Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Surur t1_j20b5st wrote

If you are going to go off the deep end, you could as easily say all wealth is the result of the person telling them what to do.

It's much more sensible to recognize the system inherent in the labels - labourer implies boss and vice versa.

1

Idrialite t1_j20le6o wrote

Organizing work is a type of labor, yes. Not sure why you think that's a gotcha.

1

Surur t1_j20m1y6 wrote

So in the end, work is irrelevant as a measure of who deserves wealth, since everyone works.

So you know, maybe rail users should stop feeling entitled to subsidized travel.

1

Idrialite t1_j20tgtz wrote

Accepting the premise that wealth generated by a company is attributable to all of its laborers does not lead to the conclusion that work is irrelevant. That just doesn't follow at all.

The relevant conclusion is that the wealth that pays for public transit is attributable to all laborers, of which bosses are a minority.

1

Surur t1_j215sg9 wrote

> The relevant conclusion is that the wealth that pays for public transit is attributable to all laborers, of which bosses are a minority.

I mean, since your method of attributing value appears to be useless, maybe that conclusion is also severely flawed.

1