Don’t you think there is something inherently wrong with someone working 7 days a week for next to nothing? Don’t you think there is something wrong with working 80 hours per week as an Accountant? It is not living, it is being driven into the ground. In reality, there is no choice involved, it is simply “necessary”. Yet it is completely unnecessary because with all of the resources and technology we have, we should all be working less not more. If people had more time they could be engaging in much more creative pursuits.

You seem to think that it is unjust that sometimes employees “are paid” more than the owners who work along-side them, as if they somehow don’t deserve it, and it is them and their employment-rights which are causing hardship for their employers. Small-business often perceives it this way, but it is upside-down. Everyone who works (and in fact every human) deserves a decent standard of living, and to be looked after in their retirement – because as a society we have the capacity to provide it. There is nothing wrong with workers wanting to be paid properly for the work they do, that is what small-business-people want for themselves as well. It is not the workers’ fault that a wage that enables them to live causes “hardship” to their small business employer, it is the economic-system. Small-businesses are wedged between workers and big-business and finance-capital – they are always feeling the pinch – but there is no valid reason why workers should lose out instead of their employers.

Of course, it will be argued that small businesses create-jobs, and workers should be prepared to take cuts to keep them. But that logic only works within the capitalist-framework – where workers are costs to the bottom-line, not real people. If you take as a starting point that every person deserves a decent standard-of-living, and that as a society we have the capacity to provide it, then if our economic-system doesn’t deliver that outcome, either for workers or small-business people, there must be something wrong with the system.

What countrygirl is saying is that she is devoted to greed and anybody devoted to greed has a divine right to recieve welfare from exploiting other people.

If a buisness person is working 80 hours a week obviously they are incompetent and should not be in buisness. It seems many small buisness people have all the time to complain about how hard it is to satisfy their greed but no time to get the job done properly.

Australia has far too many buisnesses and most should give up.An example we usually have to hire three or four plumbers or electricians before one will actually do the job properly. In house IT speciallists and yes accountants and lawyers are always far superior quality wise than small buisnesses. I had an excellent mechanic who had excellent staff. If his buisness was booked out he would not take on extra work. Always closed weekends, foolishly I went to a small mechanic who worked the weekend ,he massively over charged and did such a terrible job I had to get the work redone. Like wise never have a drive way paved , shed erected , house built out of hours or during the weekend, work is always shoddy.

Not to dump on countrygirl. Out house accountancy is the world of greed , an accountants job is to rip off tax payers on behalf of a client. With that world view of chasing charity for those who dont 'need' charity other than ripping of the public through corrupt buisness practice the individual employee can be ripped off for the client as well. An accountants role is not to be morally reflexive or to act patriotically. An accountants role is to get money for the client and take a cut.

West, please be careful - there is a countrygirl who posts on OLO, as compared to me, Country Gal. It has already caused some confusion. Accountants have an ethical obligation to act in the public interest as well as their clients interest - to be qualified as a public accountant there is significant study on this requirement. Many times I have refused to act for a client, or at the minimum to carry out their instructions - I can get jailed for fraud, just like anyone else.

Tao, you are right when you talk about being secondary workers (or even tertiary). In your earlier posts I saw you as more hardline than what I do now. I dont necessarily disagree with some of your points. I dont thing that it is unjust that sometimes workers are paid more than their small business employers. That's part of the risk of being a business owner.That's also why these business owners should be entitled to earn more from their risk in good times, than the workers. The workers arent subject to the same income fluctations as the employers.Its a general rule of risk vs return - the higher the risk, the higher the return. I do agree with you when it comes to corporations, mainly because there is no such thing as a corporate consiounce. Those that have a strong leader that is strapped to the business for the long term (usually those that have floated their own business) are a bit different, as their mentality is different - they have usually got where they have by hard work, and they respect and reward this in others.

I work hard because I come from a tradition of business-owners, who would have starved if they hadnt worked hard. Doesnt mean that you cant enjoy the spare time that you do have though.

Country Gal, A LOT OF US WORK HARD WITHOUT THRE REWWARD THAT FARMER 'RECEIEVE Doudghrt relief flood RELIEF PAYments, iT ALL SUBSUDISED BY THE ordinary....worker, If business is private enterprise let the farmer s survive or fall like the rest of us.

It is exactly as Tao stated. It is wrong that 'workers', whether with their hands, or brain, hopefully both(!) and small business owners, which includes farmers, are having to work harder and longer to earn a similar standard of living as enjoyed previously.

Tao as you said communism and socialism have become dirty words today, because of Stalinism and Maoism. Whether communism could actually work, I don't know. Communism, like laissez faire Capitalism is an utopian ideal. I'm not that optimistic about all of humankind.

In countries like the Netherlands, a 'democratic' socialism has prevailed for many decades. Though currently some government structures are being dismantled, which is causing quite a bit of discussion.

Socialism is actually what provides the higher standard of living for citizens in countries in Scandinavia and the Netherlands. Though from a world economics viewpoint they are often sneered at. Did you know that in the Netherlands now more people own (or are buying) their own home than currently in Australia?

In very simplistic terms, I've always seen it like this: human beings are in service to provide to a capitalistic economy, in a socialistic economy it is the other way round: the economy is in service to provide for human beings.

Country Gal,

I recognise that what I write does sound hard-line, particularly on these forums where you are limited and can’t make every point at once. In some ways it is good though, because it enables a dialectic dialogue – as long as others have the courage to come back for more!

The reason that I am “hard line” about things, as I was with you and your “direct” contribution to wealth production, is because most people believe without question that a certain thing is true merely because it is the ruling-ideology in which we are inculcated from birth. Capitalist-ideology propagates the belief that workers have a lower “direct” contribution to wealth-production than those who risk capital, and therefore deserve a lesser share of the rewards. Not only is it not true, it is an insult. But because the conception is propagated unquestioningly through all available institutions and mass-media etc, (some) people who say it don’t even realise they are incorrect and being insulting, and the people they are saying it about (sometimes) don’t even realise they are being insulted and lied to.

Not only is the conception not-true, and an insult, it is then used to perpetuate an economic-system where the producers of wealth, i.e. workers, do not benefit from all of the wealth that they produce, and essentially live in a state of constant insecurity.

Which leads me to your point about risk v return. Yes, small-business owners take a risk, but it is no higher a risk than workers. Workers might not be subject to income-fluctuations while they are working, but they are certainly subject to the vagaries of the economic-system. More than three months without a job, and most workers will be in dire financial straits, regardless of their previous income-level. People with “capital” can often ride out downturns. However, the final destination for anyone in the world who can’t earn an income is absolute poverty, starvation and ultimately death. You can’t be worse off than that, whether you start off with more or less. Those with less just take less time to get there.