• Killercat103@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    As if they generated that income from their own labour and fairly nontheless. Yeah they profited from hard work. All the hard work of people working for them

      • Killercat103@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Personally, I believe a worker is entitled to all they create. I’m not going to deny the initial investment of the company is a risk taken and getting a bussiness on its feet requires active effort. But this opportunity is not amongst the many and most business starters are already quite well off and appeals to investors for growth which requires favorability of yet more well off people. Not to mention more well of bussinesses are less affected by law with breaking the law becoming an investment eventually making anticompetitive practices prevalent.

        While I do of course support personal property. Personally, I do not believe private property is justified as I believe it creates a wealth disparity and hierarchial power (Socialist here and relevant to workers being entitled to their labour). When working for a private bussiness. The owners of this bussiness get the surplus labour value of what you produce on the grounds of owning thus private property. I do not believe the existing ownership of this property is a justified income as it is a passive income independent of whether you do work or not.

      • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Let us assume average CEO-to-worker pay ratio 70-to-1

        The CEO does lots of work managing the company.

        Do they work 70 times harder than their workers?

          • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I’m not sure. How do you qualify 70 times harder?

            70 times the amount of skill or 70 times the amount of experience or 70 times the amount of physical exertion. Something.

            But that’s not how they are paid. Instead, they are paid a market rate. Just like me. And the market doesn’t care how hard you work.

            How would you feel if you and a co-worker both closed deals, only you worked much harder and closed a deal that earned the company twice as much money? Should you both be compensated the same?

            Clearly not, but because I am paid an hourly wage I get the same amount of compensation no matter how hard I work.

            Should your pay be tied to how much you’re earning the company?

            Maybe, or maybe just tied to the value of my labor.

            That’s not what happens. Instead I am paid a market rate i.e. they pay me as little as they can without causing me to find a different job. They do this to create profits, because all profit is literally just the revenue that’s left over after expenses. I am one of those expenses, ergo-

            Ultimately what are they worth?

            The market says they are worth 70 times as much as I am.

            They are not.

              • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’m extremely excited about cybernetic economic planning as AI and quantum computing become a reality.

                Central planners couldn’t make a centrally planned economy work with traditional paper book keeping, and even with computers and internet it would be extremely difficult and require an army of bureaucrats so huge it would strain the entire economy. When that process can be automated, with a market AI to handle pricing and supply and production and everything, then we can finally abolish the market.