3 ms·

I hardly think the word "appropriated" describes business profits that return to the business, as that (at least in my mind) seems to connote taking something w

I hardly think the word "appropriated" describes business profits that return to the business, as that (at least in my mind) seems to connote taking something without consent. While there certainly do exist instances of labor without consent in the world today, Chobani employees seem a pretty far cry from that. Likewise, in nearly all businesses, there is an added value to the employees that justifies the ceding of a share of the fruits of one's labor. Someone working at a full-time job always provides more value to their company than their paycheck provides in the long run. In return, however, you get benefits that you wouldn't otherwise: a stable and predictable paycheck, the ability to specialize in one area, institutional stability, existing business relationships that you can utilize. I definitely agree that there are lots of mismatches between business practices and what employees would prefer (I tend to be pretty content with my career compensation, but I would definitely rather they paid me more, without question). To say that the profits reserved for a business are taken without consent from the laborers, however, seems disingenuous at best: if employees truly weren't getting any advantage from working at a company, what reason would there possibly be from not just doing the exact same work for themselves and reserving all the profits for themselves? It seems that the advantages of an employee-employer relationship are taken for granted until the alternative option of labor-without-an-employer is explored. To be clear, I think workers starting their own businesses and deciding that they would be better off doing something different (e.g. worker-owned models or co-ops) is fantastic! However, I also think that businesses which decide to take a portion of their labor force's work as profit are also totally fine and reasonable, even from an employee's point of view.

lucian1900 6y ago
Workers don’t work for themselves because they lack means of production like tools, premises, access to supply and distribution chains, copyrights and patents, etc. They all require initial capital, which workers are far less likely to have than owners and their descendants. Since we don’t own means of production, all of us workers are forced to sell our labour or perish. We are coerced into working for one set of owners or another, all of which became owners from the profit generated by other workers’ unpaid labour.

lucian1900 6y ago

Workers don’t work for themselves because they lack means of production like tools, premises, access to supply and distribution chains, copyrights and patents, etc. They all require initial capital, which workers are far less likely to have than owners and their descendants. Since we don’t own means of production, all of us workers are forced to sell our labour or perish. We are coerced into working for one set of owners or another, all of which became owners from the profit generated by other workers’ unpaid labour.