4 ms·

Agree with this. The Marxist* notion that workers should get salaries commensurate to net profit of the company is weird and purely subjective. Why should the

Agree with this. The Marxist* notion that workers should get salaries commensurate to net profit of the company is weird and purely subjective. Why should they? There is an argument that wages should be tied to productivity, but that would lead to internal inequalities and would be very subjective as many worker outputs are hard to measure. The current employer-employee "bargain" is for the worker to get a steady fixed income, independent of output or consistency, in exchange for the security that provides. Self-employment is a good way to take on more risk for (potentially) higher pay. Before anyone counters with "but what about unskilled workers who can't self-employ", I would return the question - yes, what about them? I see no particular reason why profit of a company must be shared with its workers, most of whom did not outlay the initial capital (or subsequent funding rounds) that built the company. *Maybe there's a better word for this or an earlier progenitor of this idea but I think this captures it well enough for this comment.

kelseyfrog 4y ago
Can you cite the section of Capital you're arguing against? I want to understand both sides.
kergonath 4y ago
> The Marxist* notion that workers should get salaries commensurate to net profit of the company is weird and purely subjective. Is that actually a thing? I read the Capital quite a long time ago but I don’t think Marx advocated for any of that. He wrote about workers’ ownership of the means of production and how they should be the ones deciding what to do with the results of their labour. In a market economy, that would lead to workers-owned companies, so the people deciding salaries and compensations would be the employees. How revenue is split is still a strategic decision: you still need war chests for difficult times, investments, etc. You’d hope that the pay would be more fair, but it’s a consequence of the employees taking decisions, rather something postulated a priori. > Self-employment is a good way to take on more risk for (potentially) higher pay. Indeed. And some people really like it, which is great. But you obviously cannot do the same thing as a one-man shop than as a large company. A working economy needs both, otherwise the plucky independents quickly get out of things like manufactured goods and food. Also, for some people stability is more important, and sometimes both sets of people are the same at different points in their lives. It is not really a good argument against fair wages. > Before anyone counters with "but what about unskilled workers who can't self-employ", I would return the question - yes, what about them? This sounds fine and dandy until they take a rifle and get off you what they need to survive. The simple truth is that people are not going to just starve because you think they don’t deserve a living. > I see no particular reason why profit of a company must be shared with its workers, most of whom did not outlay the initial capital (or subsequent funding rounds) that built the company. OTOH, capital itself does not build anything or produce anything. You need people to actually do the work at some point, and they are at least as necessary and important as the rich dude who signed a check at the beginning. Never mind the fact that “investors” who get rich off the secondary market do not bring anything to the company of which they trade the shares. I do it as well at my (very modest) level, but I don’t pretend I am doing anything useful by buying and selling stock.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  > In a market economy, that would lead to workers-owned companies, so the people deciding salaries and compensations would be the employees. This seems to make no sense - managers and C suite are employees already, and they decide salaries. But more generally: what is the actual way they should reward work? I.e. if you just pay everyone the same, what happens to your company if another company that pays based on value decides to hire all your top employees at 20% more?
  - kergonath 4y ago
    > managers and C suite are employees already They are mandated by the board, and ultimately by the shareholders (who, yes, can be employees in principle but most of the time are not). > What is the actual way you should reward work? Pretty much the same way it works usually, in that respect. This structure actually exists already, employees-owned companies are a thing that is common in some countries, and it is not particularly problematic. These companies do not pay everyone the same salary, but they tend to be less unequal. Also, I am not really advocating for or against this, just that this would be how you steer towards de-alienating the workers in a market economy based on the theory in the Capital. Though yes, that is short of a communist utopia but still a step in the right direction from that point of view.
    - robertlagrant 4y ago
      > This structure actually exists already, employees-owned companies are a thing that is common in some countries I'm not sure about common, but yes it does happen. I'm asking how does the commenter expect this to work in practice? What's the difference between my manager telling me my new wage and my comrade telling me my new wage?
      - mordae 4y ago
        It's not how it happens. You usually democratically determine the process by which you arrive to individual compensation. I've seen an organization to use mix of measuring actual billable output and blending it with time spent on internal company workings, tooling, management and so on. There is usually a way to redistribute couple % ad-hoc, e.g. when someone has financial difficulties or a baby or something. There is always a financials dashboard for everyone to see and complete openness and even discussion about compensation. But yeah, I have only see a handful of companies like that. Some were not even worker-owned, but had owners who said "OK, here is a fixed share of revenue that goes to us before you distribute the rest among yourselves" and then let the workers do the rest.
Gareth321 4y ago
> I see no particular reason why profit of a company must be shared with its workers I am a devout capitalist and I largely agree with your argument, but the Marxist argument isn't rooted in the desire for every man's labour to be as valuable as its demand. It's rooted in the belief that every man's labour should be treated as equally valuable. This is a moral argument, not an argument about real value or evidence thereof.
xdennis 4y ago
I can't tell if this is a parody of American Psycho or not.
manuelabeledo 4y ago
> The Marxist* notion that workers should get salaries commensurate to net profit of the company is weird and purely subjective. The opposite is rampant inequality, where workers get paid pennies and owners keep most of the profits. > I see no particular reason why profit of a company must be shared with its workers, most of whom did not outlay the initial capital (or subsequent funding rounds) that built the company. You are OK with the people who create the actual thing a company sells, not getting their share. Only people who provide capital should. Where do you think wealth comes from?

kelseyfrog 4y ago

Can you cite the section of Capital you're arguing against? I want to understand both sides.

kergonath 4y ago

> The Marxist* notion that workers should get salaries commensurate to net profit of the company is weird and purely subjective. Is that actually a thing? I read the Capital quite a long time ago but I don’t think Marx advocated for any of that. He wrote about workers’ ownership of the means of production and how they should be the ones deciding what to do with the results of their labour. In a market economy, that would lead to workers-owned companies, so the people deciding salaries and compensations would be the employees. How revenue is split is still a strategic decision: you still need war chests for difficult times, investments, etc. You’d hope that the pay would be more fair, but it’s a consequence of the employees taking decisions, rather something postulated a priori. > Self-employment is a good way to take on more risk for (potentially) higher pay. Indeed. And some people really like it, which is great. But you obviously cannot do the same thing as a one-man shop than as a large company. A working economy needs both, otherwise the plucky independents quickly get out of things like manufactured goods and food. Also, for some people stability is more important, and sometimes both sets of people are the same at different points in their lives. It is not really a good argument against fair wages. > Before anyone counters with "but what about unskilled workers who can't self-employ", I would return the question - yes, what about them? This sounds fine and dandy until they take a rifle and get off you what they need to survive. The simple truth is that people are not going to just starve because you think they don’t deserve a living. > I see no particular reason why profit of a company must be shared with its workers, most of whom did not outlay the initial capital (or subsequent funding rounds) that built the company. OTOH, capital itself does not build anything or produce anything. You need people to actually do the work at some point, and they are at least as necessary and important as the rich dude who signed a check at the beginning. Never mind the fact that “investors” who get rich off the secondary market do not bring anything to the company of which they trade the shares. I do it as well at my (very modest) level, but I don’t pretend I am doing anything useful by buying and selling stock.

robertlagrant 4y ago
> In a market economy, that would lead to workers-owned companies, so the people deciding salaries and compensations would be the employees. This seems to make no sense - managers and C suite are employees already, and they decide salaries. But more generally: what is the actual way they should reward work? I.e. if you just pay everyone the same, what happens to your company if another company that pays based on value decides to hire all your top employees at 20% more?
- kergonath 4y ago
  > managers and C suite are employees already They are mandated by the board, and ultimately by the shareholders (who, yes, can be employees in principle but most of the time are not). > What is the actual way you should reward work? Pretty much the same way it works usually, in that respect. This structure actually exists already, employees-owned companies are a thing that is common in some countries, and it is not particularly problematic. These companies do not pay everyone the same salary, but they tend to be less unequal. Also, I am not really advocating for or against this, just that this would be how you steer towards de-alienating the workers in a market economy based on the theory in the Capital. Though yes, that is short of a communist utopia but still a step in the right direction from that point of view.
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    > This structure actually exists already, employees-owned companies are a thing that is common in some countries I'm not sure about common, but yes it does happen. I'm asking how does the commenter expect this to work in practice? What's the difference between my manager telling me my new wage and my comrade telling me my new wage?
    - mordae 4y ago
      It's not how it happens. You usually democratically determine the process by which you arrive to individual compensation. I've seen an organization to use mix of measuring actual billable output and blending it with time spent on internal company workings, tooling, management and so on. There is usually a way to redistribute couple % ad-hoc, e.g. when someone has financial difficulties or a baby or something. There is always a financials dashboard for everyone to see and complete openness and even discussion about compensation. But yeah, I have only see a handful of companies like that. Some were not even worker-owned, but had owners who said "OK, here is a fixed share of revenue that goes to us before you distribute the rest among yourselves" and then let the workers do the rest.

Gareth321 4y ago

> I see no particular reason why profit of a company must be shared with its workers I am a devout capitalist and I largely agree with your argument, but the Marxist argument isn't rooted in the desire for every man's labour to be as valuable as its demand. It's rooted in the belief that every man's labour should be treated as equally valuable. This is a moral argument, not an argument about real value or evidence thereof.

xdennis 4y ago

I can't tell if this is a parody of American Psycho or not.

manuelabeledo 4y ago

> The Marxist* notion that workers should get salaries commensurate to net profit of the company is weird and purely subjective. The opposite is rampant inequality, where workers get paid pennies and owners keep most of the profits. > I see no particular reason why profit of a company must be shared with its workers, most of whom did not outlay the initial capital (or subsequent funding rounds) that built the company. You are OK with the people who create the actual thing a company sells, not getting their share. Only people who provide capital should. Where do you think wealth comes from?