To take a quote out of context: """
As the economist Robert Frank wrote, “building wealth to them is a creative process, and the closest thing they have to fun.”
"""
So the wealthy are accumulating the fruits of workers' labor as a pastime?
As the economist Robert Frank wrote, “building wealth to them is a creative process, and the closest thing they have to fun.”
"""
So the wealthy are accumulating the fruits of workers' labor as a pastime?
Would you consider that the businesswoman is exploiting society? And what if she decides that she wants to employ people again instead of using robots?
From a Marxist perspective, no, or at least not directly. Others in the supply chain do, however - from the people who are employed to raise the cows, to the leathermakers, to the rubbermarkers, to the employees of other companies that built the machines. However, according to the traditional Marxist conception (which isn't a universal conception among Marxists nowadays), such a company would only be as profitable in the long run proportional to the amount of labour the businesswoman adds herself. This is why there hasn't been a completely automated shoe factory run by a single person that's profitable in the long run once forces of competition kick in.
The story is muddled a little if she acquires patents and copyrights, but it's not too far from reality, given that some countries have more lax attitudes towards IP and 'stealing designs'.
Simple online SaaS that required very little manual effort but provided a lot of value and saved lots of manual effort for those who used it.
Yes, a VAST majority of people are not offended by the concept of paid work.
That sounds a lot look any normal employment contract to me. Any American bank, engineering company, factory, restaurant, etc has this employment arrangement and they are all consensual. So no, I do not.
everyone's retort to marxism is this same thing. i'm not going to debate you but i'll just point out that, again, consensual here is a gross oversimplification.
And what I'm saying is, not only do I not accept the validity of that word game, but that a VAST majority of society does not accept that word game. Under your definition of consent almost nobody ever has consent for anything. This is not how people generally use the word consent.
>even though they signed a piece of paper agreeing to do the thing while not under acute duress
there are many many other things other than duress that make a contract unenforceable
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/unenforceable-contra...
all you have to do to know this is witness literally any will go to probate.
>not only do I not accept the validity of that word game, but that a VAST majority of society does not accept that word game
you're wrong. you're just wrong. it's why lawyers exist. i'm sorry that you don't understand this but i can't teach it to you. i suggest you sit in on a 1L contracts class at your local law school.