I don’t think you actually understand union/communist philosophy if you think “rigid promotion structure where the managerial class always has more money and power than the laborer is super worker friendly
That… is not at all what I’m saying, nor implying.
I’m actually agreeing with you that the managerial system should not have more power and/or money, but if that class wants more labor from you it is only fair they cede some power and money.
I’m saying that not compensating someone for more complex labor, to benefit an owner, is never worker friendly.
You can compensate in other ways than money and benefits, and you can remove the exploitative/segregating systems by paying everyone enough and not extracting value (as owner profits do), but both require collective action.
And other things as well, like vision, plan and funding. But without collective action, the only incentive is for the owning class to squeeze you tighter and manipulate you to blame the worker class.
Thats… fine, and I agree, it’s just so odd that so many people read my comment where I said “well, in some circumstances it makes sense that a promotion wouldn’t automatically confer more money” and so many people just instantly made up arguments wherein they’re making me out to say that “you should do more work for the same pay!”.
It’s just bizarre, it’s frustrating a bit. Because a lot of these people view themselves as progressive leftists as I do - but they’re utterly incapable of visualizing any job structure other than their own, and they end up advocating for what is essentially a “money funnels up” system by making this implicit assumption everyone at the bottom of the totem is doing ‘less work’ than the people in the middle or the top.
So we’ve agreed this whole time, but I feel like in haste to ‘make a point’ there’s been some hostility
I apologise if there’s been perceived hostility towards you. I aimed for being hostile of the rhetoric and framework of what has been active manipulation and corporate propaganda for almost a century, and probably longer in non-corporations.
The medium doesn’t lend itself well to nuances, but I did not intend to aim any hostility to you as a person, only the rhetoric, and I’m very sorry if the delineation wasn’t sufficiently communicated.
I don’t think you actually understand union/communist philosophy if you think “rigid promotion structure where the managerial class always has more money and power than the laborer is super worker friendly
That… is not at all what I’m saying, nor implying.
I’m actually agreeing with you that the managerial system should not have more power and/or money, but if that class wants more labor from you it is only fair they cede some power and money.
I’m saying that not compensating someone for more complex labor, to benefit an owner, is never worker friendly.
You can compensate in other ways than money and benefits, and you can remove the exploitative/segregating systems by paying everyone enough and not extracting value (as owner profits do), but both require collective action.
And other things as well, like vision, plan and funding. But without collective action, the only incentive is for the owning class to squeeze you tighter and manipulate you to blame the worker class.
Thats… fine, and I agree, it’s just so odd that so many people read my comment where I said “well, in some circumstances it makes sense that a promotion wouldn’t automatically confer more money” and so many people just instantly made up arguments wherein they’re making me out to say that “you should do more work for the same pay!”.
It’s just bizarre, it’s frustrating a bit. Because a lot of these people view themselves as progressive leftists as I do - but they’re utterly incapable of visualizing any job structure other than their own, and they end up advocating for what is essentially a “money funnels up” system by making this implicit assumption everyone at the bottom of the totem is doing ‘less work’ than the people in the middle or the top.
So we’ve agreed this whole time, but I feel like in haste to ‘make a point’ there’s been some hostility
I apologise if there’s been perceived hostility towards you. I aimed for being hostile of the rhetoric and framework of what has been active manipulation and corporate propaganda for almost a century, and probably longer in non-corporations.
The medium doesn’t lend itself well to nuances, but I did not intend to aim any hostility to you as a person, only the rhetoric, and I’m very sorry if the delineation wasn’t sufficiently communicated.