Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Salty-Leg-9037 t1_j9a6k3w wrote

Reply to comment by SecretLadyMe in Eversource doubles pay for CEO as 'skyrocketing' electric bills hit customers by WellSeasonedUsername

You mean the system that's worked for 100s and hundreds of years? Do you think that an employee of a business, who trades his time for money, deserves all of the same benefits as these owner of the company he's employed under? Where has the employee risked his financial wellbeing to deserve the same as the business owner? Why would it be expedient for anyone to run a business where you make the same as your employees? Does that employee do the same amount of work as the CEO keeping the business going? The sooner you accept that it costs money to live in this world and you have to earn a paycheck to live in it the better off you are. The alternative, isn't an alternative at all (social universal basic income), it is impossible for everyone to be a dependent somebody pays. You don't have to work a job if you're living in the wilderness, but you will work to survive. Nothing is possible without some trade. And I don't think capitalism is ruining anyone's life, including yours. That phone or computer you are using to argue your point is part of that system. Did your phone ruin your life? This is the mentality of the perpetual student. A growing debt and a wealth of useless knowledge un-applicable or translateable to the work force. So yes capitalism represents a free society. You were taught to think otherwise because of global bureaucratic ambitions of you your handlers.

−6

madnessdanz t1_j9a7web wrote

>system that's worked for 100s and hundreds of years?

That's not a long time, at all.

And you seem to be confusing the definition of capitalism, and production?

You can have the production of goods without capitalism.

8

ogcrusader1095 t1_j9ad71j wrote

So I’m going to start by saying that just because an institution has stood for X amount of time does not mean it is inherently beneficial. I also would like to say that working class people do deserve higher monitory compensation for the work and the capital that they bring in. There is no capital being produced without the worker. The only thing that the employer has “risked” is becoming a park of the working class while the worker is held at borderline poverty to make sure they understand that if they can’t work they will become a part of the homeless population. Now tell me u/Salty-Leg-9037, in what world is it ok to have one man collect the salary and benefits of hundreds of workers simply because he “owns” the company. He risks only becoming a worker if his business fails. Capitalism only works if there is free and abundant competition, which there is none in today’s society. It has become a monopolist market and there are no real competitors, meaning the price on everything is increasing, wages are dropping, the wealth gap is unparalleled and children are starving to death. But I guess its because they don’t work hard enough and pick up extra hours right? Or is it that they didn’t take that financial risk? Give me one good reason why families and veterans and children are starving and freezing to death while capital owners continue to make more and more profits.

4

SecretLadyMe t1_j9ade5c wrote

I didn't say make the same money. I said workers would have control over their labor. They would have more ability to decide what they are willing to work for and the conditions they demand. You know, by organizing and unions and such.

We also wouldn't have bailouts for business and then allow them to buy back stocks and post big bonuses for the c-suite and layoff for the general workers.

2