Disappointed in Detroit for not booing . Thought you guys were better than that . <| sep |> Like proper fucked . <| sep |> Well who do you want to be ? And what is causing you to move in the opposite direction ? <| sep |> Holy shit that was awful . Sorry Detroit . <| sep |> Ill give a little rant . this is all from the perspective of austrian economics . Now thinking in terms of your ROI . The investment on the raw materials is recouped , yes . But the equipment used to make the pie ? Surely the business owner should see a return since he invested in them ? Well . yes equipment has a depreciation value and a fuller example would include those as factors . but these small examples were more just to explain the difference between labor intensive and and non labor intensive jobs . noting that the actual end value of the product indeed does not correlate to the labor that goes into it by any means . Its surely TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION as a cost labor has a cost just like capital goods do , but I think it was Carl Menger in 1871 who gave the example that a diamond would be worth the same value on the market whether it was found by accident compared to if it took you 10 years to mine and find it . Does that make a little more sense ? Marx simply argued that labor or socially necessary labor hours as he put it could be tied to the end value of products on the market . Now , agreeing with that assertion for a moment . Yes , it seems reasonable that the owner should be paid back for his investmen , and maybe a little more for his trouble . How much more ? 20 %? 100 %? 2000 %? It all depends on what the contract between the employee and the employer state . If I as the employee agreed that the $ 80 dollars a day is fine and I would choose this contract over lets say a contract at the smoothie shop down the street where the pay would be $ 50 a day . then whatever extra profit the employer extracts as surplus value shouldnt matter what matters is if YOUR contract is being fulfilled and you arnt being jipped you were promised $ 80 but were paid out $ 70 . Ironically , the only way in which a Marxist theory holds true in this instance . that we take the worst jobs possible because we ' re FORCED to and its technically slavery , is with a non abundance of capitalists owning businesses . As long as theres competition , I can form contracts with a whole multitude of different employers its only centralization and a lack of competition where people would be forced to work for the ONE factory the state allows to function . The fact that different businesses are competing and they ALL want to be the most productive and attractive to customers , means that if the smoothie shop offers $ 50 a day , maybe I can source better labor into my business by offering $ 51 , and the bidding process begins . In fact nowadays , how you treat your employees can result in a direct reflection of the company and what they stand for this is why nowadays we often find out about businesses who either engage in fraud or treat their employees unfairly . it heavily effects their businesses . Theres no real argument that , in Marx ' s era with as little technology as they had , accountability was a little more complicated . Nowadays . anything that happens we know about it within 5 minutes from our smart phones and computers . Now for profit , profit is simply just a market signal that you are allocating resources correctly , and if you are losing money that is a market signal that these resources would be best allocated elsewhere in the market . For example , if I make a hand held gaming system similiar to a gameboy , and the materials used are plastic , small electronics , etc etc , and I am actually losing money my costs exceed my revenues this is a market signal that the plastic , electronic equipment , power cords etc are all best off being allocated in a different area of the market maybe they would be more efficiently allocated in desktop computers . When you couple that with the tendency of capital to accumulate more capital through investment then I think you are confronted with the utter inequity that is private property . Just because you point out a truth , doesnt mean it has to be a demonizing truth . Theres nothing inherently wrong with all of us as individuals wanting to better out lives . its one of the most natural instincts we have . Isnt it amazing though , nowadays we have the potential to create wealth through mutual means ? Hence , me and you work together to create something great and both parties benefit ? Versus , if I simply just held you at gunpoint and forced you to produce things . only one party benefits me . But I hope I helped explain better what profit IS , and why its by no means evil at all . Wealth is something that has to be created in the first place , and thats something people often times forget . When you think back to the very first humans , they must have been the richest people in the universe because NONE of the natural resources have been used and they are starting from scratch . really think about why thats completely wrong though