3 ms·

> he's not gaining wealth to the tune of more than $13,000,000 dollars per hour while his employees are making $18 an hour because he's creating about a million

by pitaj 5y ago

> he's not gaining wealth to the tune of more than $13,000,000 dollars per hour while his employees are making $18 an hour because he's creating about a million times more value He gains that wealth because he took the risk and invested his money into a company that provides a huge amount of value to a massive amount of people. A large amount of people now increasingly value his company highly, believing that it has good future prospects. He is extracting practically nothing from the company itself or the workers. His wealth increases only because people in the market value the company highly, and he owns a large portion of the company.

ggrrhh_ta 5y ago
One can legitimately (within the set of rules we give ourselves as a society) possess and earn a lot of wealth without actually creating most of that value. If all the employees - en masse - could not go any more to work, would the company still be providing that huge amount of value? Probably not. At the end of the chain there is always a group of people creating the value through work. That doesn't mean that the wealth is not legitimately earned even if that person -alone- did not create million times more value.
- pitaj 5y ago
  Value is subjective. Wealth is not created by labor, but by mutually beneficial consensual trade.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
LeifCarrotson 5y ago
The company itself is performing things that are valuable, but he's not doing those actions personally. Of the three types of wealth acquisition, making money from an ownership position is extraction. If the workers don't show up to create value for him and for the company, they don't get paid. They're creating some value by packing boxes, that contribution might be worth $25/hr, but they've only been able to negotiate $18/hr of that value creation. They're probably handling goods worth tens of thousands of dollars per hour where that wealth is exchanged between end consumers and manufacturers, but they're not charging a commission to the buyers based on a percentage of that transaction. For Jeff, though, he's not personally adding value to the company in proportion to his personal contributions of labor or ideas or memos. Instead, because of his ownership of approximately 10% of the company, he's a dead weight on transactions regarding the other 90%. He extracts some of the money moving between those other people on the market. I admit that there's definitely an element of risk that's not well covered by this simple three-category model, but I question whether taking a risk from a position as a VP of a hedge fund (another primarily extraction-based operation) morally ought to have an upside worth $200B.
- pitaj 5y ago
  > If the workers don't show up to create value for him and for the company, they don't get paid. They're creating some value by packing boxes, that contribution might be worth $25/hr, but they've only been able to negotiate $18/hr of that value creation. They're probably handling goods worth tens of thousands of dollars per hour where that wealth is exchanged between end consumers and manufacturers, but they're not charging a commission to the buyers based on a percentage of that transaction. Or their contribution might be worth $16/hr. Value is subjective. If they agree to work for $18/hr, then that work is worth at the most $18/hr for them. They do charge a commission to the buyers by proxy. Sure the company does some averaging across time, which is valuable to workers and both sellers and buyers on the marketplace. It makes it much easier for everyone involved. Do you really think workers want to get paid based on commissions? Do you think someone moving a box containing something priced $1000 deserves to be paid more than someone moving an identical box containing something priced $1? > The company itself is performing things that are valuable, but he's not doing those actions personally. Of the three types of wealth acquisition, making money from an ownership position is extraction. Extraction from what? What does extraction even mean? This applies to any investment or holding any stocks. Investment benefits the company (and I guess the workers and consumers by proxy) by providing resources for companies to develop. It's a two-way thing: investor takes on risk by giving money to company, company promises to give investor some amount of profit in the future. If anything, investment is creation of wealth from risk.
  - vicda 5y ago
    Extraction from the companies net value. If they didn't take a salary, bonuses, or dividends the company would still have that value on their books. If you're just holding onto stocks with no dividend you're not extracting anything.

by pitaj 5y ago

ggrrhh_ta 5y ago

One can legitimately (within the set of rules we give ourselves as a society) possess and earn a lot of wealth without actually creating most of that value. If all the employees - en masse - could not go any more to work, would the company still be providing that huge amount of value? Probably not. At the end of the chain there is always a group of people creating the value through work. That doesn't mean that the wealth is not legitimately earned even if that person -alone- did not create million times more value.

pitaj 5y ago
Value is subjective. Wealth is not created by labor, but by mutually beneficial consensual trade.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

LeifCarrotson 5y ago

The company itself is performing things that are valuable, but he's not doing those actions personally. Of the three types of wealth acquisition, making money from an ownership position is extraction. If the workers don't show up to create value for him and for the company, they don't get paid. They're creating some value by packing boxes, that contribution might be worth $25/hr, but they've only been able to negotiate $18/hr of that value creation. They're probably handling goods worth tens of thousands of dollars per hour where that wealth is exchanged between end consumers and manufacturers, but they're not charging a commission to the buyers based on a percentage of that transaction. For Jeff, though, he's not personally adding value to the company in proportion to his personal contributions of labor or ideas or memos. Instead, because of his ownership of approximately 10% of the company, he's a dead weight on transactions regarding the other 90%. He extracts some of the money moving between those other people on the market. I admit that there's definitely an element of risk that's not well covered by this simple three-category model, but I question whether taking a risk from a position as a VP of a hedge fund (another primarily extraction-based operation) morally ought to have an upside worth $200B.

pitaj 5y ago
> If the workers don't show up to create value for him and for the company, they don't get paid. They're creating some value by packing boxes, that contribution might be worth $25/hr, but they've only been able to negotiate $18/hr of that value creation. They're probably handling goods worth tens of thousands of dollars per hour where that wealth is exchanged between end consumers and manufacturers, but they're not charging a commission to the buyers based on a percentage of that transaction. Or their contribution might be worth $16/hr. Value is subjective. If they agree to work for $18/hr, then that work is worth at the most $18/hr for them. They do charge a commission to the buyers by proxy. Sure the company does some averaging across time, which is valuable to workers and both sellers and buyers on the marketplace. It makes it much easier for everyone involved. Do you really think workers want to get paid based on commissions? Do you think someone moving a box containing something priced $1000 deserves to be paid more than someone moving an identical box containing something priced $1? > The company itself is performing things that are valuable, but he's not doing those actions personally. Of the three types of wealth acquisition, making money from an ownership position is extraction. Extraction from what? What does extraction even mean? This applies to any investment or holding any stocks. Investment benefits the company (and I guess the workers and consumers by proxy) by providing resources for companies to develop. It's a two-way thing: investor takes on risk by giving money to company, company promises to give investor some amount of profit in the future. If anything, investment is creation of wealth from risk.
- vicda 5y ago
  Extraction from the companies net value. If they didn't take a salary, bonuses, or dividends the company would still have that value on their books. If you're just holding onto stocks with no dividend you're not extracting anything.