this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
410 points (100.0% liked)
Socialism
2843 readers
3 users here now
Beehaw's community for socialists, communists, anarchists, and non-authoritarian leftists (this means anti-capitalists) of all stripes. A place for all leftist and labor news and discussion, as long as you're nice about it.
Non-socialists are welcome to come to learn, though it's hard to get to in-depth discussions if the community is constantly fighting over the basics. We ask that non-socialists please be respectful and try not to turn this into a "left vs right" debate forum by asking leading questions or by trying to draw others into a fight.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
He probably is underpayed, but that image does not make any reasonable argument to issue. It illustrates labor division if anything at all. If I am the last one on the assembly line of Ford, wondering why I can't afford ten cars an hour is just idiotic.
Again, he probably is underpaid, and people are probably making too money from his work, but that doesn't make that image make sense.
But he's not making a car, at all. That example doesn't really work.
In the image post, the item he's making appears to be so simple that it's unlikely that more than one person needs to work on making the part, meanwhile, relating to large complex consumer goods like a passenger vehicle, #1 they produce far fewer of them per hour, per production line, and several people are involved....
Which is slightly different scaling.
The beauty of the example that was originally provided is that it's a one-man job. He's responsible for creating them - all by himself.... So his contribution, directly results in 3k of that item per hour, alone. This, IMO, very clearly shows how underpaid he is for his work. While he gets 100% of the revenue of 0.1% of his output as compensation, the other 99.9% of revenue is material, R&D, sales, transport, and (probably the largest share is) profit..... To stockholders.... Who did nothing in the process of the creation of the product being sold, and reap the benefits of this workers high level of productivity.
Therein lies the point. The vast majority of the revenue generated from his work is going to people who didn't have anything to do with the production process.
I don't think any reasonable person would say he should be paid 1:1 for it, but certainly more than 1000:1. Maybe 100:1? Or something? IDK. I'd have to look at the full picture to see what makes sense, something that his management should be doing, but they're clearly more interested in maximizing profits, rather than supporting their employees.
I get your point, and I might agree, but again: That image doesn't make that point. It this was a cooperative where all profits are share equally, it would look the same. Maybe he could afford 4 or 5, big deal. Point remains, he thinks he makes the things, whatever they are, but he doesn't. He does one step in a huge chain of steps. The materials, the machine, the logistics, the R&D. You even acknowledge it, but you boil it down to only the stockholders. Which, again, do profit, and, again, that's a thing one might discuss. But you make it sound like that's the main issue here, when it's not. Margins are not that high.