5 ms·

Labor has _always_ been a liability for rich amoral capitalists. Should one assume by you saying this in response to this story that labor should race to the bo

Labor has _always_ been a liability for rich amoral capitalists. Should one assume by you saying this in response to this story that labor should race to the bottom, becoming just as cheap and disposable as a machine? Sounds like a bad world to live in, and it also wouldn't even work.

asu_thomas 3y ago
> Labor has _always_ been a liability for rich amoral capitalists Just capitalists. It doesn't matter how rich or amoral they are.
autoexec 3y ago
Exactly. Companies will replace human workers with AI or robots or whatever else as soon as it's possible no matter what happens. Even if companies paid their workers nothing at all (slavery) it would still be worth it to get rid of their human employees because AI won't want vacations or family leave or call in sick or infect coworkers. Robots never show up late, or steal, or end up dragging the company into sexual harassment lawsuits. Machines don't have to sleep and most importantly they don't say no. All human workers should fight for a living wage. Times are likely only going to get harder and when the robots do finally and inevitably replace us lowly human workers we'll be much better off after having fought for fair wages.
ETH_start 3y ago
Wages increase the fastest in countries with the most market freedom and security of private peoperty. Capitalists generate capital, which is the basis for all wage growth and improvements in quality of life.
- olddustytrail 3y ago
  > Capitalists generate capital Why of course they do! When I buy shares in a company, it's me that's generating all the capital, not those idle workers who just sit around making things!
  - memefrog 3y ago
    When you buy shares in a company you are investing in it and providing the company with capital.
    - olddustytrail 3y ago
      Yes, but I am not generating anything.
      - memefrog 3y ago
        Yes you are. You are choosing where to put your money to generate the best return.
        jdiff 3y ago
        Where does that return come from? It doesn't materialize from thin air. That money was generated by a laborer before it was shuffled to the various shareholders.
        ETH_start 3y ago
        It comes from directing resources to generating capital. Those resources will be some combination of goods and services bought from others or provided by the investor themselves.
      - ETH_start 3y ago
        When you buy stocks, you are in fact directing resources, in the form of goods/services, into building a company, which is a form of capital. This effect is the ultimate outcome of a long chain of reactions that originates with the exchange of your money for the seller's stock. If you had spent your surplus income buying consumer goods instead of the stock, that chain of reactions—and the outcome of new capital they produce—wouldn't have happened.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Capitalists generate capital Capitalists acquire capital and, in a capitalist system, acquire power over others through doing so. Laborers generate capital (among other forms of value), but capitalists, by virtue of the power they exercise within capitalism, capture what labor generates.
  - memefrog 3y ago
    Socialism will never be correct. It is and has always been logically incoherent. You are simply wrong.
    - wtfwhateven 3y ago
      when did they mention socialism? how is what they said incorrect?
      - memefrog 3y ago
        What he said is the cornerstone of socialism. There isn't a way that it is incorrect. It just isn't. It is like asking "how is it incorrect to say Wubble Bubble Jibble Quibble." It is a bunch of words placed together to form nonsense. He didn't give any reasons to support any of what he said.
        wtfwhateven 3y ago
        >What he said is the cornerstone of socialism. nope >There isn't a way that it is incorrect. It just isn't. It is like asking "how is it incorrect to say Wubble Bubble Jibble Quibble." It is a bunch of words placed together to form nonsense. He didn't give any reasons to support any of what he said. well it's not his problem you don't know what the words mean. what he said is simply objective reality - your "argument" is essentially identical to disagreeing with someone saying "apples are not oranges" because you don't know what an apple or orange is and the person didn't give any reasons to show that apples are not oranges
        3y ago

asu_thomas 3y ago

> Labor has _always_ been a liability for rich amoral capitalists Just capitalists. It doesn't matter how rich or amoral they are.

autoexec 3y ago

Exactly. Companies will replace human workers with AI or robots or whatever else as soon as it's possible no matter what happens. Even if companies paid their workers nothing at all (slavery) it would still be worth it to get rid of their human employees because AI won't want vacations or family leave or call in sick or infect coworkers. Robots never show up late, or steal, or end up dragging the company into sexual harassment lawsuits. Machines don't have to sleep and most importantly they don't say no. All human workers should fight for a living wage. Times are likely only going to get harder and when the robots do finally and inevitably replace us lowly human workers we'll be much better off after having fought for fair wages.

ETH_start 3y ago

Wages increase the fastest in countries with the most market freedom and security of private peoperty. Capitalists generate capital, which is the basis for all wage growth and improvements in quality of life.

olddustytrail 3y ago
> Capitalists generate capital Why of course they do! When I buy shares in a company, it's me that's generating all the capital, not those idle workers who just sit around making things!
- memefrog 3y ago
  When you buy shares in a company you are investing in it and providing the company with capital.
  - olddustytrail 3y ago
    Yes, but I am not generating anything.
    - memefrog 3y ago
      Yes you are. You are choosing where to put your money to generate the best return.
      - jdiff 3y ago
        Where does that return come from? It doesn't materialize from thin air. That money was generated by a laborer before it was shuffled to the various shareholders.
        ETH_start 3y ago
        It comes from directing resources to generating capital. Those resources will be some combination of goods and services bought from others or provided by the investor themselves.
    - ETH_start 3y ago
      When you buy stocks, you are in fact directing resources, in the form of goods/services, into building a company, which is a form of capital. This effect is the ultimate outcome of a long chain of reactions that originates with the exchange of your money for the seller's stock. If you had spent your surplus income buying consumer goods instead of the stock, that chain of reactions—and the outcome of new capital they produce—wouldn't have happened.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> Capitalists generate capital Capitalists acquire capital and, in a capitalist system, acquire power over others through doing so. Laborers generate capital (among other forms of value), but capitalists, by virtue of the power they exercise within capitalism, capture what labor generates.
- memefrog 3y ago
  Socialism will never be correct. It is and has always been logically incoherent. You are simply wrong.
  - wtfwhateven 3y ago
    when did they mention socialism? how is what they said incorrect?
    - memefrog 3y ago
      What he said is the cornerstone of socialism. There isn't a way that it is incorrect. It just isn't. It is like asking "how is it incorrect to say Wubble Bubble Jibble Quibble." It is a bunch of words placed together to form nonsense. He didn't give any reasons to support any of what he said.
      - wtfwhateven 3y ago
        >What he said is the cornerstone of socialism. nope >There isn't a way that it is incorrect. It just isn't. It is like asking "how is it incorrect to say Wubble Bubble Jibble Quibble." It is a bunch of words placed together to form nonsense. He didn't give any reasons to support any of what he said. well it's not his problem you don't know what the words mean. what he said is simply objective reality - your "argument" is essentially identical to disagreeing with someone saying "apples are not oranges" because you don't know what an apple or orange is and the person didn't give any reasons to show that apples are not oranges
        3y ago