Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Under Capitalism Nobody Is Paid What They are Worth

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by The Berean View Post

    This definition of "worth" doesn't make sense.

    In your pizza example how do you directly calculate the profit the pizza maker generates?
    Practically speaking, the question you are asking is a dumb question. Why is it a dumb question? Because the capitalist employer actually does that. Before he even advertises a job opening, he's doing a cost/benefit analysis to determine whether or not it's even worth it to hire someone.

    And even if you were to say, "But Traditio, he's not calculating the ability of that one employee to generate revenue. He's calculating the ability of the entire team to generate revenue," my point still fundamentally stands.

    You are worth what you and your employer agree on.
    That's objectively not the case. In the capitalist employer/employee relationship, the employee is going to demand the highest wages and the best benefits and working conditions that the employer is willing to hand over. The employer is going to try to haggle him down to the lowest wages, least benefits and least expensive working conditions that the employee is willing to settle for.

    But there is always going to be an upper limit to what the employer is willing to negotiate. If he's not profiting, you're not getting hired.

    In my current job that I started just three months ago I asked for a salary in the mid six figures. I expected the company to come back with a counter offer. But they didn't. They agreed to my number. No doubt they thought I am worth what I asked for.
    They didn't think that you are worth what you asked for. They thought that you are worth much more than what you asked for. If they didn't, they either wouldn't have hired you, or else, they would have given you a lower counteroffer. If they even thought it would be a WASH to hire you (they would neither gain nor lose anything), they wouldn't have hired you, or else, would have given you a lower counteroffer.

    Comment


    • #32
      For the record, this is why we are seeing the new trend towards automation.

      Employers don't give employees jobs out of the kindness of their hearts.

      They give employees jobs because they expect to get more in revenue than they pay out in wages and benefits.

      If a capitalist employer could maximize profits by eliminating a job and buying a robot, he most certainly will.

      That's also the reason for outsourcing and immigration.

      If a capitalist employer could maximize revenues by shipping your jobs over to Mexico and China, or by hiring immigrants (legal or otherwise) for peanuts, then that's what he's going to do.

      Capitalism is great for the owner class.

      It's not so great for everyone else.

      That's what's so significant about the Andrew Yang campaign. If you consider the natural orientation of capitalism, a UBI is the only way to save capitalism. Half of the jobs are projected to be automated away within the next 10 years, including truck driving and call center jobs. Unemployment is going to be a real problem.

      A UBI (in effect, bread and circuses) would at least temporarily save capitalism by preventing a popular demand for an economic revolution.

      But if capitalism needs saving in the first place, it's not worth saving.

      We don't need reform. We need revolution.

      We don't need to "fix" the system.

      We need a different system.

      #SeizeTheMeansOfProduction

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Traditio View Post
        For the record, this is why we are seeing the new trend towards automation.

        Employers don't give employees jobs out of the kindness of their hearts.

        They give employees jobs because they expect to get more in revenue than they pay out in wages and benefits.

        If a capitalist employer could maximize profits by eliminating a job and buying a robot, he most certainly will.

        That's also the reason for outsourcing and automation.

        If a capitalist employer could maximize revenues by shipping your jobs over to Mexico and China, or by hiring illegal immigrants for peanuts, then that's what he's going to do.

        Capitalism is great for the owner class.

        It's not so great for everyone else.

        That's what's so significant about the Andrew Yang campaign. If you consider the natural orientation of capitalism, a UBI is the only way to save capitalism. Half of the jobs are projected to be automated away within the next 10 years, including truck driving and call center jobs. Unemployment is going to be a real problem.

        A UBI (in effect, bread and circuses) would at least temporarily save capitalism by preventing a popular demand for an economic revolution.

        But if capitalism needs saving in the first place, it's not worth saving.

        We don't need reform. We need revolution.

        We don't need to "fix" the system.

        We need a different system.

        #SeizeTheMeansOfProduction
        So if the workers took control of the factories they would not use robots and automation?

        Your problem is not technology. The problem is YOU. You lack the will to change...You treat this planet as you treat each other. - Klaatu

        What are you talking about? There is no such thing as the "Mafia"......it doesn't exist. Just a bunch of lies told to defame honest hardworking Italians like myself. - TomO

        I will do you, let's see, goofy, wacky, and to the left side of the bell curve
        . -Ktoyou

        I'm white. I'm not black. I can't convert to being black. It doesn't matter how much I want to become black. I could listen to rap and date fat white women all day; for all that, I'll still remain white.- Traditio

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by The Berean View Post

          So if the workers took control of the factories they would not use robots and automation?
          Of course they would. But instead of firing a bunch of people and having all of the profits go to the top, they would just work fewer hours and share in the revenue being generated.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Traditio View Post

            Of course they would. But instead of firing a bunch of people and having all of the profits go to the top, they would just work fewer hours and share in the revenue being generated.
            Working fewer hours results in less pay during a pay period.

            Seems to be a good way to make less money, by working less...

            What was it that Paul said?

            Oh right!

            "If a man does not work, he shall not eat."

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post

              Working fewer hours results in less pay during a pay period.

              Seems to be a good way to make less money, by working less...
              I'll explain it the same way that Marxist economics professor Richard Wolff explains it:

              Let us suppose we are talking about farming. We have a large farm that requires some 50 or so workers to man it.

              But all of a sudden, we get a machine that makes it so that we only need 25 workers to produce the same output.

              There's two possible results:

              1. You can fire half of the workers and hand over more of the revenue to the owner.

              2. You can get rid of the owner, have all of the workers work half as much, but pay them the same wages.

              What was it that Paul said?

              Oh right!

              "If a man does not work, he shall not eat."

              I agree with St. Paul

              That's why I am an anti-capitalist. Under capitalism, the workers do not own, and the owners do not work.

              In the words of Joseph Goebells, "socialism is a philosophy of work." Unlike capitalism.

              "We are socialists because we see the social question as a matter of necessity and justice for the very existence of a state for our people, not a question of cheap pity or insulting sentimentality. The worker has a claim to a living standard that corresponds to what he produces. We have no intention of begging for that right… Since the political powers of the day are neither willing nor able to create such a situation, socialism must be fought for. It is a fighting slogan both inwardly and outwardly. It is aimed domestically at the bourgeois parties and Marxism at the same time, because both are sworn enemies of the coming workers’ state. It is directed abroad at all powers that threaten our national existence and thereby the possibility of the coming socialist national state" (Joseph Goebells, 1932).

              "The worker in a capitalist state—and that is his deepest misfortune—is no longer a living human being, a creator, a maker. He has become a machine. A number, a cog in the machine without sense or understanding. He is alienated from what he produces" (Joseph Goebells, 1932).

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Traditio View Post

                Practically speaking, the question you are asking is a dumb question. Why is it a dumb question? Because the capitalist employer actually does that. Before he even advertises a job opening, he's doing a cost/benefit analysis to determine whether or not it's even worth it to hire someone.
                It's not a dumb question. You simply lack the understanding of what I am asking. From what I seen in my 20+years working in Silicon Valley is that employers hire when the the number of current employees cannot keep up with demand of their product.

                That's objectively not the case. In the capitalist employer/employee relationship, the employee is going to demand the highest wages and the best benefits and working conditions that the employer is willing to hand over. The employer is going to try to haggle him down to the lowest wages, least benefits and least expensive working conditions that the employee is willing to settle for.
                This is exactly what I said. Again it seems It seems you initial disagreed then your following sentences refuted you own initial statements.
                But there is always going to be an upper limit to what the employer is willing to negotiate. If he's not profiting, you're not getting hired.


                They didn't think that you are worth what you asked for. They thought that you are worth much more than what you asked for. If they didn't, they either wouldn't have hired you, or else, they would have given you a lower counteroffer.
                Nonsense. You have no idea what my employer was willing to pay. Most likely they had a range and my salary request was within that range.

                If they even thought it would be a WASH to hire you (they would neither gain nor lose anything), they wouldn't have hired you, or else, would have given you a lower counteroffer.
                See my previous statement.

                Also, why did you disregard my example of building a satellite? Please explain with literally thousands of people involved in building one satellite how does the employer determine how much revenue each employee produce?
                Your problem is not technology. The problem is YOU. You lack the will to change...You treat this planet as you treat each other. - Klaatu

                What are you talking about? There is no such thing as the "Mafia"......it doesn't exist. Just a bunch of lies told to defame honest hardworking Italians like myself. - TomO

                I will do you, let's see, goofy, wacky, and to the left side of the bell curve
                . -Ktoyou

                I'm white. I'm not black. I can't convert to being black. It doesn't matter how much I want to become black. I could listen to rap and date fat white women all day; for all that, I'll still remain white.- Traditio

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by The Berean View Post
                  It's not a dumb question. You simply lack the understanding of what I am asking. From what I seen in my 20+years working in Silicon Valley is that employers hire when the the number of current employees cannot keep up with demand of their product.
                  Yeah, sure. And that's going to have a bullish effect on wages. But the capitalist employers are still doing a cost/benefit analysis every time they offer a job. If the profits that are generated by meeting the demand for their product does not EXCEED (not match, exceed) what it is going to cost to hire someone, they're not going to do it.

                  This is exactly what I said. Again it seems It seems you initial disagreed then your following sentences refuted you own initial statements
                  But there is always going to be an upper limit to what the employer is willing to negotiate. If he's not profiting, you're not getting hired.
                  Yeah. That upper limit is still less than what you are actually worth. You are actually worth your entire productive capacity. The profits that you generate? Either most of or all of the total amount that the capitalist employer expects for you to generate? That's what you are actually worth. That's not what you're getting paid, though.

                  Nonsense. You have no idea what my employer was willing to pay. Most likely they had a range and my salary request was within that range.
                  Yes. And the upper limit of that range is still LESS than the revenue that you are generating.

                  Also, why did you disregard my example of building a satellite? Please explain with literally thousands of people involved in building one satellite how does the employer determine how much revenue each employee produce?
                  He's presumably calculating the revenue produced by the entire team. He's making a cost/benefit analysis based on the revenue that the satellite is going to end up bringing in.

                  But there IS a cost/benefit analysis being made. That's my point. At the end of the day, the capitalist employer is not hiring ANY of those people unless the team is willing to work for less than what they are actually generating in revenue.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Traditio View Post

                    Of course they would. But instead of firing a bunch of people and having all of the profits go to the top, they would just work fewer hours and share in the revenue being generated.
                    It's obvious you have never worked in a factory before. The workers would work the same or more hours with automation.

                    Tesla has one of the most advanced automation factories in the world. Tesla is infamous for workers their factory workers really hard. If the workers took over Tesla would they work less hours? If they did the company would go out of business.


                    Your problem is not technology. The problem is YOU. You lack the will to change...You treat this planet as you treat each other. - Klaatu

                    What are you talking about? There is no such thing as the "Mafia"......it doesn't exist. Just a bunch of lies told to defame honest hardworking Italians like myself. - TomO

                    I will do you, let's see, goofy, wacky, and to the left side of the bell curve
                    . -Ktoyou

                    I'm white. I'm not black. I can't convert to being black. It doesn't matter how much I want to become black. I could listen to rap and date fat white women all day; for all that, I'll still remain white.- Traditio

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by The Berean View Post

                      It's obvious you have never worked in a factory before. The workers would work the same or more hours with automation.

                      Tesla has one of the most advanced automation factories in the world. Tesla is infamous for workers their factory workers really hard.
                      OF COURSE THEY DO!

                      What part of this are you not getting?

                      The point of automation under capitalism is not to make life easier for the workers. It's to maximize revenue by decreasing labor costs. If you have an automated factory, you are still going to need workers. You're just going to need less of them, and you're going to try to maximize the revenues generated by the workers that you still have.

                      If the workers took over Tesla would they work less hours?
                      By hiring a few more people.

                      Basically, this is what you are doing.

                      We have a farm with 50 people. A machine comes around and makes it so that we only need 25 now. The capitalist employer fires half of his employees and works the remaining half to the bone.

                      You're looking at that and saying: "What, if the remaining 25 revolted against their employer and seized the farm, they would work less? The farm would go out of business!" Meanwhile, you're conveniently forgetting the fact that we started with 50 people, not 25.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Traditio View Post

                        OF COURSE THEY DO!

                        What part of this are you not getting?

                        The point of automation under capitalism is not to make life easier for the workers. It's to maximize revenue by decreasing labor costs. If you have an automated factory, you are still going to need workers. You're just going to need less of them, and you're going to try to maximize the revenues generated by the workers that you still have.
                        And you really believe under socialism factory workers will have easier lives? What i am getting is that you do not really understand how factories work and what really motivates people. People are primarily motivated by self interest. You seem to be under some odd delusion that under socialism people will be treated better. History completely refutes that idea.

                        I'm amazed you quoted Joseph Gobbells. He was the Ministry of Propaganda for the Nazi's. I wouldn't take anything he says about anything seriously or at face value.


                        Your problem is not technology. The problem is YOU. You lack the will to change...You treat this planet as you treat each other. - Klaatu

                        What are you talking about? There is no such thing as the "Mafia"......it doesn't exist. Just a bunch of lies told to defame honest hardworking Italians like myself. - TomO

                        I will do you, let's see, goofy, wacky, and to the left side of the bell curve
                        . -Ktoyou

                        I'm white. I'm not black. I can't convert to being black. It doesn't matter how much I want to become black. I could listen to rap and date fat white women all day; for all that, I'll still remain white.- Traditio

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by The Berean View Post
                          And you really believe under socialism factory workers will have easier lives? What i am getting is that you do not really understand how factories work and what really motivates people. People are primarily motivated by self interest. You seem to be under some odd delusion that under socialism people will be treated better. History completely refutes that idea.
                          I agree with you on this fundamental point: self-interest is a powerful motivation. That's why I'm not a capitalist. The interests of the bourgeoisie and the interests of the proletariat are diametrically opposite. Under capitalism, it is the interests of the bourgeoisie that win out. Under socialism, the self-interest of the working class is what prevails.

                          If you're a capitalist and you do not own the means of production, then you are a...hm...

                          What are you? Right wingers had a certain term for left wingers back in 2016. I can't seem to remember what it was...

                          What do you call someone who sells out his own interests for the interests of someone else?

                          Also, does history refute the idea that in capitalist societies, workers are treated worse? In Soviet Russia, people had a right to a job.

                          Do people in the US?

                          I'm amazed you quoted Joseph Gobbells. He was the Ministry of Propaganda for the Nazi's. I wouldn't take anything he says about anything seriously or at face value.
                          Before the night of long knives, Joseph Goebells talked sense. Presumably because he was ideologically aligned with the Strasser brothers.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Traditio View Post

                            I agree with you on this fundamental point: self-interest is a powerful motivation. That's why I'm not a capitalist. The interests of the bourgeoisie and the interests of the proletariat are diametrically opposite. Under capitalism, it is the interests of the bourgeoisie that win out. Under socialism, the self-interest of the working class is what prevails.
                            And every socialist system ever implemented has utterly failed. I'm reminded of Che Guevara who tried to change an entire society and immerse it in Marxism. It was an utter failure.


                            Economic vision and the "New Man"

                            "Man truly achieves his full human condition when he produces without being compelled by the physical necessity of selling himself as a commodity."

                            — Che Guevara, Man and Socialism in Cuba[

                            At this stage, Guevara acquired the additional position of Finance Minister, as well as President of the National Bank. These appointments, combined with his existing position as Minister of Industries, placed Guevara at the zenith of his power, as the "virtual czar" of the Cuban economy. As a consequence of his position at the head of the central bank, it became Guevara's duty to sign the Cuban currency, which per custom bore his signature. Instead of using his full name, he signed the bills solely "Che".It was through this symbolic act, which horrified many in the Cuban financial sector, that Guevara signaled his distaste for money and the class distinctions it brought about. Guevara's long time friend Ricardo Rojo later remarked that "the day he signed Che on the bills, (he) literally knocked the props from under the widespread belief that money was sacred."


                            Guevara meeting with French existentialist philosophers Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir at his office in Havana, March 1960. Sartre later wrote that Che was "the most complete human being of our time". In addition to Spanish, Guevara was fluent in French.

                            In an effort to eliminate social inequalities, Guevara and Cuba's new leadership had moved to swiftly transform the political and economic base of the country through nationalizing factories, banks, and businesses, while attempting to ensure affordable housing, healthcare, and employment for all Cubans. In order for a genuine transformation of consciousness to take root, it was believed that such structural changes had to be accompanied by a conversion in people's social relations and values. Believing that the attitudes in Cuba towards race, women, individualism, and manual labor were the product of the island's outdated past, all individuals were urged to view each other as equals and take on the values of what Guevara termed "el Hombre Nuevo" (the New Man).[155] Guevara hoped his "new man" to be ultimately "selfless and cooperative, obedient and hard working, gender-blind, incorruptible, non-materialistic, and anti-imperialist". To accomplish this, Guevara emphasized the tenets of Marxism–Leninism, and wanted to use the state to emphasize qualities such as egalitarianism and self-sacrifice, at the same time as "unity, equality, and freedom" became the new maxims. Guevara's first desired economic goal of the new man, which coincided with his aversion for wealth condensation and economic inequality, was to see a nationwide elimination of material incentives in favor of moral ones. He negatively viewed capitalism as a "contest among wolves" where "one can only win at the cost of others" and thus desired to see the creation of a "new man and woman". Guevara continually stressed that a socialist economy in itself is not "worth the effort, sacrifice, and risks of war and destruction" if it ends up encouraging "greed and individual ambition at the expense of collective spirit". A primary goal of Guevara's thus became to reform "individual consciousness" and values to produce better workers and citizens. In his view, Cuba's "new man" would be able to overcome the "egotism" and "selfishness" that he loathed and discerned was uniquely characteristic of individuals in capitalist societies. To promote this concept of a "new man", the government also created a series of party-dominated institutions and mechanisms on all levels of society, which included organizations such as labor groups, youth leagues, women's groups, community centers, and houses of culture to promote state-sponsored art, music, and literature. In congruence with this, all educational, mass media, and artistic community based facilities were nationalized and utilized to instill the government's official socialist ideology. In describing this new method of "development", Guevara stated:

                            There is a great difference between free-enterprise development and revolutionary development. In one of them, wealth is concentrated in the hands of a fortunate few, the friends of the government, the best wheeler-dealers. In the other, wealth is the people's patrimony.

                            A further integral part of fostering a sense of "unity between the individual and the mass", Guevara believed, was volunteer work and will. To display this, Guevara "led by example", working "endlessly at his ministry job, in construction, and even cutting sugar cane" on his day off. He was known for working 36 hours at a stretch, calling meetings after midnight, and eating on the run. Such behavior was emblematic of Guevara's new program of moral incentives, where each worker was now required to meet a quota and produce a certain quantity of goods. As a replacement for the pay increases abolished by Guevara, workers who exceeded their quota now only received a certificate of commendation, while workers who failed to meet their quotas were given a pay cut. Guevara unapologetically defended his personal philosophy towards motivation and work, stating:

                            "This is not a matter of how many pounds of meat one might be able to eat, or how many times a year someone can go to the beach, or how many ornaments from abroad one might be able to buy with his current salary. What really matters is that the individual feels more complete, with much more internal richness and much more responsibility."

                            In the face of a loss of commercial connections with Western states, Guevara tried to replace them with closer commercial relationships with Eastern Bloc states, visiting a number of Marxist states and signing trade agreements with them. At the end of 1960 he visited Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union, North Korea, Hungary and East Germany and signed, for instance, a trade agreement in East Berlin on 17 December 1960. Such agreements helped Cuba's economy to a certain degree but also had the disadvantage of a growing economic dependency on the Eastern Bloc. It was also in East Germany where Guevara met Tamara Bunke (later known as "Tania"), who was assigned as his interpreter, and who joined him years later, and was killed with him in Bolivia.

                            Whatever the merits or demerits of Guevara's economic principles, his programs were unsuccessful, and accompanied a rapid drop in productivity and a rapid rise in absenteeism. In a meeting with French economist Rene Dumont, Guevara blamed the inadequacy of the Agrarian Reform Law enacted by the Cuban government in 1959, which turned large plantations into farm co-operatives or split up land amongst peasants. In Guevara's opinion, this situation continued to promote a "heightened sense of individual ownership" in which workers could not see the positive social benefits of their labor, leading them to instead seek individual material gain as before. Decades later, Che's former deputy Ernesto Betancourt, the director of Radio Martí, an early ally turned Castro-critic, accused Guevara of being "ignorant of the most elementary economic principles." In reference to the collective failings of Guevara's vision, reporter I. F. Stone w ho interviewed Guevara twice during this time, remarked that he was "Galahad not Robespierre", while opining that "in a sense he was, like some early saint, taking refuge in the desert. Only there could the purity of the faith be safeguarded from the unregenerate revisionism of human nature".


                            Che was not unintelligent. But he had zero understanding of human nature.

                            If you're a capitalist and you do not own the means of production, then you are a...hm...
                            Are referring to me personally?

                            What are you? Right wingers had a certain term for left wingers back in 2016. I can't seem to remember what it was...
                            I do not recall.

                            What do you call someone who sells out his own interests for the interests of someone else?
                            Hmmm..I'm not sure.

                            Also, does history refute the idea that in capitalist societies, workers are treated worse? In Soviet Russia, people had a right to a job.
                            And yes just about every Soviet citizen lived in poverty and had to wait in long lines for food ans toilet paper.



                            Your problem is not technology. The problem is YOU. You lack the will to change...You treat this planet as you treat each other. - Klaatu

                            What are you talking about? There is no such thing as the "Mafia"......it doesn't exist. Just a bunch of lies told to defame honest hardworking Italians like myself. - TomO

                            I will do you, let's see, goofy, wacky, and to the left side of the bell curve
                            . -Ktoyou

                            I'm white. I'm not black. I can't convert to being black. It doesn't matter how much I want to become black. I could listen to rap and date fat white women all day; for all that, I'll still remain white.- Traditio

                            Comment


                            • #44

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X