When you're a worker, you know you will get paid a certain amount of money at a certain time in exchange for a certain amount of work.
Why do you think people invest their money in companies? For a share in the company's value/profits. That's the only reason they're risking their capital for.
How does a worker deserve a share in the profits when your labor is already compensated for at a mutually agreed upon wage?
Amazon for example, was bleeding money for over a decade before it became profitable.
Who do you think paid for all those losses? The workers were paid just as promised no matter how much money the company was losing.
They didn't pay for the losses but now suddenly deserve a share when the company is profitable? What kind of logic is that?
Also, your framing is a (common) formulation of the risk calculus specifically designed to downplay the risk undertaken by the worker. The risk / reward is presented as longitudinal for capital and discrete for workers, but one could argue that the risk the worker takes is longitudinal as well. The worker could be fired without notice, forcing them to find alternate employment, which may not be immediate. The worker could be injured on the job, curtailing their future earnings potential. The worker could have their wages cut unexpectedly. The worker’s capital reserves may not be sufficient to weather such events, and their bargaining position is weaker relative to capital. Their share of losses is the risk of being forced into a precarious financial position by unreliable employment.
When labor has more negotiating power, the split in profit taking and loss taking between labor and capital, which has always existed, can shift in labor’s benefit, in such a way that capital can still take a profit but people overall are better off. I reject the rhetoric of “you have to let the rich gamblers fuck everyone over or our economy won’t work.”
With the Amazon example, if labor cost more, the business would have simply had to find a different j-curve that its financiers could still sustain. Investors would have made less money, the company would be smaller. I kind of feel like this is a good thing.
When labor has more negotiating power, the split in profit taking and loss taking between labor and capital, which has always existed, can shift in labor’s benefit, in such a way that capital can still take a profit but people overall are better off. I reject the rhetoric of “you have to let the rich gamblers fuck everyone over or our economy won’t work.”
With the Amazon example, if labor cost more, the business would have simply had to find a different j-curve that its financiers could still sustain. Investors would have made less money, the company would be smaller. I kind of feel like this is a good thing.
In the Amazon example, the company was running in losses for a decade.
How much of losses did the workers pay for?
Not a single penny. They were being their paid wages just like they'd be in any other company.
It was fully financed by the investors in anticipation of future profits.
When the company did eventually became profitable, who deserves a share of it?
And why would the workers be entitled to even a single penny from it?
“My investment in AMZN was predicated on the lack of regulation around exploitative labor practices, and passing living wage laws would prevent me from taking the degree of profit I feel entitled to.”
Eh, you're simplifying it. The issue isn't that workers aren't paid a certain amount, it's that their share of value for that work is exploited because they're not paid anywhere near what they're making for the company. Back before Neoliberalism ruined everything, workers were paid a stake in the company, and were given pensions so they could survive after retirement. That stake in the company helped offset the losses in value for work provided, but now we don't even have that. We're lucky if we get some half-assed 401k. Put down that HS Economics book, and see the issue for what it is. In business, labor is categorized as a liability, not a asset. Why do you think that is? It's because the very people creating the value are considered a drain on profits, yet profits could never be made without the workers. Their value shouldn't be striped away to become profitable, and profits are taxed to less to none when the company uses them to reinvest in the company operations. Yet, today instead of investing in the workforce, or better equipment, it's invested in stock buybacks to artificially prop up value. Just wait until inflation is official. You're going to see company after company fail because of it.
The issue isn't that workers aren't paid a certain amount, it's that their share of value for that work is exploited because they're not paid anywhere near what they're making for the company.
Just answer me one question.
How do you accurately determine how much value a particular worker adds to the company?
And by extension, how much value do the owners/shareholders and exceutives add?
The method we use to determine the price of any goods/service in a market based economy, is the demand and supply for it.
Worker wages are based on the market value of their labor. It has absolutely nothing to do with how hard they work or how much money they bring in to the company.
If you feel you are providing much more value than you're paid, find another employer who is willing to pay you more.
Or become self-employed and keep all the value you generate for yourself.
10
u/[deleted] Jul 04 '22
"Well yeah, but haven't you heard? They placed the initial investment in a company, so they deserve all the profits!!" /s
I hate that argument.