4 ms·

I challenge you to think about the implications of if you were right. If employment is violence, we should end it. But then almost everybody would die. If pay

by jtbayly 8mo ago

I challenge you to think about the implications of if you were right. If employment is violence, we should end it. But then almost everybody would die. If paying for labor is violence, paying for a product is violence. Nobody should be allowed to buy or sell (or trade). But then everybody would die. In a good economic transaction, whether purchase of product or labor, both parties end up happy with what they got out of the transaction. What is your time not working worth to you? If that value is higher than the money you get paid for your time and labor, then quit. Nobody is forcing you to work. But then, if you don’t have anything to eat, the value of your empty time might decrease in your own judgment. You might think, actually, I’ve got an excess of time and energy, and I’ve got a need for money and food. I think it’s a pretty sweet deal to be able to work and get paid. Not violence.

keybored 8mo ago
That employment is exploitation is evidenced by profits. Employment is a commodity. Any business expects to get more value out of a commodity. Not to break even. > If employment is violence, we should end it. But then almost everybody would die. Everyone would die? Are you assuming that employment gets eliminated and nothing is replaced by it? Anyone who is against the employment relation wants something different. Not something farcical like voluntary self-elimination.
- JackFr 8mo ago
  Can you accept that two parties can make an exchange that leaves them both better off? If you can’t accept that, there’s no real point in any further discussion.
  - K0balt 8mo ago
    Of course! I don’t think I said it couldn’t be mutual.
  - keybored 8mo ago
    > Can you accept that two parties can make an exchange that leaves them both better off? Yes. > If you can’t accept that, there’s no real point in any further discussion. There’s a lot of assumptions packed in to this statement. But you can be the arbiter of the Overton Window. I know that I am swearing in church.
- badpun 8mo ago
  Part of the profits come from employment of capital. Almost no company relies solely on labor, they typically rely on both labor and capital (machines, buildings etc.). Owner of capital wants compensation for their investments, and he gets it via profits. Meanwhile, workers want compensation for their work, and they get it via wages. The exact split between compensation for capital and for work is a subject of negotiation (and often laws).
  - keybored 8mo ago
    The capitalist has more assets and commodities than just the labor commodities? So what?
- jtbayly 8mo ago
  It is correct that the business expects that your time and energy is worth more to them than it is to you. Profit. But then literally every trade between two people—trading four sheep for one cow, say—is exploitation in both directions. I expect to benefit more from the product I receive than I can profit from what I give away. I have plenty of milk but need some wool for clothes. But to improve my own situation is somehow to abuse the other person!? You’ve seemingly declared every form of economic transaction immoral.
  - keybored 8mo ago
    > But then literally every trade between two people—trading four sheep for one cow, say—is exploitation in both directions. No. That could be a win-win. One might be a sheep farmer, the other a cattle/cow farmer. They both gain from exchanging these livestocks. For an employee? See the value produced versus the wages earned. There’s the exploitation. The nice thing about one single universal value—money—is that it makes things like this obvious. Just look at the numbers. It’s just one, single currency. Much easier than comparing livestock...
K0balt 8mo ago
I’m not saying that violence is bad. Farming is violence. Mining is violence. It’s a compromise we make. But ending a session of it shouldn’t be traumatic. And yes, in many cases it’s a win/win. Without farming, many animals would have been hunted to extinction. Instead, they are amongst the most numerous on the planet, but that isn’t much consolation for the march to the slaughterhouse. Sacrifices are made. Compromises are accepted. Often, it’s good. Often it’s exploitation. Often it is perhaps worse than slavery, and often it is a path to relative wealth. It shouldn’t be part of one’s identity or sense of worth, to be a really exploitable person, even if it’s to your own advantage at times.
- strken 8mo ago
  Losing your house because you couldn't pay the mortgage is violent, or at least backed by the threat of violence: what happens if you refuse to leave? In a looser sense, so are having your utilities cut off, losing your children because you can no longer afford to care for them, skipping meals, driving an unregistered car that will get you into an altercation with the police, and everything else that comes as a result of poverty and unemployment. I'm a little baffled by what you believe the consequences of a layoff are.
- bigstrat2003 8mo ago
  > Farming is violence. Mining is violence. That's only true if you use a definition of "violence" which is so far outside the accepted definition as to make conversation impossible. Farming and mining are in no way violence unless you resort to idiosyncratic definitions.
  - K0balt 8mo ago
    I guess if you limit “violence” to violence against humans only? I’ve always thought that violence was applicable to animals and plants as well, so I guess we differ there. Intentional harm that causes death is firmly in the violence category, imho. the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy is pretty much the accepted definition, afaik I’m not thinking of violence as some kind of universal bad thing though, it’s part of the natural world.
latchup 8mo ago
> If employment is violence, we should end it. But then almost everybody would die. You need to try out for the jumping to conclusions olympics team, that was an impressive leap there! Jokes aside, we can absolutely reject the basis of our current economic system on the basis that it is cruel and violent and replace it with something better, and it would be far from the first time we did that. By your logic, the end of feudalism or the abolishment of slavery should have killed entire countries... And I doubt you are about to explain to us that slavery is not violence (that's one of those ultra-libertarian thoughts of yours you probably shouldn't randomly blurt out).

by jtbayly 8mo ago

keybored 8mo ago

That employment is exploitation is evidenced by profits. Employment is a commodity. Any business expects to get more value out of a commodity. Not to break even. > If employment is violence, we should end it. But then almost everybody would die. Everyone would die? Are you assuming that employment gets eliminated and nothing is replaced by it? Anyone who is against the employment relation wants something different. Not something farcical like voluntary self-elimination.

JackFr 8mo ago
Can you accept that two parties can make an exchange that leaves them both better off? If you can’t accept that, there’s no real point in any further discussion.
- K0balt 8mo ago
  Of course! I don’t think I said it couldn’t be mutual.
- keybored 8mo ago
  > Can you accept that two parties can make an exchange that leaves them both better off? Yes. > If you can’t accept that, there’s no real point in any further discussion. There’s a lot of assumptions packed in to this statement. But you can be the arbiter of the Overton Window. I know that I am swearing in church.
badpun 8mo ago
Part of the profits come from employment of capital. Almost no company relies solely on labor, they typically rely on both labor and capital (machines, buildings etc.). Owner of capital wants compensation for their investments, and he gets it via profits. Meanwhile, workers want compensation for their work, and they get it via wages. The exact split between compensation for capital and for work is a subject of negotiation (and often laws).
- keybored 8mo ago
  The capitalist has more assets and commodities than just the labor commodities? So what?
jtbayly 8mo ago
It is correct that the business expects that your time and energy is worth more to them than it is to you. Profit. But then literally every trade between two people—trading four sheep for one cow, say—is exploitation in both directions. I expect to benefit more from the product I receive than I can profit from what I give away. I have plenty of milk but need some wool for clothes. But to improve my own situation is somehow to abuse the other person!? You’ve seemingly declared every form of economic transaction immoral.
- keybored 8mo ago
  > But then literally every trade between two people—trading four sheep for one cow, say—is exploitation in both directions. No. That could be a win-win. One might be a sheep farmer, the other a cattle/cow farmer. They both gain from exchanging these livestocks. For an employee? See the value produced versus the wages earned. There’s the exploitation. The nice thing about one single universal value—money—is that it makes things like this obvious. Just look at the numbers. It’s just one, single currency. Much easier than comparing livestock...

K0balt 8mo ago

I’m not saying that violence is bad. Farming is violence. Mining is violence. It’s a compromise we make. But ending a session of it shouldn’t be traumatic. And yes, in many cases it’s a win/win. Without farming, many animals would have been hunted to extinction. Instead, they are amongst the most numerous on the planet, but that isn’t much consolation for the march to the slaughterhouse. Sacrifices are made. Compromises are accepted. Often, it’s good. Often it’s exploitation. Often it is perhaps worse than slavery, and often it is a path to relative wealth. It shouldn’t be part of one’s identity or sense of worth, to be a really exploitable person, even if it’s to your own advantage at times.

strken 8mo ago
Losing your house because you couldn't pay the mortgage is violent, or at least backed by the threat of violence: what happens if you refuse to leave? In a looser sense, so are having your utilities cut off, losing your children because you can no longer afford to care for them, skipping meals, driving an unregistered car that will get you into an altercation with the police, and everything else that comes as a result of poverty and unemployment. I'm a little baffled by what you believe the consequences of a layoff are.
bigstrat2003 8mo ago
> Farming is violence. Mining is violence. That's only true if you use a definition of "violence" which is so far outside the accepted definition as to make conversation impossible. Farming and mining are in no way violence unless you resort to idiosyncratic definitions.
- K0balt 8mo ago
  I guess if you limit “violence” to violence against humans only? I’ve always thought that violence was applicable to animals and plants as well, so I guess we differ there. Intentional harm that causes death is firmly in the violence category, imho. the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy is pretty much the accepted definition, afaik I’m not thinking of violence as some kind of universal bad thing though, it’s part of the natural world.

latchup 8mo ago

> If employment is violence, we should end it. But then almost everybody would die. You need to try out for the jumping to conclusions olympics team, that was an impressive leap there! Jokes aside, we can absolutely reject the basis of our current economic system on the basis that it is cruel and violent and replace it with something better, and it would be far from the first time we did that. By your logic, the end of feudalism or the abolishment of slavery should have killed entire countries... And I doubt you are about to explain to us that slavery is not violence (that's one of those ultra-libertarian thoughts of yours you probably shouldn't randomly blurt out).