• ☭ Comrade Pup Ivy 🇨🇺@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Hardly perfection, if it was perfection I was at it would be the complete and unequivocal destruction of the Dictatorship of Capital and Liberation of Workers, in such that they get the full value kf their labor and no longer must beg for scraps, for without the laboror nothing would get done. But I understand that right now it is impractical to do with our level of class contiousness, so my compromise is $33.33 minimum wage or greater,

    And it tracks roughly with the levels of production done. If we are doing more work for the Capitalist the Capitalist must pay.

    • substill@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Even assuming that hourly rate did track roughly with the production of the least skilled labor, why would anyone pay that? That’s the employer guaranteeing payment to at best break even, without accounting for any other costs or risks incurred by the employer.

        • substill@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          But there’s no law that requires hiring anyone in the first place. I’m 100% for raising the minimum wage. I’m for raising it to at least a living wage. But the math does not work if the wage paid by the employer = the price charged to the purchaser. At that point, the employer’s best case scenario is $0 profit, and unless the work is performed, sold, and paid for immediately, a loss on every single transaction. No one has any incentive to employ anyone at that rate.

          I have no idea whether $33.33 per hour is the actual productivity rate of the least skilled worker. I tried Googling it but the closest I could find is that the average American worker grossed $29.76 per hour, not the value of their work output. I also see a Bureau of Labor Statistics report that says the average worker creates $57.54 worth of goods and services per hour. But I don’t see the $33.33 figure in admittedly half ass searching.

          Regardless of what the figure is, there must be some spread between work output and take home pay or no one has any incentive to hire anyone else.

          • albigu@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            The profit should equal exactly the minimum wage, no more and no less. In fact it should not even be called “profit”, just the wage of the administration. Doesn’t matter if a profession is “skilled” or “unskilled”, people should be paid to live not to value their skills above others. No reason an MD should be paid more or less than a janitor and we wouldn’t be able to live without either of them. The pandemic showed clear as day how much work is “essential” and badly paid compared to “inessential” and “skilled”.

            It’s not even like employers themselves are particularly skilled anyways. Now if you believe that some people inherently deserve a worse life due to their profession, you can just say it.

              • Wooly@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                14
                ·
                1 year ago

                Ok, I’ve read all this. And it’s ridiculous, no one will open a business if they make $0. Raise the minimum to something livable like $20 and let them make a few million, probably with hard caps over something like $10+ million profit. They won capitalism, congrats, the rest goes back into the company/taxes. It shouldn’t meet exactly the productivity, just better than what we have now.

                This idea is fine if you literally just want to survive, but your perfect world would have nothing of joy in it.

                • albigu@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  14
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  let them make a few million, probably with hard caps over something like $10+ million profit

                  lmao lost lib came over here to defend millionaires. So long as there exists people personally tied to property profiting “a few million”, they’ll have very little to lose to overturn or bypass those “hard caps” to make a few billions. There’s no “winning capitalism” if you can still influence politics to unlock more capitalism to win more. People should open businesses to serve their community, not to rule them.

                  • Wooly@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    8
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I very much don’t support billionaires, but I just don’t understand how you’d expect to have anything entertainment-wise in a minimum wage=exact productivity. Microsoft isn’t making Xbox from the goodness in their heart.

                    What would we spend our $33 on? Just our house and food? I’d much rather $20 and be able to go to the movies or restaurants.

                • 133arc585@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  10
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  no one will open a business if they make $0

                  In the current system you’re right, but only because to make $0 you yourself won’t be able to survive.

                  To suggest that profit motive must exist to want to start a business though is not valid. Think of all the big name “inventors” of the past couple centuries: yes they were being paid enough to live, but what motivated their invention and discovery was genuine passion for knowledge and invention. I’d start a business that made $0 if I was producing a product I thought was cool and meaningful. In fact, not being tied to a profit motive would let me experiment with more unusual ideas for goods and services.

                  If you pay people enough to survive and entertain themselves, it doesn’t magically turn everyone into a braindead consumer (ironically, that’s what the current system does). If you pay people enough to not have to worry about survival, they can be creative and explore the landscape of ideas, leading to novel discovery and inventions.

                  • Wooly@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Not at all what I said/meant. We just wouldn’t have anything non-essential to spend our new found money on if wages = 100% of the revenue.

                    You couldn’t feasibly fund a movie(33k hours of work to earn $1mill which makes for an awful movie with today’s wages, it would either have to be a 1 person movie or way more startup capital to pay these massive wages), or open a restaurant, you’d be out of money long before you get enough traction, only thing that could be created is one person side project type things like.

                    I just don’t understand how your 100% communist society would work, who would have enough money to start businesses if they was no extra money? The problem with society right now is that there’s TOO much extra money, not extra money existing at all.

                • novibe@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  If there were caps on profits of 10m, then minimum wage could sure be more than 20 bucks friendo.

                  • Wooly@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Sure, I haven’t done the exact calculations, it just means I’d rather have slightly less than the exact cost of production if it means we could actually spend our new wages on stuff we enjoy.

                    Idk how you expect companies we enjoy to exist if there is no point in owning/investing in a company.

          • If they do not hire anyone, no work gets done. They have to hire about the same amount of people as already employed, as no capitalist trying to maximize profit is going to pay you more they they think they can get away with, and they will not operate with more workers than they need. They need us, we do not need them

      • If by skilled labor you mean all labor that is more than being a CEO, then yes, the idea of skilled and unskilled labor is a myth to devide the working class and should be disreguarded.

        Second in what universe should we, labor, care about capital or how they feel, they steal from us, they steal our suplus value, they rob the best years of our lives, and in the US, they activly argue aganst us getting basic government survices, they are not our friends. Risk does not cause value, me standing near a fire does not create value, labor creates value. And they would pay it because they need labor, Capital needs labor, labor does not need capital.