3 ms·

Nonsense. Capital simply regulates labor competition to be low. Whether it's by increasing migration of cheap labor, policing worker organizing, company towns,

Nonsense. Capital simply regulates labor competition to be low. Whether it's by increasing migration of cheap labor, policing worker organizing, company towns, regressive taxes, or many other strategies. There was one single period in history when this changed for a brief moment and capital learned its lesson to always use its power to keep the workers down. It has done so ever since.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
I think it is more accurate to say that there is simply a larger supply of labor than demand for much of history, resulting in relatively lower wages, and favoring capital holders. You see much higher wages in sectors where demand for workers outstrips supply. AI architects and neurosurgeons don't need labor organization to capture high salaries.
- readyman 2y ago
  Also nonsense, but irrelevant regardless. By exactly your logic, technology has always increasingly displaced demand for labor. This isn't new at all. So-called "reskilling" is always outsourced to the responsibility of labor. The professions you describe are regulated into scarcity on an ongoing basis by capital. Any exception to this rule is simply that. In the aggregate, capital accumulates.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I dont understand your objection. Are you saying that captital regulates AI scientists and Surgeons into scarcity, and that by doing so, they make more profit than if they payed lower salary to those professions?
    - readyman 2y ago
      For AI scientist, the data is not in and it's all financial speculation so a different conversation. For surgeons, yes. The American medial industry is uniquely exploitative so invests a tremendous amount of capital in backing up its claims of prividing the "best" medical care (only for wealthy people). Of course, the American Medical Association and American Association of Physicians play their parts in contributing to the scarcity by lobbying for extremely expensive education requirements that can only be afforded by those with inherited wealth (with a few exceptions only via charity). Just as the feudalist aristocracies, the capitalist bourgeoise pull up the ladders behind them. It only works when capital has an incentive. In the case of a few American industries like medical, those incentives are especially strong. However, such incentives do not exist in almost any other country, and salaries reflect this.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        For Surgeons, you are conflating and blaming the actions of labor and the actions of capitalists. I the AMA and AAP driving up is labor driving up costs in its own interest. Same as any other workers association or union working to restrict supply. Capitalists (e.g. hospital owners), have an incentive for lower salaries. Similarly, its not the owners of salons that pushes things like 1,000 hours of training required for a barber. Just because it is anti-consumer, doesn't make the person behind it a capitalist. My fundamental point however is independent of the reason for scarcity, but that labor scarcity itself is what drive high salary for those roles, and an oversupply of qualified workers drive down supply in other roles.

s1artibartfast 2y ago

I think it is more accurate to say that there is simply a larger supply of labor than demand for much of history, resulting in relatively lower wages, and favoring capital holders. You see much higher wages in sectors where demand for workers outstrips supply. AI architects and neurosurgeons don't need labor organization to capture high salaries.

readyman 2y ago
Also nonsense, but irrelevant regardless. By exactly your logic, technology has always increasingly displaced demand for labor. This isn't new at all. So-called "reskilling" is always outsourced to the responsibility of labor. The professions you describe are regulated into scarcity on an ongoing basis by capital. Any exception to this rule is simply that. In the aggregate, capital accumulates.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I dont understand your objection. Are you saying that captital regulates AI scientists and Surgeons into scarcity, and that by doing so, they make more profit than if they payed lower salary to those professions?
  - readyman 2y ago
    For AI scientist, the data is not in and it's all financial speculation so a different conversation. For surgeons, yes. The American medial industry is uniquely exploitative so invests a tremendous amount of capital in backing up its claims of prividing the "best" medical care (only for wealthy people). Of course, the American Medical Association and American Association of Physicians play their parts in contributing to the scarcity by lobbying for extremely expensive education requirements that can only be afforded by those with inherited wealth (with a few exceptions only via charity). Just as the feudalist aristocracies, the capitalist bourgeoise pull up the ladders behind them. It only works when capital has an incentive. In the case of a few American industries like medical, those incentives are especially strong. However, such incentives do not exist in almost any other country, and salaries reflect this.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      For Surgeons, you are conflating and blaming the actions of labor and the actions of capitalists. I the AMA and AAP driving up is labor driving up costs in its own interest. Same as any other workers association or union working to restrict supply. Capitalists (e.g. hospital owners), have an incentive for lower salaries. Similarly, its not the owners of salons that pushes things like 1,000 hours of training required for a barber. Just because it is anti-consumer, doesn't make the person behind it a capitalist. My fundamental point however is independent of the reason for scarcity, but that labor scarcity itself is what drive high salary for those roles, and an oversupply of qualified workers drive down supply in other roles.