GameboyRMH said:If that person was an employee of a thing you built when you were building it, then it sounds like that person contributed to building it, and you didn't build it all on your own. Maybe you built 95% of it, maybe you only built 5% of it, but it wasn't 100% you even if your name is on the paperwork. If the thing makes money, they should get a fair share of what it produces while they're contributing to its operation. For a tiny company that might be in line with market-competitive wages, again this is all theoretical and I'm not saying you did or didn't to this, but I don't think it's fair to take all the credit from something other people contributed to because they built onto something you owned.
You were paid for your contribution at a rate you agreed to. That's the extent of your reward. You keep saying IF it makes money, you want some. What if it doesn't? You still want money.
pheller said:One of two things has gotta happen - we pay people more, or we make life less expensive for them. It seems like the real estate industry, or at least the system unwittingly, through "The Law of Unintended Consequences" has end up making life really hard for every other American (ie, half the population).
In regards to real estate, I think you have stumbled into answering your own question a bit here.
Paying people more will not make real estate more affordable, as shown in the Austrailian example (allow loans from retirement funds for real estate), it just makes the real estate that much more expensive (people have more buying power). I feel very confident easy access to loans (both for low income and investors) in the US is also primer contributor also (again, more buying power = higher prices).
Pretty much by definition. If there are 10 Miata's for sale, and 20 people shopping for them, prices will skyrocket. If there are 40 Miata's for sale, and 20 people shopping for them prices will drop.
Correct me if I assume wrong here (for those who may be a bit more knowledgeable on this), but I am pretty sure the only real (stable) way to make real estate more affordable is to build more real estate. That does not mean all 1 acre 4 bedroom homes, but can, and should, include much smaller homes (appartments etc). The government somehow "forcing" lower prices on homes (if that is what you mean by "make life less expensive for them") will almost certainly result in yet more uninteded consequences. Building more will make buying houses less expensive for all, almost guarenteed.
It makes exactly zero difference if they were an employee or not.
My businesses were built partly by my employees. And partly by my subcontractors. And partly by my investors. And partly by my suppliers. And partly by my customers. And partly by market trends. And partly by dumb luck. And partly by my mentors and teachers. And partly by my wife. And partly by my kids.
And ENTIRELY by me.
Here's the core difference...
My businesses would never have existed without me. They WOULD have existed without those employees. I'd have found others, or done it entirely with subcontractors.
The vision was mine. The risk was mine. The sleepless nights and stress were mine. The businesses were mine.
Steve_Jones said:In reply to GameboyRMH :
Without moving the goal post or coming up with some hypothetical situation, please tell me why YOU deserve part of the profit over and above the wage YOU agreed upon with none of the risks? You want some sort of guarantee if it does not work out (like a base salary) but extra if it does.
You have a very distorted view of what it means to be an employee, you agreed to do a job for $x, the employer agreed to pay you that amount for the job. That is the extent of the "relationship". Just like the supplier and outside contractor you say the company does not need to share profits with, they do not need to share them with you. There is no "relationship" it's a contract between you and them for a specific job. If you don't want to do it, they will simply find someone else that will.
Legally I don't deserve anything beyond the wage I signed up for already, morally I do. I suppose that morally there isn't an issue with a zero-base-salary all-profit-share situation, other than the fact that it sounds uniquely risky. The only time anyone sees total exposure to risk like that in real life might be an entrepreneur starting a 1-person business with their own money. Once the business gets going you generally never see a situation where anyone's pay can drop to zero in a bad month, and the higher up the corporate ladder you go the less likely anyone has to worry about paying rent or buying food if there's an issue with their next paycheck.
The difference between the employer/employee contract and B2B contract is that employees don't have the capital to afford their own means of production and thus never have access to the full value of their labor. A business does. This is why paying an employee to do something is far cheaper than farming it out to an outside company, and if a service is needed regularly an employee is hired on to do it.
In reply to GameboyRMH :
Holy moly dude. Look, YOU have the power to do something about your situation. DO IT. Stop complaining about not being paid to your worth because you are. If not, go find another job that pays you more, or do something to increase your potential wages.
I'm sorry to keep bringing up my situation but that's what I know so it's the best example I can use. As much as I'd love to pay my staff 2x going wages, because they contribute to the success of my business, I simply can't. Why not you cry, I'm being exploitive and since I'm "the man", I'm holding them down! Well, #1 is if the company (which is me, since I'm a solo owner) isn't profitable, then they don't have jobs. #2 is I'm the one who's taken on all the risk as well as spent all the time, effort and money into the necessary training to be able to do what I do. I am the company, it doesn't exist without me. That means I get the rewards.
I took the risk on school loans, then the business loan, then the building loan and then the equipment loan. That means I get the pay back, after the Bank gets their bite out of my butt first. I always pay my employees first, I get what remains. Sometimes that's a good amount, other times it's basically been nothing. I almost shot water out of my nose when I read that you think there's "no risk once the business gets going". I've been in business for almost 20 years now, there's *always* risk. I never truly know what my monthly income will be and sometimes it has been basically zero. You really need to go into business for yourself, I don't think you'll ever understand what all of us are telling you until you do and get to burn your fingers on the stove multiple times to learn it.
Morally you're due exactly dick. In what world do you think you're morally obligated to what others have earned and made huge risks for? You want the rewards? Then you need to take the risks. Unwilling to take on the risks (whether that's further education, becoming a consultant, being a business owner, going into management) then you don't get to complain about where you are in life. Or rather, you'll get no sympathy when you do.
GameboyRMH said:Steve_Jones said:In reply to GameboyRMH :
Without moving the goal post or coming up with some hypothetical situation, please tell me why YOU deserve part of the profit over and above the wage YOU agreed upon with none of the risks? You want some sort of guarantee if it does not work out (like a base salary) but extra if it does.
You have a very distorted view of what it means to be an employee, you agreed to do a job for $x, the employer agreed to pay you that amount for the job. That is the extent of the "relationship". Just like the supplier and outside contractor you say the company does not need to share profits with, they do not need to share them with you. There is no "relationship" it's a contract between you and them for a specific job. If you don't want to do it, they will simply find someone else that will.
Legally I don't deserve anything beyond the wage I signed up for already, morally I do. I suppose that morally there isn't an issue with a zero-base-salary all-profit-share situation, other than the fact that it sounds uniquely risky. The only time anyone sees total exposure to risk like that in real life might be an entrepreneur starting a 1-person business with their own money. Once the business gets going you generally never see a situation where anyone's pay can drop to zero in a bad month, and the higher up the corporate ladder you go the less likely anyone has to worry about paying rent or buying food if there's an issue with their next paycheck.
The difference between the employer/employee contract and B2B contract is that employees don't have the capital to afford their own means of production and thus never have access to the full value of their labor. A business does. This is why paying an employee to do something is far cheaper than farming it out to an outside company, and if a service is needed regularly an employee is hired on to do it.
NONE of this is true.
First off, paying an employee is always more expensive than farming it out. The reason to pay an employee is to have some control over manpower, NOT to save money.
I ran my own businesses for 36 years. I had bad months when pay dropped to less than zero at least twice a year for all 36 years.
Zero base salary all profit share situations exist all over the place. It's called full commission sales.
Your argument about capital is BS. I know dozens and dozens of businesses that were started with no capital, including several I started myself with ZERO $ in the bank and no credit line available. And I'm about to do it again.
It's about a mindset, not about money.
In reply to GameboyRMH :
You are being paid EXACTLY what your worth, because you have not made yourself worth more.
aircooled said:pheller said:One of two things has gotta happen - we pay people more, or we make life less expensive for them. It seems like the real estate industry, or at least the system unwittingly, through "The Law of Unintended Consequences" has end up making life really hard for every other American (ie, half the population).
In regards to real estate, I think you have stumbled into answering your own question a bit here.
Paying people more will not make real estate more affordable, as shown in the Austrailian example (allow loans from retirement funds for real estate), it just makes the real estate that much more expensive (people have more buying power). I feel very confident easy access to loans (both for low income and investors) in the US is also primer contributor also (again, more buying power = higher prices).
Pretty much by definition. If there are 10 Miata's for sale, and 20 people shopping for them, prices will skyrocket. If there are 40 Miata's for sale, and 20 people shopping for them prices will drop.
Correct me if I assume wrong here (for those who may be a bit more knowledgeable on this), but I am pretty sure the only real (stable) way to make real estate more affordable is to build more real estate. That does not mean all 1 acre 4 bedroom homes, but can, and should, include much smaller homes (appartments etc). The government somehow "forcing" lower prices on homes (if that is what you mean by "make life less expensive for them") will almost certainly result in yet more uninteded consequences. Building more will make buying houses less expensive for all, almost guarenteed.
I think we have two different arguments here. One is whether the guy who puts the widgets in the boxes should make as much as the guy who borrowed money to start the widget factory and the guy who went to college for four years to learn to engineer and design widgets.
He shouldn't.
The other argument is whether or not the guy who puts the widgets in a box should have a nice warm room to rent or whether he should live in a cardboard box.
He should have a warm place to sleep.
30 years ago I bought a house for $50,000. Today that house is worth $300,000. The 25 year old guy who just graduated isn't going to get what I got back in the day. He is going to rent and pay 3X what my house payment was to get much less than I have. 30 years ago I could get a $500 beater and save money driving to work to save for a down payment on a house. Today, a cheap car is $5,000. That college degree also cost about 3X as much as when I went to school so he has student loan payments too that keep him for saving to buy that house that cost 3x more that the house that I bought back in the day. Back in the day Al Bundy worked in a shoe store and bought a nice suburban home in a Chicago suburb. Why is that funny? Because it was a stretch even back then? Now the guy who worked his ass of to get an engineering degree or law degree is renting and the guy who works at the shoe store is living in his car.
We basically have a housing shortage. I don't understand how raising interest rates cures that. We have to build more houses. Maybe the local cities should give permits away for free for affordable houses and the idea of environmental impact fees should just go away. Maybe the community colleges who teach construction should be tuition free for anybody who wants to learn to be a contractor, a plumber or an electrician. Maybe they should hand out scholarships for that as well. Maybe we need more charities that build houses for lower income people. Maybe we should encourage people to move to where the land is cheaper and make sure houses get built there. I think there is a solution for this.
SV reX said:In reply to GameboyRMH :
You are being paid EXACTLY what your worth, because you have not made yourself worth more.
Why does this get repeated every 4 pages by different people? Nevermind.....
SV reX said:Here's the core difference...
My businesses would never have existed without me. They WOULD have existed without those employees. I'd have found others, or done it entirely with subcontractors.
The vision was mine. The risk was mine. The sleepless nights and stress were mine. The businesses were mine.
That deserves a lot of credit, but not all the credit for the entire life of the business. Not all of the labor was yours. The labor went into building that business too.
Employees take on some risk too just by working at a business they've staked their futures on. They're even more vulnerable to losing their jobs as the owner is to losing the business, except they'll have much less idea of when it's coming. The worker could even be let go for reasons unrelated to their performance or the health of the business they could never have predicted. Employees can get sleepless nights and stress over the work too, man how I wish we couldn't...
If you had employees advising on the management and buildout of the company, the vision may not even have been 100% yours by the time it became reality.
Something else to think about. That particular business wouldn't have existed without you. But if you didn't have those particular employees, you would've needed others, or the subcontractors. John Smith's contribution was no less real because Jack Sprat or SubConCo could've done it just as easily, it just happens that John Smith was the one who contributed. But with all of this extra labor needed, it sounds like you couldn't have done it alone. And if John Smith didn't work at your company, he probably would've found a job with someone else. So employers aren't irreplaceable either.
Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:We basically have a housing shortage. I don't understand how raising interest rates cures that. We have to build more houses. Maybe the local cities should give permits away for free for affordable houses and the idea of environmental impact fees should just go away
There are about 15.000 vacant houses in Baltimore alone. There is not a housing shortage, there is a "I don't want a small house" shortage, or a "I don't want to live there" shortage. Just like people think they deserve part of the profits, there are plenty that think they deserve a big house as a first house.
In reply to GameboyRMH :
Prove your ideas. Start a business.
Honestly? I don't think you can do it. You complain too much. You don't have big enough huevos.
Until then everything you have to say is nothing but a bunch of discontented whining and hot air.
Big yawn.
GameboyRMH said:That deserves a lot of credit, but not all the credit for the entire life of the business. Not all of the labor was yours. The labor went into building that business too.
And he paid for that labor, at the rate the employee agreed on. No one is forcing someone to work for free. Supplies that were paid for went into building that business, now that it is successful, does he owe the suppliers part of the profits?
Steve_Jones said:Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:We basically have a housing shortage. I don't understand how raising interest rates cures that. We have to build more houses. Maybe the local cities should give permits away for free for affordable houses and the idea of environmental impact fees should just go away
There are about 15.000 vacant houses in Baltimore alone. There is not a housing shortage, there is a "I don't want a small house" shortage, or a "I don't want to live there" shortage. Just like people think they deserve part of the profits, there are plenty that think they deserve a big house as a first house.
There are vacant houses in Detroit too. But can you get a job there? I can't walk five feet in Dallas without tripping over a help wanted sign.
In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :
Help wanted signs all over Baltimore too. It's at the point where the signs say "work Today get paid Today" Ouch.
In reply to GameboyRMH :
But if someone was contributing their labor to a business I owned, I would be fine with paying them a fair share of what it produces...we've already discussed the co-op structure I proposed.
If the thing makes money, they should get a fair share of what it produces while they're contributing to its operation.
You keep throwing around the phrase "fair share" as if it has a definition. It doesn't. You can't pay someone in "fair shares." You pay them in hour rate, salary, commission- clearly defined amounts of money. The fair part is open to interpretation. The employee can decide what is fair- keeping in mind that they are usually ignorant of the costs of the business- and decide if the want the job or not. If you are working somewhere and feel you are being paid unfairly- why are you still working there? If no one will pay you what you think is fair- maybe it's a you problem and you aren't worth what you think you are. Businesses have much more information that they can use to decide what is fair to pay their employees. And they can chose that rate, or just pay whatever they want. It's their business. While I believe that fair is really an undefinable pay rate- it changes with perspective- I'd say that the market rate for a job is the closest that we have to an aggragate of what is considered my most to be fair.
Steve_Jones said:Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:We basically have a housing shortage. I don't understand how raising interest rates cures that. We have to build more houses. Maybe the local cities should give permits away for free for affordable houses and the idea of environmental impact fees should just go away
There are about 15.000 vacant houses in Baltimore alone. There is not a housing shortage, there is a "I don't want a small house" shortage, or a "I don't want to live there" shortage. Just like people think they deserve part of the profits, there are plenty that think they deserve a big house as a first house.
There is nothing for sale in Dallas. I get three calls a week from people wanting to buy mine. I have seen 1000 square foot houses in my old neighborhood that used to sell for $50,000 hitting the market and getting sold in three days for $350,000. Small houses. The one we have in Rockwall orignially sold for $160,000 and just appraised for half a million. New houses down the road sell before they can even put them up for $750,000 to a million. I don't know who is buying them but I see a lot of plates from California, Florida and New Jersey. It is insane here. Where do these people get the money?
What's with Baltimore? Is it because Frank Zappa used to make fun of the place? 
In reply to Steve_Jones :
Can someone afford a house at what they're hiring for? and we're back to the banter we're at now.
A lot of the vacant houses in Baltimore are derelict, so someone would have to be able to afford the purchase price and the restoration. The city wants to demolish them but the majority are privately owned. I'm guessing the owners are like hoarders with project cars and will get around to fixing them up to sell one day.
I think a lot of the business owners in here think I'm accusing them all of having exploitative pay structures. I'm not, I don't know what they are. Don't assume I'm targeting anyone.
docwyte said:In reply to GameboyRMH :
Morally you're due exactly dick. In what world do you think you're morally obligated to what others have earned and made huge risks for? You want the rewards? Then you need to take the risks. Unwilling to take on the risks (whether that's further education, becoming a consultant, being a business owner, going into management) then you don't get to complain about where you are in life. Or rather, you'll get no sympathy when you do.
I think I'm due more than exactly dick morally because I'm doing part of the work that brings in those earnings and I'm not totally insulated from the ongoing risk either, as I mentioned earlier. I'm not being paid just to sit around like a lawn gnome after all. In other words, I don't think, morally, that the effort of launching a business should give a business owner the freedom to pay an employee an arbitrarily small fraction of the value they produce forever. Again, not accusing anyone, just in theory.
I've been self-employed before so I know what the risk is and I'll almost certainly do it again not too far in the future. I've also worked stupendously hard for other people at times with the reward of...hanging onto my unremarkable salary and maybe getting a little bonus at the end of the year. Those big heroic efforts don't look so heroic or pay off so well when you do them at someone else's company.
In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :
Are you sure about that?
Realtor.com shows hundreds of houses for sale under $150K
Boost_Crazy said:You keep throwing around the phrase "fair share" as if it has a definition. It doesn't. You can't pay someone in "fair shares." You pay them in hour rate, salary, commission- clearly defined amounts of money. The fair part is open to interpretation. The employee can decide what is fair- keeping in mind that they are usually ignorant of the costs of the business- and decide if the want the job or not. If you are working somewhere and feel you are being paid unfairly- why are you still working there? If no one will pay you what you think is fair- maybe it's a you problem and you aren't worth what you think you are. Businesses have much more information that they can use to decide what is fair to pay their employees. And they can chose that rate, or just pay whatever they want. It's their business. While I believe that fair is really an undefinable pay rate- it changes with perspective- I'd say that the market rate for a job is the closest that we have to an aggragate of what is considered my most to be fair.
Fair is open to interpretation, sure, from those income and profit stats we looked at earlier, on average there is a lot of unfair pay going on in the infamous "pay/productivity gap." If it didn't exist I might agree that the market rate were some reasonable approximation of fair. In that scenario, wages would be on average 60~100% above what they are now.
In reply to GameboyRMH :
I'm not assuming you are targeting me. I know who I am and how I've treated employees, and don't need you to affirm me.
I think your idea is terrible and completely unsustainable, and that your biases and assumptions about business are completely wrong.
Nothing personal.
j_tso said:In reply to Steve_Jones :
Can someone afford a house at what they're hiring for? and we're back to the banter we're at now.
A lot of the vacant houses in Baltimore are derelict, so someone would have to be able to afford the purchase price and the restoration. The city wants to demolish them but the majority are privately owned. I'm guessing the owners are like hoarders with project cars and will get around to fixing them up to sell one day.
Five guys burgers starts at $18 an hour. Royal Farms (convienence store) is the same. $36k a year. Yes there are derelict houses for $10k, but there are livable ones for $40k. Can someone making $18 an hour afford a $4ok house? Without a doubt.
GameboyRMH said:SV reX said:Here's the core difference...
My businesses would never have existed without me. They WOULD have existed without those employees. I'd have found others, or done it entirely with subcontractors.
The vision was mine. The risk was mine. The sleepless nights and stress were mine. The businesses were mine.
That deserves a lot of credit, but not all the credit for the entire life of the business. Not all of the labor was yours. The labor went into building that business too.
Employees take on some risk too just by working at a business they've staked their futures on. They're even more vulnerable to losing their jobs as the owner is to losing the business, except they'll have much less idea of when it's coming. The worker could even be let go for reasons unrelated to their performance or the health of the business they could never have predicted. Employees can get sleepless nights and stress over the work too, man how I wish we couldn't...
The employees are compensated for that risk in their agreed upon wages or other compensation package. This is why many startups offer stock options. Its also why many people turn down several offers of startup-like environments - in favor of stability. Subcontracts are also compensated per their contract.
Both employees and subcontractors are free to tell SVreX "no, I want more compensation / profit sharing / etc." and SVreX is also free to tell them "nope" and hire someone else who will happily do it for what he is offering. Thats how the labor market works.
Because the above did NOT happen, the risk is shouldered entirely by SVreX. How are you suggesting it should work in this mythical startup scenario?
You'll need to log in to post.
