[Merged]All businesses convert to non-profit and salary caps

[Ivor the Engineer]

Personally, I think being a fan of professional sports is irrational :D However, I will defend anyone's right to spend their own money on following footballers or baseball teams or what ever else they want. I also think 'celebrity entertainment' is irrational. WTF cares about what Madonna or Tom Cruise thinks or does or wears? Not I. I don't, however, think that owning a computer in my home and using it for primarily entertainment purposes is irrational. Of course, that's because I want one.

We have so much in common…

You are throwing words around. How is a businessman exploiting someone by offering up his own investment dollars in an entertainment business? Irrational value of a product??? You must think the great majority of people are stupid, mindless robots, incapable of making decisions. I don't. I think most people, in a free society, make their own choices.

…except for this. Isn’t Teek planning to make millions because people’s decisions are not free?

I’ve heard portion sizes in the US are rather large (I’ll find out next week) and there is a serious problem with obesity there. Do you think these two things are linked?

I personally have an irrational desire for electricity. I mean, I could live in the dark, and it's not like I would die if the 100 F, 90% humidity summer weather where I live was also inside my house. But I really really really love electricity and all the things it does for me.

Only 90% humidity? You should come to the UK. We’ve had 100% humidity all summer long. Mark Twain was right.

Air-conditioning to provide a comfortable temperature all year round is not irrational. Air-conditioning to build a ski-slope in the desert is irrational.

Now that I look back on this, I find that your viewpoints are irrational. I don't think you should be allowed to have them. I really believe that people with beliefs like yours need to be re-educated on economics, human abilities and desires, how incentives work, and how theft of labor and confiscation of private property creates poverty for the majority, not wealth or prosperity.

Isn’t that what makes this forum so much fun? Just to summarise my ideas:

i) There could be a maximum annual income related to the median income of the population.
ii) There could be a maximum amount individuals can inherit, related to the maximum annual income.
iii) There could be more incentives, better education and training for those individuals who do not find employment after an extended period of time without valid reason and continue to claim benefit.

What I believe is that there is excessive economic disparity in society which in turn gives rise to excessive disparity in political power. I.e. the wealthy and rich have most of the power and organise the world to benefit them, often (but not always) at the cost of everyone else.

So, all my ideas have been shot down. Fair enough, they were just ideas and they have provided us all with some amusement. However, I’ve yet to see any ideas presented by anyone else. Is this because you do not believe capitalism has any flaws that need to be fixed, or that it has flaws, but they cannot be fixed? I.e. it’s not perfect but it’s the best that can be achieved?

M&S is Marks and Spencers, correct? I shopped there on my last visit to London. It was a little corner store, across from my hotel. Quaint.

Yep, though most of M&S’s stores are clothing, furniture and food retailers.

Not just food mind you, but M&S food. (Or as my mother likes to say when using the (often broken) toilets in her local M&S: These aren’t just toilets; these are M&S toilets.)

[tkingdoll]

We have so much in common…



…except for this. Isn’t Teek planning to make millions because people’s decisions are not free?

I’ve heard portion sizes in the US are rather large (I’ll find out next week) and there is a serious problem with obesity there. Do you think these two things are linked?




That's a joke. It's a joke, right?

Oh, wait, I know what'll be just as funny! I'll talk about engineering, I subject I know nothing about! Shall I make sweeping judgments and generalisations about your profession based on precisely zero understanding of the industry? Shall I?

If you honestly think that marketeers can MAKE people buy something then you are seriously deluded. Marketing is psychology plus money. It taps into already existing motivations and presents choices. It also reacts to consumer demand.

You clearly don't believe in personal choice. Large portions are available because they are popular, not the other way around. McDonalds noticed that people were buying two burgers, two fries etc. That is an opportunity to present a better value option for the customer who wants more food, and reduce packaging costs and waste in the process.

Businesses don't create products then try and find a market to sell them to. They ask what people want then they make it. That's the single most important business principle there is. Many businesses have failed trying to do the former.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Dunno. What if no-one will give me a job because I'm a black disabled lesbian asylum-seeking jew with a heavily pierced face?

What! She would be the most sought-after person in the UK by employers. They could fill their quota of minority group employees with a single person.

[tkingdoll]

What! She would be the most sought-after person in the UK by employers. They could fill their quota of minority group employees with a single person.

Equal Opps quotas are illegal. Or are they legal in the Ivoregime?

[Ivor the Engineer]

That's a joke. It's a joke, right?

Oh, wait, I know what'll be just as funny! I'll talk about engineering, I subject I know nothing about! Shall I make sweeping judgments and generalisations about your profession based on precisely zero understanding of the industry? Shall I?

If you honestly think that marketeers can MAKE people buy something then you are seriously deluded. Marketing is psychology plus money. It taps into already existing motivations and presents choices. It also reacts to consumer demand.

You clearly don't believe in personal choice. Large portions are available because they are popular, not the other way around. McDonalds noticed that people were buying two burgers, two fries etc. That is an opportunity to present a better value option for the customer who wants more food, and reduce packaging costs and waste in the process.

Businesses don't create products then try and find a market to sell them to. They ask what people want then they make it. That's the single most important business principle there is. Many businesses have failed trying to do the former.

I don’t believe in free choice.

The way I see it is McDonalds saw there was an existing market for larger portions and that market was large enough (pardon the pun) to support a new product range.

People who did not used to buy two burgers, or would have never thought about buying two burgers, were then presented with a better value product and they, not wanting to appear stupid, paid a little bit more for a near double-size portion.

No doubt they struggled to finish the first few meals, but as their waistlines expanded they got used to the new portion size.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Equal Opps quotas are illegal. Or are they legal in the Ivoregime?

Poor choice of words.

Didn't one of our political parties have women-only shortlists? Or was it just a suggestion?

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

Social taxing doesn't seem to work to well - trying to control what people do by the tax rates. One of my friends is convinced that, because SHE doesn't like SUVs, anyone who buys one should pay extra tax for pollution. I point out that they already do, in a sense, because the cars get worse gas mileage. They have to buy more gas, which is heavily taxed...

SUV's don't exist in Ivortopia, mainly because they are crap engineering, but also because they are totally inappropriate for use on ordinary roads.

Ironically, a child is more likely to be seriously injured if hit by an SUV rather than a conventionally shaped car, but many parents own and use them to drop their kids off at school.

How about this: All street-legal cars have to achieve better than 30mpg

Who's going to argue that's unfair, stupid or unworkable with me?

[tkingdoll]

People who did not used to buy two burgers, or would have never thought about buying two burgers, were then presented with a better value product and they, not wanting to appear stupid, paid a little bit more for a near double-size portion.



Er...how is that McDonalds' fault? Personal choice, remember. The none super-sized portions are still good value in their own right.

The courts agree that McDonalds is not to blame if someone eats too much of it, too.

And MOST obese people do not eat restaurant food three meals a day, wouldn't you agree? If they are eating too much, they are doing it at home just as much, if not more, than in restaurants.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Er...how is that McDonalds' fault? Personal choice, remember. The none super-sized portions are still good value in their own right.

The courts agree that McDonalds is not to blame if someone eats too much of it, too.

And MOST obese people do not eat restaurant food three meals a day, wouldn't you agree? If they are eating too much, they are doing it at home just as much, if not more, than in restaurants.

What I am saying is that McDonalds practices are part of the problem rather than the solution. Is it all their fault? No, of course not.

It is proven that if you serve people bigger portions they eat more. Great for McDonalds profits, not so great for society.

[YoPopa]

t is proven that if you serve people bigger portions they eat more. Great for McDonalds profits, not so great for society.

You've got that slightly boloxed up as well.

SERVING more food is not what makes more money for McDs. They would much prefer to serve you less food for the same money. Oil cartels exist so that the member states can sell less oil for more money.

Oil cartels are bad for consumers, restaurants that give you bigger portions for your money are not bad for you. It's what you choose to do with those portions. On the rare occasions that I can get Mrs. Popa to agree to eating at McDs I usually get the super size and share my drink and fries with her. She will just get a chicken sandwich or such.

More food for less money is a good thing. Obesity is not such a good thing but it is a risk of living in an age of abundance.

[balrog666]

SUV's don't exist in Ivortopia, mainly because they are crap engineering, but also because they are totally inappropriate for use on ordinary roads.

Too bad for the Ivoregime. They were created by government decree and consumer demand. How are you going to change both of those?

Ironically, a child is more likely to be seriously injured if hit by an SUV rather than a conventionally shaped car, but many parents own and use them to drop their kids off at school.

Ironically, a child is more likely to be seriously injured if shot with a handgun rather than a conventionally shaped car, but many parents own and use them.

So?

How about this: All street-legal cars have to achieve better than 30mpg

Don't be conservative now: All street-legal cars have to achieve better than 300mpg - abolish the laws of physics in the Ivoregime!

Any more silly ideas?

Who's going to argue that's unfair, stupid or unworkable with me?

I will. How many more do you need?

[Ivor the Engineer]

You've got that slightly boloxed up as well.

SERVING more food is not what makes more money for McDs. They would much prefer to serve you less food for the same money. Oil cartels exist so that the member states can sell less oil for more money.

Oil cartels are bad for consumers, restaurants that give you bigger portions for your money are not bad for you. It's what you choose to do with those portions. On the rare occasions that I can get Mrs. Popa to agree to eating at McDs I usually get the super size and share my drink and fries with her. She will just get a chicken sandwich or such.

More food for less money is a good thing. Obesity is not such a good thing but it is a risk of living in an age of abundance.

I think we can be fairly confident that McDonalds had hammered down the price they pay for ingredients used in their products long before they thought of "super size". The problem they had was how to grow their market share and get more of their regular customers eating more of their food. There were no more optimizations to perform in the process. Reducing prices or portion sizes were not going to work in the long term.

The genius of super size is that while it costs them a little bit more for the raw product, the increased sales more than compensate for this. Not only do they take business from the competition, many of their regular customers get fatter and consume more too.

[YoPopa]

The genius of super size is that while it costs them a little bit more for the raw product, the increased sales more than compensate for this. Not only do they take business from the competition, many of their regular customers get fatter and consume more too.


You've got part of the genius behind super size correct but you are missing a couple important factors that an engineer should notice first. I suspect that this is due to years of conditioning that businesses are evil.

1. You are ignoring the cost of packaging/ounce of product. With a super size meal, or laundry detergent, or breakfast cereal, the total cost to the merchant is lower when packaging costs are lower.

2. The cost of labor/ounce is lower. It takes the staff the same amount of time to sell you a super size meal as a regular meal. Again, the cost/ounce of product is lower.

If a group of companies all started saving themselves money this way and not passing the savings on to consumers they would all be condemned as greedy by consumer rights groups. They are danged if they do and danged if they don't.

BTW...You've been a good sport throughout this discussion Ivor and I want to credit you for that. Your motives seem honest and honorable. I hope you have a great time visiting here in the US. If you find yourself in Maine the fries will be on me.

[The_Animus]

Just thought I'd share something here...

http://autos.msn.com/advice/article.aspx?contentid=4024974

There's only one catch: You can't actually buy this ultra-green Accord, or the four-cylinder version that also produces near-zero pollution. That is, unless you live in California, New York or six other northeast states that follow California's tougher pollution rules. Only there can you buy this Accord, or the roughly two dozen other models that meet so-called Partial Zero Emissions Vehicle standards, PZEV for short.
Related Link: 2008 Honda Accord Preview (http://autos.msn.com/advice/article.aspx?contentid=4024971)
Not only can't you buy one, but the government says it's currently illegal for automakers to sell these green cars outside of the special states. Under terms of the Clean Air Act—in the kind of delicious irony only our government can pull off—anyone (dealer, consumer, automaker) involved in an out-of-bounds PZEV sale could be subject to civil fines of up to $27,500. Volvo (http://autos.msn.com/browse/Volvo.aspx) sent its dealers a memo alerting them to this fact, noting that its greenest S40 (http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/overview.aspx?year=2007&make=Volvo&model=S40) and V50 (http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/overview.aspx?year=2007&make=Volvo&model=V50) models were only for the special states.


So in states where there are no regulations to force their hand,automakers don't want to have to boost their prices for the green versions—or to simply eat the extra cost and make less profit.

[stilicho]

I think we can be fairly confident that McDonalds had hammered down the price they pay for ingredients used in their products long before they thought of "super size".
This is an interesting perspective. If McDonald's controlled the prices all along the supply chain, would they even have an incentive to discover "new" ways to market their products?

I finished Galbraith's memoirs recently. I am always impressed at how he expresses himself. As with one of his influences, Thorstein Veblen, he has a knack for the turn of the phrase. His books are unforgettable, in short.

But, in reading his account of price controls, rationing, and other impositions on the supply chain in the war effort, I am reminded that, perhaps, these policies actually caused more hardship in the USA during the Second World War than they were worth. Simply injecting liquidity straight into the market (through government purchases and monetary policies) might have increased productivity, provided the necessary impetus to diversify and invest in technology, and both won the war and kept Americans out of rationing lines.

I haven't had the time to sketch out a whole economic model, but it would be interesting to apply some of the "McDonald's Super Size" theory in reality. You could start by fixing the price of beef, pickles, onions, sesame seeds, and so forth, and apply regulations on portion sizes. That latter idea isn't so far-fetched, since the actual price of tobacco and alcohol is much lower than what you'd pay at the grocer. Much of the product price is fixed through punishing taxation on its consumption.

Oddly, perhaps, tobacco and alcohol industry executives still get paid handsomely for their efforts in spite of exorbitant government interference in the supply chain for their products.

[marting]

There are at least two in this thread.

And I don't have the stats, but I'd be willing to bet that the majority of companies are of that type.

Make that 3. I was one of two founders that formed a corporation and capitailized it. For close to 10 years I made less money than I had at the job I quit to do the startup. By definition a non-profit corporation has no shareholders (owners) so there is no incentive to inject the initial capital as you would have no claim on it, let alone any profits.

One of the biggest problems in large business is the accountability (or lack thereof) between the owners and the employee/managers. In most cases it is virtually impossible for shareholders to impose oversight or even minor restrictions such as eliminating automatic bonuses for the CEO. Check out the good work by Nell Minow and Robert A. G. Monks.

[ChaoticLimbs]

The fundamental flaw in de-privatizing businesses is that it removes the fundamental freedom of a person to do as they choose with their money. When you go to work, you trade a portion of your life for money. When someone takes your money away from you, they are taking those days you traded for the money, since money is just a placeholder that represents those efforts' value.
So, the reason communism fails is that it destroys freedom and steals lives. I invest in corporations so that I can participate in the economy and it is my hope that by owning a portion of those companies, I can make some more money.
Corporations are owned by people. It's a team of like-minded people who seek to engage in trade, services, manufacturing, or other endeavors for financial gain. Taking away that right is theft of life.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

How about this: All street-legal cars have to achieve better than 30mpg

Who's going to argue that's unfair, stupid or unworkable with me?
I will. For example, let's exclude supercars from the requirement. There aren't enough of them sold to matter.

Also, are you sure that manufacturing and disposing of such cars doesn't overwhelm their supposed goodness? How do I get rid of my Prius's battery again?

~~ Paul

[YoPopa]

How about this: All street-legal cars have to achieve better than 30mpg

Who's going to argue that's unfair, stupid or unworkable with me?
And for another angle on that question.

Instead of one station wagon of 6 nuns getting 24 mpg (that figures out to 144 nun-miles/gallon I think)

We have two Prius's with 3 nuns each at 30 MPg (that figures out to 90 nun-miles/gallon)

This is also going to put a major crimp in the standup comedy industry.


Yo

[Kopji]

Employee owned companies are an alternative to the idea of a 'non profit' corporation and is a practical reality for many businesses. 'Profit' is thought of as a corporate asset of all the employees, a bit like people and equipment.

I don't have a problem at all with a CEO making obscene amounts of money as long as it is part of a larger formula of 'profit sharing' program that the employees participate in a fair way. If profits decrease, it the obscene payouts should decrease too.

A company is more than just its profits, it is growth and potential for creating new customers and markets. Why not pay a good CEO who is capable of leading the company in creative new directions? Good companies don't just exist, they create and grow.

I see the creative element of capitalism as the thing that makes the ugly beast work. New customers are discovered or created, new markets develop, and it tends to be self balancing. If your customers are poor, you can hardly become a multi billionaire. If everyone is so rich you can't employ them, that changes things too.

[Ivor the Engineer]

I will. For example, let's exclude supercars from the requirement. There aren't enough of them sold to matter.

Also, are you sure that manufacturing and disposing of such cars doesn't overwhelm their supposed goodness? How do I get rid of my Prius's battery again?

~~ Paul

Why does 30mpg require Hybrid technology? Regular petrol and diesel engines can achieve this figure while providing more than enough speed/power for any normal road.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Why does 30mpg require Hybrid technology? Regular petrol and diesel engines can achieve this figure while providing more than enough speed/power for any normal road.
My question still stands: Are you sure the lifetime environmental cost of a 30 mpg car is better than that of a 20 mpg car?

I don't know, just asking. People seem to focus on gas mileage to the exclusion of other factors.

~~ Paul

[Ivor the Engineer]

My question still stands: Are you sure the lifetime environmental cost of a 30 mpg car is better than that of a 20 mpg car?

I don't know, just asking. People seem to focus on gas mileage to the exclusion of other factors.

~~ Paul

Given that the main differences are going to be engine size and total weight, then yes, I am confident that setting efficiency targets for cars will make them have a lower environmental cost. The European Union was toying with the idea, but the likes of Mercedes and BMW objected, for obvious reasons.