this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2023
430 points (98.4% liked)
Antiwork
3622 readers
1 users here now
A community for those who want to end work, are curious about ending work, want to get the most out of a work-free life, want more information on anti-work ideas and want personal help with their own jobs/work-related struggles.
The new place for c/antiwork@lemmy.fmhy.ml
This server is no longer working, and we had to move.
Active stats from all instances
Subscribers: 2.1k
Date Created: June 21, 2023
Library copied from reddit:
The Anti-Work Library 📚
Essential Reads
Start here! These are probably the most talked-about essays on the topic.
- The Abolition of Work by Bob Black (1985) | listen
- On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs by David Graeber (2013) | listen
- In Praise of Idleness by Bertrand Russell (1932) | listen
c/Antiwork Rules
Tap or click to expand
1. Server Main Rules
The main rules of the server will be enforced stringently. https://lemmy.world/
2. No spam or reposts + limit off topic comments
Spamming posts will be removed. Reposts will be removed with the exception of a repost becoming the main hub for discussion on that topic.
Off topic comments that do not pertain to the post at hand may be removed if it is deemed they contribute nothing and/or foster hostility at users. This mostly applies to political and religious debate, but can be applied to other things at the mod’s discretion.
3. Post must have Antiwork/ Work Reform explicitly involved
Post must have Antiwork/Work Reform explicitly involved in some capacity. This can be talking about antiwork, work reform, laws, and ext.
4. Educate don’t attack
No mocking, demeaning, flamebaiting, purposeful antagonizing, trolling, hateful language, false accusation or allegation, or backseat moderating is allowed. Don’t resort to ad hominem attacks against another user or insult other people, examples of violations would be going after the person rather than the stance they take.
If we feel the comment is uncalled for we will remove it. Stay civil and there won’t be problems.
5. No Advertising
Under no circumstance are you allowed to promote or advertise any product or service
6. No factually misleading information
Content that makes claims or implications that can be proven false or misleading will be removed.
7. Headlines
If the title of the post isn’t an original title of the article then the first thing in the body of the post should be an original title written in this format “Original title: {title here}”.
8. Staff Discretion
Staff can take disciplinary action on offenses not listed in the rules when a community member's actions or general conduct creates a negative experience for another player and/or the community.
It is impossible to list every example or variation of the rules. It is also impossible to word everything perfectly. Players are expected to understand the intent of the rules and not attempt to "toe the line" or use loopholes to get around the intent of the rule.
Other Communities
Server status for big servers http://lemmy-status.org/
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
There are no jobs where unions make zero sense.
It's not just about the contract, but also the ability to better negotiate a contract through collective bargaining. Not to mention the general benefit of a community that you know has your back.
Apes together strong
It would make zero sense.
I’m paid a base salary which based on a formula is the same as everyone else’s. I also get commissions. There is zero reason to unionize as I wouldn’t get anything better from the deal.
If I worked in a non-sales job. I’d see a benefit. If I worked as a developer, or support, etc.
Sales is treated extremely well as long as you prform
Whatever you are paid is less than the value you create for the company, and the more privileges you have relative to other workers, the more likely the company is to take them away when it wants to reduce costs.
All of the reasons you have given are not sensible as reasons not to be organized with your coworkers.
Your company does not care about you, but you and other workers can care about each other.
lol one of my product reps was doing just as well as you, and he got the ax is some restructuring with the minimum notice allowed.
He's amazing, and went to work for a competitor basically instantly, but the interruption in cash flow made half a year extremely stressful.
You represent the top 0.5%, but you still aren't immune to life changing events. A union would still benefit you, by increasing the stability of your income.
All businesses exist for the purpose of generating profit for their owners.
Without workers providing labor to a business, the business could not operate. All value generated from the operation of a company is generated by the labor of workers.
Profit is the value generated by the labor of workers minus the wages paid to them.
If the wages paid to workers were not less than the value generated by their labor, then the business could not generate a profit.
The reasoning is so simple that a child could understand it, and you could understand it too, if you were not so pigheadedly anchored to your narrative about "idiotic communist BS" and "everyone had nothing".
Unless your friends and family would be willing to pay you as much as your income from your job, you profoundly misapprehended the meaning of my comments.
The very instant conditions change such that your labor is no longer profitable for a company, you lose.
Business owners don't "supply" capital. Business owners own capital.
Anyone who has access to capital is far less vulnerable generally than workers, who have no capital.
Workers live under continuous precarity.
What is the net worth of the owner of your company? What is the motive for being a business owner? Do you really think you are less likely to become homeless than him or her?
The whole the "business owners take all risk" is just some tired neoliberal apologia that is intended to mislead.
They supply the capital. That is why they are the owner.
WOrkers have capital. Who do you think money, car, homes, etc are?!?!? I am a worker and I have a fair amount of capital saved up.
The company I work for is about 28 billion. My share is about 1 million. The company I own is worth about 28 million. I started with the capital from my day job and grew it and in the beginning, I was taking on a lot of risk.
The owner/shareholders are the ones who take all the risk. The worker has zero risk. If times get bad, they can go get another job. The company I work at could go bankrupt tomorrow and I would be fine.
That's not capital, that's just things. Capital is material wealth that gives you bargaining power on a larger scale. You don't have that bargaining power just because you "own" a car or a house. In most cases, the bank essentially owns those things, and lease them to you for the interest rate it charges.
If you think that's true, you haven't been paying attention to the job market at all.
And ninety-nine times out of a hundred, the shareholders and owners will be fine as well. They'll have insurance, or backup plans. Or they'll foist all the debt onto the workers. The only time they'd truly feel it, is if they'd make monumentally stupid financial decisions.
Owning is not supplying. Owning is holding. Supplying is transferring possession to another party. When you hold ownership of a business, you maintain control of the business, as it operates, and you collect profit from its operation. You never deplete the supply of the business you own as a natural consequence of its operation.
Capital is assets that have productive value, such as businesses or rented properties. Cars and homes that are used by their owners are not capital, and neither is cash deposited in a bank. Most capital is owned by a very small cohort of society.
Business owners own capital. Workers own essentially none.
You have very deep confusion about extremely basic concepts, a condition that is not being helped by your snarkiness and hostility
Ok. Capital is just cars and cash.
The article you referenced explains (emphasis added)...
I think my time is better spent now supplying my capital to a local drinking establishment.
Enjoy ranting.
The act of investment is purchasing (or exchanging) capital using cash or other assets.
A business may acquire funding from investment, but in such a case the investor is trading cash for equity, bonds, or some other investment asset representing the present or future value of the company, or generated by the company. The investor is not supplying capital, but rather purchasing capital (or trading capital).
The idea that the investor is supplying capital to the company is only a metaphor.
Someone may lose money from an investment, but most capital is owned by immensely wealthy individuals, whose situation is vastly removed from that of ordinary workers, who actually do face the risk of losing their only home or their only car.
Even small businesses are owned by individuals who have chosen to become business owners in order to profit from others' work. Any risk they assume is through an attempt to enrich themselves from gains not shared with workers. By not sharing their gains with those who are working to create them, business owners, large or small, are not helping workers, but rather preventing workers from advancing.
If you chose to use your house as collateral in order for the opportunity to enrich yourself, then no one owes you any gratitude. You are not a hero. You acted in your own interests, not for helping others.
If workers provided labor, and you only paid them wages, then you profited from their labor, and prevented them from advancing by realizing the full value of their labor.
The only reason your house was at risk was because the bank hoards capital, using lending as a device to augment its own wealth.
If capital were shared by everyone, then all the problems you describe would not occur. No one would lose houses or cars, no one would be a tens of millions of times richer than anyone else, and everyone would be paid fully for their labor, without distinction of owner versus worker.
You are not understanding.
The risk is artificial.
Those who have the most wealth, the most capital, are not facing risk, compared to everyone else. Someone who has $10 billion in assets and loses $2 billions has not lost in the same way as a poor person who loses a car. The billionaire is completely insulated from the precarity faced by most of the population, because the billionaire privately controls the vast wealth of society. The losses suffered by the billionaire owe to the instability of the business and the business cycle, not to the trials of life.
Those who are most wealthy face the least risk, and in fact impose the genuine risk on everyone else.
If control over capital were shared, then no one would be precarious, nor need to use a home as collateral for a loan.
You are being incredibly dishonest.
You mentioned Elon Musk.
I simply observed that most of the capital is owned by a tiny cohort of society. Small businesses, especially businesses worth approximately the same as a house, comprise a relatively small valuation of capital (which is not the same as the number of businesses, or the number of jobs).
There is no reason why economic activity needs to be tied to someone risking becoming homeless. Such a relationship is a consequence of the system, the way that wealth is hoarded by the few and made available to the rest only under conditions that serve the private interest of the wealthy. A different system would not need to carry the same feature.
How did you prove that ownership of capital in terms of its valuation is not extremely heavily concentrated?
You only gave the statistics relating to the count of small business and jobs in them.
One business can be worth more than a thousand others.
I suggest you review statistics on wealth distribution in various countries. Learn how much wealth as a share of the total is owned by various cohorts, and investigate questions such as how many individuals own half the wealth.
Wealth distribution is something people who don't understand wealth bring up. Elon has a lot of wealth. That doesn't stop me from having lots of wealth.
People need to stop worrying about the billionaires and focus more on their own journey. I don't use reddit, facebook, Twitter or any of that crap. If everyone stopped using them, a lot of the billionaires would vanish since it's funny money.
Yes, the wealthy have more wealthy but that doesn't stop you from having wealth. This is about as far as I get into any social media platform as I don't want to give people like Zucker money.
Your are being evasive and dishonest.
When claims you previously made become challenged, instead of engaging the challenge, you dismiss the relevance of your own claims, by hurling meaningless and derisive assumptions.
You must feel quite strongly about your convictions, if you cannot defend them more effectively than by insultation.
Economies of scale mean that Walmart out-competes local small business general supply stores, and the corporate profits are then taken out of the community instead of being spent locally. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/walmart-effect.asp#:~:text=Walmart's%20insistence%20on%20procuring%20products,choose%20to%20sell%20through%20Walmart.
So one party having a lot of wealth absolutely impedes other parties accruing wealth.
You are being evasive and dishonest.
Indeed. The narrative being presented is that people are shopping regularly, and obtaining most goods and services, at small businesses whose owners have listed their homes as collateral, in order to contribute generously to their communities.
It is a fantasy.
Neither the owners of big box retailers, or the owners of banks that are giving loans to new businesses, are "taking all the risk".
Life is good if have hoarded capital, and the reason is because everyone else depends on it to survive.