4 ms·

But anyone can get laid off. CEOs get fired all the time, self employed contractors get fired from contracts. So then nobody is "capital". This is correct: the

by nvm0n2 3y ago

But anyone can get laid off. CEOs get fired all the time, self employed contractors get fired from contracts. So then nobody is "capital". This is correct: the distinction between workers and capital doesn't exist outside of Marxist theory. We are all workers, and when we join or form companies, we are uniting.

lapcat 3y ago
> But anyone can get laid off. CEOs get fired all the time, self employed contractors get fired from contracts. So then nobody is "capital". The owners of the business, e.g., the stockholders, are capital. There is some overlap, because employees can be compensated in stock, especially CEOs. The crucial difference is that when an employee is fired, they stop making a salary from the company, and they stop having any power in the company, whereas stockholders cannot be fired, and they continue making money from the company and having voting rights no matter what.
- nvm0n2 3y ago
  But then you're trying to draw a binary distinction when some (many) people are both. The CEO is neither capital nor a worker in this scheme, or they could be both.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    I just explained the nuance in my previous comment, so I'm not sure what you're still confused about. It is true that the interests of the CEO and the interests of the owners do not necessarily align. This is exactly why CEO compensation is often in stock: the theory is that if CEOs are compensated in stock, then their interests will align more closely with the interests of the stockholders. Still, CEOs can be fired at any time, so they need to look out for themselves, and CEOs do have a kind of union, because they often sit together on the boards of directors of companies, and of course the boards of directors decide on CEO compensation (a massive conflict of interest). This is why CEOs often get massive golden parachutes: it's CEOs protecting other CEOs. Even including the CEO, though, current employees typically own only a very small % of a corporation's total stock, which is exactly why they can be fired.
    - nvm0n2 3y ago
      I'm struggling with this distinction between workers and capital, when it seems to me that almost always there's no actual difference. Even if we take pure shareholders who aren't also employees, in practice, basically all of those shareholders will themselves be employees of funds of various kinds, and thus fireable. People who are pure private shareholders and literally answer to no-one, is possible e.g. Bill Gates and other philanthropists, but they're an extreme edge case and indeed most of them seem to spend their time giving away money to people who otherwise might struggle to find work, like researchers, so it's hard to view this type of "capital" as exploiting the workers.
      - lapcat 3y ago
        If you think there's almost always no actual difference, consider this: in the United States, the richest 10% of all households own >70% of the country's wealth. The richest 1% own 35% of the country's wealth. The rest of the population may own some stock, but it's a pittance relative to the capitalist class. We're not running the show. Regarding Bill Gates, he acquired his wealth by exploiting workers, not to mention everyone else, engaging in illegal monopolistic practices. Moreover, he's even wealthier now than he was before retiring from Microsoft and claiming to want to give most of his wealth away. And he's 67 years old, time's a wastin'. The problem is that wealth begets wealth. Gates doesn't even have to work to continue to accumulate wealth, so much so that he can't seem to give away money faster than he makes it. That's the essential difference: having to work for your money vs. having your money (and also everyone else) work for you.

by nvm0n2 3y ago

lapcat 3y ago

> But anyone can get laid off. CEOs get fired all the time, self employed contractors get fired from contracts. So then nobody is "capital". The owners of the business, e.g., the stockholders, are capital. There is some overlap, because employees can be compensated in stock, especially CEOs. The crucial difference is that when an employee is fired, they stop making a salary from the company, and they stop having any power in the company, whereas stockholders cannot be fired, and they continue making money from the company and having voting rights no matter what.

nvm0n2 3y ago
But then you're trying to draw a binary distinction when some (many) people are both. The CEO is neither capital nor a worker in this scheme, or they could be both.
- lapcat 3y ago
  I just explained the nuance in my previous comment, so I'm not sure what you're still confused about. It is true that the interests of the CEO and the interests of the owners do not necessarily align. This is exactly why CEO compensation is often in stock: the theory is that if CEOs are compensated in stock, then their interests will align more closely with the interests of the stockholders. Still, CEOs can be fired at any time, so they need to look out for themselves, and CEOs do have a kind of union, because they often sit together on the boards of directors of companies, and of course the boards of directors decide on CEO compensation (a massive conflict of interest). This is why CEOs often get massive golden parachutes: it's CEOs protecting other CEOs. Even including the CEO, though, current employees typically own only a very small % of a corporation's total stock, which is exactly why they can be fired.
  - nvm0n2 3y ago
    I'm struggling with this distinction between workers and capital, when it seems to me that almost always there's no actual difference. Even if we take pure shareholders who aren't also employees, in practice, basically all of those shareholders will themselves be employees of funds of various kinds, and thus fireable. People who are pure private shareholders and literally answer to no-one, is possible e.g. Bill Gates and other philanthropists, but they're an extreme edge case and indeed most of them seem to spend their time giving away money to people who otherwise might struggle to find work, like researchers, so it's hard to view this type of "capital" as exploiting the workers.
    - lapcat 3y ago
      If you think there's almost always no actual difference, consider this: in the United States, the richest 10% of all households own >70% of the country's wealth. The richest 1% own 35% of the country's wealth. The rest of the population may own some stock, but it's a pittance relative to the capitalist class. We're not running the show. Regarding Bill Gates, he acquired his wealth by exploiting workers, not to mention everyone else, engaging in illegal monopolistic practices. Moreover, he's even wealthier now than he was before retiring from Microsoft and claiming to want to give most of his wealth away. And he's 67 years old, time's a wastin'. The problem is that wealth begets wealth. Gates doesn't even have to work to continue to accumulate wealth, so much so that he can't seem to give away money faster than he makes it. That's the essential difference: having to work for your money vs. having your money (and also everyone else) work for you.