2 ms·

There is always coercion. Low wage is better than no wage, and you can choose which capitalist you must sell your labor to (or try your own hand at becoming a c

by drekk 5y ago

There is always coercion. Low wage is better than no wage, and you can choose which capitalist you must sell your labor to (or try your own hand at becoming a capitalist) but you cannot exit the economic system willingly. A "fair market rate" is still paying the worker less than the value of their labor. In no career is a worker owning the full fruits of their labor, and in many cases it's barely even a fraction. Is it fair that workers subsidize businesses of every size with poverty wages? "The convoluted wording of legalisms grew up around the necessity to hide from ourselves the violence we intend toward each other. Between depriving a man of one hour from his life and depriving him of his life there exists only a difference of degree. You have done violence to him, consumed his energy. Elaborate euphemisms may conceal your intent to kill, but behind any use of power over another the ultimate assumption remains: "I feed on your energy." " —Frank Herbert, Dune Messiah

esarbe 5y ago
> A "fair market rate" is still paying the worker less than the value of their labor. In no career is a worker owning the full fruits of their labor, and in many cases it's barely even a fraction. Is it fair that workers subsidize businesses of every size with poverty wages? That for me is the real issue. Globalization of means of production on one hand and laws limiting unions have cut short the bargaining power of workers in the last forty years by quite a bit. I think it would be desirable for many workers to return to the profit-sharing agreements between workers and management that were in place in the industrialized nations in the 1960ies. The amount of cream skimmed by management these days is absurd.
- yetihehe 5y ago
  > The amount of cream skimmed by management these days is absurd. THAT is the real issue with a system we know currently as capitalism. Those at the top skim so much, that those at lower levels can't even support themselves properly and many many people just hit poverty. It's "let them eat cake" again, this time aristocracy is disguised as meritocracy.
erik_seaberg 5y ago
For me to buy a thing, I must want the thing more than I want the money, so I am necessarily always paying less than its full value. Then what I paid is divided between all the people worked to provide the thing and the tools and supplies they used. It has to be this way or trade wouldn’t be worthwhile.

by drekk 5y ago

esarbe 5y ago

> A "fair market rate" is still paying the worker less than the value of their labor. In no career is a worker owning the full fruits of their labor, and in many cases it's barely even a fraction. Is it fair that workers subsidize businesses of every size with poverty wages? That for me is the real issue. Globalization of means of production on one hand and laws limiting unions have cut short the bargaining power of workers in the last forty years by quite a bit. I think it would be desirable for many workers to return to the profit-sharing agreements between workers and management that were in place in the industrialized nations in the 1960ies. The amount of cream skimmed by management these days is absurd.

yetihehe 5y ago
> The amount of cream skimmed by management these days is absurd. THAT is the real issue with a system we know currently as capitalism. Those at the top skim so much, that those at lower levels can't even support themselves properly and many many people just hit poverty. It's "let them eat cake" again, this time aristocracy is disguised as meritocracy.

erik_seaberg 5y ago

For me to buy a thing, I must want the thing more than I want the money, so I am necessarily always paying less than its full value. Then what I paid is divided between all the people worked to provide the thing and the tools and supplies they used. It has to be this way or trade wouldn’t be worthwhile.