6 ms·

> There is no value without labor. While this is generally true, it's also not the entire equation. For example, there's no gain without risk. - When I work f

> There is no value without labor. While this is generally true, it's also not the entire equation. For example, there's no gain without risk. - When I work for someone else, I am offloading some of the risk to that person/owner. When someone starts a company and hires other people... if the company goes belly up, the founder loses their investment; the workers find another job. - When I rent from someone else, I am offloading the risk of owning a property to someone else. If I get a job across the country, I don't need to sell my house at a loss to move. None of this justifies people making insane amounts of money while others are starving. But neither should the worker expect to reap all the benefit unless their also willing to take all the risk.

sgu999 2y ago
> the founder loses their investment So does the bank, and the state that (more often than not) subsidised said investment through diverse vehicles. If the bank goes belly up, we've seen what happens, we collectively contribute to save them... because we're collectively sharing all the risk of investment in our financialized economies. I agree that some people don't want risk and others do, but as soon as you start sharing ownership that dichotomy simply disappears.
- bboygravity 2y ago
  Sure, but using tax-payer money to save malfunctioning banks is pretty much the opposite of capitalism.
  - sangnoir 2y ago
    Crony-capitalism is capitalism, if you don't fall for the no-true-Scotsman fallacy.
- positr0n 2y ago
  We don't collectively contribute to save shareholders. When a bank goes under the depositors are made whole through government insurance programs. Shareholders get nothing. In 2008 I believe bailouts did go to companies to keep them afloat (and thus helped shareholders). However, TARP returned a small profit for the government, so it didn't end up being a gift of free money overall imo. (reasonable people can say that the bailouts were excessive and introduced moral hazard for sure).
jmyeet 2y ago
> When I work for someone else, I am offloading some of the risk to that person/owner. Workers generally risk their lives or simply injury. Owners "risk" capital. I put that in quotes because our government is typically set up to rescue failing businesses and by that I mean bailing out the owners. If the business fails, the owner simply has less money or they have to become a worker. So who is really taking a risk here? > When I rent from someone else, I am offloading the risk of owning a property to someone else. We shouldn't treat housing as an investment vehicle. It is shelter and necessary to live. Every level of government is subordinate to the cause of increasing property prices as society increasingly views housing as a vehicle to build generational wealth. The majority of housing in vienna is state-owned (so-called "social housing"). Any kind of state housing has been successfuly propagandized as a "slum" ("project") but there's no need for that to happen. The UK, prior to Thatcher coming along and dismantling the whole thing, almost completely got rid of landlords simply by being the buyer of last resort for owners that wante dto sell. > None of this justifies people making insane amounts of money while others are starving Our economic system is predicated on withholding basic needs for profit.
- bboygravity 2y ago
  What are you suggesting as a better system? To withold basic needs for profit, you need to be able to provide basic needs in the first place. All of the alternatives I know of can't even reach that point.
  - max_hoffmann 2y ago
    A free market of cooperatives is an alternative. One might call it „cooperatism“, if it needs a term.
  - toyg 2y ago
    After some initial mistakes, the Soviet system did provide basic needs. It was inefficient, badly led, conservative, repressive, ultimately undemocratic, and often produced very mediocre output (crappy houses, etc), but it ensured that everyone had food, shelter, work, healthcare, and education. Neither full-collectivism nor full-capitalism are the final answer.
greenie_beans 2y ago
there is a risk for the worker and renter, too. and opportunity costs. my shelter not being destroyed is extremely more important to me and my life than my landlord who has insurance for such things, especially in a place with a housing vacancy less than 1% (aka very very hard to find housing). if i leave, they will have no problem finding a tenant to take my place. any repairs and maintenance are essentially paid for by my rent. they raised property taxes? no problem, just raise rent... from my POV, seems like a low risk investment to be a landlord.
- WalterBright 2y ago
  Places with 1% vacancy rates only exist when the government prevents more housing from being built, or makes it unprofitable to be a landlord.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- RHSeeger 2y ago
  Other than the risk of being evicted from your rental, a homeowner has most of the risks of a tenant, plus more. And there are a fair number of protections for renters to lower that risk. There are some risks of the landlord being a bad player, which makes the renter's life worse. The landlord has the risks that the renter doesn't (that a homeowner does); which is risk offloaded from the renter to the landlord. The landlord then has the risks of the tenant being a bad player, which can be extremely financially risky (worse than being fired from your job). > from my POV, seems like a low risk investment to be a landlord Your point of view is extremely far from the truth. Especially for landlords that have one or a few places they rent out, it can be extremely risky. Everything from tenants just deciding not to pay (and taking a year+ to evict) to a Pacific Heights situation, where the place is destroyed with no real recourse. Or, on the lower end, tenants just leaving the place in bad shape, with bugs/mice/whatever; that itself can cost tends of thousands of dollars to recover from.
  - greenie_beans 2y ago
hcarvalhoalves 2y ago
The nuance in this argument is that everybody shares risk. Workers take risk not only of the financial kind (choosing to take a job at company A instead of B is a bet), as well as physical risk most times. If we believe shareholder of a oil company is taking more risk than the worker in a platform, we value capital more than labour.
- orthecreedence 2y ago
  Not to mention, non-owner workers still bear some risk by virtue of the fact that they can be terminated at any time without cause. This in itself is a financial risk, as being without employment or income for an extended period of time can be financially devastating. If we want to play the "risk grants ownership" game, then we have to be honest: at some point, the risk of the initial investment is paid off, and the risk the employees take on collectively matches or exceeds the risk of the investors. If we're being logically consistent, ownership would transfer as these risk pools shift. But we're not consistent, and our system doesn't value risk, it values capital.

sgu999 2y ago

> the founder loses their investment So does the bank, and the state that (more often than not) subsidised said investment through diverse vehicles. If the bank goes belly up, we've seen what happens, we collectively contribute to save them... because we're collectively sharing all the risk of investment in our financialized economies. I agree that some people don't want risk and others do, but as soon as you start sharing ownership that dichotomy simply disappears.

bboygravity 2y ago
Sure, but using tax-payer money to save malfunctioning banks is pretty much the opposite of capitalism.
- sangnoir 2y ago
  Crony-capitalism is capitalism, if you don't fall for the no-true-Scotsman fallacy.
positr0n 2y ago
We don't collectively contribute to save shareholders. When a bank goes under the depositors are made whole through government insurance programs. Shareholders get nothing. In 2008 I believe bailouts did go to companies to keep them afloat (and thus helped shareholders). However, TARP returned a small profit for the government, so it didn't end up being a gift of free money overall imo. (reasonable people can say that the bailouts were excessive and introduced moral hazard for sure).

jmyeet 2y ago

> When I work for someone else, I am offloading some of the risk to that person/owner. Workers generally risk their lives or simply injury. Owners "risk" capital. I put that in quotes because our government is typically set up to rescue failing businesses and by that I mean bailing out the owners. If the business fails, the owner simply has less money or they have to become a worker. So who is really taking a risk here? > When I rent from someone else, I am offloading the risk of owning a property to someone else. We shouldn't treat housing as an investment vehicle. It is shelter and necessary to live. Every level of government is subordinate to the cause of increasing property prices as society increasingly views housing as a vehicle to build generational wealth. The majority of housing in vienna is state-owned (so-called "social housing"). Any kind of state housing has been successfuly propagandized as a "slum" ("project") but there's no need for that to happen. The UK, prior to Thatcher coming along and dismantling the whole thing, almost completely got rid of landlords simply by being the buyer of last resort for owners that wante dto sell. > None of this justifies people making insane amounts of money while others are starving Our economic system is predicated on withholding basic needs for profit.

bboygravity 2y ago
What are you suggesting as a better system? To withold basic needs for profit, you need to be able to provide basic needs in the first place. All of the alternatives I know of can't even reach that point.
- max_hoffmann 2y ago
  A free market of cooperatives is an alternative. One might call it „cooperatism“, if it needs a term.
- toyg 2y ago
  After some initial mistakes, the Soviet system did provide basic needs. It was inefficient, badly led, conservative, repressive, ultimately undemocratic, and often produced very mediocre output (crappy houses, etc), but it ensured that everyone had food, shelter, work, healthcare, and education. Neither full-collectivism nor full-capitalism are the final answer.

greenie_beans 2y ago

there is a risk for the worker and renter, too. and opportunity costs. my shelter not being destroyed is extremely more important to me and my life than my landlord who has insurance for such things, especially in a place with a housing vacancy less than 1% (aka very very hard to find housing). if i leave, they will have no problem finding a tenant to take my place. any repairs and maintenance are essentially paid for by my rent. they raised property taxes? no problem, just raise rent... from my POV, seems like a low risk investment to be a landlord.

WalterBright 2y ago
Places with 1% vacancy rates only exist when the government prevents more housing from being built, or makes it unprofitable to be a landlord.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
RHSeeger 2y ago
Other than the risk of being evicted from your rental, a homeowner has most of the risks of a tenant, plus more. And there are a fair number of protections for renters to lower that risk. There are some risks of the landlord being a bad player, which makes the renter's life worse. The landlord has the risks that the renter doesn't (that a homeowner does); which is risk offloaded from the renter to the landlord. The landlord then has the risks of the tenant being a bad player, which can be extremely financially risky (worse than being fired from your job). > from my POV, seems like a low risk investment to be a landlord Your point of view is extremely far from the truth. Especially for landlords that have one or a few places they rent out, it can be extremely risky. Everything from tenants just deciding not to pay (and taking a year+ to evict) to a Pacific Heights situation, where the place is destroyed with no real recourse. Or, on the lower end, tenants just leaving the place in bad shape, with bugs/mice/whatever; that itself can cost tends of thousands of dollars to recover from.
- greenie_beans 2y ago

hcarvalhoalves 2y ago

The nuance in this argument is that everybody shares risk. Workers take risk not only of the financial kind (choosing to take a job at company A instead of B is a bet), as well as physical risk most times. If we believe shareholder of a oil company is taking more risk than the worker in a platform, we value capital more than labour.

orthecreedence 2y ago
Not to mention, non-owner workers still bear some risk by virtue of the fact that they can be terminated at any time without cause. This in itself is a financial risk, as being without employment or income for an extended period of time can be financially devastating. If we want to play the "risk grants ownership" game, then we have to be honest: at some point, the risk of the initial investment is paid off, and the risk the employees take on collectively matches or exceeds the risk of the investors. If we're being logically consistent, ownership would transfer as these risk pools shift. But we're not consistent, and our system doesn't value risk, it values capital.