3 ms·
> The point is that the person who owns the land gets to set the pay of the workers. If that were true, the less compassionite owners would set the pay to zero
by leereeves 5y ago
> The point is that the person who owns the land gets to set the pay of the workers.
If that were true, the less compassionite owners would set the pay to zero, so it's obviously more complicated than that.
- beaconstudios 5y agoJust because they get to set the pay, doesn't mean their choice is a totally independent one.
- leereeves 5y agoI guess we have different definitions of "set". The word I would use is "negotiate".
- beaconstudios 5y agoSure, that's fair. Regardless, my issue is that the people who do the actual work do not get to determine how profits get distributed - power is held over them by the owner (who is only the owner by virtue of state enforcement of property rights), and this leads to accumulation of wealth and power in the hands of a select few. IE, capitalism.