China and US at it again

[honeybee]

Keeping a job that others can easily do is a reward. If an employee so easily replaced then they are really nothing more than a tool purchased with the capital of the company. They have no more claim on the profits than robots assembling cars.

In most time, it is not rewarded, too many jobs are just payed by minimal wages. By 2014, the number of minimum wage worker s in Ontario had increased to 695,000. ( http://weareontario.ca/wp-content/uploads/OCF-Backslide-2015.pdf ).Most of the value they created was taken by others.

You still don't understand the question of risk. Companies do not always make money and often fail. The owners are the one's that lose their savings when that happens. Because the owners take the risk they deserve the rewards. Why is that so hard to understand?

When an employee work fo the company, he also has risk too, if company deserve money, employee deserve it too.

[TimG]

When an employee work fo the company, he also has risk too, if company deserve money, employee deserve it too.

Risk? What risk? A company goes under and the employee can find another job and lose nothing. The company owner loses their savings. The employee is paid to provide a service. That is what they deserve. Nothing more, Nothing less. Any profits made from that service belong to the people providing the capital and taking the risk. Edited November 26, 2015 by TimG

[honeybee]

Risk? What risk? A company goes under and the employee can find another job and lose nothing. The company owner loses their savings. The employee is paid to provide a service. That is what they deserve. Nothing more, Nothing less. Any profits made from that service belong to the people providing the capital and taking the risk.

Employee risk the opportunity to work in another company when current company bankrupt. The other company can no longer have job opening when current company bankrupt. And may lost promotion opportunity if work in another company. Those are risks.

[TimG]

Employee risk the opportunity to work in another company when current company bankrupt. The other company can no longer have job opening when current company bankrupt. And may lost promotion opportunity if work in another company. Those are risks.

In other words: the employee takes on no risk because their personal wealth is not put on the line. If you want to include opportunity cost then the business owner risks even more because they could invest their money in something else instead of creating jobs for said employee. Edited November 27, 2015 by TimG

[honeybee]

In other words: the employee takes on no risk because their personal wealth is not put on the line. If you want to include opportunity cost then the business owner risks even more because they could invest their money in something else instead of creating jobs for said employee.

Employee takes more risk than employer, because most employer takes limited responsibility of the company, Employer's life does not affected much when the company bankrupted, However, employee's life situation will be changed very big when he lost a job due to company bankrupt. That is much bigger risk.

[TimG]

Employee takes more risk than employer, because most employer takes limited responsibility of the company, Employer's life does not affected much when the company bankrupted, However, employee's life situation will be changed very big when he lost a job due to company bankrupt. That is much bigger risk.

Spoken like someone who has no clue what running a business involves. The employer takes his/her savings and invests them in the business. If the business fails those savings are lost and are not easily recovered. With small business owners this can also mean personal bankruptcy and the lose of all personal assets. Nothing a employee experiences comes close to the level of risk assumed by the business owner.

[hitops]

In a capitalism country, workers have to work to make living, they produce values, and get salary, salary is less than what they created, so, capitalist takes the rest part of the value workers created.

In a socialism country, workers created values, and get salary, which is less than what they created, the rest part taken by the state, the state will give that to where it need, like give to poor people, and much other welfare.

In a communism country, workers create values, they don’t need salary, take whatever they need, because material is too abundant, because science and technology is too advances, and it is too far away and may not be realized in our life time according to a China middle school text book.

Those are civics class description of the theories of those systems. The reality of how they perform for the people under them, show dramatic differences, with more capitalist societies dramatically outperforming the others, including for the poor.

Where you are flat wrong even in the theory descriptions, is that in capitalist societies the worker keeps some value and the employer keeps some. The communist societies, the worker keeps none and is completely dependent on the government to give anything back. The reality of those two systems, is that the capitalist worker will get far, far more retained value and far better standard of living. The historical record makes this abundantly clear. There is a reason people were desperate to leave east Germany (often risking their lives) for west, and not the other way around.

Edited December 4, 2015 by hitops

[xul]

Chinese next move is just what I have predicted.

http://www.wenxuecity.com/news/2016/01/06/4850188.html

I could predict these and you couldn't because I'm smarter than you....lol.....because I can read Chinese but you can't. So you can only get information from CNN's writer's....what do they call their writings?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/06/asia/china-south-china-sea-test-flights/

And if you aren't familiar with with military stuff so you can not see what's wrong with the CNN's nonsense, I can give you some hints:

0. You can't see any information (which is what China is really doing, for propaganda purpose or not.) in the link I posted above from CNN.

1. The intimidating and strutting war ship around the islands isn't Chinese but an USS LCS

2. The round island with a long runway is Thitu Island which is occupied by Philippines....

I think the CNN's footage is more fit for Chinese propaganda to justify what China is doing than for US

Edited January 8, 2016 by xul

[GostHacked]

In other words: the employee takes on no risk because their personal wealth is not put on the line. If you want to include opportunity cost then the business owner risks even more because they could invest their money in something else instead of creating jobs for said employee.

That depends if the company is privately owned or if it has shareholders and traded stocks. As an employee I take on a risk of a possible layoff if the company goes under. I have been laid off once and it took me almost two years to get another IT job that pays somewhat decent wages. It could be a long time before I see the wages I had before.

The companies are also investing employees pension money for retirement, so yes the employer does play with my money as well.

The risk I take is being unemployed. Many are one paycheck or two away from financial ruins. In some cases through no fault of their own.

Edited January 8, 2016 by GostHacked

[Rue]

I believe unions have become too big and corrupted and have turned into reactionary, anti-worker institutions.

I also think a lack of basic human decency and ethics in capitalism has seen business executives now pursue approaches that treat workers as expendable, i.e., on contract so they don't have to pay them vacation or benefits and can dismiss them without notice.

I believe unethical, short sighted, corrupt, selfish sociopaths make great CEO's and this explains why many are and why their visions build no future, just immediate salary bonuses for themselves.

Solution? Its being forced on us. As Chinese markets implode from our inability to pay them back their cheap crappy commodities they dumped on us, costs soar. Things we took for granted now no longer can be purchased. The coming market collapses are serving to slap people into a cold reality that the resources we do have are not unlimited and our days of wasting oil, gas, electricity, water, food, expecting homes, certain items in those homes, a new car every, so many years, a permanent job, all such things are no longer our future they are being phased out as markets collapse.

Our current government is out too lunch. It thinks creating debts is the way to deal with market collapses from being unable to pay off debts.

It is insane. This government has been told it had a serious weight problem and the PM who was elected says his solution is to give everyone doughnuts.

Edited January 8, 2016 by Rue

[xul]

If any American knew Obama's scheme, he or she might not blame him too much for reacting too late and too weak .

First, since US can not stop China, the better way is to stop China when China is going to stop----anyway, as any engineering project in the world, China can not build these things forever.

Secondly, the US needs something real for fearmongering among the neighbours of China so the US can rally them to join Obama's Return to the Asia Rebalance plot.

Though, it seems like Obama is the smarter one but......there is a plot hole that he didn't foresee:

Obama(pointing the Chinese artificial islands): give me some $$$, I'll protect you from these thing...

Filipino, Vietnamese...: give me some $$$, I will let you protect me....

Though I wrote the red part above as a joke, it seems like it isn't a jok at all now

http://www.bworldonline.com/content.php?section=Beyond&title=philippines-spat-plays-into-china&rsquos-hands&id=133172

Philippines spat plays into China’s handsIf you're a historic US ally under mounting pressure from an emerging superpower like China, it's probably not a good idea to use a crude sexual epithet to describe the American president. Filipino leader Rodrigo Duterte, though, is far from a normal president. And his behavior -- and that of his government -- is increasingly posing a serious challenge to Washington on an ever-growing variety of levels.

Edited September 9, 2016 by xul