3 ms·
> does not materially benefit labor in the long run. If you ignore the wages (direct and indirect) paid, then sure. Otherwise, I'm not sure how you can argue
by Plasmoid 3y ago
> does not materially benefit labor in the long run.
If you ignore the wages (direct and indirect) paid, then sure. Otherwise, I'm not sure how you can argue that in good faith when the largest expense almost any corporation has is labour.
- AndrewKemendo 3y agoWell explained In my link
- Plasmoid 3y agoA 500 page pdf of the writings of a anarchist-libertarian socialist from 1876 isn't compelling.
- wahnfrieden 3y ago[flagged]
- friendzis 3y ago>> In the US at least, the fact of employment isn’t some gift to the laborer, which a lot of employers claim. > If you ignore the wages (direct and indirect) paid, then sure. Otherwise, I'm not sure how you can argue that in good faith when the largest expense almost any corporation has is labour. Unless you consider employment itself being a benefit to the laborer, your statement is only reflective of expense grouping in financial statements.