Market socialism: free markets, individuality and profit
While salaries at companies are skilled based, the more productive, the higher climbing up the rung the more money made. A VP who sees over more and has much more responsibility than a newbie will make more money. Salary is determined by incentive to the company. How necessary are you. While there is much good faith and good logic on this side. When considering the accumulation of profit, the discrepancies are giant. Though the VP and associate make different amounts, they both are employees making little compared to the employer. He keeps most of the money for himself. He hires and kicks back. Is this fair and commendable?
I was watching one of those Ben Shapiro destroys liberal snowflake videos. While many of them are eagerly entertaining. Watching people meltdown in a debate. Unable to handle rebuttal. Stomping in disgust. There was a singular episode where an individual pressed Shapiro on workers in a pencil factory for their effort should gain more of the profit instead of the boss who does little work. Shapiro’s response makes logical sense in that the boss puts in all the risk by providing all the supplies for the workers to work and then makes a mean spirited comment about the ease of compiling pencils. While there is truth to Shapiro’s claims it is not always true that a job is easy nor that the boss can do it. He does not automatically allocate because there is too much but because he needs the help. He may have paid for the industry but his lacklustre skill prevents him from competing anything. An influencer on Youtube maybe making the content but without his cameraman he is at a lost.
Beyond the realm of sales, there is little commission incentives given to employees. The effort given in the grade scale of things is negligible to their effort. It is the impact more than the official title or its difficulty. A project coordinator may have a simple job though deeply tedious and arduous but his role is central to the project’s execution. Can he easily be replaced? Not necessarily even if the work is easier than most complex tech jobs. This does not mean that all workers should receive an equal profit. There is still a hierarchical ladder. The more prestigious the job the more compensation. Work harder get paid more. Result oriented will only empower people to work more efficiently instead having to wait to be given an advanced title to be respected for hard fought work. Appearance is everything. An individual who performs excellently is praised with a slap on the back. If a position opens up he can get that raise but it has little to do with current performance.
There is an angle to consider: the insufficiency of humanity. While there is a major detriment, it could be genuine. Some people are just incapable of succeeding. Instead of taking the extreme of special needs who by their limitations struggle to meet the average potential fall short of processing beyond. Poverty forces people into situations that limit their capability. Take a single mom working two jobs. Limited education limiting her options. She is already turned away because of the shrewd system. Working as a cashier at Walmart is not a difficult job. Do to its ease she is paid minimally. There lacks skill and exponential growth. To demand more profit from bagging food or stocking shelves is hard pressed. Yet, here the workers who all do the same job can split the profit evenly. The job’s difficulty does not affect workers’ indispensability even if expendable. The storeowner needs people to man the cashier as he will not do it himself. There should be a larger percentage for their efforts even if it is not that much given the division amongst the group.
Taking a more talented example. Tesla was poor and needed to produce results. JP Morgan was funding him and without any results Morgan’s money would be wasted and be out thousands of dollars. His funding was on Tesla’s results. Morgan freely giving his money would differ from loaning it on condition that Tesla’s performs. Desperation will hit quicker in the latter. Scientific equipment is expensive and finance was necessary. Yet if Tesla performs he will profit and he will give a percentage to Morgan for his aid. Tesla owes Morgan for his work. Morgan could not achieve Tesla’s inventions but Tesla could not accomplish without Morgan’s money. They needed one another. How the percentage is split whether 50/50 or 50/40 for Tesla because Tesla made it. Though a fair argument could be made that if Tesla kept failing continuing with loans would fairly dip the percentage in Morgan’s favour. Yet here the production owner Morgan is giving the worker Tesla his rightful ability.
This issue with the Tesla example is Tesla’s greatness. The average scientific aspirer does not have that clout. An interested individual is not aided by donations without any profit to be made. Thinking about a Jewish example brings to light the reality of mediocrity. In the Middle Ages, rabbinic prodigies’ advanced schooling was paid by a wealthy merchant on condition he marry his daughter. Thereby he sheps nachas from the marriage and his son in-law’s prestige. The merchant was seeking spiritual reward. A different type of reward and yet a medieval capitalist solution. Not everyone was blessed with the opportunity. Not the passionate. Only those with the capabilities. Tesla is no different. He was skilled. While there is room to discuss a profit margin this only helps the readily capable. The profit mentality is primal.
This medieval example shines light on the successes of the few. The few then exert their money over the unsuccessful. Those with money then pass on their wealth to their descendants. Those in power remain in power. It is akin to dynastic royalty. While this is not always true. There are many stories of rag to riches. With the buzz of the internet expanding more people are attaining more wealth from various backgrounds. It is in no way exclusive to a feudalistic familial ability. Yet in the market faculty either go into tech or make little money. The motto is to follow the money. There are vast ways to accumulate wealth yet investments are tricky and most people play it safe. Choosing to be an employee is not always a choice. Rich investments pay off because they have the capitol to invest in grossing products. The average Joe does not. YouTube gurus are not the most trustworthy folk to fondle. The solution of amassing self wealth is not for everyone.
Falling into darwinian fate is an immoral society. Entrepreneurial efforts are acclaimed but are almost never self made. There are outliers but many grow from overwhelming someone else. It is a battlefield competing for supremacy. There will always be leaders but every leader needs an advisor and also congregation. A king needs soldiers. Reducing their integrity because of their ignorance undermines their importance. A leader with no congregations is no leader. The employer needs the employee. Those who win still need others under them. Using their own phobias against them. Their own worst fears to coerce into working is disgruntling. People will take the job because they need to provide. There are limits and workers have fought back but the scare and responsibility to family will compel much less anyone to accept terms to protect. It is an envious game playing on people’s instincts. Keep them on the lowest rung. Give them the bare minimal within the lines. Survivability depends on the offering. Feeding people crumbs to over come the restless work hours is depressing.
Profit is not in itself evil but it is weaponised for self greed. Using wealth for influence is to insert the self in the mist of decisions. Looking to benefit at every turn. To continue climbing the social ladder economically enlightening the majorly representable aspects. It is a repressive agenda keeping someone behind. the profit is consumed by the owner with little backwash for the assisters. The entrepreneurial asset is to climb solo. When an idea is spawned the vision needs insight to cultivate its execution. A hired army to foster its facilitation. The army heeds the commands and is expendable but it is indispensable to victory. Profit is hopeful but is an aspect that needs to be divvied up. The spoils of war are not the kings own. Ragnar makes the point to Earl Haraldson, Though the earl gave him permission to use his boats, the earl did little to nothing to attain the treasure. He happened to be in charge so he gained the treasure. The treasure was rightfully the soldiers who fought for it. While a percentage should go to the leader who led the fight and provided transportation, those who sit back and do not lift a finger are tyrannically enforcing their will.
Continuing with the Ragnar story. He promises his warriors treasure. If they travel with him, they will gain whatever they put in. If they follow him they will be blessed. A risk but a worthwhile one. Most established companies are kingdoms with entrenched dynasties. They do not need to promise for followers. They make replacements but the order is in place. Ragnar’s example is a desire and accountability that must persist. The start up nation is a perfect example. These groups have potential to alter the employer-employee dynamic. They need aid and those who do so ought to be rewarded. Yet once they gain traction established will they reform to the systematic trend of other corporations. Only time will tell. The relationship is only debated when the visionary needs assistance. He may place himself a top the hierarchy but he cannot look down on his assistants. Those who work for him are good soldiers. Hierarchies cannot be abolished today as society demands functionality of commanders and commanded. Do you make laws or follow them. The lawmaker is responsible for his clientele. He is a shepherd caring for his flock.
No comments:
Post a Comment