3 ms·

That analysis is not inherently dependent on the labour theory of value. You can frame it that way, but value need not come into it at all. Business owners are

by bccdee 6y ago

That analysis is not inherently dependent on the labour theory of value. You can frame it that way, but value need not come into it at all. Business owners are capital owners; they have power which arises from the fact that they own a business. They can offer jobs, which everyone needs, but no individual employee is necessary to them. It's a buyer's market, and as a result, the business owner has a lot more power to set wages. This leads to the bulk of the money flowing up to the business owner. What we wind up with is a system where business owners have substantially more money than workers, purely as a product of the fact that they can use their power to make this happen. If someone uses their power to divert money into their own pockets away from people who need it more than they do, they're exploiting others. It's not the fact that the organization Amazon exists to coordinate labour that we have a problem with. It does increase efficiency. It's the fact that Jeff Bezos has total control over it & uses that power to massively benefit himself at the expense of all his other employees, who have a much greater need for the money. If George Washington had argued that, by virtue of having been the one to found the country, he was entitled to rule it as a dictator, we would take issue with that. While he may be a competent leader, he must still be accountable to the public, lest he use his power to benefit himself at the cost of the public well-being. Hence, democracy. It's strange to me that people are so unwilling to apply the same analysis to corporate hierarchy.

chii 6y ago
Nothing is stopping anyone from starting a competing business, and offering a better deal to the workers. There's no objective way to say how much "work" is worth - only subjective. This subjective measure is given by the market rate. And in a functioning free market, this should give you consensus as to what some "work" is worth. > the one to found the country ... people are so unwilling to apply the same analysis to corporate hierarchy. to have found the country, he could've asked to be a dictator. The problem is that the founding is based on the principle of equality (at least at the time, of men...). So if he chose to turn around and take that equality away, everyone would just reject his founding. People in the country are attracted to the idea of equality, not to the guy named Washington. However, a business does not start on the same premise - that of equality and rights (for all employees). The business started by the business owner is based on the premise of pay for work. That's as far as the relationship goes. Anyone (in the USA) can start a business on a different principle - no one will stop you other than natural forces like competitiveness! And i think some businesses do that - a family business for example, which shares the work, and shares all the profits between them (and don't hire employees).
- bccdee 6y ago
  > Nothing is stopping anyone from starting a competing business, and offering a better deal to the workers. Nothing except not having the capital to do it. > There's no objective way to say how much "work" is worth Fortunately I explicitly said at the beginning that my argument wasn't going to involve talking about the value of work at all. > everyone would just reject his founding Literally every country up until that point except perhaps Athens had been a dictatorship of some sort. Democracy doesn't just happen -- you have to make it happen. There was no presupposition that everyone should have equal rights before then; that was the innovation of it. There's no reason why that same innovation couldn't be extended into industry. > Anyone can start a business on a different principle And anyone can start a country on a different principle. But you have to have a lot of resources to do so, and unless you found it on equality, it'll be terrible for most of the inhabitants. So, given that we have a government to regulate society, I see no reason to let people found businesses based on principles which will lead to such gross wealth inequality.
kortilla 6y ago
> If someone uses their power to divert money into their own pockets away from people who need it more than they do, they're exploiting others So when the dinner bill comes and you are given the power to choose how much to tip a waiter/waitress, do you exploit them by not giving them all of the money you can afford? When shopping for a car, do you look for the dealer with the highest markup knowing how tough care salesman have it and pay asking price?
- bccdee 6y ago
  If I were especially wealthy, sure. Ultimately, the only way we can judge our actions is by their consequences. If I'm a middle-class person, giving another middle-class person extra cash won't benefit them much more than it hurts me. If I'm wealthy, the situation changes; I need each dollar substantially less than other people do. But frankly, I'm not interested in moralizing individual's actions at all. I'm not interested in going "oh Jeff Bezos is a BAD PERSON for X Y and Z." I think that's silly. I want to use the legislative system to raise is taxes and put his money to better ends whether he likes it or not. Whether Jeff Bezos is "good" is entirely irrelevant.
imtringued 6y ago
> That analysis is not inherently dependent on the labour theory of value. You can frame it that way, but value need not come into it at all. Business owners are capital owners; they have power which arises from the fact that they own a business. They can offer jobs, which everyone needs, but no individual employee is necessary to them. It's a buyer's market, and as a result, the business owner has a lot more power to set wages. This leads to the bulk of the money flowing up to the business owner. That's how a lot of countries are governed but it doesn't actually have to be the case. There are places where there are more businesses than employers which gives more power to employees. A lot of export driven economies are basically based around the principle that workers in those countries are cheaper than any other country. Governments introduce policies that reduce the purchasing power of employees over time. >What we wind up with is a system where business owners have substantially more money than workers, purely as a product of the fact that they can use their power to make this happen. Yeah the real problem is that governments love to listen to what businesses have to say at the expense of workers.

by bccdee 6y ago

chii 6y ago

Nothing is stopping anyone from starting a competing business, and offering a better deal to the workers. There's no objective way to say how much "work" is worth - only subjective. This subjective measure is given by the market rate. And in a functioning free market, this should give you consensus as to what some "work" is worth. > the one to found the country ... people are so unwilling to apply the same analysis to corporate hierarchy. to have found the country, he could've asked to be a dictator. The problem is that the founding is based on the principle of equality (at least at the time, of men...). So if he chose to turn around and take that equality away, everyone would just reject his founding. People in the country are attracted to the idea of equality, not to the guy named Washington. However, a business does not start on the same premise - that of equality and rights (for all employees). The business started by the business owner is based on the premise of pay for work. That's as far as the relationship goes. Anyone (in the USA) can start a business on a different principle - no one will stop you other than natural forces like competitiveness! And i think some businesses do that - a family business for example, which shares the work, and shares all the profits between them (and don't hire employees).

bccdee 6y ago
> Nothing is stopping anyone from starting a competing business, and offering a better deal to the workers. Nothing except not having the capital to do it. > There's no objective way to say how much "work" is worth Fortunately I explicitly said at the beginning that my argument wasn't going to involve talking about the value of work at all. > everyone would just reject his founding Literally every country up until that point except perhaps Athens had been a dictatorship of some sort. Democracy doesn't just happen -- you have to make it happen. There was no presupposition that everyone should have equal rights before then; that was the innovation of it. There's no reason why that same innovation couldn't be extended into industry. > Anyone can start a business on a different principle And anyone can start a country on a different principle. But you have to have a lot of resources to do so, and unless you found it on equality, it'll be terrible for most of the inhabitants. So, given that we have a government to regulate society, I see no reason to let people found businesses based on principles which will lead to such gross wealth inequality.

kortilla 6y ago

> If someone uses their power to divert money into their own pockets away from people who need it more than they do, they're exploiting others So when the dinner bill comes and you are given the power to choose how much to tip a waiter/waitress, do you exploit them by not giving them all of the money you can afford? When shopping for a car, do you look for the dealer with the highest markup knowing how tough care salesman have it and pay asking price?

bccdee 6y ago
If I were especially wealthy, sure. Ultimately, the only way we can judge our actions is by their consequences. If I'm a middle-class person, giving another middle-class person extra cash won't benefit them much more than it hurts me. If I'm wealthy, the situation changes; I need each dollar substantially less than other people do. But frankly, I'm not interested in moralizing individual's actions at all. I'm not interested in going "oh Jeff Bezos is a BAD PERSON for X Y and Z." I think that's silly. I want to use the legislative system to raise is taxes and put his money to better ends whether he likes it or not. Whether Jeff Bezos is "good" is entirely irrelevant.

imtringued 6y ago

> That analysis is not inherently dependent on the labour theory of value. You can frame it that way, but value need not come into it at all. Business owners are capital owners; they have power which arises from the fact that they own a business. They can offer jobs, which everyone needs, but no individual employee is necessary to them. It's a buyer's market, and as a result, the business owner has a lot more power to set wages. This leads to the bulk of the money flowing up to the business owner. That's how a lot of countries are governed but it doesn't actually have to be the case. There are places where there are more businesses than employers which gives more power to employees. A lot of export driven economies are basically based around the principle that workers in those countries are cheaper than any other country. Governments introduce policies that reduce the purchasing power of employees over time. >What we wind up with is a system where business owners have substantially more money than workers, purely as a product of the fact that they can use their power to make this happen. Yeah the real problem is that governments love to listen to what businesses have to say at the expense of workers.