6 ms·

The class divide isn't based around an arbitrary salary, or specific job positions. It's whether you have hire/fire powers and you make money off of other peopl

The class divide isn't based around an arbitrary salary, or specific job positions. It's whether you have hire/fire powers and you make money off of other people's labour, rather than selling your own. Hollywood actors and famous football players are often very rich, but they sell their labor to get by. They don't own the means of production

tekla 3y ago
> They don't own the means of production They literally own the means of production, their bodies and minds. No one is forcing them to sign contracts for a million dollar salary, they can do the exact same acting/athelete-ing with a $100 smartphone.
- corethree 3y ago
  Relax AI are now in the verge of evening the playing field for actors. Athletes not yet, unless we have AI starting to generate completely made up sporting events. The later is extremely possible given how much data there is and how similar it all is.
  - fullspectrumdev 3y ago
    A fair while back I was actually reading about a proposed system for literally CGI/virtual horse racing specifically for gambling purposes, backed by gambling industry money. Unsure if it ever went anywhere, I kind of mentally filed it as “insane gambling nonsense”.
kaashif 3y ago
> Hollywood actors and famous football players are often very rich, but they sell their labor to get by. But there's a key difference. They don't need to continue to sell their labor, they can stop at any time and live on e.g. income from dividends. Or maybe they have enough cash they could literally not even invest it and still live fine. Although they may not own the means of production right at this moment, they easily could at any moment, it's a choice.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  You tomorrow could start out as a carpenter, buy a hammer and own the means of production. It's not a high bar to clear.
  - __MatrixMan__ 3y ago
    A hammer is a poor example of the means of production now that they're so easy to come by. The chokepoint is elsewhere. A more relevant example would be influence over the information that people consult when they're deciding which carpenter to hire. You need both a hammer and a place to swing it that gets you paid--and nobody is trying to restrict access to hammers to protect their position. This is why many of our most valuable companies are ad companies--you operate at a disadvantage unless you give them a cut of your profits.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      In your example the means of production is an advertisement? How would the worker own the means of production? Hammer and newspaper? Or hammer and all the newspapers?
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    Ironically it's more often governments that interfere with this. Go to the library and read some books and you can learn how to be a plumber or an electrician, buy a toolbox and you're on your way. Presumably there is some kind of licensing exam? No, first you've got to find an existing tradesperson and apprentice under them, even if you could already pass the exam on your own. For a few weeks is it? Years, typically. To become a journeyman. Still can't work for yourself, now you have to work under them for a few more years. Figure out how to file papers for an LLC. Maybe you need a lawyer. Tax accounting will be fun too. Do any of the cities you operate in have a different sales tax rate? Which of your business expenses can be deducted in the current year and which have to be depreciated? Is that the same for things you resell? Guess what happens if you want to move to another state.
    - 3y ago
pierat 3y ago
And so much of our society is bound by who you work for: medical insurance, social standing, etc. And so many people just don't understand that there's really 4 classes: poverty, able to live, owner/landlord, royalty. (The USA has the politician class in place of royalty.) Note I didn't say "middle class". That term originally was the constructed 'rich merchant non-royalty" class that was founded out of mercantilism into capitalism. The Middle Class is now the landlord and managerial class for most of the western countries. But back to the topic, a Starbucks worker, a IT worker, a sex worker, and a MD all must sell their time and body to live. It's only when you start buying others labor/property cheaply and selling it expensively do you become a capitalist. Anything else, and youre just in the labor class.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  The problem with this simplification is that it ignores risk. Being an employee means you get paid, and can change job it the business fails. Bring an owner/investor means you might lose all your money if the business fails. That is massive risk, and entirely ignored by the above characterisation.
  - pierat 3y ago
    Oh please. And you're up-playing risk. Let's talk local. We have lots of cheap shit 3 story stick built apartments. ( https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-02-13/why-america-s-new-apartment-buildings-all-look-the-same https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-02-13/why-ameri... ) The ones opened are charging half of Boston for rents. And I'm not even in a megacity or state capitol. The same apartments are getting 10 year tax abatements, because they are "good for business" aka trickle-down. During the pandemic, pandemic "loans" were given to hundreds of businesses in the local area. And those loans were turned into grants (not have to pay back). And landlords are usually smaller, but again, they're another reason why housing is stupid priced: it's common to see a rental of a home priced at mortgage+30% . The landlord gets their principal covered, keeps the property, and raises costs for everyone. None of these apply to me or my family, sans the whole big $1200 relief check. I have no tax abatements, and pay taxes in full every paycheck and when I buy stuff. And local governments usually allow whatever by companies unless there's a big fuss. And, those corporate promises about hiring people or bringing in business? Yeah, not actually enforced. And I didn't even discuss "too big to fail", fed govt propping up industries, and the like.
Retric 3y ago
Yes and no. The lines get blurry when you’re looking at doctors/plumbers/etc that own their practice. They are making money from their labor but they can also sell their company to someone else. Major actors are really leveraging a brand not just selling their labor. Athletes have a similar dynamic where the very best compensated are making more from endorsements than playing football. And of course the richest examples all end up investing well.
booleandilemma 3y ago
It's whether you have hire/fire powers and you make money off of other people's labour I think creating a hierarchy of managers and workers is just another tool that the people with power use to control everyone else. Surely my direct manager has more in common with me than the CEO? Am I wrong to think this? Wouldn't the CEO see both managers and their teams as mere workers?
- digdugdirk 3y ago
  100% correct. That was the gist of my original point. In Corporate America, unless you're in the C-suite or sitting on the board, you're not in the club. The corporate ladder makes it seem as though the middle management levels are on the path to being upper class, but they're in the same position as everyone else. They just drive a nicer car while doing so.
- RecycledEle 3y ago
  I see the divide as being between those of us who created wealth by working vs. those who do not create wealth and instead play zero sum and negative sum games.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    That's something else entirely. You could have someone who is solidly in the investment class and only works three hours a year, but during those three hours they tell their pet executives to put the capital into energy storage tech and new housing construction and do a lot of good in the world. You could have a low-level white collar worker who isn't making very much money at all, all of it in wages, who decides to screw over the company's customers with something economically inefficient because it gives them some advantage in internal corporate politics.
    - lmm 3y ago
      > You could have someone who is solidly in the investment class and only works three hours a year, but during those three hours they tell their pet executives to put the capital into energy storage tech and new housing construction and do a lot of good in the world. If they're making skilled capital-allocation decisions that most people couldn't, that's work. If they're being charitable in the allocation of their ill-gotten gains, that doesn't make them any less ill-gotten. Rentiers inherently make their money in a zero-sum way; it's perhaps not the only way to be zero-sum, but it is a major one.
robertlagrant 3y ago
What's the means of production for a footballer? A football?
- nayuki 3y ago
  Themself - the ability to attract a paying audience.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    But the paying audience is got there through TV rights, TV building, comms infrastructure, stadium building and maintenance, ticketing services, etc etc. The footballer by himself has no paying job.

tekla 3y ago

> They don't own the means of production They literally own the means of production, their bodies and minds. No one is forcing them to sign contracts for a million dollar salary, they can do the exact same acting/athelete-ing with a $100 smartphone.

corethree 3y ago
Relax AI are now in the verge of evening the playing field for actors. Athletes not yet, unless we have AI starting to generate completely made up sporting events. The later is extremely possible given how much data there is and how similar it all is.
- fullspectrumdev 3y ago
  A fair while back I was actually reading about a proposed system for literally CGI/virtual horse racing specifically for gambling purposes, backed by gambling industry money. Unsure if it ever went anywhere, I kind of mentally filed it as “insane gambling nonsense”.

kaashif 3y ago

> Hollywood actors and famous football players are often very rich, but they sell their labor to get by. But there's a key difference. They don't need to continue to sell their labor, they can stop at any time and live on e.g. income from dividends. Or maybe they have enough cash they could literally not even invest it and still live fine. Although they may not own the means of production right at this moment, they easily could at any moment, it's a choice.

robertlagrant 3y ago
You tomorrow could start out as a carpenter, buy a hammer and own the means of production. It's not a high bar to clear.
- __MatrixMan__ 3y ago
  A hammer is a poor example of the means of production now that they're so easy to come by. The chokepoint is elsewhere. A more relevant example would be influence over the information that people consult when they're deciding which carpenter to hire. You need both a hammer and a place to swing it that gets you paid--and nobody is trying to restrict access to hammers to protect their position. This is why many of our most valuable companies are ad companies--you operate at a disadvantage unless you give them a cut of your profits.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    In your example the means of production is an advertisement? How would the worker own the means of production? Hammer and newspaper? Or hammer and all the newspapers?
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  Ironically it's more often governments that interfere with this. Go to the library and read some books and you can learn how to be a plumber or an electrician, buy a toolbox and you're on your way. Presumably there is some kind of licensing exam? No, first you've got to find an existing tradesperson and apprentice under them, even if you could already pass the exam on your own. For a few weeks is it? Years, typically. To become a journeyman. Still can't work for yourself, now you have to work under them for a few more years. Figure out how to file papers for an LLC. Maybe you need a lawyer. Tax accounting will be fun too. Do any of the cities you operate in have a different sales tax rate? Which of your business expenses can be deducted in the current year and which have to be depreciated? Is that the same for things you resell? Guess what happens if you want to move to another state.
  - 3y ago

pierat 3y ago

And so much of our society is bound by who you work for: medical insurance, social standing, etc. And so many people just don't understand that there's really 4 classes: poverty, able to live, owner/landlord, royalty. (The USA has the politician class in place of royalty.) Note I didn't say "middle class". That term originally was the constructed 'rich merchant non-royalty" class that was founded out of mercantilism into capitalism. The Middle Class is now the landlord and managerial class for most of the western countries. But back to the topic, a Starbucks worker, a IT worker, a sex worker, and a MD all must sell their time and body to live. It's only when you start buying others labor/property cheaply and selling it expensively do you become a capitalist. Anything else, and youre just in the labor class.

robertlagrant 3y ago
The problem with this simplification is that it ignores risk. Being an employee means you get paid, and can change job it the business fails. Bring an owner/investor means you might lose all your money if the business fails. That is massive risk, and entirely ignored by the above characterisation.
- pierat 3y ago
  Oh please. And you're up-playing risk. Let's talk local. We have lots of cheap shit 3 story stick built apartments. ( https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-02-13/why-america-s-new-apartment-buildings-all-look-the-same https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-02-13/why-ameri... ) The ones opened are charging half of Boston for rents. And I'm not even in a megacity or state capitol. The same apartments are getting 10 year tax abatements, because they are "good for business" aka trickle-down. During the pandemic, pandemic "loans" were given to hundreds of businesses in the local area. And those loans were turned into grants (not have to pay back). And landlords are usually smaller, but again, they're another reason why housing is stupid priced: it's common to see a rental of a home priced at mortgage+30% . The landlord gets their principal covered, keeps the property, and raises costs for everyone. None of these apply to me or my family, sans the whole big $1200 relief check. I have no tax abatements, and pay taxes in full every paycheck and when I buy stuff. And local governments usually allow whatever by companies unless there's a big fuss. And, those corporate promises about hiring people or bringing in business? Yeah, not actually enforced. And I didn't even discuss "too big to fail", fed govt propping up industries, and the like.

Retric 3y ago

Yes and no. The lines get blurry when you’re looking at doctors/plumbers/etc that own their practice. They are making money from their labor but they can also sell their company to someone else. Major actors are really leveraging a brand not just selling their labor. Athletes have a similar dynamic where the very best compensated are making more from endorsements than playing football. And of course the richest examples all end up investing well.

booleandilemma 3y ago

It's whether you have hire/fire powers and you make money off of other people's labour I think creating a hierarchy of managers and workers is just another tool that the people with power use to control everyone else. Surely my direct manager has more in common with me than the CEO? Am I wrong to think this? Wouldn't the CEO see both managers and their teams as mere workers?

digdugdirk 3y ago
100% correct. That was the gist of my original point. In Corporate America, unless you're in the C-suite or sitting on the board, you're not in the club. The corporate ladder makes it seem as though the middle management levels are on the path to being upper class, but they're in the same position as everyone else. They just drive a nicer car while doing so.
RecycledEle 3y ago
I see the divide as being between those of us who created wealth by working vs. those who do not create wealth and instead play zero sum and negative sum games.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  That's something else entirely. You could have someone who is solidly in the investment class and only works three hours a year, but during those three hours they tell their pet executives to put the capital into energy storage tech and new housing construction and do a lot of good in the world. You could have a low-level white collar worker who isn't making very much money at all, all of it in wages, who decides to screw over the company's customers with something economically inefficient because it gives them some advantage in internal corporate politics.
  - lmm 3y ago
    > You could have someone who is solidly in the investment class and only works three hours a year, but during those three hours they tell their pet executives to put the capital into energy storage tech and new housing construction and do a lot of good in the world. If they're making skilled capital-allocation decisions that most people couldn't, that's work. If they're being charitable in the allocation of their ill-gotten gains, that doesn't make them any less ill-gotten. Rentiers inherently make their money in a zero-sum way; it's perhaps not the only way to be zero-sum, but it is a major one.

robertlagrant 3y ago

What's the means of production for a footballer? A football?

nayuki 3y ago
Themself - the ability to attract a paying audience.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  But the paying audience is got there through TV rights, TV building, comms infrastructure, stadium building and maintenance, ticketing services, etc etc. The footballer by himself has no paying job.