Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Wealth inequality is universally a very bad thing. This is a moral absolutist take. We clearly don't agree on "bad" vs. "good" because some of the best (from my perspective) things were/are done in capitalist countries, such as the creation of NASA, rollercoasters, the Internet, innovative surgeries, and life-saving medical treatments for chronic conditions. > Wealth is distributed unfairly with people who contribu…
>This is a moral absolutist take. No it's the take by vote. You ask a normal person whether they think it's good they will give you a normal answer. You ask a billionaire, the billionaire will give you the same answer but secretly lobby against you. It's not moral absolutist. Every economist thinks it's bad. Generally they are okay with a little bit as a necessity but the level at where it's at now is too much. >Meas…
Instead we should be foundational about this. "Every economist" doesn't believe anything, as there is widespread disagreement about almost every topic in science, and furthermore every economist believing something doesn't make it true, as economists are subject to groupthink same as the rest of us.
To the extent that employees are being taken advantage of by for-profit corporations, employees are accepting of this situation, because alternatives are available. There is nothing that says you must work for a for-profit corporation. There is also nothing that says you can't join a co-op. There are distinct benefits to working for a for-profit corporation; those are what I am choosing when I choose to allow myself to be "fucked over" as you say. In reality, what is happening is I am allowing some of my value to be captured by the organization and invested into its long-term stability, productivity, and desirability. If I wished for none of this, there is nothing stopping me from starting my own company of one person, correct?