Who was in the wrong?

Who was in the wrong?

Attached: 1589970215520.jpg (1564x1248, 915.32K)

>>115107702The black haired kid, the other kid made it clear >Build this for me in my sandbox A deal was made

Faggot black haired kid.

>>115107702>"come build something for MY sandbox">builds something in HIS sandboxWhat was the dweeb expecting would happen? That he'd take the sandbox with him or something? If he's some retard who builds things for free on other people's property, using their own tools and everything, by definition the creation is going to stay there; it's not like it can be moved. He didn't buy the sand, the box, or whatever else.

>>115107715yup, hell maybe if he said "hey wanna come play in my sandbox?" id understand the confusion, but brown haired kid phrased it like its an art request

Squatter's rights dictate that someone that assumes control of, develops, and tends for, unused property should be given rights to that property. The sandbox had clearly never been developed, therefore the black haired kid was in the right.

is this supposed to be an analogy for something? i could see the artist tryna pass it off as one

>>115107755yes, but if a piece of land belongs to someone and they specifically ask someone else to build somehing FOR that piece of land, its to be assumed that theyre only doing the labor and dont get whatever they made

It doesn't matter. It's sand.Wind and weather will knock it over if older kids doesn't.If they want to preserve it they'll need to work together to take protective measures, like setting up tarps and shooting older kids on sight.

Attached: capi.jpg (664x664, 154.14K)

The kid with the sandbox owns it but he could never claim he created it. Like if I bought some art I'd own it but it always be a work by so and so artist.

>>115107764You know what they say about assumptions.By that same logic, the deal could be interpreted as meaning>build something cool "in exchange" for my sandboxin which case he delivered and should expect payment.

>>115107777at that point tho its just semantics about the language being used

>>115107777All of your posts so far have been nothing but assumptions, there's only so much you can analyze from such a simple comic before you need to start to make assumptions

>>115107775They never claimed they made it though

>>115107777There's no way that can be extrapolated from the dialogue in the comic. Your post is just contrarian and I can extrapolate that you're a faggot.

>A: Come do something for me for free, with no benefit to you.>B: OK, but now that I've done it I regret it and want to blame you. You sandcastle raped me.>A: It's a sandcastle, did you really think you could take it with you?>B: Capitalism has failed me. Hail chairman Mao.

>>115107772>whose though?His own, obviously. Hard work can get a man some capital, but if you want to get RICH you need to use that capital in conjunction with leadership, good ideas and a head for business.Now as always the figure on the right represents the hordes of idiots who doesn't have the intelligence or skills to become rich, yet for some insane reason feel like they deserve to be just because they can do dumb labor.Without the rich man they wouldn't have a steady job and income. And if they were intelligent they would invest the capital they make like their boss did.But they won't, and they can't. So having a secure job position to get by is the best they can get and they should be happy with that. Nobody owes the worker anything, least of all the rich.

>>115107702The black haired kid for giving away his labour for free

>>115107844>Without the rich man they wouldn't have a steady job and income.Muh job creators!

Attached: wagee.jpg (620x512, 67.89K)

>>115107797>at that point tho its just semanticsThe reasonableness of an interpretation of a verbal contract is arguing semantics, but in that situation, semantics is the kinda the fucking meat of the discussion. It's what should be argued, if you're gonna make this a contract.Also I'm pretty sure a verbal contract actually requires an exchange by BOTH parties to be enforceable so literally the only interpretation that both makes sense and would hold up in court would involve the payment of the sandbox in exchange for the service of making something cool.

>"Hey can you build something for me?">"Sure.">"Thank you for building this for me, it is an excellent piece of work.">"Whoa whoa whoa, it's MINE." Black hair is a faggot, it's not like Curly was taking credit for his work. If you want to own something you make it is a good idea to start with owning the materials you use.

>>115107897>start with owning the materials you use.Did he steal, rent, or agree to return the materials given?

>>115107844>without the rich man they wouldn't have a steady job and incomeAnd without the workers the rich guy wouldn't have a functioning and growing business, in many cases. It's a symbiosis, and paying a barely livable wage to your workers to squeeze out the maximum profit is pretty scummy. A business needs profit to expand, develop and compete, sure, but there is a case where enough is enough. But if you have a highly competitive field with low margins, there's not much you can do unless you wanna lose to your competitors.

>>115107702You can create something without it being your property.Black hair kid is the castle's creator.Brown hair kid is the castle's owner.

>>115107913He was never given materials, he was provided materials.

>>115107702morally speaking brown her, factually speaking black hair

>>115107941>He was never given materials, he was provided materials.Given and provided mean literally the same thing.

>>115107962He wasn't given anything, he was lent it.

>>115107702I guess that technically the blond hair boy has the "ownership" of the castle, although he's unable to claim as if he was the one who created it. The black haired boy does have the claim that he made it. But, technically he doesn't "own" it.I think they're probably both in the wrong, considering that none of them acknowledge the collaborative nature of this. Given the fact that the other kid gives him the resources, and in the return he gives him the product that are formed by his ideas. So this can be called as theirs, due to them putting in a "equal" contribution into the final product.

Attached: 1586155643937.png (416x405, 57.16K)

>>115107962In the first, you now own the materials.

>>115107980So produce the lease. Seems simple enough.

>>115107702You, for making this dumb thread.The artist, for thinking that a children fighting over a sandbox is a good metaphor for class conflict.

Attached: the sand trap.png (1568x1924, 2.22M)


Attached: 1486938909149.jpg (500x276, 18.82K)

>>115107992>you now own the materials.In what universe does the black haired boy not own the materials? They were conveyed into his custody with no expectation or agreement on his part that they be returned. It's not like he's an employee working a job. He's not being paid.


>>115107844You're right about one thing there and it's that the average man can't reinvest the profit he makes, mostly because of a shit economic situation, fueled by neoloberal doctrines and the tendency of companies to monopolistically kill all the competition.And while it's true capitalist must have started somewhere, most of them had one good idea and subsequently forbade anyone who made their aidea better from profiting for it.Do you think Bill gates still does research and development in person? Anbdthings like the iPhone that completely rebirth Ed Apple was created mostly using open source programs, only that they packaged them all together and now you have to pay for what was once free. Even inside Holla Forums do you think Walt Disney made all of his company beloved creations? Heck the guy didn't even fully created Mickey Mouse, yet up untill the 50's other authors were forbade to put their name on the comics they did for the company.

Every symphony Beethoven wrote was commissioned by some pampered blue-blooded fop nobody remembers. They would have paraded around in the 19th Century calling it 'their symphony' but nobody bought that shit. Ludwig wrote it. Ludwig added value. Ludwig gets the credit.

>>115108040In any universe where the concept of property exists.You don't suddenly own something because it's in your hands.

>>115107702>my sandboxYou mean, your parent's sandbox? That kid didn't earn a single grain of sand for himself. It should be seized and placed in the hands of the hard-working black haired kid so he can continue to work without having to deal with the brown haired kid's entitled bullcrap

>>115108067>You don't suddenly own something because it's in your hands.It's in his hands by lawful transfer of the prior owner who does not contest his ownership.Dark haired boy>It's my sandcastleLight haired boy>YeahI reiterate, in what universe is it not his?

Attached: critical strike.png (966x520, 381.48K)

>>115108045It was their property, but his creation.Just like how record labels own the music, even though the musician created it.

>>115107962No they don't. Given can imply a gift, an exchange of ownership. Provided implies to supply or make available. Giving someone a car can be different than providing someone with a car.

>>115108044All these conjectures always comes down to people pretending they HAVE to work for big businesses, and the idea that the "average joe" deserves more than he has. Sorry, but if you don't have any good ideas or special talents you aren't deserving of anything. You're just another dredge that should be happy to have a job no matter how soul crushing.And if you HAVE a good idea, make something of it or patent it, then sell it. Don't get bitchy at people who have managed to create wealth and who understandably want to keep it no matter what.

>>115108089>It's my sandcastleThat does not necessarily imply ownership.The sandcastle is his creation, which the brown haired boy agrees to.But it's not his property.

>>115108094>Giving someone a car can be different than providing someone with a car.Providing someone a car is different than providing someone with the title to a car. If you did that, good luck claiming you still own the damn car.

>>115108121>That does not necessarily imply ownership.So are you arguing the light haired kid isn't claiming to own the sandbox immediately after or are you claiming he changed the meaning of "my" in his follow up rebuttal?

>>115108141Not necessarily no.He could have made the sandbox.

>>115108089>It's in his hands by lawful transfer of the prior owner who does not contest his ownership.But he does.There was never any transfer.

>>115108159>There was never any transfer.Then how did the kid make the sandcastle?

>>115108141That exact sentence is where he affirms his ownership of the sandbox and everything in it.Though in actuality it probably belongs to his parents.

>>115108176>and everything in it.To the contrary he denies owning everything in it.

>>115108175He was invited over to make it. See the first panel.If he hadn't misunderstood the arrangement he would probably have asked for some sort of compensation for his labour.

>>115108186He affirms that the castle is for him because it's part of his sandbox.That is the direct line of his reasoning.

>>115107702>What do you mean? It's MY sandcastle.>Yeah but it's my sandbox.>Wow if I had known that I wouldn't have build it to begin with!>You DID know that. I specifically asked if you wanted to build something in MY sandbox and you agreed. You had fun building it too, I don't see what I could possibly owe you in this scenario.>So now you have a sandcastle I built and I don't have anything.>It's not like I'm telling you to go home, we can still play with it together even if it's my sand.>Uhuh that's not the point, you should at least pay me for my work.>We never had an agreement on that, and what do you think your work is worth anyway? It's just sand dude, it'll be gone by tomorrow.>I'll be seeing you in court then.

Attached: Ronaldslapsahoe.jpg (460x446, 45.01K)

>>115108188>he would probably have asked for some sort of compensation for his labour.His compensation was the fun he had playing in the sandbox.

>>115108188>He was invited over to make it.Yes, and?By your logic, a Build-a-Bear Workshop could charge a customer with shoplifting for trying to walk out of the store with a bear they made because they were just paying for being able to make the bear, not the bear itself.>>115108197>it's part of his sandbox.But it isn't, hence the reasoning being shit. You could move that shit with some shovels and a flatbed. It's loose god damn rocks.

>>115107702creative kid is wrong for not asking payment by whatever means

>>115108207>What seems to be the issue here?>>A dispute over a sandcastle your honor. The contractor is suing for ownership rights.>Very well, let's hear both cases.

Attached: latest-cb-20150402183545.jpg.png (1195x893, 1.52M)

>>115108229If you take the sand out of the sandbox it stops being a sandbox. And that's theft. Sand isn't free, believe it or not.His parents paid for it as well as the sand.

>>115107702black haired kid was wrong to trust brown haired kid. He should have laid out strong terms from the outset and at least got something in writing and not lifted a finger until he was guaranteed compensation for his labor. Everyone should treat the rich this way

>>115108229At Build-A-Bear you pay for both the materials and use of the equipment.

>>115108236inb4 King Bob gives some retard-tier ruling about black hair kid being allowed access to the castle on three days of the week and blonde hair kid owing him a juice box for labor

>>115108244>And that's theftI'm glad we agree that taking something from someone is theft.Light haired boy gave dark haired boy the sand to work with. It wasn't part of any contract and there was never any expectation or agreement by the dark haired boy to give it back. It is now the dark haired boy's sand.Light haired boy is a thief attempting to steal it.

>>115108229>By your logic, a Build-a-Bear Workshop could charge a customer with shoplifting for trying to walk out of the store with a bear they made because they were just paying for being able to make the bear, not the bear itself.How is that the same line of logic? That's a total non-sequitur.Sand is generally considered to be part of the sandbox. You aren't allowed to take it out just because you can.Can you imagine people just shoveling the sand out of their neighbours sandboxes and nobody being able to say anything about it?

>>115108261He never "gave" him the sand, he allowed him to play with it.Neither of them is a thief, but black hair boy is dangerously close to becoming one.

>>115108261>It wasn't part of any contract and there was never any expectation or agreement by the dark haired boy to give it back.Of course there is. That's always the case when being invited to someone else's sandbox. Nobody would ever think that would entail giving some person sand as property.

>>115108266>Can you imagine people just shoveling the sand out of their neighbours sandboxes and nobody being able to say anything about it?dude lmao its just sand and you have so much of it you can spare me a couple of wheelbarrows worth

Attached: Communism explained.jpg (750x515, 153.72K)

>>115107715fpbp. Black kid clearly agreed to a deal, it's his own fault if he agreed to a shitty deal without compensation.

>>115107844>You have some dirty gum on your boot Master. Let me lick it off for you!

>>115108256Nah, one of the fifth graders called Dibs on sandbox on Tuesday before he had to go home for measels, snd he just got back today, these kids are both out of a sandcastle and sand box

>>115107702yeah ok, but where's the porn of these two?

>>115108266>Sand is generally considered to be part of the sandboxIs milk generally considered to be part of a milk carton?>Can you imagine people just shoveling the sand out of their neighbours sandboxes and nobody being able to say anything about it?If the neighbor said they could have the sand, nobody should be able to say anything about it, including the damn neighbor. No take backsies.>He never "gave" him the sand, he allowed him to play with it.Well he has the sand, so clearly he did. The "I was just lending it to him" defense generally requires fucking proof of an agreement to return the shit.

>>115107844You're just gonna pretend the wage gap hasn't been growing for decades, huh. CEOs don't even NEED to invest. They can make millions a year already just by virtue of being at the top of the hierarchy. Get bent, bootlicker.

>>115108256Giving compensation for labour isn't actually unreasonable here. Even if they didn't agree to it beforehand.A contract must be beneficial to both parties, otherwise it is void. If black hair accidentally or even voluntarally joined an arrangement that has him contribute but not receive anything, the law could rule that she should be compensated anyway.

>>115108308And this translates to them owing you anything, how exactly?

>>115108289>Nobody would ever think that would entail giving some person sand as property.The boy did, so you're a liar.

>>115108312There's a 99% chance that blonde hair kids mom gave them both cookies and juice after they were done playing.

Attached: hat cat.png (518x518, 79.1K)


Attached: Democracy Personified.png (720x365, 303.34K)

>>115108306He doesn't 'have' the sand. It's still in its owners sandbox. He was just allowed to handle it while their.You don't attain ownership when being allowed to touch something.

>>115108318That's why the comic is absurdist and confusing and spawns an 80+ post thread on Holla Forums.

>>115108315Opportunity cost. As in the opportunity to make those fat stacks has an associated cost to society that they should pay in some form or another. Stable first world economies aren't free to maintain.

>>115108344You don't get free shit just for existing.Back of the line, tramp!

>>115108335>He doesn't 'have' the sand. It's still in its owners sandbox.It's literally in his hands. Now you're just being pedantic. If I come onto your property with something I own, it doesn't instantly become yours the second I cross over. Likewise, if you give me something on your property it doesn't only become mine when I leave.As a thought experiment, the kid's dad dumps a pile of sand off at the dark haired kid's house to play with. Is there ANY expectation to reclaim that shit? No. Where the sand is physically is immaterial to custody and ownership.

>>115108356>You don't get free shit just for existing.Unless you're rich in which case yes, you do. Also, laborers do more than exist.

>>115108385no, in that case you get free shit for being rich

>>115108372Again, having something in your hand doesn't turn it into your property. If that were the case, nobody would ever be able to let others touch their stuff.Only when I say "take it, it's yours" do I give it to you.Only if you own something would you be allowed to take it home with you. It is very clear from this situation that taking the sand out of the sandbox to the one at his own house would be out of the question, indicating that the sand does not belong to him.

>>115108408It's more like for being (existing) while rich.

>>115107757Judging by the context, it was about copyright/ownership issues involving content creators vs. online services that publish content. The artist said:>If you build a sandcastle in someone else's sandbox, who owns it?>Between Twitch, YouTube, Twitter, etc., I see so many creators building content for platforms which turn out to hate us. (Part 1 of 6)He also posted a follow-up picture and made it sound like he's probably going to discuss the topic some more later. This one's caption went:>Part 2/5: Some of the comments in yesterday's strip were... interesting >(Regarding my thesis here, gotta bite my tongue until the end of the week. Just... take my word for it: My protagonists aren't always right, and my antagonists aren't always wrong.)

Attached: EYYQjfBXkAE28Qk.jpg (1544x1228, 893.75K)

>>115108427>having something in your hand doesn't turn it into your property.Correct. Having something put in your hand by its own makes it your property.>indicating that the sand does not belong to him.Except the light-haired kid literally says it's his sandcastle.

>>115108440That price is way to steep.It makes me think the black haired boy is being unreasonable. And I don't know if that's the author's intention.

>>115108444>Let's go fishing. My brother's not coming so you can use his fishing rod.>Sweet! Thanks for the free fishing rod dude!

>>115108440Well this problem is easily fixable.Just change the sign so it says>Sandcastle built by the virgin greg, commissioned by the chad JOSH.

>>115108098>want to keep it no matter whatI hope you realize that "no Metter what" entails the destruction of the planet we're living in. Because that's what owners of polluting factories and oil barons are actively doing.Also no, people don't have to work only for corporation... For now, but it's undeniable that corporations have the tendency to kill off all the competition, Amazon's influence for example leads to the closure of a lot of irl stores and the consequent loss of jobs, all the while creating few, less profitable jobs.I'm not saying we should criminalize every guy that opens his own ice cream shop (as long as he pays his workers fairly) but I don't see why the CEO of an ice cream company should gain an infinity superior sum of money than the people who actually manage his numerous stores and invent al the new flavors that give him all of his profit.

>>115108468>as long as he pays his workers fairlyWorkers don't get to decide what's "fair wages", because if they did they would demand everything.

>>115108098>>115108468I hope you two realize that the owner of the ice cream company and the CEO are two different people.The owner pays the CEO such an exorbitant sum because he needs the CEO's service and his competition is offering similar sums for someone of those credentials.

>>115108468>Because that's what owners of polluting factories and oil barons are actively doingNot that user, but sure, blame the producers instead of the consumers.Or you could blame the people behind convincing the consumers consume what the producers produce.

>>115107702its my sandcastle, because Im an adult, and those little shits are my slaves, since i techinally didnt violate the NAP, sex slaves of course I need boy pussy

>>115108452>That price is way to steep.>gameboy will run you like $50 bucks>a sand sculpture that size likely took several hours of work>minimum wage is $12Nah.

Why does Holla Forums hate creatives and side with the capitalists?

Attached: 1505189195340.jpg (544x527, 77.25K)

>>115108440Josh is willing to negotiate.Greg, being a faggot, makes unreasonable demands.This is where Josh should call the police and have Greg physically removed from the premises and get a restraining order.

>>115108493Bro where are you getting $50 Gameboys?

>>115108440See, if it was a work of art on youtube I wouldn't mind the website taking it down. But if the blonde haired boy were to tear down this castle because of this disagreement I would think of him as an asshole.Also, the castle isn't generating any income. So the issue of compensation is totally different.What I'm saying is that perhaps this isn't such a good metaphor.

>>115108463You can't give someone property you don't own. Also, use and have are different verbiage. Also also, if you just placed a fishing rod in someone's hand and fucked off, good luck getting it back by claiming you still own it.

>>115108440The analogy doesn't really work in a framework where the castle can be moved anywhere and is infinitely duplicable.

>>115108493If he had built that shit out of something permanent and not SAND then maybe he could be compensated with an ice cream or a couple of dollars.But nobody is going to pay for a sand sculpture.

>>115107757>>115108440Could also be a analogy for capitalism

>>115108517labor is labor

>>115108506A fuckton of places. Learn2shop.

>>115108496Because/co/ knows they'll never create anything meaningful themselves, they exist only to consume the media of corporations

>>115108493That's not the average wage of a grade schooler. A gameboy represents months of allowance.Building a sand castle is just another game. Not time and effort he would have otherwise spend on a career.

>>1151085171. Nothing is permanent.2. You're paid for time.3. There are literally professional sand sculptors that charge out the ass for this sort of shit.

>>115108517>ask for sand sculpture>"okay now about my fee">W-What!? Who would pay for a sand sculpture! I don't even want it!!

Attached: rel.jpg (306x306, 67.66K)

>>115108440I think the most fair trade here is four juice boxes to be given within two weeks and at least a dozen cookies, in return Josh? can show off the sand box he's commissioned from Greg? I don't know who's who.

>>115108496Because you can't blame people for being better at the rules than you

>>115108510Exactly.And inviting someone to your sandbox is letting them use the sand, not letting them have it.It is not at all analogous to putting a rod in someone's hand and fucking off. Only to letting them hold an extra rod you have while you're fishign together.

Tell the black haired mutt to get the fuck out of the sandbox. Nobody owes him anything.He gave away his labor for free because he was too stupid to sign a contract.

>>115108532>That's not the average wage of a grade schooler.The average grade schooler isn't churning out a professional grade multi-layer sandcastle with at least one part literally defying gravity. Kid's a fucking earthbender. Pay him before he throws a boulder at you.

>>115108496YouTube influencers are not creatives.

>>115107987>that>blondeHe’s a brunette

>>115108553>ASK for sand sculpture>"ok ill build it">cool>"now pay me?">what? that want part of the agreement>???

>>115108559>And inviting someone to your sandbox is letting them use the sand, not letting them have it.He says it's the dark haired kid's sandcastle though. And if he had clarified he was only letting him "use" the sand, they wouldn't be having that discussion.You can give someone sand m8.

>>115108571>He gave away his sand* for free because he was too stupid to sign a contract.Fix'd. Light haired kid needs to get the fuck out of the way so black haired kid can take his sand and leave.

>hey man, want to come over and build a snowman in my yard after school?>sure, that sounds fun!>2 hours later>wow nice snowman, you're really good at this>I am, aren't I? Well, that'll be $50 plus tip for my labor and skill>dude, this is why you don't have any friends...

>>115108478Yeah because that's totally what happened when unions became a thing, it wasn't a slow, steady fight with the owners of the factories. And why would workers damage the company? Both owners and workers need jobs under this system, so I'm assure you workers don't want to see the company going out of business. O the other hand company owners don't have any incentive to treat their worker fair, considering that, as long as poverty exists they're going to find a new workforce.This could be easily resolved by co-ops by the way, this way everyone has a stake in the sustainability of the company.

>>115107702It's clearly the black haired kid for not entering a written contract giving him a set salary for his work and royaltiesShota Moot did nothing wrong

>>115108608It doesn't magically become his sand just because he touched it.The sand was bought by the brown haired kids parents.Black haired faggot can't claim it any less than brown hair kid can give it away. It's not his to give even if he wanted.

>>115108594He acknowledges that the black haired kid is the creator. But reaffirms that he is the owner right after.It can be considered common sense that you don't "give" someone sand when letting them use your sandbox. You would have to explicedly state that this is an exception to the rule.

>>115107962>will you help me move? Ill provide the truckwelp, i guess you own my truck now for helping me move

>>115108623>It doesn't magically become his sand just because he touched it.Right. It magically becomes his sand because it was left in his custody to do with as he pleased with no lease agreement and afterward the previous owner acknowledged his ownership.

>>115108610>I'm assure you workers don't want to see the company going out of businessWrong, and incredibly, immensely naive.Most people these days would have no qualms about their workplace suffering economically if it meant they could get a high wage.

>>115108440>it was about copyright/ownership issues involving content creators vs. online services that publish content.irony is thick then it's being based around an object that won't last an afternoon

Attached: 1579277935918.jpg (938x724, 41.55K)

>>115107755Squatters have to go uncontested for anyway from 8 to 20 years before squatters rights grants them the property.

>>115108637>the previous owner acknowledged his ownership.Except nobody ever did that.Maybe you should actually read the comic, you stupid commie.

>>115108478Yes they can. It's called a reservation wage.You don't work for less than you think you're worth. If that means that there's nobody willing to hire you that just means you're worth less than you thought.The whole idea of a free and open society is that you can disagree on what is fair and only work with people that agree with you. Just because a worker can decide for himself what a fair wage is, that doesn't mean he can force someone to pay it to him. Because we're not goddamn fairness absolutists.

>>115108639And can't be monetized. I could see the issue if the kid who's yard he's playing in started charging other kids to see the sandcastle, and didn't split the take with the kid who made it.THEN it would make sense in this context.

Attached: 1448055838854.png (250x446, 267.56K)

>>115108488People all around the world are trying to reduce their impact on the globe by recycling, using more bikes and other similar methods.At the same time the owners of the factory not only are against anti-pollution laws because it would mean they'd have to spend money to make their factor less polluting. While, at the same time having al the money and the power to lobby governments into not making substantial anti-pollution laws. We'll all have to rethink the way we live in this planet, but how can the customers, and not the companies, be at fault here?Protip: customers aren't to blame

>>115108625>He acknowledges that the black haired kid is the creator. But reaffirms that he is the owner right after.Assuming he is equivocating meanings of "my" across the discussion is not a good look.>It can be considered common sense that you don't "give" someone sand when letting them use your sandbox.It could be considered common sense that people don't work for free and if something is exchanging hands in return for a service it must be the payment.>>115108647>It's my sandcastle.>Yeah

>>115108520it's vague enough to be about college, states rights vs federalism and even marriage. That's why I never like these garbage examples, make your case, don't try to subtext it.

Attached: 53df92a2e0d573847cad7d0b95234690--revision-tips-revision-motivation.jpg (474x355, 27.15K)

>>115108652This so much.Maybe it's an artist thing. To only think in recognition and credit and then try to make sense of business disagreements through that lense.

>>115108635>the fuck is a title?

>>115108638It's not liek the management cares either, CEOs want to bank as much as possible during their short time at the head of the company, then leave the next guy to clean up the mess

>>115108648>You don't work for less than you think you're worth>Terry might be doing the same job as me at this restaurant but I'M worth twice what he is because I feel like it.Hate to break it to you, but most people take what they can get. I don't know if it's your autism bucks that allows you to think you can just hold out for that high-paying, low-effort job to appear but that isn't how real life works for the vast majority.

is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

Attached: bioshock-andrew-ryan.jpg (300x300, 40.21K)

>>115108682Sure, you get the sweat, I'll just take the money.

>>115108660>Assuming he is equivocating meanings of "my" across the discussion is not a good look.Yes it is because we all share a cultural lexicon and are able to make sense of common language use like normal people.>It could be considered common sense that people don't work for freeIndeed, that's why blonde hair was acting so shouty and grateful, he considered a big favor>and if something is exchanging hands in return for a service it must be the payment.No not at all. If you're being stiffed by an unequal agreement you don't decide for yourself what you take as compensation. You renegotiate or seek out outside arbitration.

>>115107844So your a rich asshole then?

>>115108679People take what they can get because what they can get is above their reservation wage.If you can't hold out for a higher paying job that means you're being confronted by the fact that your abilities are not worth a higher pay. And you adjust your expectations to be the same as Terry's.

>>115108673This, golden parachutes were a mistake.The corporate top is so nepotistic that you can absolutely decimate a business, put thousands out of work, take a half million dollar severance, and fuck off to the next place as an executive.

>>115108496But what if I am a creative AND a capitalist?>>115107844Ah, a fellow student of Prager University!

>>115108635>letting someone use your truck is the same thing as giving them the title to it???

>>115107844The entire middle US could probably revert back to communal farming townships and survive just fine. Rich people are a byproduct of labor, not a prerequisite for it.

>>115108716This.People lay the blame with the concept of ownership because they want to be edgy.It's nepotism and regularory capture ruining everything.And also high frequency stock trading punishing long-term thinking.

>>115108496this >>> >>115108720I'm an artist, and capitalism is what allows me to be an artist and be free to make and profit off of what I choose to create

>>115108715>dude just starve>don't go for anything less than you're worth>bills and rent isn't even real man, just focus on doing you

>>115108638You call me naive yet you seem to not understand that the common worker needs to make money under capitalism (shocker I know) and wouldn't therefore kill the company that gives him money, especially in an economically difficult situation like this one where finding a new jod is incredibly difficult.Also, like I already stated in a lot of the world the wages are already (partially) decided by the workers thanks to unions, yet companies haven't immediately collapsed tye second those were created. And how user here >>115108673 rightfully points out most damage for the company comes from higher ups who usually don't really need to make a good job because no matter what, they get paid ludicrous salaries and can just find a new job right after the old one, and even if they can't why should they be worried? They're rich, they're not at risk of starving, unlike tye common worker could.

>>115108754If you're starving you should definitely lower your standards.That is what lowering your reservation wage IS.You acknowledge your true worth, which is lower than you previously thought.

>>115108440These websites usually detail how they can use your work though, should have read the small print and hosted elsewhere or done it themselves. And any commisioned work usually involves negotiating usage rights and licences at the beginning of the project, if not,as an artist its your responsibilty to lay out the conditions first because people will try amd screw you over. Just sounds like this artist has never done any actual commercial work.

>>115108771Also indicated by the fact that they're arguing about who gets the bragging rights of calling it "their" castle. Instead of the income generated off of it, which is what the website cares about.

>>115108788Okay I'll humor you.What "income" does said castle generate?Cat poop? Stray leaves?

>>115108799Nothing.That's the problem.They're talking about compensation, in the form of a gameboy or whatever else, purely for bragging rights.The artists knows about the arguments in the art world but doesn't understand the underlying interests.

>>115108665>help me hang this picture bro, I have a ladder>wait, wtf why are you taking my ladder now after you helped hang the picture?

>>115108806>The artists knows about the arguments in the art world but doesn't understand the underlying interests.Must be a woman.

>>115108767True worth is being artificially suppressed by the government through both never tracking minimum wage to inflation and allowing foreigners (legal or otherwise) to work within US borders.Minimum wage adjusted for inflation when established was $16/hr, and this was back when you could be trained out of high school for most any job and places that did require degrees would either allow you to intern to pay for it no biggie or didn't but university could actually be paid off summer by summer (not possible now).Your grandad wasn't flipping burgers any more gourmet than the ones being flipped now, but he got paid more than twice as much for it. You can only blame the people being deprived of opportunity for so long before they start licking doorknobs and coughing on nursing home employees.

>>115108823But unchecked immigration is a GOOD THING user!It keeps the job market competitive, and more diversity is a GOOD THING.

>>115108823You can't artificially suppress wages by NOT implementing artificial measures such as minimum wage.Foreigners I'll give you. The illegal ones at least. They don't pay the same taxes as regular people.If you're competing with regular foreigners who will accept lower wages than you that means you need to have a special distinctive quality to justify a higher wage. Otherwise your labour is worth as little as theirs.

>>115108854Foreigners (legal) don't incur the same expenses to acquire your skills (or meet HR requirements) that natives do, especially with the college racket. If you're born in the US and rack up massive debt because your native college system is a scam, it's only a further disservice to then allow legal immigration from places with free or nearly-free college and no debt to come compete: They can ask for a lower wage because they weren't forced to incur the same costs to qualify for the job in the first place.

>>115108843Unironically true, though. Poor whites deserve to suffer.

Attached: migrants.jpg (640x891, 85.34K)

>>115108098>come up with great product >Amazon starts selling it >Amazon makes their own version of it and makes it the first result in any search>buries your product on page ten of any Google or Amazon search>"just come up with a good idea, dude"

>>115108902That's why intellectual property laws exist.

>>115108926Not every profitable product or service can be protected via IP.For example, fashion, food, some games, etc.

>>115108943And before you say "Well it must not have been worth much" there are plenty that make a ton of money, and companies would gladly snatch up your idea and boot you out of the marketspace by copying you. It'll make money, just not for you.

>>115108926Intellectual property laws only help you if you have money. Although no matter how much money you have nothing can protect you from the chinese

>>115107702He was comissioned to build the sandcastle and is therefore the owner of the design of the sand castle, but not the sand it is made of. Happy now?

>>115108926They might as well not exist in the US since intellectual property comes down to who can throw the most money into the lawyer-court circus act

>>115108898Yes, but ONLY in America.Real white people don't deserve that.

Just let the black haired kid take a photo of the sand castle with his phone.Now he can brag to everyone that he built it, and show his parents who will praise him.Isn't that problem solved?

>>115107755>a few hours>owner was there the whole time"Squatter's rights" with no limitations on timespan and the presence of the original owner would just be a legalization of theft. The squatter must be there for years and the owner must have NEVER even visited or seen to the upkeep of the land in that time. If the owner shows up one day short of the due date then the timer starts all over again.

>>115108440Why is the black haired kid wearing long pants now? Did he change clothes in the middle of the discussion?

>>115108440>>Kid1: I have lego at my house. Lets build legos!>>Kid2: Ive finished building lego.>>Kid1: Wow you built me a really nice Lego house!>>Kid2 What do you mean? This is MY lego house now.>>Kid1: Dude, thats my lego.>>Kid2 If you want your toy back give me your gameboy.

>>115108902And you probably made some profit from it before someone else improved on your idea or out-competed you with a more efficient distribution network or whatever, giving you the time and resources to think of your next good idea. It is very rare for someone to "strike gold" and then be able to live a life of luxury off of it forever after.

>>115108440>hand over gameboy, which costed 89 buckaroos>for a sandcastle that coated none.>it rains the next day>now out of BOTH a sandcastle and a gameboy.

>>115109059You're trying to explain capitalism to a commie who has never had an original idea and never will.There's a reason their entire world view is based on entitlement and the idea that the shrewd must pay for the dumb.


>>115109154in reality what communists REALLY WANT can more often than not be achieved by capitalism, if not capitalism's entire purpose... they just dont realize ithaving the right to the things you own and created, getting to choose what you create, not being FORCED to work for someone else. capitalism is literally freedom

>>115109147By this logic, prostitutes should be free

>>115108496Because creatives suck at building an argument even if I'm sympathetic to their situation. If you're going to present your case through analogy you really need to think it all the way through and make sure your point is clear, otherwise it gets bogged down in interpretation without landing your message.

>>115108496>creativesDo you mean people with an undeserved sense of entitlement?

>>115109225by THAT logic, so should going to see a play, visiting a theme park or hiring someone to be a clown at your kids birthday party they're all services

>>115107702I mean... how does the black haired kid plans to take this home?Obviously the other kid will keep the castle, there is no conceivable way the black kid could take this home and/or his parents would allow to take this home.I don't get why that is an issue, can't they just play with the castle?Get some figurines, have fun with it, maybe destroy it like it is a siege?Are kids that much shit nowadays?

>>115108021And now we need a gay sex ending

>>115107844>all the assmad wagie (you)'sBASED user


>>115109303Like I said, prostitutes. If you're working, you're somebody's whore.

>>115109356and theres a demand for it anyway so you'll get paiddont like it? dont work. no ones making ya

So this is what Luffy was doing during his 10 years between getting his straw hat and sailing off on his pirate adventure.

Attached: Luffy.png (218x262, 85.19K)

>>115109355Removing sand from beaches is illegal precisely because people do it all the damn time. A substantive portion of the construction industry uses pirated sand for their cement.Beyond that, speaking from experience, there are certain spay glues you can get to harden the outer layer of sand constructions.

They're both wrong. Black hair is a whining faggot and brown hair is a tricky manipulative Jew.

>>115108256Blonde kid afford a better lawyer and slips some sand under king's table to get out of trouble.


>>115108308>CEOsLmao imagine being assmad at other wage earners just because they make more than you

Holla Forums generally doesn't agree with the premise if paying for anything, and in fact only brings up the prospect of people buying entertainment when it's to lambast "sjws" for not doing it,.

>>115109556But CEOs don't make anything. They collect. Not the same thing.

>>115108021kek, good work

>>115109570CEOs make the same things as any other manager. They keep the company running and identify and improve underperforming departments.

>>115109593>CEOs make the same things as any other managert. manager

>>115107702>1. The brown haired kid clearly stated he wanted it built it for HIS sandbox>2. Black haired kid NEVER discussed anything about the terms and conditions before he did>3. How the fuck does he expect to take it back with him? Or sell it?Basically, the lesson here is learn your rights and actually discuss things before working, or savvier people WILL screw you over

>>115108742Shhh don't spell truth, you'll make the parasites seethe.

Attached: amish.jpg (626x379, 70.31K)

>>115107702>not just destroying it godzilla style for the lolsKid built it in a day he can obviously wait till he gets his own sandbox

>>115108089This one. Where ownership sacrificed on the altar of capitalism.

>>115107702Black kid should know how unreasonable Jerma can be sometimes

>>115109655thisblack haired kid is just a presumptive retard he has the gumption but not the brains to ask for what he wants

>>115108021>Report on the history of the Iraq war for C students

>>115107702If the sandbox owner were Chinese half the people in this thread would stop siding with him.

>>115109776yeah cause we hate the chinese what's your point

>>115109776Fuck the chinks

>I'm creative, so I'm naturally the good character. You're meant to side with me.>The other guy isn't creative, but he has the resources I need and he won't give them to me for free, so he's the bad guy. You're meant to side against him.

Attached: Capitalismo.jpg (960x720, 89.4K)

>>115109795>capitalism makes people sad ):>socialism makes people happy (:lol

>>115107702I want to commit statutory rape on them.

>>115109795>It's either Capitalism or Socialism, no other option!Mutts are so funny

>>115109854But I thought we spoke American.

>>115107702How the hell do you get so much sand in a sandbox? Those things are like, 6 inch layers of sand at most.

Capitalism would be a lot better if the free market weren't just theoretical at this point.

>>115109898Maybe he brought his own sand he got from the sand welfare office?

>>115109898Other people give you sand when you own the sandbox.

>>115109795See in America we have OSHA. Which would flip its wig at those people not wearing PPE- not Corona PPE, but factory floor stuff. They need the things they are wearing in the capitalism picture for safety. And OSHA is a government agency, so some measure of socialism is involved. I'm not sure what's going on with the country that views protective gear as evil, but they sure do have shitty standards.

>>115108098>you dont HAVE to work for big bussinessAh yes. If youre an office drone or a minimum wage slave just quit and find a better job! Is just that simple! >if you cant come up with a decent idea you dont deserve anythingThis just in guys, if you cant invent and patent the next ipod you deserve to starve in the streets


>>115109854Mutts can't read that, Paco.

>>115107702The black haired kid made it at the request of the brown haired kid. The brown haired kid owns it but the black haired kid made it.Think of it this way: I ask McDonald's to make me a hamburger. I now have a McDonald's hamburger. But it's MY hamburger, McDonald's doesn't own it anymore. If I want to eat it, or give it to someone, or put extra mayo on it and fuck it, as long as I don't lie and tell people I made it myself I can do what I want with it.

>>115111823Oh they can, juan

>>115107755Was the title left out on purposeno, that would be too clever...

>>115111855It doesn't count if they jumped the border.

>>115107866>Women enter the job makert in the 1960s-1970s in mass>Wages stagnateMakes sense, the more workers, the harder it is to raise the wages. I would be surprised if the wages start to shrink.

>>115107702Black hair. The other kid was just giving him a compliment for building something cool for him with both of them then just stating the obvious.

>>115108823Actually most economist agree that more immigrants is actually a good thing. It sounds counterntuitive i know but this is the logic.More immigrants=more workers and more consumersMore workers=cheaper workCheaper work=cheaper products for everyoneMore consumers= more money for local bussinesesMore money for local bussineses+cheaper products=healthier economyBetter economy ends up benefiting everyone

>>115111993en masse

>>115112047>Better economy ends up benefiting everyoneWell, except for the immigrants who are exploited with extreme labor and unsafe working conditions for minimal pay and can't report it because they illegally immigrated.

>>115112047Workers who get displaced are hurt, many of the economists who supported it now say they underestimated it.

>>115107702The assumption that one is entitled to the fruits of their labors is a fallacy. In nature there is no entitlement. One possesses only what they take for themselves. We obey the laws and conventions of society only by our own will.

>>115107702They're kind of both right.Black hair gets the credit, Blonde hair owns it.I mean it is the sistine chapel's painting, but we all know Michelangelo did it.

Attached: SistineChapel-57ffd66e5f9b5805c2ac4916.jpg (2592x2592, 1.48M)

>>115112047>More workers=cheaper workCongrats, you just killed the economic mobility of the actual citizens of your country while fueling ethnic resentment to a genocidal extent.

>>115107702>will you build something for my sandbox>yes>thank you>it's mine>you said you would build it for my sandbox

>>115109570>Analysys don't make anything. They just collect!

>>115111993>Makes sense, the more workers, the harder it is to raise the wagesThat's not how it works

>>115113047That's exactly how it works in pretty much every sector.

>>115112980The ethnic resentment was there for the past century, don't pretend it's recent or new or caused by any of this. You've always been racist.

>>115113047Supply and demand.

>>115113123Things changed a bit when we hit the point (((certain groups))) went from "white genocide doesn't exist" to "white genocide exists, and it's a good thing! Yes, we are going to replace you!"

>>115107702black haired kid is right.The architect still created the building. The sandbox kid owns it but the black haired kid made it. And when it eventually falls over because it's sand the black haired kid can rebuild it.Also technically he'd own the design patent, the IP rights and the production. So he'd be able to reproduce it anywhere he likes without any problem, whereas the sandbox kid can't make shit on his own so he'd have to hire someone else to reproduce it. He could take a photo and get an approximate replica made but he wouldn't be able to own it, he'd be replicating. Same as how I can draw a mickey mouse but I don't own the character only my drawing of him.Black haired kid basically got fucked over in a voluntary work for hire situation which is on him for accepting but at the end of the day he can leave and create more works anywhere, whereas sandbox kid only owns the box and will need others to bring value for it. But the point is moot as the sandbox is a finite, mutable resource. Black haired kid can go the beach and get better exposure.

Attached: 1552313028498.jpg (960x540, 293.23K)

>>115107702>asks him to make something for him>gets offended when he thanks him for making it for him?????????????????????????like he doesn't even actually claim ownership of it

>>115113268dont tell me you're buying the "jews are behind this all rubbing their lil hands" thingwhat's known as "white genocide" exists more as a result of many factors as opposed to one group actually legitimately trying to exterminate white people, but it doesn't help that many others consider it a good thing

>>115112047The total benefit in the world increases. But the employers in the low wage country and the native employees in the high wage country experience a loss in negotiation power. At least in the short term that outweighs the benefits of a more efficient economy from comparative advantage.An important thing to remember that even if a move results in an on average higher living condition in the long term, that doesn't matter if it destroys people in the short term. Stability is important for welfare, not just average buying power over a lifetime.

>>115107702Black haired kid, it's the other guy's sand box, and the other guy's sand; just because you work on something doesn't make it yours.

>>115113314They're extremely open about it. It's not really a conspiracy when they're literally telling you that's what they're doing.

>>115107755>Squatter's rights>Adverse possession, sometimes colloquially described as "squatter's rights",[a] is a legal principle under which a person who does not have legal title to a piece of property — usually land (real property) — acquires legal ownership based on continuous possession or occupation of the property without the permission of its legal ownerNever be a lawyer

>>115107715The sandbox owner provides both the spot and the medium. He can't claim creative rights to the castle, but by all means he owns it. Unless the black haired kid has a way of hauling that sandbox to his house.Of course the black haired kid should demand payment for his labour so the deal isn't one-sided.

>>115107702Black haired kid is clearly correct. He built the castle, it's his. doesn't matter if it's on the sandbox kids property. He made it for himself using someone elses tools and resources sure, but he can knock it over and build it again he designed it. It's not a permanent structure, it's a fucking sandcastle.Here's the catch. The Black Haired Kid created the castle. If the Sandbox kid wants to keep it he has to trade away any further development potential of his sandbox. He has to stop being the Sandbox Kid and start being the Sandcastle Kid. He has to sacrifice the potential of the box for the value of the existing castle.

Attached: 1562485681387.png (800x450, 857.07K)

>>115113380who? and where?

>>115109319Ask Holla Forums since it would be shota.

>>115113242So Demand didn't go up?

>>115107702There was honest to God no reason why the blonde even had to go there. Of course it's his sandbox and of course it's his sand. But there was no reason he had to suddenly get all selfish and bratty about it. He should have just said the castle was cool and start playing with it or said thanks and do something else with the black kid. Even if he was right, he sounded scummy and spoilt. You guys can fight all you want over it , but I know you'd also be annoyed it that happened to you. And I'm certain that if blondy never said that to him, the black kid wouldn't've gotten defensive and petty over it in the first place.

Attached: 20200414_022259.jpg (540x614, 106.28K)

>>115113389>Unless the black haired kid has a way of hauling that sandbox to his house.He can't claim the sandbox, he can only claim the castle form, the sandbox owner can't make another castle identical to it, but the sand and everything else still bleongs to him.

>>115108496Because socialism stifles creativity.Sure, you get that early propaganda boost, but later creatives are stamped out, because creative people may think there's another way of living than boot-licking. Creatives that lives in socialist countries did their great works in spite of the system rather than thanks to it (and a lot of it was subtly taking the piss out of it).In capitalism if enough people like their doodles they can make a living off of it.

>>115113456Yeah, that's why architets own the buildings they are paid to build rather than the company that hired them right?

>>115109570They make decisions, dumbass, and a bad CEO can and generally will tank a company. A qualified one is worth the money they're paid.

>>115112980Everyone talks shit until all the immigrants are gone and people have to do all all the terrible shitty jobs that underpay. They'll be no one to exploit and then you'll realize how terrible and parasitic the american economic/class system really is.

>>115113541Architects are paid to DESIGN buildings, the payment is so they'll draft it up and deliver the plans to you, because you paid for them as a product.

>>115108496>>115108531>Mikhail Timofeevich Kalashnikov - created the most popular riffle of all times, died poor>Eugene Stoner - created the far less popular M16, got super rich

Attached: Stoner_meets_Kalashnikov.jpg (868x665, 189.37K)

Does the dark-haired kid want creative credit? Is he planning to live in the sandbox now?All-in-all this is a bad analogy to the fight content creators have with the Internets, its an awkward and ill-fitting example.

Attached: 1502299146088.png (464x502, 326.99K)

>>115113611You're right, the construction workers own it and are even better rewarded than the designers right?

>>115113692If you've ever had to write checks to fucking Contractors, you'd know they make a fantastic living at it, while doing a tiny fraction of the overall house.

>>115108440>Give me your GameboyFuck off, sand nigger

>>115113541I just think that it was less about the concept of ownership and more about how much of a snot blondy was acting all of a sudden when he got what he wanted. Of course that doesn't negate your arguement but that's just my two cents.

Attached: 20200316_123218.png (627x458, 234.77K)

>>115113579Except they wouldn't underpay, because if they're actually that shitty then employers would have to offer higher compensation in order to get anyone to take them, instead of just importing third worlders to do it.

>>115107702>Want to build something cool for MY sandbox?>>115108440>I don't like the terms I agreed to earlier, I want to retroactively change themI can't tell who's supposed to be the strawman>If you build a sandcastle in someone else's sandbox, who owns it?>Between Twitch, YouTube, Twitter, etc., I see so many creators building content for platforms which turn out to hate us. (Part 1 of 6)If the agreement between the content creator and the platform is that the platform owns it, than the platform owns it, Twitch, Youtube and Twitter are big enough and have large enough legal departments to know not to leave these kind of things as a gray area.If this is supposed to be an allegory to Youtube and the likes it's a bad one, since AFAIK nothings stops a person from moving their video elsewhere.

>>115113756You would have to pay me an absolutely astounding amount of money to get me to de-bone Tyson chickens on a fast-moving line.I say that as someone who works for a fortune 500 food manufacturer (not Tyson tho).It's an exhausting, dangerous job in an oppressive physical environment, and compensating full citizens enough to do it would drive the price of chickens through the roof.

>>115113692Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember any moments where an architect puts their lives at risk while drawing out their models for buildings. Of course architects should be paid, but the people who are welding and sawing and building your creations deserve a good wage as well. Especially if you're drawing out some real technical bullshit that can most definitely result in serious injury and death.

>>115107702I hire an architect to design my house and build it on my land. They dont own my house once they're done.Given the context, brown hair kid has requested the work of the black haired kid. Black haired kid agrees and does work. He doesn't own anything beyond the intellectual idea that he designed and put work into making it. But the ownership of the sandcastle itself is the brown haired kid. It doesn't matter if money changed hands, that was the deal. Could also further argue that the sand castle wouldn5 even exist if not for the resources and request of the brown haired kid.Black haired kid is in the wrong.

If one man has a dollar he didn't work for, some other man worked for a dollar he didn't get.

>>115113837That's between you and the employer. I don't give a shit. People turn down jobs that don't offer what they personally consider to be enough constantly.

>>115113862Contractors don't do daredevil work (unless they are idiots) without getting a lot of extra compensation. Contractors and their workers (who aren't pick-up migrants) get a nice compensation for their work.

>>115113889Yes, and these industrial meat processing plants are filled with illegals and visa holders because the margins on filling Walmarts with inexpensive meat requires cheap labor.Otherwise you'd have a return to the local butcher/grocery store butcher, which I wouldn't be against, but it would fuck Tyson shareholders sideways.And America is now built to work for major Shareholders, first second and last.

>>115111840>as long as I don't lie and tell people I made it myself I can do what I want with it.Delightfully devilish.

>>115113958Don't even try that "poor corporation HAS to import people because they're barely even making a profit!" schtick.

>>115113967Not really. If you get someone to do something for you with no agreement to be compensated for it in any way, that's how it works.If you convince the neighborhood kids to paint your fence, you technically don't owe them anything; and they don't own your fence.

>>115113993That isn't whats being said at all.Americans like you and me love cheap meat.Cheap meat does not happen with skilled American labor. It can't at the current level of automation.

>>115113993Silence commie.

>>115113369there is something to this, it is true that immigration hurts certain sectors, however those sectors are highschool dropouts and previous immigrants of a generation ago. yet the studies (made by libertarian economists mind you, not filthy commies) and the economic consensus show that everyone else is beneffited.now for those small portions of people that are hurt by this they can be helped through redistribuitive policies that give them better education which will make them even more productive workers which, once again, will benefit not only the general economy of the country but also their own prospects in life.so everyone wins.

>>115108452Nah, that's prime bargaining starting point. You start unreasonably high and work down. Anything less feels like you're making the compromise. Start with a gameboy and work it back to sweets you might get for lunch for an agreed upon amount of time.

Attached: 1579234858383.gif (600x338, 2.71M)

>>115108312>paying your laborWhere do you think you are?

Attached: 1542049523412.jpg (1181x897, 108.17K)

>>115114023Why it's all the more important to not replace native workers with foreigners. Unskilled native workers are who need these types of jobs the most, since it's their only means of economic mobility.

>>115113999I think you mean whitewash a fence, unless you're doing this all by accident.

Attached: Hams.jpg (640x480, 43.36K)

>>115114030Upward mobility has been fuckered since the late 80's, to generate money for the shareholders now at the top steering even the CEO's actions.That's what has fucked America's working poor.

>>115113756Is that really true? Look at what's happening during the quarentine. Are those 5 dollar extra on your minimum wage check worth exposing yourself to a fatal illness? Every ceo and manager is protesting and demanding for this quarentine to be over, but do you here any of those companies promise they'll raise the salary for their employees? Have you noticed how utterly dependent the rich are on the working class's labor? There's nothing and no one promising a better life for anyone working after this is over. You can expect that even you or anyone as a citizen is and will be treated like trash once this is over. You are not nor will you ever been immune to poor treatment.

Attached: 20200318_092111.png (720x694, 305.36K)

>>115111993>productivity and profits go up, making it hard to raise wages

>>115114030also, on a side note, if you truly support free markets then you should support the free flow of labor and the right for any entrepeneur to negotiate and trade wages with any worker no matter where they come from.after all labor is a resource like any other and to curtail its free flow goes against the free market

>>115114078Shhh, he wants to hold the narrative that women killed workplace productivity. Don't pop his bubble.

>>115114120And now the thread dies.>he went to look up productivity #s against women entering the workplace>got reality-pilled>pissed off to shitpost in a fresh thread\Fuckin' facts and shit.

Attached: Areyouamagnet.jpg (531x513, 55.09K)

>>115109795>Chaditalismo is about to take blondie to the back and have his way while others continue making cheap phones for me and look in horror.Really driving that point home.

Attached: 1563142055383.png (600x448, 158.79K)

>>115107702The brunette kid. Brunettes are ugly and should be immediately shaved every time their hair comes back so they can be permanently bald.

>>115107702Can't the black haired kid just divebomb the sandcastle after he's done anyway?

>>115114076Yes, because I work in a secure laboratory you stupid faggot.And no, CEOs don't give a shit, because they have enough money to survive for generations, it's everyone else who wants the economy back open because they actually need the money.

>>115112047>Cheaper work=cheaper products for everyoneAnd that's where the equation breaks.Why would anyone lower the price of their product when they can just keep the price the same while lowering the cost of production to maximize profit?

>>115115218Because you're part of a free market and would lose your customer base to firms that don't.

>>115115218because in theory on a proper competitive market one company would realize that by lowering their prices they can sell more than the other companies.but then again, this is not a proper competitive economy due to monoplies, companies colluding with ecah other to keep the prices high, etc

>>115107866Why do you dumb commies always post this chart?Do you think people are somehow working 250% harder than they used to?If anything my job has become easy as shit due to automation, but I still get to keep earning the same amount.

>>115114030>those small portions of people that are hurt by this they can be helped through redistribuitive policiesredistrubuitive policies like... minimum wage?

>>115115218because someone else can come and charge less, and while the profit margin would be lower the increased sales will generate more profit.In a true competitive market (one that isn't choked with bullshit regulations) products between competitors reach a point where neither is willing to go any lower because even stealing customers from the competition wouldn't be worth it.

that's what you get for not being a proper independent contractor, you little shitsandbox owner kid is right, objectively

>>115115332not sure about that one, i heard it can have adverse knock on effects minimum wage, but things like welfare + free education + trade school could work

>>115115115What about other jobs? Also, the president going into damage control and pouring trillions into stock for those rich CEOs who were piggybacking off of others says otherwise. Also once again, you are not immune to poor treatment in your work place.

>>115107702The american flag is a nice touch, lol

>>115115655I'm not even sure if you yourself know what you're trying to say.People want to work because they need money. The vast majority of us are at negligible risk for hospitalization, and need employment a lot more than they need what amounts to house arrest.

>>115108720>Ah, a fellow student of Prager University!I seriously hope this is satire.

Attached: banesneed.png (1927x2717, 999.52K)

>>115115882Of course people need money. Im not denying that. Remember how the arguement was about how if we were no longer dependent on immigrants working our shittier jobs we'd see real quickly how parasitic the higer ups are? With minimum wage jobs, managers and CEOs milk the shit out of their employees and offer piss poor pay. And some people need these jobs. All people need money and some people's livelihood depends solely on their job minimum wage or not. Managers take advantage of that no matter if you're a citizen or not. I'm assuming that you don't work minimum wage. I might be wrong, but if you did, you'd see how quickly they'll take advantage of you, just like with their immigrant workers.

what difference odes it make whos castle it is its not like they could monetize it

>>115116619*you haven't

>>115116619And if the job is shitty enough, people wouldn't want to take it for minimum wage. This is an excellent way for low-skilled native workers to gain evonomic mobility.Unless of course you just import third worlders to destroy all bargaining power of the working class because you're some trust fund antifa faggot who thinks borders=fascism.

>>115117927While they reduce the power of workers in the rich state, they increase the power of workers in the poor state they come from by the exact same amount.The inequality becomes distributed evenly between countries.Once it is the same everywhere we can work on ways to fix it.

>>115107715he didn't say "for me" he said "for my sandbox"

>>115113831This. The dumb fucker agreed without ever taking into consideration compensation or ownership of the product after labor. If someone asks you "hey ya wanna do [thing that pertains to MY property or business] for me?" and you blindly say yes without hammering out and agreement wherein you obtain compensation or ownership of the product then tough titty, it's not yours. You willingly agreed to perform a free service because you were too smoothbrained to pay attention to wording or read the fine print. As a further kick in the teeth at that point the brown haired kid can tell the idiot to (pun intended) pound sand and get the fuck out and is legally in the right to stop the black haired kid if he tries to destroy the castle as it is destruction of property. Welcome to the buisness world fuckbois, read the fine print and learn to negotiate or you get your asshole reamed.

>>115118111For my sandbox already implies ownership by virtue or the property being his. Legally it becomes his as it is a product borne of and developed on his property until such yoke as he chided to relinquish it

>>115107702the ideology of rapture be like:

>>115118274Holy hell autocorrect butchered my comment. Remember kids: don't phonepost

>>115118061>they increase the power of workers in the poor state they come from by the exact same amount.No, they don't.


Attached: Teacups.png (653x660, 476.01K)

The fuck does black hair kid intend to do?Transport the sand back to his house?Brown Hair kid does have a more sinister air though, his ease in commanding other children is a lil spooky.

>>115107844What a brainwashed stance

>>115118537>this kills the wagecuckHonestly it's hilarious to me. Why wouldn't the guy that took the biggest financial risk be entitled to a larger share? It's not like after people get their paycheck the big guy on top twiddles his mustache and rakes in the remaining money. Taxes need paying, insurance costs gotta be covered, raw materials purchased, any legal fees covered, advertisements paid for, training paid for, etc. etc.. If I had a company where I busted my ass to do all of that shit at the start then you're goddamn right I'm gonna enjoy a slice of the pie. I can understand getting salty at some silver spoon faggot handed their position through nepotism without earning anything and acting like an ass about it, but the guys who built their empires have earned to right to enjoy the fruits of their labor. That's what everyone whines about right? Enjoying the fruits of their labor?

>>115118687>I can understand getting salty at some silver spoon faggot handed their position through nepotism without earning anything and acting like an ass about itSee the thing is, that's most positions after the founder bows out.Or you have cases like Amazon where the owner got subsidized despite not actually surviving under capitalism until it was a monopoly entirely against "fair" market values, and now you have someone that can shut down employment opportunities one city at a time and force everyone to work for unsustainable wages because there is no other job. If you get government money, you effectively didn't take risk anymore, you just had the right connections.Meritocracy is a myth at the top. Self made millionaires exist, obviously, but the higher you get in the percentile, the more people are friends and relatives.

>>115118537well if the guy is planning to just sit back and do nothing after setting all that up then he really shouldnt expect payment. did he build the cup making machine? did he build the factory building? did he create the materials? did he taught the guy how to operate the machine? all the guy did was be an ideas man and then pay other people to do all the actual work for him.>took the risk of investingif you want to be a gambler go to las vegas, if you want to earn money do some actual fucking work, dont pay other people to do it for youthat is what bothers me of these idiots, they act like they are self made man and individualist and exceptional bootstrappers but they cant do anything without paying other people to help them. the second you need workers it stopped being a one man effort and it becomes a team

>>115118687>all CEOs and shit are innocent victims of stupid lazy wagecucks1-800-come-on-nowWorkers and organizations representing workers often overstep bound but abusive companies and procedures of management are much more common.I mean it's more complex than pure greed and has a lot to do with living in a low-trust high-population density shithole of a society, but when you have companies that swap employees like baseball cards until they have no local roots, shared religion, or shared culture to socialize and found a union from, we're working with pure chicanery.

>>115118871He made a massive initial investment in land. construction, design and continues to invest in keeping his factory safe pleasant and operational.He has many responsibilities to his employees and they in turn are responsible to him and one another.They could always fuck off and form a co-op if he does not hold up his end of the bargain.

>>115118907>completely ignoring the bit about the guys who build their company from the ground up1800-come-on-now indeed. Maybe don't cherry pick mate.

>>115118871Running a business is work.If you had a million dollars to blow, you couldn't create a successful business, because you have absolutely no comprehension of what it takes to either build or run one.

>>115118871>if you want to be a gambler go to las vegas, if you want to earn money do some actual fucking work, dont pay other people to do it for you>NOOOOO, YOU CANT BUILD A BUSINESS AND NOT HAVE TO HANDLE WHAT I DO WHILE ALSO TRYING TO WORK OUT OTHER LOGISTICS, YOU HAVE TO BE DOWN HERE IN WITH THOSE OF US WHO AGREED TO DO WHAT YOU PAID US FOR AND ARENT LEGALLY REQUIRED TO STAY WITHOUT A CONTRACT You lay the foundation, you get to sleep in the king sized bed. While I hold more respect for the top dogs that still roll up their sleeves to work at the bottom level they realistically aren't obligated to do that anymore once everything is up and running.

>>115118537The worker is already being paid for their labor in the form of a wage, also, just because someone works on or uses property does not automatically entitle them to own it, idk what retard came up with the idea of working on something resulting in ownership, but it's really getting aggravating.

>>115112047Except that's never worked ever and every time mass immigration was carried out, it was imposed against the will of the population who were subjected to mass immigration and led to ethnic violence once that government either left or collapsed, see basically everywhere the British imported Indian workers to during the Empire.

>>115109202All capitalism really means is "Property rights are a thing."

>>115113047You cannot escape supply and demand. It's impossible. It's an iron law of economics. Now you'll bring up the Coke fallacy, which ignores the fact that Coca Cola deliberately kept the price down and increased the supply globally because it was worth more for market saturation.

>>115113443Not really, no. Not to the extent that it could exhaust the supply. Doubling your nation's effective work force will do that.

>>115107702Black hair kid has to go home eventually. He can't take the castle with him, and can't control what the brown hair does to the castle after.

>>115113123No, I haven't been racist. It's only been fairly recently where I've been directly exposed to areas which have been ethnically diversified so to speak and that the rhetoric has grown from 'Everyone is equal and they want to become my countrymen' to 'My countrymen are evil and these new People are better.' that I've soured on the concept.

>>115118061Absolutely not, they dilute the power of the workers.

>>115118444Yes they do. It's the exact same mechanism.The supply of labour is changed so the price does.If you can acknowledge that it drives wages down here, you must understand that it drives up wages there. Because the exact same thing is happening in reverse.

>>115108496American brainwashing >HURR HIPPIES

>>115119139>>115119136>>115119136>>115119139>owners are the same as a CEO>owners "build" a bussinessonce again, if you are paying an architect to design a building and a contractor to build it you didnt build shit.and look, as i said in my first post, if the guy is actually going to be working in the company doing logistics and administration then of course he should get paid because that is work.but what a lot of millionares usually do is make the initial investment and then just sit back and let the money magically come back to them multiplied and that is stupid, again if you want to gamble your money play poker

>>115119489Dilute it with what?When two labour markets mix the price of labour becomes the average between the two.Higher for the one that used to be lower, lower for the one that used to be higher.You can protect the ones that currently have it better by stopping migration and halting the mix, but that means not raising up those that currently have it worse.Instead of protecting that specific demographic, work towards solutions that lift up everybody.

>>115119528>but what a lot of millionares usually do is make the initial investment and then just sit back and let the moneySo if a guy a million dollars to his name and takes a big risk funneling it into a buisiness he shouldn't be entitled to what comes out the other end?

>>115119528It's their money.They could have spend it on products for themselves, but instead invested it to help produce things.If nobody got compensation for applying their capital to production, nobody would do it. They have other things to spend it on.If people are allowed to own property, they should be compensated for putting it to use.If you're not against the concept of property. You should be okay with this.

>>115119515No, you fucking retard.If you go to America because you'll flip burgers for $8/HR, and in your home country they'll only pay you $1/hr, your home country is still only going to be paying $1/hr to all their burger flippers.Their power hasn't increased at all.

>>115119528Saying that workers own a company just because they perform work there is just as retarded as saying that I own your home or vehicle just because I performed maintenance or a repair on it.>inb4 FaLSe eQuivAlanCENo, it's not, it's the exact same idea, just on different scale, working on or using something does not entitle you to ownership of it; you are only entitled to the original terms of the transaction that you and your employer/client agreed to prior to the job.

>>115119528Money is used to store value, be it labour or goods. When investors but money into a company, they are adding their own value to it. You're effectively arguing that investors, millionaires or not, should just donate their personal value to someone else and expect no repayment or return for their added value or assumed risk.

>>115119648The workers in the richer country must compete for jobs with workers from poorer countries.In the same vein, employers from poorer countries must compete for employees with employers from richer countries.This isn't a matter of my opinion.This is hard economic fact.

>>115119635>>115119644what you are describing is a bank making a loan.if he wants to invest by lending money or do loans then he should do exactly that and after the initial investment was paid back (with interest of course) he should fuck off, the company is no longer theirs.they have more money than they started with and didnt have to do anything so they have no reason to complain, and they can keep investing and making more money in the future. but the idea that just because you did the initial payment, even after the company becomes self sustaining, you are owed whatever that company produces for life is stupid.

>>115119768Why is that stupid?It works that way for everything else you can create.

>>115119733That isn't a fact, economic or otherwise, you open borders commie faggot. You're assuming that the only difference between the two countries is "pay rate", and that people can move freely between them, so that we're all forced to race to the bottom competing with the absolute shittiest of third world countries.

>>115119768Is the concept of "property rights" foreign to you, or something? The company owner is entitled to the profits of the company because he owns it, there is no need for any additional reasoning. The workers do not own the company, so they have no entitlement to the profits; the only thing they are entitled to is the pre-determined rate of pay for the sale of their labor, once they receive payment for their labor, they are not entitled to ANYTHING else.

>>115119821>That isn't a fact, economic or otherwiseIt's universally accepted economic theory.Maybe you have a clearer picture of the world than economists of the past century. You should write a paper and become famous.I AM assuming that people can move freely between them.Because that's the entire premise of the discussion. Open borders.

>>115119858well i thats the thing, i think that system is ridiculous.i think getting money that you have not worked for, even after the initial investment was repaid is being a leech. i think that if you are part of an enterprise you should be a part of it in all the senses of the word and that means shared ownership. once again, its a team effort and so the rewards for it should be fairly distributed across everyone who participated.let me put it in comic terms, if you come up with a comic and write the script and then pay someone else to do the art the name of both should be in the cover not only yours because the both of you made the thing and the both of you own it