4 ms·
The owner has the privilege of risking capital. The worker has no choice but to work for basic necessities - because they have no capital. The worst case for a
by grafmax 1y ago
The owner has the privilege of risking capital. The worker has no choice but to work for basic necessities - because they have no capital. The worst case for an owner is that they declare bankruptcy - and are forced to join the working class to make ends meet. It’s hardly an exchange among equals.
- SpecialistK 1y agoThat's a big (and almost offensive) assumption. Who is to say that the worker does not have their own alternative sources of capital, such as a farm, inheritance, creative outputs, own company, etc? It's also an assumption that the worst case for an owner is to declare bankruptcy. Depending on the jurisdiction, they may be financially responsible for losses and debts; face civil or criminal charges for their role in the downfall; and reputational damage which prevents them from meaningful employment that someone else would get. It's far from ideal, sure. But it also isn't as black-and-white as you assert.
- grafmax 1y agoIt’s true at an aggregate level. Most workers don’t have capital. And owners dealing with consequences from bankruptcy is still a risk they have the privilege of taking. Jeff Bezos and the Amazon warehouse worker are not equals participating in equal exchange. Owner-worker is an intrinsically unequal relationship, with the deck stacked in favor of the owner.