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

111–120 of 153 posts

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

#111

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

oreally wrote: post #106
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I said you will find outliers. Congratulations. You found one extreme case, and included links to some others. There are many. There are also 5000+ large companies in the US that employ tens of thousands of people. 20,000+ companies globally. This isn't the average. Use a normal distribution, and you'd expect 20+ companies with 3 sigma (where CEO pay would increase pay by 6%+). Corporate profits definitely don't have…

The cynicism is huge in your post. Still you gotta admit there is a problem with CEOs making off with huge salaries/stock value especially in very hot sectors, with some of them even trying to dodge taxes. Sure you can make an argument for the increased salary with the increased responsibilities and risk, but there is no cap there and little say from the employees. When CEOs make a few lifetime's worth of money in a…

> Still you gotta admit there is a problem with CEOs making off with huge salaries/stock value especially in very hot sectors, with some of them even trying to dodge taxes.

I couldn't agree more.

It doesn't mean they're the reason workers aren't significantly richer.

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

#112

Post by pwinnski »

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?

> Nothing significant stops people from forming worker collectives

This seems to be very much in contrast with the linked article. There are significant legal obstacles as well as much resistance in the form of illegal violence.

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

#113

Post by 3pt14159 »

eternalban wrote: post #94
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…

> 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. This is missing the forest for the trees. Immense concentration of wealth affords the power to significantly affect change and mold society. This power in the hands of the few is the actual issu…

Exactly. The vast majority of mom and pop investors don't hold voting shares. They're not connected to the board members. They don't control the corporations their investments are allocated to, other than very tangentially through their ability to exert downward pressure on the stocks.

Billionaires are different.

They own the controlling shares of a corporation, even to the point where their votes count for more in the case of Facebook. They can take on corporate debt then use that to buy another controlling stake into another corporation. Use that corporations assets for more leverage to take out mortgages, etc. Their ability to then borrow against their own stocks gives them even more working capital without paying any amount of tax while they continue to differ capital gains. I'm not even going into the lobbyists or international tax schemes here. Just the power of layered leverage.

I'm not a communist or socialist. I'm usually somewhere near the centre and tilt a bit to the left on most economic issues. I'm not against capital formation. But the economic and social damage that most billionaires exert on people in wealthy societies is a very real thing and it's going to keep getting more severe as computers allow for increasingly more centralization of information and control. "Data is the new oil." And all that.

We don't need billionaires (or, soon, trillionaires) to have a well functioning capitalist economy. We could have a ceiling and we could refuse entry families that exceed these limits to our countries. Same thing with open source, etc.

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

#114

Post by areyousure »

m0llusk wrote: post #81

This is missing a lot of history. There was a lot of Anarchist violence in the 30s that led to things like the Inheritance Tax, now repealed. Up until Reagan it was possible to live reasonably well and even raise a family on a minimum wage. Now even middle class people can barely make it and are vulnerable to large medical bills. The past was not impossible. It actually happened. And we should be able to use that exp…

In case anyone is curious, there have been a variety of different estate taxes at a federal level in the United States from 1797 through the present. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/ninetyestate.pdf

The "modern" estate tax was enacted in 1916. It was repealed for a single year -- 2010 -- but returned the following year and is currently in force. The exclusion amount has grown considerably over time.

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

#115

Post by pwinnski »

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 The article is suggesting radical change across a wide swathe of society, while you are suggesting a minor adjustment for individuals. Yes, ideally we can choose any one of many options that require us to work, work, work to make someone else rich. The suggestion is that none of those options are ideal.

#2 There are more options than "private individuals" and "government control." The author specifically says, "Cooperatives and communes, organized and controlled locally, are two avenues to pursue." Feasible or not, neither of those options are "government control."

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

#116

Post by pwinnski »

OrangeMonkey wrote: post #96
catlifeonmars wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are equating work with the production of value (in some way shape or form). However, machines can till the earth.

Whos sweat and blood was used to make the machine that was taken from him and given to someone else? Look, at some point we may be in a true post-scarcity environment where we can fabricate food/clothing/items with just energy from an abundant resource. At that time, I will consider this question anew. Until then, I just don't think it has legs.

It is quite possible we could live in a post-scarcity economy today, at least in rich countries, if we chose to eliminate scarcity on food and clothing and shelter and health care.

During the pandemic, many (most?) US schools stopped charging to feed kids during the school day. Food suddenly became free. My own daughter still brought lunch from home every day, but a lot of kids ate better than they had been, and food scarcity, in that small context, stopped being an issue. This year they seem to be ending that, but it definitely demonstrated that we could do more than we are, if we wanted to.

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

#117

Post by badcppdev »

OrangeMonkey wrote: post #85
badcppdev wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your wishes are worth zero. - Would you be willing to oppose corporations controlling the government with bribes/campaign contributions? - Support a judicial system where poorer people can access justice? - Tell your representatives that wage theft should be punished as seriously as theft and fraud?

I don’t think this vitriol is warranted or reasonable. * I would support completely disbanding corporations who bribe officials, and jailing its officers * I think the biggest problem with our judicial system is the prevalence of plea deals leading to a lifetime of regret for those who ignorantly take them. Fix it. * I believe wage theft is theft and would like to see jail time for those involved. I imagine I’ve a ha…

Apologies for my misunderstanding. I meant zero hate or vitriol.

I categorised 'wish you the best' the same as 'thoughts and prayers' but you probably didn't mean it like that. I wanted to draw a contrast between actions that only effect an individual, like your example of quitting a bad job, and actions that effect society, i.e. changing the rules to close the loopholes that businesses use to exploit their workers.

I think we both agree that systematic societal change would be a good thing. Cool.

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

#118

Post by pwinnski »

OrangeMonkey wrote: post #28
VictorPath wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. We change who controls our labor by making those who control our labor us, the workers creating wealth, not the heirs who own companies and expropriate our surplus labor time via dividend profit checks. The idea that a worker controls his own labor seems to be th…

No, I'm a big fan of workers controlling their own labor. If a person wants to 100% control their own labor, they can create a business and provide their services (at a price someone else will pay for them) to the world at large. What is alien to me is that a person believes they can take over other peoples property (factories, existing IP [go to microsoft, say 'windows is mine now' and try to sell your copy of the s…

I suspect the author would say that we currently live in a system that is designed to reward a certain way of doing business, and that artificially makes things harder for those determined to control their own labor.

Some of that system is government, where laws naturally benefit larger business and are explicitly aimed at "small businesses," which are still traditional work-for-someone-else concerns with four or more employees.

Some of that system is non-governmental, where it seems to be much easier for an S-corp with a few employees to get an operating loan than it is for a self-employed person.

It is easy to say that the rich and poor alike are forbidden to sleep under the bridge, but it is a too-narrow focus that ignores many, many assumptions.

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

#119

Post by pwinnski »

refurb wrote: post #101
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…

No, absolutely not "wage theft". Presumably the CEO bring something to the table - capital, fundraising ability. I mean why else have him/her? CEO hires a bunch of employees, all who get paid. The game is a success and since he put the capital at risk, he gets most the reward. The employees get their salary. Unfair? Well, what if it doesn't work out? Employees all get their salary, CEO loses his capital. Workers can…

> Presumably the CEO bring something to the table - capital, fundraising ability. I mean why else have him/her?

You're so close! In fact, there's an expectation that the more you pay a CEO, the better they perform, and that those making the most must be the best. This seems to be a largely-unexamined assumption that "just makes sense," but it turns out when you try to see whether it's true, it's not[0].

By and large, highly-paid CEOs are a drain on corporate profits. As the research paper I linked shows, even those highly-compensated CEOs who win awards end up performing worse than their non-award-winning counterparts.

Everybody seems to like the idea of a CEO providing strong leadership and deserving their high compensation. The stress, they say, makes it worth it. Besides, if we didn't pay them that much, someone else would! And yet the facts don't seem to support any of that.

0. http://d1c25a6gwz7q5e.cloudfront.net/reports/2014-02-2-Armst...

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

#120

Post by tristor »

vladharbuz wrote: post #17
0xy wrote: post #9

As opposed to communism, which will make everyone work like dogs so that the elite party members can be rich (like Maduro's goons). 100,000,000 dead but let's try it again, because that wasn't real communism.

Do you think the only available and conceivable options are two bad systems, and nothing else?

No, I don't think that. However, the site linked that this article is on is using communist imagery, so is no doubt communist. Criticizing an article that implies a call for communism for that call is not a lack of imagination on the part of the reader, but rather recognizing what is being implied.
Post reply on HN