"If the owners of crapital know that they can get workers to work at $15 an hour why would they pay more even when that work creates $100's per hour?
The choice in this scenario is to submit to the prevailing wage or starve, even though your work creates exponentially more than $15 dollars an hour."
In this scenario competition will appear and undercut the business making an $85 spread on labor. The competition might come from someone who works in that $15 an hour job and realizes there's a huge profit margin given his pay plus cost of materials. He can't morally poach his employers customers, but he can use their business model to go out and get his own customers using what he learned on the job.

The vast majority of American millionaires are first generation, making their wealth themselves through their own productive endeavors.

The concept of a few hereditary families has been overthrown by the vibrancy that capitalism brings.

Do you realize that you're on a site dedicated to Objectivism, Ayn Rand, and Atlas Shrugged? You obviously believe that the world and society owes you the means of life just because you exist.

You were born into this world with a brain. I might suggest that you start using it. If you think that all of those "plenty of resources to provide food, clothing, and shelter to every human being and domesticated animal on the planet" just exist out there for you to use, I'd suggest that you go right on out and start plowing, Oops I forgot that you don't own a plow and since you don't want to work for money you don't have anything to use to get someone else's or get someone else to build you one and if you did you can't get someone to deliver the metal for it or to smelt and cast the metal or to find and dig the ore out of the ground or to build or design the machinery needed to do all of that.

Then, if you manage to figure out how to plow, maybe using a branch you broke of a tree like your long ago ancestors did, then you can start planting the seeds, Ooops again, I forgot that you don't have any seeds and since you don't work for money you don't have anything to use to get someone else's seeds, or to get someone else to deliver them, or to get someone to clean and sort them and package them for delivery, or to pick and gather them, or to plant the first ones, or to, damn, we're back to planting again.

And none of that considers that the land you think you ought to be able to plow and plant belongs to someone else that's already growing and raising the things he needs to support his life and his children's. And if you take the extra he's grown, then he won't be able to trade that for the medicine he needs for his children. Damn, this get's complicated, doesn't it?

You, young ignorant person, are a fool. While you're under that bridge, you might see if you can borrow some books, that a lot of people working for money developed, gathered all the information for, wrote, edited, printed, put a cover on, shipped, and sold to someone to support their life needs--study them and begin to educate yourself.

But I doubt that you will do that.

"Anything that reduces the collective labor needed to feed, clothe, shelter, and pamper the human race is net positive."
I would like to add that this one line about producing more with less work being a good thing is the only part I agree with.

"they in turn reciprocated your labor with a labor of love of their own, perhaps supper or that old bicycle in the garage?"
I'm all for barter. I bought used bikes for my kids last year. If they had some electronics that needed fixing, I would have done it in exchange for the bikes. Money allows me to find someone who does need electronics, and then I can take that money and trade it with people who have needs other than electronics.

What is wrong with a person keeping, and passing on to family members, what they have earned/produced? What another person possesses does not prevent me from amassing wealth. The only person who can prevent me from doing that is....me.

okay, so Who Redistributes The Goods? . since we
don't have a deity handy, who? -- j
.

the link between the love and the supper was the
money -- freely exchanged in each instance. . there
was no slavery, or otherwise I would have quit. -- j

p.s. and "force" is an engineering concept with which
I am acquainted. . the market is a word for interpersonal
relationships. . force is a word for violence. . may
the twain never meet.
.

"Anything that reduces the collective labor needed to feed, clothe, shelter, and pamper the human race is net positive. "
I strongly agree. Productivity = goods and services produced / hours to produce them.

"Why do we have to have money? The average worker doesn't give one whit if the accounting department takes a permanent vacation. "
I recommend the first chapter or two of The Lean Startup for this question. It talks about how the importance to a startup business of working out exactly what to produce.

“Value for value insures that children will always be sold as slaves, are you good with that? Valuing people makes them little better than cattle.”
I would be against trading stuff too if it made us slaves, but it doesn't. We all want things from one another. One ways to get them is people freely giving each other things in trade. The other way is some form manipulation, guilt, guns, chains, jails, etc. To paraphrase Atlas Shrugged, there is no third choice.

“Your belief that only production that fits your bill of goods is valuable, belies your lack of humanity, what of the autistic person that gives you a new perspective on your lack of humanity. Do you advocate for the slaughter of those not capable of producing for you?”
You might like the Fountainhead by Ayn Rand. The protagonist is weird, possibly on the autism spectrum; maybe not, but definitely a weirdo. People don't appreciate his art and instead sheepishly follow art critics' opinions. Sometimes he has to do menial work to pay the bills. At one point meets a troubled boy. The boy sees his work, and it changes the boy's life forever. The protagonist wasn't after money but was after sharing his art with people like that boy.

People valuing what other people make through their hard work, creativity, and ingenuity is what humanity is about.
“My proposal ends prostitution, human trafficking, and drug pushing by removing the profits in doing so. 
No longer will parents view their children as resources to be exploited when they can get what the want from the work of others in return for their contribution of their own labor.”

I simply don't believe this. Any problem looks simple as a block diagram on a white board. Reality bites you when you actually start putting together prototypes. I would love for you to put together a prototype intentional community, but I predict you would have major problems. I still honestly support your trying. I'm always open to evidence proving me wrong.

So the way this is supposed to work, I wake up in the morning and do something I feel like doing, say I decide to weed my neighbor's lawn.

And, somehow, someone else randomly decides that what he wants to do is to feed me a steak dinner that evening?

Do I actually have to weed the lawn or can I simply surf the web and then spend the evening wandering around seeing if anyone feels inspired to feed me?

The point of wages is to place an agreed upon value of my labor which can be exchanged for the labor of the guy raising the cow, the guy butchering it, the truck driver who brought it to the restaurant, the chef who cooks it and the waiter who put's it on the table.

And all these people are going to do all these things because they feel like it? With no connection to feeding their own families?

Do you represent the lollipop guild?

Well, you're certainly welcome to go back to the jungle if you like. Tell them I said 'Hi'. I'll just stay where I am.

"What evidence do you have that resources are scarce? The only scarcity is forced scarcity in the interests of more profits. "
Energy, human time, land, and other means of production clearly are not limitless.

"There are plenty of resources to provide food, clothing, and shelter to every human being and domesticated animal on the planet."
I agree.

"If you had the money to pay for it it would be made available to you, correct?"
Yes. There's a supply and demand curve, which in equilibrium has quantity supplied = quantity demanded.

"The alternative is working for a share of the work. Food, clothing, and shelter being the priorities and maseratis, et al, being the perks of the division of labor. "
Does "working for a share of the work" mean you're only working for the cause of providing for the community, but not for providing for yourself? The things you make are "perks" for others?

"A system that puts 50% of the resources in the hands of 1% of the population has issues for the bottom 10% that won't be corrected by shuffling the deck chairs around. "
I agree with this except I don't call people keeping the stuff they make a system. Suppose people freely making stuff and getting to keep it results in concentration of wealth? If so do we simply take wealth from the rich to even things out? Maybe. But I'm loath to steal. And once that money is in gov't coffers, everyone has his hand out for it, and only a tiny fraction of it goes to the poor.

"Paradigm shift is the answer. Working because it is your social responsibility, along the lines of cutting your hair, shaving your face, mowing your lawn, and wearing pants in public, and not because you will starve if you don't is a much better management system than crapitalism. "
What if people don't do what you consider their civic duty, i.e. work. Suppose some poor people working in service jobs decide not to do their responsibility. Suppose middle class people decide to spend more precious time with their families and just work 9-5 and leave any customer problems at the office when the clock hits 5. An engineer decides to tinker with ham radio circuits for fun instead of working on a project to make the first smartphones. A smart person who's good fixing things with her hands decides to leave medicine in favor of repairing bikes and small machines because it's less stressful.
Not everyone would do that, but some people would. Does the gov't go to those people and threaten them with some penalties for not working? If not, we end up with the awful situation of having less, of my kid needing surgery, but there's a shortage. I want to do extra work to make something I can offer to the surgeon, but I can't keep the things I make, and even if I could, the surgeon can't keep the things I give her in exchange for working.

A customer asking me to stay late to get a circuit working before a trade show is rude and imposing if all I'm just working for my share of work. We all end up being rude and imposing asking each other to solve our problems out of sense of moral responsibility for others.

"We have to have somebody make the shoes, we don't have to grovel at the banksters feet to get them."
To get shoes, we need the raw materials plus means of production plus human labor. To get people to give you those three things, you have to give them something. It could be anything, but money is easier b/c you don't have to have on hand exactly what the party happens to want at that moment. This would be a fact regardless of the banking system.

Objectivism completely contradicts communism. This is why your ideas don't get many up-votes. On a positive note your ideas fit well into communism, socialism and even islam.

Seriously? Is that a joke?

We have money (paper promissory notes and metal) because people grew tired of caring their livestock to market to barter.

Capitalism is equality. Capitalism is freedom. Entreat me, explain how capitalism and freedom are oxymoron's please.

You're mind is "to each according to his need. From each according to his ability" - thats collectivism aka communism. Communism has the honor of killing more people in the face of the earth in the name of "equality" than any other ideology (islam has to be close).


FYI: I haven't worked for anyone in 17 years.

Thats just it, we do not each need to produce for everyone else. We need to produce enough for yourself and those you choose to support. The excess of what we produce can be sold to others to better their lives.

Think on this: Would you let me make your heath-care and lifestyle decisions for you? Why not?

Just a guess... but... you haven't read much Rand have you? How did you end up here in the Gulch if you don't mind me asking?

The essence of government is force. That force can start out gentle but if you resist, in the end someone with a gun will enforce it.

So, someone can work busing tables and order a leer jet because one is available? There has to be a way to evaluate what someone's work is worth and that value is determined by the marketplace, not by someone's wishful thinking.

If someone is a dictator than they aren't practicing capitalism.

As far as your use of 'crapitalism', using made-up words implies sloppy thinking and lets one decide that A=B