• @surewhynotlem
    link
    31 year ago

    work in society (in general) to not starve

    No. Capitalism requires that we ‘work’. I.e. provide output that is valuable to the capitalists. In a normal society, there are other forms of value that merit the person existing.

    But also, we’re human. One of the reasons I want people to not starve is that I’m not a sociopath. So sometimes the value a person provides to society is that they’re not starving in the middle of the street. There’s value in that.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      21 year ago

      In a normal society

      What’s a normal society? Is this a no true scottsman argument? It’d be my perspective that in the vast majority of societies people generally have to work to live.

      • @surewhynotlem
        link
        11 year ago

        normal society

        Good point! Let’s start with a definition that’s something like… a society of humans that are treated like humans, and not treated like ‘human capital’, and go from there.

    • @SCB
      link
      11 year ago

      output that is valuable to capital (owners)

      This is false. You need to provide output that is valuable to your consumers

      • @surewhynotlem
        link
        11 year ago

        No, the owner needs to do that to stay in business. You need to provide output valuable to the owners. The owner can decide whether you need to provide value to the customers or not.

        Example: Nepotism.

        • @SCB
          link
          11 year ago

          example: nepotism

          Because unethical acts that are bad business practice are such a great example.

          • @surewhynotlem
            link
            01 year ago

            Nepotism isn’t unethical. The owner of the company has every right to do what they want with their capital. There is nothing that says the owner must act in a rational or profit seeking way. A CEO must act in a profit seeking way, but that’s because he is accountable to the owner.

            It’s also not necessarily bad business practice. You seem to be suffering under the misconception that the world is a meritocracy, and the ‘best’ person for a job should get it. That’s not how any of this works in the real world.

            Regardless, you seem like a creative chap. You can come up with other examples of when a business owner might keep someone on payroll that wasn’t directly to extract value for the customer and instead to provide value for other reasons. I believe you can do it.

            • @SCB
              link
              11 year ago

              I can think up all sorts of things, but that doesn’t make those things good business practice.

              • @surewhynotlem
                link
                11 year ago

                What’s “good”? Maximized growth? Maximized returns? Having your face on the TV the most times you can? Making a name for yourself in your town? When you’re the owner, you choose what ‘good’ is because it’s your business.

                And to my point, since the owner picks what is good, they will employ people whose output is valuable to the owner.

                • @SCB
                  link
                  11 year ago

                  “good business practice” would be behaviors that are good for the long-term health of your business. These are objective, not subjective. You might want your face on the news but if it hurts, rather than helps, it’s poor business practice (just ask Papa John).

                  • @surewhynotlem
                    link
                    01 year ago

                    You’re still assuming that long-term health of the business is the ‘good’. You may think that’s good, and when you’re a capitalist, you can choose that as your goal. It may even seem like the most obvious goal. But it’s not the only one. “Good business practice” is whatever achieves the goals of the owner of the business. Otherwise, it’s not a good business, because a business exists to serve the owner.

                    Scenario: A business owner chooses to liquidate his entire company and shut down so he can retire. This is a good business decision, for him. But it is clearly not good for the long-term health of the business.

      • J Lou
        link
        fedilink
        0
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        This is false. There are many types of work that the market fails to value accurately. An example of this would be economic public goods. A producer of these will not be rewarded anywhere near the social value of what they produce

        • @SCB
          link
          1
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I didn’t say you’re rewarded commensurate to value brought, but rather that workers produce output valuable to consumers.

          The person I was correcting misattributed what work fundamentally is, from an employer’s point of view, to represent it from a point of view that seeks to “other” the employer.

          • J Lou
            link
            fedilink
            1
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            In some cases, the valuation of work by the market due to it involving economic public goods can be insufficient, so people producing valuable public goods are forced to take on another job. In the case of public goods, there is nothing for the employer to appropriate and exclude others from to charge consumers for access, so employers don’t value it despite it being valuable to consumers. I don’t believe they were mis-attributing what work is under the current economic system