Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Work, Work, Work – So a Few Can Be Rich

counterpunch.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 153 posts

Re: Work, Work, Work – So a Few Can Be Rich

#31

Post by vladharbuz »

lr4444lr wrote: post #16
vladharbuz wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you assume the only options are being controlled by a different self-serving employer, or having the government regulate everything? After all, shouldn't those who actually form the workforce of a company and shape the products and services it offers be in control? Why not have those who actually do the work collectively control the fate of the company, instead of having to hand over that power to someone else…

Nothing significant stops people from forming worker collectives. Maybe it's telling that they're so uncommon?

You are right that people can absolutely form co-operatives. However, if I wanted to work on, say, World of Warcraft, I could hardly show up and demand Blizzard be turned into a co-operative.

Maybe you meant “well, if people are so upset by the status quo, why don't they just all quit and form their own co-operatives to make Starcraft 3?”. This is a great point, and a really interesting question. I think we should all encourage these more just ways of organising companies, but I think people really hesitate to do this because it's really drilled into us culturally that the current system is the only way. In particular, we want to be successful, and be seen as successful, and we get a lot more points in that category if we work for a successful corporation such as Meta, compared to forming some ragtag co-operative.

I do think, and hope, that this is starting to change. I admire the fact that sourcehut [0] is basically organised as a co-operative, and for that matter, so is Valve.

[0]: https://sourcehut.org/

Re: Work, Work, Work – So a Few Can Be Rich

#32

Post by sparrish »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #14
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #5

If you took all the income from the billionaires and distributed it evenly, the average person wouldn't even get a 2% raise. If you took all the wealth and distributed it evenly, the a average person wouldn't even get $500. In the US - Billionaires have $1.3T: https://americansfortaxfairness.org/billionaires/ That's ~$3880 per US person. Globally, there's a lot more people, and countries aren't as rich as the US. Eve…

The thought that 'billionaires' are the problem is missing the point. There are folks worth the better part of $1T. They are a bigger part of the problem, by several orders of magnitude. The systematic problems are, that the system is rigged so a tiny few skim from everything, leaving the absolute minimum they can get away with for the rest of us.

So stop giving the Trillionaires your money.

They have that trillion because we buy things from them... from Amazon, from Tesla, etc. You don't like those things exist? Stop exchanging your money for their goods/services.

Re: Work, Work, Work – So a Few Can Be Rich

#33

Post by 5350-uiop-1130 »

OrangeMonkey wrote: post #18
becquerel wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can choose who we work for (sometimes), but we can't choose not to work at all. Our engagement in the capitalist labour market is mandatory; otherwise we starve to death. Doesn't sound like we have much control over our labour to me.

I'm concerned my response will be taken poorly so I will try to phrase this well. I hope you take this in the manner I intend it - with love in my heart. We, as humans, are only entitled to what we can ourselves provide. To believe otherwise may be to hoist the black flag to take from others that which they did not earn. Now, we as people are also compassionate and we want the elderly to not starve and we want the in…

> We, as humans, are only entitled to what we can ourselves provide.

So then why do we have inherited wealth, why not ban that. Make things equitable, born with nothing but you can scavenge yourself.

> To believe otherwise may be to hoist the black flag to take from others that which they did not earn.

You mean like "private property"?

Your logic only makes sense in an equitable world, where everyone is born equal, but that's not the case. Just look at the wealth inequalities around the world, like 1% of people owns majority of all wealth.

Re: Work, Work, Work – So a Few Can Be Rich

#34

Post by lbriner »

vladharbuz wrote: post #12
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #5

If you took all the income from the billionaires and distributed it evenly, the average person wouldn't even get a 2% raise. If you took all the wealth and distributed it evenly, the a average person wouldn't even get $500. In the US - Billionaires have $1.3T: https://americansfortaxfairness.org/billionaires/ That's ~$3880 per US person. Globally, there's a lot more people, and countries aren't as rich as the US. Eve…

This is true, but I have a slightly different question to ask. Imagine you work at, say, a game development company, along with 99 other developers. The only other member of the company is a CEO and shareholder, who decides how much to keep for himself and how much to pay the employees, but, importantly, does none of the actual work himself. Let's say the game is wildly successful and the employees are collectively p…

Yeah, I was just thinking something similar. "Rich means someone who earns more than me". As someone pointed out, even earning $50K a year puts you in the top 1% globally and arguments about "it's all relative" aside, I think most people are a bit more attached to their income than they think "rich" people should be.

I think the sad truth is that a lot of us don't necessarily believe deep-down that us forgoing, say, 10% of our potential income will actually be an investment into the world but will simply be sucked up somewhere else. That's why I like schemes like micro-investment where you can see that your money is genuinely invested in making the world better.

Re: Work, Work, Work – So a Few Can Be Rich

#35

Post by OrangeMonkey »

5350-uiop-1130 wrote: post #20
OrangeMonkey wrote: post #3

> Only a radical change in how work is done and who controls this can make labor once again an integral part of life, one through which we can fully develop our capacities as thinking, acting human beings. uhh. The article appears to suggest that we change who controls our labor... #1 - we do, we can quit anytime we want and find another place to work for. #2 - I assume they are railing against private individuals an…

> #1 - we do, we can quit anytime we want and find another place to work for. speak for yourself, i sure as hell can't.

I believe that the point of life is to become more than we are.

My friend - grow to where you can.

I wish you the best.

Re: Work, Work, Work – So a Few Can Be Rich

#36

Post by einpoklum »

bjarneh wrote: post #25

> ...between 1971 and 2018, 3,280 trade unionists were murdered in Colombia. > Is there a solution? Not within this system. No amount of union organizing or progressive legislation will alter the nature of work in it. Why are they killing the union leaders if unionization does not work? The massive push by large industries to get unions out of the mix indicates that unions helps workers massively. Collective bargaini…

> Why are they killing the union leaders if unionization does not work?

They're killing union organizers because unionization _does_ work... when the organizers don't die in the middle of setting up a union.

(Of course, "works" doesn't mean "works perfectly and always", or that unions don't have their own internal challenges and risk of bureaucratization etc. etc.)

Re: Work, Work, Work – So a Few Can Be Rich

#37

Post by vladharbuz »

interfaced wrote: post #26
vladharbuz wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true, but I have a slightly different question to ask. Imagine you work at, say, a game development company, along with 99 other developers. The only other member of the company is a CEO and shareholder, who decides how much to keep for himself and how much to pay the employees, but, importantly, does none of the actual work himself. Let's say the game is wildly successful and the employees are collectively p…

If the game fails are those 99 employees ready to give their salary back? I imagine many places would allow their employees to buy options or stock.

Great question! Maybe they are, maybe they're not, and you're right that this should influence how the company is structured. But our current system goes quite a bit past simply "solving" this problem with investor shareholders, because that sole shareholder is entitled to any future profits the company makes, regardless of whether it makes a completely different game, and regardless of the massive contributions future employees may have made in the meantime. What do you think? I discuss this in more detail in this essay: https://vladh.net/alternatives-to-wage-labour

Re: Work, Work, Work – So a Few Can Be Rich

#38

Post by lr4444lr »

vladharbuz wrote: post #12
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #5

If you took all the income from the billionaires and distributed it evenly, the average person wouldn't even get a 2% raise. If you took all the wealth and distributed it evenly, the a average person wouldn't even get $500. In the US - Billionaires have $1.3T: https://americansfortaxfairness.org/billionaires/ That's ~$3880 per US person. Globally, there's a lot more people, and countries aren't as rich as the US. Eve…

This is true, but I have a slightly different question to ask. Imagine you work at, say, a game development company, along with 99 other developers. The only other member of the company is a CEO and shareholder, who decides how much to keep for himself and how much to pay the employees, but, importantly, does none of the actual work himself. Let's say the game is wildly successful and the employees are collectively p…

No, it is not wage theft, because wages are not assets. The shareholders take the risk. Employees get their salary regardless of whether the game is a success, flop, or somewhere in the middle. Bonuses tread that middle ground. I personally do not like bonuses, but they are exactly that: give the employee the opportunity to partake in the profits in a way that exposes him to some risk.

Re: Work, Work, Work – So a Few Can Be Rich

#39

Post by alexb_ »

lr4444lr wrote: post #16
vladharbuz wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you assume the only options are being controlled by a different self-serving employer, or having the government regulate everything? After all, shouldn't those who actually form the workforce of a company and shape the products and services it offers be in control? Why not have those who actually do the work collectively control the fate of the company, instead of having to hand over that power to someone else…

Nothing significant stops people from forming worker collectives. Maybe it's telling that they're so uncommon?

Did you not read the part where thousands upon thousands of people trying to unionized were murdered?

Re: Work, Work, Work – So a Few Can Be Rich

#40

Post by refurb »

snidane wrote: post #7

Another Marxist in a new coat. Good analysis, wrong prescription. Been there, done that, ended up badly. Look into Georgism, that's where the cool kids are now. You don't need a revolution, you need a minor shift in tax code that you haven't thought of yet. It's not the problem of your employer that prices around you increase, so don't make them a villain that you can't pay your rent. Go complain to your slumlord for…

You got on the one hand, the Open Free Market System in America, you have on the other hand, the exact opposite, the closed, controlled, command economy of the Soviet Union…

The Chinese tried the Communist model, with their own modifications, and it failed! And they have admitted that it failed.

The kids today talk as if these things have never happened. They haven’t learned!

Post reply on HN