5 ms·

“ I am opposing a social order in which it is possible for one man who does absolutely nothing that is useful to amass a fortune of hundreds of millions of doll

by jdkee 7y ago

“ I am opposing a social order in which it is possible for one man who does absolutely nothing that is useful to amass a fortune of hundreds of millions of dollars, while millions of men and women who work all the days of their lives secure barely enough for a wretched existence.” -Eugene Debs

exabrial 7y ago
Nobody at kickstarter is living a wretched existence.
- PaulHoule 7y ago
  That is some of the reason they can unionize. Kickstarter produces enough surplus that the workers can get a better deal than they would otherwise. What's much more interesting is the labor status of the people who work on the Kickstarted projects.
  - jamiequint 7y ago
    > Kickstarter produces enough surplus that the workers can get a better deal than they would otherwise. Not really. It may be short-term better for the workers, but not likely long term as they are effectively constraining the growth of the business relative to what it would be if the union did not exist.
    - PaulHoule 7y ago
      Depends. The whole entertainment industry is unionized in L.A. I know an actor from Las Vegas who moved to L.A. and got a role in a TV commercial and was surprised to see somebody else standing in front of the cameras and was surprised to find that every actor has a "stand-in" who is there so they can set up the equipment, then the real actor is fresh when he does his scene. These costs add up, but there are many specialists who are highly productive. For instance, setting up and tearing down sets is a special form of carpentry which the average carpenter would take a change of mindset. Union labor helps maintain a productive and talented workforce that gives L.A. a comparative advantage. Being at times the the documentarian who travels light and feels it is extravagant to have a sidekick that sets up lights it heavyweight but it maintains a world-beating quality standard.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- Frondo 7y ago
  And if they want to negotiate collectively to change how the organization treats them, it's absolutely their right to do so. Unionization is also specifically enshrined in law. I hope they pursue a path toward codetermination: getting workers a seat on the board. It'd be absolutely fascinating to see how that plays out in a US-based tech company; I believe it'd be for the good, but we'll know for sure if we can see it play out. Edit: Oh, and not having a say in how your organization is run is a wretched existence. Time to raise our standards, if we don't see that.
- xtian 7y ago
  That's why they have the leverage to organize and help reset the precedent for labor representation at a point in time when that representation is at a historic low.
- dv_dt 7y ago
  Do they have to live a wretched existence? Exactly how wretched does it have to be to allow them the ability to organize. Or perhaps they are justified to want a better share of the value created at kickstarter by their labor.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    The quote at the top of the comment chain is about living a wretched existence. Don't get me wrong, it's totally fine to form a union on the principle of "we're doing okay but we want more stuff", businesspeople are allowed to try and get richer with no higher principle in mind. But it's dishonest to pretend that it inherits some kind of inherent moral weight from the traditional labor movement.
    - dv_dt 7y ago
      It's dishonest to pretend companies aren't perfectly happy to make their employees live a wretched existence as long as profits are brought in.. and that is a fundamental issue of the labor movement.
- carapace 7y ago
  Tech workers are better off, but still treated poorly by management: "Apple and Google's wage-fixing cartel involved dozens more companies, over one million employees" https://pando.com/2014/03/22/revealed-apple-and-googles-wage-fixing-cartel-involved-dozens-more-companies-over-one-million-employees/ https://pando.com/2014/03/22/revealed-apple-and-googles-wage... The thing that gets me about Apple specifically is that they did this while sitting on huge cash reserves and being one of the top ten most profitable companies in the world, yet they still fucked over their own people to make more. I used to think that, as a 733t programmer, I had no use for unions, but then this happened and showed that there's no particular reason to trust tech company management at all, at all. They'll screw you to make a buck and get a slap on the wrist if anything if they're caught. Interview with Google and they will send you lovely little videos with folks sliding down banisters and such to show you how wonderful it is to work there. It won't mention the "wage-fixing cartel" that limits your job opportunities and take-home pay. It's pretty sick when you think about it. I don't know it unions are the answer, it's complicated after all, but absolutely these folks are not your friends, and you should coe in with as much leverage as you can get if you want to work for "the man".
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dmos62 7y ago
I'm sure this phrase inspired many, but it's talking about an extreme. What if the disadvantaged are not having a "wretched existence"? Is immense inequality ok then? That's the big question.
- davengh 7y ago
  Your definition of "wretched existence" might be very different from the folks seeking union representation.
  - dmos62 7y ago
    That's my point. It's not a useful concept when explaining the situation.
stronglikedan 7y ago
> one man who does absolutely nothing that is useful Assuming all of the risk is useful. I understand the point, but it's undercut by that woefully inaccurate jab.
- dv_dt 7y ago
  Workers assume risk taking on an opportunity cost with their employers, and the very wealthy often mitigate their risk by pushing it onto the government.
  - awb 7y ago
    But the point is this part: "for one man who does absolutely nothing that is useful to amass a fortune of hundreds of millions of dollars" is irrelevant. Who has done this besides criminals? It all depends on your definition of "useful", but anyone who's made that much money legally has probably put in a bunch of work (or put in work to educate themselves to be able to make good decisions), or assumed a lot of risk in an investment. There's definitely something to be said for reducing income inequality, but we don't have to assume the ultra-rich have "done absolutely nothing that is useful" in order to be pro-workers rights. Capitalism is designed to produce ultra-rich individuals.
    - dv_dt 7y ago
      We also should not lionize wealth. There are many people who inherit a lot of money, have a family that has a business network, that have really contributed nothing but are massively wealthy. There are massively wealthy individuals who have collected value in one area, and use that wealth to negatively influence many other areas. We really should not give money that much of an advantage.
      - awb 7y ago
        > We really should not give money that much of an advantage. What do you suggest as an alternative?

by jdkee 7y ago

exabrial 7y ago

Nobody at kickstarter is living a wretched existence.

PaulHoule 7y ago
That is some of the reason they can unionize. Kickstarter produces enough surplus that the workers can get a better deal than they would otherwise. What's much more interesting is the labor status of the people who work on the Kickstarted projects.
- jamiequint 7y ago
  > Kickstarter produces enough surplus that the workers can get a better deal than they would otherwise. Not really. It may be short-term better for the workers, but not likely long term as they are effectively constraining the growth of the business relative to what it would be if the union did not exist.
  - PaulHoule 7y ago
    Depends. The whole entertainment industry is unionized in L.A. I know an actor from Las Vegas who moved to L.A. and got a role in a TV commercial and was surprised to see somebody else standing in front of the cameras and was surprised to find that every actor has a "stand-in" who is there so they can set up the equipment, then the real actor is fresh when he does his scene. These costs add up, but there are many specialists who are highly productive. For instance, setting up and tearing down sets is a special form of carpentry which the average carpenter would take a change of mindset. Union labor helps maintain a productive and talented workforce that gives L.A. a comparative advantage. Being at times the the documentarian who travels light and feels it is extravagant to have a sidekick that sets up lights it heavyweight but it maintains a world-beating quality standard.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
Frondo 7y ago
And if they want to negotiate collectively to change how the organization treats them, it's absolutely their right to do so. Unionization is also specifically enshrined in law. I hope they pursue a path toward codetermination: getting workers a seat on the board. It'd be absolutely fascinating to see how that plays out in a US-based tech company; I believe it'd be for the good, but we'll know for sure if we can see it play out. Edit: Oh, and not having a say in how your organization is run is a wretched existence. Time to raise our standards, if we don't see that.
xtian 7y ago
That's why they have the leverage to organize and help reset the precedent for labor representation at a point in time when that representation is at a historic low.
dv_dt 7y ago
Do they have to live a wretched existence? Exactly how wretched does it have to be to allow them the ability to organize. Or perhaps they are justified to want a better share of the value created at kickstarter by their labor.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  The quote at the top of the comment chain is about living a wretched existence. Don't get me wrong, it's totally fine to form a union on the principle of "we're doing okay but we want more stuff", businesspeople are allowed to try and get richer with no higher principle in mind. But it's dishonest to pretend that it inherits some kind of inherent moral weight from the traditional labor movement.
  - dv_dt 7y ago
    It's dishonest to pretend companies aren't perfectly happy to make their employees live a wretched existence as long as profits are brought in.. and that is a fundamental issue of the labor movement.
carapace 7y ago
Tech workers are better off, but still treated poorly by management: "Apple and Google's wage-fixing cartel involved dozens more companies, over one million employees" https://pando.com/2014/03/22/revealed-apple-and-googles-wage-fixing-cartel-involved-dozens-more-companies-over-one-million-employees/ https://pando.com/2014/03/22/revealed-apple-and-googles-wage... The thing that gets me about Apple specifically is that they did this while sitting on huge cash reserves and being one of the top ten most profitable companies in the world, yet they still fucked over their own people to make more. I used to think that, as a 733t programmer, I had no use for unions, but then this happened and showed that there's no particular reason to trust tech company management at all, at all. They'll screw you to make a buck and get a slap on the wrist if anything if they're caught. Interview with Google and they will send you lovely little videos with folks sliding down banisters and such to show you how wonderful it is to work there. It won't mention the "wage-fixing cartel" that limits your job opportunities and take-home pay. It's pretty sick when you think about it. I don't know it unions are the answer, it's complicated after all, but absolutely these folks are not your friends, and you should coe in with as much leverage as you can get if you want to work for "the man".

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

dmos62 7y ago

I'm sure this phrase inspired many, but it's talking about an extreme. What if the disadvantaged are not having a "wretched existence"? Is immense inequality ok then? That's the big question.

davengh 7y ago
Your definition of "wretched existence" might be very different from the folks seeking union representation.
- dmos62 7y ago
  That's my point. It's not a useful concept when explaining the situation.

stronglikedan 7y ago

> one man who does absolutely nothing that is useful Assuming all of the risk is useful. I understand the point, but it's undercut by that woefully inaccurate jab.

dv_dt 7y ago
Workers assume risk taking on an opportunity cost with their employers, and the very wealthy often mitigate their risk by pushing it onto the government.
- awb 7y ago
  But the point is this part: "for one man who does absolutely nothing that is useful to amass a fortune of hundreds of millions of dollars" is irrelevant. Who has done this besides criminals? It all depends on your definition of "useful", but anyone who's made that much money legally has probably put in a bunch of work (or put in work to educate themselves to be able to make good decisions), or assumed a lot of risk in an investment. There's definitely something to be said for reducing income inequality, but we don't have to assume the ultra-rich have "done absolutely nothing that is useful" in order to be pro-workers rights. Capitalism is designed to produce ultra-rich individuals.
  - dv_dt 7y ago
    We also should not lionize wealth. There are many people who inherit a lot of money, have a family that has a business network, that have really contributed nothing but are massively wealthy. There are massively wealthy individuals who have collected value in one area, and use that wealth to negatively influence many other areas. We really should not give money that much of an advantage.
    - awb 7y ago
      > We really should not give money that much of an advantage. What do you suggest as an alternative?