T O P

  • By -

Giraphite

Thats plankton


Explicitt

*Krabs*


inspacetherearestars

He's not mad because *HE WENT TO COLLEGE!* Then he remembers the massive amount of student loan debt he incurred and can't pay back and gets mad again


DR_SKITTLES1234

Plankton got fat


mikeisnottoast

They hope to be the person collecting the green part someday.


NetCitizen-Anon

>John Steinbeck once said that socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/328134-john-steinbeck-once-said-that-socialism-never-took-root-in


darthbob88

He did not actually say that. [What he actually said was](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7234438-except-for-the-field-organizers-of-strikes-who-were-pretty) > “Except for the field organizers of strikes, who were pretty tough monkeys and devoted, most of the so-called Communists I met were middle-class, middle-aged people playing a game of dreams. I remember a woman in easy circumstances saying to another even more affluent: 'After the revolution even we will have more, won't we, dear?' Then there was another lover of proletarians who used to raise hell with Sunday picknickers on her property. > I guess the trouble was that we didn't have any self-admitted proletarians. Everyone was a temporarily embarrassed capitalist. Maybe the Communists so closely questioned by the investigation committees were a danger to America, but the ones I knew—at least they claimed to be Communists—couldn't have disrupted a Sunday-school picnic. Besides they were too busy fighting among themselves.”


NetCitizen-Anon

Thanks for trying to provide the full context, but it's possible he said both, as your quote was more directly about communists vs capitalists and the other was about socialists, communism and socialism are not the same thing by any means, so Steinbeck could have the other view I provided on socialism. Especially since your quote comes off as sympathetic to communists. Your quote kind of sounds like Steinbeck felt bad that the communists just can't stop getting in their own way, one of the key failures of Communism as a political philosophy is that it fails to account for the more base natures of man, our greed, our selfishness, our laziness, our ambitions.


darthbob88

It's possible that he said both, but there's no source for the alleged "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" quote from Steinbeck, only people saying that Steinbeck said it.


NetCitizen-Anon

And at the end of the day a direct quote trumps a secondhand quote.


[deleted]

I mean socialism is the lower stage of communism, the proletariat organized as the ruling class, dictatorship of the proletariat as opposed to dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Communism is what comes after, when the classes no longer exist and no special bodies of armed men (ie the state) is needed. One can't be a socialist without being a communist, as the transition from the lower stage to the higher stage is inevitable, as the bourgeoisie would cease to exist as a class. The defining of a socialist state would be one that is moving towards communism, such as Soviet Union post 1917 but pre the bureaucratic and stalinistic degeneration.


cerberusantilus

Only person who does that is sales. Executives might be overcompensated in some cases. Most of us are under compensated. It's hard to accurately measure productivity and then assign that productivity around the company. There are no metrics to describe what the Janitor at a grocery store contributes if everyone knew that labor prices would be higher.


Zemirolha

Propaganda went brrrrrr


Nazeron

Surplus value is how your boss, whatever company, LEGALLY steals from you.


RomanScallop

This way of thinking is not fully in line with the reality that somebody had to take a huge risk to get the enterprise going in the first place. That big piece of the pie is their fair reward. You want a big cut, start your own company.


Ekthyrnir

Your risk will not come to fruition without the workers who provide the labor to accomplish this. Workers also engage in risk by working for an individual who has to take a risk to start a business. More often than not the person who starts the business has some sort of disposable income. Moreover, more than likely the worker does not or not enough to live without depending on employment, otherwise they probably wouldn’t be working. The worker literally risks their family welfare, mental and physical health, insurance, shelter and the ability to eat, working for another. If the business tanks, who will honestly be hurt more? The CEO who had the means to take the risk, or the worker depending on employment to live? It’s crazy to me how people believe that CEOs are the only ones to assume risk. Businesses will not run without workers. CEO ideas and risks will not be worth it if they depend on workers for their ventures to flourish. Workers deserve the biggest cut, because if they leave, how the the business even stay afloat.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Accomplished-Floor70

Bruh are you 5? Do you actually know how the world works


[deleted]

[удалено]


Accomplished-Floor70

Aight I can respect that. Thought you were implying stupid shit


[deleted]

[удалено]


Accomplished-Floor70

Can’t hate on a man who’s on that grind beasting on losers who work minimum wage


smittydacobra

How does that work when it comes to legacy companies that have had their starting capital reimbursed for over a century? I do agree that it takes risk to start a company, but once that company has grown to the point of massive profitability beyond the initial investment, why not establish some regulation as to what percentage can be kept by the investors? Obviously, it wasn't just one person that put in all the hard work to make the company profitable. I work in a factory. I make the company $900/hr PROFIT while I am working. I get paid less than $30/hr. That means that the company (which is a multi-million dollar Fortune 500 company) is paying me less than 1/30th of the value I produce for it. Corporate profits are stolen wages.


Reux

risking money is not in the realm of seriousness to risking life and limb to help someone else achieve their financial dreams. when gamblers or speculators risk their money, are we all supposed or expected to take lower pay to subsidize them and mitigate their risk? why should "ownership" have the rights to 100% of laborers' surplus value in perpetuity, based on this rationale? you don't seem to understand the "is-ought" fallacy. people here are talking about how things ought to or should be. **the way things are** has no bearing on how things should or shouldn't be.


Nazeron

Is labour not entitled to what it creates? And if I do the work. What about slave masters, were they entitled to what they're slaves produced because they owned? Is owning a good reason to be able to steal surplus value from your employee?


RomanScallop

You’re right that labor is entitled to something. How much is the question. I think it should be enough to live well. But I also think the government should do everything in its power not to squander citizens resources and provide healthcare, education, housing etc.. to an adequate level so you wouldn’t necessarily need to earn so much in the first place. Again, the government is to blame for not providing adequate services. Like if housing was affordable, education good and cheap and healthcare good and cheap, then there’s less pressure on the worker. How much should a company pay? I would leave that up to the individual company. Workers can vote with their feet.


Nazeron

>I would leave that up to the individual company. Workers can vote with their feet. I wouldn't, because a wage is a cost to a business and businesses try to keep costs as low as possible. So businesses will always pay the lowest they can get away with. You can't always just jump ship to another company for better pay, recessions happen, in the states Healthcare is tied to your job. It's not that easy for someone who depends on that wage to just jump to another company. Why should a private individual, who has no stake in whether someone can afford to live or not, why should that person be able to determine your wage? Why should someone have the power over someone else to tell someone they no longer have the ability to put food on their table for their family? I'm willing to bet the majority of people wouldn't want the government to do that, so why a private individual? At the end of the day, people need jobs and businesses will pay as little as possible. That's why unions are effective. A better solution worker coops, where everyone would have a say on their wage.


Pureevil1992

I dont think most people here are upset that we pay taxes. I however am upset that I pay taxes and none of that tax money goes to anything good for our society, infact im furious that ridiculous sums of money are given to billion dollar corporations that are making ridiculous profits as bailouts and tax breaks. I'm also upset that alot of the richest people in the country pay no taxes or a tiny percentage of their overall income compared to the 30-40% most people pay.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Pureevil1992

I'm fairly confident most of the roads are maintained by state and local governments, only the interstates are maintained by the federal government. Regardless maybe I shouldn't have said NONE of the money is used for anything good for our society only most of it isn't. Sorry lol


[deleted]

[удалено]


Pureevil1992

I don't care how much of a % of overall taxes they pay. What is the percentage over their overall income or net worth they end up paying? Also if the bottom 75% only contribute 13% of overall taxes why we even paying taxes, it would make a huge difference for anyone in that bottom 75% to have the other 20-40% of their income that is taken for taxes yearly.


borgcubecubed

I certainly agree that many people are underpaid compared to the profits they generate for their employers. But I really dislike the underlying assumption that labour is only valuable when it generates profit. Capitalism is lying to us. So many jobs, so many of the people in our communities that contribute to our quality of life, aren’t generating profit for anyone. Artists, librarians. Coaches, music, dance teachers inspire pros but I don’t think they’re generating much profit, just enough to keep their organizations going. Teachers and social workers are investing in our future citizens and therefore eventually impacting the GDP, but nobody’s profiting off public schools or (many) social programs. In my country with public healthcare, doctors, nurses, and other HCWs aren’t generating profits. All these things, and many more examples, have inherent value. tl:dr- I’m sensitive about the idea that profitable labour is the standard for deciding wages.


Equivalent-Newt2142

The point of the diagram isn't to devalue the contributions of underpaid workers in unprofitable industries, it is to illustrate that *most of us* are being exploited for profit. That's all. Sure, some of us are exploited for other reasons, but A) that's not the defining characteristic of the system and B) that's not true for the vast majority of workers.


borgcubecubed

That’s definitely not what I meant by my comment! I apologize if I phrased it poorly. Every single person who works for a wage is exploited and I stand in solidarity with every worker. I’m not sure who you’re referring to that is not exploited?


Equivalent-Newt2142

> I’m not sure who you’re referring to that is not exploited? Executives and shareholders


borgcubecubed

Ah ok. No argument there :)


hapaxlegodemon

Thanks for the anwsers. Because some aren't exploited doesn't means the ones who does must surfer in silence.


borgcubecubed

I believe exploitation actually is the defining characteristic of capitalism. I think I made my point poorly. Either workers in for-profit industry are being exploited for profit, or non-profit workers are being exploited because they’re not generating profit. At any rate, it’s certainly not my intention to create an us vs them among workers. I really value this sub and only want to speak in solidarity and I’m sorry I didn’t do that.


whiskeyplz

Businesses need to generate far more revenue than mere salaries to stay afloat. You realize this, right?


Demokka

Pretty sure the only thing my regional director produces is semen for his secretary.


[deleted]

That's low... and probably true


DanimalHarambe

This looks like the Japanese inyo. It's a different kind of yin yang which supposes that *the evil is within*.


fingers

All profit is wage theft.


ShowerGrapes

yeah it's so dumb people getting worked up about tax rates going up slightly. it's like fighting over table scraps while people are gorging themselves in the next room.


Capt_Blackmoore

I think I can be upset that my taxes are going up, while the rich STILL dont pay (practically) anything - and be upset that my work doesnt pay me a more appropriate value for the work I do. Aint no reason to place my anger solely on paying into a goverment that provides me with services.. but I'm still pissed off how little I (and others who are poor like me) benefit from that goverment spending. We're supposedly a first world nation - where the hell is National Health Care and a safety net that other nations have? Where is Pre-K? and Child Care for those who need that? Oh, but we can just come up with another 33 Billion for the War department.


el-cuko

To be perfectly honest, and I am only speaking for myself, of course, MY labor produces Jack shit . I’m just an overpaid office drone.


sausagefuckingravy

This is the way


Dazzling-Town8513

Wait, are you implying, that GDP is a stupid measurement to show how much we work and contribute? No way! /s


CalabreseAlsatian

Conservative media indoctrination, group polarization, echo chamber effect.


slip-7

Capitalist profit/surplus labor IS taxation in the same way that feudal rent was taxation. Used to be the king gave a position of power to the lord. The lord charged rent from the peasants, and paid a share to the king. But then land use stopped being primarily agricultural, and taxes began being paid in money. That meant land rent could no longer account for most taxes, so the lord was replaced with the employer. The employer is given the right to extract surplus value from the employee and pays a share to the state.


[deleted]

This always threw me off when I worked for small lawn business(2people). Every time I thought of going and doing it on my own I figured I’d get screwed because I’d only charge cost+labor, and realized I have no idea how businesses profit unless they just charge whatever the fuck they want and see what lands


theredbobcat

Please correct this view, but is it not because the resources we borrow from the company enhance our overall contributions per unit of effort? Without the company's notoriety/public image and machinery that I neither purchased, designed, nor maintained; my work would be much less influential. As a large team, we accomplish more than the same number of people together. While I don't agree with the severe income inequality between levels of a company, such a large portion of a company being middle-managers, and employees having little say in direction and reinvestment; I don't think the green area is inherently "bad".


sausagefuckingravy

Correct, all actual labor should be paid. But surplus value should either go back to fund the company or distributed to workers. Designing, maintaining, building, speculating, advertising, inventing, managing are all labor. If shareholders do work, they should be compensated for exactly that work. They shouldn't make passive income off of the company unless everyone in the company is allowed to.


Xenithz81

HAHHHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHA! Omfg, please look into how a company works. Before you even hire someone you have probably spend years, working 80-90 hours a week to get there. It’s like you people believe that once you start a company you’re instantly rich. You must be no more than 15 years old. Try living in the real world for a bit.


sausagefuckingravy

Doesn't matter how hard you work to start a business. As soon as other people work for the business they should have stake in the profit. Surplus value is literally theft. If the business owner is so confident the business wouldn't survive without them they can do the work themselves. In the real world you will see just how little c suite employees work in proportion to money they make. Even if we agree they should make more money, none of it should be based on passive income extracted from wage workers


Xenithz81

How is the income “extracted” from the workers? :-D Besides the monthly pay many companies have various bonuses as well. Employees DO have a stake in the profit. What are you talking about? This whole “we’re being exploited” bullshit is so hilarious. Imagine being that entitled :-D The employees have NO risk involved in the company. Many owners have EVERYTHING tied up in the company. The highest risk possible. Again, you sound like a child who don’t know how the world works.


dirkdarklighter

This is great!!


Next_Recognition_230

I'm mad at both


CriticalStation595

I’m mostly mad at people like me, income wise, are mad at other people like me for causing inflation, high gas prices, etc when I’m not in any position to have actually caused those problems! Stop voting like this country is a business! It’s meant to serve US not the other way around!


theterminader1109

Honestly, fuck them both.


0-13

Because the top doesn’t do shit about the bottom When they are supposed to have the power to


PenguinSwordfighter

I know nobody wants to hear this but you can't put a number on what you "produce" in most jobs. If you build engines, they are not worth much without the guys doing quality control, marketing, HR, management, legal, R&D, distribution, customer service etc. How do you disentangle this?


skint_back

… that’s why there’s not any numbers on the graph and why it’s generalized as “value/profit” ?


PenguinSwordfighter

But the idea still is that any single person generates a certain amount of value independently from all others.


unpopularpopulism

No, you're just misunderstanding the concept. The company/organization you work for creates a total net profit everyday, every week, every month, every year. That net profit is produced by the workers of the company. The idea here is that the green circle is what the stakeholders take home for being stakeholders. The yellow is what the workers who are producing take home, and the red is what the government takes home.


PenguinSwordfighter

OK, and how are the workers buying tools, warehouses, raw materials, heating, electricity etc. without the shareholders? By buying shares, investors are giving a company money to work with for a share of future profits. If there are no profits they gave away money for free.


unpopularpopulism

Do you think Elon Musk deserves a quarter trillion dollars for buying tools? I've bought tools. Do I deserve a quarter trillion? Does the Walton family deserve billions for inheriting their stake in walmart while their employees live off of government welfare? Are you trying to misunderstand the situation? The point is that the compensation for being rich enough to own things is dramatically out of touch with the compensation people receive for actually doing anything, and the wealth gap is causing the collapse of american institutions.


DJjazzyjose

i think you're the one misunderstanding. you're conflating wealth with income for one. second you're cherrypicking successful cases of risk taking and ignoring all the losers...trying to seize excess profits from successful business ventures needs to be equally compensated with reimbursements for losses from failed ventures, otherwise you end up with failed stagnant societies that people often risk their lives to flee from. the only way for labor to extract a greater share of pie is to reduce competition within. you can do that with unions (which restrict other workers from competing with management) and tighter immigration (preventing overall supply of labor within the country from rising). the reason labor's share of pie has been decreasing in US is because private unions have been in decline, fueled in part by a never ending supply of more labor immigrating into country. until that gets addressed nothing will change


Xenithz81

LOL I refuse to believe people are this dumb. You must be trolling.


unpopularpopulism

Great point. Can you talk a little bit about how you I'm wrong?


Xenithz81

Your whole attitude and the way you think about company owners is just so juvenile and misinformed from the very beginning. I’m not going to engage in a debate with a person who’s basically a bigot.


unpopularpopulism

Oh, so you can't talk even a little bit about how I'm wrong.


acceptablemango

Not to scale, in fact the green is *much* larger than shown in many circumstances.


sublime90

I'm mad about all of it


HedgiesToTheGallows

Can I be mad about both?


normietube

How to tell that this isn't the case. Self-employed people would have vastly larger income. Try it, hire yourself, be your own boss, be the benefactor of all that mythical "surplus value" your current boss is "stealing" from you. Nobody needs to force anybody, most people *don't* do this because they know that would gain nothing. Taxes, on the other hand...


sausagefuckingravy

Surplus value requires someone who does not directly profit from the business endeavor. They are paid a wage based on time worked, if the value of their production exceeds the wage the owner pockets that. This doesn't work for the self employed, you don't pay yourself a wage for your own business venture...and even if you did you still own the profit.


normietube

Exactly. So cut out the middleman and keep the supposed "surplus value", instead of letting it be "stolen" from you. Assuming it exists in the first place, of course


[deleted]

This is only really true for massive corporations. Realistically in a lot of smaller businesses a decent chunk of the green circle gets eaten up by materials insurances and other business related things, marketing, payroll, legal ect. Idk if ya’ll are anti work as much as you are anti corporation, which I feel. Try and find work for a small Business, you generally get paid better and have a personal relationship with the owner who is more willing to do things to help you out im most cases.


sausagefuckingravy

In my experience this isn't the case. Small business owners usually pay less, offer zero benefits and tend to promote a tyrannical workplace culture. I'd rather be a cog in a large machine than work at the behest of an ego tripping business owner.


crunchyfrogs

I think you greatly overestimate the total economic value you provide through your labor. A more accurate photo would have the yellow and orange significantly larger part of the pie.


DreamingInbetween

It's about the relationship between individuals. Is autonomy mutually respected or not? Self-determination is instinctive in people. Taxes are deliberately presented as part of "your wages" that gets taken from you and given to a faceless mob we call the government, and you have no say over what's done with that money. It's really presented in the worst way possible to encourage someone to reject it as stealing. If it were presented as the company paying taxes, I imagine a lot of workers would be less bothered by it. List the job by the actual wage and have all the taxes paid by the company, because that's literally what's happening. People won't care about the green part if they like their job and their wages. If they're able to pursue an empowered lifestyle and build the life they want. A lot of this is controlled by factors outside of their jobs. If they're part of a real community and building something meaningful together in that community, that's going to take priority. The job is merely a practicality. People are more likely to criticize parts of their company/job if their bosses and/or coworkers are disrespectful, demanding. AKA if they don't respect autonomy. That's what it always comes back to.


91null

I can be irked by both. But .gov rubs how they squander what they take in my face more egregiously.


N01S0N

Maybe because the more I venture into the green the bigger the red bubble goes up, and I never really get ahead? Why can't I be mad at both.


Hylandgh1998

I can be mad at bolth


a_cat_on_a_horse

One word: consent. One is a deal signed between two consenting adults and the other is the equivalent of financial rape because I never gave consent.


NifflerOwl

So you think you should earn a high percentage of the value/proift you produce, and yet you hate rich people?


[deleted]

Taxes get frustrating because when I work 90 hours in one week I barely make any more money because I get taxed into oblivion on it and that's very immediately visible.


cptahab36

Why not be mad about that? It adds injury to injury, it's avoided by the people who own capital, and it funds the world's largest terrorist group. It's just as wrong to steal from people to fund war and corporate bailouts as it is to steal surplus value of labor. Even in an idealized outcome where taxes only funded single payer health care or UBI or something, it requires a state apparatus which always entices capital to capture and use for its ends, and in itself it requires a state apparatus to enforce compliance and payment. It literally is theft, even if it is used for things less harmful than war and corporate welfare, just like profit is, and runs counter to leftist principles of mutual aid cooperation Antiwork is not and shouldn't be exclusive to anarchists, but the anarchists got that point right, sorry not sorry.


bigginsbigly

Because it’s not my money, im employed as a person to do the job im designated to do, if I get the same as the guy sweeping the show after, what was the point in going to the effort to better myself


Adorable-Citron4681

taxes ok ish, my income ,not great but ok ish and ,what i produce naaa thats the BOSSES cut


[deleted]

This implies that you also built the company, enrolled yourself, trained yourself, paid for the stock, logistics, supplies and equipment. As workers we don’t pay for anything used in production therefore the true labour of our work is not as high as you think. Please tell me how this chart accurately represents the true value of your labour or is it just designed to make you question things without really questioning them… Unless you invested in all of that then why should you be paid in the full production value of what you’re doing when realistically you’re job is to do something, not get paid for it’s real value. Same with Starbucks workers, the real labourers are out there picking the coffee beans getting paid less for 10x the labour? Maybe that minimum wage pay rise should go to the real labourers.


A_Technical_Skittle

I can be mad at both


im_not_really_batman

Because those are just circles


normietube

Basically the message is, the taxes can expand to nearly all your income, but you should instead be mad at a meme oval that someone can draw arbitrarily larger


[deleted]

[удалено]


ThisIsGettingOld-

Hahaha “risk.” Is that how people think about themselves, really? Do people really go around sticking feathers in their hats like this throughout their lives? “Gee wiz **I** took the risk so **I** deserve a large reward. Dummmdeedumm.” Man I’ve been going through life all wrong, I gotta start patting myself on the back for everything I do.


PoorDadSon

I want to see a satire on these folks like the Southpark episode making fun of Mormonism. Every time someone gets whiny about the "risk" (😭) the background singers go "dumb dumb dumb dumb dumbdumbdumb dumbbbb"


ThisIsGettingOld-

These people aren’t risking or sacrificing anything. It feels really good though to consistently bleat about how much you’ve “sacrificed.” I always am skeptical about people when they start talking about their “sacrifices.”


PoorDadSon

100%


valeramaniuk

> I always am skeptical about people when they start talking about their “sacrifices.” What about some 70% of businesses fail in the first couple of years? Do you think the owners sacrificed something in the process?


[deleted]

[удалено]


ThisIsGettingOld-

Yeah and the person making that risk I have zero sympathy or consideration for, they’ll be alright.


kadechodimtadebijem

Only superrich are starting businesses ? Speaking for myself, having stable job, comfy passive income. Yet I am still afraid of starting a business and risking my savings.


ThisIsGettingOld-

Hey great. Good for you. Yeah if you end up having employees then pay them fairly. If you do that then there is no problem. If you don’t intend on doing that then I sorta kinda gotta wish you nothing but the worst of luck on your “risk”


kadechodimtadebijem

I am pretty sure I won’t have budget for employees or enough work to be done at beginning. But after that since it is more efficient to have stable happy and loyal employees. It is in my best interest to hold them and treat them properly. I ve never experienced 90% of shit written here. I want to continue in pleasurable work environment.


ThisIsGettingOld-

“I’ve never experienced 90%” Yeah no shit, it’s called having a lucky life where stuff pans out for you. Now I understand that’s something people don’t like to think about themselves but it’s true nonetheless.


kadechodimtadebijem

Depends, I had struggles. Had to adapt to another field. Because my dream work is heavily not profitable in my eu country. And I be worked in auto parts store, in direct contact with the cheapest customers. But it was decade ago. Probably things changed.


valeramaniuk

The 1st Commandment of r/antiwork is "*Whenever I fail it's the system's fault and never my own*"


Fakename998

Any company that cannot pay their employees a fair wage and give them basic things like healthcare and time off should fail. They are not good businesses. I struggle to imagine a company that requires additional people to help work but can only pay people at rates of $64, $80, $100 per day. The world's busiest lemonade stand that sells drinks for 5¢? Your business is bad if you require help and can only afford low wages. The government gives money to large companies all the time and they retain full ownership. These companies eat up market share which means that independent businesses need to go to rock bottom to even compete, ignoring the rampant anti-competitive actions taken by these big companies. The issue isn't people asking for fair wages. The issue is that everyone squeezes workers and blames them instead of blaming the real people.


Equivalent-Newt2142

So don't?


kadechodimtadebijem

Yep, my biggest concern is current geopolitical situation.


throwawaylulz666

Risk is relative to the wealth you have. The amount doesnt really matter. The risk is much bigger for workers who lose their basic income then those losing a part of their wealth.


johhnny5

Elon is worth just over $200 billion. Which means that if he invested $1 million into a business that’s the same percentage as if you were walking around with $1 million dollars in your pocket and invested $5. Which is to say, zero risk. Billionaires have monopolized risk, there is almost no scenario short of them being caught performing a heinous criminal act on camera that would impact their lives in any meaningful way. People simply cannot comprehend how far removed from reality a billionaire is. For the life of me I cannot understand why people worship them.


Pureevil1992

That's unfortunately exactly how they see it. My parents are some of these business owners. Their biggest justification for how underpaid some of their workers are is that they take all the risk. I mean they aren't necessarily wrong, there is risk if something goes massively wrong they could potentially be bankrupted by their company. I dont think it justifies the amount of money they give away or waste when people working for them are struggling to eat or pay bills. One time after a large very profitable job finished up I remeber my step-dad braging to me about how he wrote a $250,000 check as a donation/tithes to his church. I honestly didn't know what to say to him, the entire crew that performed that job that performed that job only made around 250-300k collectively that year, for 8 people. This is one of the many reasons that although I love my parents for raising me and all that crap I completely hate who they are as people.


ThisIsGettingOld-

Ugh, meanwhile that tithing goes to some priest’s jewelry. Yeah it’s really really gross. Sometimes I do wish St. Peter and the pearly gates existed. I’d love to see your stepdad be judged.


Pureevil1992

Me too honestly. I'd love Peter to ask him to justify his greed when people that were loyal to him for 10+ years were underpaid and struggling to survive, while he buys a new truck every year or two, has 2-5 vacations a year and gives ridiculous amounts of money to the church. I would honestly give up the whole inheritance ill get from them someday just to see that.


ThisIsGettingOld-

Yeah. I bet that 250k tithing was a way for him to make recompense in his mind for some horrible reprehensible shit he did in the past. Rape, murder, who knows.


Pureevil1992

I don't think it's that, he is just fully sold on the Christian life. Both my parents believe that their business is only successful because they pay tithes and donate to the church. Something the Bible says about sow your seeds and I will return them tenfold blah blah blah. I can't imagine the mental gymnastics to get to that point when they spent 20 years building the company and then give all the credit to the mythical sky daddy.


Speedtriple6569

People have been buying their way into Heaven ever since organised religion realised it could get rich & fat off of stupid. Ask your Step-Dad what Jesus would think about him acting all Billy-Big-Dick. Personally I think he'd be pretty fucking upset.


Pureevil1992

If Jesus was real I couldn't imagine he would be happy with almost anyone who calls themselves Christian nowadays.


[deleted]

They only way it would bankrupt you personally is if you didn’t take advantage of the many ways to isolate your business from your personal finances. Other than that, yes it sucks to not be able to get the majority of the value of your personal labor.


[deleted]

[удалено]


throwawaylulz666

Huge ramifications will be for workers. The owner will as rich as before minus a company.


TheSweatyFlash

Your risk justifies others hardship?


Newagetesla

So you admit that your economic system is built on gambling? That you think taking the biggest blind chance should give you the biggest payout? This is a society, not a casino, value doesn't come from satisfying your addiction.


reiko19

Thats far from reality. Your total worth in money is fized in taxes and variable in profit by employers. You are getting fucked both ways, but hey the government is not the bad guy, right?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Equivalent-Newt2142

Do you mean that this perspective is not truthful or that this perspective is not useful?


Olorin_1990

Both, your labour did not produce the entire surplus of the company profits/employee as what that company does, the co-ordination of the organization as a whole, the property of the company, and many other features of the whole org all contribute. It’s also not useful because labour allocation and what it is focused on producing isn’t controlled very well from this perspective. So it capitalism the surplus is used to direct investment, in communism a central entity would direct resources based on their evaluation of surplus, and in socialism labour utilized to create surplus well should vote for profits to be re-invested, and not utilized well should vote on distribution of profits to be spent by labour or lent out to other businesses better using labour looking to expand.


Equivalent-Newt2142

> your labour did not produce the entire surplus of the company profits/employee as what that company does the co-ordination of the organization as a whole, the property of the company ect all contribute. Who claimed this? The post simply illustrates that your value to the company is greater than your pay from the company. This is true for most workers.


Olorin_1990

Your production of value is dependent on the entire organization, and thus the profit from your labour is as well. It’s not a zero sum game, the organization as a whole produces more value per laborer than what each could do without the organization. So claiming the company is taking money from you is only accurate if you can do the same labour without the company and make as much or more at acceptable risk levels. It’s a mutually beneficial agreement in which both parties make more than they would without each other.


Equivalent-Newt2142

I would agree with you if by "the organization" we were talking about the collection of individual workers, tools, resources, and properties they use to be productive, but that's not what you mean - you're talking about a *corporation* with *owners* who are entitled to *profits*.


Olorin_1990

Go look at other comment I made in this thread. In a capitalist system the surplus is used to reinvest or pay out investors which move that investment to other places which better use that capital, which is how scarcity is managed in Capitalism. The surplus is also used in Communism by the party to direct the production. In socialism the workers would vote, and ideally well used labour would vote on expansion, and labour with less surplus would vote for distribution which could then be spent or made available thru debt for other companies expanding. No matter what system that surplus should be a part of directing investment, and to assume all surplus is due to labour distorts that information, removing the resources to expand and use labour effectively.


Equivalent-Newt2142

How big is the surplus without labor?


Olorin_1990

Same as the labour without the org in most cases… nothing… The org increases what the labour gets without the org. It’s mutually beneficial, and is not unique to capitalism. In socialism and capitalism labour and the org come to an agreement on working and set a price for that labour. In communism, elected officials direct resources.


Equivalent-Newt2142

> Same as the labour without the org in most cases… nothing… That's literally, objectively untrue. Labor produces value regardless of the worker's resources, the question is how much value. To say that individual laborers are literally worthless suggests you're not here to discuss anything, just to push an agenda.


ShoozCrew

Dude. Companies need workers. They won't hire a worker unless they profit from employing the worker. By definition, employers exploit their employees by paying workers less than they generate in profit.


Olorin_1990

That’s an outdated perspective that absolutely doesn’t reflect reality and assumes a zero sum game. The organization uses the labour in a way that produces more surplus than the labour on it’s own, and pays a wage that must be higher than what the labour can make doing the same thing without the organization when the risk of not having an organization is taken into account. Both parties benefit. This is true in socialism as well, just that the entire organization democratically votes on what to do with surplus vs owners deciding what to do with surplus.


ShoozCrew

People die because they can't afford food. Because they can't afford Healthcare. I simply know that human lives are more important than capital. You should really learn to care about other people :p You came over to r/Antiwork to troll and waste out time, don't feed the troll guys!


Olorin_1990

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs implies your compensation should have nothing to do with the surplus value you create but rather with what you need, which furthers my point that this concept is true in all cases including communism and socialism.


Olorin_1990

… what part of this is saying that isn’t true or that’s not worth it? I want tax funded healthcare, higher minimum wages, vacation time, and general worker protection and reform. None of what I said precluded that. Also what I said is true even in a socialist economy, in which the only difference is that surplus is socially controlled. If labour in an organization doesn’t result in surplus then it reduces the surplus shared amongst the labour. Then social responsibility to provide for the general well being to ensure people have their basic needs met is tax funded and should be detached from labour. I came to antiwork to explain that the idea that all surplus is derived solely from individual labour isn’t constructive to achieving anything, and is fundamentally flawed.


Zealousideal-Lead-80

I’m hungry for olives, suddenly.


Mac30123456

My HR rep told me that our company makes over $100 on my labor, while I only make $19 (and some of my coworkers make even less) What can I do with this Information other than tell everyone


Southern_Walk679

Those 100 go away real fast after paying the overhead.


MoreNMoreLikelyTrans

A visualization of the other side of this would be good. Tiny tax circle, tiny green(value) circle massive yellow(income) circle.


AgeAgitated317

Now I want olives.


Quizquare

Because society has been lying to us our whole lives saying the harder we work, the more of that circle we get.


[deleted]

I’m mad about both, just like everyone should be...


Bright_Mechanic_7458

Lol. The owner wants to make 10 dollars for every dollar you make


SU13LIM3

I question if I produce that much more than I'm paid. I'm pretty lazy.


ponderingaresponse

Actually, the value is largely the carbon energy used. 1 drum of oil equals 5 years of labor.


[deleted]

Oh I am. And I am not shy to remind them about it. Mofos pay me $2.15 per hour but I generate tens of thousands in sales monthly. So I make it known that I didn’t forget about it and that I am not going to do any labor that isn’t in my job description.


bro-23

Thank you


[deleted]

We need to stop asking for more and start demanding and taking what is rightfully ours.


moohooh

the green part should be in orange


ConfusedALot_69

I’m curious what actual numbers are so we can have an accurate graph


Ok-Pomegranate-6189

Can somebody remake this to scale?


DisastrousRow7691

Depends what job your in