It’s wealth inequality. Capital accumulates capital, and it actually means something because wealth is control, and things like housing that determine control over people’s lives are forms of wealth that get concentrated away from regular people along with everything else.
Oh but they actively took our paychecks too. This wasn’t just government welfare for the wealthy and the stock market. When they fired Janet because they only needed one worker instead of two thanks to new software? They didn’t pay Bob extra. That’s wealth just sucked up into the Executive and Shareholder realm. Then to add salt to the wound of doing two jobs they give Bob a December raise below inflation. (because of course there is still actually more that Bob has to do, the software didn’t fix everything.) So now they get Janet’s pay and the extra revenue they denied Bob, because of course their prices damn sure went up in step with inflation.
This kind of fuckery has resulted in an estimated upwards transfer of around 47 Trillion dollars.
The thing I don’t like with that kind of argument is that it is inherently anti efficiency and anti progress. We don’t want jobs to be done in the most inefficient way just so that a lot of people can be paid to do them that way. We want them to be done efficiently and then everyone gets fed,… anyway because society values people over wealth.
That’s not what they’re saying the issue is though, the issue is how it’s redistributed. In fact, what you’re saying quite literally is the living example of anti-progress.
It could be fine in the current state if companies paid people fairly, but they don’t, any progress or efficiency that could have been made was stifled by the company pocketing the ex-employees wage. Rather than supporting the current employee by giving them a raise or a team of members to work with, it’s taken.
To put it this way: Bob and Janet are janitors who split their work equally. A new tool the company bought is able to cut their workload down by 15% each. Now Bob and Janet only have 35% of their work, instead of 50%.
A good workplace will support Bob and Janet in various ways, making them both more efficient by being able to accomplish more tasks.
A bad workplace will fire one of them, making the work load for one of them to 70%, without supplemental pay.
That 35% of value Janet brought is no longer going into the economy, it’s going into the corporate profit.
It’s very efficient. That’s why corporations do it. Now one worker is extremely overworked and underpaid, but the job still gets done and the company makes more money? Sounds like a win.
It is not inherently anti-efficiency or anyi-progress. It is pointing out how those things have been corrupted by those in charge. In a more perfect world, Janet and Bob just work less hours due to the software while retaining their pay.
I mean with the turnabout of current generation work ethic, I personally think that the current systems anti-productivity / efficiency in the first place. There used to be a worker loyalty and high work ethic but it’d increasing trends among millennial and Gen Z to just… not, and why would they when it’s been proven time and time again that the company culture is now replace first and hope the replacement is better or another annoying trend is replace and then not fill, with the expectation that the rest of the team will take on the extra workload for no additional pay.
I think the only real solution to the issue is either an overall wealth tax, or regulation in the spectrum of the next tier has to be at within x amount of the previous or the highest tier must be within x amount of the lowest tier, which would allow for competition in the work hiring field still, raises would still be allowed to happen it’s just in order to raise one tier they have to raise the tiers below it as well.
I think you are right, and it would be better not to focus on trying to micromanage specific business practices. You cannot write a good set of regulations that will prevent companies from siphoning wealth, because profit is the entire reason for existence of a company to begin with, and they will either find a way around it or stop functioning. Instead I think they should be allowed relative free reign, and the market allowed to do what it does, except that in the end a portion of the wealth extracted is taken and given back to the people, such that the level of concentration is kept stable instead of perpetually increasing.
It’s wealth inequality. Capital accumulates capital, and it actually means something because wealth is control, and things like housing that determine control over people’s lives are forms of wealth that get concentrated away from regular people along with everything else.
IMO two main things need to happen:
Oh but they actively took our paychecks too. This wasn’t just government welfare for the wealthy and the stock market. When they fired Janet because they only needed one worker instead of two thanks to new software? They didn’t pay Bob extra. That’s wealth just sucked up into the Executive and Shareholder realm. Then to add salt to the wound of doing two jobs they give Bob a December raise below inflation. (because of course there is still actually more that Bob has to do, the software didn’t fix everything.) So now they get Janet’s pay and the extra revenue they denied Bob, because of course their prices damn sure went up in step with inflation.
This kind of fuckery has resulted in an estimated upwards transfer of around 47 Trillion dollars.
The thing I don’t like with that kind of argument is that it is inherently anti efficiency and anti progress. We don’t want jobs to be done in the most inefficient way just so that a lot of people can be paid to do them that way. We want them to be done efficiently and then everyone gets fed,… anyway because society values people over wealth.
It’s anti progress to say “don’t improve productivity”, but it’s anti worker to say “don’t increase wages commensurate with improved productivity”.
That’s not what they’re saying the issue is though, the issue is how it’s redistributed. In fact, what you’re saying quite literally is the living example of anti-progress.
It could be fine in the current state if companies paid people fairly, but they don’t, any progress or efficiency that could have been made was stifled by the company pocketing the ex-employees wage. Rather than supporting the current employee by giving them a raise or a team of members to work with, it’s taken.
To put it this way: Bob and Janet are janitors who split their work equally. A new tool the company bought is able to cut their workload down by 15% each. Now Bob and Janet only have 35% of their work, instead of 50%.
A good workplace will support Bob and Janet in various ways, making them both more efficient by being able to accomplish more tasks.
A bad workplace will fire one of them, making the work load for one of them to 70%, without supplemental pay.
That 35% of value Janet brought is no longer going into the economy, it’s going into the corporate profit.
It’s very efficient. That’s why corporations do it. Now one worker is extremely overworked and underpaid, but the job still gets done and the company makes more money? Sounds like a win.
It is not inherently anti-efficiency or anyi-progress. It is pointing out how those things have been corrupted by those in charge. In a more perfect world, Janet and Bob just work less hours due to the software while retaining their pay.
I mean with the turnabout of current generation work ethic, I personally think that the current systems anti-productivity / efficiency in the first place. There used to be a worker loyalty and high work ethic but it’d increasing trends among millennial and Gen Z to just… not, and why would they when it’s been proven time and time again that the company culture is now replace first and hope the replacement is better or another annoying trend is replace and then not fill, with the expectation that the rest of the team will take on the extra workload for no additional pay.
I think the only real solution to the issue is either an overall wealth tax, or regulation in the spectrum of the next tier has to be at within x amount of the previous or the highest tier must be within x amount of the lowest tier, which would allow for competition in the work hiring field still, raises would still be allowed to happen it’s just in order to raise one tier they have to raise the tiers below it as well.
I think you are right, and it would be better not to focus on trying to micromanage specific business practices. You cannot write a good set of regulations that will prevent companies from siphoning wealth, because profit is the entire reason for existence of a company to begin with, and they will either find a way around it or stop functioning. Instead I think they should be allowed relative free reign, and the market allowed to do what it does, except that in the end a portion of the wealth extracted is taken and given back to the people, such that the level of concentration is kept stable instead of perpetually increasing.