The future of the Forex industry - page 57
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
The poor should dramatically evolve on their own,
you can help them with the basics so they don't starve to death, you can even give them discounts, preferential rates somewhere...
But dragging them by the hand and paying them for a "decent life" is categorically not!
If they have nothing worthy to offer to society, there is no reason to pay them decently, is it not logical?
Let them suffer!
It's not logical, and they won't) The target state of the golden periods is not that simple. I agree with the reasonable motivation of the marginally useful. But that's just the beggarly salary might not work).
What would such an approach do for a long period? The emergence of harlems maybe. Instead of the goal of socialising the highest percentage of individuals, your proposal might instead increase the percentage of asocialised. And their suffering will do nothing for society)
I hope that we will have no hard feelings towards each other after our polemics and that we will be guided by the advice of an ancient philosopher: "...write offence in the sand and carve forgiveness in the marble". :-)
OK, you've summed it up, I've answered. We should wrap it up. There's no point in going around in circles. I will only answer on the distribution, where you are making a fool of me too much. Of course I was not referring to the allocation between owner and staff salary costs, but to the allocation between all cost items. You haven't yet mentioned depreciation costs of capital assets, costs of raw materials and supplies, costs of production development, infrastructure and landscaping, and probably some other costs that economists know.
I wish you success in exploiting your employees and pounding pennies out of them).
I didn't mean to offend you, I just clearly showed the deep unnaturalness and even flawed "socialist" logic.
Further, when you talk about distribution, apparently again you do not understand that the owner does not have a salary, and the owner either has dividends(if an open company) or profit distribution (if a closed company) - so it is generally incorrect to compare the income of employees and the owner, these are fundamentally different things.
The phrase"distribution among all items of expenditure" - sounds like another way to confuse things, because every company has its own expenditure structure, it depends on the nature of economic activity, and incidentally recall that dividends and profit withdrawal are not an expense at all - that's what you can not understand!
You can read for example about profit distribution and dividends here: https://kontur.ru/articles/6006 and here https://1c-wiseadvice.ru/company/blog/kak-vyvesti-dengi-s-ooo-uchreditelyu-zakonnye-sposoby/ and all of this has long been enshrined in local legislation.
I already wrote about amortization and revaluation of assets when I explained EBIT and EBITDA, and about various kinds of operational and financial expenses, of course they don't disappear, but I don't want to repeat these trivial things in every post.
Employees' salaries are one of the costs of a company, and they do not necessarily have to correlate with them in any way.
And what's important, you didn't mention - CAPEX - the capital costs associated with the formation of fixed assets of the enterprise and IA, the enterprise spontaneously appeared, someone had to buy equipment, erect facilities, conduct commissioning works, and so on - all this is financed by the owner (or investor-partner) and that is why later the owner collects the enterprise profit - on the fact of ownership.
But it seems that even if I explain everything to you, even then you will deny generally accepted principles ...
Of course there is no point in going around in circles, especially you socialists won't get free benefits anyway. 😉
The heated discussion in the pages of this thread clearly demonstrated the inapplicability of the distance-learning format to teaching such an important subject as love of one's homeland. Only face-to-face interaction between a student and a team of experienced educators will enable them to become aware of their mistakes and misconceptions and to begin to correct them promptly. Only sensitive guidance in the form of wise mentors within educational, labour, military and corrections teams is capable of setting one on the right path and pointing the way to such an important science as the ability to love the Motherland.
You, as always, are wise and stand above the fray).
You, as always, are wise and stand above the fray).
Have you not noticed the catch?
OK, you've summed it up, I've answered. We should wrap it up. There's no point in going around in circles. I will only answer on the distribution, where you are making a fool of me too much. Of course I was not referring to the allocation between owner and staff salary costs, but to the allocation between all cost items. You haven't yet mentioned depreciation costs of capital assets, costs of raw materials and supplies, costs of production development, infrastructure and landscaping, and probably some other costs that economists know.
I wish you success in exploiting your employees and pounding pennies out of them).
To sum up the discourse with you, we can state:
Thus we can see by the example of Mr. Khorosh's statements (for which we thank him very much) that the socialist agenda always violates the natural logic and principles of meritocracy and encroaches on private property and generally accepted norms of business relations.
per unit of product is going down, and in the long term there has to be growth, otherwise the plant cannot provide work and has to change it
The main purpose and point of growth of a company is that with increasing volumes, revenues (and profits) should grow faster than costs - otherwise there is no point in expanding.
Workers' compensation may (and most often does) increase, but it does not necessarily have to increase at the same rate as revenue (and/or profit).
Indeed, if a longshoreman does the same job without increasing his value, what reason is there to pay him more?
Indeed, if a movers does the same job without increasing his value, what reason is there to pay him more?
How can he increase his value? And who is going to load?
Didn't you see the catch?
His statement can be interpreted in many ways. And there is some irony in my statement. So I think it's OK.)