*EDIT: I love that people will say ‘hey, read up before forming an opinion’, and just ignore that I’m literally not forming an opinion and acknowledging it’s because I don’t know. This is very unreasonable.
I’m saying a man deserves to die by lion attack if he robs people of their labor. Also, this is a hypothetical, as the first part of the sentence “if that’s true” means we’re discussing a hypothetical and not expressing an opinion on this specific case.
…not that I’d expect random folks on Lemmy to understand nuance, and maybe don’t simply make things up and put words in other people’s mouths while you’re at it. Thank you.
What is the lowest wages/(wages+profits) (after all energy, taxes, transport, marketing costs are removed) ratio that workers should tolerate? I’d say a min of 70%, but OECD countries have slipped to 55%.
PS: Bear in mind that this microeconomic wage share links up with inequality macroeconomically. And inequality leads to the decay of democracies and rule of law (because with depressed wage share economic indicators you may still have great growth numbers, but if nobody feels it in their wallet, they go vote for the loudest village idiot)
I’m just writing this to be more constructive than the average tankie, but to also make it clear that the neoliberal approach to things has unintended social consequences that end up eating your pretty conceptions of markets, risk, investment and innovation and people are growing tired of it. FDR knew this, but nobody high up seems to care anymore about regulating these forces, because that would be “socialism”.
If that’s true, then he deserves it.
*EDIT: I love that people will say ‘hey, read up before forming an opinion’, and just ignore that I’m literally not forming an opinion and acknowledging it’s because I don’t know. This is very unreasonable.
If what’s true? He had money? Maybe read up on the dude for a minute and make a real opinion. Sounds like the guy was a stand-up individual.
You’re saying that a man deserves to die by lion attack if he has money.
Lemmy is a cesspool sometimes.
False.
I’m saying a man deserves to die by lion attack if he robs people of their labor. Also, this is a hypothetical, as the first part of the sentence “if that’s true” means we’re discussing a hypothetical and not expressing an opinion on this specific case.
…not that I’d expect random folks on Lemmy to understand nuance, and maybe don’t simply make things up and put words in other people’s mouths while you’re at it. Thank you.
Oh - I wasn’t putting words in your mouth. I understood it was a “hypothetical”. And it’s still awful and you should be ashamed of yourself…
Meh. True value is debatable. What value did the person who came up with the idea and the person who risked capital to make it happen contribute?
how’s the boot taste?
Lemmy never disappoints. I like it here.
What is the lowest wages/(wages+profits) (after all energy, taxes, transport, marketing costs are removed) ratio that workers should tolerate? I’d say a min of 70%, but OECD countries have slipped to 55%.
PS: Bear in mind that this microeconomic wage share links up with inequality macroeconomically. And inequality leads to the decay of democracies and rule of law (because with depressed wage share economic indicators you may still have great growth numbers, but if nobody feels it in their wallet, they go vote for the loudest village idiot)
I’m just writing this to be more constructive than the average tankie, but to also make it clear that the neoliberal approach to things has unintended social consequences that end up eating your pretty conceptions of markets, risk, investment and innovation and people are growing tired of it. FDR knew this, but nobody high up seems to care anymore about regulating these forces, because that would be “socialism”.