4 ms·

As I've said, you can be less exploitative. You can't be not exploitative. > happy employees Trader joes employees are not actually paid very well. They're pa

As I've said, you can be less exploitative. You can't be not exploitative. > happy employees Trader joes employees are not actually paid very well. They're paid okay. Also trader joes is not very successful. They're a small niche, only profitable in the whitest and richest parts of the country. > seems rather naive and stupid from a branding and long term return perspective Yes, to an extent. But branding, as I've alluded to, is mostly advertising. The reality of your product is a tiny tiny part of your brand. How your brand is advertised is a much bigger part. Luxury goods are often not actually higher quality. They just advertise to rich people and have big "no poors allowed" signs on the front door. They create an artificial scarcity in people's minds, and monkey brain says "ooo ooo rare = valuable!!" Trader joes is cleaner, sure, and the experience is nicer. But from a food quality perspective, how much better is it than Walmart or Target? ... not much. I can find produce and whole-foods at both locations and I can live an equally healthy life with a diet consisting of only foods from Walmart. But Walmart doesn't have the prices written on cute little chalk boards, so...

nine_zeros 2y ago
> You can't be not exploitative. This is not true. Specifically because you are pointing out that exploitative companies will retain more money than non-exploitative ones and thus not be beaten in competition. However, it is paradoxically also true that the same competition is beaten merely by high quality - leading to higher margins. Cost cutting is not the only way to squeeze margins. > Trader joes employees are not actually paid very well. They're paid okay. Also trader joes is not very successful. They're a small niche, only profitable in the whitest and richest parts of the country. And yet, they are nowhere close to running out of money and have a firm loyalty against cheaper competition. Exploitative cheap is not the only way and you are proving that same point. > Yes, to an extent. But branding, as I've alluded to, is mostly advertising. The reality of your product is a tiny tiny part of your brand. How your brand is advertised is a much bigger part. > Trader joes is cleaner, sure, and the experience is nicer. But from a food quality perspective, how much better is it than Walmart or Target? ... not much. I can find produce and whole-foods at both locations and I can live an equally healthy life with a diet consisting of only foods from Walmart. Yes you can find the same produce at whole-foods or walmart or target. And yet, trader joes survives and is expanding. Once again, you are proving the same point - cheap exploitation is NOT the only way to win.
- consteval 2y ago
  No, because if you're not exploitative that would mean you're producing exactly as much money as you're paying out to your labor, or less. This is impossible in a capitalist system, because you go under. It can be done and sometimes is, but we call that charity. I've seen some businesses that take 100% of their profit and just redistribute it to their employees. But they can never expand, only float, and the company exists on borrowed time. The difference here is made up with capital - as in, we're told the myth that capital is the reason why businesses pay less for labor than it produces. Because they provide the capital. In reality, capital can be democratically owned and capital is also not the cornerstone of our economy. People, labor, is.
  - nine_zeros 2y ago
    > No, because if you're not exploitative that would mean you're producing exactly as much money as you're paying out to your labor, or less. This is an incorrect understanding of exploitation. Even in the most ethical corporation to have ever lived, 100% of the money earned will not go to labor. The money earned by a corporation is always paid out to 1. Employees/suppliers 2. Government 3. Shareholders 4. Company's own balance sheet The exploitation part happens when companies cut on 1 to boost 2, 3, and 4. They do so to boost margins. But strictly speaking, they could cut 2 via tax deduction maneuvers, cut 3 via shareholder return cuts, and cut 4 via plain old not saving more. Cutting 1 is the most visible cut there is. Within 1, they could cut labor, quality, suppliers, advertising, what have you. Everything is shortchanging the company. There are so many levers at play here. Exploitation only starts at stripping your company's assets (labor, loyalty, real estate, supplies, customer goodwill) in order to boost other aspects - usually 3 and 4.
    - consteval 2y ago
      There are economic systems in which 100% of the value produced is paid out to laborers. We're just not in one. > Exploitation only starts at stripping your company's assets (labor, loyalty, real estate, supplies, customer goodwill) in order to boost other aspects - usually 3 and 4. First, this is merely an opinion. It's not a matter of me "misunderstanding" exploitation. It's an opinion that this is when exploitation starts. Also, this is UNAVOIDABLE. You MUST, necessarily, take some money away from labor to give it to 3 and 4. Your entire thought process rests on this word here - "stripping". What is that? When does that begin? Is one dollar stripping? To me, yes, to you, no. What is that magic number? And, if you can find that magic number, why is it correct? And who decides?

nine_zeros 2y ago

> You can't be not exploitative. This is not true. Specifically because you are pointing out that exploitative companies will retain more money than non-exploitative ones and thus not be beaten in competition. However, it is paradoxically also true that the same competition is beaten merely by high quality - leading to higher margins. Cost cutting is not the only way to squeeze margins. > Trader joes employees are not actually paid very well. They're paid okay. Also trader joes is not very successful. They're a small niche, only profitable in the whitest and richest parts of the country. And yet, they are nowhere close to running out of money and have a firm loyalty against cheaper competition. Exploitative cheap is not the only way and you are proving that same point. > Yes, to an extent. But branding, as I've alluded to, is mostly advertising. The reality of your product is a tiny tiny part of your brand. How your brand is advertised is a much bigger part. > Trader joes is cleaner, sure, and the experience is nicer. But from a food quality perspective, how much better is it than Walmart or Target? ... not much. I can find produce and whole-foods at both locations and I can live an equally healthy life with a diet consisting of only foods from Walmart. Yes you can find the same produce at whole-foods or walmart or target. And yet, trader joes survives and is expanding. Once again, you are proving the same point - cheap exploitation is NOT the only way to win.

consteval 2y ago
No, because if you're not exploitative that would mean you're producing exactly as much money as you're paying out to your labor, or less. This is impossible in a capitalist system, because you go under. It can be done and sometimes is, but we call that charity. I've seen some businesses that take 100% of their profit and just redistribute it to their employees. But they can never expand, only float, and the company exists on borrowed time. The difference here is made up with capital - as in, we're told the myth that capital is the reason why businesses pay less for labor than it produces. Because they provide the capital. In reality, capital can be democratically owned and capital is also not the cornerstone of our economy. People, labor, is.
- nine_zeros 2y ago
  > No, because if you're not exploitative that would mean you're producing exactly as much money as you're paying out to your labor, or less. This is an incorrect understanding of exploitation. Even in the most ethical corporation to have ever lived, 100% of the money earned will not go to labor. The money earned by a corporation is always paid out to 1. Employees/suppliers 2. Government 3. Shareholders 4. Company's own balance sheet The exploitation part happens when companies cut on 1 to boost 2, 3, and 4. They do so to boost margins. But strictly speaking, they could cut 2 via tax deduction maneuvers, cut 3 via shareholder return cuts, and cut 4 via plain old not saving more. Cutting 1 is the most visible cut there is. Within 1, they could cut labor, quality, suppliers, advertising, what have you. Everything is shortchanging the company. There are so many levers at play here. Exploitation only starts at stripping your company's assets (labor, loyalty, real estate, supplies, customer goodwill) in order to boost other aspects - usually 3 and 4.
  - consteval 2y ago
    There are economic systems in which 100% of the value produced is paid out to laborers. We're just not in one. > Exploitation only starts at stripping your company's assets (labor, loyalty, real estate, supplies, customer goodwill) in order to boost other aspects - usually 3 and 4. First, this is merely an opinion. It's not a matter of me "misunderstanding" exploitation. It's an opinion that this is when exploitation starts. Also, this is UNAVOIDABLE. You MUST, necessarily, take some money away from labor to give it to 3 and 4. Your entire thought process rests on this word here - "stripping". What is that? When does that begin? Is one dollar stripping? To me, yes, to you, no. What is that magic number? And, if you can find that magic number, why is it correct? And who decides?