Economic Question

Post Reply New Topic

Which of these statements is more true in practice?

(a) Businesses exist to provide people with income.

(b) People exist to provide businesses with income.

(a) is more true in practice. Businesses would not pop into existence if certain people (entrepreneurs and investors) did not expect income.

(b) is not true because people exist in multiple different economic systems, some of which do not involve businesses. Not only that, but it is logically possible even in this society to abolish businesses. Feasible? No. Expect massive poverty, starvation, and the collapse of civilization, but logically possible.

Now, I suppose a big issue is what is meant by "true in practice" and what you mean by "provide people with income" and "People exist to provide businesses with income", as both of those are odd phrasings given that people exist because their parents didn't use condoms or good birth control or those efforts failed to be effective.

As for why people are born, you just assume that all of them are birth control accidents? Some people may be, but others are intended...


As for what I mean, I am speaking more in terms of priorities. It seems like here in the U.S.A., at least, that people are irrelevant in specific. Anyone can be walked on and trampled and abused. But the business entity is of paramount important. It must feed on the work of subservient people, and its bottom line must grow and its assets must be protected.

What I have seen, at least, is that businesses are more important than those who cause them to grow.

"What I have seen, at least, is that businesses are more important than those who cause them to grow."

Tell that to small or family businesses. <.< What you are talking about are the big internationals (at least, that's the feeling i get).

Correct. Places such as McDonald's, Wal-Mart, Burger King, etc.

What you speak of is economic power. Obviously a business must have a product that supplies some demand to be successful. In general businesses regard employees in the same manner as they regard any production equipment and the welfare of employees is highly secondary to the bottom line. This is the point of view of business and the economically powerful businesses do whatever they can in manipulative politics to ensure that point of view is dominant. The welfare of the populace is a related matter but frequently in direct opposition to that of the profit motive of businesses but, at least in current politics, the businesses have the upper hand which can be quite destructive to the general welfare. Sadly, the populace in general responds only when highly oppressed. We have not reached that stage yet but it seems to be coming.

If or when that point does come, how would the populace respond? A revolution is infeasible, due to technological superiority of the military as well as the continual motions in congress to disarm the people. So what is able to be done really?

I am not advocating violent revolution. The solution to the problem is an entirely new discussion.

Businesses exist to sell goods or services to willing buyers.

The nature of trade/commerce implies a total reciprocal relation between buyer and seller, if the transaction is voluntary.

ruveyn

No, I assume that birth control either wasn't used or wasn't effective. Whether the non-use of birth control was intentional or not is a different matter.


Ok, I am not sure that the trade-off is as big as you see it as being. At least not in the long run.

Business entities exist and employ to create profit. If employment is made unprofitable by taxes or regulations or anything like that, then employers are likely to cut back, substitute, or grow less than they would otherwise. This in turn is likely to reduce employment and worsen the welfare of workers. Now, the question really is one of how much is lost per regulation/tax/etc, and how much is gained per regulation/tax/etc, but a basic trade-off exists, it isn't as if workers can somehow win at this and screw over large corporations. Workers have jobs because employers are willing to employ.

Now, does this mean that there are no improvements that can help workers? Not at all, only that clear benefits are hard to find.

(b) People exist to provide businesses with income.

Speaking literally, I personally believe we actually do exist for a much *greater* purpose ... but yes, business often comes before people today. Where companies used to have Personnel Departments, workers are now viewed as mere resources or even as "machines" that just happen to be human. After complaining about something, I once even had an owner specifically say to me, "The squeaky bearing gets oil, but the howling bearing gets replaced."

From the smallest company to the largest, the state of the balance sheet is almost always the bottom line. I once worked for a man who only had one other employee and who was an exceptionally considerate man, yet my pay and hours were still based upon what the company needed and could afford, and without my ever even being asked about what I might have needed. Somewhat contrastingly, the family-owned company where I presently work is paying me far more than I had ever requested ... yet that is still more of a practical business decision than a matter of simple charity.

I used to drive a cab, and I once picked a woman up from her workplace so she could go home and care for a sick child of hers, and she told me her boss had just told her she needed to get her priorities straight before bothering to come back in the morning!

There would be no business without people, yet "business" still calls the shots.

Neither if fully correct. So I say (b).

A person opens a business to make money...support themselves. That means providing a service or a product to customers. Hence, no customers, no business.

Businesses can be single-man operations. It is not the job of the business to provide jobs to a community. The entrepreneur opens a business to get money from people who want the service/product being marketed. That businesses ofter grow to a size where they need laborers who get paid and in turn can enrich the economy by buying stuff is a by-product and benefit.

That is a good point. It is possible (but not easy) to have an economy which consists of individual producers and traders wherein no one is the employee of anyone else. It is possible to have business without jobs, i.e. employment of people for just their labor.

That said, such an economy would function at a relatively low level of productivity. The reason why we have labor for wages is an extension of the labor specialization principle, which is the basis of all economic prosperity.

ruveyn

Actually, that is largely false.

When individuals knew a trade and basically worked for themselves doing jobs for others, it led to more wealth production. Specialized skills and working for someone only yields prosperity when your skills are highly in demand. Otherwise, you don't know how to work for yourself and depend on finding someone who can use what you know how to do.

Most self-employed people have multiple skills. Maybe not the top of the world in their fields, but as I'm fond of saying to employers...if you want the best, you can't afford to pay for it.

Another factor within all of this is the matter of mere wages versus an actual increase.

----------
Prosperity, n. (Webster)
Advance or gain in any thing good or desirable; successful progress in any business or enterprise; success; attainment of the object desired; as the prosperity of arts; agricultural or commercial prosperity; national prosperity.

Increase, n. Augmentation; a growing larger; extension.
1. Increment; profit; interest; that which is added to the original stock.
----------

Yes, it is possible for an hourly, salaried or commissioned employee to experience prosperity, yet s/he can never experience any actual *increase* from the sale of his or her labor ... and for religious folk, that means no tithe is scripturally due!