Muh exploitation! / communes debate

monetarist here

This is the biggest, most flagrant turn-off for me from commies of all colors. They seem to think that the laborer deserves ALL of the profit from the sale of the product they make (in a capitalist context), disregarding the economic input of market researchers, managers, advertisers, etc. under the naive assumption that those classes can simply be liquidated or something and the sole laborer class will be able to earn a LARGER, not smaller, wage, in spite of the lost labor from the aforementioned classes into the product.

Whenever this is brought up, I point to the fact that workers in communes earn much less than workers in traditional employment, to which a myriad explanation is given, most of them along the lines of:

Anyway, the theses I present to you are these:
"Exploitation" is an inappropriate label for LABOR done by managers, marketers, financiers, etc. because the work they do contributes significantly to the value of the product and the wages of the laborers.

Laborers don't deserve the full value of the product they have a part in delivering to market–other people should be compensated proportionally to any additional value they add to the product.

post-scarcity is literally impossible as long as humans are around, please, let's leave naive futurism out of this debate.
infeasible–value is subjective, and the only way to organize such a large network of (somewhat subjective) supply, (subjective) demand, and people is through a price structure, ie, a market.

pic unrelated

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_labour_and_concrete_labour
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

"Total Compensation" has been debunked several times already. It is wages inflated to an index based on a totally arbitrary number.

The only valid number here is Average Hourly Wages.

Lmao is there a more retarded ideology than this?

You don't understand the term. It's a catch all word for all wage work, not just people who physically work on a product. It includes intellectual work as well.

good shitpost

are you referring to the fact that different price indicies are used in the BLS calculation of productivity and wages, and a number being the ratio of the two indicies must be used to compare apples to apples?

Yeah, lol, 401ks and healthcare are pretty much worthless amirite? Nevermind those BLS errors and accelerated depreciation, too!

not actually an ideology. Good try though

yeah, you're one to talk about retarded ideologies

sorry I'm an economist, not a Marxist ideologue

Nice

wait, no, I'm not sorry. I used the word 'laborer' incorrectly in the second sentence, but you get my meaning, no?

if you're trying to get a rise out of me, uhh… mission accomplished. You can stop shitposting now

See
Those classes are laborers as well, and to the extent that they labor, they should be paid. However you will find that in their circumstances (typically the manager), the total value they get in compensation is often greater than what they put in individually. This is the opposite for the "average worker" in a firm. For example, a worker at a car factory is paid less than the value of what he produces (for every car he makes, he is paid enough to buy 1/2 a car). A high-ranking manager on the other hand is paid more for less work, and can likely afford the cars produced without working as hard as the man who makes them.
There is very little evidence of the essentialness of managers to a firm, and even less evidence that they are a crucial element in generating value for a company. Considering cooperative firms with horizontal structures have been successful, it seems we can do without the manager in most cases, or at least pay him much less.