3 ms·

> People exchange things that are worth less for things that are worth more. In such an exchange, both parties profit, always. In the case above, you exchange h

> People exchange things that are worth less for things that are worth more. In such an exchange, both parties profit, always. In the case above, you exchange hours of your life for food so that you can live another day. There are some goods that have so high a value it will be worth trading almost anything for it. Eating is one, medical care is another. This fact is routinely exploited so that those not in danger of losing those highly valuable things get more out of an exchange. The execs that run McDonald's don't have to worry about acquiring food or health care, they have the class advantage to securely have those things. And yet this same company puts out a spending guide to the workers that get low wages suggesting they have 2 jobs and that they put no money towards health care or heating their apt/homes. Those low wage workers can't simply stop working there, their ability to live and eat is in direct danger from losing that work. Is that a fair exchange? > Also, people are the only source of wealth. Right now, machines are not capable of producing anything on their own, that is why there are no completely automatic factories and nothing gets created without human help, design or at least supervision. It doesn't matter if machines are 100% automated and don't require humans. What matters it that as machine automation gets more efficient and requires less humans to operate, the more previously employed human workers lose their ability to work and therefore their ability to eat and have shelter. And yet the ownership classes don't suffer from this advancement, they still continue to consume and funnel money and resources into themselves. Is that a fair exchange?

tomp 13y ago
1) Yes, by definition. If the workers wouldn't think that they are getting more (food) than they give (time), they wouldn't work. 2) However, the question whether this is socially or even globally fair is not a question of capitalism, but of politics/government. If things continue this way, sooner or later there will be too many unemployed people and there will be a revolt/class revolution. I believe the elite will work hard to prevent it, by introducing some kind of wealth/capital tax that will redistribute wealth to the not-haves.
- mrow84 13y ago
  Your 1) assumes that workers could sustain themselves if they chose not to work. Most useful land in the world is privately owned these days - in Britain a lot of it was taken by force from the people during enclosure - and so workers can't make the choice you claim they are free to make.
- scotty79 13y ago
  > I believe the elite will work hard to prevent it, by introducing some kind of wealth/capital tax that will redistribute wealth to the not-haves. You are an optimist then. I think more popular sentiment seem to be rather that elite will use its advantage to develop surveillance, law and prison system to detain whoever opposes them. After all they had one communist revolution to learn such things have to be actively mitigated. You might argue that keeping poor in prison is a way of providing for them. And since less and less criminal people will go there it might some day become some sort support center for homeless/jobless.

tomp 13y ago

1) Yes, by definition. If the workers wouldn't think that they are getting more (food) than they give (time), they wouldn't work. 2) However, the question whether this is socially or even globally fair is not a question of capitalism, but of politics/government. If things continue this way, sooner or later there will be too many unemployed people and there will be a revolt/class revolution. I believe the elite will work hard to prevent it, by introducing some kind of wealth/capital tax that will redistribute wealth to the not-haves.

mrow84 13y ago
Your 1) assumes that workers could sustain themselves if they chose not to work. Most useful land in the world is privately owned these days - in Britain a lot of it was taken by force from the people during enclosure - and so workers can't make the choice you claim they are free to make.
scotty79 13y ago
> I believe the elite will work hard to prevent it, by introducing some kind of wealth/capital tax that will redistribute wealth to the not-haves. You are an optimist then. I think more popular sentiment seem to be rather that elite will use its advantage to develop surveillance, law and prison system to detain whoever opposes them. After all they had one communist revolution to learn such things have to be actively mitigated. You might argue that keeping poor in prison is a way of providing for them. And since less and less criminal people will go there it might some day become some sort support center for homeless/jobless.