My first poll for the NZ public

[scumdog]

I'd want both to have a steady hand...

Hmmm...I would prefer she had a shakey hand - and a strong grip...

[mashman]

It is absolutely the right of those who earned their money to decide whether it’s worth spending on any given product. And yes that affects how much the product’s supplier, (including it’s employees) gets paid.

And yes that’s perfectly fair.

If you don’t like it then a change in career is probably a good idea.

Your choice.

So it's ok not to be fair as a "producer" because you only have to be as fair as you decide you choose to be?

Sigh. You still think this is about me dontcha? Let it go bro, it ain't.

Apparently quite easily. Nationally total personal income is at least an order of magnitude greater than total company profits.

Revenue comes from customers, not contractors.

In fact I operated a very similar arrangement for years, basic wage plus a share of profits. Works OK until you get a bad month or two, then while you’re busy re-mortgaging the house your “floating rate” employees are taking the gains from the good times and fucking off. So in my experience it’s only fair when employees firstly produce more than they cost to employ and secondly if they stump up with some capital to contribute so they’re sharing the risks as well.

The business has the money before the employee. They make their profit and then pay their bills (employees) from that profit.

I didn't say revenue came from the contractors.

Did you pay yourself exactly the same wage as your staff?

So where's the incentive to learn a trade, or become better educated?
Also "we require"?
Is that your role as Commissar?
What do you get paid for your job on the Central Committee, Comrade идиот?

No need to trade and there are plenty of posts regarding incentive... yow just need to go back a page or two.
Yes, we, all of us.
I don't have a role.
Have you not been paying attentions, I would get paid nothing ばか

No we don't, consider a heart surgeon compared to a hooker.

We don't need either... the potential downside for some is that hookers may well stop hooking under "my" system.

I'd want both to have a steady hand...

heh... you beat me to it.

[mashman]

But, they're the producer. How dare you presume to attempt to dictate terms of trade with a producer!

Dictating? I realise that customer service means fuck all to some company's and taking personal responsibility for a common design fault is too much to expect... but if you don't ask, you'll never know.

[oldrider]

He's the Commissar - first amongst equals.
He must be obeyed...

Even with their "big gun" incentive schemes, "all" of the communist states have diminished, collapsed, disintegrated or kept their name while they practice Capitalism!

Pity as much energy and effort hadn't gone into correcting the "few" vital faults of the world monitory system as has gone into the worlds failed communist experiments!

Correct the flaws of world finance and capitalism would blossom the way it should have and most of the worlds social problems would benefit from it accordingly!

Nothing succeeds like success and the most charitable heart is a successful heart!

World monitory problems are "NOT" an accident!

[bogan]

We don't need either... the potential downside for some is that hookers may well stop hooking under "my" system.

We don't need heart surgeons? What sort of fucking backwater civilization are you aiming for here?

[mashman]

We don't need heart surgeons? What sort of fucking backwater civilization are you aiming for here?

We'll grow a heart in a jar then a robotic surgeon will replace the heart ... the future backwater civilisation

[Ocean1]

So it's ok not to be fair as a "producer" because you only have to be as fair as you decide you choose to be?

What?

I said it's fair that the buyer decides how much he wants to pay.

If he can't buy what he wants for that price then the product's obviously worth more than he wants to pay.

Either way it don't work the other way around. It's called provider driven market, and while they crop up from time to time they always cause mayhem before their market collapses.

The business has the money before the employee.

Is that a fact?

I must change my T&C's, my bastard clients NEVER pay me before I have to pay my wages.

They make their profit and then pay their bills (employees) from that profit.

Wrong again, there's no profit until all the costs have been paid for, including wages, even if the wages are more than it's associated revenue.

For someone with such firm ideas about how business works you don't really have many clues about how they work, do you?

Did you pay yourself exactly the same wage as your staff?

Those as experienced as me, yes. In spite of the fact that I personally generated a fair bit more income than the next most profitable employee.

As I said, it didn't work out in the long run.

In fact one ex employee came to see me years later, having set up his own business. I helped him sort out some issues and he's now one of my principal suppliers.

[mashman]

What?

I said it's fair that the buyer decides how much he wants to pay.

If he can't buy what he wants for that price then the product's obviously worth more than he wants to pay.

Either way it don't work the other way around. It's called provider driven market, and while they crop up from time to time they always cause mayhem before their market collapses.

I understood what you meant. The price is the price, producer has set it, consumer must pay for it... but the producer only has to be as fair as they decide to be. There's no 80 - 20 rule for arguments sake.

Is that a fact?

I must change my T&C's, my bastard clients NEVER pay me before I have to pay my wages.

So you're saying that even if a business isn't paid, the employees get paid irrespective? that's not my experience as I've had friends selling the office furniture, illegally I might add, to pay themselve, or at least get some of their good faith repaid.

Wrong again, there's no profit until all the costs have been paid for, including wages, even if the wages are more than it's associated revenue.

For someone with such firm ideas about how business works you don't really have many clues about how they work, do you?

Oh really. So why is it when a producer goes out of business the creditors/customers are guaranteed to get their money back as well as the staff/contractors they have hired? Again, I'm very familiar with that not always being the case.

Those as experienced as me, yes. In spite of the fact that I personally generated a fair bit more income than the next most profitable employee.

As I said, it didn't work out in the long run.

In fact one ex employee came to see me years later, having set up his own business. I helped him sort out some issues and he's now one of my principal suppliers.

Experienced? I thought you paid based on what their production value was.

Truly sorry to hear that.

You must almost be a decent employer.

[Ocean1]

I understood what you meant. The price is the price, producer has set it, consumer must pay for it... but the producer only has to be as fair as they decide to be. There's no 80 - 20 rule for arguments sake.

No, the consumer has the ultimate control: they can decline to pay for the product.

If too many consumers agree the product's not worth the asking price then the producer must reduce the price.

So you're saying that even if a business isn't paid, the employees get paid irrespective?

The employer's required to pay his employees whether his customers have paid him or not. In fact as I suggested he almost always has to pay them before his customer has paid for their product/services.

If the company goes into receivership as a result of clients not paying then employees are legally much better protected than any other creditor.

Oh really. So why is it when a producer goes out of business the creditors/customers are guaranteed to get their money back as well as the staff/contractors they have hired? Again, I'm very familiar with that not always being the case.

Not sure what you mean. Firstly, profit is what's left of the revenue after all of the costs have been accounted for. If a company goes out of business they're not suddenly exempt from having to pay those costs. If the company is put into receivership then the creditors aren't automatically guaranteed their money. As for their customers... why on earth would their customers be due any money? it usually flows the other way. If the company doesn't have the resources to clear outstanding debts the receivers can tap the company directors for it.

The point I was originally making was that a company's costs are generally due before the income those costs generated is due. It's called fiscal drag, and as I said it means the employees generally get paid before the company does.

Experienced? I thought you paid based on what their production value was.

Weekly pay based on market rates for qual's and experience, profit share based on bookable hrs.

Truly sorry to hear that.

You must almost be a decent employer.

Most employees presumably think their employers are. Why would you work for an arsehole?

Again, your prejudices are showing.

[mashman]

No, the consumer has the ultimate control: they can decline to pay for the product.

If too many consumers agree the product's not worth the asking price then the producer must reduce the price.

I guess that all depends on the product service and the numbers using that product and service.

True... but highly unlikely to happen, much to my disappointment at times, heh.

The employer's required to pay his employees whether his customers have paid him or not. In fact as I suggested he almost always has to pay them before his customer has paid for their product/services.

If the company goes into receivership as a result of clients not paying then employees are legally much better protected than any other creditor.

True to a degree. I guess that all depends on how the company is wound up and that people haven't pre-ordered.

I guess that depends on how much money is left, but that's the gamble I guess.

Not sure what you mean. Firstly, profit is what's left of the revenue after all of the costs have been accounted for. If a company goes out of business they're not suddenly exempt from having to pay those costs. If the company is put into receivership then the creditors aren't automatically guaranteed their money. As for their customers... why on earth would their customers be due any money? it usually flows the other way. If the company doesn't have the resources to clear outstanding debts the receivers can tap the company directors for it.

The point I was originally making was that a company's costs are generally due before the income those costs generated is due. It's called fiscal drag, and as I said it means the employees generally get paid before the company does.

Again I guess that's back to the product, I was especially thinking about financial investments, banks (Cyprus) and the likes. Hotchin and co can rip the company off, sorry, I mean pay themselves a good salary, and live very well after the company goes tits and leaves customers short. Again, tis a gamble but if these guys are found guilty, they should lose everything... in the name of fairness like. I was talking about prepayment in regards to customers getting their money back, people getting stiffed over houses primarily and losing their life savings.

Weekly pay based on market rates for qual's and experience, profit share based on bookable hrs.

Ahhhhhhh, a workers nirvana, unless of course they ain't in it for all... which I guess is where they leave when they have to tighten their belts. Shame as I love the business model, so much so I've "designed" an economy around it .

Most employees presumably think their employers are. Why would you work for an arsehole?

Again, your prejudices are showing.

heh... I've met very few good employers. In fact none in the UK and 2 here. Poor in 16 years in IT. No doubt my forthright nature has something to do with it, yet I'm not a cunt. Bottom line, people need to get paid eh.

From experience. And they are changing to an extent.

[bogan]

We'll grow a heart in a jar then a robotic surgeon will replace the heart ... the future backwater civilisation

Ahh, so Robotics Engineers will be more valued/required than hookers then?

[mashman]

Ahh, so Robotics Engineers will be more valued/required than hookers then?

That'll depend on the state of your health really. If you don't need either, then they're as valuable as each other and you can only hope that you get to see the latter more than the former. In other words, when you're horny and no one will love you other than a hooker, the hooker is more valuable/important and when you have to have a heart replacement, the robotic engineer will be more important/valuable.

[mashman]

Even with their "big gun" incentive schemes, "all" of the communist states have diminished, collapsed, disintegrated or kept their name while they practice Capitalism!

Pity as much energy and effort hadn't gone into correcting the "few" vital faults of the world monitory system as has gone into the worlds failed communist experiments!

Correct the flaws of world finance and capitalism would blossom the way it should have and most of the worlds social problems would benefit from it accordingly!

Nothing succeeds like success and the most charitable heart is a successful heart!

World monitory problems are "NOT" an accident!

I wonder if anyone knows what the end goal of any of these "isms" is supposed to be? Why do we try to organise ourselves in a multitude of ways? There must be some reason for it?

[Ocean1]

Ahhhhhhh, a workers nirvana, unless of course they ain't in it for all... which I guess is where they leave when they have to tighten their belts. Shame as I love the business model, so much so I've "designed" an economy around it

Yeah. And like I've been telling you your worker's nirvana doesn't work.

And as I've also told you a million times you can't have an economy without a currency.

[bogan]

That'll depend on the state of your health really. If you don't need either, then they're as valuable as each other and you can only hope that you get to see the latter more than the former. In other words, when you're horny and no one will love you other than a hooker, the hooker is more valuable/important and when you have to have a heart replacement, the robotic engineer will be more important/valuable.

So, what happened to this social responsibility and empathy you were talking about? Now it's all about what the me-me-me needs?

Oh, and you'd better bloody value the Engie before you need that replacement, advanced robotics takes time to develop.