Open-Minded Liberals?

[Amianthus]

Aww, I was just being lazy.  OK, add up all  his time, figure what the various activities are worth in the labour market for time spent, take his total time spent on all that activity, pro-rate it to the time spent by the customer in the restaurant enjoying the fruits of the boss's labour and add that as part of the "value" received by the customer. Won't add much value, but fair's fair.

So, you get to decide what someone else's labor is worth?

Still seems like you get to decide how much money someone else makes - in other words, they are slaves to you and your decisions.

[Universe Prince]

The "infinite pie" is a myth because of the very things that many Americans cherish such as competition and consumer choice. The other factors that create finite wealth are inflation, saturation, trade-off, supply, demand, and other market pressures.

True enough. I wouldn't say "infinite pie", but it isn't a zero-sum situation either. Just because two restaurants may be in competition with one anther for customers doesn't mean necessarily that one succeeds and the other fails. In growing market, two restaurants in competition may both succeed. Yes, if we add enough restaurants, we can probably reach a saturation point. But it is still not a zero-sum situation. A market currently saturated with conventional restaurants may still have room for Starbucks or small, hole-in-the-wall joints without necessitating failure for others.

There is some false sense that everyone can be a billionaire, but the truth is that if everyone were a billionaire then inflation would destroy the value of the currency. Wealth is finite.

Wealth is finite, but not static or fixed. Which is what I think the "infinite pie" comments are meant to convey.

[Michael Tee]

<<So, you get to decide what someone else's labor is worth?>>

No more than I'd decide what the restaurant's flour or beef is worth.  There is, after all, a market.  There is such a thing as fair market value.

<<you get to decide how much money someone else makes >>

The market decides that too.  There are salary ranges for restaurant managers, bar managers, hotel managers.  Not hard to find if you know where to look.

<<in other words, they are slaves to you and your decisions.>>

What bullshit.  The market determines their payscale.  The U.S. government determines Bush's salary.  Is he a slave to the U.S. government?

[Amianthus]

The market determines their payscale.

Exactly. And when you ate at that restaurant, you are part of the market and determined that the owner's labor input to the whole transaction was worth whatever part of that $2,000 profit the owner got from you.

So, either he earned it fair and square (and you helped determine that it was worth it) or, if it's as you claimed that he essentially ripped you off for that, then you are implying that he should be a slave to your needs.

[Rich]

>>How to tell when the inmates have taken over the asylum:<<

The inmates certainly have taken over here, that's for certain.

Don't you just love getting lectured about capitalism by tinfoil hat socialists?

[Michael Tee]

<<So, either he earned it fair and square (and you helped determine that it was worth it) or, if it's as you claimed that he essentially ripped you off for that, then you are implying that he should be a slave to your needs.>>

I guess what you're really saying is that value in intangibles that can't be re-traded (like the "satisfaction" derived from eating in a fine restaurant) is purely subjective.  If the customer was willing to pay $2K for $100 worth of food and labour, then by any and every standard of measurement, the value of a meal in that restaurant to that individual, is $1,900. 

Looked at that way, it IS a win-win transaction.  The restaurant provided this one specific customer with $100 worth of food and labour plus $1,900 of enjoyment - - for which he paid $2,000.  He got what he paid for and the owner got paid for what he provided.

Had the restaurant been owned and operated by a worker collective, it could have taken in the same $2,000.00, the workers would have all been paid their wages, the suppliers would all have been paid AND the rest of the $2K remaining (the profit margin) would have been shared by the workers who cooked the food, served it and cleaned up after.  Instead of ONE GUY taking all the profits, they would have been shared by the entire staff.  THAT'S the way to go.

[Rich]

>> Instead of ONE GUY taking all the profits, they would have been shared by the entire staff.  THAT'S the way to go.

The ONE guy who went into debt to start the business, pays the SS taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, workman's compention, wages, and upkeep on the restaurant.

Spare me the communist propaganda.

[Michael Tee]

<<The ONE guy who went into debt to start the business . . . >>

translation:  signed a few papers for the bank

<< pays the SS taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, workman's compention, wages, and upkeep on the restaurant.>>

pays 'em out of the profits made from the long, exhausting hours of labour put in by a staff of one or two dozen working people; has the bookkeeper write a few cheques; BFD


Spare me the capitalist bullshit.

[Amianthus]

I guess what you're really saying is that value in intangibles that can't be re-traded (like the "satisfaction" derived from eating in a fine restaurant) is purely subjective.  If the customer was willing to pay $2K for $100 worth of food and labour, then by any and every standard of measurement, the value of a meal in that restaurant to that individual, is $1,900. 

No, the profit for the whole week (all of the customers together) was $2,000. In a typical restaurant, that would equate to several hundred meals - customers - through the week.

Had the restaurant been owned and operated by a worker collective, it could have taken in the same $2,000.00, the workers would have all been paid their wages, the suppliers would all have been paid AND the rest of the $2K remaining (the profit margin) would have been shared by the workers who cooked the food, served it and cleaned up after.  Instead of ONE GUY taking all the profits, they would have been shared by the entire staff.  THAT'S the way to go.

That $2,000 "profit" is the owner's paycheck. See, now we're back to you think the owner should be your slave and work for free.

[Michael Tee]

I guess I was a little confused.  I thought the customer blew $2,000 on some kind of celebration or party.  Now it's clearer than ever. The $2,000 is pure waste, it's a profit on the labour of a dozen or two workers who put in many more hours than the owner.  Had the restaurant been run by a worker collective, they could have kept the prices down and given the customers better value (same meal, cheaper price) or alternatively rewarded themselves by sharing the $2,000.  The $2,000 "profit" would have gone to the workers who produced the meal in the first place or to the customers they served (who paid for the meal) in lower, fairer prices - - all by simply eliminating the parasite who stands between the producer and the consumer.

[Amianthus]

The $2,000 is pure waste, it's a profit on the labour of a dozen or two workers who put in many more hours than the owner.

Guess you've never worked in a restaurant - typically the owner puts in more hours than any of the employees.

all by simply eliminating the parasite who stands between the producer and the consumer.

So, you do think that the owner should work as a slave for you. Glad that's clear.

[Michael Tee]

<<So, you do think that the owner should work as a slave for you. Glad that's clear.>>

Point is, the owner doesn't WORK.  He's a fucking parasite profiting off the labour of the cooks, servers, busboys and cleaners.

<<Guess you've never worked in a restaurant - typically the owner puts in more hours than any of the employees.>>

Sure he does - - watching to see the employees don't steal any of "his" money.  What that adds to the meal I'm still trying to figure out.

[kimba1]

Point is, the owner doesn't WORK.  He's a fucking parasite profiting off the labour of the cooks, servers, busboys and cleaners.>

uh tee

in most restaurants I know
the owner IS the cook,server,busboy and cleaner
also greeter

HR(hotel /restaurants) is one of the hardest forms of businesses to do
some ,but not many owners are not greatly involve in this businesses
the overhead is too high for the owner not to do the work
we`re talking food here.
everything has a short shelf life and limited storage .
nothing is design to sit
every tues. you have to call supplies 5am
every wed. mourning you help load the supplies into the restuarant
why do you think alot of restaurants are family businesses
it`s not tradition it`s just too costly to pay for the labor
bakery is worst
I`ve always said there is no such thing as a closed bakery
even when closed they spend the night to make the next days inventory

you can tell I personally know this.
my nephew studied to be a chef and very good portion of his course in not cooking it`s business management.
thats why franchises are popular
alot of the trail and error is already hammered out.
look at subway and the assembly line format it uses
most good restaurants use this format in making their menu.
a hof brau is not much different.

[Knutey]

<in most restaurants I know
the owner IS the cook,server,busboy and cleaner
also greeter<

This is true of om& Pop family owned restaurants. I know because my parents owned one and my Dad did do al these things  (Mom didnt because she was a fat , lazy pig)
Larger & chain restaurants do fit Tee's mold and he was right about the owner being there to keep the employee's from stealing. That is exactly why Dad was always there even tho most of his employees were family. ( Not me, tho, I would never work for that slave-driving lunatic.)

[Amianthus]

Don't point out facts to him, Kimba. It's pretty obvious that the owner always HAS to be a parasite, otherwise his world view just won't work.