But real talk, why are construction sites always like this?
Right now they're doing work on a bridge over here and every day there's either one dude out there doing nothin, or there's a group of dudes scattered about doing nothing, watching one guy work. It's no wonder this projects gonna take 5 years.
How a government in a capitalist country works perhaps. Certainly not how the government worked in USSR or how it works in places like Cuba, China, or Vietnam today.
America is the least capitalist is has been probably in its history. Just because it was founded on something that was quite capitalistic doesnt mean it still is.
Why not push for less regulations so that small business can thrive?
I'm doing no such thing. Capitalist competition necessarily leads to monopolies because successful businesses grow and as they grow it takes increasingly more up front investment to compete with them. On top of it they can just undercut small businesses or buy them out. The game of monopoly is a perfect illustration of how capitalism works. Everybody starts on equal footing, and at the end of the game one players owns everything. That's how capital concentration happens in real life under the capitalist dynamics.
Meanwhile, the government represents the interests of the class that holds power in society and passes laws in their interest. Under capitalism it's the capital owning class. These are the people who own the media, pay for election campaigns, lobbying, and so on. And it's not just me saying this. Here's what a study analyzing many decades of US policy concludes:
I dont like monopolies either, but what monopolies are causing you the most harm? Mine would be the governemnt monopoly.
I think you have fundamental mistake in that you seem to believe that the economy is a zero sum game but its just not how it works. The only zero sum game that I am worried about is the control of our rights with the governmnet.
What specifically is it that you want peoples lives to look like?
Government is not a monopoly the government is a management organization that resolves differences between capitalists. Meanwhile, if you can't understand how capitalist monopolies cause harm then you're beyond help. The whole climate crisis is caused by capitalist monopolies, just one example for you.
I think you have fundamental mistake in that you seem to believe that the economy is a zero sum game but its just not how it works. The only zero sum game that I am worried about is the control of our rights with the governmnet.
That literally has nothing to do with what I said which is that the economy works in the interest of the people who own capital, and these are the same people the government represents. You don't even understand what the government is apparently.
What specifically is it that you want peoples lives to look like?
I want people to own the means of production. I want all businesses to be run as a mix of state owned enterprise and worker owned cooperatives. The state enterprise is good at providing common things everyone needs like healthcare, infrastructure, housing, and so on. These are things that need to be done regardless of profit motive. Meanwhile, private sector that's owned by the workers is great at providing all the things where profit motive acts as a motivator. This isn't rocket science.
How can I opt out of the government if its not a monopoly? Its literally the only true monopoly and its on our rights and force.
When you talk about all the money doesnt just go to the rich, there is more wealth created and you have the option to accumulate wealth or trade it to others.
Do you understand how what you are advocating for will just make everyone poorer? When you say "Nu-uh", answer this question, for the people that work a lot of hours and work hard, what is the reason to continue to go above and beyond when our labor is being taken and given to others?
How can I opt out of the government if its not a monopoly?
Please learn what words government and monopoly mean before attempting to use them in sentence.
When you talk about all the money doesnt just go to the rich, there is more wealth created and you have the option to accumulate wealth or trade it to others.
Imagine still believing in trickle down economics. 😂
Do you understand how what you are advocating for will just make everyone poorer?
Workers retaining the profits of their labor makes them more poor is the dumbest take I've seen in a while. Maybe spend a bit of time educating yourself instead of trolling online.
No one believes in trickle down economics nor did they ever, it was literally propaganda term. Please explain to me why I would have worked so many hours or so hard if I didnt get the benefit of my labor? Simple question that you will not be able to answer because its why your ideal system never ever ever works.
You literally believe in trickle down economics because that's what capitalism fundamentally is. The boss you employs your dumb ass appropriates all the value that you produce, then pays you a small portion of that value in form of salary. That's the system where you don't get benefit of your labor.
Since you evidently don't understand the concept of cooperative ownership. That's a system where all the workers own the business together and share the profits in equitable manner. Meanwhile, it's pretty hilarious that you think communism doesn't work given that China is pretty much the only place in the world where the standard of living is rapidly improving. Meanwhile, it's declining in all the capitalist hellholes.
Like I said, no one believes in trickle down economics... and that is not what capitalism is. China isnt communism. Please explain to me why I would have worked so many hours or so hard if I didnt get the benefit of my labor?
You've already made it abundantly clear that you do not understand what capitalism is. China is a socialist country that's run by the communist party. Please explain to me how cooperative ownership means not getting the benefit of your labor. Be specific.
China is not, its controlled by a centralized party but it lets people do their own thing. I noticed you didnt mention Cuba as a great example of communism, "Because sanctions they cant get ahead!!!!" You should check out the vox video on how well their system works.
Please explain to me how cooperative ownership means not getting the benefit of your labor.
Because the harder I work it doesnt directly benefit me, it benefits all the owners. So I would not be incentivized to work harder or longer because I dont get the direct benefit.
China is not, its controlled by a centralized party but it lets people do their own thing.
How to say you have no clue how the system in China works.
I noticed you didnt mention Cuba as a great example of communism, “Because sanctions they cant get ahead!!!” You should check out the vox video on how well their system works.
Cuba has been fucked over by the US regime since the revolution dummy.
Because the harder I work it doesnt directly benefit me, it benefits all the owners. So I would not be incentivized to work harder or longer because I dont get the direct benefit.
Owning your own business doesn't benefit you. Just how dumb are you exactly?
What I noticed is that you have really poor reading comprehension because I answered your questions repeatedly. You just keep repeating the same nonsense over and over like a broken record without actually addressing anything I said. It's like talking to a bot.
See this is what I'm talking about. Poor reading comprehension all around. I've addressed this here in detail https://lemmy.ml/comment/9575251
The boss you employs your dumb ass appropriates all the value that you produce, then pays you a small portion of that value in form of salary. That’s the system where you don’t get benefit of your labor.
When you are an employee, which is the vast majority of population who do not own businesses, you are being exploited by an owner such as yourself who steals your labor.
A business that actually benefits the workers is a worker owned cooperative where people doing the work get to keep the profits. Evidently this concept is really hard for you to wrap your head around.
You still didnt answer the question. I had no employees, I just worked a lot and am smart so I was able to get people what they wanted. Who was harmed and how was this bad for me?
That's a straw man argument because I never said that being self employed harms anybody. In fact, that's not different from a cooperative with just a single person working in the business. This is completely compatible with communism you get that right?
Once again, you're showing your reading comprehension problems. I love how you keep telling me how smart you are, but then show that you aren't able to parse simple sentences.
The bit you quoted was me mocking you saying that people don't get the benefit of their labor under a mix or cooperative ownership and state enterprise. I feel compelled to reiterate the question from the quote here.
Oh, so we're back to your straw man because nobody ever suggested anything of the sort. Once again, since you're a little slow, communism is a a mix of private cooperative ownership (which includes being self employed) and state owned industry. What part of that specifically are you objecting to again?
The mode of business communists object to is private enterprise where the capitalist owns the business and hires wage workers.
Gotcha more insults and now actual answers, I am done here. I know you will read this whole comment because this is your lifeline to humanity. You need to stop doing this, you are so lonely that your only attachment to other people is the internet. You are going to end up old, fat, and lonely. You have some good takes on other things so you are not dumb, but you are living in imaginary computer land where there is no reality. I recommend you get out of the house and actual make some friends and dump this depressing lifestyle you have that will put you in the grave. You can respond but I promise you I will not read it so you wont do another pointless rage responce. Have a great night!
You got a clear and direct answer to your nonsense. Really should spend time working on your reading comprehension so you don't keep making a clown of yourself in public. Also, love how you keep projecting onto me being lonely. You're the one who keeps replying with sheer idiocy since I assume you're attention seeking. I'm sorry your life sucks dude and you burnt yourself out by your 30s, and now all you've got left is online trolling. I recommend you take your own advice, because it's just pathetic. Hope you get the help you need.
Because the harder I work it doesnt directly benefit me, it benefits all the owners
Correct. Now, apply that exact same analysis to the capitalist company.
The average worker earns $34/hr. Let's say you work for a company that employs 10 people.
At 9am, you produce $40 profit for the company, as does every other employee. For that, you each receive $34, and the shareholders receive $60.
At 10am, all the other workers produce $40 for the company, but you produce $4000. Company grosses $4360, pays out $340 in payroll, and keeps $4020 in profit.
Simple, right? You gave the company an hour; you received an hour's pay. You don't have a claim to the company profits; those belong to the shareholders. Your claim is $68 for those two hours of work, not the value of what you produce. That's capitalism.
The difference between capitalism and socialism is that under socialism, as a worker, you are also a shareholder in the company.
Under socialism, your claim is $68 for the two hours of work, plus 1/10th of the company profits. You receive $34 + $6 for 9am, and $34 + $402 for 10am.
Fwiw, I don't agree with the idea of state-owned businesses. But, I do believe that most businesses should operate as partnerships or co-ops, where the people doing the work are also the owners, and entitled to their fair share of the company's profits.
As an owner, if you see me freeloading on the factory floor, you can petition the other owners to have me fired. If you're the only one putting in any work, you can demand the rest of us pay you better, or you can quit.
I understand what you are saying but there are two important factors that change the whole story. The first one is simple, the government does everything abysmally. Its just a nature of how these things work, so everything would be less effcient.
The second thing is under a socialistic structure the amount of overall wealth will be reduced. I had two jobs, I worked for Megacorp as an engineer, and I renovated houses. I personally used to work 70-80 hours per week, if I didnt get the direct benefit from the 30-40 extra hours I worked, I would not have done it. Also when I was doing self employed work I worked very hard and was very efficient with my time. In Megacorp I did exactly what I was told and no more, I would literally only have negative things happen if I did more.
All this to say that sure the worker could get more money, but the whole society would be poorer so it is a bad exchange.
No, I don't think you do. The reason I don't think you do is because you made this criticism:
personally used to work 70-80 hours per week, if I didnt get the direct benefit from the 30-40 extra hours I worked,
How would that play out in the scenarios I described?
You would have earned $34/he for the first 40 hours, then $51/hr for the overtime. You would have received the direct, time-and-a-half pay for your labor.
But then, you don't have an external shareholder to pay: you get a fair share of the company profits. Not just what you produced, but what the company produced.
I didn't adequately define a method for determining a fair share. I assumed every worker was working the same number of hours, so there was no need to consider workaholics like yourself.
But the solution is simple: each worker receives $34/hr straight time, $51/hr overtime, just as we do it now. Additionally, each worker receives 1 share for each hour of their labor, and the company periodically buys back those shares by evenly dividing the profits earned during that period. Your regular co-workers earn 40 shares a week; you, the workaholic, earn 70 or 80 shares.
Your criticism that you don't get the direct benefit of your labor is simply wrong: you still earn your hourly wage, you just also earn a profit when the company does.
Also when I was doing self employed work I worked very hard and was very efficient with my time. In Megacorp I did exactly what I was told and no more, I would literally only have negative things happen if I did more.
Exactly: those "negative things" are the value of your labor being transferred away from you, and to the shareholders. When you were self employed, you were the shareholder; you received the value of your labor. When you are part of a co-op, you are also a shareholder. You are more "self-employed" than a worker for a megacorp.
but the whole society would be poorer
Elaborate, please. The only people who would be poorer are people who put in no work, but expect to be paid anyway: the shareholders in a capitalist society.
The first one is simple, the government does everything abysmally. Its just a nature of how these things work, so everything would be less effcient.
Nothing I described requires government involvement in business operations. What I described is a simple "partnership" business model: each of the partners is entitled to a share of the company profits. Government does not define a partnership; the partners do.
The government's involvement is not in the operation, but merely in the incentivization. Tax code could be structured to favor a broad base of owners, and punitively discourage billion-dollar companies from being solely or majority owned by single entities.
Sorry what I said was confusing. I worked the corporate job for 40 hours, then worked 30-40 hours on my own thing.
Negative things - people would complain and I would get no benefit to working hard, just like
The whole society is poorer because people like me would work half the hours at half the effort.
If you guys can do businesses in a way where everything is censual, then good on you, please do that. The issue you will find in partnerships is that people word at different levels and differently, and the direct benefit is just not there the more the partnership is diluted.
Regulation have nothing to do with monopolies, typically. Most regulations just make it harder for small business to do things so it benefits the big businesses.
A regulation that places a flat overhead or expense does create a disadvantage for a smaller business. But considering that the smaller business would have been bought up / bullied out in the absence of regulations, it is usually a small price to pay.
More regulation is more paperwork more expenses and more permissions/licenses, it definitely harms small business much much more. I can tell you this as a small business owner whos biggest issue is dealing with government regulations.
By saying what you said, you have no idea what the regulations that small businesses are facing. If you dont know about a thing, just ask so you can learn and not spout off about how doing extra stuff protects me.
I have no doubt the regulations are painful. And I'm sure at least a few of them are unnecessary or even useless rules laid down a hundred years ago and never repealed. By all means, push for reforms. But rules and regulations, as a class, are protecting you both from criminals and from larger competitors. Don't cut the tree you are sitting on.
Sorry man but you have a fundemental lack of knowledge here. I am not sure what you gleaned this from, or who told you this, but this is just factually incorrect.
I'm not talking quantum physics. I'm saying that (1) in the complete absence of regulations or other barriers, the biggest company in any field will tend to become a monopoly, and (2) in return for regulations against anticompetitive practices protecting your business, you have a responsibility to follow the rest of the rules, which are aimed at protecting consumers / smaller businesses / staff / common resources from you, even if you personally might find them painful. Which of these do you disagree with?
Let me give you an example of why you are incorrect. I just got bids to do an technical project, and the guy that is him and one employee, cost $9500, and the big company cost $15000. The reason is the big company has so much more overhead that they cost more. So small companies could easily outbid the big companies, but the regulations that are good and useless make it too hard for many small companies to exist. If you want to learn about specific regulations I can tell you about them, but I am done arguing about this.
Shit guys, turns out nothing is getting done without Dave here. I found Stan, but he will only do the job for twice Dave's old salary. Let's change our business model to a subscription service since it seems like everyone enjoys those anyway and give ourselves bonuses and negotiate Stan down to 130 percent of Daves salary!
