| ▲ | Telemakhos 10 hours ago |
| Let's say she has ten employees. They all voluntarily agree to work for her: slavery is illegal, so people work for others on a consensual basis. Both the employer and employee negotiated and consented to a salary or wage schedule for that employee. The employer pays the agreed-upon compensation, and the employee receives it. If the company makes an unexpectedly large profit, the employer is not obligated to redistribute that to her employees in addition to the already agreed-upon and paid compensation. If the employees think that what they agreed to work for is no longer sufficient, they are welcome to renegotiate their compensation or, if they feel they have been wronged and are being paid less than they are worth, to take their talent to a different employer. After all, everything so far has been consensual. The only thing that would be non-consensual would be obligating the employer to redistribute her profit over and above what had already been negotiated. |
|
| ▲ | JimmyBuckets 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| This completely negates the fact that due to how the labor market is structured, most people who sell their labour to survive are in a disadvantageous position for the negotiation you are talking about. What you are talking about works well in a basic economics text book but does not translate to the real world. |
| |
| ▲ | stephbook 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | The cleaning lady at SpaceX doesn't do a better job than that at Walmart. So why should she be paid more? You think she's doing the heavy lifting there? Creating the billions? While the underperformer at VideoBuster / Radio Shack is responsible for tanking the business? That's just not true. | | |
| ▲ | FromTheFirstIn 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Finally, the case for exploitation! So brave to say people who do physical labor deserve less. | | |
| ▲ | hparadiz 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | There's lots of physical labor jobs that pay more. It's all about doing something others can't. | |
| ▲ | stephbook 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I didn't say that. You misunderstood me. Read again. | | |
| ▲ | FromTheFirstIn 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | You are saying that, you just value physical labor so little you no longer recognize it. Read again. | | |
| ▲ | therealdrag0 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | If you think they were commenting on physical labor your reading comprehension is poor. The example job could have been a “non physical” job, say the hallway CCTV monitor, and made the same point. | | |
| ▲ | FromTheFirstIn 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Their point is that labor they consider low impact or menial doesn’t drive returns, and therefore shouldn’t share in the returns. You’re right that the labor being physical is incidental, really they’re just classist/elitist and any job they consider beneath them would fit this model, while others wouldn’t. There’s a reason they chose a cleaner (and a woman!) instead of a product manager or CPA, though the quality is also unlikely to differ between spaceX and Walmart there. Speaking of reading comprehension, they didn’t address the core argument of the person they were responding to, which is that labor that falls “beneath the fold” of this class line is not able to negotiate aggressively due to the inelastic costs of food, shelter, and basic necessities. It doesn’t matter how “high impact” you are, if you’re negotiating and need to eat you’ll accept any amount that lets you eat. In fact, having impact or driving revenue is never the most important factor to reaping the rewards. Anyone who’s worked for a few years with their eyes open should reach this conclusion unless they have some strong motivation not to. | | |
| ▲ | yunwal 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > which is that labor that falls “beneath the fold” of this class line is not able to negotiate aggressively due to the inelastic costs of food, shelter, and basic necessities. Not to mention the U.S. encourages organization of the capitalist class while breaking up (often by force) organization of the working class, so any attempt at the working class gaining leverage in this negotiation is artificially limited. | | |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | babelfish 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
|
| ▲ | didibus 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > If the company makes an unexpectedly large profit, the employer is not obligated to redistribute that to her employees in addition to the already agreed-upon and paid compensation. What if they were ? That's the whole point of the conversation lol. It's like you're side stepping the entire discourse. Maybe the company should be obligated to redistribute it to her employees, or to the public, etc. |
| |
| ▲ | carlosjobim an hour ago | parent [-] | | ... and to you, right? Would you want to take a pay cut if your employer was having financial problems? Why not? Because you have an agreement on what your salary should be. It is fair that it works both ways. |
|
|
| ▲ | bluecheese452 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| And we all lived happily ever after in our frictionless world of spherical cows. |
|
| ▲ | wat10000 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The fact that everything is consensual doesn’t mean the rewards are earned. If I find gold on my land and dig it up and sell it, I haven’t done anything wrong, but I haven’t earned most of that money. I just got lucky. |
|
| ▲ | robotpepi 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| so many people missing the point... try to get out of the box |
|
| ▲ | AndrewKemendo 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
