The future of the Forex industry - page 29
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
Then what level would be considered worthy? - Can we give a definition?
That's right, if she only knows how to carry duck - there is no reason to pay her a high salary - let her study and be more useful to society - when she is qualified to be a nurse, she will get more money.
Carrying faeces is an extremely low skilled job that does not require any special talents, there is no reason to pay high salaries for it, think about it.
Now, how much would you be prepared to pay if, God forbid, you had to carry feces out from under you?
It is very good that after a few pages you have written this.
Then you haven't read it carefully. I wrote a long time ago, for example here.
What do you mean decent? All countries have a minimum wage, you can live on it, not very fat of course, but you will not starve to death, and then you yourself...
If you want to live a decent life, offer society something worthy - does that sound logical?
I have already written about how I understand decent wages, I will not repeat it. Readmy posts carefully.
Who said that it must be so? - Can you give a reason? - Why should it be true?
I suggest it as an option. Starting from the minimum wage and using coefficients that take into account the degree of contribution of one employee or another makes sense in my opinion. And you, what do you suggest?
Firstly it's not income, but profit, and secondly it's his profit, finally realize it.
Certainly his, since he has appropriated it, albeit unfairly.
I see that you have a point that you don't understand, I will try to clarify it: You own your body and you have the right to do anything that doesn't infringe on the rights of others, any product of your labor initially belongs to you and you are free to keep it or exchange it with others (sell it), you can also own some property (a vegetable garden for example) and then any product using that property is your product, which you again are free to keep (eat the crop) or exchange it with others (sell it for a fish).
An entrepreneur owns a business not because he fell from Mars to him, but because he invested = fully paid all costs to create / build assets (fixed assets, licenses, etc.) and made efforts to integrate everything so that it would work, I write this because some may not understand that by itself the purchased assets do not generate profits yet, it takes effort to come up with a product / service, calculate efficiency, find external funding (if needed) and so on.
When you come to work in a factory, you do not own the factory in any part of it, you did not invest in its creation, it is not owned by you or all the workers together, the factory is owned by those who invested in its construction - should that be clear?
No one is going to take the plant away. Who owns it, let them continue to own it. Neither revolution nor nationalization is needed.
So you do not have the right to lay claim to the products created by the factory and the sales revenue and net profit, you are already receiving a salary.
I do not have the right to pretend, but I have the right to receive a decent wage.
And the owner owns the plant and rightfully owns also the products of the plant, which he sells and already from the proceeds covers all costs, including: materials, rent, royalties/deferrals, general business expenses, commercial-administrative and FTE (employee wages), the remainder is called operating profit (EBIT or EBITDA in western finance practice, depending on the inclusion of depreciation and asset revaluation) taxes and interest on loans are paid from operating profit, Net profit remains (I am writing very simplified, because there may be all sorts of interest income/expenses, deferred income/expenses/taxes) and now the net profit is the legal property of the owner (owners-partners or many), and if it is a joint stock company, the net profit will be distributed to shareholders as dividends by the Board - everything is clear here?
This legal practice exists in Russia and in other countries with slight differences (the differences mainly concern the methods of financial accounting and reporting) and there is nothing you can do about it.
Let me stress it again: the owners/shareholders are free to take any part of the profits for themselves.
Let them take whatever they're entitled to, just let them provide the employees with a decent wage.
Answers inside the quote.
Tell me how much would you be willing to pay if God forbid I have to take it out from under you?
I'll think about it, I need to check the current state of the faeces market 😆
(actually we understand that such services are not available separately)
The answers are inside the quote.
This is embarrassing!
Then you're not reading carefully. I wrote a long time ago, for examplehere
There you are complaining about the low average salaries of ordinary employees and the large gaps relative to qualified experts and business owners (without substantiating in any way why this should not be the case).
I have already written about how I understand a decent wage and I will not repeat it. Read my posts carefully.
There was no definition of what a decent wage and again there were only complaints and wishes to eat well, have children, buy a car-apartment, somehow ... (I do not remember the exact post).
But why do you think that someone should pay you for your wishes without increasing the provided value on your part?
I propose, as an option. Starting from a minimum wage, using ratios that take into account the degree of contribution of one or another employee makes sense in my opinion. And you, what do you suggest?
Why do you think that the salary of people who give out money should be tied to the minimum wage by a coefficient? - Where is the logic in that?
I suggest that no such limits should be imposed - it should be obvious.
Firstly it's not income but profit and secondly it's his profit, realise that at last.
Of course it's his, as he has appropriated it, albeit unfairly.
Fair enough, and he has not appropriated it, and the profit is originally his as a product of his property, understand that, and it is reflected in the law, but it is also consistent with natural law and ethical principles.
When you come to work in a factory, you do not own the factory in any part of it, you did not invest in its creation, it is not owned by you or all the workers together, the factory is owned by those who invested in building it - should that be understood?
No one is going to take the plant away. Who owns it, let them continue to own it. Neither revolution nor nationalization is needed.
In this case, the profit is not yours either, you get a salary and that is enough.
So you do not have the right to claim the products created by the factory and the sales revenue and net profit, you already receive the salary.
You may not claim it, but I have the right to claim a decent wage.
It is quite decent already, no one owes you anything above the minimum, no one has promised you a flat, a car, trips, etc...
If you want more, develop... Again, what is decent... compare how people live in India and be horrified...
Let me stress again: the owners/shareholders are free to take any part of the profits for themselves.
Let them take whatever they want, but make sure the employees get a decent wage.
They (the owners) are entitled to all the profits, understand that, and do not try to look into someone else's purse, just do not compare yourself with anyone else, and engage in the development of your business, and you too will be well capitalized.
There you complain about low average salaries for rank-and-file employees and large gaps relative to qualified experts and business owners (with no justification as to why this should not be the case).
It says: I don't think that all employees and cleaners should have the same salary. Certainly professionals should have higher salaries.
There was no definition of what a decent salary is and again there were only complaints and wishes to be well-fed, have children, buy a car, a flat, etc... (I do not remember the exact post).
But why do you think that someone should pay you for your desires without increasing the value provided by you?
Don't distort my position, it's about a decent minimum wage and not about the desires of an individual.
Why do you think that the wages of those who give out money should be tied to the minimum wage? - Where is the logic in that?
I am suggesting that no such limit should be imposed - it should be obvious.
I'm just drawing from my own experience. During my last period in the 90's I worked as a sector head at a KB. At that time, my sector was tasked with the development of a complex hardware and software complex. And immediately a payroll was allocated to do the work. I made a functional diagram, divided it into blocks. And I distributed these blocks among the staff. To distribute money, I used this system. I used complexity coefficients. The simplest block coefficient of complexity is 1. And then depending on the complexity of increasing. Well, and accordingly the money was divided proportionally on these coefficients. No one was not offended. Everyone was satisfied.
Fair enough, and he didn't appropriate, and the profit was originally his as a product of his property, understand that, and it's reflected in the legislation, but it's also consistent with natural law and ethical principles.
That's what I'm suggesting to change the law. It is not fair when the product produced by the collective belongs to one person.
In that case the profit is not yours, you get a salary and that is enough.
Yes, if you look at it from the point of view of a capitalist and if you look at it from the point of view of an employee ...?
It is already quite decent, no one owes you anything more than the minimum, no one has promised you an apartment-car-travel-itp...
If you want more, develop... Again, what is decent... compare how people live in India and be horrified...
Every country has its own laws and its own minimum wage.
They (the owners) are entitled to all the profit, understand it, and do not try to look into other people's wallets, just do not compare yourself with anyone else, and get busy developing your business, and you'll be well capitalized too.
It is not someone else's wallet, it is money earned by the entire team, not by one business owner, and it should be divided fairly.
Read inside.
You can't take it out of context and twist it,
taking away a house if a person doesn't pay after buying it is a common normal practice - let them move to cheaper housing - that's fair,
And I have never said that the naked market is good without corrections, read carefully, I have written about the shortcomings of the market among other things, it needs to be pushed up by monetary and other methods.
Now you are persistent) So you are the one twisting and pulling. Admit that radicalism is a measure of last resort involving violence. But radicalism does not equal violence. And you know for a fact that in the world of photography in 2008 the picture of Eviction from housing won and that is radicalism.
And what is your definition of market correction? Is that how you interpret the law? Your descriptions are anecdotal, you can't build a theory on them. It's like, to be rich you have to earn more. So to make money or organise production, or is it better to set up a fund?
Of course, it has to be higher for professionals.
So that makes it OK.
It's about a decent minimum wage
Do you make a decent contribution to the overall value of the enterprise?
Again - would the definition of a decent wage be?
I just took it from my own experience. During my last period in the 90's I worked as a sector manager in a design bureau.
Not a telling example, well the 90's are the most corrupt, what's the point of talking about it?
At that time my sector was assigned to develop a complex hardware and software complex. And immediately a payroll was allocated to do the work. I made a functional diagram, divided it into blocks. And I distributed these blocks among the staff. To distribute money, I used this system. I used complexity coefficients. The easiest block coefficient of complexity is 1. And then depending on the complexity of increasing. Well, and accordingly the money was divided proportionally on these coefficients. No one was not offended. All were satisfied.
It's ok, I did the same for the difficulty coefficients when calculating the budget of the project, only I did not have a limit on top 😀
That's what I'm suggesting to change the legislation. It's not fair when a product produced by a team belongs to one person.
You're claiming other people's profits again 😁 come on...
You do not want to realize that the enterprise does not belong to you and the products of the enterprise do not belong to you and the profits are not yours...
Even under socialism the profits of a social factory never belong to the workers, understand that.
And it would not be fair to give the profits to the workers - why should it? - And they do not create the product, but the entire complex taken as a whole, and the workers only serve.
In that case, the profit is not yours either, you get the salary and that is enough.
Yes, if you look at it from the capitalist's point of view, but if you look at it from the employee's point of view...?
What difference does it make, the employee came there to work for a wage and he gets it, that's it, he gets nothing else.
Every country has its own laws and its own minimum wage.
True, but the principle is common and everywhere the profits belong to the owners/shareholders of the company... I think even in North Korea where socialism is nominated the workers are only satisfied with wages.
It is not someone else's purse, it is money earned by the whole team, not by one owner of the company and it must be divided fairly.
This is a deep misconception, the collective cannot earn that money outside the enterprise, realise that.
It is fair when the profits from the enterprise/project belong to the investors/founders/shareholders.
You do not want to understand that the company does not belong to you and the products of the company do not belong to you and the profits are not yours ...
The role of workers is to work for a wage and that's it.
The role of workers is to work for a wage and that's it.
not all, they should have opportunities to develop and grow in their careers