5 ms·

"wealth he created"

by fattire 6y ago

"wealth he created"

emteycz 6y ago
Exactly. How else would it get to his bank account? If he didn't create it, why people sent it to him? He stole it?
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  Profits are just unpaid wages. He bought labor for less than it was worth and pocketed the excess.
  - emteycz 6y ago
    That means the workers will have absolutely no problem founding their own business and there is no need to tax Bezos.
    - jamiltron 6y ago
      That's not what that means at all. Founding a business requires a significant investment of capital.
      - emteycz 6y ago
        It doesn't necessarily require the founder investing large amounts, Bezos began with a small investment - and a lot of ingenuity. My own business began this year with $0 and I'm way past $100k. I had to live in my car for two months, absolutely worth it though, it helped me focus like never before. I created excellent product and then spent a lot of time both online and offline finding customers. And now imagine you do this, and after all the shit you went through people start saying you don't deserve your money, completely ignoring the huge risk you made and the opportunity cost behind you, and that YOU MADE THE THING. What would you think?
        jamiltron 6y ago
        "A small investment" and the ability to take on risk sounds like a significantly privileged position the average worker is not afforded.
        emteycz 6y ago
        Every single worker with a wage is more privileged than me - I had zero, no job, no house, and debt. Them not being able to take risks is just bullshit, they're simply afraid or don't even want to - and that is alright, people like me will happily employ them - unless employing or being in the state becomes too risky.
        jamiltron 6y ago
        And I'm glad you're privileged enough to be here posting today, boasting of the wealth your workers generate for you :-)
        sdfin 6y ago
        How do you define "privilege"? Isn't it another way of saying "wealth"?
        jamiltron 6y ago
        privilege, noun a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group.
        sdfin 6y ago
        Using that definition, why would you say that emteycz has special rights or advantages or immunity?
        Pfhreak 6y ago
        Some advantages, I'm making assumptions here: A car? Access to the internet? Their mental and physical health? No dependents? It's unclear how emteycz fed, cleaned, and clothed themselves while they had debt and no home, but plausibly there's some assistance there. And the parent poster was talking about their privilege today in any case.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
  - xtian 6y ago
    Not quite - he paid a wage to labor based on the current competition in the labor market and the cost of a worker to provide for his/her necessities. Then he sold the end product of the workers' collective labor for its value, determined by the sum of the value of all the labor that went into producing it. He pocketed the difference between the former and the latter. That's where profit comes from.
    - Pfhreak 6y ago
      In either case, the workers produced more value than they were compensated for.
      - xtian 6y ago
        Absolutely, and that's the only place profit can come from. The distinction between wage and value is important because it explains the inevitable tendency of capitalists to suppress wages and working conditions as competition drives increased automation. As the share of value that fixed capital contributes to the end product increases, the only way to maintain the same level of profit is to squeeze workers more.
      - pashamur 6y ago
        The thing about this logic is it breaks down once you replace "workers" with robots (which companies of the future will).
        xtian 6y ago
        It doesn't break down. Machines have been replacing workers since the dawn of industrial capitalism. That's not a new or future development. The value that a machine imparts to its end product is equal to the portion of its total value which is used up in the process of production. Same with other forms of constant capital like tools and raw materials. So if a shirt machine costs $500 and can produce 1000 shirts before it wears out, then it imparts $0.50 of value to each shirt produced. When the end products are sold on the market, their price always covers the cost of replenishing the constant capital. Constant capital is merely "congealed labor" meaning that labor had to be performed to produce it in the first place. When workers utilize the constant capital they unlock that value and also impart the additional value of their labor to the final product. The sum of the value of this labor plus the value of the constant capital expended equals the total value of the end product. When this end product is sold on the market as a commodity, its exact price fluctuates based on supply and demand and other factors, but its center of gravity is always the amount of labor required to produce it and all its components at a given level of technology. Capitalists are the people who own the machines, tools, and raw materials. They pay workers a wage to utilize that constant capital and produce commodities for sale. This wage is determined by the conditions of competition in the labor market, but fundamentally it is anchored to how much it costs a worker to provide for his subsistence (e.g., food, clothing, shelter) and not the amount of value that his labor imparts to the commodities he helps produce. The difference between the value a worker's labor imparts and his wage is what the capitalist appropriates as private profit. The development of automation like the robots you mention is incentivized by market competition. Automation enables capitalists to produce more commodities with less labor. Any competitor who can't match the level of production is driven out of the market. But because automation reduces the amount of labor required, it also necessarily reduces the rate of profit on each commodity. Thus to maintain the previous level of profit, production must be increased and/or wages and labor conditions must be suppressed. Over time, at the scale of the whole economy, this leads to crisis as neither the capitalists nor the workers can consume all the commodities produced (the capitalists are too few and the workers' wages are insufficient by definition).
  - sdfin 6y ago
    Profit is the wage of the investor that assumes risk in his enterprise. No profit, no investment.
    - xtian 6y ago
      Profit comes from ownership, a wage comes from selling one's labor-power on the labor market. The only risk an investor assumes is of having to transition from the ownership class to selling his labor-power on the market if all his investments fail catastrophically. A worker assumes many more risks on a daily basis.
      - sdfin 6y ago
        Why? If a worker loses his job, he also has to sell his labor-power on the market. But if the investor diversified well his investments, he's likely to have lower risk than an average worker. Ownership requires management and the steps which were required to achieve that ownership. Somebody maybe had to work hard to own, while others inherited.
        xtian 6y ago
        Yes an investor has lower risk than a worker. A worker depends on continually selling his labor-power to survive. He can't do that if he gets sick or injured, if he gets laid off, if his area of expertise gets automated out of existence, etc. When an investor makes an investment all he risks is maybe eventually having to become a worker (only a real potential for small investors and small business owners).
  - DINKDINK 6y ago
    So if you hire a plumber to fix your sink, you have to pay them with all of your life savings? Else, you'd have profits left over, right?

"wealth he created"

emteycz 6y ago

Exactly. How else would it get to his bank account? If he didn't create it, why people sent it to him? He stole it?

Pfhreak 6y ago
Profits are just unpaid wages. He bought labor for less than it was worth and pocketed the excess.
- emteycz 6y ago
  That means the workers will have absolutely no problem founding their own business and there is no need to tax Bezos.
  - jamiltron 6y ago
    That's not what that means at all. Founding a business requires a significant investment of capital.
    - emteycz 6y ago
      It doesn't necessarily require the founder investing large amounts, Bezos began with a small investment - and a lot of ingenuity. My own business began this year with $0 and I'm way past $100k. I had to live in my car for two months, absolutely worth it though, it helped me focus like never before. I created excellent product and then spent a lot of time both online and offline finding customers. And now imagine you do this, and after all the shit you went through people start saying you don't deserve your money, completely ignoring the huge risk you made and the opportunity cost behind you, and that YOU MADE THE THING. What would you think?
      - jamiltron 6y ago
        "A small investment" and the ability to take on risk sounds like a significantly privileged position the average worker is not afforded.
        emteycz 6y ago
        Every single worker with a wage is more privileged than me - I had zero, no job, no house, and debt. Them not being able to take risks is just bullshit, they're simply afraid or don't even want to - and that is alright, people like me will happily employ them - unless employing or being in the state becomes too risky.
        jamiltron 6y ago
        And I'm glad you're privileged enough to be here posting today, boasting of the wealth your workers generate for you :-)
        sdfin 6y ago
        How do you define "privilege"? Isn't it another way of saying "wealth"?
        jamiltron 6y ago
        privilege, noun a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group.
        sdfin 6y ago
        Using that definition, why would you say that emteycz has special rights or advantages or immunity?
        Pfhreak 6y ago
        Some advantages, I'm making assumptions here: A car? Access to the internet? Their mental and physical health? No dependents? It's unclear how emteycz fed, cleaned, and clothed themselves while they had debt and no home, but plausibly there's some assistance there. And the parent poster was talking about their privilege today in any case.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- xtian 6y ago
  Not quite - he paid a wage to labor based on the current competition in the labor market and the cost of a worker to provide for his/her necessities. Then he sold the end product of the workers' collective labor for its value, determined by the sum of the value of all the labor that went into producing it. He pocketed the difference between the former and the latter. That's where profit comes from.
  - Pfhreak 6y ago
    In either case, the workers produced more value than they were compensated for.
    - xtian 6y ago
      Absolutely, and that's the only place profit can come from. The distinction between wage and value is important because it explains the inevitable tendency of capitalists to suppress wages and working conditions as competition drives increased automation. As the share of value that fixed capital contributes to the end product increases, the only way to maintain the same level of profit is to squeeze workers more.
    - pashamur 6y ago
      The thing about this logic is it breaks down once you replace "workers" with robots (which companies of the future will).
      - xtian 6y ago
        It doesn't break down. Machines have been replacing workers since the dawn of industrial capitalism. That's not a new or future development. The value that a machine imparts to its end product is equal to the portion of its total value which is used up in the process of production. Same with other forms of constant capital like tools and raw materials. So if a shirt machine costs $500 and can produce 1000 shirts before it wears out, then it imparts $0.50 of value to each shirt produced. When the end products are sold on the market, their price always covers the cost of replenishing the constant capital. Constant capital is merely "congealed labor" meaning that labor had to be performed to produce it in the first place. When workers utilize the constant capital they unlock that value and also impart the additional value of their labor to the final product. The sum of the value of this labor plus the value of the constant capital expended equals the total value of the end product. When this end product is sold on the market as a commodity, its exact price fluctuates based on supply and demand and other factors, but its center of gravity is always the amount of labor required to produce it and all its components at a given level of technology. Capitalists are the people who own the machines, tools, and raw materials. They pay workers a wage to utilize that constant capital and produce commodities for sale. This wage is determined by the conditions of competition in the labor market, but fundamentally it is anchored to how much it costs a worker to provide for his subsistence (e.g., food, clothing, shelter) and not the amount of value that his labor imparts to the commodities he helps produce. The difference between the value a worker's labor imparts and his wage is what the capitalist appropriates as private profit. The development of automation like the robots you mention is incentivized by market competition. Automation enables capitalists to produce more commodities with less labor. Any competitor who can't match the level of production is driven out of the market. But because automation reduces the amount of labor required, it also necessarily reduces the rate of profit on each commodity. Thus to maintain the previous level of profit, production must be increased and/or wages and labor conditions must be suppressed. Over time, at the scale of the whole economy, this leads to crisis as neither the capitalists nor the workers can consume all the commodities produced (the capitalists are too few and the workers' wages are insufficient by definition).
- sdfin 6y ago
  Profit is the wage of the investor that assumes risk in his enterprise. No profit, no investment.
  - xtian 6y ago
    Profit comes from ownership, a wage comes from selling one's labor-power on the labor market. The only risk an investor assumes is of having to transition from the ownership class to selling his labor-power on the market if all his investments fail catastrophically. A worker assumes many more risks on a daily basis.
    - sdfin 6y ago
      Why? If a worker loses his job, he also has to sell his labor-power on the market. But if the investor diversified well his investments, he's likely to have lower risk than an average worker. Ownership requires management and the steps which were required to achieve that ownership. Somebody maybe had to work hard to own, while others inherited.
      - xtian 6y ago
        Yes an investor has lower risk than a worker. A worker depends on continually selling his labor-power to survive. He can't do that if he gets sick or injured, if he gets laid off, if his area of expertise gets automated out of existence, etc. When an investor makes an investment all he risks is maybe eventually having to become a worker (only a real potential for small investors and small business owners).
- DINKDINK 6y ago
  So if you hire a plumber to fix your sink, you have to pay them with all of your life savings? Else, you'd have profits left over, right?