4 ms·

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

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 9mo 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...

JackFr 9mo 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...