Quote Originally Posted by Monty3038 View Post
Yes. I should reap the benefits of hiring people. They also reap the benefits of being employeed, of getting that paycheck, of the feeling of worth of contributing to something better than they were on their own, of providing for themselves and their family, of improving their lives by being able to afford a little luxury here and there... and if they suck at their job, or if business changes, I should reap the benefits of changing my business as necessary. What you seem to miss out on, is in a capitalistic society, there is more than profit motivating the business owner. The business owner wants to perform their business.

Let's go take my father in law for example. He is a self made man. He left an abusive poor back woods home at 15. He went out into the world, with little education, and built himself a life, a business and now depending on workload employs 7-10 people on average. He hires only those motivated to work. If you aren't motivated, aren't interested in learning and working, you are fired. He reaps all of the benefits of his knowledge, skills and ability to run a business and make money. He is not insanely profitable, but has been able to buy and now own his own home. He put food on the table and kept his kids motivated to go through school and become successful on their own. Does he do his job strictly for profits? No. But that is a primary goal. He also takes care of his workers, those that are willing to work and able to do the job. He pays them well, and in turn he reaps the value of their labor. They learn from him, either moving on and starting their own businesses in turn or staying with him and helping him expand his. His business supports at least three other types of business, in at least two areas of the country.

Now, is he rich? No, he makes about $50,000 per year. That is lower middle class in one of the areas he works, and middle class in the other. He makes enough to work as a snowbird, moving from the northern part of the country during the summer to Florida in the winter, so he can continue working year round. He is 58 years old and has helped at least 5 families move into the US. He cares about this employees, helping them find homes, fix their cars, throws cookouts and parties for them during the summer, and even purchased a temporary home for his crew that follows him south during the winter. They stay rent free so they can send money back north to their families while they work for the winter.

So... yes, that is one example only. But if he was not able to layoff those who don't work, or who can't do the work effectively, he would work slower, less efficiently, have fewer jobs and eventually go out of business. In a collective style society on the other hand, he would do the job he was told to do, let's say he is lucky and gets to do this job. He would not be able to use superior materials of his choosing. he would have to work with whatever crew he was given. He would not reap the profits of good word of mouth for his extended efforts, he would not own his business and not have the ability to grow that business, his motivator would be (hopefully) to do his job well, but once he tired of not advancing because of doing his job well, even though benefitting the people he did it for, he would lapse into just doing his job well enough to keep his job. At that point, the job loses value because of lack of motivation, etc... and it spirals down from there, to the point where his morale is horrible and his motivation is gone.
I'd say this discussion is probably over. This is a straw man and a red herring, and doesn't address the point I made. Your view is correct, but only in myopia. When you scale your view to meet the economy as a whole, your idea breaks down. I already explained two ways this happens and is currently happening.


I have made this point so many times, but it is virtually never understood by those who need to understand it. Libertaria is a megacorp special interest wet dream. The free marketeer branch of the right-wing has no idea what they're arguing for. They're arguing for policy that turns governing powers into the hands of the very few with the gold and the power. Libertaria is no different than a plutocracy with a handful of uber wealthy, a depressed poor/middle class, and a whole shitload of slaves. There is virtually no difference between the arguments for totalitarianism and right-wing economics