Workers can make exactly what their labor's worth, and the company can still turn a good profit based off of contributions from the capitalist.

Contributions, such as what?

Workers can make exactly what their labor's worth, and the company can still turn a good profit based off of contributions from the capitalist.

Such as what?

Workers can make a product, capitalist can market/sell/promote for it. Workers can make the cost of the product, capitalist can keep what the marketing/sales/promotion labor is worth.

Workers can make exactly what their labor's worth, and the company can still turn a good profit based off of contributions from the capitalist.

Such as what?

Workers can make a product, capitalist can market/sell/promote for it. Workers can make the cost of the product, capitalist can keep what the marketing/sales/promotion labor is worth.

Well then the workers are not paid what the product is *worth* in the market, they're merely getting paid what it's *cost* to the company. And since the cost to the company is basically paying the workers and maintaining the machinery, not sure what you're talking about. Your logical is kind of cyclical. :)

No, they can get paid what they contributed exactly TO the worth, including the capitalist.

Immigrants are expected to assimilate? How? In what way? To what degree? When does it stop? As far as I remember, so long as you aren't hurting anyone else, there's nothing wrong with what you are doing. There's no vetting? I'm pretty sure that there is. You've pretty much fed the line that many fearful people have been using over immigration.

-Immigrants have always been expected to assimilate and in the past always have. Now you see illegals crossing the border, waving Mexican flags and screaming to make America brown again. Look at the turmoil this type of behavior has created. Look at the ghettos that foreign immigrants setup that have gotten so bad, police will not patrol those areas of cities.

-Our own FBI has said that they cannot properly vet the people who are crossing our borders. That is not opinion, that is a federal organization who's primary purpose is to investigate domestic affairs.

Illegal immigration is wrong and it should be addressed but I hardly see how the US is using a nanny policy on immigration. That is just straight up fear speaking.

"The average household headed by an immigrant (legal or illegal) costs taxpayers $6,234 in federal welfare benefits, which is 41 percent higher than the $4,431 received by the average native household."

Welfare does not just mean a free check from the government, state or federal, paid for by tax payers.

The public school system is a form of public welfare paid for by tax payers.

The police, fire and medical systems in place are a form of public welfare paid for by tax payers.

Most of these systems set in place extend to everyone regardless of if they carry a social security number or not.

The studies have been done. You are wrong.

You seem to have a problem with the USA not being number 1... I'd look in to that, probably point to some underlying inferiority complex..

I have a small penis

Define assimilate. That has had many different meanings for many different people. As I recall, the Constitution states something along the lines of being allowed to engage in the pursuit of happiness so long as it doesn't interfere with someone else's pursuit. How, might I ask, would an immigrant following his/her culture from his/her homeland that doesn't harm anyone be a problem? Why do you care if there are people who have legally immigrated from Mexico, or any other country, waving Mexican flags? I know plenty of people who are waving the Indian flag on India's independence day while here in the US. Is that a problem too? Assimilation most of the time sounds like a flimsy excuse for forcing people to "be like me (more white) because y'all came here". It starts to sound way more like a superiority complex to me. Why do you care? So long as people are law abiding citizens, why the hell do you give two fucks about what culture someone follows? It is, after all, a free country that you so lovingly call it every time you defend gun rights. Ever heard of the term melting pot?

You cannot screen people in general. I'm all for screening people more intensely. Straight up banning people based on a particular faith? Hell no. Going down that path will lead to all sorts of dark places. Do you know of a fool proof method of knowing when any person will break the law? Short of turning the US into a police state, do you know of any method?

And immigrants contribute a great amount to the economy, contributing overall positively to standard of living, etc. Studies have been one on that as well. You are sounding more and more like a nativist who is simply afraid that immigrants are going to come and steal everything that's yours. Simply stating that I am wrong won't make your assertion true.

I'm not in favor of illegal immigrants being given amnesty as its wrong, not only to citizens but to legal immigrants who went through the entire process. But deporting all of them is tough and will take time, it's something we have to acknowledge. That doesn't mean amnesty, but simply taking reality into account.

The US is the most economically powerful and military powerful country on Earth. There is no denying that fact. However, other metrics are different. Take the happiest country on Earth. That one is quite surprising actually. Or the most literate country. Again, results are different. Most accepting? Not true either. To unilaterally state that the US is the greatest country on Earth as objective truth is not possible. That is dependent on perspective. I would say yes, it is, cause I was born here and it's my home. BUT not everyone will agree with that. There's plenty of folks in other countries who are pretty happy where they are and equally proud of their countries.

No, they can get paid what they contributed exactly TO the worth, including the capitalist.

How do you define what they contribute to the worth?

Let's say I get paid 1$ for making a boot, and the capitalist sells it for $2.

So what the capitalist contributed to the company is convincing me to work for $1 per boot instead of $2? My wage(plus the machinery) *is* the cost of the product that the capitalist "optimizes" compared to its worth, so the company can make a profit.

No, he convinced someone to buy the boot so it's not worth $0, in addition to organizing a team to produce it (including handling legalities/fees/taking on risk of not being able to sell the boot).

No, he convinced someone to buy the boot so it's not worth $0, in addition to organizing a team to produce it (including handling legalities/fees/taking on risk of not being able to sell the boot).

Good, so he conviced someone to buy the boot at $5.

He now has to convince the worker that what he contributed to the worth is indeed $1, and what the capitalist contributed to the worth is $4. Why is that? How are those numbers "calculated" exactly? The capitalist would have contributed $3 simply if the worker demanded(and got) $2! Why not 50-50? My job is to make the thing, your job is to sell the thing. Who exactly decides how much each one contributes to the worth and the company? The capitalist earned the company a $4 profit per boot only because he conviced the worker to take $1 per boot. And why is "organizing" a team worth more? Again, who decides that? It's not like NBA coaches usually get paid more than the players, do they?

No, he convinced someone to buy the boot so it's not worth $0, in addition to organizing a team to produce it (including handling legalities/fees/taking on risk of not being able to sell the boot).

Good, so he conviced someone to buy the boot at $5.

He now has to convince the worker that what he contributed to the worth is indeed $1, and what the capitalist contributed to the worth is $4. Why is that? How are those numbers "calculated" exactly? Why not 50-50? My job is to make the thing, your job is to sell the thing. Who exactly decides how much each one contributes to the worth?

Because if the worker feels he's worth more he'll start a competing business, and the company would be losing someone who was contributing a good deal of value to their product. This is why higher end programmers are paid $200k+

No, he convinced someone to buy the boot so it's not worth $0, in addition to organizing a team to produce it (including handling legalities/fees/taking on risk of not being able to sell the boot).

Good, so he conviced someone to buy the boot at $5.

He now has to convince the worker that what he contributed to the worth is indeed $1, and what the capitalist contributed to the worth is $4. Why is that? How are those numbers "calculated" exactly? Why not 50-50? My job is to make the thing, your job is to sell the thing. Who exactly decides how much each one contributes to the worth?

Because if the worker feels he's worth more he'll start a competing business, and the company would be losing someone who was contributing a good deal of value to their product. This is why higher end programmers are paid $200k+

You can't start a business simply by having skill. You need capital to buy equipment/housing and employ other people. Which is what the capitalist has, and the worker doesn't, and that's why the capitalist is in an advantageous position when negotiating wages. If the worker does acquire that capital then fine, he becomes a capitalist himself. Don't see how that invalidates the concept of surplus value.

The key thing here is who owns the "means of production", not who "contributes more". Whoever owns the means of production gets to decide what "contributes more" means. I could hire a PR person for my game that convinces people to buy my game at a certain price, and I can still pay him a fraction of what *I* make. Because I own both the equipment the game was coded on, and the code itself. How come now the person that convinces others to buy the product contributes *less* to the worth than the one who made the product? It was just the opposite with the worker that actually made boots and the capitalist that sold them!

Simply put, what matters is who owns the "boot-making machine". And he will usually hire PR people to sell the product, and managers that organize the team, and so on, all paying them less than what he makes, simply because he owns the thing they use to make the product.