Joe Biden announces Kamala Harris as running mate.

[Iron]

Sure, here ya go. Businesses with >10 employees account for about 15% of private-sector employment. Companies with <250 employees account for about 40%.



The point is that workers are not paid the value of their work, or even anywhere close to it. Executives rake in hundreds of thousands to millions, while those who actually generate the value-- producers, manual labourers, craftsmen-- make a pittance in comparison.



The power dynamic between the two is at the very centre of the dispute. I am saying responsibility rests with the one who actually makes the decision, and who has the most power and room to move. The state of the labour market does not force the employer to depreciate wages. They make that decision themselves-- for unnecessary reasons-- if the labour market will get away with it.

The solution is not to starve the labour market of labour by putting in controls on migration. That would not fix the problem: the power imbalance still exists, the employer can still depreciate wages if they choose, and they will. The solution rests in empowering the worker, regardless of details such as their country of origin.



Highly-specialised workers such as renovators and specific workmen can usually ask quite a lot more for their work than factory workers, producers, farmers, etc. The reason is because they're usually self-employed or in joint ventures with one or two people-- they set their own rates, rather than having wages dictated by executives.

The stats give me a headache, I'll look at it when I'm more clear-headed. thanks for the sauce, still. Workers are never paid the value of their work, that is why they are workers. If they wanted to be paid the value of their work, they would have been kitchen renovators and self-employed. You can't have the cake and eat it. You can't get job security and also dictate your own wages - what is this, pre-thatcher north england? Responsibility for what, the working conditions? The justice of the matter? It's an agreement between two parties. Who has the responsibility when you negotiate a price for kitchen renovations? You may not understand what I am implying with labor shortage, I'll explain myself better. When faced with a labor shortage, employers need to either - raise the attractiveness of the job, or automate and/or innovate. This pushes for more productivity and better wages for workers. For example, lets say you manage several kiosks around London and need to pay people to work there. There is only so much you can pay to your workers before you go over your budget, and there aren't enough applicants for the job. Then you either need to raise the pay, or close some of the kiosks. Alternatively, the owner could automate some of the kiosks - a large upfront investment, but it will save them on labor costs in the long-run. There's always the cop-out - allow migrants to flood the market, thus pushing the wages down, pushing rent and services up - you're screwing over the working class.

 

[Silvanus]

The stats give me a headache, I'll look at it when I'm more clear-headed. thanks for the sauce, still. Workers are never paid the value of their work, that is why they are workers. If they wanted to be paid the value of their work, they would have been kitchen renovators and self-employed. You can't have the cake and eat it.

Ok, I don't think you really have a good grasp on how our economic system is structured. Suffice it to say that isn't feasible.

You can't get job security and also dictate your own wages - what is this, pre-thatcher north england? Responsibility for what, the working conditions? The justice of the matter? It's an agreement between two parties. Who has the responsibility when you negotiate a price for kitchen renovations? You may not understand what I am implying with labor shortage, I'll explain myself better. When faced with a labor shortage, employers need to either - raise the attractiveness of the job, or automate and/or innovate. This pushes for more productivity and better wages for workers. For example, lets say you manage several kiosks around London and need to pay people to work there. There is only so much you can pay to your workers before you go over your budget, and there aren't enough applicants for the job. Then you either need to raise the pay, or close some of the kiosks. Alternatively, the owner could automate some of the kiosks - a large upfront investment, but it will save them on labor costs in the long-run. There's always the cop-out - allow migrants to flood the market, thus pushing the wages down, pushing rent and services up - you're screwing over the working class.

What, so if someone wants a job that isn't self-employment, they should just accept whatever terms their employer wants? That doesn't sound like an agreement at all: that sounds like indentured servitude.

You're basically only speaking about the benefit for the employer, without any regard for the employee. This profit-motivated greed and single-mindedness is precisely what collective bargaining exists to combat.

Migrants did not force employers to act with excessive greed and cruelty. They did that themselves, and the blame rests with them. It was their decision. They do not need apologism.

 

[Iron]

Ok, I don't think you really have a good grasp on how our economic system is structured. Suffice it to say that isn't feasible.




What, so if someone wants a job that isn't self-employment, they should just accept whatever terms their employer wants? That doesn't sound like an agreement at all: that sounds like indentured servitude.

You're basically only speaking about the benefit for the employer, without any regard for the employee. This profit-motivated greed and single-mindedness is precisely what collective bargaining exists to combat.

Migrants did not force employers to act with excessive greed and cruelty. They did that themselves, and the blame rests with them. It was their decision. They do not need apologism.

I don't think you understand economics either, you read like a student of marx. You don't need to be a wageslave to live, you can easily be self-employed. The obvious downside is the social benefits you lose from being self-employed.
It's not the migrants, they didn't put a collective gun to their employers and tell them to lower their wages, it's the people who allowed them to come in the first place. If you go travel to Spain or Greece, do you insist on paying with UK prices, or do you pay what they're asking? Then you're greedy as well. They come from different countries, with different needs and qualifications, and can offer their labor for cheap. You accuse the employers of hiring them cheaply, yet you won't mind if you buy yourself a drink in Mallorca for twenty pence.

 

[Schadrach]

And yet the only candidates who actually do have this demanded of them are people of color...

Note the third sentence in what you replied to. I specifically stated that we should require Biden, Trump and Pence do likewise.

Think of it as "Oh, you want to push this requirement on a candidate because they're not white? You know what, it's a good idea, every candidate should be required to do that!"

 

[MrCalavera]

So it's the summer of the greatest American Fuck-the-police-a-looza since... 92? The 60s?

And Biden decides to introduce a former prosecutor, that sent over 1000 people to prison for weed possesion, as his VP nominee.

If they count on her appealing both to BlackLM and BlueLM crowd at the same time... Bold move. Let's see if it pays off.

 

[Silvanus]

I don't think you understand economics either, you read like a student of marx. You don't need to be a wageslave to live, you can easily be self-employed. The obvious downside is the social benefits you lose from being self-employed.

"You can easily be self-employed".

Nobody with the faintest idea of the economic reality of the average breadwinner or family earner would un-ironically write that. The economic system we have is very intentionally structured in order to make self-employment unfeasible for most people. A small minority of people can accomplish it. Any more than a small minority, and it ceases to pay the bills.

Most people will need to work for somebody else. And in that situation, the employer sets the wage, and the employer holds almost all of the power in any wage negotiation.

It's not the migrants, they didn't put a collective gun to their employers and tell them to lower their wages, it's the people who allowed them to come in the first place. If you go travel to Spain or Greece, do you insist on paying with UK prices, or do you pay what they're asking? Then you're greedy as well. They come from different countries, with different needs and qualifications, and can offer their labor for cheap. You accuse the employers of hiring them cheaply, yet you won't mind if you buy yourself a drink in Mallorca for twenty pence.

At every stage in the process, you're willing to blame almost anybody except those who are actually deciding what the wages are: the employers. Why the need to shift the responsibility from the ones who are actually making the decision?

 

[Agema]

You don't need to be a wageslave to live, you can easily be self-employed.

Not in my line of work, you can't. Some jobs are well predisposed towards being self-employed, and others aren't. We can't have an entire society of the former without a colossally different society.

Never mind that, but if you work for a company, you are still paid less than your work is worth irrespective of whether an employee or self-employed on some sort of fixed contract (and we know by now the latter often get less). Companies need to make profits, and that inherently comes from those who work for them producing more than it costs the company to pay them.

 

[Tireseas]

you can easily be self-employed.

Let me chime in as someone who is self employed and in a field that generally pays quite well overall and has a surprisingly low level of regulation outside of general rules regarding business and maintaining professional ethics:

No, you cannot be easily self-employed. It's really fucking hard, especially if you're trying to do it without an already established set of clients who will follow you from another firm. 90% of all start-ups fail, largely because building a stable clientele is fucking difficult. I spent 2 years driving Lyft to make sure I could pay my loans, for our food, and still have something left over in the end for some entertainment. It's grating, demoralizing, and extremely risky even when you're well-positioned to be successful. I have had to deal with serious depression and anxiety that was exacerbated (if not outright caused) by my work. Many small business loans require you to already be in business for 5 years just to qualify. Other professionals will go years without turning a profit as they spin up their business.

And while it's a great life for some driven focused people, I would never recommend it for people who want stability and predictability. And that's if you have a good chunk of resources and the circumstances that even allow you to take those risks. If you're poor or have people who depend on you, entrepreneurship is a endeavor that is so risky that almost any other job would be a safer bet.

So, no, you can't be easily self-employed. It's easy only in the sense that the paperwork to start a business is a form. It's a sharp and often unforgiving learning curve many many many people never get pass.

 

[Iron]

"You can easily be self-employed".

Nobody with the faintest idea of the economic reality of the average breadwinner or family earner would un-ironically write that. The economic system we have is very intentionally structured in order to make self-employment unfeasible for most people. A small minority of people can accomplish it. Any more than a small minority, and it ceases to pay the bills.

Most people will need to work for somebody else. And in that situation, the employer sets the wage, and the employer holds almost all of the power in any wage negotiation.



At every stage in the process, you're willing to blame almost anybody except those who are actually deciding what the wages are: the employers. Why the need to shift the responsibility from the ones who are actually making the decision?

Most people need to work for someone else, yet that someone else is some mystical being wholly dislodged from reality, only to be criticized and labeled kulaks. Where are all of the employers at? Business owners? Are they not a part of society, people like you and me? How can they be able to do what you say is the impossible? I suppose they aren't people. Your link states that most businesses in the UK have no employees - either self-employed or just a business on paper.

Not in my line of work, you can't. Some jobs are well predisposed towards being self-employed, and others aren't. We can't have an entire society of the former without a colossally different society.

Never mind that, but if you work for a company, you are still paid less than your work is worth irrespective of whether an employee or self-employed on some sort of fixed contract (and we know by now the latter often get less). Companies need to make profits, and that inherently comes from those who work for them producing more than it costs the company to pay them. Why do you need to shift the conversation and refuse to answer my questions? Would you pay the same prices in Spain and Greece? Why wouldn't you pay higher, so that your service provider can be fully paid for their labor?

True, many professions require an organization (i.e. R&D).

Let me chime in as someone who is self employed and in a field that generally pays quite well overall and has a surprisingly low level of regulation outside of general rules regarding business and maintaining professional ethics:

No, you cannot be easily self-employed. It's really fucking hard, especially if you're trying to do it without an already established set of clients who will follow you from another firm. 90% of all start-ups fail, largely because building a stable clientele is fucking difficult. I spent 2 years driving Lyft to make sure I could pay my loans, for our food, and still have something left over in the end for some entertainment. It's grating, demoralizing, and extremely risky even when you're well-positioned to be successful. I have had to deal with serious depression and anxiety that was exacerbated (if not outright caused) by my work. Many small business loans require you to already be in business for 5 years just to qualify. Other professionals will go years without turning a profit as they spin up their business.

And while it's a great life for some driven focused people, I would never recommend it for people who want stability and predictability. And that's if you have a good chunk of resources and the circumstances that even allow you to take those risks. If you're poor or have people who depend on you, entrepreneurship is a endeavor that is so risky that almost any other job would be a safer bet.

So, no, you can't be easily self-employed. It's easy only in the sense that the paperwork to start a business is a form. It's a sharp and often unforgiving learning curve many many many people never get pass.

Obviously it's difficult, nobody teaches you how to do it. You don't learn these skills at school or at university (for the most part) and mostly have to learn from experience, or from a close associate. Independence is upwards mobility, but it doesn't guarantee you a safety net. Most people would rather be employed and then moan about their wages, not understanding what it requires to run the entire operation they are a part of.
It is very much not suited for people who need stability, which is why I believe that it's the best solution for young people who are only starting to build their lives. Once the business can work _without you actively being in it_ then you've succeeded. for example, lets say you're a contractor. The goal is to manage your business and oversee it, and not spend your time placing ceramics. If you weren't born with a spoon in your mouth - and your parents didn't have a business already running, in which you could work and lea
*regarding clients and the like - it's difficult to build rapport, but you ought to understand that the same established companies went through the same process in the past. You trust a brand for a reason - and that reason is because the brand worked hard for it.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Most people need to work for someone else, yet that someone else is some mystical being wholly dislodged from reality, only to be criticized and labeled kulaks. Where are all of the employers at? Business owners? Are they not a part of society, people like you and me? How can they be able to do what you say is the impossible?

Much like peasants could simply become lords by murdering enough people? You're being absurd.

There are these things called resources which are owned by some people and not others or that can be afforded by some people and not others and these resources are what allow people to be the employer rather than the employee. One either has these resources-- the means of production-- or they don't.

 

[Iron]

Much like peasants could simply become lords by murdering enough people? You're being absurd.

There are these things called resources which are owned by some people and not others or that can be afforded by some people and not others and these resources are what allow people to be the employer rather than the employee. One either has these resources-- the means of production-- or they don't.

The absolute state of Marxist economic theory. This was somewhat relevant two hundred years ago. There's a reason it never actually succeeded, and it's not those evil CIA glow-in-the-dark boys.
*looks at top most wealthiest people in the world*

Who are the 10 richest people in the world in 2024?

Elon Musk consolidates his position at the top of the global billionaires list

www.theweek.co.uk

Bezos. Started out of his garage selling books online.
Gates. Built Microsoft up from nothing.
The ZUCC. College dropout, built facebook in his shitty laptop.
...
Warren Buffet. Worked since he was a kid, traded in penny-stocks.
Larry Page. Co-founded Google.

Oh shit look at all of the old money landed aristocrats we have here on the list.

Go seethe someplace else about all the successful people and how they owe money to "the people", loser.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Bezos. Started out of his garage selling books online.
Gates. Built Microsoft up from nothing.
The ZUCC. College dropout, built facebook in his shitty laptop.
Warren Buffet. Worked since he was a kid, traded in penny-stocks.
Larry Page. Co-founded Google.

All of these people came from wealthy families and had relatively large amounts of money to begin with. And none of them "built" anything from nothing. It was the people they employed who actually did the work.

 

[Silvanus]

Most people need to work for someone else, yet that someone else is some mystical being wholly dislodged from reality, only to be criticized and labeled kulaks. Where are all of the employers at? Business owners? Are they not a part of society, people like you and me? How can they be able to do what you say is the impossible? I suppose they aren't people.

What on earth are you talking about? Of course they're part of society, and I haven't labelled anybody a "kulak".

I'm quite straightforwardly pointing out that they are the ones who actually have power to set wages. So if wages are depreciating, they are the ones with the power over that, and the culpability rests with them. They are not at the mercy of the size of the labour pool, forced to lower wages; they choose to do it.

Your link states that most businesses in the UK have no employees - either self-employed or just a business on paper.

Self-employed or joint ownership, yes. But they account for a pretty small amount of employment in the UK (which makes sense). Self-employment is patently not feasible for most people.

 

[Agema]

Bezos. Started out of his garage selling books online.
Gates. Built Microsoft up from nothing.
The ZUCC. College dropout, built facebook in his shitty laptop.
...
Warren Buffet. Worked since he was a kid, traded in penny-stocks.
Larry Page. Co-founded Google.

Well, it certainly is some form of progress that the ability to achieve greatness has expanded beyond the aristocracy to the upper middle classes as well.

Shame about the other 90% of the population, but hey, maybe in another a few hundred years of progress we'll get that down to just 80% excluded?

 

[tippy2k2]

Well, it certainly is some form of progress that the ability to achieve greatness has expanded beyond the aristocracy to the upper middle classes as well.

Shame about the other 90% of the population, but hey, maybe in another a few hundred years of progress we'll get that down to just 80% excluded?

Hey, you just gotta pull yourself up by your bootstraps, get a $300,000 loan from Daddy, and work hard! If Jeff Bezos could do it, so can you!!!

 

[Iron]

All of these people came from wealthy families and had relatively large amounts of money to begin with. And none of them "built" anything from nothing. It was the people they employed who actually did the work.

The man who built his own cathedral

More than 50 years ago, Justo Gallego started building a church on land he inherited. The epic project is still ongoing today.

www.bbc.com

The absolute madlad, built a cathedral all on his own, no worker's exploitation.

What on earth are you talking about? Of course they're part of society, and I haven't labelled anybody a "kulak".

I'm quite straightforwardly pointing out that they are the ones who actually have power to set wages. So if wages are depreciating, they are the ones with the power over that, and the culpability rests with them. They are not at the mercy of the size of the labour pool, forced to lower wages; they choose to do it.



Self-employed or joint ownership, yes. But they account for a pretty small amount of employment in the UK (which makes sense). Self-employment is patently not feasible for most people.

Ok, lets go over this again. This time I'll insist on getting an answer.
You decide to renovate your kitchen. How do you pick your contractor? Do you employ the workers directly, and not through a contractor?
Do you pick who is cheapest? Based on reviews? Based on past experience?
How much do you pay them? Do you pay them what they asked for, haggle for lower, or pay them more than they asked for?
ib4 'what on earth are you talking about' I need you to understand that you can be an employer as well.
When you go to vacation in Spain or Greece or wherever, do you pay them the rates they ask, in their currency, or do you pay them the rates accepted in the UK and in GBP? Do you try to haggle with them, and bring the prices down, thinking you're getting the "tourist" prices?
If you refuse to engage, I'll understand you don't want to have a conversation but a discussion of marxist theory.

*regarding self-employment. There are many other small businesses (under 10 and 10-50) whose owners aren't the ultra rich. You could own a kiosk or a restaurant, and employ others. I think this forms the majority of employers in the UK private sector.

 

[Silvanus]

Ok, lets go over this again. This time I'll insist on getting an answer.
You decide to renovate your kitchen. How do you pick your contractor? Do you employ the workers directly, and not through a contractor?
Do you pick who is cheapest? Based on reviews? Based on past experience?
How much do you pay them? Do you pay them what they asked for, haggle for lower, or pay them more than they asked for?
ib4 'what on earth are you talking about' I need you to understand that you can be an employer as well.

"Need me to understand"... Yeah, ok.

If I were to hire a workman, I would pay them the asking price, sometimes with an additional tip of some kind. If self-employed, the workman has set his own asking price, so he has control over it. I am not setting his wage. This is not comparable to an employer setting wages for employees.

The workman in this scenario has decided how much his work is worth. That is an ability that an employee of a large company does not have.

When you go to vacation in Spain or Greece or wherever, do you pay them the rates they ask, in their currency, or do you pay them the rates accepted in the UK and in GBP? Do you try to haggle with them, and bring the prices down, thinking you're getting the "tourist" prices?
If you refuse to engage, I'll understand you don't want to have a conversation but a discussion of marxist theory.

You've bombarded me with.... nine personal questions in one post. It's not unreasonable to refuse to "engage" with that; it's a bizarre request that I provide this personal information. None of this is relevant to the topic, and you're perfectly capable of having a discussion without knowing random details about what I do on holiday.

*regarding self-employment. There are many other small businesses (under 10 and 10-50) whose owners aren't the ultra rich. You could own a kiosk or a restaurant, and employ others. I think this forms the majority of employers in the UK private sector.

The majority of employers, but not employing the majority of employees.

The stats are right there. Businesses with fewer than 50 employees (including self-employment) account for 13,157,000 people, and businesses with 50 or more employees employ 14,341,000 people (over 10 million of whom are employed by companies with 250+ employees).

 

[Seanchaidh]

The absolute madlad, built a cathedral all on his own, no worker's exploitation.

"Land he inherited."
"He used his family inheritance to purchase materials for the foundations"
"For many years, Gallego did the brunt of the work himself, occasionally receiving some help from his young nephews in exchange for paying their school fees."
"For the last 20 years, Gallego has been joined by local resident Ángel López, who took a liking to the project and wanted to help. Among other things, López created the stained glass and painted the domes, despite having no previous experience with either. Now that Gallego is 91, López also does most of the heavy lifting. He will inherit the project and be in charge of finishing it one day. "

So to recapitulate: he didn't do it all on his own. It's STILL not done precisely because he hasn't employed very much labor. And it would have been impossible without an inheritance of both land and money. This is an example of why I'm correct. Did you read it?

 

[Hawki]

I thought this was about Biden and Harris, not Marxism?

Gah.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

I thought this was about Biden and Harris, not Marxism?

Gah.

Who says they're mutually exclusive?