3 ms·

Oh my bad. Throw a penny at the employees face and it's no longer freeloading. This isn't freeloading. Maybe a better term is "fucking over". Employers fuck pe

Oh my bad. Throw a penny at the employees face and it's no longer freeloading. This isn't freeloading. Maybe a better term is "fucking over". Employers fuck people over, they don't freeload off of them. My bad. >As for capitalism being unfair, that's basically the point of capitalism, in the essence that "unfair" means "not everyone is compensated the same." Why you're repeating something I stated is beyond me. I said capitalism is unfair. You say that being unfair is the "point" of capitalism. We're saying the same thing. Does the word "point" change the nature of what I'm saying? No.

ironmagma 5y ago
> Why you're repeating something I stated is beyond me. I said capitalism is unfair. You said that as a means of supporting your larger point which is that capitalism is flawed. I am arguing that unfairness (as I defined it) is the whole essence of capitalism, which is very different from saying it's an unwanted byproduct of it. We want unfairness. If you instead want fairness, there are other systems for that in use by other countries. You can move to one of those countries if you prefer that system. But there are good reasons that capitalist countries are the most prosperous. > Employers fuck people over, they don't freeload off of them. It's equally possible for employees to fuck over employers, we just tend not to do it (for good reasons).
- deltaonefour 5y ago
  >You said that as a means of supporting your larger point which is that capitalism is flawed. I am arguing that unfairness (as I defined it) is the whole essence of capitalism, which is very different from saying it's an unwanted byproduct of it. We want unfairness. Thank you for the clarification. No we don't want unfairness. Wealth inequality is universally a very bad thing. Nobody wants this, you'd have to be insane to want it. That is unless you're the one doing the fucking. Let me make one thing absolutely clear. I never said I prefer another system. I just said the current system is flawed. Please don't tell me to move to another country. Also you obviously don't understand capitalism. Adam Smith originally conceived of the invisible hand that would influence market forces to distribute wealth fairly. This was the intent, the outcome is clearly not the case. Wealth is distributed unfairly with people who contribute the most to GDP not getting the most wealth. The people who get the most wealth are owners of capital, not the people who generate or increase capital. The idea of capitalism started with the idea that wealth was fairly distributed. Modern economics now is fully aware that this is not the case and that there are huge flaws within capitalism even though there is currently no known superior system. >It's equally possible for employees to fuck over employers, we just tend not to do it (for good reasons). So? The problem here is every employee under a capitalist system is getting fucked over. So if I'm getting fucked over then of course I owe the employer nothing beyond stated business obligations.
  - ironmagma 5y ago
    > Wealth inequality is universally a very bad thing. This is a moral absolutist take. We clearly don't agree on "bad" vs. "good" because some of the best (from my perspective) things were/are done in capitalist countries, such as the creation of NASA, rollercoasters, the Internet, innovative surgeries, and life-saving medical treatments for chronic conditions. > Wealth is distributed unfairly with people who contribute the most to GDP not getting the most wealth. Measuring contributions is not a trivial task, even philosophically. How much does my CEO contribute versus the work of us workers? That isn't something that can be measured, so any conception of the answer to that is going to be a matter of opinion. So I'm going to say "[citation needed]" on that one, and arguably there's a "[philosophical justification needed]" as well. > every employee under a capitalist system is getting fucked over First, that definitely is not true, especially if you believe that a portion of people in the system are overpaid. But secondly, if you are getting "fucked over," you should leave and join a different company that does not fuck you over. If enough people do this, either the economy will grind to a halt (forcing companies to raise wages) or the wages will be raised without grinding the economy to a halt. There is absolutely nothing in capitalism that prohibits this. In fact, the prospect of higher wages means it is encouraged. > The people who get the most wealth are owners of capital, not the people who generate or increase capital. You are again stating this as though it's supposed to be taken as a given that it's bad. Acquiring capital and growing capital are two totally different roles and it's impossible to compare their true value to society. We need both, and it's not clear that acquiring capital (providing it) is less valuable.
    - deltaonefour 5y ago
      >This is a moral absolutist take. No it's the take by vote. You ask a normal person whether they think it's good they will give you a normal answer. You ask a billionaire, the billionaire will give you the same answer but secretly lobby against you. It's not moral absolutist. Every economist thinks it's bad. Generally they are okay with a little bit as a necessity but the level at where it's at now is too much. >Measuring contributions is not a trivial task, even philosophically. How much does my CEO contribute versus the work of us workers? That isn't something that can be measured, so any conception of the answer to that is going to be a matter of opinion. So I'm going to say "[citation needed]" on that one, and arguably there's a "[philosophical justification needed]" as well. I never said it was trivial nor did I say it could be easily measured. But on a grand scale we know it's occurring. It's very trivial to see. Most CEO's don't deserve the salary they get, this is also trivial to see. >First, that definitely is not true, especially if you believe that a portion of people in the system are overpaid. You're way too pedantic. Of course I'm referring to a generality. 99% of people are fucked over. Very few people are overpaid. >But secondly, if you are getting "fucked over," you should leave and join a different company that does not fuck you over. All companies try to fuck you over. I just join the company that fucks me the least. I'm still getting fucked. That's what typically occurs. What you're referring to is different. You're referring to Baumol's cost disease for wage competition, which is typically not what occurs. No overall economy is governed by this but you do see it happening in small bubbles or certain industries. I would say software in the bay area has this phenomenon occurring in the slight. Wages here are higher then the rest of the world BUT wages are generally not high enough to the point where most engineers aren't getting fucked. >You are again stating this as though it's supposed to be taken as a given that it's bad. Acquiring capital and growing capital are two totally different roles and it's impossible to compare their true value to society. We need both, and it's not clear that acquiring capital (providing it) is less valuable. It is bad, but let me clarify, ownership of human capital or other things that own human capital by proxy is the thing that is bad. Just because things are hard to quantify doesn't mean we can't use our intuition to make a judgement. It should be self evident and obvious that ownership of human capital is bad but a necessary evil.

ironmagma 5y ago

> Why you're repeating something I stated is beyond me. I said capitalism is unfair. You said that as a means of supporting your larger point which is that capitalism is flawed. I am arguing that unfairness (as I defined it) is the whole essence of capitalism, which is very different from saying it's an unwanted byproduct of it. We want unfairness. If you instead want fairness, there are other systems for that in use by other countries. You can move to one of those countries if you prefer that system. But there are good reasons that capitalist countries are the most prosperous. > Employers fuck people over, they don't freeload off of them. It's equally possible for employees to fuck over employers, we just tend not to do it (for good reasons).

deltaonefour 5y ago
>You said that as a means of supporting your larger point which is that capitalism is flawed. I am arguing that unfairness (as I defined it) is the whole essence of capitalism, which is very different from saying it's an unwanted byproduct of it. We want unfairness. Thank you for the clarification. No we don't want unfairness. Wealth inequality is universally a very bad thing. Nobody wants this, you'd have to be insane to want it. That is unless you're the one doing the fucking. Let me make one thing absolutely clear. I never said I prefer another system. I just said the current system is flawed. Please don't tell me to move to another country. Also you obviously don't understand capitalism. Adam Smith originally conceived of the invisible hand that would influence market forces to distribute wealth fairly. This was the intent, the outcome is clearly not the case. Wealth is distributed unfairly with people who contribute the most to GDP not getting the most wealth. The people who get the most wealth are owners of capital, not the people who generate or increase capital. The idea of capitalism started with the idea that wealth was fairly distributed. Modern economics now is fully aware that this is not the case and that there are huge flaws within capitalism even though there is currently no known superior system. >It's equally possible for employees to fuck over employers, we just tend not to do it (for good reasons). So? The problem here is every employee under a capitalist system is getting fucked over. So if I'm getting fucked over then of course I owe the employer nothing beyond stated business obligations.
- ironmagma 5y ago
  > Wealth inequality is universally a very bad thing. This is a moral absolutist take. We clearly don't agree on "bad" vs. "good" because some of the best (from my perspective) things were/are done in capitalist countries, such as the creation of NASA, rollercoasters, the Internet, innovative surgeries, and life-saving medical treatments for chronic conditions. > Wealth is distributed unfairly with people who contribute the most to GDP not getting the most wealth. Measuring contributions is not a trivial task, even philosophically. How much does my CEO contribute versus the work of us workers? That isn't something that can be measured, so any conception of the answer to that is going to be a matter of opinion. So I'm going to say "[citation needed]" on that one, and arguably there's a "[philosophical justification needed]" as well. > every employee under a capitalist system is getting fucked over First, that definitely is not true, especially if you believe that a portion of people in the system are overpaid. But secondly, if you are getting "fucked over," you should leave and join a different company that does not fuck you over. If enough people do this, either the economy will grind to a halt (forcing companies to raise wages) or the wages will be raised without grinding the economy to a halt. There is absolutely nothing in capitalism that prohibits this. In fact, the prospect of higher wages means it is encouraged. > The people who get the most wealth are owners of capital, not the people who generate or increase capital. You are again stating this as though it's supposed to be taken as a given that it's bad. Acquiring capital and growing capital are two totally different roles and it's impossible to compare their true value to society. We need both, and it's not clear that acquiring capital (providing it) is less valuable.
  - deltaonefour 5y ago
    >This is a moral absolutist take. No it's the take by vote. You ask a normal person whether they think it's good they will give you a normal answer. You ask a billionaire, the billionaire will give you the same answer but secretly lobby against you. It's not moral absolutist. Every economist thinks it's bad. Generally they are okay with a little bit as a necessity but the level at where it's at now is too much. >Measuring contributions is not a trivial task, even philosophically. How much does my CEO contribute versus the work of us workers? That isn't something that can be measured, so any conception of the answer to that is going to be a matter of opinion. So I'm going to say "[citation needed]" on that one, and arguably there's a "[philosophical justification needed]" as well. I never said it was trivial nor did I say it could be easily measured. But on a grand scale we know it's occurring. It's very trivial to see. Most CEO's don't deserve the salary they get, this is also trivial to see. >First, that definitely is not true, especially if you believe that a portion of people in the system are overpaid. You're way too pedantic. Of course I'm referring to a generality. 99% of people are fucked over. Very few people are overpaid. >But secondly, if you are getting "fucked over," you should leave and join a different company that does not fuck you over. All companies try to fuck you over. I just join the company that fucks me the least. I'm still getting fucked. That's what typically occurs. What you're referring to is different. You're referring to Baumol's cost disease for wage competition, which is typically not what occurs. No overall economy is governed by this but you do see it happening in small bubbles or certain industries. I would say software in the bay area has this phenomenon occurring in the slight. Wages here are higher then the rest of the world BUT wages are generally not high enough to the point where most engineers aren't getting fucked. >You are again stating this as though it's supposed to be taken as a given that it's bad. Acquiring capital and growing capital are two totally different roles and it's impossible to compare their true value to society. We need both, and it's not clear that acquiring capital (providing it) is less valuable. It is bad, but let me clarify, ownership of human capital or other things that own human capital by proxy is the thing that is bad. Just because things are hard to quantify doesn't mean we can't use our intuition to make a judgement. It should be self evident and obvious that ownership of human capital is bad but a necessary evil.