This is a very, very, very antiquated notion of commerce and puts everything into a binary that was already outdated when posited in the mid 19th century. Not all profit is bad and not all labor is good. As an employer, safe profit allows me to hire more employees, increasing the people I can help. As an employee, safe profit that gets reinvested improves equity in my peers or provides me new opportunities to grow.
Here’s a great example that shows the cracks in this model. We’ve got a sales person, a couple of junior software devs, and an architect. Individually, the sales person has nothing to sell, the junior devs are not experienced enough to have or build good tech, and the architect does not have enough time to build everything themselves. Together, they are able to build a product that materially helps some workflow and the sales person gets money coming in. Assuming equitable pay, possibly even equal, if the software can be sold at a profit, whose labor value was stolen? The sales person can’t exist without the code, the devs can’t sell the code, and the architect needs help to implement. Did we steal the labor value of sales? Should they make more because they went out into the market and found customers? Did we steal the labor value of the junior devs? Should they make more because they built most of the software? Did we steal the labor value of the architect? Should they make more because they had the idea and trained folks to get it done?
Why would I do that? OP said all profit is stolen labor value. I didn’t even mention grossly overcompensated employees who contribute nothing. You’re gonna have to find someone else for that.
The problem you’re describing is capitalism, not profit or commerce.
In my real-world example, who pays for travel? If profit is just stolen labor value, clearly everyone gets all the money for hours worked, right? So who pays for travel? And wait, it actually takes longer for the juniorest dev to write some code because they’re still learning. Do they get a larger slice of the pie? They have the least experience and contributed the least overall. If we go by hourly wages then suddenly Goodhart’s Law kicks in.
This isn’t some hypothetical. This is a real problem real devs go through regularly and something I’ve been a part of off and on for a long time. You can call me a bootlicker all you want; I don’t really think that’s a good faith conversation so you’re not worth my time.
You can’t even define the labor value and who gets paid what in what you called a very simplistic example. Unless you can do that, you can take your theory back to the message boards and leave those of us that actually try to figure out how to make sure equity happens alone.
Generally, expenses are taken out pre-wage. That’s how expenses work. Generally, the team agrees on what equitable distribution is and reinvestment of profit. That’s how contracts and commerce works. Generally, profit can be reinvested to create more jobs and more opportunities. That’s why smart labor sometimes decides equitable pay leaves room for profit. I don’t know who you’re reading that doesn’t cover the basics, but you should probably expand.
It’s possible for companies to lose money and still stay in business in the short term. I have run a number of small businesses and I have taken pay cuts multiple times, ran at a loss multiple years, and also put up strong profits. I run a nonprofit now and it’s tough. Business isn’t uninterrupted profit continually being stolen from workers. Sometimes investing in good people comes at a loss for awhile.
Profit by definition is leeching off the labor value of workers
This is a very, very, very antiquated notion of commerce and puts everything into a binary that was already outdated when posited in the mid 19th century. Not all profit is bad and not all labor is good. As an employer, safe profit allows me to hire more employees, increasing the people I can help. As an employee, safe profit that gets reinvested improves equity in my peers or provides me new opportunities to grow.
Here’s a great example that shows the cracks in this model. We’ve got a sales person, a couple of junior software devs, and an architect. Individually, the sales person has nothing to sell, the junior devs are not experienced enough to have or build good tech, and the architect does not have enough time to build everything themselves. Together, they are able to build a product that materially helps some workflow and the sales person gets money coming in. Assuming equitable pay, possibly even equal, if the software can be sold at a profit, whose labor value was stolen? The sales person can’t exist without the code, the devs can’t sell the code, and the architect needs help to implement. Did we steal the labor value of sales? Should they make more because they went out into the market and found customers? Did we steal the labor value of the junior devs? Should they make more because they built most of the software? Did we steal the labor value of the architect? Should they make more because they had the idea and trained folks to get it done?
Kk, cool. I wanna hear the defense for 350-1.
Why would I do that? OP said all profit is stolen labor value. I didn’t even mention grossly overcompensated employees who contribute nothing. You’re gonna have to find someone else for that.
In your simplistic example, the profits would be split between the workers. You’re also pretending businesses don’t have useless owners.
But nice try bootlicker.
The problem you’re describing is capitalism, not profit or commerce.
In my real-world example, who pays for travel? If profit is just stolen labor value, clearly everyone gets all the money for hours worked, right? So who pays for travel? And wait, it actually takes longer for the juniorest dev to write some code because they’re still learning. Do they get a larger slice of the pie? They have the least experience and contributed the least overall. If we go by hourly wages then suddenly Goodhart’s Law kicks in.
This isn’t some hypothetical. This is a real problem real devs go through regularly and something I’ve been a part of off and on for a long time. You can call me a bootlicker all you want; I don’t really think that’s a good faith conversation so you’re not worth my time.
WhOs GoNnA pAy FoR tRaVeL STFU and learn to stop swallowing capitalist propaganda and fight for the rights of your fellow workers.
You can’t even defend your ideology. I’m doing much more for labor than you, so I’m okay!
Sad to see that people like you consider themselves pro labor. No wonder we’re fucked.
But hey, at least corporations will know how to pay travel expenses. That’s almost as good as actually getting paid the value of your labor…
You can’t even define the labor value and who gets paid what in what you called a very simplistic example. Unless you can do that, you can take your theory back to the message boards and leave those of us that actually try to figure out how to make sure equity happens alone.
Generally, expenses are taken out pre-wage. That’s how expenses work. Generally, the team agrees on what equitable distribution is and reinvestment of profit. That’s how contracts and commerce works. Generally, profit can be reinvested to create more jobs and more opportunities. That’s why smart labor sometimes decides equitable pay leaves room for profit. I don’t know who you’re reading that doesn’t cover the basics, but you should probably expand.
deleted by creator
It’s possible for companies to lose money and still stay in business in the short term. I have run a number of small businesses and I have taken pay cuts multiple times, ran at a loss multiple years, and also put up strong profits. I run a nonprofit now and it’s tough. Business isn’t uninterrupted profit continually being stolen from workers. Sometimes investing in good people comes at a loss for awhile.