- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
but the shareholders!
It has been unchecked corporate greed. If you just look around or follow twitter pages like more perfect union. Story after story of corporate greed and people coming together to try to make life fair and liveable.
hey recently had one of some big corpos buying up all the land in a state to build their own crypto city. Even that land is for farming is ultra important. Now that group of corpos are suing the people for coming together and not selling.
Revenue - Costs = ???
(??? is corporate profit, so they maximise fees and minimise salaries)
First time under capitalism
Oh my, reminds me of a saying we used to have back under soviet occupation. Translated it would be “If you aren’t stealing, you’re stealing from your family.”. Americans are at the point where that’s the world they live in, but they haven’t yet developed the depressing worldview of the average soviet citizen. Oof…
Here fucking here.
Stock Markets getting those record highs tho. If only people could get paid in shares of the companies that own their labor, but if that happened they’d actually have to answer to the workers and we simply can’t have that in muh free markets
Honestly, i don’t want to get paid in share of the company, i’d prefer cash directly bank into my account so it’s available immediately for me to use on the needs and wants. With share, i need to liquidate it, that took time in negotiation. And if no one want to buy it in a bad year, i’m stuck with shrinking money that i can’t use.
Different story if you work in those big tech of course.
Right because if that happened investors would dump their shares and invest in companies that use slave labor.
Don’t worry because you are free to exploit people as well! Oh, you’re not exploiting, fucking over, and scamming literally every human being you meet? What’s wrong with you. Maybe you’re just not smart enough to screw people over. /$
Wow, that “/$” is art. Congratulations.
/Fully sincere.
Weird that pro capitalist comments with 10 to 50 upvotes are by default above anti corporation takes with 100-200 upvotes.
default sorting ranks recent posts more highly than highly voted ones.
if you sort by top it sorts by score alone, at the expense of newer comments being buried.
The internet has a serious issue with managers, upper management, and even landlords nowadays. It’s so weird to see people slip back into blaming anyone but the real grifters who provide no benefit but take a dollar for no real benefit, or the wage inequality with CSuites. Even people here are falling back into blaming people in their own wage bracket rather than looking at people who provide nothing or paid too much.
As someone who’s worked the peon doing the shit to management, so much of the issue is rooted in insurance and government mandated oversight.
People love to hate on their manager making $20,000-40,000 more than them, but they’re basically the same as you to everyone grifting or the 1%. Quit blaming them for living in a society that both WANTS and REQUIRES massive oversight.
Running a business ethically takes far more money than anyone wants to admit.
Running a business while making sure you follow all government regulations, codes, is insurable, and is cost efficient is even harder.
First, get rid of for profit insurance. They should all work as collectives.
Get rid of for profit healthcare and go single payer. Remove middlemen who provide no benefit. Quit overpaying shit like salesmen because they’re a clear tick that shows more $$$$ and pay people nicely. A housekeeper making $40,000 shouldn’t be $50,000 away from their manager and shouldn’t be $400,000 or more away from their President. Quit overvaluing and paying a rich person to what amounts to having to have someone dedicated to sucking up to other rich people to stay alive.
Understand that the stock market only works with infinite growth. You will need to save up exactly what you plan to use in retirement without the magic of it or compounding interest and redistribute the wealth through unionizing, and collective bargaining.
Understand that all of it takes someone to lead and do it that will need to be paid as well. People want to live their lives happily, not sacrifice themselves and their life out of some noble goodness of their heart. Pay them appropriately and understand that if you’re in these positions, you shouldn’t be paid double what other people make just because you do important work. We all do.
Remember that it takes more people to run anything that we like to admit, and that often these regulations are there for a reason. Find the real fat, and cut it while you can.
Seriously though, blame for profit businesses that should just be government run if they’re a requirement. Insurance/public health, safety/audit oversight, infrastructure, utilities, public health.
Push for cooperatives for things that can be more privatized but get sketchy when it’s all government or full on for profit, like private land ownership, private schools, banking to credit unions.
I agree with the general thrust of what you’re saying, but your comment includes several contradictions. You imply that $400,000 a year is far too high a salary for a president of a company, but then you suggest that we should pay top dollar for a competent leader. You say we shouldn’t be angry at the manager making $40,000 more than us, but you also say to remove unnecessary middlemen.
Generally, I think all of that is unnecessary considerations. As you said, some things just require a lot of people to physically be present for oversight and require a lot of regulations. Where these things are necessary for society, they should be paid for at least in part by taxes. It is immoral to have the bulk of this labor be done on the backs of uncompensated people. It is also immoral to set them up such that only the very wealthy can afford them. The only way to reconcile these two economic facts are through making them a publicly funded service.
This is generating the typical anti-capitalist hate, but we should also consider that this is also a reflection on the kinds of unpaid work that women have been doing for generations. The problem isn’t necessarily profits or middle-men, it’s just that some things are always going to be expensive if people are actually paid for the work they do.
Take daycare. In the US the government says that one adult should care for no more than 3 infants, no more than 4 toddlers and no more than 7 preschoolers.
Take someone working at the US poverty line at about $15,000 per year. That’s $1250 per month. For 3 infants that’s $415 per month each, for 4 toddlers that’s $312 each, for 7 preschoolers that’s $180 each. That’s the absolute cheapest you could possibly go, where a worker is at the poverty line, and there are no costs for rent, supplies, and also zero profit.
But, as a parent, you probably don’t want the absolute lowest “bidder” to take care of your kids. You probably want someone who’s good with kids, kind, gentle, patient, etc. So, let’s not even go all the way up to the lowest possible teacher’s salary of $34,041 in Montana. Let’s say the daycare worker is great with kids, but doesn’t have the teaching background to get even the least well paying teaching job available in the country. Let’s say you’d be willing to have someone who makes $24,000 per year for easy math. That’s a wage where the caregiver is going to struggle to make ends meet in most of the country, but maybe it’s worth it for them because they like working with kids. That’s $2000 per month. For infants it’s $667 per month each or $8000 per year, toddlers it’s $500 per month each or $6000 per year. preschoolers it’s $285 per month each or about $3500 per year.
Again, this is before you consider any profits. That’s money straight from the parents to the caregiver’s salary. That’s before you consider rent, before supplies, before snacks, etc. That’s no reading nook, no library, no arts and crafts, that’s presumably just using someone’s living room.
Now, if the daycare worker is going to be able to take sick days or vacations, you’ll need to pay part of another person’s salary who will cover. So instead of 1 person watching 7 preschoolers, you have 10 people watching 70 preschoolers plus 1 who rotates in to cover when the main workers are unavailable, so make that another 10%. We’re up to almost $9k per year for an infant, and we still don’t have cribs, baby food or a cent in profit, and we have a worker who is barely scraping by.
The point is, any job that involves a lot of human supervision is going to be very expensive. Caring for babies and old or sick people involves a lot of human supervision. Much of this work used to be done by women who didn’t work outside the home. Now that women are working outside the home, even when they have young children, we’re realizing how expensive it is. None of what I’ve talked about involves capitalism or profits, it’s just purely paying someone to do child-care work while the woman does other work.
But, this is where the capitalism / socialism aspect comes in. If we want women to be able to work outside the home, and we also want kids to be something that isn’t financially ruinous, society needs to help pay for those things. In a purely capitalist, no socialism, winner-take-all world, having kids is a major liability. Having an option to not have kids is great, but in the long term society is doomed if nobody is willing to have kids anymore.
This is a very interesting thing to point out, but I believe you are not realising how intrinsically tied the generations of women unpaid work is to the economic system.
“mainstream economic theory is obsessed with the productivity of waged labour while skipping right over the unpaid work that makes it all possible, as feminist economists have made clear for decades. That work is known by many names: unpaid caring work, the reproductive economy, the love economy, the second economy.”
“the household provision of care is essential for human well-being, and productivity in the paid economy depends directly upon [the core economy]. It matters because when – in the name of austerity and public-sector savings – governments cut budgets for children’s daycare centres, community services, parental leave and youth clubs, the need for care-giving doesn’t disappear: it just gets pushed back into the home. The pressure, particularly on women’s time, can force them out of work and increase social stress and vulnerability. That undermines both well-being and women’s empowerment, with multiple knock-on effects for society and the economy alike.”
Doughnut economics - Kate Raworth
Capitalism thrived and keeps thriving in concentrating capital because it is able to get away with not accounting for the value it extracts. This is true for this example of unpaid labour as well as for natural resources extraction, ecosystem damage etc(we are beginning to realize this with carbon tax). That’s the cornerstone of the system function, not just a side effect. The unpaid labour may be starting to be dealt with in the West, but this just means it is aggressively outsourced in third world countries. Without these so-called economic externalities there is no profit (or extremely little of it).
Do I detect a little Barbara Laslett and Johanna Brenner in there? Love the post, chef’s kiss!
This is a really good point. Historically communities have always relied on unpaid/underpaid labor in some capacity. Even mowing your neighbors lawn once in a while could be considered a value of a few hundred dollars (fuck lawns btw) - there has always been this invisible layer of communal support that is now becoming commodified.
Marginalized groups being fairly compensated is an objectively good thing, but the financial stress is real. As society continues to grow even more individualistic, we will probably see additional pressures mount until another fundamental shift happens. I have no idea what that will look like, but it is interesting to think about.
A very interesting and well-written post.
If you went 100 years back in time and told people that school teachers would be dead broke despite making the best financial decisions possible and be nearly homeless despite working long hours they would be fucking shocked.
Being a school teacher, even one for elementary school kids, in the late 19th century was not only a respectable profession, but also decently paid. I think Horrible Histories said that the average school teacher in the 1880s and 1890s in the UK made around 60 pounds sterling a year, which was a fairly decent wage at the time.
Like someone else said, £60 in today’s money is £9k. Per year. What am I missing because that does not sound like a decent wage.
At that time it was.
Holy moly! According to this website that’s over £9000 today! And teachers are risking their physical, mental health and lives, today.
Wait, why are you impressed by £9k per year? That is below minimum range in all western society.
Oops, my brain must have autoconverted “year” to month. That’s… Not good.
And yet my most professional teachers were not paid for teaching.
I’m not advocating lowering the paycheck to increase the professionalism; just highlighting how phantom money are in this equation
Can you elaborate? What phantom money? How was your teacher not being paid to teach? Finally, what makes a teacher more professional than another?
True. I used to teach at a technical school, oh, a quarter century ago now. Seats were something like $500 per person, and I would have a class of 14 to 18 students. So $7,000 to $9,000 worth of tuition per day.
I was making $18 an hour, IIRC? $144 a day?
OH! AND I had to wear a suit and tie every day. So in addition to the usual expenses, there were also drycleaning bills.
After 9/11 class size shrunk to 2-3 people a day and the school went out of business.
This person is soooo close to figuring out that the problem is capitalism. This is capitalism working as intended.
As we all know, you can’t make a critique of capitalism without including “capitalism bad” in your critique.
No sarcasm, that’s actually exactly what we should be doing. So many people, even people who otherwise call themselves conservatives, have opinions that are so close to realizing that everything sucking is the intentional result of concentrating wealth in the hands of a few, and yet when it comes time to vote they believe the bullshit spewed by the owner class and vote against their own interests. It gets tiring pointing out that capitalism is the root of just about every evil that exists today, but if the paid shills don’t get tired of blaming everything on minorities and maliciously mislabeling everything, we shouldn’t get tired either.
Similar to Poe’s Law I guess… I couldn’t tell if the post was intentionally making a point, or if the person was just making observations. Given the average level of intelligence that I usually see on the internet, I assumed the latter.
