5 ms·

I run a business where I hire remote people to do fairly basic tasks. I can pay them cheaply, replace them easily when they don't fit anymore. I am the "platfor

I run a business where I hire remote people to do fairly basic tasks. I can pay them cheaply, replace them easily when they don't fit anymore. I am the "platform" and I extract the surplus. So I feel the article has very valid points... and I am on the "ruling capitalists" side of my little world. In order to sleep at night, I am just trying not to be an asshole, and to be decent in the way I pay and behave. But as a society, we cannot rely just on goodwill. In the age of globalization, and as a firm believer in the efficiency of market economy and capitalism, I think it is still time to reintroduce a new sort of new, rebranded "International Socialism" where "workers/people of the world, unite!" for everyone's good. The goal would be that people can have access to enough food, decent accommodation, healthcare, and retirement, so that on top of this base, we can use the efficiency of a globalized market economy. Not sure where to start...

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
avoutthere 9y ago
If your workers are doing "fairly basic tasks", why should you be forced to pay them more than their work is worth?
- bbddg 9y ago
  He doesn't pay them how much their work is worth. He pays less, that's how he makes money.
  - throwaaawayNNV 9y ago
    Exactly. I make most of the money, not them. And the day I reduce their hours significantly because I bring AI into the platform -and one day I will-, I will make even more, and they will make even less. I don't think I am individually wrong to pay market rate for their work, and keep the surplus, but the bigger question is, while nobody is wrong, including AI, where are we going as a society? What will be the consequences?
    - deft 9y ago
      Look at history. One day people will have had enough and they're going to go after you and people like you.
      - throwaaawayNNV 9y ago
        That's very possible. The hard question is "then what?" If you remove the market economy and ability for people to make money, take initiative and be rewarded for it, and go instead to a pure socialist model/goal, that goes so much against so many human instincts, that it will be hard to have people buying into it. As history shows. And it won't remove AI. What new system do we propose, or how do we modify the current one, in a globalized, AI-powered world?
        deft 9y ago
        Well, considering socialist thought has always relied on automation getting rid of menial, dangerous and other similar jobs, probably socialism. There are many schools of thought for how a market can/could/would work under socialism. Being rewarded for your effort is not outside of that. Instead of using AI to benefit the people at the top (apparently you), an equitable system where AI actually helps humanity as a whole would be required.
      - Fins 9y ago
        Historically, they will also be the ones who still lose in the end.
    - bbddg 9y ago
      Yeah I don't think you're individually wrong either, sorry if I came across that way. You're acting rationally in the world that we live in. I know socialism is a dirty word (especially around here) but I think as a society we need to be open to the possibility of an economy that is fundamentally different from capitalism.
    - Infinitesimus 9y ago
      You could start by just paying them better...
  - turc1656 9y ago
    That's how every single profitable business operates. It's not a bad thing, it's a requirement. If a business pays you exactly the value you bring to them, then they do not earn anything from employing you, and have no profits to reinvestment into the business or reward investors for taking the risk of investing in the business. For this reason, not a single person who isn't self-employed ever gets paid "what they are worth". There is "fair market wage", but that is all.
    - bbddg 9y ago
      Yeah thanks, I understand how it works. I happen to think it is a bad thing.
      - turc1656 9y ago
        Why is it a bad thing? What is the alternative? To have every single person in the world work for themselves? That's really the only other alternative besides not allowing businesses to retain any earnings for growth and expansion.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

avoutthere 9y ago

If your workers are doing "fairly basic tasks", why should you be forced to pay them more than their work is worth?

bbddg 9y ago
He doesn't pay them how much their work is worth. He pays less, that's how he makes money.
- throwaaawayNNV 9y ago
  Exactly. I make most of the money, not them. And the day I reduce their hours significantly because I bring AI into the platform -and one day I will-, I will make even more, and they will make even less. I don't think I am individually wrong to pay market rate for their work, and keep the surplus, but the bigger question is, while nobody is wrong, including AI, where are we going as a society? What will be the consequences?
  - deft 9y ago
    Look at history. One day people will have had enough and they're going to go after you and people like you.
    - throwaaawayNNV 9y ago
      That's very possible. The hard question is "then what?" If you remove the market economy and ability for people to make money, take initiative and be rewarded for it, and go instead to a pure socialist model/goal, that goes so much against so many human instincts, that it will be hard to have people buying into it. As history shows. And it won't remove AI. What new system do we propose, or how do we modify the current one, in a globalized, AI-powered world?
      - deft 9y ago
        Well, considering socialist thought has always relied on automation getting rid of menial, dangerous and other similar jobs, probably socialism. There are many schools of thought for how a market can/could/would work under socialism. Being rewarded for your effort is not outside of that. Instead of using AI to benefit the people at the top (apparently you), an equitable system where AI actually helps humanity as a whole would be required.
    - Fins 9y ago
      Historically, they will also be the ones who still lose in the end.
  - bbddg 9y ago
    Yeah I don't think you're individually wrong either, sorry if I came across that way. You're acting rationally in the world that we live in. I know socialism is a dirty word (especially around here) but I think as a society we need to be open to the possibility of an economy that is fundamentally different from capitalism.
  - Infinitesimus 9y ago
    You could start by just paying them better...
- turc1656 9y ago
  That's how every single profitable business operates. It's not a bad thing, it's a requirement. If a business pays you exactly the value you bring to them, then they do not earn anything from employing you, and have no profits to reinvestment into the business or reward investors for taking the risk of investing in the business. For this reason, not a single person who isn't self-employed ever gets paid "what they are worth". There is "fair market wage", but that is all.
  - bbddg 9y ago
    Yeah thanks, I understand how it works. I happen to think it is a bad thing.
    - turc1656 9y ago
      Why is it a bad thing? What is the alternative? To have every single person in the world work for themselves? That's really the only other alternative besides not allowing businesses to retain any earnings for growth and expansion.