Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

XiphosAletheria t1_j206vkk wrote

>It happens every single day. It’s called work. What benefit do I get if a store or a business succeeds?

You continue to have an organization you can sell your labor to. If it fails, you won't, and then you starve.

> It’s the submission of one’s own goals before that of another. It’s exploitative because the employee receives less value than is produced by their labor.

No, they recieve exactly the value of their labor. If you were receiving less than the value of your labor, you would sell it to someone else, instead.

>People work because they have to, it’s a captive audience and there is nothing fair about these arrangements.

Yes, right, you have to work to eat, because food needs to be produced before it can be consumed, and you have to work to get shelter, because houses have to be built before they can be lived in, and you have to work to clothe yourself, because clothes have to be manufactured before they can be worn. But this isn't some terrible unfairness that only occurs under capitalism. That is the nature of reality itself, and would remain true under any economic system.

−8

Funoichi t1_j209jyz wrote

Incorrect. Workers have no attachment to a particular workplace and always have the option of working somewhere else. The success or failure of any particular business is immaterial to the workers.

If I work at a bookstore and sell 10 $10 books, I do not receive $100. That’s what it means for a worker to receive the full value of the work they do. What would the business owner get under this arrangement, don’t know, the value of whatever books they sell also.

Business owners are not entitled to one cent of the value their employees produce. Maybe take 10 percent off for upkeep of the business, other than that, the workers should be getting the same value as they produce.

There’s many other proposed economic systems. Food being produced == food having a cost. You left that part out. X being produced is the part that has to do with the nature of reality. X having a monetary cost is artificial.

9

Ibbot t1_j20gabf wrote

In the world where you sell ten $10 books and get paid, $100, does the store not pay the people who clean, stock the shelves, make sure the registers work, etc? Or is it just required to operate at a massive loss? What about other factors of production, like utilities?

0

Funoichi t1_j20iqao wrote

Certainly I don’t want employers earning a profit off of the work of their employees. Certainly no more than they are making at maximum.

The value that each person contributes would have to be tallied and paid in full. It was a simplistic example.

Someone receives the books and someone buys new ones, I guess you have to chop the value of each book sold into pieces.

That’s kind of a coop model. Then if you want to go full socialism, the workers own the means of production so there’s no books to buy or utilities to pay.

3

ammonium_bot t1_j26k8bq wrote

> and payed in

Did you mean to say "paid"?
Explanation: Payed means to seal something with wax, while paid means to give money.
Total mistakes found: 211
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot ^^that ^^corrects ^^grammar/spelling ^^mistakes. ^^PM ^^me ^^if ^^I'm ^^wrong ^^or ^^if ^^you ^^have ^^any ^^suggestions.
^^Github
^^Patreon

−1

VitriolicViolet t1_j2210t9 wrote

operate at a loss? no the boss just pays themself the same amount as they pay their employees.

its how i run my business, im not doing any extra work and im not the one risking homelessness so why i do i deserve all the rewards and the employees a pittance?

ever heard of Mondragon? largest worker coop is fucking Huawei, you dont need a traditional top-down ruled corporate structure to succeed, at all (as much as the Americans here would like to claim otherwise, they routinely try to claim huawei isnt a worker owned coop cause 'muh ccp')

0

Ibbot t1_j2219yd wrote

>operate at a loss? no the boss just pays themself the same amount as they pay their employees.

Their hypothetical involved every cent of revenue going to paying sales employees, leaving nothing left for paying other employees/expenses, let alone profits. As they acknowledged in their reply to me.

1

XiphosAletheria t1_j20hmq2 wrote

>If I work at a bookstore and sell 10 $10 books, I do not receive $100. That’s what it means for a worker to receive the full value of the work they do. What would the business owner get under this arrangement, don’t know, the value of whatever books they sell also.

Then you have merely failed to understand the value of labor. The value of the labor of a clerk at a bookstore is not equal to value of the books she sells. The value of the book is precisely the sum of the values added by the author, the publisher, the distributors, the bookstore, and, yes, even the sales clerk. She gets compensated for her portion of that value.

−1

Funoichi t1_j20jwfa wrote

And the ceo of the company gets their share, right? No they get significantly more.

6