4 ms·
Extreme wealth is a symptom of an underlying problem - inhumane exploitation. People can get that rich because the economic system says that it is perfectly acc
by yedava 3y ago
Extreme wealth is a symptom of an underlying problem - inhumane exploitation. People can get that rich because the economic system says that it is perfectly acceptable for a class of people to pee in bottles/diapers in order to maximize profits.
The solution for this doesn't have to target the rich explicitly. We can strengthen labor laws; update anti-monopoly laws. Make human dignity the central argument.
This will circumvent knee jerk reactions like "I work hard, I deserve to be rich". The question to ask is how are you, as an owner of capital, treating your labor? Like do they get to have a life after work? Have dignity at work? Do you use your wealth to circumvent democratic will and weaken labor protections? The answers to those questions should determine whether you deserve your wealth or not.
- lebean 3y ago[dead]
- AndrewKemendo 3y agoVery well put thank you for writing it out this way
- missedthecue 3y agoWealth isn't zero-sum. Your earnings aren't extracted at a cost to someone else.
- AndrewKemendo 3y agoMeasurably untrue for equity ownership which is a prerequisite for “wealth” in that you need to have undifferentiated ownership of assets that increase in value. Equity in a for profit corporation is fixed to the current round of funding with theoretical increases at certain intervals. These increases very specifically reduce the existing size of the “wedge of the pie” - aka takes from and redistributes ownership in the new pie size. This is called “Dilution” and we’re just told it’s how the game works. Note that the theoretical expectation is that the overall “value” stays the same despite literally being called “less than.” However, we know that those valuations are not rooted in any type of mathematical or otherwise natural function like let’s say the gravitational constant, that is unchanged and unmoved by exogenous circumstances, therefore the fact of splitting the pie Redistributes functional ownership, irrespective of what the value theoretically is. you’ll also note that the specific function of private equity is to ensure the retention and growth of equity ownership over all goals. So specific to the mechanisms within the commerce system, specifically ownership, they are not only functionally but mathematically zero-sum.
- patrickmay 3y agoExactly. Too many commenters here are ignoring (or unaware of) the fact that wealth is created.
- yoyohello13 3y agoTIL, exploitive labor practices are not a cost to someone else.
- missedthecue 3y agoMost wealth is not derived from exploitive labor practices. The poor developers being shackled and slavedriven at Meta put $150 billion in Zuckerbergs pocket? Absurd.
- mwigdahl 3y agoYou are correct, economic activity under capitalism is positive-sum. And that makes the exploitative behavior of megacorporations and their leaders that much worse. The economic pie is growing rapidly, but ruthless cost-focused management that treats employees as "resources" keeps unskilled laborers continually on the edge. The larger the organization, the more the leaders can insulate themselves from the human reality on the ground, which in turn makes it easier to justify policies that fail to treat workers with basic human decency, let alone provide them the opportunity to share in the the economic surplus they produce. It takes work and discipline for leaders to avoid this without external coercion, and that is in demonstrably short supply.
- deepsquirrelnet 3y agoClearly wealth can be zero sum, and it can be varying shades of grey. When employees of a small business see their company tank while being forced to hold their shares for a year under a SPAC acquisition, while the founders and SPAC sell at a overvalued projected cost — nothing productive results and who holds the sum? I’d wager a number of people here have experienced that personally. And when Bezos wants diapers.com…?
- jimbokun 3y agoMany of the people working for Bezos, Musk, Jobs, Zuckerberg, Larry and Sergey, etc. have made a lot of money and live very comfortable life styles. So I don't accept it as a given that becoming wealthy requires inhumane exploitation.
- rockemsockem 3y agoYou know that not every company is Amazon, right? You can't just generalize those terrible experiences to every company. I happen to agree that there needs to be some big legal changes to ensure workers at Amazon and other companies are treated better, because before Amazon it was Walmart, and in 50 years it'll probably be another company. But that doesn't mean you can use Amazon as a reason to legislate personal wealth away.
- yedava 3y agoI'm not singling out any one company. Walmart did indeed pioneer labor exploitation. Amazon just made it more efficient. Facebook, Google got rich off surveilling users and eroding user privacy rights. Focusing on some specific companies serves to obfuscate the fact that this is an exploitative economy built up over decades with policies that weakened society at large. A relatively tiny section of society became powerful enough to rearrange society to their benefit. Bring up the topic of central planning and you'll have everyone pointing out the folly of putting all the power in the hands of a few people. Our corporation ruled society is not that far off from a centrally planned dystopia. Instead of patting our backs comparing ourselves to the communist bloc, we need to focus on the technology we have today and what possibilities the technology could have opened up, and ask why the said possibilities haven't become a reality.