4 ms·

Paying people the same value they contribute is not socialism. It's called: Being a good person. Capitalism seems to have made us all think it's completely ok

by 1stop 11y ago

Paying people the same value they contribute is not socialism. It's called: Being a good person. Capitalism seems to have made us all think it's completely okay to exploit someone else's surplus labour. How is the risk the founder takes that different to Employee #1's? Their payout is usually vastly different, but their contribution not so much.

sumedh 11y ago
You misunderstood me, I am not saying you should exploit your workers, pay them fair wage. What I am saying is that founder who took the risk should enjoy the fruits. > How is the risk the founder takes that different to Employee #1's? Employee #1 will probably be getting a salary, if the company fails he can get a job somewhere else. Meanwhile the founders who worked on the idea probably used their savings initially not to mention quitting their jobs and working on the idea and facing humiliation if the company fails. That takes courage which everyone cannot do which is why founders deserve to get rich if they build something valuable, employees not so much unless they are willing to stick it out till the end.
- forgetsusername 11y ago
  >What I am saying is that founder who took the risk Please describe what "risks" the average high-flying tech startup CEO has taken.
  - sumedh 11y ago
    I am not sure what you mean by the high flying CEO, I am talking more from the founder's side who puts his money and time on the line. Take Musk as an example, he invested most of his money in Tesla and Space X and both the companies came close to bankruptcy. Those companies and many others will not work as a cooperative.
    - krisdol 11y ago
      Why not?
      - sumedh 11y ago
        Because most people who will be working in the cooperative are sane and will bail out if things get tough. You need a crazy founder to take enormous risks. Just look around you, most of the tech titans are founders who took risk, can you give examples of tech cooperatives which are equally famous?
- pbhjpbhj 11y ago
  >if the company fails he can get a job somewhere else // Because it's so hard to adapt CEO skills to the jobs market? Whilst peons can pick up a low paid job and should just lap it up and be happy about it?? If the founder is taking a risk running the company then the employees are taking a risk working there; their risk is often as great, the chance to lose one's livelihood. To my mind a guy in sales that wrote up £1 million of orders in one days work and a guy in janitorial that cleaned the toilets all day both did a days work and both deserve a days pay - they're both humans who gave a day of their lives to the purposes of the company.
  - sumedh 11y ago
    The founder is also putting his money on the table while the employee is not. The employee can just say no to working in a startup, nobody is forcing him to work there. The janitor should be paid the market rate, nobody is denying that but he should not expect to get rich via the company
splintercell 11y ago
> Paying people the same value they contribute is not socialism. It's called: Being a good person. < I am sorry but the whole disagreement is on what value a worker contributes. According to Capitalism and Capitalism supporters, a productive activity is the sum of (Land/raw materials + Labor + Capital). Capital is nothing but deferred consumption. If you don't consume what you could consume, then that constitutes as capital. When you say that Capitalism exploits another's surplus labor, what you don't understand is that the Capitalist pays for that surplus labor via capital (or time). Any worker in Capitalism is entitled to the full share of the profit as long as he does not expect wages to be paid out immediately, and that he is willing to wait until the profits pour in. Because most labor is paid immediately, and workers have no risk or delayed consumption, they don't get the share from the profit. Karl Marx noticed this phenomenon, but was unable to understand the role of Capital(and yea I know he wrote a whole book on this concept). To him, careful inspection revealed a 'conspiracy theory' among the capitalists which he dubbed as class struggle and class interest. > How is the risk the founder takes that different to Employee #1's? < When you compare the risk of the founder vs risk of the employee #1, it is the matter of how much capital is on line there. Clearly the risk taken by someone who has invested $1000 is less than the risk taken by someone who has invested $10,000 into the same venture at the same time. Funny thing is when people talk about a cooperative, it's no different than an early stage equity startup where nobody gets paid a salary. The moment a cooperative pays salary before the revenue, it will need capital and the person providing the capital would deserve a bigger share from the profits.
- bobwaycott 11y ago
  > Karl Marx noticed this phenomenon, but was unable to understand the role of Capital(and yea I know he wrote a whole book on this concept). To him, careful inspection revealed a 'conspiracy theory' among the capitalists which he dubbed as class struggle and class interest. You possess an either infantile and misinformed understanding of Marx, or you're just being ideological here. Have you read Capital? It's not just one book. Marx very well understood the concept, role, and agency of capital. His careful inspection did not reveal a conspiracy theory; instead, it elucidated the ways capital influences our material existence. There was no conspiracy among capitalists, only naturally flowing consequences of capital's impact on the material bases of society.
bobby_9x 11y ago
I'm fine with this, as long as the risk/reward ratio is equal. Maybe each employee has to donate credit to the company for expenses if they don’t have the cash? I started my company with bank loans and credit lines. If it goes bust, it's my reputation and I will have to pay back the money. If someone isn't willing to risk this as well, they aren't an equal partner and shouldn't share equally in the reward. Some people aren't willing to risk this much, yet still want to contribute. They are employees.

by 1stop 11y ago

sumedh 11y ago

You misunderstood me, I am not saying you should exploit your workers, pay them fair wage. What I am saying is that founder who took the risk should enjoy the fruits. > How is the risk the founder takes that different to Employee #1's? Employee #1 will probably be getting a salary, if the company fails he can get a job somewhere else. Meanwhile the founders who worked on the idea probably used their savings initially not to mention quitting their jobs and working on the idea and facing humiliation if the company fails. That takes courage which everyone cannot do which is why founders deserve to get rich if they build something valuable, employees not so much unless they are willing to stick it out till the end.

forgetsusername 11y ago
>What I am saying is that founder who took the risk Please describe what "risks" the average high-flying tech startup CEO has taken.
- sumedh 11y ago
  I am not sure what you mean by the high flying CEO, I am talking more from the founder's side who puts his money and time on the line. Take Musk as an example, he invested most of his money in Tesla and Space X and both the companies came close to bankruptcy. Those companies and many others will not work as a cooperative.
  - krisdol 11y ago
    Why not?
    - sumedh 11y ago
      Because most people who will be working in the cooperative are sane and will bail out if things get tough. You need a crazy founder to take enormous risks. Just look around you, most of the tech titans are founders who took risk, can you give examples of tech cooperatives which are equally famous?
pbhjpbhj 11y ago
>if the company fails he can get a job somewhere else // Because it's so hard to adapt CEO skills to the jobs market? Whilst peons can pick up a low paid job and should just lap it up and be happy about it?? If the founder is taking a risk running the company then the employees are taking a risk working there; their risk is often as great, the chance to lose one's livelihood. To my mind a guy in sales that wrote up £1 million of orders in one days work and a guy in janitorial that cleaned the toilets all day both did a days work and both deserve a days pay - they're both humans who gave a day of their lives to the purposes of the company.
- sumedh 11y ago
  The founder is also putting his money on the table while the employee is not. The employee can just say no to working in a startup, nobody is forcing him to work there. The janitor should be paid the market rate, nobody is denying that but he should not expect to get rich via the company

splintercell 11y ago

> Paying people the same value they contribute is not socialism. It's called: Being a good person. < I am sorry but the whole disagreement is on what value a worker contributes. According to Capitalism and Capitalism supporters, a productive activity is the sum of (Land/raw materials + Labor + Capital). Capital is nothing but deferred consumption. If you don't consume what you could consume, then that constitutes as capital. When you say that Capitalism exploits another's surplus labor, what you don't understand is that the Capitalist pays for that surplus labor via capital (or time). Any worker in Capitalism is entitled to the full share of the profit as long as he does not expect wages to be paid out immediately, and that he is willing to wait until the profits pour in. Because most labor is paid immediately, and workers have no risk or delayed consumption, they don't get the share from the profit. Karl Marx noticed this phenomenon, but was unable to understand the role of Capital(and yea I know he wrote a whole book on this concept). To him, careful inspection revealed a 'conspiracy theory' among the capitalists which he dubbed as class struggle and class interest. > How is the risk the founder takes that different to Employee #1's? < When you compare the risk of the founder vs risk of the employee #1, it is the matter of how much capital is on line there. Clearly the risk taken by someone who has invested $1000 is less than the risk taken by someone who has invested $10,000 into the same venture at the same time. Funny thing is when people talk about a cooperative, it's no different than an early stage equity startup where nobody gets paid a salary. The moment a cooperative pays salary before the revenue, it will need capital and the person providing the capital would deserve a bigger share from the profits.

bobwaycott 11y ago
> Karl Marx noticed this phenomenon, but was unable to understand the role of Capital(and yea I know he wrote a whole book on this concept). To him, careful inspection revealed a 'conspiracy theory' among the capitalists which he dubbed as class struggle and class interest. You possess an either infantile and misinformed understanding of Marx, or you're just being ideological here. Have you read Capital? It's not just one book. Marx very well understood the concept, role, and agency of capital. His careful inspection did not reveal a conspiracy theory; instead, it elucidated the ways capital influences our material existence. There was no conspiracy among capitalists, only naturally flowing consequences of capital's impact on the material bases of society.

bobby_9x 11y ago

I'm fine with this, as long as the risk/reward ratio is equal. Maybe each employee has to donate credit to the company for expenses if they don’t have the cash? I started my company with bank loans and credit lines. If it goes bust, it's my reputation and I will have to pay back the money. If someone isn't willing to risk this as well, they aren't an equal partner and shouldn't share equally in the reward. Some people aren't willing to risk this much, yet still want to contribute. They are employees.