Questions for My fellow Comrades

Why do you commies have a problem with this?

Be me

In what type of employment is the nurse?

I'd assume Nurse employment.

The problem is not how much the nurse is paid, the problem is the concept of wage labour. The nurse is providing a service that will be underpaid in the measure that the service provider is making a profit from her work.

I guess he meant to ask if she is self employed or working for a hospital.

I mean is she some weird freelance nurse, is employed by a contracting company or hospital, and is she paid for by the state?

I have a problem with it because the nurse should actually kill the CEO, take his ill-gotten wealth and redistribute it to the masses.

I don't have a problem with the fact that one wage is higher than another. I have a problem with wages in general.

pretty sure if you roll the CEO out of a window on the top floor the company will get a new CEO.

Mate, she's making above average pay to wheel someone around all day. I specifically said it was above average. I'd love to get that kind of paid.

So let me get this straight. If a nurse wheels someone to their job, she should get half of what he make? Are you a retard? If I make a knife and sell it to you, and you make little wooden figures using of them. Should I get half of the money you make, minus the amount already given to me?

Why would that matter, either way she is getting paid by her boss to do a job she chose?

Her boss either being the hospital or the CEO.

G8 B8 M8

Yep, but not as fast and easily as a nurse who wheels around legless men all day.

Why do you have to be autistic about this? Read what I said again: the problem is NOT how much she is paid compared to market average. The problem IS she is being paid as a wage labourer.
You will employ someone ONLY if he/she provides you with more than what they are paid, otherwise you are loosing money. The nurse so is underpaid in the measure that her employer is gaining more than what she is producing, stealing her labour value from her.

This has nothing to do with the amount she is paid in absolute or relative to the CEO, but the structure of the relationship between employer and employee.

This is what they are trying to tell you since you clearly still don't get it.

And wants wrong with getting paid? Would you rather she didn't get paid?

If I make a knife and sell it to you, and you make little wooden figures using of them. Should I get half of the money you make, minus the amount already given to me?

Why do you say that? And are there not times when it's symbiotic?

I'm a classical liberal, not a libertarian.

*you make little wooden figures using of them, and sell them. Should I get half of the money you make, minus the amount already given to me?

Of course she doesn’t deserve half his salary, that’s not what he said. He said the ‘’service provider’’, that is the business the nurse works for, will make a profit off her work.

But you’re implying she’s some weird freelance nurse. This just goes back to the complex issue of the role of freelancing in socialism.

We are truly beset on all sides by dumb asses.

I would in fact prefer a world where the law of value is no longer in place.
And again I am not talking of the market average.
This has nothing to do with what we are talking about. You are depicting here a scenario in which two self employed people exchange commodities. It corresponds pretty much to what in Marxist theory is small scale commodity production.

The nurse case is vastly different: she is employed by someone, that is she is tasked to work X hours a day for Y money. The hospital that is employing her however will maintain this relationship going only as long as it is profitable, eg she is making them more money than what she is paid in the X hours she works. If this was not the case she would be fired on the spot.

In this sense she is not getting paid what she is truly worth: the amount that goes to her employers, her surplus value, is take from her and accumulated by her employer without compensation and without justification outside the employer owning the instruments allowing her to work.
Define this symbiotic relationship.

Who fucking cares user. We have better things to discuss than gender distribution in common language.

Doesn't address the point, the CEO is not significantly different from the nurse.

You're a filthy neoliberal

Her boss is the CEO.

Mate, we'll always value stuff.
Mate, the CEO is her boss.
Symbioic relationship, is any type of a close and interaction between two or more individuals that is mutualistic.

A CEO is vastly different than a nurse. A nurse is just a poor mans doctor.

Also nobody gave me tips about my plan.


Hey wow, something Holla Forums and leftypol can agree on

But to frame your arguement it’s basically nurse vs ceo. Tbh the problem with this, and it’s something most people overlook (including leftists) is that CEOs are still technically proles. They don’t technically own the MoP, although they are closer to the capitalist class than the nurse and the average worker.
Problem is largely that completely outside the nurse/ceo example is that there are guys sitting back getting rich (the Boards of Directors) simply because they have a bunch of money they bought the company with (called shares). They get richer off this money, for the SOLE reason that they have money. The ceo busts his ass to make the company more profitable for these people, the nurse busts her ass to make his job easier. And the boards of directors do no work and rake in most of the benefits. This is where I take issue.
It’s becomes a huge issue in pharma as an example and makes the “capitalism is an engine of progress” meme quite laughable

I'm not pol.

I actually agree with the "Fuck Share Holders" mentality.

By any chance, can you give me some tips for my bait and switch plan I'm gonna use on pol?

Real answer: it's not up to any of us who gets what but rather up to the workplace democracy. If democracy demands the nurse get paid more then so be it, likewise if democracy demands the CEO get paid more than so be it. The problem is when the CEO becomes a dictator who goes unopposed giving himself the highest salary. If he truly deserves the highest salary then the workplace should be able to see that and vote for it accordingly.

You're being deliberately obtuse throughout this thread. In the case of your knife, you were paid the exact value of the labour you put in the knife plus the cost of raw materials when you sold it. What happens with the knife afterwards has nothing to do with you, your labour was already paid upon sale. There is no extra agent in the production process who can steal your value.
This is not the case for employment contracts. Here the labourer contracts with an employer for an amount of labour time, and gets a fixed rate. The amount of money the labourer gets however is not linked to the amount of value transmitted via the labour into the final product or service, and the capitalist makes a profit from paying the labourer less than the value he adds via his labour. The capitalist can do this because he is in a power relation vis a vis the labourer, namely that he controls the MOP, and the labourer either can choose to work for the capitalist, or starve [be replaced by someone who will work for low wage out of the reserve army of labour, the unemployed].
Relation in your example: producer-buyer.
Relation in the nurse example: [labourer-capitalist]producer-buyer. The determinant power relation that makes capitalism work is in the relation labourer-capitalist, not producer-buyer.

Above average is still less than the full value. Read Marx, faggot