve taking in money.
Quote from: JeffreyS on August 29, 2013, 03:57:01 PM
And if you look at it from the cartoons point of the owner is doing the heavy lifting as actually selling the products is the most important step in business. If you can sell there is something out there to sell but just be able to produce products even if they are useful does not involve taking in money.
I actually like this and am going to spin it even a bit further. We all know that you can get far with great selling skills, but everyone knows that the 'real' money in business is made when you're buying, not selling.
Quote from: JeffreyS on August 29, 2013, 03:53:57 PM
I'm a labor guy but this is ridiculous. I own a business first of all few times in history has the bottom line (Profit) been 70% or the startup costs not taken years and a fair amount of risk to pay back and likely takes multiple investment cycles before a true ROI is reached. You can support labor having good conditions and fair pay without trying to spin that the Capitalist is the beneficiary of a one way relationship.
Everything you just said has already been addressed. Whether it's 4 days, 5 days, or 3 years,
so long as the business stays profitable, the surplus produced by the workers will supersede the initial capital investment, rendering the cartoon true.
p.s. If you're what constitutes pro labor, we need to redefine the term oxymoron.
Quote from: JeffreyS on August 29, 2013, 03:57:01 PM
And if you look at it from the cartoons point of the owner is doing the heavy lifting as actually selling the products is the most important step in business. If you can sell there is something out there to sell but just be able to produce products even if they are useful does not involve taking in money.
Typically it's not the case that the shareholders, board of directors, or CEO (any of whom the man in the suit could be), also work on the sales floor. It's also still the case that in order for the man to have something to sell, someone else had to make it. Moreover, just because he can sell the item - presuming the man in the suit is also the salesman - it doesn't follow that this entitles him to $35 instead of $15. And the cartoon again, remains true.
For some reason people are quick to think a difference in pay actually means a difference in hard-work. I don't see how a man doing sales is "heavy lifting" compared to the people producing the product (which frequently entails actual heavy lifting...)
You aren't factoring in risk here. Typically the owner of a successful business leverages large amounts of his personal time and finances at the startup of the business. Should the employee be entitled to the rewards of the initial work put into the business by the founder?
The cartoon is just seriously misleading to act as though business owners would make 70% over costs. It creates a disconnect from a rational discussion of treating workers fairly.
When I say I am a labor guy I mean I support the right to unionize, a minimum wage being based on a living wage , companies who rely on the government to subsidize their workforce pay a tax penalty, the right to a safe workplace and maintaining a vibrantly regulated version of capitalism that keeps anyone from dominating markets so as to encourage a competitive place for labor to leverage their product (which is labor).
See how I can explain my pro labor stance without acting like ownership brings nothing to the table.
The reality is for small business, sometimes that guy making 15 only brings in 10. When you figure out the problem and get the guy up to 25, the government increases taxes, the suppliers raise their prices and gas goes through the roof. You still aren't making much, if anything. And yet, you were the one who spent that large amount of cash to buy the equipment, the equipment the guy just broke and now he sits on his keyster for the next 6 hours until it gets fixed.
There have been times as a small business owner that I have done well. There are times I haven't. In neither case have I ever figured out what I made per hour. It would convince me to go find that job at Mc Donalds. I would make less over all but would actually get to go sailing a lot more.
I started my working career in big business. When the leadership still believed in showing loyalty to the employees and employees still wanted to be loyal to them. I reported to a VP who started at the bottom, worked his way through college and ended up the VP of Engineering. When he retired, the new VP of Engineering had a MBA. Sort of says it all. All of a sudden, if you worked hard , looked out after the company's best interests, you were literally black balled and not allowed to move forward. Only if you kissed that proverbial did you get ahead. The stockholder became more important than the customer and so everyone looked out after themselves and others whom they felt would help them move up. Product became secondary to keeping that stock price up. Must protect that golden parachute. Frankly, if the cartoon is correct, everyone involved deserves it. The employee doesn't care for the work he puts out and the employer doesn't care about the employee and to take it further, only cares about the buck. In the end, some bigger fish comes along and gobbles everyone up and everyone loses in the end. OK, so maybe that owner does get to retire with millions, but is he happy?
UM... are you a student or professor at one of our fine local universities?
Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 30, 2013, 06:58:50 AM
UM... are you a student or professor at one of our fine local universities?
UNF
I would recommend an adding Introduction to Microeconomics to his course list then