>It is immoral to steal from a person and to redistribute to others.
This is exactly what your boss does, isn't it? They pay you only a percentage of the profit you create, and essentially steal the rest.
It really is immoral, I agree.
This is exactly what your boss does, isn't it? They pay you only a percentage of the profit you create, and essentially steal the rest.
It really is immoral, I agree.
That's why when productivity (and profits) go up, wages often don't. Why would they? One has nothing to do with the other.
P.S. If profit is illegitimate, then is interest also? I tend to assume that there's no moral or political difference between stocks and bonds, but for all I know other people may think differently.
One possibility from my point of view is that people look at profit as something extra, hence illegitimate, but the way I would look at it is that it is a deferred payment for work done, equivalent to interest. If you store seeds, then it is right and fair and necessary that in a well functioning society, you be paid for preserving them as well as producing them. Society can't function if people are paid only for producing things and not for preserving them, or if they are paid for preserving things before they do it. That's the most reduced scenario I can make up about why interest/profits seem legitimate to me.
It seems obvious to me, morally and logically, that if worker A creates an asset that multiplies the value of the work of worker B, that both should share in the additional value created. The value of capital assets depends on the profit that can be made with them, so I assume you aren't saying that "worker A" is disconnected from the capitalist profit mechanism. Then too, "worker A" and "worker B" are sometimes two roles of the same person - this seems relevant on HN, where people tend to be software developers who are always creating tools and using them.
A key socialist idea is to give the workers the control of the means of production and this theft would cease. The idea is that workers as a whole should democratically decide what should be done with the proceeds as they were instrumental in producing them.
Yes, people should be paid to do all kinds of labor. It's not obvious that they should be paid a fraction of all other people's labor in the organization (stocks).
As for bonds, I haven't seen an analysis before, but I'll take a stab. Bonds are the idea that I'll lend you some money and you'll pay me back with interest. The idea inherent in it is that I have no interest in what you're doing other than making some money out of the deal. Person to person, other considerations are pertinent, but at a repeatable institutional level, that's what it comes down to (other than enforceable legality and public pressure). Interest payments in general are also exponential rather than a fixed risk premium, and so represent a particularly extractive way of doing business (though bond payments are closer to fixed payments though they are calculated as interest). Credit cards for instance, exhibit this phenomenon more intensively as there is no ceiling on interest.
Although I believe some would rather argue from an utilitarian point of view rather than from a moral one.
The utility a person experiences as a result of increasing access to resources is sublinear, i.e. there are diminishing utility returns to an individual as they acquire resources. Therefore an unequal resource allocation is less efficient at creating utility than an equal one.
It is argued that the inequality creates incentives that result in more being produced, but many socialists are highly sceptical of this claim, and especially sceptical that the level of inequality that exists is worth the loss of utility it causes.
Personally, I think after a certain level of comfort is reached, people seem to be far more motivated by self-actualisation than ever increasing material wealth.
Examples:
Tooth brush for personal use: Good.
Use said Tooth brush for cleaning someone's toilet to earn some money: bad.
Use your hands to dig your own hole: good.
Use your hands (a mean of production) to dig someone else a hole for money: bad.
It logically follows that public ownership of the means of production results in the ownership of our homes, bodies and ultimately, minds.
That is the intentional theory and actual practical implementation of communist ideology.
It ia very dangerous because it is cloaked in "helping the greater good" and anyone who dare show initiative and put their hands to work without getting a politician to sign off on it results with you and your family getting sent to "labor" and "education" camps.
Once again, not in theory... this happened several times in the 20th century resulting in over 100 million dead
All value comes from the Mind (and labor is a subset of that).
If I decide to write a book and I self publish, having paid for all my tools.... and still get a profit at the end after selling a million copies.... then who is exploited? Where is the theft?
What people don't realize is that the worker is a service provider (like an author) and they are offering their services in exchange for payment (boss is the customer).
The customer agreed the book is worth it.
The author agreed it is worth taking the risks and using their talents at producing works of art.
Win-Win.
Now let's add in that the author also hires someone to delivery the books.
The delivery person also Wins since they have a stable customer of their delivery services (ie: the author).
But would we say that the delivery person is suddennly entitled to additional retained earnings (profits) all of a sudden?
Anyone that will tell you that 2 or more consenting, voluntarily engaged adults is stealing from another is being dishonest and has an agenda.
There was no exploitation and there was no theft. The boss is not the customer and I'm not entirely sure how you have come to this conclusion.
>But would we say that the delivery person is suddennly entitled to additional retained earnings (profits) all of a sudden?
The worker did not participate in any work creating the book, or writing it. The worker however is entitled to profits from the delivery services.
>Anyone that will tell you that 2 or more consenting, voluntarily engaged adults is stealing from another is being dishonest and has an agenda.
This is very dishonest itself. There is nothing voluntary for a lot of people. Work, or be homeless and maybe end up dead, this is the reality for many Americans.
I'm not promising to take from others by force.
I'm perfectly happy working for myself and not employing workers.
However I do choose to hire people that are offering their services (making me, the "boss" the service providers', customer) so that I can help others earn a stable wage.... because I also want to earn more to protect myself and family.
I also spend my profits helping people via charity and community projects.
It's not moral from some guy or girl to take from me at gun point or threat of being put into a cage because they think they can allocate my earnings to Their causes... instead of the ones in my community that I'm working so hard to help.
Onve again, look at who is pointing guns and sending people to prison in the name of "what is moral".
1 wrong and 1 right does not equal morally good.
This is out of touch with reality. A lot of people don't have a choice.
>This usually includes forfeiting some of the profit you create.
Why isn't it going back to the people who made the profit in the first place? That seems very immoral.
The boss does deserved share, since he/she took a risk in spending on equipment or other costs (including your wages).
The question is not whether it's moral or not, but how much is taken. I think everyone agrees is immoral to take 100% (slavery), but it's also wrong to take 0%. I say democracy has been good in the past in deciding. Why not use it for this determination of fairness?
The workers still create the profit. Surplus value after the equipment & supplies needed are paid for is under most circumstances never seen by the people who actually created the profit, the workers. The boss, the owner, deserves to be paid maybe at a higher rate than others, sure depending on your views (socialists would argue against this and advocate for democracy in the workplace with Co-Ops), but to take most or all of the profit when you didn't create it? That's quite immoral.
Furthermore, I've signed and agreed to an explicit compensation that is a win-win. I'm free to live in a smaller place, bike to work and live in a humble diet... but instead I'm choosing to live in a city with a higher standard.
Finally, I have no boss since I prefer to offer my services and labor to a customer of my choice.
The customer profits and I profit.
Strictly speaking, an Employment Contract has your boss as your Customer.
Of course your customer is going to profit/benefit from your services, just as you benefit from them offering something else in return. If they were not to profit from you... then why would they hire you in the first place?
You always have choices and to put your external locus of control outside your sphere of influence is playing "woe is me".
Wealth and happiness come to those that render more service than they are paid for (Napolean Hill - from a Lifetime of Riches)
So I would really like to know... how am I being exploited when a customer/client/boss profits from my labor?
I sure hope they profit from me.... because then it ensures my stability and my own profit.