10 ms·

> Finally, we (or basically I) have not done a good enough job of high rewards for high performance. 15 years later, this is still a widespread problem everywh

> Finally, we (or basically I) have not done a good enough job of high rewards for high performance. 15 years later, this is still a widespread problem everywhere. People don't capture the full value of their labor (which makes a sort of sense, given imperfect information and how risk is allocated), which leads to people not being incentivized to increase the value of their labor. We've all heard stories about people being extra efficient and getting rewarded with raised expectations and maybe a paltry raise. If people were really incentivized to do their best work, I imagine we'd get a better world.

sytelus 5y ago
This is the entire foundation of capitalism. The idea is that people who own capital only reward other people for their time who help add to their capital. If companies distributed all of the gains in terms of stock awards to employees, you will see very different asset distribution in our society.
- gojomo 5y ago
  'Capitalism' is neither theoretically, nor in practice, limited to "only reward people for their time". Some industries where the labor is low-skilled trend that way.
  - SequoiaHope 5y ago
    The basic concept of capitalism is that there are capital owners, and they hire workers who use that capital to generate value. The capital owners receive all of that value and then pay the workers for their time. This is not a comprehensive description of capitalism but it is the low level idea. Obviously there is a distribution of real world behaviors.
    - AYBABTME 5y ago
      Capitalism is about trade and industry being done by private owners, instead of by the state. It's a decentralized economic system that acknowledges a state's inability to fully plan the economy due to imperfect information. It's not anchored in labor exploitation.
      - SequoiaHope 5y ago
        > Capitalism is about trade and industry being done by private owners, instead of by the state. It's a decentralized economic system that acknowledges a state's inability to fully plan the economy due to imperfect information. > The basic concept of capitalism is that there are capital owners, and they hire workers who use that capital to generate value. The capital owners receive all of that value and then pay the workers for their time. These are both true.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - davmar 5y ago
        capitalism cannot differentiate between efficiency and exploitation
      - heavyset_go 5y ago
        State capitalism exists.
      - kqr 5y ago
        This is incorrect. You can have state capitalism as well as non-state non-capitalism (worker-owned cooperatives are a common example of private non-capitalism). As the person you're responding to said, capitalism is the philosophy that concentration of capital should be rewarded. It's that simple. Whether the state or private magnates concentrate the capital and get rewarded for it is irrelevant.
    - gojomo 5y ago
      That's only the 'basic concept of capitalism' at a reductionist Fischer-Price level-of-understanding by its detractors. That's just as impoverished a model of the real world, in its own way, as simple microeconomics analyses of 'perfect competition'.
      - SequoiaHope 5y ago
        I disagree. The description I used is helpful in distinguishing capitalism from previous modes of production like feudalism or alternatives like communism. I explicitly said the description is not comprehensive, but it is one aspect of capitalism.
      - TaylorAlexander 5y ago
        > a reductionist Fischer-Price level-of-understanding By the way I got this from Richard Wolff. Here is his education history: B.A. History magna cum laude Harvard 1963 M.A. Economics Stanford 1964 M.A. Economics Yale 1966 M.A. History Yale 1967 Ph.D. Economics Yale 1969
        gojomo 5y ago
        Ideology can make even the highly-credentialed pretty dumb. But did Mr. Wolff really say – "The basic concept of capitalism is that there are capital owners, and they hire workers who use that capital to generate value. The capital owners receive all of that value and then pay the workers for their time." – ? Where?
- qsort 5y ago
  You would also see much fewer companies to begin with. Maybe there's a better way to reward highly skilled people than beating this extremely dead horse?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - sytelus 5y ago
    Capitalism has nothing to do with fewer or more companies. A founder can currently be rewarded as much as 1000000X than an average employee simply because the arrangement is that employee gets paid for time (a highly limited quantity) while founder gets paid for capital (virtually unlimited quantity). Assume that you forced founders not to capture all of the capital gains generated by employees such that the founder was rewarded "only" 1000X more than average employee. I don't think this is so badly under-rewaeded that founders will just stop being founders.
    - zozbot234 5y ago
      A founder that's rewarded 1000000X is cashing in on a lottery ticket. That's all there is to it. Just as in most lotteries, even most founders are losers.
- tonyedgecombe 5y ago
  >If companies distributed all of the gains in terms of stock awards to employees Then there would be no incentive for investment.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    Exactly. And investment includes buying the tools that lets the worker be productive enough to create a surplus. There's three people (or entities) in this: the one who makes the tool, the one who buys the tool, and the one who uses the tool. All of them need some of the rewards from the increased productivity that the tool empowers, otherwise we stop getting tools that let us be more productive, and we're all worse off. So you have to pay both the capitalists and the workers. Now, you can argue that the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of the capitalists. That's a defensible position. But the answer is not to move to "the workers get 100% of the gains". That's going to leave everyone worse off, including the workers.
  - heavyset_go 5y ago
    There would be if employees themselves were worker-owners.
- tw600040 5y ago
  That would be fair if companies can also distribute losses if any and are able to get money back from employees
  - steveylang 5y ago
    Maybe so, but stockholders aren't responsible for company losses either.
    - tw600040 5y ago
      They are. They lose their money / investment if companies go bankrupt or don't do well.
      - sfblah 5y ago
        Not in the past 5-10 years...
        umeshunni 5y ago
        Huh? A gentle look at WSB will tell you a lot about stockholders who lost money.
      - sumedh 5y ago
        > They lose their money / investment if companies go bankrupt or don't do well. The CEOs of such companies get multi million dollar packages for leaving.
  - 6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
    Would it? As I understand it, most companies don't distribute losses to owners either. I believe that's the core of "limited liability" corporations. Except for capital losses for shareholders, but employees are already paid in RSUs too, so I think that's relatively moot.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- rmbyrro 5y ago
  Problem is the employees aren't willing to bear the risk that early investors were willing to. If the entire society had a similar level of appetite for risk, we'd see a different asset distribution in society. Since most people are terribly averse to losing anything, they also shut down the perspective of winning big.
  - noncoml 5y ago
    It’s not about being willing, it’s about being able too. Imagine there is a lottery where for every 10 million tickets you buy you get one that is giving you 20 millions back. No brainer, right? Except if you don’t have the 10 million to spare, buying lottery tickets instead of food doesn’t make sense. Labor/job is your single lottery ticket. Investors can afford to buy all tickets to make sure they win.
    - robrenaud 5y ago
      Make a lot of friends, buy up the tickets together, and split the winnings. Applied another way, everyone in a given class of YC should share a bit of ownership with everyone else in their YC class, and then everyone of them is likely to end up a millionare.
      - twojacobtwo 5y ago
        This is where the analogy fails, I think, because it assumes a static market price, or a lack of competition for the tickets. Where the price changes or competition changes availability, we run into the same issues where those who already have power/money are more able to exploit the system than those who have to collude just to have a shot.
      - robocat 5y ago
        FYI this is an analysis of your average returns at YC: https://80000hours.org/2014/05/how-much-do-y-combinator-founders-earn/ https://80000hours.org/2014/05/how-much-do-y-combinator-foun... I still wish that YC would provide some more concrete figures, and ideally include separate figures for first employees as well as founders. From link: “Most of the returns have gone to a tiny minority of super-successes. The founders of AirBnB, Dropbox and Stripe are worth about US$7 billion, about 80% of all founders’ equity, although they account for 0.5% of the companies. Outside of the most successful companies, it was still possible to earn significant returns. 12% of companies from the first five years of Y Combinator are now worth US$40 million or more, and a further 10% have sold for US$5-40 million. The remainder probably earned little more than their (low) salaries.”.
- mrh0057 5y ago
  It’s suppose to be the value you added. The investors get payment for the risk they take by investing in or loaning money to the company. If a company has monopoly power and/or gets bailed out by the government consistently there is no risk to investors. What ends up happening is rent seeking a behavior by theses companies and they will also take unnecessary risks since they are incentivized to.
buzzdenver 5y ago
> People don't capture the full value of their labor (which makes a sort of sense, given imperfect information and how risk is allocated), I think it is primarily due to de-risking. You agree with your employer that the biggest percentage of your income will be fixed and independent of how much value the company produced (be it profits or share appreciation or whatever). This makes sense because your life has high fixed costs, and your cash-flow cannot allow for years when you make zero (or even a negative amount), even if in the next one you would make 5 times your current salary. > which leads to people not being incentivized to increase the value of their labor. Don't think this is necessarily true. I would love to walk into an apple orchard now and spend an hour picking if I could keep 25% of the apples.
vhiremath4 5y ago
> which makes a sort of sense, given imperfect information and how risk is allocated This doesn't just make a sort of sense to me, it makes perfect sense. People trade their labor at a lower rate for higher stability (less risk). The people who start companies, find capital, and distribute that capital in ways that increase the value of the company have taken on more risk (how significant varies case-by-case and usually is a natural market cap ceiling to the total value the owners can extract ahead of employees). If the company I work at gives me shares in that company, I want the company to pay less for my labor (and everyone's) if my belief is that collectively all employees output will accelerate my own wealth creation when I sell my shares in the company. The share becomes a transitive store of value I believe my own labor alone will never be able to keep up with, and I want to make sure the value it's accumulating is not diminished because the company is paying out the full capital value of everyone's labor. Then there would be very little incentive for me to take the shares in the first place, and, honestly, very little incentive for anyone to start a company (why take on that risk if there's no payout in excess of just joining another company?).
- myroon5 5y ago
  Feels like many are stuck in this dichotomy between choosing stable rates or venturing out on your own where more middle ground should probably exist. Employee incentives should probably align more
  - honorious 5y ago
    Isn't RSU the middle ground already? You can part of your compensation in salary, part in ownership of the company. If you work and the company does well, you do better. The % of comp in RSU raises as you get promoted to higher levels, where you (theoretically at least) actually have more impact on the success of the company.
    - 6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
      If my contributions increase the value of a $100M company by 10%, there's no way my RSUs' value is going to increase by $10M (unless I own 100% of the company). In a realistic scenario of $100k/yr of RSUs, even this near-impossible mythical single-person contribution of 10% would only net me $10k/yr. RSUs go a long way, but don't totally align the incentives.
bushbaba 5y ago
> If people were really incentivized to do their best work, I imagine we'd get a better world. Assuming wages are a function of the free market. And the less mobile people are, the less job-applicants exist, and the higher wages need to be to poach. Incentivizing for good work might have diminishing returns after a certain point.
- SQueeeeeL 5y ago
  I love it, we need everyone to have poverty wages and be insecure in case the poor multinational corporations might have difficulty underpaying people
PragmaticPulp 5y ago
> People don't capture the full value of their labor Why would you expect people to capture the full value of their labor? Imagine you operate a business. You do the math and determine that hiring a new employee will cost you $100K/year, but it will bring in $100K/year of revenue. In other words, the employee would capture the full value that they create (assuming nothing goes wrong). Do you hire that employee? Of course not. It doesn't make any business sense. It's more work for you, more risk for the company, and most importantly it provide $0 financial value to the company. It's an easy no. Now if you can hire someone for $100K and their addition will bring in $150K, that's a different story. You can't expect to capture the full value of your labor as an employee. However, you're also free from capturing the full value of the losses you might create. If you fail to ship your objectives or you accidentally drop the main DB and cost the company $100K, you don't receive a bill for the negative value you created. You get to keep your paychecks. > which leads to people not being incentivized to increase the value of their labor. This doesn't make sense at all. People increase the value of their labor all the time because it leads to more and better opportunities and gives more leverage in future negotiations. You don't have to capture the "full value" of your labor to have an incentive to improve.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- AussieWog93 5y ago
  >Do you hire that employee? Of course not. It doesn't make any business sense. It's more work for you, more risk for the company, and most importantly it provide $0 financial value to the company. It's an easy no. That's what the model predicts, but it's unfortunately not how companies beyond a certain size work in practice. Hiring decisions are not made by the business owner to increase profit, but middle-ranking members of the hierarchy who have their own parallel goals. Businesses can, and do, regularly hire employees that bring in zero or negative value. Often, these people will make up more than 50% of the company by headcount, and the only reason the company still turns a profit is because their existence is subsidised by a small minority of hyper-productive people.
  - 5y ago
dan-robertson 5y ago
Is it actually a problem everywhere? I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s not written about much on HN, but my guess is that at least some of the big tech companies will sometimes do large off-cycle performance bonuses. It may depend a lot on the work though, e.g. doing the thing the company actually cares about vs what they say they want or needing to fight one’s case a lot, or needing to have product focused improvements rather than some equivalent savings from efficiency.
throwaway54976 5y ago
> People don't capture the full value of their labor If it does it's no longer capitalism.

sytelus 5y ago

This is the entire foundation of capitalism. The idea is that people who own capital only reward other people for their time who help add to their capital. If companies distributed all of the gains in terms of stock awards to employees, you will see very different asset distribution in our society.

gojomo 5y ago
'Capitalism' is neither theoretically, nor in practice, limited to "only reward people for their time". Some industries where the labor is low-skilled trend that way.
- SequoiaHope 5y ago
  The basic concept of capitalism is that there are capital owners, and they hire workers who use that capital to generate value. The capital owners receive all of that value and then pay the workers for their time. This is not a comprehensive description of capitalism but it is the low level idea. Obviously there is a distribution of real world behaviors.
  - AYBABTME 5y ago
    Capitalism is about trade and industry being done by private owners, instead of by the state. It's a decentralized economic system that acknowledges a state's inability to fully plan the economy due to imperfect information. It's not anchored in labor exploitation.
    - SequoiaHope 5y ago
      > Capitalism is about trade and industry being done by private owners, instead of by the state. It's a decentralized economic system that acknowledges a state's inability to fully plan the economy due to imperfect information. > The basic concept of capitalism is that there are capital owners, and they hire workers who use that capital to generate value. The capital owners receive all of that value and then pay the workers for their time. These are both true.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - davmar 5y ago
      capitalism cannot differentiate between efficiency and exploitation
    - heavyset_go 5y ago
      State capitalism exists.
    - kqr 5y ago
      This is incorrect. You can have state capitalism as well as non-state non-capitalism (worker-owned cooperatives are a common example of private non-capitalism). As the person you're responding to said, capitalism is the philosophy that concentration of capital should be rewarded. It's that simple. Whether the state or private magnates concentrate the capital and get rewarded for it is irrelevant.
  - gojomo 5y ago
    That's only the 'basic concept of capitalism' at a reductionist Fischer-Price level-of-understanding by its detractors. That's just as impoverished a model of the real world, in its own way, as simple microeconomics analyses of 'perfect competition'.
    - SequoiaHope 5y ago
      I disagree. The description I used is helpful in distinguishing capitalism from previous modes of production like feudalism or alternatives like communism. I explicitly said the description is not comprehensive, but it is one aspect of capitalism.
    - TaylorAlexander 5y ago
      > a reductionist Fischer-Price level-of-understanding By the way I got this from Richard Wolff. Here is his education history: B.A. History magna cum laude Harvard 1963 M.A. Economics Stanford 1964 M.A. Economics Yale 1966 M.A. History Yale 1967 Ph.D. Economics Yale 1969
      - gojomo 5y ago
        Ideology can make even the highly-credentialed pretty dumb. But did Mr. Wolff really say – "The basic concept of capitalism is that there are capital owners, and they hire workers who use that capital to generate value. The capital owners receive all of that value and then pay the workers for their time." – ? Where?
qsort 5y ago
You would also see much fewer companies to begin with. Maybe there's a better way to reward highly skilled people than beating this extremely dead horse?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- sytelus 5y ago
  Capitalism has nothing to do with fewer or more companies. A founder can currently be rewarded as much as 1000000X than an average employee simply because the arrangement is that employee gets paid for time (a highly limited quantity) while founder gets paid for capital (virtually unlimited quantity). Assume that you forced founders not to capture all of the capital gains generated by employees such that the founder was rewarded "only" 1000X more than average employee. I don't think this is so badly under-rewaeded that founders will just stop being founders.
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    A founder that's rewarded 1000000X is cashing in on a lottery ticket. That's all there is to it. Just as in most lotteries, even most founders are losers.
tonyedgecombe 5y ago
>If companies distributed all of the gains in terms of stock awards to employees Then there would be no incentive for investment.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  Exactly. And investment includes buying the tools that lets the worker be productive enough to create a surplus. There's three people (or entities) in this: the one who makes the tool, the one who buys the tool, and the one who uses the tool. All of them need some of the rewards from the increased productivity that the tool empowers, otherwise we stop getting tools that let us be more productive, and we're all worse off. So you have to pay both the capitalists and the workers. Now, you can argue that the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of the capitalists. That's a defensible position. But the answer is not to move to "the workers get 100% of the gains". That's going to leave everyone worse off, including the workers.
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  There would be if employees themselves were worker-owners.
tw600040 5y ago
That would be fair if companies can also distribute losses if any and are able to get money back from employees
- steveylang 5y ago
  Maybe so, but stockholders aren't responsible for company losses either.
  - tw600040 5y ago
    They are. They lose their money / investment if companies go bankrupt or don't do well.
    - sfblah 5y ago
      Not in the past 5-10 years...
      - umeshunni 5y ago
        Huh? A gentle look at WSB will tell you a lot about stockholders who lost money.
    - sumedh 5y ago
      > They lose their money / investment if companies go bankrupt or don't do well. The CEOs of such companies get multi million dollar packages for leaving.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
  Would it? As I understand it, most companies don't distribute losses to owners either. I believe that's the core of "limited liability" corporations. Except for capital losses for shareholders, but employees are already paid in RSUs too, so I think that's relatively moot.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
rmbyrro 5y ago
Problem is the employees aren't willing to bear the risk that early investors were willing to. If the entire society had a similar level of appetite for risk, we'd see a different asset distribution in society. Since most people are terribly averse to losing anything, they also shut down the perspective of winning big.
- noncoml 5y ago
  It’s not about being willing, it’s about being able too. Imagine there is a lottery where for every 10 million tickets you buy you get one that is giving you 20 millions back. No brainer, right? Except if you don’t have the 10 million to spare, buying lottery tickets instead of food doesn’t make sense. Labor/job is your single lottery ticket. Investors can afford to buy all tickets to make sure they win.
  - robrenaud 5y ago
    Make a lot of friends, buy up the tickets together, and split the winnings. Applied another way, everyone in a given class of YC should share a bit of ownership with everyone else in their YC class, and then everyone of them is likely to end up a millionare.
    - twojacobtwo 5y ago
      This is where the analogy fails, I think, because it assumes a static market price, or a lack of competition for the tickets. Where the price changes or competition changes availability, we run into the same issues where those who already have power/money are more able to exploit the system than those who have to collude just to have a shot.
    - robocat 5y ago
      FYI this is an analysis of your average returns at YC: https://80000hours.org/2014/05/how-much-do-y-combinator-founders-earn/ https://80000hours.org/2014/05/how-much-do-y-combinator-foun... I still wish that YC would provide some more concrete figures, and ideally include separate figures for first employees as well as founders. From link: “Most of the returns have gone to a tiny minority of super-successes. The founders of AirBnB, Dropbox and Stripe are worth about US$7 billion, about 80% of all founders’ equity, although they account for 0.5% of the companies. Outside of the most successful companies, it was still possible to earn significant returns. 12% of companies from the first five years of Y Combinator are now worth US$40 million or more, and a further 10% have sold for US$5-40 million. The remainder probably earned little more than their (low) salaries.”.
mrh0057 5y ago
It’s suppose to be the value you added. The investors get payment for the risk they take by investing in or loaning money to the company. If a company has monopoly power and/or gets bailed out by the government consistently there is no risk to investors. What ends up happening is rent seeking a behavior by theses companies and they will also take unnecessary risks since they are incentivized to.

buzzdenver 5y ago

> People don't capture the full value of their labor (which makes a sort of sense, given imperfect information and how risk is allocated), I think it is primarily due to de-risking. You agree with your employer that the biggest percentage of your income will be fixed and independent of how much value the company produced (be it profits or share appreciation or whatever). This makes sense because your life has high fixed costs, and your cash-flow cannot allow for years when you make zero (or even a negative amount), even if in the next one you would make 5 times your current salary. > which leads to people not being incentivized to increase the value of their labor. Don't think this is necessarily true. I would love to walk into an apple orchard now and spend an hour picking if I could keep 25% of the apples.

vhiremath4 5y ago

> which makes a sort of sense, given imperfect information and how risk is allocated This doesn't just make a sort of sense to me, it makes perfect sense. People trade their labor at a lower rate for higher stability (less risk). The people who start companies, find capital, and distribute that capital in ways that increase the value of the company have taken on more risk (how significant varies case-by-case and usually is a natural market cap ceiling to the total value the owners can extract ahead of employees). If the company I work at gives me shares in that company, I want the company to pay less for my labor (and everyone's) if my belief is that collectively all employees output will accelerate my own wealth creation when I sell my shares in the company. The share becomes a transitive store of value I believe my own labor alone will never be able to keep up with, and I want to make sure the value it's accumulating is not diminished because the company is paying out the full capital value of everyone's labor. Then there would be very little incentive for me to take the shares in the first place, and, honestly, very little incentive for anyone to start a company (why take on that risk if there's no payout in excess of just joining another company?).

myroon5 5y ago
Feels like many are stuck in this dichotomy between choosing stable rates or venturing out on your own where more middle ground should probably exist. Employee incentives should probably align more
- honorious 5y ago
  Isn't RSU the middle ground already? You can part of your compensation in salary, part in ownership of the company. If you work and the company does well, you do better. The % of comp in RSU raises as you get promoted to higher levels, where you (theoretically at least) actually have more impact on the success of the company.
  - 6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
    If my contributions increase the value of a $100M company by 10%, there's no way my RSUs' value is going to increase by $10M (unless I own 100% of the company). In a realistic scenario of $100k/yr of RSUs, even this near-impossible mythical single-person contribution of 10% would only net me $10k/yr. RSUs go a long way, but don't totally align the incentives.

bushbaba 5y ago

> If people were really incentivized to do their best work, I imagine we'd get a better world. Assuming wages are a function of the free market. And the less mobile people are, the less job-applicants exist, and the higher wages need to be to poach. Incentivizing for good work might have diminishing returns after a certain point.

SQueeeeeL 5y ago
I love it, we need everyone to have poverty wages and be insecure in case the poor multinational corporations might have difficulty underpaying people

PragmaticPulp 5y ago

> People don't capture the full value of their labor Why would you expect people to capture the full value of their labor? Imagine you operate a business. You do the math and determine that hiring a new employee will cost you $100K/year, but it will bring in $100K/year of revenue. In other words, the employee would capture the full value that they create (assuming nothing goes wrong). Do you hire that employee? Of course not. It doesn't make any business sense. It's more work for you, more risk for the company, and most importantly it provide $0 financial value to the company. It's an easy no. Now if you can hire someone for $100K and their addition will bring in $150K, that's a different story. You can't expect to capture the full value of your labor as an employee. However, you're also free from capturing the full value of the losses you might create. If you fail to ship your objectives or you accidentally drop the main DB and cost the company $100K, you don't receive a bill for the negative value you created. You get to keep your paychecks. > which leads to people not being incentivized to increase the value of their labor. This doesn't make sense at all. People increase the value of their labor all the time because it leads to more and better opportunities and gives more leverage in future negotiations. You don't have to capture the "full value" of your labor to have an incentive to improve.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
AussieWog93 5y ago
>Do you hire that employee? Of course not. It doesn't make any business sense. It's more work for you, more risk for the company, and most importantly it provide $0 financial value to the company. It's an easy no. That's what the model predicts, but it's unfortunately not how companies beyond a certain size work in practice. Hiring decisions are not made by the business owner to increase profit, but middle-ranking members of the hierarchy who have their own parallel goals. Businesses can, and do, regularly hire employees that bring in zero or negative value. Often, these people will make up more than 50% of the company by headcount, and the only reason the company still turns a profit is because their existence is subsidised by a small minority of hyper-productive people.
- 5y ago

dan-robertson 5y ago

Is it actually a problem everywhere? I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s not written about much on HN, but my guess is that at least some of the big tech companies will sometimes do large off-cycle performance bonuses. It may depend a lot on the work though, e.g. doing the thing the company actually cares about vs what they say they want or needing to fight one’s case a lot, or needing to have product focused improvements rather than some equivalent savings from efficiency.

throwaway54976 5y ago

> People don't capture the full value of their labor If it does it's no longer capitalism.