this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2024
783 points (98.5% liked)
Political Memes
5426 readers
2083 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I think profit sharing should be inherent to working.
Every pay cycle, everyone gets their base pay, and then additional compensation is awarded out of half of that cycle's profits, half of that is distributed based on time contributed that cycle and the other half is distributed based on seniority.
A buddy of mine has a similar setup. He's one of the smart ones so he lives off of his base pay and the profit sharing goes into a brokerage account for retirement/emergencies. However, most of his coworkers live far beyond what the base pay provides and end up in a bad spot when there is a bad quarter.
This would be great if some/all of the profit sharing could go to a tax advantaged retirement account like a 401k, that would make it less likely people would count on it to live. The wealthy have ways to not count a lot of their compensation as taxable wages, the rest of us should have that too.
I mean skipping the tax man at that scale should be heavily discouraged, but putting that money into a retirement fund automatically seems like a smart way to keep people saving.
We do this where I work. But when things go bad and the expected money goes away there's an adverse effect.
I mean there doesn't have to be, that's why I said a base level of pay, it's the minimum that has to be poneyed up for doing the work at all
People are really bad at knowing what is expected income and what is bonus income. I know multiple workplaces where they get PISSED if their bonus is delayed/lower than last year. It doesn't make sense to me, but it seems common.
Just itemize it on the pay stub?
Even with that base level the extra money becomes expected especially for the people working things like accounting that feel like they worked as hard as the year with extra pay.
Couldn't it just be itemized on the stub so they know what can be counted on and what's being tacked on?
Oh it is, and people understand what it is but it still feels like shit when that item is 0 and you worked your ass off.
Especially since in a lot of industries the profit isn't necessarily correlated to effort or performance.
Maybe keep a lean season fund out of the remaining half then? I was picturing that going more towards potential expansion or R&D but in an industry that's basically already hit peak performance with current tech and methodology that could also be used as a sort of "overtime" bonus for high work low reward sprints
The craziest thing is even until the late 1990's even a company like Walmart had profit sharing for employees, and it was pretty nice even for part time workers!
Thats why I shit on company time
That graph is what sold me on the concept of socialism, the only way for everyone to benefit from increased productivity is if everyone has a stake in the means of production.
How about this factoid:
From the invention of agriculture, depending on the fertility of the soil, one farmer could generally sustain 3-5 people.
Today, a single American farmer feeds, on average, 166 people. There are of course nations that don't reach that productivity, as there are some that exceed it, but America takes pride at being the best nation ever so let's look at that a little more.
Somehow, though we do indeed have more flashing lights and cool noises than ever before, that independent farmer is going extinct, and a very large percentage of America in particular and the world at large lives in quiet desperation.
Now why is that, exactly? And why can't that farmer just feed 83 people and not work themselves to death to still barely keep the bank off their back?
And why would they need a subsidy to survive even if they are feeding the full 166?
In case you ever wonder why rural America is getting a "bit mad," maybe think about that a little more.
And maybe start talking to them and offering actual solutions, because right now they're mostly just hearing leftists bitching about ending corn subsidies and taking their guns, and rightoids telling them if they hate the right people it will all work out.
What also is very weird, is the fact, that the entire agriculture industry is only "profitable" because we directly give the farmers money. Which other market is profitable only because of subsidies? This directly kills smaller farms(and this also has an impact on rural areas) and destroys the entire industry.
I don't see how this conflicts with what they said at all? Yes, socialism would help the rural population too. Perhaps even more so.
leftists do sometimes try rural organizing.
youre talking about libs. we hate them too.
How's that organizing going? It a popular thing to do? Anarchism taking back ground lost to fake libertarians?
And feel free to tell the "leftists" around here that self defense and the tools necessary for such is a human right.
A large portion of leftists here are very pro-gun, considering unarmed minorities & workers are a lot easier to oppress than armed minorities & workers and all...
uh, youve never met one if you think we give a shit about your guns.
edit: some of us would ask serious questions about your anti air and anti armor capacity. I dont know enough about guns to do either.
I liked your earlier comment, but it's weird how quickly you got snide
It's a theme, they usually mean well.
The Capitalist project is to continue paying roughly subsitence wages + treats, while extracting greater and greater profits from the same labor.
BuT iTs ThE mAcHiNes ThAt InCrEaSeD pRoDuCtIvItY!
YoU dEsErVe nOtHiNg MoRe!
Do MoRe VaLuAbLe WoRk!
Capitalists pretending that they created the machines and not the workers themselves is so funny when you see through it, haha
If I have to begrudgingly acknowledge anything, it's that they own the machines and in our system that means they "deserve" the profit of their output.
Doesn't mean I like it though lol
It's why the workers need to own the means of production. Ownership is everything :(
But pizza parties tho!
/s
i bet you could also draw a cool trident if you also overlaid profits or CEO compensation.
What's the answer?
Jack Welch.
End of the gold standard.
Before, if you didn't get a raise, the minimum wage would at least keep up with inflation since it was tied to gold
Before, if you didn't get a raise, the minimum wage would at least keep up with inflation since it was tied to gold
That's.....just not true at all. Commodity based currency is just as prone to inflation as fiat, the only thing it does is introduce volatility to your currency if the commodity market faults.
Gold does not have a definitional inherent worth, meaning if the government wants to "print" more money while on the gold standard, they just change the monetary value of gold, as Roosevelt did in 33'
In the United States, prior to 1933 for example, $1 meant 1/20th of an ounce of gold. In 1933, in the depths of the Depression, President Roosevelt redefined $1 to mean 1/35th of an ounce of gold. That is, a $1 bill was now worth less gold, about 60% less. In other words, the government was able to expand its supply of paper bills by 60% without changing its reserve of gold. This single act resulted in a significant decline in the purchasing power of paper money and shows how it is possible to generate inflation even under a gold standard.
some say computers/digitalization of work.
Possibly the final nail in the coffin of the gold/silver standards (Aug '71)? I'm not at all saying that we should have stayed on a commodity standard for currency, but switching that completely off without also having sufficient protections for financial shenanigans seems like it would create exactly the kind of increase in inequalities shown.
Probably end of the gold standard
is that the best explanation available? i think that the 1973 oil crisis (which completely changed the dynamics of the global economy) and Regonomics in the 80s are much more impactful. I know neither of those happened in 1971, but the site shows graphs in which 1971 and 1973 would be almost basically the same, and most show a much steep change in the 80s
No. Just libertarian nonsense, ending the gold standard ended the Great Depression. 1971 marked the total abandonment of it but it was over in practice in the 30's.
Edit: Not that I'm anything close to an expert, and despite that line I tend consider the idea that inflation is good to be class warfare, but that date is a correlation, not a cause.
What actually happened in the early 70's was the Vietnam War and the rise of neoliberalism, until it seized the reins of power with Carter and Reagan.
And, yes, Carter was the start of the decline. Reagan actually had quite a few policy overlaps with him, he just hated brown people, unions, and commies a lot more. Carter might have meant well, and he's certainly got less blood on his hands than most Presidents, but the path was set regardless.
I think there's probably a pretty good argument that that final abandonment of gold sealed the doom of economic neoliberalism and modern monetary policy, but the reality is the people who push that idea are generally trying to sell you crypto and silver.
Time to bring back the unions and un-fuck the system.
I love how the top 3 comments were basically syndicalism. Direct action by unions whether strikes or sabotage, with the goal to bring the means of production and economy into social ownership.
Stop being so productive.
He needs to work harder..
on their relationship.
I'm doing my part! (i say as browsing lemmy at my desk)