3 ms·
> This implicitly assumes that "the value of someone else's work" is independent of the context in which that work is done. Not really, since no one is arguing
by curun1r 6y ago
> This implicitly assumes that "the value of someone else's work" is independent of the context in which that work is done.
Not really, since no one is arguing that this worker-capital relationship should change. That the synergy exists is a good thing.
But the tax burden of the two groups is what’s at issue. On the one side, you have the “they built it, they should keep it” folks. On the other side are those that believe they built it on a foundation of societal investments and the work of others and should pay most of it back in taxes. No one is arguing that they didn’t built something of value.
> If you pay me $100, and I add exactly $100 of value to your business, then you're no better off than if you hadn't hired me at all
Ahh the refrain of the myopic capitalist. In your hypothetical situation, we’re all better off because I’ve gainfully employed someone, added purchasing power to the overall economy and added value to the world since, presumably, the customers who paid me $100 received something they value above $100. To whatever small degree, putting $100 in the hands of my employee who will then spend it also creates more purchasing power for my own customers as that money circulates through the economy.
This is one of the problems with such an individualistic view of capitalism...it utterly disregards benefits that are not directly seen by the individual. We don’t have to become socialist or communist to start to provide greater emphasis on the contribution of workers and society as a whole. We can keep the market forces that allow for efficient allocation of capital while putting policies in place that provide for those who aren’t at the top of hierarchies and whose contributions are less unique. This isn’t about preventing businesses like Amazon from existing, it’s about ensuring that the people who work for Amazon can live a comfortable and dignified life and that Jeff Bezos should only be fabulously wealthy instead of obscenely wealthy.
- randallsquared 6y ago> Not really, since no one is arguing that this worker-capital relationship should change. Maybe this would be better stated as "...since many of us are not arguing that...".
- mempko 6y agoThe vast majority of capital is owned by very few people. What makes you think it's an efficient allocation ?
- webmaven 6y ago> We don’t have to become socialist or communist to start to provide greater emphasis on the contribution of workers and society as a whole. That's... getting rather close to the definition of Market Socialism, actually (depending on how much greater the emphasis is). It's certainly firmly within the range of Social Democracy (which USAian conservatives would happily label as 'socialism').