4 ms·

No. I definitely don't mean that. The vast majority of producers (myself included, and most likely you as well) create value for society. I know that I don't

No. I definitely don't mean that. The vast majority of producers (myself included, and most likely you as well) create value for society. I know that I don't disingenuously accumulate wealth or exploit anyone. But I am a producer. This is the case for most people. There's only a small minority of very wealthy people who exploit the labor of others. And as I mentioned in my prior comment, the appropriate solution is to fix the law to prevent the exploitation, not to take from all of the producers to pay for those exploited. And that is also assuming that exploitation is the only reason someone would find themselves poor. And it is definitely not the only reason.

mlthoughts2018 8y ago
As a first-world software developer, I definitely do disingenuously accumulate wealth as a side effect of all sorts of world-wide labor exploits, particularly if I work at a large US corp with far-reaching political influence. For example, the value of that equity bonus I think I "earned" might only have been as high as it was because my company found some loophole to avoid taxes that it sincerely should have been paying for the sake of unequivocal civic responsibility. Just because good-natured "regular" people participate in the broader system of exploitation does not mean that they are earning what they get, not at all, myself included. I benefit from huge luck. Luck about when and where I was born, luck about education opportunities, luck of genetics. In addition I benefit from direct effects and side effects of government spending, publicly funded university research, basic infrastructure, and all manner of support staff. The cumulative "product" I make is not my own. It's a function mostly of just how lucky I am, and also significantly a function of the whole Lorentzian field of infrastructure/productivity/opportunity/civility that I'm enveloped in because of a whole bunch of people doing jobs that they are deeply underpaid for.
- turc1656 8y ago
  Luck is a factor, but usually a small one. I certainly do not agree that it's a major component. But let's say for the sake of discussion, that it is. Just because life isn't fair doesn't mean someone else should be able to vote themselves money from your wallet or command a portion of your labor.
  - gerbilly 8y ago
    >because life isn't fair doesn't mean someone else should be able to vote themselves money from your wallet Except it happens all the time by unelected leaders of major corporations. For example, when there is no alternative to say Comcast in your neighbourhood and they can charge whatever they want and you need internet access for work, they are taxing you. And I don't know about you but I must have missed the election where I get to choose who is in charge of Comcast, or any of the other regional monopolies[1] run by "producers" that we sadly depend on. [1] Health insurance, banks, pharmaceutical companies, grocery store chains...
    - turc1656 8y ago
      Those regional monopolies you mention are granted legal rights to the physical property they use to obtain those monopolies. In the case of Comcast they have physical infrastructure that they were granted permission to place onto public and private land. While you may not get to vote for who runs Comcast, you definitely have the option to vote for the people that are involved in the decision-making process that grants those allowances to companies like Comcast. Sounds to me like the issue is government deciding who gets to be a monopoly. And that's why I said the proper course of action is to change the law/policies that are causing the problem.
      - gerbilly 8y ago
        >Sounds to me like the issue is government deciding who gets to be a monopoly. That sounds great except in practical terms there's little that can be done. Who cares if it's government to blame or the corporations, the problem remains the same.
- gerbilly 8y ago
  Thanks for posting this. I wish more people had the humility to admit this.

mlthoughts2018 8y ago

As a first-world software developer, I definitely do disingenuously accumulate wealth as a side effect of all sorts of world-wide labor exploits, particularly if I work at a large US corp with far-reaching political influence. For example, the value of that equity bonus I think I "earned" might only have been as high as it was because my company found some loophole to avoid taxes that it sincerely should have been paying for the sake of unequivocal civic responsibility. Just because good-natured "regular" people participate in the broader system of exploitation does not mean that they are earning what they get, not at all, myself included. I benefit from huge luck. Luck about when and where I was born, luck about education opportunities, luck of genetics. In addition I benefit from direct effects and side effects of government spending, publicly funded university research, basic infrastructure, and all manner of support staff. The cumulative "product" I make is not my own. It's a function mostly of just how lucky I am, and also significantly a function of the whole Lorentzian field of infrastructure/productivity/opportunity/civility that I'm enveloped in because of a whole bunch of people doing jobs that they are deeply underpaid for.

turc1656 8y ago
Luck is a factor, but usually a small one. I certainly do not agree that it's a major component. But let's say for the sake of discussion, that it is. Just because life isn't fair doesn't mean someone else should be able to vote themselves money from your wallet or command a portion of your labor.
- gerbilly 8y ago
  >because life isn't fair doesn't mean someone else should be able to vote themselves money from your wallet Except it happens all the time by unelected leaders of major corporations. For example, when there is no alternative to say Comcast in your neighbourhood and they can charge whatever they want and you need internet access for work, they are taxing you. And I don't know about you but I must have missed the election where I get to choose who is in charge of Comcast, or any of the other regional monopolies[1] run by "producers" that we sadly depend on. [1] Health insurance, banks, pharmaceutical companies, grocery store chains...
  - turc1656 8y ago
    Those regional monopolies you mention are granted legal rights to the physical property they use to obtain those monopolies. In the case of Comcast they have physical infrastructure that they were granted permission to place onto public and private land. While you may not get to vote for who runs Comcast, you definitely have the option to vote for the people that are involved in the decision-making process that grants those allowances to companies like Comcast. Sounds to me like the issue is government deciding who gets to be a monopoly. And that's why I said the proper course of action is to change the law/policies that are causing the problem.
    - gerbilly 8y ago
      >Sounds to me like the issue is government deciding who gets to be a monopoly. That sounds great except in practical terms there's little that can be done. Who cares if it's government to blame or the corporations, the problem remains the same.
gerbilly 8y ago
Thanks for posting this. I wish more people had the humility to admit this.