CreateDebate


Debate Info

8
13
I’d be wealthy with 100% Labor isn’t valuable alone
Debate Score:21
Arguments:26
Total Votes:24
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 I’d be wealthy with 100% (5)
 
 Labor isn’t valuable alone (12)

Debate Creator

Amarel(2295) pic



Do employers unjustly take 90% of the profit of your labor.

I’d be wealthy with 100%

Side Score: 8
VS.

Labor isn’t valuable alone

Side Score: 13
2 points

Hello A:

What your employer makes off of your labor is NOYB, just like what you spend your money on is none of his business..

When you took the job you agreed to exchange your labor for a paycheck.. If those arrangements are unjust, why did you agree to them? And, if they're not satisfactory now, why do you stay?

By the way, if you think you should share in the profits, surly you think you should share in the losses, no?

excon

Side: I’d be wealthy with 100%
Amarel(2295) Clarified
1 point

I wasn’t clear on the descriptions of each side, but this really belongs on the other side. And we agree

Side: I’d be wealthy with 100%
1 point

Hello again, A:

Of course you do. I was answering for posterity.

excon

Side: I’d be wealthy with 100%
1 point

What your employer makes off of your labor is NOYB

Come on. Surely you can see that's retarded. If your daughter baked a batch of fairy cakes because your next door neighbour told her he'd give her five dollars, and then you came home to find the guy outside selling fairy cakes for five dollars each, you'd be pissed. I'd be pissed. Anyone would be pissed at that.

Side: Labor isn’t valuable alone
Dermot(3642) Clarified
2 points

Ok Nom , I just finished a big arts fair and am now back to hanging work in galleries ; here's the way it works I bring several paintings to the gallery the guy running the gallery offerers me a fee for each painting he then sells on to the buyer at 40 per cent on top ; I'm very happy with the arrangement so is he ; this is the same more or less as the situation you mention .

If your daughter agreed to sell the batch of cakes for 5 dolllars why would anyone be pissed ?

The buyer agreed a price with her and merely sold on at a profit the goods she previously happily sold ; the daughter in this case has learned a lesson for life as buying and selling is an art form and she's just had an " introduction " to part of the art 👌😊

Side: I’d be wealthy with 100%
1 point

You've mastered the art of false equivalencies eh nomenclature? Your daughter, a child, vs a grown entrepeneur isn't real life. In real life, it's grown adult entrepeneur vs grown adult entrepeneur, and the chips fall where they may, and no one is "pissed" that some jerk punked your child.

Side: I’d be wealthy with 100%
Amarel(2295) Clarified
1 point

Your daughter got the full value of fairy cakes when she sold them. The guy she sold them to is also getting full value. That's because the value isn't determined by how much someone worked. Value is determined by what the buyer and seller agree to.

I wouldn't be pissed. My daughter will have just learned a great way to make money, and the fool entrepreneur just lost a valuable supplier.

Side: I’d be wealthy with 100%

Do employers unjustly take 90% of the profit of your labor.

Not only do they, but you're talking about the fundamental basis of capitalism. Labour is of little value in a capitalist society because the number seeking work is enormous, and hence it is bought cheaply. What is of value in a capitalist society is -- unsurprisingly -- capital.

Humanity did not live through thousands of years of autocracy and then decide suddenly overnight to create a society which is equal for everyone. Capitalism has given us progress in as much as it has loosened the monopoly on power, but that monopoly has only loosened into an oligopoly, so we are light years away from the "freedom and liberty" propaganda free market capitalists like to shove down our throats every day. Socialism is an effort to solve this problem of consolidated power by breaking it up and giving it back to the workers, who are the engine of society, and yet under capitalism are nothing more than slaves to a wage. Socialism might still be a dirty word to Americans, but the point isn't whether or not socialism can work so much as it is capitalism is a problem.

In sum, capitalism is theoretically unsustainable because the only logical conclusion of perpetual competition is eventual monopoly. A regression back to our earlier history.

Side: I’d be wealthy with 100%
1 point

Labour is of little value in a capitalist society because the number seeking work is enormous

And amazingly, laborers in the United States live better than kings of the past. No kings had central heat and air, cable television with 300 channels, an I phone, an I-pad, an I-pod, an MP3 player, a bluray player, a computer, a 50" television, 2 vehicles, a microwave, a stove, a fridge, the new gaming system, a washer and dryer, 50+ movies on the shelf, a sound system with blue tooth, and a 401k plan that is matched by their employer. And these "laborers" keep risking their lives to get from Mexico and into the U.S., even calling themselves "dreamers". Why do you think that is? The point? STFU.

Side: Labor isn’t valuable alone
1 point

but you're talking about the fundamental basis of capitalism

To work for and earn what you get rather than expecting to get something for free while your thumb's up your ass?

Side: Labor isn’t valuable alone
1 point

In sum, capitalism is theoretically unsustainable because the only logical conclusion of perpetual competition is eventual monopoly

1)The U.S has monopoly laws.

2)This is why industry leaders for years are losing their leads in their industries due to more and more competition and alternative ways to purchase goods

3)Socialism is the ultimate monopoly. One entity controls all goods and has omnipotent control with no competitor.

Side: Labor isn’t valuable alone
1 point

Socialism is an effort to solve this problem of consolidated power by breaking it up and giving it back to the workers, who are the engine of society

Socialism is a promise that corrupt elites use as a carrot to whore themselves out for votes from poor, desperate people, but never, ever plan on actually giving to anyone for long if ever. It's a means to omnipotent social control and control over goods and services. AKA, a means to a social dictatorship.

Side: Labor isn’t valuable alone
1 point

Humanity did not live through thousands of years of autocracy and then decide suddenly overnight to create a society which is equal for everyone

Wow, you really do live in la la land. If everyone legitimately was fully "equal", there'd be zero reason to work, work hard, or work harder. This mindless push for some tortured definition of "equal" would simply end in rationing and the equal sharing of misery by all. And even if you were willing to work more for more income, too bad. Your version of equality is immoral, unethical, and unfair. It literally rewards sloth and punishes hard work.

Side: Labor isn’t valuable alone
1 point

Socialism might still be a dirty word to Americans

Sure it is. Europe is great at f*cking shit up. They are so disgusting that a bunch of people got on wooden boats hundreds of years ago and crossed the entire ocean to get the hell away from you dangerous, toxic, control freak bastards.

Side: Labor isn’t valuable alone
Amarel(2295) Disputed
1 point

but that monopoly has only loosened into an oligopoly

Thousands of very well off small business owners would disagree with you.

Socialism is an effort to solve this problem of consolidated power by breaking it up and giving it back to the workers

By giving it to people who claim to represent workers. This power elite who claims to be against the power elite then begin restricting liberty in the name of liberty. Never has there been a greater ruse than Socialism.

capitalism is a problem

Economic liberty is another word for Capitalism. Historically it has been the solution more than the problem.

capitalism is theoretically unsustainable

Theoretically yes. But the actuality of history shows it is quite sustainable.

because the only logical conclusion of perpetual competition is eventual monopoly

I told you to work on your vocabulary before you move into logic. While your vocab is up to snuff, your logic is still lacking. There is no reason to believe that competition leads to a lack of competition. Historically, monopolies are maintained by government regulation.

Side: Labor isn’t valuable alone
0 points

Thousands of very well off small business owners would disagree with you.

Nice phantom objection, but thousands of economics professors and sociologists actually do disagree with you, and so do the facts.

Inequality is skyrocketing even within the Forbes 400 list of America’s richest.

https://inequality.org/facts/wealth-inequality/

By giving it to people who claim to represent workers.

Do you ever stop distorting what other people say? That is not what I said and it is not what I meant. You seem to be arguing that democratic representation is good when capitalists do it, but that it suddenly becomes bad when socialists do it. Predictably, you don't have any problem with the people who claim to represent the workers right now, do you? You disingenuous muffin head.

This power elite who claims to be against the power elite

Again, you are purposefully misrepresenting the idea of socialism. You are in fact turning it upside down. The theory of socialism is about taking power from an elite minority and giving it back to the proletarian majority.

But the actuality of history shows it is quite sustainable.

Are you under the impression that history ends when you say it does? Hitler could have made the precise same argument about Nazism anytime before 1945.

I told you to work on your vocabulary before you move into logic

I pay no attention to anything you tell me Amarel because you are farcically dishonest. Your only intent in opening this thread is to misrepresent the ideas of socialists to the point that you have turned them upside down.

While your vocab is up to snuff, your logic is still lacking

Amarel, if someone has ever told you that you understand what logic is, then they need to be dragged outside to a field and shot. I challenge you to write a single post where you do not try to turn the truth upside down for the sake of your political ideology. When you can refute the things I say then you will be qualified to criticise my logic. Changing everything I say and then attacking it is not logic. It's just called being a dick.

Side: I’d be wealthy with 100%

That would be even a better question when it comes to the real theives among us. Politicians!

Ask the question, does Government unjustly take too much money from the working man? The answer obviously is yes because the money they take is not used to bring down the debt, or help the working man.

It is used to buy votes from able bodied people who seldom work or support themselves.

Side: Labor isn’t valuable alone
xMathFanx(393) Clarified
1 point

Ask the question, does Government unjustly take too much money from the working man? The answer obviously is yes because the money they take is not used to bring down the debt, or help the working man.

Why do you not fall more in line with US Libertarianism on this issue then, as opposed to "Conservatism"? Or do you?

Side: I’d be wealthy with 100%
FromWithin(5295) Clarified
1 point

There are many positions from Libertarianism and Conservatism I agree with. There is not one "ism" that any of us agree 100% with, but for the most part my beliefs system falls more in line with those two.

I'm sure there are some positions from Liberals I agree with, but the vast majority of their positions are total opposite to my values concerning right to life, accountablity for one's choices in life, socialism, etc.

When it comes to supporting any party, we must first support humanity before selfishly looking to our own interests.

No Restriction abortions, supported by the Left, is the number one issue of my lifetime. What issue can be more important than purposely ending a viable life simply for convienence.

Spare me all the excuses with extreme case abortions that both sides support. The Left and Democrat Party supports all abortions for any reason.

Were it not for the issues of abortion, the ultimate goal of taking our guns, forcing political correctness on all States and business, etc., there could be common ground between the Right and Left.

The problem is that the Left, more so than the Right, has sold their souls for money and votes from Liberal special interest groups. No Restriction abortions is supported by the Democrat Party because of the special interest Feminist and pro abortion lobbies.

The GOP 20 week compromise on abortions (unless extreme cases) is what most Americans want, but Democrats refuse. How extreme is it that Democrats do not think a FIVE MONTH window for a woman to decide is not enough?

I obvioulsy want further restrictions on abortions, but this is at least a compromise to finally start giving some value and right of life for our innocent unborn viable lives.

Side: I’d be wealthy with 100%

No. They take the risks financially, and you don't and? You didn't have to work for them and? You could have created your own company, of which you would take most of the profit to invest in the company and for the risks you would take. The employee gets paid no matter what. The employer does not have that privilege. It's risk reward. You take less risks, you get less reward.

They take much of this profit to cover your benefits and 401k plans as well. The only guarantee of retirement they have is if the company does well, and there's no guarantee of that.

Side: Labor isn’t valuable alone
1 point

How could they possibly profit 90% from my time spent on this website? That's a pretty poor business model they have.

Side: Labor isn’t valuable alone