4 ms·

Scary for property owners, for sure. ;) And there's an important difference between wealth generation like organizing some group of people to produce value, and

Scary for property owners, for sure. ;) And there's an important difference between wealth generation like organizing some group of people to produce value, and wealth accumulation at three-comma scales, which usually involves screwing over aforesaid people.

davidatbu 5y ago
I couldn't reply to a deeply nested comment you made in which you suggested that you'd like to see workers with more power to determine wealth distribution (after the creation is done). Aren't workers free to not take up job offers, or to change jobs (which they have been doing at record levels recently), which, in effect, would mean they are rejecting the employer's proposed wealth distribution scheme? I think Noam Chomsky would respond to my question with a resounding "no" (haven't read deeply, but I believe he supports "abolishing the Job Contract as it stands today", or something like that). I'm genuinely curious as to what you think about this.
dcgudeman 5y ago
Huh? So if a person generates the wealth in someone else’s name then the organized people are not screwed? How does that make sense?
- aristus 5y ago
  Generating wealth is separate from how you divvy up the proceeds after. On that second step is where many people have an issue with how it's done today. And, not to put too fine a point on it, intentionally confusing one with the other is a basic tactic to defend unfair divvying. "Well, you must hate business, then!"
  - chii 5y ago
    What would be a different way of divvying?
    - aristus 5y ago
      Whatever the parties (owners, managers, workers) involved collectively agree is fair. Instead of the boss earning five orders of magnitude more than the average employee, why not four? But as it stands today, workers don't even get the chance to ask that question. Any hint of organizing is crushed ruthlessly. And if you argue that Musk/Bezos/etc is essential and the company wouldn't exist without him, well, the same applies to the workers in aggregate. That's why owners are paranoid about collective action.
xibalba 5y ago
> usually involves screwing over aforesaid people. So take a high profile example, say, Elon Musk: explain to me how he is "screwing over" the "aforesaid people". Because, from my perspective, he has produced massive wealth for many, many people: retail investors, anyone with a 401k, employees, etc. etc. Not to mention, Tesla is almost single handedly responsible for the widespread adoption of electric vehicles.
- aristus 5y ago
  A bonanza, to be sure. But does that justify one guy taking 5 or 6 orders of magnitude more from that bonanza than the average employee? Where you land on that question doesn't matter. The real problem is that if the employees themselves try to organize and ask that question for reals, they get stomped on hard. That is basically the definition of "screwed over". You are allowed to take what is given, but any questioning of the fairness is met with resistance, up to and including state force. The actions that result in the harshest punishments are the ones the state/baron/company/etc fear most. Empirically, the thing they fear most is workers organizing to negotiate a better deal. Not to get a better deal, simply to ask whether it's possible. As some people say, hey, they are just asking questions.
  - ngcc_hk 5y ago
    Should be 100x if not 1000x. That is why individual matters. Some are better than the others. As long as he does not use power to get to that. Not be a communist party member. Or Labour Party,say, to get $ from communist spy etc. just fight the idea. It is not communism. He should distribute and be taxed no doubt. But I do not want a world of equals. Sone basic income for all yes. But all equal. No. Not even if forced 5-6 times unequal. One Steve … One E…
    - aristus 5y ago
      Ok, so your limit is 1,000X. Fine, whatever. Let's take it as read that that is fair. But he is getting 100,000X or more. And worse, any hint of worker organization to maybe kinda sort of ask whether that's fair gets crushed.

davidatbu 5y ago

I couldn't reply to a deeply nested comment you made in which you suggested that you'd like to see workers with more power to determine wealth distribution (after the creation is done). Aren't workers free to not take up job offers, or to change jobs (which they have been doing at record levels recently), which, in effect, would mean they are rejecting the employer's proposed wealth distribution scheme? I think Noam Chomsky would respond to my question with a resounding "no" (haven't read deeply, but I believe he supports "abolishing the Job Contract as it stands today", or something like that). I'm genuinely curious as to what you think about this.

dcgudeman 5y ago

Huh? So if a person generates the wealth in someone else’s name then the organized people are not screwed? How does that make sense?

aristus 5y ago
Generating wealth is separate from how you divvy up the proceeds after. On that second step is where many people have an issue with how it's done today. And, not to put too fine a point on it, intentionally confusing one with the other is a basic tactic to defend unfair divvying. "Well, you must hate business, then!"
- chii 5y ago
  What would be a different way of divvying?
  - aristus 5y ago
    Whatever the parties (owners, managers, workers) involved collectively agree is fair. Instead of the boss earning five orders of magnitude more than the average employee, why not four? But as it stands today, workers don't even get the chance to ask that question. Any hint of organizing is crushed ruthlessly. And if you argue that Musk/Bezos/etc is essential and the company wouldn't exist without him, well, the same applies to the workers in aggregate. That's why owners are paranoid about collective action.

xibalba 5y ago

> usually involves screwing over aforesaid people. So take a high profile example, say, Elon Musk: explain to me how he is "screwing over" the "aforesaid people". Because, from my perspective, he has produced massive wealth for many, many people: retail investors, anyone with a 401k, employees, etc. etc. Not to mention, Tesla is almost single handedly responsible for the widespread adoption of electric vehicles.

aristus 5y ago
A bonanza, to be sure. But does that justify one guy taking 5 or 6 orders of magnitude more from that bonanza than the average employee? Where you land on that question doesn't matter. The real problem is that if the employees themselves try to organize and ask that question for reals, they get stomped on hard. That is basically the definition of "screwed over". You are allowed to take what is given, but any questioning of the fairness is met with resistance, up to and including state force. The actions that result in the harshest punishments are the ones the state/baron/company/etc fear most. Empirically, the thing they fear most is workers organizing to negotiate a better deal. Not to get a better deal, simply to ask whether it's possible. As some people say, hey, they are just asking questions.
- ngcc_hk 5y ago
  Should be 100x if not 1000x. That is why individual matters. Some are better than the others. As long as he does not use power to get to that. Not be a communist party member. Or Labour Party,say, to get $ from communist spy etc. just fight the idea. It is not communism. He should distribute and be taxed no doubt. But I do not want a world of equals. Sone basic income for all yes. But all equal. No. Not even if forced 5-6 times unequal. One Steve … One E…
  - aristus 5y ago
    Ok, so your limit is 1,000X. Fine, whatever. Let's take it as read that that is fair. But he is getting 100,000X or more. And worse, any hint of worker organization to maybe kinda sort of ask whether that's fair gets crushed.