4 ms·
Exploitation? Thousands of people are getting paid $90k to paint pointless characters nobody will ever see. It's not exploitation because one of them succeeds.
by bobxmax 1y ago
Exploitation? Thousands of people are getting paid $90k to paint pointless characters nobody will ever see. It's not exploitation because one of them succeeds.
- suddenlybananas 1y agoIt's a technical term. She produced immense value and she didn't receive it, someone else took it. That's exploitation in Marxism. I also don't get where you get these idea that there's this huge glut of artists producing work that's unpopular and getting paid for it. If you're at the point you're getting paid 90k a year, you're working in studios that almost certainly turn a profit.
- AstroBen 1y agoThe vast majority of startups lose money for their founders. So if that happens the founders should have been paid? The workers were the exploiters? I've hired people first hand for projects that ended up being a flop. They made out much better than I did Someone has to take the risk. It's not guaranteed it'll be a risk with a positive expected value either
- suddenlybananas 1y agoYou know that if an employee works at a start up that goes under, they also face risk right? Like you're aware that people get laid off and fired?
- dahart 1y agoThe entire reason someone takes the risk is for the chance to have a ‘positive’ expected value, which in startup land means the company gets really big, hires a lot of people, and makes a lot of money for the owners (founders & investors) by selling a product for more money than they pay the workers. Startup investors often treat this like an odds game, expecting that while 9 out of 10 investments might fail, one of them will return better than 10x, which turns into a net profit on investments. The “risk” might be relatively big for small investors, but it’s quite low for the bigger savvier institutional investors. Startups are economically interesting, but they are not the majority of the economy. When evaluating parent’s argument, don’t forget to think about companies like Walmart, Amazon, Exxon, and Disney.
- AstroBen 1y ago> Startup investors often treat this like an odds game Yeah, it's not free profit though. If you're not good at choosing investments you end up with 9 out of 10 failing, and 1 only making 2x. That's what I mean by there are no guarantees of it It's very easy to look at an isolated case where they made 10x and see it as unfair.. and miss the 9 other shots they took which lost money. Or hell the 90 other shots, and they're still in the hole overall > When evaluating parent’s argument, don’t forget to think about companies like Walmart, Amazon, Exxon, and Disney. Yeah these are definitely a different ballgame. Not sure where I stand on it - I don't know enough about the economics of that
- dahart 1y agoI agree, and it’s objectively true, that there are no guarantees on investment. I don’t think GP was making any arguments that implied otherwise. > It’s very easy to look at an isolated case where they made 10x and see it as unfair “Unfair” is subjective and an insanely deep topic we can’t even begin broach here thoughtfully. It’s always true that a profitable company has incomes that exceed its costs, by definition. Since costs include employee pay, it’s always true in a profitable company that employees are collectively providing a greater value to the company than they are capturing for themselves. You’re still arguing from a failed startup perspective, and by and large, failing and failed startups are not running the economy, nor are even a significant portion. The majority of people in the economy are working for someone else’s profitable company. People who have money do take risks on startups for the chance make it big, but those people had money to begin with.
- brookst 1y agoWhat studios consistently turn a profit? They have years where they make hundreds of millions, years when they lose hundreds of millions. It is weird to want the security of a paycheck, participation in unlikely huge successes, and no exposure to much more likely flops.
- marbletiles 1y agoIt’s not weird at all; in other circumstances we call it a bonus. You get baseline security by trading away the unlimited upside, but you are still incentivised to produce your best work by knowing if you help create a huge success you’ll get additional compensation for it.
- suddenlybananas 1y agoYou don't get security. You can be fired easily. It's workers who face the consequences of the risks taken on by capitalists.
- brookst 1y agoWorkers absolutely do, but their upsides and downsides are limited. No worker is going to lose $1B on a bad bet.
- pastor_williams 1y agoHow would her work operate under Marxism? Would she get to keep the immense value? That's not my understanding of Marxism but maybe I'm mistaken.
- suddenlybananas 1y agoI'd recommend reading about what surplus labour is so that you could better understand the relevant arguments.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- bobxmax 1y agoShe didn't produce value. Someone else created value out of what she created. You ironically and accidentally stumbled onto the very reason Marxism has always failed so miserably.
- suddenlybananas 1y agoThis is an insane point of view. I genuinely don't understand how you can hold it. You don't think the person who actually made the product is the one who made the value? Do you believe in magic? Are capitalists just bestowing magic juju that creates value and any actual labour and hard work is irrelevant?
- exitb 1y agoThe product is a cartoon (and associated services, merchandise), not the idea. There were countless people involved in creating the set of products, even if just one person came up with the concept.
- suddenlybananas 1y agoSorry, I think we're talking cross-purposes here. I agree that the workers are the ones who should receive the profits. The art director is one such worker (out of many).