3 ms·

No, it doesn't imply that. When an employee works at Microsoft he creates value. He didn't have that value before he did the work, he created it through the w

No, it doesn't imply that. When an employee works at Microsoft he creates value. He didn't have that value before he did the work, he created it through the work done there. Microsoft pays him a salary in return for his value. However, the salary Microsoft pays does not match the full value he created. The difference is Microsoft's profits. The company is taking those profits from the workers who created the value in the first place. They didn't have that value when they joined, they created it there, but it's still taken from them at time of creation. Those shares represent a right to a share of those profits. Stock shares literally represent a right to the excess value taken from the workers who created it. So who did Bill Gates take that money from? The workers who created the value the money represents. And this is how you wind up with massive wealth inequality and all the problems that creates. People recognize the problems with wealth inequality. The recognize the problems with unions (which have their own power problems and corruption problems). They recognize the problem with having the government redistribute the wealth (which is still better than allowing the inequality to continue to grow). But we're so ingrained with the idea that the way things are is the way they should be that we rarely talk about a pretty obvious solution - let those who generate the wealth have democratic control over what happens to it at the time of generation.

rukittenme 7y ago
> However, the salary Microsoft pays does not match the full value he created. The difference is Microsoft's profits. Will I be liable for a company's losses under your system?
- seanc 7y ago
  Who are you kidding? The way modern bankruptcy works (largely a good thing, btw), no individual is _really_ liable for the company's losses.
  - rukittenme 7y ago
    The worker's cooperative who loaned the money to my worker's cooperative would be liable for the losses. I assume they would have to eat the loss then?
imgabe 7y ago
Capitalism works on the fact that different people value things differently. That asymmetry in value allows people to trade things so that I can give up something that I value less in order to get something that I value more. Perhaps I could sit at home alone and write fragments of Windows kernel code by myself. These would be of very little value to me. However, they might be of tremendous value to Microsoft who has the whole rest of the Windows kernel and licensing agreements to distribute it and a sales staff to sell it and etc and etc and etc. So I trade my fragments of Windows kernel code which do not benefit me very much to Microsoft. In exchange Microsoft gives me money, which is much more useful to me than code fragments because I can use it to buy food and shelter. I have actually received something that is of more value to me than the thing I gave up. The code fragments on their own could not have gotten me food or shelter. Microsoft on the other hand, gave up money that is of less value to them than these code fragments. They can use the code fragments to create more value than they could with the money by combining them with their other assets. Value is relative, not absolute. Nothing is being stolen by paying someone a price they agree to for something, just because you have a better way of making use of it than they do.

rukittenme 7y ago

> However, the salary Microsoft pays does not match the full value he created. The difference is Microsoft's profits. Will I be liable for a company's losses under your system?

seanc 7y ago
Who are you kidding? The way modern bankruptcy works (largely a good thing, btw), no individual is _really_ liable for the company's losses.
- rukittenme 7y ago
  The worker's cooperative who loaned the money to my worker's cooperative would be liable for the losses. I assume they would have to eat the loss then?

imgabe 7y ago

Capitalism works on the fact that different people value things differently. That asymmetry in value allows people to trade things so that I can give up something that I value less in order to get something that I value more. Perhaps I could sit at home alone and write fragments of Windows kernel code by myself. These would be of very little value to me. However, they might be of tremendous value to Microsoft who has the whole rest of the Windows kernel and licensing agreements to distribute it and a sales staff to sell it and etc and etc and etc. So I trade my fragments of Windows kernel code which do not benefit me very much to Microsoft. In exchange Microsoft gives me money, which is much more useful to me than code fragments because I can use it to buy food and shelter. I have actually received something that is of more value to me than the thing I gave up. The code fragments on their own could not have gotten me food or shelter. Microsoft on the other hand, gave up money that is of less value to them than these code fragments. They can use the code fragments to create more value than they could with the money by combining them with their other assets. Value is relative, not absolute. Nothing is being stolen by paying someone a price they agree to for something, just because you have a better way of making use of it than they do.