This post has been de-listed
It is no longer included in search results and normal feeds (front page, hot posts, subreddit posts, etc). It remains visible only via the author's post history.
It is impossible for one object to be owned by thousands of people at the same time, because that in the long run would create logistical problems, the most efficient way to own objects is to own them in a hierarchical way. If one thousand people own the same house, one thousand people have the capacity to take decissions ower said house, they have the capacity to decide what colors they are going to paint the walls and when do they want to organize a party in the house, however, this would only work if all the people agreed and didn't began a conflict in order to decide these things, and we all know that one thousand people agreeing that much at the same time isn't a likely scenario.
Also, socialism is a good theory, but a good theory can work badly when put in practice, string theory, a theory of physics, is also an intelligent theory, but that doesn't make string theory immediately true, the same happens with socialism, libertarianism and any political and economical theory, economists have to study for years and they still can't agree how poverty can be eliminated, meanwhile normal people who don't dedicate their entire lives to study the economy think they know better than these professional economists and they think they can fix the world only with their "good intentions", even if they didn't study for years. That's one of the bad things about democracy, it gives the illusion that your opinion has the same worth as the opinion of a professionals and that good intentions are enough, which isn't true.
It has nothing to do with ability, because ability isn't necessarily tied directly to value within capitalism. If a jeweler knows how to cut raw diamonds into beautiful pieces of art, that doesn't mean the owner of the jewelry store can do their job 1000x better. If the jeweler suddenly quits, the owner doesn't start learning how to cut gems, they have to hire another jeweler because without that specific labor their product doesn't exist.
The founder of the largest diamond company in the world wasn't someone who knew how to cut jewels. It was the son of a vicar who had so much money. The biggest companies in the world aren't necessarily started by people at the top of their field, it was someone with a lot of money.
Do the smartest people in the US make the most money? No, most universities pay like shit and most of the people researching new drugs/medicine aren't the same people who own the biggest companies.
Do the hardest working people in the US make the most money, physically hardest? No, Lumberjacks, farmers, and most physically exhaustive jobs that have a direct negative impact on health pay like shit. Even if you argued that athletes have the most physically demanding job, women in sports aren't valued at nearly identical levels (like, the fastest man in the world is like 1 second faster than the fastest woman).
Ultimately, it takes a LOT of money to start a business especially now. Most of the biggest companies today are either tech companies which do end up being the "start your own company" thing you described or they were businesses started by people in the 60s (when women couldn't have bank accounts and anyone who wasn't white was practically doomed in the US).
If they were truly more competitive. They would have taken over the economy by now. They haven't for the reasons I described.
Not immediately breaking from conventions that are arguably enforced by the government doesn't mean it's a bad idea to break those conventions. Like, you can't really argue that worker co-ops would have been a thing in any period of time where the police or private enforcers have attacked people unionizing
If every single person felt like they had the ability to own a little bit more of the company they work for, is there really any incentive not to try outside of literal force (physical, legal, economic in terms of having enough money to fund the transition)?
Subreddit
Post Details
- Posted
- 6 months ago
- Reddit URL
- View post on reddit.com
- External URL
- reddit.com/r/changemyvie...
That's the thing, the owner needs someone to cut the jewels regardless of how skilled someone is. The thing you're describing doesn't happen traditionally and it isn't the reason de beers got so big. I'm saying that the people who start businesses aren't necessarily the best within that realm, directly addressing the claim you made earlier:
For example: If you make $30/hr in 1 state, that doesn't mean your wage will not change regardless of the state you go to. Your skill does not directly correlate to the amount of money you are paid. Even within basic economic theory, this idea that "value/pay is tied to skill" doesn't pan out fully.
The market you're referring to really just the labor market, but of course saying "the market" implies some unseen force or hand, when really it's just how much people are willing to work for and how much people willing to pay for labor.
Back to the example of the Jeweler, referencing the claim you made of starting their own company. The jeweler might be the best jeweler on earth, but that doesn't necessarily mean all of the money for that company will ever go to the jeweler because the jeweler doesn't own the business. The owner still has to agree on a specific wage and ultimately, that disagreement informs the market you're referring to.
However, massive companies will fight tooth and nail in order to make sure that their fraction of the total value generated will always be bigger. That's why there are "Right to Work" states, where you can get fired for literally any reason. That's why Doordash and Grubhub will lobby aggressively to make sure they don't have to treat delivery drivers as actual employees.
There's this idea you have that the market is fair and made up of some governing law that is some economic theorem brought to life. When really, businesses are just accumulations of capital and value is determined by how much money businesses legally have to part with. You have this idea that everyone has to be hyper efficient/incredibly skilled in order to have a specific role in the economy and when someone does have enough skill in one specific trade they can then magically generate a new company with capital that rivals that of any other existing business
How does this help a wendy's employee who hypothetically has the best recipe for burgers ever? Or a jeweler who is the best jeweler in the world but cannot find a job cutting gems because they don't pay enough?
Yes, it's easy to start a business, I've even started a business, but you aren't logically following any line of thought about starting a business.
I would LOVE for you to send in all information/financial documents about your businesses so I can see if you actually have the kind of skill for your own business service/product needed to rival the amounts of money that any other company within a similar field could bring in.
Like, you're saying that if the jeweler wasn't getting paid enough, they could simply start their own business and become successful. How often does that happen. Did that happen for you? Or did you need to open up 2 other businesses?