3 ms·
That's not quite what I meant. I was referring to the value your employment adds to the company, not the sales value of the final product. And yes, that's extr
by benohear 16y ago
That's not quite what I meant. I was referring to the value your employment adds to the company, not the sales value of the final product.
And yes, that's extremely difficult to evaluate, but it seems to me that on average everyone has to be paid less than their contribution, otherwise there would be no profit or funds to pay salaries for people not directly contributing to production.
Nor was I passing judgement, by the way, so I don't go along with the "theft" thing. I do however think it is a form of taxation.
- jacques_chester 16y agoSorry if I gave the impression that you were passing judgement. I just find it interesting that smart people come up with the same ideas again and again. "Taxation" is not the best way to put it. It is a market exchange. In exchange for a fixed portion of your value output (which will be variable), the company guarantees a certain payment upon a fixed input (usually hours-per-week). Thus the company is essentially taking on the risk that you will produce enough value to cover the cost and leave some space for profit. If you or the company disagree about the values involved, the employment relationship ends. The concept that a capitalist's profits come from the risk he or she takes to earn them is the other half of what is missing from the Marxist theory of economics -- following almost inevitably from the adoption of the labour theory of value.