User talk:RahulCohen

Welcome
Hi, RahulCohen. Welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope you like it here and decide to stick around. If you see something on Wikipedia that you want to change, just press the edit button and change it!

For the basic principles, see the five pillars of Wikipedia. And if you're ready to make some edits, this Wikipedia cheatsheet may come in handy.

Cheers, ChzzBot IV (talk) 05:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation


I noticed your submission in Articles for creation, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Iris Winnifred King. Thanks! It will be reviewed by a volunteer soon.

Before it can be added to Wikipedia, your submission should have references. All articles on Wikipedia should have inline, numbered references after facts, showing the 'reliable source' (a newspaper, book, etc.) where the information can be checked, so that all information is verifiable.

Here's an example of how to add references: Chzz is 98 years old.&lt;ref> "The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009. &lt;/ref>

He likes tea.&lt;ref> Smith, John. " Interview with Chzz", Foo News, 1 April 2010. Retrieved 2011-05-22.

== References ==

That makes the references automatically display as small numbers[1] which will link to the details in the section titled == References == at the end. You can see that example in action here.

Please add references to your submission, which will be reviewed as soon as possible. See also, Referencing for beginners. If you need any help, just put at the end of this page, followed by a question or get into our live help chat chanel at.

Best, ChzzBot IV (talk) 05:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Help

 * Some baklava for you!

 Chzz  ► 15:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

 Chzz  ► 18:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Iris Winnifred King, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. Thank you for helping Wikipedia! Alpha_Quadrant   (talk)  19:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see what needs to be done to bring it to the next level.
 * Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider

In response to your feedback
Sorry you're confused! Everything you need to know about references can be found here. The Help Desk is also very helpful for all kinds of problems. Good luck and happy editing!

Ariconte (talk) 02:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

&#160;

Image uploading
For uploading pictures and other media, it's easiest to go to Wikimedia Commons (you can use your Wikipedia credentials if you're not logged in already) and visit the Upload Wizard. Wikimedia Commons can only accept files which anyone can use for any purpose. That means most content you find on the web is not acceptable. But for example, most photos that you've taken yourself are OK to upload.

Here's a screenshot of the Upload Wizard:



You start by selecting the files you want to upload, then you go step by step through the process. In the final step, you'll get some wiki markup that you can copy into a Wikipedia article. Let me know if I can help. :-) Ariconte (talk) 02:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Image linked
I have linked the image to your article.... see Iris Winnifred King source text for the method. You still need to solve the permissions problem on commons or the image will be deleted..... see the commons page. If you have sent in the permissions; you need to so note that on the commons page.... see OTRS. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 03:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I can Help
Hello, I saw your question on the Moodbar. What Kind of problems are you encountering? I can help if am in a capacity to do so.Stephenwanjau (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! Drop by the Teahouse anytime for a cup of tea, or some help with editing!

 * Hi Rahul! I was happy to see you make a guest profile at the Teahouse, welcome! I also like to edit about history. Feel free to drop by the Teahouse and ask a question anytime, you can get a pretty speedy response there! Just visit the questions page anytime. See you there :D Sarah (talk) 05:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Please fill out our brief Teahouse guest survey
Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at WP:Teahouse would like your feedback! We have created a brief survey meant to help us better understand the experience of new editors on Wikipedia. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests pages sometime in the last few months.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host

This message was sent via Global message delivery on 00:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Employee Value
Throughout history when someone acquires property they become property owners, and as such expects to gain from his/her investment, to pass this investment and future earnings from such investments down to their descendants. In the book " The Divine Right Of Capital" the Author [Marjorie Kelly] rejects the idea of Shareholder Primacy (form of entitlement)and the rights of investors to future earnings based on the myth of the "Great chain of beings"-some people are higher than others and have more rights-, and insists Employees of Corporations help to create wealth for the Corporations (Shareholders) and should share in the wealth. Additionally, she mentions that Corporations should stop thinking of employees as an "expense" but instead as "Income".

Ms. Kelly suggest the world needs to change its perspective of Capitalism and 'assert that employees and the community should rightfully share economic sovereignty with capital owners'. She continues "...maximizing returns to shareholders" is "...the lever that keeps the lock and dam functioning", and that this notion "decrees that the interest of one group will be systematically favored over the others" regardless of 'their productivity or lack thereof'.

Further, Ms. Kelly says "like aristocratic society, corporate society bases membership on property ownership", and that "...corporation views the world..." through "...the lens of financial numbers, where it sees the numbers that belong to stockholders as the end point of the whole game" (Maximizing returns to shareholders). Consequently, a primary bias is built into the financial statements and perpetuates the false notion that stockholders should be paid as much as possible and employees as little as possible.

Moreover, Ms. Kelly argues there are two cost to the corporation- labor and material (people and objects)- and also two kinds of people- employee people and capital people (shareholders/investors)-, and that instead of designating one group as cost (employees) and one group as income (shareholders) we should designate them both as income. The current equation states that Capital income+Retained earnings= Revenue-(Employee income+Cost of Materials), which counts employees as cost helps to maintain an invisible bias against employees. She prefers, instead, an equation that reads "Employee income+ Retained earnings=Revenue-(Capital income+Cost of materials), which she concludes would help corporations to re-define their purpose- bottom line- as maximizing returns to employees.

Also, Ms. Kelly notes that a "...result of a second major bias built into the financial statements aims to internalize all possible gains from the community and externalize all possible cost onto the community". For instance, if a mining company had to pay to clean up its environmental mess then that would be bad because it would add to the costs and maybe very expensive. Therefore, 'the logic of the income statement dictates that they dispose of the waste as cheaply as possible; dumping the waste in places that will in the long run affect the environment and, hence, the community. The environment is not an asset of the corporations and does not appear on its balance sheet so the destruction is invisible in the corporate lens.

Ms. Kelly goes on to argue that the "...Principle of privilege..." is at the heart of the corporate worldview. According to her the phrase in its 'antique sense meant a law that benefited (harmed)one individual or group' and the notion (Principle of privilege)is the "...great chain of being made tangible: some persons are higher than others, and hence have more rights...". As a result, the fundamental rights of the aristocracy is a right to income detached from productivity-... to be free from labor." She concludes that "...invested dollars reach corporations only when new equity is sold..." and in 1999 "...less than 1% reached companies", which suggests "...1 percent is productive and 99 percent speculative..." (income detached from productivity).

She claims that for decades stockholders have been de-capitalizing companies by extracting wealth, and should be considered "extractors" and not "investors". She notes that 'companies had dropped their management function and the stockholders dropped the function of providing capital' (Adolf Berle, "The Modern Corporation and Private Property"). Stockholders in the major companies today serve little function except to extract wealth from corporations and benefit from the productivity of the employees. According to Ms. Kelly a "...New Peasant Class" is created and contends that if "stockholder productivity has been negative then employee productivity has been positive and rising." She states that employee wages are not rising and is not 'keeping pace' with the growth of companies and their coffers. Also, the 40 hour work week is now 50 hours for over 50% of employees.

Furthermore, Ms. Kelly notes that "...stockholder privilege... is an incantation of...ownership" (property rights), and "since stockholders own corporations...stockholders are sole masters... and they can do as they like with their object". With this in mind stockholders wield great power over the governance of the corporations while employees and communities remain powerless. In talking about ownership Ms. Kelly writes there are "...three categories of persons: the property owner with full rights, the slave as a piece of property with no rights... a right-bearing subject who is also the property of another." It is on this principle of ownership we find "...the law of master (stockholder) and servant (employee)..." remaining in the law "...of employer-employee relationships today..." causing employees to "...still owe a common-law duty of loyalty to the corporation but...the corporation owes no loyalty to them. According to her [Kelly] the notion of ownership gives rise to the idea of "...sovereign master..." and were privileged simply because they owned property. According to Ms. Kelly you either own property or become the property of another Person.

This leads us to the overruling notion of shareholder primacy and Corporate governance, which is used to protect the investors' money from waste, and hold operators accountable to the owners or investors (fiduciary duty). According to Ms. Kelly "corporate governance..." allows "...stockholders..." to "...reign supreme, because they are considered owners rather than mere investors". She suggests that boards of directors have little function and are there to most times "...govern in shareholders' interests...". She continues to argue that 'the board of directors' prime directives are to maximize returns to shareholders' and "...not establishing the purpose of the corporation". She explains "...the basis of shareholder primacy is thus primarily common law, judge-made law...but in common law this is interpreted [by the directors] as a loyalty to shareholders alone..." and neglecting "...to serve the public good...". Ms. Kelly mentions that 'public corporations are governed in the interest of the propertied class alone'. Ms. Kelly concludes "...shareholder primacy is the wrench in the gears of evolution..." and "... thwarts corporations from their natural movement toward wider economic sovereignty for all".

In her notion of the "Principle of Enlightenment" Ms. Kelly states that "because all persons are created equal, the economic rights of employees and the community are equal to those of Capital owners", and is the basis for her idea of "Economic Democracy". She contends that laws made to govern corporations need to be updated, if not changed all together, since those laws are now antique and corporations have evolved into less tangible objects and not like a "...factory built with shareholders' money and thus owned by them." Now, corporations and their shareholders have become 'shifting speculators governing a distant human community', and, consequently, Ms. Kelly points out that 'corporations are now more complex and alive and needs a more nuanced set of human rights' if we are to gain economic equality. I tend to agree with Ms. Kelly in her assertion that 'wage increases, well funded schools, and a healthy environment are also measures of prosperity', and until we assert this 'we will not have claimed our full power'.

Ms. Kelly also contends that the wealth of corporations is created by employees and "...it simply defies market principles to continue giving speculators [investors] the wealth that employees create". She believes "it makes little sense that corporate law remains feudal, with stockholders supposedly owning a firm's assets and thus everything created on top of those assets [rights to future earnings]", and that the "...natural law dictates that employees have a right to much of the value they help to create". She explains that "...protectionist legal barriers guard shareholder primacy..." and suggest they should open up to "...free competition with employees." In her argument to support employees she points out "Capital is only a fruit of labor [employees hard work]...", and labor is superior to capital and should hold more importance in our consideration. She desires to see the day when 'every employee is considered an owner', and the evolution of property rights to "...conform to natural principles of justice...having some reasonable relation to productivity and reflecting concern for a decent minimum income."

In conclusion, Ms. Kelly sees the corporation, as it is now, running contrary to its original purpose (the public good) and is transformed into a tool to 'maximize shareholders' profits'. She [Kelly]advocates a new direction or common sense approach when it comes to the "...governing framework for all corporations in law" and "...limiting the power of shareholders by putting real corporate governance power in the hands of the employees and the community." In her argument, Ms. Kelly states 'that employees deserve internal standing in corporations' and cites theorist Ellerman, who supports this view, saying "...that a more precise query is, Who is governed by the corporation?" and the obvious answer would be the employees.