A question for our Marxists - Page 17 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Workers of the world, unite! Then argue about Trotsky and Stalin for all eternity...
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15175422
ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, then, what *did* you mean with that statement?


You're not considering relevant parts of the arrangements hosts have with AirBnB to determine the nature of their relations.

ckaihatsu wrote:Well, this is the issue that's in front of us -- sure, a host has a better material position than someone hired to *clean* the place, because the wage worker presumably doesn't have a place of *their* own to lease out, similarly, and so has to provide cleaning services to *others*, for *wages*.

So in that sense someone who's able to lease out real estate is obviously leveraging *capital*, but it may be to such a small extent, with the capital frozen-up in that real estate for one's own housing needs, that whatever revenue is received from leasing it out is really effectively more like a *wage*, for lodging / maintenance / upkeep / cleaning, for one's own ongoing personal expenses, moreso than being a serious 'small business', for profit-making. (Ditto for driving for hire, etc.)


What's the difference between these arrangements and those plenty of small businesses who supply large ones? Are the owners of these small businesses bourgeois?

ckaihatsu wrote:Who exactly do you consider to be the 'business clients', and how exactly would they post a loss when they're not involved in providing hosting or driving services?


The hosts and drivers are. They can post a loss if they cannot pay for their rent and maintenance (hosts) or their cars, fuel and maintenance (drivers).

ckaihatsu wrote:The *issue* here, though, is that regardless of a participant's *intentions*, they may *find themselves* to be in a grossly disadvantageous material position in relation to Uber or AirBnB, and so the situation / relation may be in need of *regulation* so that people looking for a little 'extra income' don't wind up losing personal life and living wherewithal when they were reasonably expecting to *make money*, as one does in a job -- for them the situation *most resembles* a job, empirically, since they're not necessarily in a 'small business' mindset and motivation.


ckaihatsu wrote:In *this* case it's not even clear that the 'extra-income' person is *in* a small-business mentality or mode of operations -- they're reasonably expecting some *extra income*, considering that they're willing to do the work, and even to include some personal property that they depend on for their own daily life and living. Why should they be expected to risk a *loss* of that in some unstated rough-and-tumble market environment when they were sold on participation according to the 'extra income' promise -- ?

You're presuming that these 'extra income' types are all conforming to your 'businessman' mentality, when they may just be looking for some 'light, flexible employment' using their own equipment, and are *not* looking for competitive swimming in a sea of sharks.


Maybe, I think in practice it depends on whether they understand what they are getting into. And as importantly, it depends on whether they make Uber or AirBnB their primary source of income or not.

Yet I would be surprised if they weren't making these decisions from a business perspective, particularly those that make large investments (like an extra home or car) to that effect.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, *you're* the name-caller. (grin)


:lol:

ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, I won't bicker, but I'll note that society and *civilization* require a certain 'baseline' level of social cohesion and cooperation, which, in modern times, means a sound *economy* / economics -- when the capitalist economy *tanks*, as it did in 2008-2009 and then in early 2020, the bourgeois U.S. government had to *scramble* just to keep the shit afloat.

No economy = no technology = no civilization.


Fair, I don't disagree with this. Indeed, if you wanted to be like Robinson Crusoe you'd probably just innovate enough to figure out how to subsist.

ckaihatsu wrote:You could always *ask*, since I'm right here.


So what is it supposed to mean?

ckaihatsu wrote:(Feel free to elaborate.)

My point remains intact that many goods and services are *so* labor-leveraged and automated that they're either *free* or effectively free, like email, Wikipedia, the weather forecast, some sheets of paper, the news, etc.


Right, those are examples of services that also don't require that much physicality. But take for instance getting a haircut: Is it possible to do it remotely? How about getting surgery?

ckaihatsu wrote:And I replied that times are *different* now, and I provided a counter-example, from the news from 1996. (Would you like to repeat all of this a *second* time -- ?)


They are different indeed, partly due to the less intense labor conflicts though.

ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, thanks. This information is insufficient for me to determine if the workers are being economically *exploited*, like all other wage workers are, everywhere else in the world. It appears that kibbutz workers *are* exploited since the economics are touted as being very *profitable* for the enterprises themselves, which, by definition, would require the laborers to be exploited of their surplus labor value.

But I can't say for certain unless I see information that speaks to the specifics of wages, revenue, and profits.


You would need to check on a case by case basis, and also depending on the decade. Many Kibbutzim are now just Kibbutz in name, at least compared to how they started. As the article states, at some point younger members began to leave for better jobs in the cities - leaving the equality and cohesion of the Kibbutz for potentially greater pay working for a standard business in a city.

ckaihatsu wrote:Okay -- back to leapfrogging at the *societal* scale.


Aren't you making a bit of an arbitrary division between the individual and societal here? In particular, the individual can become societal if many individuals are affected.

ckaihatsu wrote:For the individual / specific *business*, the *downside* is the falling prices regime, the drying-up of markets due to market saturation, and the declining rate of profit, which may or may *not* revive for the individual / particular business with the possible advent of some new innovation.

I'll actually give the historical example of the *United States*, and then, later, *Japan*, since both went through periods of plummeting market share for their industrially manufactured products, due to new competition from China, and then South Korea. Neither country has ever really fully economically recovered from those catastrophic events, so there's no happy intranational technological 'leapfrogging' for either of *those* two advanced countries.


Indeed, although it should be noted that this also led to the switch to services. And, well, we do have plenty of services that did not exist a few decades ago.

ckaihatsu wrote:Okay -- I'm going to *hold* you to this admission. (grin)


:lol:

ckaihatsu wrote:Can't you see that you're being *presumptuous*, though, in expecting / relating that 'leapfrogging' will apply evenly to *all* businesses, and to *all* nations, against the onslaught of declining rates of profit and up-and-coming competition from newer, more-contemporized players in the market -- ?

You're on the verge of touting an outright Panglossian *mythology* of 'a rising tide will lift all boats'. No. It doesn't work that way -- ask Lehman Brothers (etc.).


Well, overall I'd say that's basically what has happened. I mean, production isn't being done using the same technologies as in the 1980s, 1940s or the 19th century, and overall productivity seems to be higher than back then. Of course, as I said, this process could indeed stop. If it did, it's entirely possible capitalism would end.

ckaihatsu wrote:I'm saying that I'm not here to entertain your academic trivia-type questions, so you may want to go do your own research to satisfy whatever whims you may have for demographic information.


You're being vague, honestly.

ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, I'm all for any reforms that are soundly anti-austerity in practice.


Well, at least that would be something that could indeed be an improvement, i.e. money well spent. It would come along with further labor market liberalization, although in the US I doubt this would change too much since American labor markets are fairly flexible and free. Flexicurity in the US in particular would look more like an unemployment insurance scheme reform, I guess, and much of it would consist on increasing payments in exchange for being trained.

ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, my point stands that marginalism is *still* entirely about consuming / consumption / procurement, whether that's consumer goods for the consumer, or procurements for the corporation.

I find it amusing that you're running interference for corporate boardroom decision-making, making it sound as though the numbers themselves just *somehow* autonomously drive the spreadsheets without any human intervention.

It's fun.


They don't indeed, but they serve as a nice summary of their overall effects and a great way to discipline one's thinking. Of course if e.g. the boss is an asshole of the worst kind then labor bargaining will be very different than if the boss was just a normal person, and this may not be easy to model in practice.
#15175561
wat0n wrote:
I'm not "digressing", it's actually a fairly cogent idea: Since when do workers pay commission to their bosses to work?



ckaihatsu wrote:
You're correct to imply that workers *shouldn't* be paying a commission to their bosses to work, so maybe the 'cut' that brokers like AirBnB and Uber take from effectively-employee drivers and proprietors (etc.) isn't 'just-business' but is downright *abusive*, along with being economically exploitative, for those who function as employees in their work roles as drivers and proprietors.



wat0n wrote:
Or maybe you're just misunderstanding what the nature of their relationship is, because you're analyzing it from the wrong perspective.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, then, what *did* you mean with that statement?



wat0n wrote:
You're not considering relevant parts of the arrangements hosts have with AirBnB to determine the nature of their relations.



You'd obviously prefer to be *vague* and *evasive* with whatever you're trying to express, but your lack of clarity just means that you're not getting your position across.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Well, this is the issue that's in front of us -- sure, a host has a better material position than someone hired to *clean* the place, because the wage worker presumably doesn't have a place of *their* own to lease out, similarly, and so has to provide cleaning services to *others*, for *wages*.

So in that sense someone who's able to lease out real estate is obviously leveraging *capital*, but it may be to such a small extent, with the capital frozen-up in that real estate for one's own housing needs, that whatever revenue is received from leasing it out is really effectively more like a *wage*, for lodging / maintenance / upkeep / cleaning, for one's own ongoing personal expenses, moreso than being a serious 'small business', for profit-making. (Ditto for driving for hire, etc.)



wat0n wrote:
What's the difference between these arrangements and those plenty of small businesses who supply large ones? Are the owners of these small businesses bourgeois?



As already stated, it boils down to a matter of *intention* and *capital* -- someone looking for a *job* should not have to function like a "small business", in the sense of risking capital and work-effort, for possible *losses*, especially when one is *depending* on that housing, vehicle, and labor-power for one's own life and livelihood.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Who exactly do you consider to be the 'business clients', and how exactly would they post a loss when they're not involved in providing hosting or driving services?



wat0n wrote:
The hosts and drivers are. They can post a loss if they cannot pay for their rent and maintenance (hosts) or their cars, fuel and maintenance (drivers).



And who are the hosts and drivers 'clients' *of*, exactly? Who is providing *to them*, according to you?

I'll maintain that hosts and drivers are *not* clients of anyone, because they're *retailing services*, as employees and vendors, depending, according to specific individual intent and capital invested, if any.

This kind of labor participation should be *regulated* because there's too much ambiguity about what role the broker (Uber / AirBnB / etc.) is playing in the economic relationship.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
The *issue* here, though, is that regardless of a participant's *intentions*, they may *find themselves* to be in a grossly disadvantageous material position in relation to Uber or AirBnB, and so the situation / relation may be in need of *regulation* so that people looking for a little 'extra income' don't wind up losing personal life and living wherewithal when they were reasonably expecting to *make money*, as one does in a job -- for them the situation *most resembles* a job, empirically, since they're not necessarily in a 'small business' mindset and motivation.


ckaihatsu wrote:
In *this* case it's not even clear that the 'extra-income' person is *in* a small-business mentality or mode of operations -- they're reasonably expecting some *extra income*, considering that they're willing to do the work, and even to include some personal property that they depend on for their own daily life and living. Why should they be expected to risk a *loss* of that in some unstated rough-and-tumble market environment when they were sold on participation according to the 'extra income' promise -- ?

You're presuming that these 'extra income' types are all conforming to your 'businessman' mentality, when they may just be looking for some 'light, flexible employment' using their own equipment, and are *not* looking for competitive swimming in a sea of sharks.



wat0n wrote:
Maybe, I think in practice it depends on whether they understand what they are getting into. And as importantly, it depends on whether they make Uber or AirBnB their primary source of income or not.

Yet I would be surprised if they weren't making these decisions from a business perspective, particularly those that make large investments (like an extra home or car) to that effect.



Okay, at least you're recognizing that there are differing levels / scales of *involvement* -- many may legitimately *not* have experience working in this kind of 'umbrella broker' relationship, and may have been marketed-to with a premise / promise of 'extra income', reasonably not-expecting anything more complicated than that. (No, I haven't worked for Uber or AirBnB or anything like that myself.)

Sure, those who pointedly make investments of capital for 'enhanced participation' in this market are obviously more in the 'small business' mentality and activity, and would reasonably be better-prepared for *business*-type experiences, both positive and negative.

Again my concern is for those who do *not* have this 'small business' intention, who do *not* make directed investments, and who therefore function far more as 'employees' of Uber / AirBnB / etc.


---


wat0n wrote:
Causality goes both ways here, honestly. Technological changes quite evidently affects social organization as well.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, I won't bicker, but I'll note that society and *civilization* require a certain 'baseline' level of social cohesion and cooperation, which, in modern times, means a sound *economy* / economics -- when the capitalist economy *tanks*, as it did in 2008-2009 and then in early 2020, the bourgeois U.S. government had to *scramble* just to keep the shit afloat.

No economy = no technology = no civilization.



wat0n wrote:
Fair, I don't disagree with this. Indeed, if you wanted to be like Robinson Crusoe you'd probably just innovate enough to figure out how to subsist.



Well, then that's no longer *politics* -- meaning 'society' -- it's *lifestylism*, at the *individual* scale.


History, Macro-Micro -- simplified

Spoiler: show
Image



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
This historical event, plus the material quality of storable (goods) versus non-storable (services), has *nothing* to do with the point of this segment, which is that both goods and services are both *commodities* and produce new economic value -- unlike *rentier* capital, which does *not* produce commodities or any new values.



wat0n wrote:
Yet the their production and consumption works differently for both, and that has practical consequences. It's not just an arbitrary distinction.



ckaihatsu wrote:
If you want to explore encyclopedia entries for 'production' and 'consumption', go right ahead -- keep us updated here on this thread, please.



wat0n wrote:
Not sure about what this response is supposed to mean.



ckaihatsu wrote:
You could always *ask*, since I'm right here.



wat0n wrote:
So what is it supposed to mean?



I mean to say that you often speak *peripherally* about the topic at hand -- in this case if you have something to say about production and consumption then you should *say* it instead of merely *indicating* it abstractly.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Regarding *economic activity*, there *is no* distinction to be made. Labor is required for the commodity-production of both goods and services.

On your *empirical* points, I'll point-out that *packages* could be transported by a *delivery service*, which requires labor, but does *not* require the client to be present for the receiving / execution of the service itself.

The business norm *these* days is 'just-in-time' inventories, meaning that companies are under financial pressure to *not* have a lot of capital invested in stock / inventories that just sit around, regardless of conscious class-warfare planning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-in-t ... d_benefits



wat0n wrote:
Right, but plenty of services do require physicality.



ckaihatsu wrote:
*All* industries rely on 'physicality', in the sense that actual *workers* have to do *physical* tasks of one kind or another -- whether blue-collar, white-collar, or pink-collar -- and the nature of the work done has nothing to do with the balance of class forces, or 'labor relations', if you like.



wat0n wrote:
Right but some are way more intensive in it than others.



ckaihatsu wrote:
(Feel free to elaborate.)

My point remains intact that many goods and services are *so* labor-leveraged and automated that they're either *free* or effectively free, like email, Wikipedia, the weather forecast, some sheets of paper, the news, etc.



wat0n wrote:
Right, those are examples of services that also don't require that much physicality. But take for instance getting a haircut: Is it possible to do it remotely? How about getting surgery?



I'd like to wrap up this segment -- the original point was that both goods and services are *commodities*, both require *labor*, and both create *economic activity*. I don't think I disagree with you on the subsumed descriptions of definitions and *variations* of goods and services.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
And I replied that times are *different* now, and I provided a counter-example, from the news from 1996. (Would you like to repeat all of this a *second* time -- ?)



wat0n wrote:
They are different indeed, partly due to the less intense labor conflicts though.



'Less intense' -- suddenly labor actions are, what, more 'laid-back', as though it's merely a personal *spat*, and not a differing of objective *class interests* at the point of production -- ?

Labor conflicts are primarily *economic*, and we can look at how *dramatic* they may have-been / are-now, or we can look at what various labor strikes are *about*.



After rebelling against USW-backed deal, 2,400 Canadian miners launch strike against multinational Vale Inco

The determined stand taken by the miners, employed by multinational Vale Inco, is the latest example of a growing rebellion of the working class across North America against the trade union bureaucracy, which is collaborating with the employers to enforce the dictates of the financial oligarchy.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/0 ... e-j02.html



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, thanks. This information is insufficient for me to determine if the workers are being economically *exploited*, like all other wage workers are, everywhere else in the world. It appears that kibbutz workers *are* exploited since the economics are touted as being very *profitable* for the enterprises themselves, which, by definition, would require the laborers to be exploited of their surplus labor value.

But I can't say for certain unless I see information that speaks to the specifics of wages, revenue, and profits.



wat0n wrote:
You would need to check on a case by case basis, and also depending on the decade. Many Kibbutzim are now just Kibbutz in name, at least compared to how they started. As the article states, at some point younger members began to leave for better jobs in the cities - leaving the equality and cohesion of the Kibbutz for potentially greater pay working for a standard business in a city.



I'll note that even if all members of a kibbutz are paid *equally*, they may all still be paid *shittily*, so then what's all the hype about? Economic exploitation of labor is still taking place, so it may just as well be anywhere else, despite the slight *demographic* variation in the labor force itself, due to this particular kind of localism.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay -- back to leapfrogging at the *societal* scale.



wat0n wrote:
Aren't you making a bit of an arbitrary division between the individual and societal here? In particular, the individual can become societal if many individuals are affected.



Sure -- of course societal dynamics impact everyday social life, and less-so in the *other* direction, from the bottom, up, but then that's the *point* of working class / revolutionary politics, to counter and overthrow the status-quo bourgeois elitism of societal control, the 'dictatorship of the bourgeoisie'.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
For the individual / specific *business*, the *downside* is the falling prices regime, the drying-up of markets due to market saturation, and the declining rate of profit, which may or may *not* revive for the individual / particular business with the possible advent of some new innovation.

I'll actually give the historical example of the *United States*, and then, later, *Japan*, since both went through periods of plummeting market share for their industrially manufactured products, due to new competition from China, and then South Korea. Neither country has ever really fully economically recovered from those catastrophic events, so there's no happy intranational technological 'leapfrogging' for either of *those* two advanced countries.



wat0n wrote:
Indeed, although it should be noted that this also led to the switch to services. And, well, we do have plenty of services that did not exist a few decades ago.



And now those services are becoming increasingly mechanized / computerized / automated, begging-the-question of which country gets the lion's share of market share for *industrial production* -- hence the current ongoing friction between the U.S. and China, in which the U.S. is increasingly looking 'Third World' in contrast to China's industrial and economic dynamism -- arguably much of Southeast Asia, actually.


---


wat0n wrote:
see above. The whole point is that as long as the process above takes place, diminishing returns will not hit (note that if these exist, then you can arrive to a result similar to the Marxian one).



ckaihatsu wrote:
Can't you see that you're being *presumptuous*, though, in expecting / relating that 'leapfrogging' will apply evenly to *all* businesses, and to *all* nations, against the onslaught of declining rates of profit and up-and-coming competition from newer, more-contemporized players in the market -- ?

You're on the verge of touting an outright Panglossian *mythology* of 'a rising tide will lift all boats'. No. It doesn't work that way -- ask Lehman Brothers (etc.).



wat0n wrote:
Well, overall I'd say that's basically what has happened. I mean, production isn't being done using the same technologies as in the 1980s, 1940s or the 19th century, and overall productivity seems to be higher than back then. Of course, as I said, this process could indeed stop. If it did, it's entirely possible capitalism would end.



No, productivity was *definitely* not higher back then -- you may be thinking of *profitability*, which *was* higher, especially during the days of *slavery*, and is lesser now with increased mechanization and a lesser 'organic' composition of capital (meaning less labor used, and greater *leveraging* of labor).

Capitalism will *always* grind-on if we let it, and it would prefer to have the world nuke itself so that it could 'reboot' and start the accumulation process all over again from scratch, but that's *capitalism*, and the global society doesn't necessarily have to *allow* capitalism to get to that point.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I'm saying that I'm not here to entertain your academic trivia-type questions, so you may want to go do your own research to satisfy whatever whims you may have for demographic information.



wat0n wrote:
You're being vague, honestly.



No, I'm being *clear* -- I'm not here to respond to tangential / demographic / empirical questions you may have, I'm here for the politics.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, I'm all for any reforms that are soundly anti-austerity in practice.



wat0n wrote:
Well, at least that would be something that could indeed be an improvement, i.e. money well spent. It would come along with further labor market liberalization, although in the US I doubt this would change too much since American labor markets are fairly flexible and free. Flexicurity in the US in particular would look more like an unemployment insurance scheme reform, I guess, and much of it would consist on increasing payments in exchange for being trained.



Would you like to elaborate on what extents you welcome government reforms for the social good? I got you down here for 'unemployment benefits' and 'job training' -- anything else?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, my point stands that marginalism is *still* entirely about consuming / consumption / procurement, whether that's consumer goods for the consumer, or procurements for the corporation.

I find it amusing that you're running interference for corporate boardroom decision-making, making it sound as though the numbers themselves just *somehow* autonomously drive the spreadsheets without any human intervention.

It's fun.



wat0n wrote:
They don't indeed, but they serve as a nice summary of their overall effects and a great way to discipline one's thinking. Of course if e.g. the boss is an asshole of the worst kind then labor bargaining will be very different than if the boss was just a normal person, and this may not be easy to model in practice.



Ehhhh, it's no wonder I'm always on the verge of accusing you of being a corporate tool -- your line consistently *underplays* the economic component whenever the topic turns around to one of *labor's* interests in society -- here you're making the 'few bad apples' argument, like there are some 'accidental' killer cops or asshole bosses, when in fact these 'bad actors' are merely symptomatic of structural *racism* and *class oppression* in the capitalist system itself.
#15175575
ckaihatsu wrote:You'd obviously prefer to be *vague* and *evasive* with whatever you're trying to express, but your lack of clarity just means that you're not getting your position across.


What's unclear about what I said? Quite evidently, workers don't pay commission to their bosses to work. If Uber drivers or AirBnB hosts do then it's normal to question if they are workers.

ckaihatsu wrote:As already stated, it boils down to a matter of *intention* and *capital* -- someone looking for a *job* should not have to function like a "small business", in the sense of risking capital and work-effort, for possible *losses*, especially when one is *depending* on that housing, vehicle, and labor-power for one's own life and livelihood.


Same could be said about the petite bourgeoisie.

ckaihatsu wrote:And who are the hosts and drivers 'clients' *of*, exactly? Who is providing *to them*, according to you?

I'll maintain that hosts and drivers are *not* clients of anyone, because they're *retailing services*, as employees and vendors, depending, according to specific individual intent and capital invested, if any.

This kind of labor participation should be *regulated* because there's too much ambiguity about what role the broker (Uber / AirBnB / etc.) is playing in the economic relationship.


They can be perfectly regarded as micro businesses who are providing services to guests or riders depending on the case.

ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, at least you're recognizing that there are differing levels / scales of *involvement* -- many may legitimately *not* have experience working in this kind of 'umbrella broker' relationship, and may have been marketed-to with a premise / promise of 'extra income', reasonably not-expecting anything more complicated than that. (No, I haven't worked for Uber or AirBnB or anything like that myself.)

Sure, those who pointedly make investments of capital for 'enhanced participation' in this market are obviously more in the 'small business' mentality and activity, and would reasonably be better-prepared for *business*-type experiences, both positive and negative.

Again my concern is for those who do *not* have this 'small business' intention, who do *not* make directed investments, and who therefore function far more as 'employees' of Uber / AirBnB / etc.


The others are not under a worker mentality though. Their goals seem to be more similar to those of people who throw garage sales (for instance), babysit or offer hourly classes in whatever.

ckaihatsu wrote:Well, then that's no longer *politics* -- meaning 'society' -- it's *lifestylism*, at the *individual* scale.


History, Macro-Micro -- simplified

Spoiler: show
Image


Indeed, if you live alone in an island there is no politics involved here.

ckaihatsu wrote:I mean to say that you often speak *peripherally* about the topic at hand -- in this case if you have something to say about production and consumption then you should *say* it instead of merely *indicating* it abstractly.


Well, we're dealing with an inherently abstract topic, aren't we? I think the examples I provided should be concrete enough though.

ckaihatsu wrote:I'd like to wrap up this segment -- the original point was that both goods and services are *commodities*, both require *labor*, and both create *economic activity*. I don't think I disagree with you on the subsumed descriptions of definitions and *variations* of goods and services.


Sure, but do you understand this has concrete effects on labor relations?

Who has an easier time striking? Surgeons or workers who manufacture luxury cars?

ckaihatsu wrote:'Less intense' -- suddenly labor actions are, what, more 'laid-back', as though it's merely a personal *spat*, and not a differing of objective *class interests* at the point of production -- ?

Labor conflicts are primarily *economic*, and we can look at how *dramatic* they may have-been / are-now, or we can look at what various labor strikes are *about*.


Simple: Strikes are shorter, negotiations are (or were) easier.

ckaihatsu wrote:I'll note that even if all members of a kibbutz are paid *equally*, they may all still be paid *shittily*, so then what's all the hype about? Economic exploitation of labor is still taking place, so it may just as well be anywhere else, despite the slight *demographic* variation in the labor force itself, due to this particular kind of localism.


Now you are getting it! Yes, they can earn little working in the Kibbutz - indeed, maybe workers still make more in a capitalist system overall.

ckaihatsu wrote:Sure -- of course societal dynamics impact everyday social life, and less-so in the *other* direction, from the bottom, up, but then that's the *point* of working class / revolutionary politics, to counter and overthrow the status-quo bourgeois elitism of societal control, the 'dictatorship of the bourgeoisie'.


And in this case, the innovation can define the new standard.

ckaihatsu wrote:And now those services are becoming increasingly mechanized / computerized / automated, begging-the-question of which country gets the lion's share of market share for *industrial production* -- hence the current ongoing friction between the U.S. and China, in which the U.S. is increasingly looking 'Third World' in contrast to China's industrial and economic dynamism -- arguably much of Southeast Asia, actually.


Indeed, it's part of the new technological changes we're experiencing.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, productivity was *definitely* not higher back then -- you may be thinking of *profitability*, which *was* higher, especially during the days of *slavery*, and is lesser now with increased mechanization and a lesser 'organic' composition of capital (meaning less labor used, and greater *leveraging* of labor).

Capitalism will *always* grind-on if we let it, and it would prefer to have the world nuke itself so that it could 'reboot' and start the accumulation process all over again from scratch, but that's *capitalism*, and the global society doesn't necessarily have to *allow* capitalism to get to that point.


No, I'm thinking about productivity such as production by worker. I can look for data if you want.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, I'm being *clear* -- I'm not here to respond to tangential / demographic / empirical questions you may have, I'm here for the politics.


Those questions are essential for the politics too.

ckaihatsu wrote:Would you like to elaborate on what extents you welcome government reforms for the social good? I got you down here for 'unemployment benefits' and 'job training' -- anything else?


That's about it for flexicurity at least.

ckaihatsu wrote:Ehhhh, it's no wonder I'm always on the verge of accusing you of being a corporate tool -- your line consistently *underplays* the economic component whenever the topic turns around to one of *labor's* interests in society -- here you're making the 'few bad apples' argument, like there are some 'accidental' killer cops or asshole bosses, when in fact these 'bad actors' are merely symptomatic of structural *racism* and *class oppression* in the capitalist system itself.


And that's why I'm saying you are not being rigorous. The irony is that I'm sure contemporary Marxian economists fully understand the benefits of formal modeling.
#15175595

For Kallenborn, this is sort of the point: it underscores the difficulties we face trying to create meaningful oversight in the AI-assisted battles of the future. Of course the first use of autonomous weapons on the battlefield won’t announce itself with a press release, he says, because if the weapons work as they’re supposed to, they won’t look at all out of the ordinary. “The problem is autonomy is, at core, a matter of programming,” he says. “The Kargu-2 used autonomously will look exactly like a Kargu-2 used manually.”

[...]

Schwarz says that despite the myriad difficulties, in terms of both drafting regulation and pushing back against the enthusiasm of militaries around the world to integrate AI into weaponry, “there is critical mass building amongst nations and international organizations to push for a ban for systems that have the capacity to autonomously identify, select and attack targets.”



https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/3/22462 ... rt-context
#15175716

Certain critical lessons must be drawn. Miners occupy a critical position in the global capitalist economy. They produce the primary materials needed for cell phones, batteries, car parts, conductors and other advanced technology, without which the entire world economy grinds to a halt.



https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/0 ... s-j04.html



---


wat0n wrote:
I'm not "digressing", it's actually a fairly cogent idea: Since when do workers pay commission to their bosses to work?



[...]


ckaihatsu wrote:
You'd obviously prefer to be *vague* and *evasive* with whatever you're trying to express, but your lack of clarity just means that you're not getting your position across.



wat0n wrote:
What's unclear about what I said? Quite evidently, workers don't pay commission to their bosses to work. If Uber drivers or AirBnB hosts do then it's normal to question if they are workers.



Okay, with that cleared-up, I think you're getting confused by the top-down dictates from Uber / AirBnB / etc. -- just because *they* structure it to call the workers 'independent contractors' and take a certain 'cut' from revenue (instead of paying out a wage from revenue), doesn't mean that the *economic exploitation* is any different.

Workers aren't paying a *commission* to Uber / AirBnB -- the terms are *dictated* by Uber / AirBnB upfront, as in they have the employment / 'contracting' contract already drawn-up as legal *boilerplate*, and either someone signs onto it, or else they don't.

If anything 'commission' better-applies to the on-the-ground service provider, because they're the ones closing the deal and providing the commodity service to the clients / customers.

The overarching name-brand corporation has an interest in spurring 'sales' by incentivizing the on-the-ground service provider / vendor / employee:



Commissions are a form of variable-pay remuneration for services rendered or products sold. Commissions are a common way to motivate and reward salespeople. Commissions can also be designed to encourage specific sales behaviors. For example, commissions may be reduced when granting large discounts. Or commissions may be increased when selling certain products the organization wants to promote.Commissions are usually implemented within the framework on a sales incentive program, which can include one or multiple commission plans (each typically based on a combination of territory, position, or products).

Payments are often calculated using a percentage of revenue, a way for firms to solve the principal–agent problem by attempting to realign employees' interests with those of the firm.[1] However, models other than percentages are possible, such as profit-based approaches, or bonus-based approaches. Commissions allow sales personnel to be paid (in part or entirely) based on products or services sold, rather than just hourly or based on attempted sales.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_(remuneration)



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
As already stated, it boils down to a matter of *intention* and *capital* -- someone looking for a *job* should not have to function like a "small business", in the sense of risking capital and work-effort, for possible *losses*, especially when one is *depending* on that housing, vehicle, and labor-power for one's own life and livelihood.



wat0n wrote:
Same could be said about the petite bourgeoisie.



Perhaps, but it's not quite the same for the petty bourgeoisie as it is for outright *proletarians* -- remember that the petty bourgeoisie still has *capital*, which can be made *liquid*, if need be, while the proletarian does *not* have that kind of 'cushion', or 'buffer' for themselves.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
And who are the hosts and drivers 'clients' *of*, exactly? Who is providing *to them*, according to you?

I'll maintain that hosts and drivers are *not* clients of anyone, because they're *retailing services*, as employees and vendors, depending, according to specific individual intent and capital invested, if any.

This kind of labor participation should be *regulated* because there's too much ambiguity about what role the broker (Uber / AirBnB / etc.) is playing in the economic relationship.



wat0n wrote:
They can be perfectly regarded as micro businesses who are providing services to guests or riders depending on the case.



No, again, that's not adequate because of the variability in levels of entry / intent / investment / participation. You've been lauding the *flexibility* in scheduling, but even *that* characteristic is actually limited by the individual's own financial *situation*. If someone *has* to work, to pay past-due bills, and they just happen to have their own home and/or vehicle, then they really *don't* have flexibility in their work hours due to their individual situation -- exactly like a typical employee.

So then they *don't* enjoy the flexibility and management decision-making that a true 'micro business' / small business / petty bourgeois enterprise has, meaning a business mindset and the capital to spare for investing in the 'micro business' itself.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, at least you're recognizing that there are differing levels / scales of *involvement* -- many may legitimately *not* have experience working in this kind of 'umbrella broker' relationship, and may have been marketed-to with a premise / promise of 'extra income', reasonably not-expecting anything more complicated than that. (No, I haven't worked for Uber or AirBnB or anything like that myself.)

Sure, those who pointedly make investments of capital for 'enhanced participation' in this market are obviously more in the 'small business' mentality and activity, and would reasonably be better-prepared for *business*-type experiences, both positive and negative.

Again my concern is for those who do *not* have this 'small business' intention, who do *not* make directed investments, and who therefore function far more as 'employees' of Uber / AirBnB / etc.



wat0n wrote:
The others are not under a worker mentality though. Their goals seem to be more similar to those of people who throw garage sales (for instance), babysit or offer hourly classes in whatever.



These are good parallels -- garage sales, babysitting, and hourly classes all leverage one's own *personal* life-and-living material infrastructure, meaning a *garage*, a *living room*, and the client's environs, respectively.

In all of these cases there's no umbrella corporation dictating terms of employment, so there's no contract to sign and be exploited by. Basically, without the existence of *employment* ('independent contractor'), there's no top-down *management*, so no corporate-provided employment, as when someone signs-on to work for Uber, AirBnB, etc.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Well, then that's no longer *politics* -- meaning 'society' -- it's *lifestylism*, at the *individual* scale.


History, Macro-Micro -- simplified

Spoiler: show
Image



wat0n wrote:
Indeed, if you live alone in an island there is no politics involved here.



Feeling the temptation?

(grin)


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I mean to say that you often speak *peripherally* about the topic at hand -- in this case if you have something to say about production and consumption then you should *say* it instead of merely *indicating* it abstractly.



wat0n wrote:
Well, we're dealing with an inherently abstract topic, aren't we? I think the examples I provided should be concrete enough though.



Okay, if / whenever you're satisfied with how you've phrased things, I'll be content to leave it off at that....


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I'd like to wrap up this segment -- the original point was that both goods and services are *commodities*, both require *labor*, and both create *economic activity*. I don't think I disagree with you on the subsumed descriptions of definitions and *variations* of goods and services.



wat0n wrote:
Sure, but do you understand this has concrete effects on labor relations?

Who has an easier time striking? Surgeons or workers who manufacture luxury cars?



'Easier' -- ? I'll let *you* introduce this new topic of argumentation, if you'd like.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
'Less intense' -- suddenly labor actions are, what, more 'laid-back', as though it's merely a personal *spat*, and not a differing of objective *class interests* at the point of production -- ?

Labor conflicts are primarily *economic*, and we can look at how *dramatic* they may have-been / are-now, or we can look at what various labor strikes are *about*.



wat0n wrote:
Simple: Strikes are shorter, negotiations are (or were) easier.



Care to provide any examples to corroborate / bolster your contention / thesis -- ?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I'll note that even if all members of a kibbutz are paid *equally*, they may all still be paid *shittily*, so then what's all the hype about? Economic exploitation of labor is still taking place, so it may just as well be anywhere else, despite the slight *demographic* variation in the labor force itself, due to this particular kind of localism.



wat0n wrote:
Now you are getting it! Yes, they can earn little working in the Kibbutz - indeed, maybe workers still make more in a capitalist system overall.



I'd tend to agree that a localist mentality tends to *ghettoize* any given worker, or local *group* of workers -- since the labor market is *international*, it behooves laborers to find the best *location* and *employer* offering the best terms of labor, if they can afford to do such 'research'.

Better-*still* is to *organize* on the basis of one's economic status as a *worker*:



Though miners speak many different languages, their story is the same everywhere.



Workers in every country must understand that they are part of an international movement. This very fact opens up enormous possibilities for the development of the class struggle. The unification with workers throughout the world must become an integral element of the strategy of conducting any particular fight.



https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/0 ... s-j04.html



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Sure -- of course societal dynamics impact everyday social life, and less-so in the *other* direction, from the bottom, up, but then that's the *point* of working class / revolutionary politics, to counter and overthrow the status-quo bourgeois elitism of societal control, the 'dictatorship of the bourgeoisie'.



wat0n wrote:
And in this case, the innovation can define the new standard.



Hmmmm, no, you're thinking too 'top-down' -- you're a *technological determinist* with this insistence / fetishism of technology and innovation, even though you previously admitted that capitalism is not *driven* by innovation (subprime mortgages in 2008-2009).

I'd explicitly cite 'mode of production' (feudalism, capitalism, etc.), and 'class struggle', specifically, as being more-deterministic than 'technology / technique / [innovation]' itself:


[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

Spoiler: show
Image



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
And now those services are becoming increasingly mechanized / computerized / automated, begging-the-question of which country gets the lion's share of market share for *industrial production* -- hence the current ongoing friction between the U.S. and China, in which the U.S. is increasingly looking 'Third World' in contrast to China's industrial and economic dynamism -- arguably much of Southeast Asia, actually.



wat0n wrote:
Indeed, it's part of the new technological changes we're experiencing.



---


wat0n wrote:
Well, overall I'd say that's basically what has happened. I mean, production isn't being done using the same technologies as in the 1980s, 1940s or the 19th century, and overall productivity seems to be higher than back then. Of course, as I said, this process could indeed stop. If it did, it's entirely possible capitalism would end.



ckaihatsu wrote:
No, productivity was *definitely* not higher back then -- you may be thinking of *profitability*, which *was* higher, especially during the days of *slavery*, and is lesser now with increased mechanization and a lesser 'organic' composition of capital (meaning less labor used, and greater *leveraging* of labor).

Capitalism will *always* grind-on if we let it, and it would prefer to have the world nuke itself so that it could 'reboot' and start the accumulation process all over again from scratch, but that's *capitalism*, and the global society doesn't necessarily have to *allow* capitalism to get to that point.



wat0n wrote:
No, I'm thinking about productivity such as production by worker. I can look for data if you want.



Whatever.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, I'm being *clear* -- I'm not here to respond to tangential / demographic / empirical questions you may have, I'm here for the politics.



wat0n wrote:
Those questions are essential for the politics too.



I obviously don't agree.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Would you like to elaborate on what extents you welcome government reforms for the social good? I got you down here for 'unemployment benefits' and 'job training' -- anything else?



wat0n wrote:
That's about it for flexicurity at least.



---


wat0n wrote:
They don't indeed, but they serve as a nice summary of their overall effects and a great way to discipline one's thinking. Of course if e.g. the boss is an asshole of the worst kind then labor bargaining will be very different than if the boss was just a normal person, and this may not be easy to model in practice.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Ehhhh, it's no wonder I'm always on the verge of accusing you of being a corporate tool -- your line consistently *underplays* the economic component whenever the topic turns around to one of *labor's* interests in society -- here you're making the 'few bad apples' argument, like there are some 'accidental' killer cops or asshole bosses, when in fact these 'bad actors' are merely symptomatic of structural *racism* and *class oppression* in the capitalist system itself.



wat0n wrote:
And that's why I'm saying you are not being rigorous. The irony is that I'm sure contemporary Marxian economists fully understand the benefits of formal modeling.



No, sorry, but you're attempting to *personalize* and *psychologize* the overall *class-riven* situation, which is fundamentally about capital-versus-labor. Here's that diagram yet-again, to illustrate that the bosses have diametrically *opposite* economic interests to that of the workers / employees.

(A dollar in revenue cannot go to *both* the employer *and* the worker.)


[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

Spoiler: show
Image
#15175717
EDIT: 'employment' instead of 'labor'


ckaihatsu wrote:
I'd tend to agree that a localist mentality tends to *ghettoize* any given worker, or local *group* of workers -- since the labor market is *international*, it behooves laborers to find the best *location* and *employer* offering the best terms of [employment], if they can afford to do such 'research'.
#15175734
ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, with that cleared-up, I think you're getting confused by the top-down dictates from Uber / AirBnB / etc. -- just because *they* structure it to call the workers 'independent contractors' and take a certain 'cut' from revenue (instead of paying out a wage from revenue), doesn't mean that the *economic exploitation* is any different.

Workers aren't paying a *commission* to Uber / AirBnB -- the terms are *dictated* by Uber / AirBnB upfront, as in they have the employment / 'contracting' contract already drawn-up as legal *boilerplate*, and either someone signs onto it, or else they don't.

If anything 'commission' better-applies to the on-the-ground service provider, because they're the ones closing the deal and providing the commodity service to the clients / customers.

The overarching name-brand corporation has an interest in spurring 'sales' by incentivizing the on-the-ground service provider / vendor / employee:


The deal is being closed by the app, actually. But leaving that aside, the commission is the price hosts/drivers are paying for participating.

ckaihatsu wrote:Perhaps, but it's not quite the same for the petty bourgeoisie as it is for outright *proletarians* -- remember that the petty bourgeoisie still has *capital*, which can be made *liquid*, if need be, while the proletarian does *not* have that kind of 'cushion', or 'buffer' for themselves.


So you think Uber drivers cannot sell their car or AirBnB cannot sell their larger than necessary house and move to a smaller place? :eh:

ckaihatsu wrote:No, again, that's not adequate because of the variability in levels of entry / intent / investment / participation. You've been lauding the *flexibility* in scheduling, but even *that* characteristic is actually limited by the individual's own financial *situation*. If someone *has* to work, to pay past-due bills, and they just happen to have their own home and/or vehicle, then they really *don't* have flexibility in their work hours due to their individual situation -- exactly like a typical employee.

So then they *don't* enjoy the flexibility and management decision-making that a true 'micro business' / small business / petty bourgeois enterprise has, meaning a business mindset and the capital to spare for investing in the 'micro business' itself.


So you believe that people who own small businesses do not have to pay bills (including past-due ones)? :eh:

ckaihatsu wrote:These are good parallels -- garage sales, babysitting, and hourly classes all leverage one's own *personal* life-and-living material infrastructure, meaning a *garage*, a *living room*, and the client's environs, respectively.

In all of these cases there's no umbrella corporation dictating terms of employment, so there's no contract to sign and be exploited by. Basically, without the existence of *employment* ('independent contractor'), there's no top-down *management*, so no corporate-provided employment, as when someone signs-on to work for Uber, AirBnB, etc.


But then again the Uber driver can always join a taxi company and the AirBnB host can always post an ad for renting the room in another platform. I mean, this thing about renting rooms is older than the Internet itself.

ckaihatsu wrote:Feeling the temptation?

(grin)


Sometimes :D

ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, if / whenever you're satisfied with how you've phrased things, I'll be content to leave it off at that....


Well, I already did! Anyway, We've been talking about it in other parts of our posts.

ckaihatsu wrote:'Easier' -- ? I'll let *you* introduce this new topic of argumentation, if you'd like.


Who has more bargaining power?

ckaihatsu wrote:Care to provide any examples to corroborate / bolster your contention / thesis -- ?


When was the last time there was a months long strike in a critical sector like, say, the UK's miners' strikes from the 1970s and 1980s?

ckaihatsu wrote:I'd tend to agree that a localist mentality tends to *ghettoize* any given worker, or local *group* of workers -- since the labor market is *international*, it behooves laborers to find the best *location* and *employer* offering the best terms of labor, if they can afford to do such 'research'.

Better-*still* is to *organize* on the basis of one's economic status as a *worker*:


It could also be due to what the Kibbutz is producing or how it's operating. But yes, the inability to bargain with other producers is also a reason.

OTOH you may also claim those workers are also owners, since that's what a commune is about. They are controlled by workers themselves.

ckaihatsu wrote:Hmmmm, no, you're thinking too 'top-down' -- you're a *technological determinist* with this insistence / fetishism of technology and innovation, even though you previously admitted that capitalism is not *driven* by innovation (subprime mortgages in 2008-2009).

I'd explicitly cite 'mode of production' (feudalism, capitalism, etc.), and 'class struggle', specifically, as being more-deterministic than 'technology / technique / [innovation]' itself:


[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

Spoiler: show
Image


That's why I used the term "can". It all depends on the levels of competition and efficiency.

ckaihatsu wrote:Whatever.


https://www.britannica.com/topic/produc ... cal-trends

ckaihatsu wrote:I obviously don't agree.


Why? They may actually determine whether that politics ends in success or not.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, sorry, but you're attempting to *personalize* and *psychologize* the overall *class-riven* situation, which is fundamentally about capital-versus-labor. Here's that diagram yet-again, to illustrate that the bosses have diametrically *opposite* economic interests to that of the workers / employees.

(A dollar in revenue cannot go to *both* the employer *and* the worker.)


[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

Spoiler: show
Image


If you are going to claim that, I'd appreciate a much more concrete model, that makes its assumptions clear. Another issue with the traditional Marxian view is that it's quite questionable to simply ignore variation among individuals and pretend those social factors are the only ones that truly matter. It would be a lot more credible if you arrived to that conclusion motivated in the self-interests of the agents involved.
#15175863
ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, with that cleared-up, I think you're getting confused by the top-down dictates from Uber / AirBnB / etc. -- just because *they* structure it to call the workers 'independent contractors' and take a certain 'cut' from revenue (instead of paying out a wage from revenue), doesn't mean that the *economic exploitation* is any different.

Workers aren't paying a *commission* to Uber / AirBnB -- the terms are *dictated* by Uber / AirBnB upfront, as in they have the employment / 'contracting' contract already drawn-up as legal *boilerplate*, and either someone signs onto it, or else they don't.

If anything 'commission' better-applies to the on-the-ground service provider, because they're the ones closing the deal and providing the commodity service to the clients / customers.

The overarching name-brand corporation has an interest in spurring 'sales' by incentivizing the on-the-ground service provider / vendor / employee:



wat0n wrote:
The deal is being closed by the app, actually. But leaving that aside, the commission is the price hosts/drivers are paying for participating.



I'd say that if a customer is *dissatisfied* with the service then they're going to want a *refund*, and so it's incumbent on the worker / service provider to provide a good service. The deal isn't really 'closed' until the customer / client permanently walks away from their payment, to their satisfaction.

I don't agree with your use of 'commission' because the service provider is *on the ground*, and would be the one to presumably *receive* commissions so as to encourage extended performance.

I don't know offhand if Uber drivers (and AirBnB hosts, etc.) are incentivized this way, similarly to sales reps, but if they *aren't* then that goes to illustrate the difference in treatment, in capitalism, between those who *don't* produce commodities -- the sales reps, doing white-collar non-productive, 'abstract', labor for *management* -- and the treatment of those who *do* produce commodities, the drivers and hosts.

It would seem that those who *do* produce commodities -- the drivers and hosts service providers -- should be the ones to get all kinds of perks and bonuses, since they bring in the revenue with their own laboring, but that's certainly not the norm in the real-world. It's the *non-commodity-productive* executives, and/or sales reps, who are incentivized and kept within the executive tier of professional treatment, mostly for *political existential* reasons, meaning privileged ruling-class consciousness, basically.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Perhaps, but it's not quite the same for the petty bourgeoisie as it is for outright *proletarians* -- remember that the petty bourgeoisie still has *capital*, which can be made *liquid*, if need be, while the proletarian does *not* have that kind of 'cushion', or 'buffer' for themselves.



wat0n wrote:
So you think Uber drivers cannot sell their car or AirBnB cannot sell their larger than necessary house and move to a smaller place? :eh:



Correct -- neither should be *expected* to do so because their own personal life and living *depends* on that house, and on that car. It would be a socio-material *imposition* to say that larger market forces should 'win out' against the individual, to make them change their lifestyle.

We can simply ask what the / *any* economy is *for* -- is it for the sake of *people*, or isn't it -- ?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, again, that's not adequate because of the variability in levels of entry / intent / investment / participation. You've been lauding the *flexibility* in scheduling, but even *that* characteristic is actually limited by the individual's own financial *situation*. If someone *has* to work, to pay past-due bills, and they just happen to have their own home and/or vehicle, then they really *don't* have flexibility in their work hours due to their individual situation -- exactly like a typical employee.

So then they *don't* enjoy the flexibility and management decision-making that a true 'micro business' / small business / petty bourgeois enterprise has, meaning a business mindset and the capital to spare for investing in the 'micro business' itself.



wat0n wrote:
So you believe that people who own small businesses do not have to pay bills (including past-due ones)? :eh:



You're not understanding -- the bills / expenses are qualitatively *different*, for the proletarian versus those for the (small or otherwise) business owner.

It's rent and utilities for the *individual person* and/or family, versus rent and utilities for the *business entity*, respectively.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
These are good parallels -- garage sales, babysitting, and hourly classes all leverage one's own *personal* life-and-living material infrastructure, meaning a *garage*, a *living room*, and the client's environs, respectively.

In all of these cases there's no umbrella corporation dictating terms of employment, so there's no contract to sign and be exploited by. Basically, without the existence of *employment* ('independent contractor'), there's no top-down *management*, so no corporate-provided employment, as when someone signs-on to work for Uber, AirBnB, etc.



wat0n wrote:
But then again the Uber driver can always join a taxi company and the AirBnB host can always post an ad for renting the room in another platform. I mean, this thing about renting rooms is older than the Internet itself.



Sure -- no one's denying that these are potentially options for some. You're not-considering, though, the situation of those who are most *employee-like*, meaning that they *personally* *need* the income, from solely their own labor, economically, the way an employee does.

For *any* company that effectively functions like an *employer*, to impose *business dynamics* on this kind of participant / service provider, should be considered *criminal* because it's inappropriate to the empirical situation, and an injustice to the worker.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Feeling the temptation?

(grin)



wat0n wrote:
Sometimes :D



I get that a lot (grin) -- "I'd rather be living on a desert island than to discuss politics with you, Chris." (grin)


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, if / whenever you're satisfied with how you've phrased things, I'll be content to leave it off at that....



wat0n wrote:
Well, I already did! Anyway, We've been talking about it in other parts of our posts.



Okay.


---


wat0n wrote:
Who has an easier time striking? Surgeons or workers who manufacture luxury cars?



ckaihatsu wrote:
'Easier' -- ? I'll let *you* introduce this new topic of argumentation, if you'd like.



wat0n wrote:
Who has more bargaining power?



The workers who manufacture luxury cars, of course, because they have the *collective* potential for labor actions, like striking. Individual professionals, like surgeons or anyone else, are more directly exposed to the market, and would have to navigate such on an *individual* basis, to their own disadvantage, by comparison.


---


wat0n wrote:
Simple: Strikes are shorter, negotiations are (or were) easier.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Care to provide any examples to corroborate / bolster your contention / thesis -- ?



wat0n wrote:
When was the last time there was a months long strike in a critical sector like, say, the UK's miners' strikes from the 1970s and 1980s?



Sorry, labor history's not my strong suit -- I think the class struggle has been more *generalized* and *politicized* / populist-ized -- since roughly 2003, with the international mass protests against the U.S.' invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Offhand what comes to mind is the Indian banking sector, perhaps, though those are usually *symbolic* 1- or 2-day strikes, but *very* broad-based.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I'd tend to agree that a localist mentality tends to *ghettoize* any given worker, or local *group* of workers -- since the labor market is *international*, it behooves laborers to find the best *location* and *employer* offering the best terms of labor, if they can afford to do such 'research'.

Better-*still* is to *organize* on the basis of one's economic status as a *worker*:



wat0n wrote:
It could also be due to what the Kibbutz is producing or how it's operating. But yes, the inability to bargain with other producers is also a reason.

OTOH you may also claim those workers are also owners, since that's what a commune is about. They are controlled by workers themselves.



But *are* those communes / kibbutzes actually owned by the workers themselves?

I tend to doubt it, otherwise they'd have to have a *corporate* aspect, or 'business'-like internal culture, to what they do, which I haven't really heard about -- not like Mondragon in Spain.


---


wat0n wrote:
And in this case, the innovation can define the new standard.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Hmmmm, no, you're thinking too 'top-down' -- you're a *technological determinist* with this insistence / fetishism of technology and innovation, even though you previously admitted that capitalism is not *driven* by innovation (subprime mortgages in 2008-2009).

I'd explicitly cite 'mode of production' (feudalism, capitalism, etc.), and 'class struggle', specifically, as being more-deterministic than 'technology / technique / [innovation]' itself:


[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

Spoiler: show
Image



wat0n wrote:
That's why I used the term "can". It all depends on the levels of competition and efficiency.



No, sorry, you're *equivocating* for the sake of promoting your technological determinism. The *means* of production -- technology / technique / innovation -- will always be subsumed by the *social relations* of production, meaning how society organizes itself (feudalism, capitalism, socialism, communism).

For example we don't tout the *mouldboard plough* as being deterministic of *agriculture*, because it's a technology specific to *feudalism*, which is roundly *outdated* today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plough#Mould-board_plough


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Whatever.



wat0n wrote:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/produc ... cal-trends



Oh -- you said *productivity*.

The data you provided cites *GDP*, which is a different metric altogether. Western industrial market share declined through the '70s onward, so GDP for Western countries has reflected that historical deindustrialization.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I obviously don't agree.



wat0n wrote:
Why? They may actually determine whether that politics ends in success or not.



Now you're talking about talking about something irrelevant to politics and which also doesn't interest me in the least. Please stop pestering me. Thanks.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, sorry, but you're attempting to *personalize* and *psychologize* the overall *class-riven* situation, which is fundamentally about capital-versus-labor. Here's that diagram yet-again, to illustrate that the bosses have diametrically *opposite* economic interests to that of the workers / employees.

(A dollar in revenue cannot go to *both* the employer *and* the worker.)


[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

Spoiler: show
Image



wat0n wrote:
If you are going to claim that, I'd appreciate a much more concrete model, that makes its assumptions clear. Another issue with the traditional Marxian view is that it's quite questionable to simply ignore variation among individuals and pretend those social factors are the only ones that truly matter. It would be a lot more credible if you arrived to that conclusion motivated in the self-interests of the agents involved.



You're *babbling* now -- you seem to suggest a more-*granular* approach, but you're not recognizing that the (macro-scale) *generalizations*, of class, are *valid* and can be applied consistently to *all* variations among individuals.

You keep having to *dodge*, into equivocations and *demographics* / descriptions, instead of levelling some kind of *critique*, or *objection*, at what Marxism is positing.

For example, I'll reiterate what I just said, which you are free to critique, if you can:


ckaihatsu wrote:
(A dollar in revenue cannot go to *both* the employer *and* the worker.)
#15175909
ckaihatsu wrote:I'd say that if a customer is *dissatisfied* with the service then they're going to want a *refund*, and so it's incumbent on the worker / service provider to provide a good service. The deal isn't really 'closed' until the customer / client permanently walks away from their payment, to their satisfaction.


Sure, and that's also done through the app...

ckaihatsu wrote:I don't agree with your use of 'commission' because the service provider is *on the ground*, and would be the one to presumably *receive* commissions so as to encourage extended performance.


You can call it "fee" if you want.

ckaihatsu wrote:I don't know offhand if Uber drivers (and AirBnB hosts, etc.) are incentivized this way, similarly to sales reps, but if they *aren't* then that goes to illustrate the difference in treatment, in capitalism, between those who *don't* produce commodities -- the sales reps, doing white-collar non-productive, 'abstract', labor for *management* -- and the treatment of those who *do* produce commodities, the drivers and hosts.

It would seem that those who *do* produce commodities -- the drivers and hosts service providers -- should be the ones to get all kinds of perks and bonuses, since they bring in the revenue with their own laboring, but that's certainly not the norm in the real-world. It's the *non-commodity-productive* executives, and/or sales reps, who are incentivized and kept within the executive tier of professional treatment, mostly for *political existential* reasons, meaning privileged ruling-class consciousness, basically.


At least Uber drivers are incentivized:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... ricks.html

I find your second point to be odd. You may produce as much as you wish, but you will see no revenue at all if you don't make a sales and marketing effort. Furthermore, a substantial part of employment is dedicated to those activities too.

ckaihatsu wrote:Correct -- neither should be *expected* to do so because their own personal life and living *depends* on that house, and on that car. It would be a socio-material *imposition* to say that larger market forces should 'win out' against the individual, to make them change their lifestyle.

We can simply ask what the / *any* economy is *for* -- is it for the sake of *people*, or isn't it -- ?


Well, this is yet another reason why capitalists exist: They are willing to change their lifestyle precisely to satisfy those markets demands and cash in.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're not understanding -- the bills / expenses are qualitatively *different*, for the proletarian versus those for the (small or otherwise) business owner.

It's rent and utilities for the *individual person* and/or family, versus rent and utilities for the *business entity*, respectively.


So the capitalist doesn't pay bills as a person?

ckaihatsu wrote:Sure -- no one's denying that these are potentially options for some. You're not-considering, though, the situation of those who are most *employee-like*, meaning that they *personally* *need* the income, from solely their own labor, economically, the way an employee does.

For *any* company that effectively functions like an *employer*, to impose *business dynamics* on this kind of participant / service provider, should be considered *criminal* because it's inappropriate to the empirical situation, and an injustice to the worker.


Even if the company doesn't impose other conditions that point to subordination such as (I don't know) forcing you to work a set minimum amount of hours to get any income at all?

ckaihatsu wrote:I get that a lot (grin) -- "I'd rather be living on a desert island than to discuss politics with you, Chris." (grin)


Actually I was thinking about postmodern idiots, not you.

ckaihatsu wrote:The workers who manufacture luxury cars, of course, because they have the *collective* potential for labor actions, like striking. Individual professionals, like surgeons or anyone else, are more directly exposed to the market, and would have to navigate such on an *individual* basis, to their own disadvantage, by comparison.


Are you sure? Surgeons, like other doctors, are often unionized and actually exert quite a bit of power in that role.

ckaihatsu wrote:Sorry, labor history's not my strong suit -- I think the class struggle has been more *generalized* and *politicized* / populist-ized -- since roughly 2003, with the international mass protests against the U.S.' invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Offhand what comes to mind is the Indian banking sector, perhaps, though those are usually *symbolic* 1- or 2-day strikes, but *very* broad-based.


Yeah, labor relations seem to have become more politicized. But not because of the Iraq war but because of something a lot more important for workers: There is an ongoing technological changes that is labor replacing, so of course this will not be something workers want or like.

ckaihatsu wrote:But *are* those communes / kibbutzes actually owned by the workers themselves?

I tend to doubt it, otherwise they'd have to have a *corporate* aspect, or 'business'-like internal culture, to what they do, which I haven't really heard about -- not like Mondragon in Spain.


In the 1930s, yes. In fact only Kibbutz members could work in the Kibbutz.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, sorry, you're *equivocating* for the sake of promoting your technological determinism. The *means* of production -- technology / technique / innovation -- will always be subsumed by the *social relations* of production, meaning how society organizes itself (feudalism, capitalism, socialism, communism).

For example we don't tout the *mouldboard plough* as being deterministic of *agriculture*, because it's a technology specific to *feudalism*, which is roundly *outdated* today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plough#Mould-board_plough


But its specific to feudalism not because of the feudal system but simply because it was the technology available at the time, one that was indeed compatible with a feudal system at that. Think for example about what did printing end up doing to feudalism, one step at a time.

ckaihatsu wrote:Oh -- you said *productivity*.

The data you provided cites *GDP*, which is a different metric altogether. Western industrial market share declined through the '70s onward, so GDP for Western countries has reflected that historical deindustrialization.


I've included data on both fronts (GDP per capita and mean labor productivity. The former could be seen as a rough proxy for the latter).

ckaihatsu wrote:Now you're talking about talking about something irrelevant to politics and which also doesn't interest me in the least. Please stop pestering me. Thanks.


I'm not sure about what's so hard to understand about what I mentioned there. But whatever.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're *babbling* now -- you seem to suggest a more-*granular* approach, but you're not recognizing that the (macro-scale) *generalizations*, of class, are *valid* and can be applied consistently to *all* variations among individuals.

You keep having to *dodge*, into equivocations and *demographics* / descriptions, instead of levelling some kind of *critique*, or *objection*, at what Marxism is positing.


I'm not dodging anything here by saying class isn't everything. If anything, you are the one assuming relevant stuff away here...

ckaihatsu wrote:For example, I'll reiterate what I just said, which you are free to critique, if you can:


It can't, but achieving a greater productivity could allow both sides to benefit, giving perhaps more than a single dollar to each.
#15175985
ckaihatsu wrote:
I'd say that if a customer is *dissatisfied* with the service then they're going to want a *refund*, and so it's incumbent on the worker / service provider to provide a good service. The deal isn't really 'closed' until the customer / client permanently walks away from their payment, to their satisfaction.



wat0n wrote:
Sure, and that's also done through the app...



Okay, but you're being formalistic here -- again, the point is that the customer has to be *satisfied*, otherwise they will want their money back, and the deal won't really be *closed*. My point is that the service provider (host / driver / etc.) is also providing a 'sales', or 'account executive' type of managerial / non-productive / internal / 'abstract labor' service, in addition to providing the service itself.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I don't agree with your use of 'commission' because the service provider is *on the ground*, and would be the one to presumably *receive* commissions so as to encourage extended performance.



wat0n wrote:
You can call it "fee" if you want.



'Fee' does sound more accurate, especially for those who have *established* pre-existing businesses and are just 'outsourcing' some of their 'sales' to the broker-type corporations.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I don't know offhand if Uber drivers (and AirBnB hosts, etc.) are incentivized this way, similarly to sales reps, but if they *aren't* then that goes to illustrate the difference in treatment, in capitalism, between those who *don't* produce commodities -- the sales reps, doing white-collar non-productive, 'abstract', labor for *management* -- and the treatment of those who *do* produce commodities, the drivers and hosts.

It would seem that those who *do* produce commodities -- the drivers and hosts service providers -- should be the ones to get all kinds of perks and bonuses, since they bring in the revenue with their own laboring, but that's certainly not the norm in the real-world. It's the *non-commodity-productive* executives, and/or sales reps, who are incentivized and kept within the executive tier of professional treatment, mostly for *political existential* reasons, meaning privileged ruling-class consciousness, basically.



wat0n wrote:
At least Uber drivers are incentivized:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... ricks.html



Okay, so what's the alleged incentive?


wat0n wrote:
I find your second point to be odd. You may produce as much as you wish, but you will see no revenue at all if you don't make a sales and marketing effort. Furthermore, a substantial part of employment is dedicated to those activities too.



This is *highly* debatable because many successful businesses in the past succeeded by quality of product and word-of-mouth alone.

Conversely, there's even an "ideological" camp within business that says that *marketing* is the sum-total of whether people buy a product, or not, meaning that the sheer *force* of mass-media advertising and marketing networks (the private-sector bureaucracy) will make-or-break a new product, regardless of what that product is, itself.

Also, since the 'internal' sales / marketing work efforts are not *guaranteed* to produce results, why should they be incentivized and rewarded with bonuses and profit-sharing -- ? Wouldn't it make more sense to invest in the *product* itself, so that people *want* it, they tell others about it, and will pay a premium for it? Remember, it's *this* kind of labor that is actually *productive*, meaning that it's all about producing the commodity / product itself, distinct from business-*internal* 'overhead' efforts that may or may not work out to spur sales.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Correct -- neither should be *expected* to do so because their own personal life and living *depends* on that house, and on that car. It would be a socio-material *imposition* to say that larger market forces should 'win out' against the individual, to make them change their lifestyle.

We can simply ask what the / *any* economy is *for* -- is it for the sake of *people*, or isn't it -- ?



wat0n wrote:
Well, this is yet another reason why capitalists exist: They are willing to change their lifestyle precisely to satisfy those markets demands and cash in.



But the *societal* question is 'Does everyone have to be a capitalist?'

Obviously *you* think so, but the implication is that everyone has to change their entire *lives* around to conform to the *market* mechanism. What if one implication of market dynamics is *international warfare* -- should people suit-up in military uniforms to protect Western intellectual property against foreign incursions on that kind of market share?

Another example: Where do you stand on *libraries* -- ? Can libraries use public government funding to buy single books from the market, and then make those books available to the *public* on a free, lending basis?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're not understanding -- the bills / expenses are qualitatively *different*, for the proletarian versus those for the (small or otherwise) business owner.

It's rent and utilities for the *individual person* and/or family, versus rent and utilities for the *business entity*, respectively.



wat0n wrote:
So the capitalist doesn't pay bills as a person?



The capitalist, as a person, *benefits* from the surplus capital that they own or have access to -- so personal bills (rent / utilities / etc.) are implicitly *affordable*, since they are using surplus cash / capital for more *speculative* activities, after covering their own personal expenses. The same *cannot* be said for the proletarian.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Sure -- no one's denying that these are potentially options for some. You're not-considering, though, the situation of those who are most *employee-like*, meaning that they *personally* *need* the income, from solely their own labor, economically, the way an employee does.

For *any* company that effectively functions like an *employer*, to impose *business dynamics* on this kind of participant / service provider, should be considered *criminal* because it's inappropriate to the empirical situation, and an injustice to the worker.



wat0n wrote:
Even if the company doesn't impose other conditions that point to subordination such as (I don't know) forcing you to work a set minimum amount of hours to get any income at all?



I'd say that this shows that the private-sector / 'business' formulation may-not-be / *is not* necessarily appropriate for most people's everyday personal needs. On this discussion board someone called for 'Universal Basic Services', meaning that people should be able to receive a certain 'baseline' of government-provided services for basic living needs, across-the-board.

I agree with this kind of politics / reformism, so that no one is in a *precarious* economic situation, due to the vicissitudes of the market mechanism, personal particulars, or whatever other contingencies (like a pandemic).

Perhaps, *after* this baseline is firmly established, society could then talk about markets and what more-*civilizational* projects may be accomplished, more speculatively. Here's a sketch:


Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy

Spoiler: show
Image



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I get that a lot (grin) -- "I'd rather be living on a desert island than to discuss politics with you, Chris." (grin)



wat0n wrote:
Actually I was thinking about postmodern idiots, not you.



I'd like to make more light-minded quips here, but I know that you're just taking a swipe at *identity politics*, from the *right*, so I'm going to have to say 'cut it out', to allow social justice warriors, or whatever, to do their thing, since their terrain is about *civil rights* and civil society. Here's an example from the news:


Karen Brigade Harasses Black Women Kissing at the Pool. Hilarity Ensues as They Get Thrown TF Out

https://www.theroot.com/karen-brigade-h ... 1847024664



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
The workers who manufacture luxury cars, of course, because they have the *collective* potential for labor actions, like striking. Individual professionals, like surgeons or anyone else, are more directly exposed to the market, and would have to navigate such on an *individual* basis, to their own disadvantage, by comparison.



wat0n wrote:
Are you sure? Surgeons, like other doctors, are often unionized and actually exert quite a bit of power in that role.



Oh, okay, well in that case then they're effectively *collectivized* in regards to the labor market.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Sorry, labor history's not my strong suit -- I think the class struggle has been more *generalized* and *politicized* / populist-ized -- since roughly 2003, with the international mass protests against the U.S.' invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Offhand what comes to mind is the Indian banking sector, perhaps, though those are usually *symbolic* 1- or 2-day strikes, but *very* broad-based.



wat0n wrote:
Yeah, labor relations seem to have become more politicized. But not because of the Iraq war but because of something a lot more important for workers: There is an ongoing technological changes that is labor replacing, so of course this will not be something workers want or like.



I *hear* ya -- I'm not going to *argue* on the side of 'automatic' implementation of automation, that displaces workers' job positions, but I will note that overall, automation boosts *productivity* and makes more goods and services more *inexpensive* for the consumer, meaning most-everyone (who doesn't have a smartphone these days).

It's going to be interesting to see how full-, or nearly-full-automation plays out, because I would tend to argue for the benefit of *people* as the end-result, since workers may or may not be needed anymore in our contemporary highly-computerized / highly-automated industrial era.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
But *are* those communes / kibbutzes actually owned by the workers themselves?

I tend to doubt it, otherwise they'd have to have a *corporate* aspect, or 'business'-like internal culture, to what they do, which I haven't really heard about -- not like Mondragon in Spain.



wat0n wrote:
In the 1930s, yes. In fact only Kibbutz members could work in the Kibbutz.



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, sorry, you're *equivocating* for the sake of promoting your technological determinism. The *means* of production -- technology / technique / innovation -- will always be subsumed by the *social relations* of production, meaning how society organizes itself (feudalism, capitalism, socialism, communism).

For example we don't tout the *mouldboard plough* as being deterministic of *agriculture*, because it's a technology specific to *feudalism*, which is roundly *outdated* today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plough#Mould-board_plough



wat0n wrote:
But its specific to feudalism not because of the feudal system but simply because it was the technology available at the time, one that was indeed compatible with a feudal system at that. Think for example about what did printing end up doing to feudalism, one step at a time.



Sorry, no, I'm going to have to contend this as being 'idealism', the (liberal) position that it's *ideas* (in this case through the technology of the printing press) that shape, and progress, society.



At each point human beings make choices whether to proceed along one path or another, and fight out these choices in great social conflicts. Beyond a certain point in history, how people make their choices is connected to their class position. The slave is likely to make a different choice to the slave-owner, the feudal artisan to the feudal lord. The great struggles over the future of humanity have involved an element of class struggle. The sequence of these great struggles provides the skeleton round which the rest of history grows.

This approach does not deny the role of individuals or the ideas they propagate. What it does do is insist that the individual or idea can only play a certain role because of the preceding material development of society, of the way people make their livelihoods, and of the structure of classes and states. The skeleton is not the same as the living body. But without the skeleton the body would have no solidity and could not survive. Understanding the material ‘basis’ of history is an essential, but not sufficient, precondition for understanding everything else.

This book, then, attempts to provide an introductory outline to world history, and no more than that.



Harman, _People's History of the World_, p. iv



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Oh -- you said *productivity*.

The data you provided cites *GDP*, which is a different metric altogether. Western industrial market share declined through the '70s onward, so GDP for Western countries has reflected that historical deindustrialization.



wat0n wrote:
I've included data on both fronts (GDP per capita and mean labor productivity. The former could be seen as a rough proxy for the latter).



Okay, you're correct -- I overlooked the initial section.

But then I'm at a loss, since I'm more familiar with the *following* data, which shows a steady *increase* in labor productivity over the past several decades, due to increased leveraging of *technology*.



Most Americans believe that a rising tide should lift all boats—that as the economy expands, everybody should reap the rewards. And for two-and-a-half decades beginning in the late 1940s, this was how our economy worked. Over this period, the pay (wages and benefits) of typical workers rose in tandem with productivity (how much workers produce per hour). In other words, as the economy became more efficient and expanded, everyday Americans benefited correspondingly through better pay. But in the 1970s, this started to change.

Image



https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Now you're talking about talking about something irrelevant to politics and which also doesn't interest me in the least. Please stop pestering me. Thanks.



wat0n wrote:
I'm not sure about what's so hard to understand about what I mentioned there. But whatever.



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're *babbling* now -- you seem to suggest a more-*granular* approach, but you're not recognizing that the (macro-scale) *generalizations*, of class, are *valid* and can be applied consistently to *all* variations among individuals.

You keep having to *dodge*, into equivocations and *demographics* / descriptions, instead of levelling some kind of *critique*, or *objection*, at what Marxism is positing.



wat0n wrote:
I'm not dodging anything here by saying class isn't everything. If anything, you are the one assuming relevant stuff away here...



If you don't agree that the class division is paramount in society, then you have to contend some *alternative* assertion, regarding what dynamic produces commodities and enables societal progress.



Capitalism as a way of organising the whole production of a country is barely three or four centuries old. As a way of organising the whole production of the world, it is at most 150 years old. Industrial capitalism, with its huge conurbations, widespread literacy and universal dependence on markets, has only taken off in vast tracts of the globe in the last 50 years. Yet humans of one sort or another have been on the earth for over a million years, and modern humans for over 100,000 years. It would be remarkable indeed if a way of running things that has existed for less than 0.5 percent of our species’ lifespan were to endure for the rest of it—unless that lifespan is going to be very short indeed.



Harman, _People's History of the World_, p. v



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
For example, I'll reiterate what I just said, which you are free to critique, if you can:


(A dollar in revenue cannot go to *both* the employer *and* the worker.)



wat0n wrote:
It can't, but achieving a greater productivity could allow both sides to benefit, giving perhaps more than a single dollar to each.



You obviously suck at business -- why should my counterpart get a *greater share* of the spoils when *I'm* the one who's been doing all the work?


[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

Spoiler: show
Image
#15175995
ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, but you're being formalistic here -- again, the point is that the customer has to be *satisfied*, otherwise they will want their money back, and the deal won't really be *closed*. My point is that the service provider (host / driver / etc.) is also providing a 'sales', or 'account executive' type of managerial / non-productive / internal / 'abstract labor' service, in addition to providing the service itself.


OTOH if you lie or do something like that it's possible your refund may be denied, just as it happens with any platform or business. Right?

I also don't know what happens if you get an Uber refund. It's also possible that the driver doesn't lose the money from the trip but faces some other sort of problem. Furthermore it's also possible Uber takes the loss if the issue was on their end.

ckaihatsu wrote:'Fee' does sound more accurate, especially for those who have *established* pre-existing businesses and are just 'outsourcing' some of their 'sales' to the broker-type corporations.


Fair.

ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, so what's the alleged incentive?


The NYT article shows some, such as for example giving you a lot of rewards early (i.e. income) and then giving you something closer to your long run income as you do more trips. It's something used in many video games too.

ckaihatsu wrote:This is *highly* debatable because many successful businesses in the past succeeded by quality of product and word-of-mouth alone.


Even in those cases, there was a sales force and marketing effort involved. Particularly the former.

ckaihatsu wrote:Conversely, there's even an "ideological" camp within business that says that *marketing* is the sum-total of whether people buy a product, or not, meaning that the sheer *force* of mass-media advertising and marketing networks (the private-sector bureaucracy) will make-or-break a new product, regardless of what that product is, itself.


Sure, so...? Those media campaigns don't just appear out of nothing, actual workers have the task of designing them.

ckaihatsu wrote:Also, since the 'internal' sales / marketing work efforts are not *guaranteed* to produce results, why should they be incentivized and rewarded with bonuses and profit-sharing -- ? Wouldn't it make more sense to invest in the *product* itself, so that people *want* it, they tell others about it, and will pay a premium for it? Remember, it's *this* kind of labor that is actually *productive*, meaning that it's all about producing the commodity / product itself, distinct from business-*internal* 'overhead' efforts that may or may not work out to spur sales.


What if the degree of success depends on the incentives?

ckaihatsu wrote:But the *societal* question is 'Does everyone have to be a capitalist?'

Obviously *you* think so, but the implication is that everyone has to change their entire *lives* around to conform to the *market* mechanism. What if one implication of market dynamics is *international warfare* -- should people suit-up in military uniforms to protect Western intellectual property against foreign incursions on that kind of market share?


No, I don't think so. I do think however that it is a legitimate route to follow and indeed if you are going to face the costs of doing so there must be a commensurate reward. Right?

ckaihatsu wrote:Another example: Where do you stand on *libraries* -- ? Can libraries use public government funding to buy single books from the market, and then make those books available to the *public* on a free, lending basis?


Sure.

ckaihatsu wrote:The capitalist, as a person, *benefits* from the surplus capital that they own or have access to -- so personal bills (rent / utilities / etc.) are implicitly *affordable*, since they are using surplus cash / capital for more *speculative* activities, after covering their own personal expenses. The same *cannot* be said for the proletarian.


That's only true about a successful capitalist. Plenty of small business owners have trouble affording their usual bills, particularly if their business isn't performing well.

ckaihatsu wrote:I'd say that this shows that the private-sector / 'business' formulation may-not-be / *is not* necessarily appropriate for most people's everyday personal needs. On this discussion board someone called for 'Universal Basic Services', meaning that people should be able to receive a certain 'baseline' of government-provided services for basic living needs, across-the-board.

I agree with this kind of politics / reformism, so that no one is in a *precarious* economic situation, due to the vicissitudes of the market mechanism, personal particulars, or whatever other contingencies (like a pandemic).

Perhaps, *after* this baseline is firmly established, society could then talk about markets and what more-*civilizational* projects may be accomplished, more speculatively. Here's a sketch:


Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy

Spoiler: show
Image


No one's saying literally EVERYONE has to participate in that scheme. Again, it's just about giving people the opportunity to do so if they wish, or as a secondary source of income.

It's quite evident not everyone has to or should be Uber drivers or AirBnB hosts.

ckaihatsu wrote:I'd like to make more light-minded quips here, but I know that you're just taking a swipe at *identity politics*, from the *right*, so I'm going to have to say 'cut it out', to allow social justice warriors, or whatever, to do their thing, since their terrain is about *civil rights* and civil society. Here's an example from the news:


Karen Brigade Harasses Black Women Kissing at the Pool. Hilarity Ensues as They Get Thrown TF Out

https://www.theroot.com/karen-brigade-h ... 1847024664


It's all a matter of degree, though, those SJWs can and often do become the kind of moralistic idiots they are trying to fight as time goes on.

ckaihatsu wrote:Oh, okay, well in that case then they're effectively *collectivized* in regards to the labor market.


Indeed. And a real doctor's strike, one taken to its utmost consequences, would be far more damaging and exert a far greater pressure on their enployers than an auto workers' strike I think.

ckaihatsu wrote:I *hear* ya -- I'm not going to *argue* on the side of 'automatic' implementation of automation, that displaces workers' job positions, but I will note that overall, automation boosts *productivity* and makes more goods and services more *inexpensive* for the consumer, meaning most-everyone (who doesn't have a smartphone these days).

It's going to be interesting to see how full-, or nearly-full-automation plays out, because I would tend to argue for the benefit of *people* as the end-result, since workers may or may not be needed anymore in our contemporary highly-computerized / highly-automated industrial era.


It's a short term vs long term problem in the end. People who aren't replaced by automation win big time, yes, but those who are face a steep cost and being able to buy cheaper stuff is not a great consolation for them. It's basically why luddites even existed to begin with.

ckaihatsu wrote:Sorry, no, I'm going to have to contend this as being 'idealism', the (liberal) position that it's *ideas* (in this case through the technology of the printing press) that shape, and progress, society.


They don't? I would say they do play a big role in practice, it's why something that shouldn't have happened (from a Marxian perspective) like WWI even happened. How else can you explain that the working classes from different societies decided to become ground meat instead of overthrowing capitalism together?

ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, you're correct -- I overlooked the initial section.

But then I'm at a loss, since I'm more familiar with the *following* data, which shows a steady *increase* in labor productivity over the past several decades, due to increased leveraging of *technology*.


As I mentioned elsewhere, the plot is misleading because it depends on the precise definition of "compensation" you use. I also find the productivity series to be a bit odd since labor productivity slowed down from the 1980s onwards according to other sources...

ckaihatsu wrote:If you don't agree that the class division is paramount in society, then you have to contend some *alternative* assertion, regarding what dynamic produces commodities and enables societal progress.


You can find different schools here, actually. The profit incentive and rent generation is one. Other types of identity politics is another (you can't deny, for instance, that some societies are still based on ethnicity and religion, and will tend to distribute rents based on those two categories - particularly if these are rent seeking societies). Non Marxian definition of classes may also apply.

ckaihatsu wrote:You obviously suck at business -- why should my counterpart get a *greater share* of the spoils when *I'm* the one who's been doing all the work?


[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

Spoiler: show
Image


What if not giving your counterpart a greater share will leave you with less actual dollars than doing so as a result?
#15176060
ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, but you're being formalistic here -- again, the point is that the customer has to be *satisfied*, otherwise they will want their money back, and the deal won't really be *closed*. My point is that the service provider (host / driver / etc.) is also providing a 'sales', or 'account executive' type of managerial / non-productive / internal / 'abstract labor' service, in addition to providing the service itself.



wat0n wrote:
OTOH if you lie or do something like that it's possible your refund may be denied, just as it happens with any platform or business. Right?

I also don't know what happens if you get an Uber refund. It's also possible that the driver doesn't lose the money from the trip but faces some other sort of problem. Furthermore it's also possible Uber takes the loss if the issue was on their end.



So, back to the *point*, regarding political economy, the worker is not just providing a *service* / commodity, but is also tending to do *managerial*-sided duties as well, as outlined.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
'Fee' does sound more accurate, especially for those who have *established* pre-existing businesses and are just 'outsourcing' some of their 'sales' to the broker-type corporations.



wat0n wrote:
Fair.



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, so what's the alleged incentive?



wat0n wrote:
The NYT article shows some, such as for example giving you a lot of rewards early (i.e. income) and then giving you something closer to your long run income as you do more trips. It's something used in many video games too.



As the article notes, that's not so much 'incentivizing' as much as it's *gamification*.

What are the *material* rewards, or 'incentives', like bonuses or profit-sharing, offered to the workers, that executive-tier management positions would typically enjoy -- ?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
This is *highly* debatable because many successful businesses in the past succeeded by quality of product and word-of-mouth alone.



wat0n wrote:
Even in those cases, there was a sales force and marketing effort involved. Particularly the former.



I won't quibble, but in any case such business-*internal* efforts don't 'trickle-down' to the workers themselves -- the ones who are producing the actual service commodity.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Conversely, there's even an "ideological" camp within business that says that *marketing* is the sum-total of whether people buy a product, or not, meaning that the sheer *force* of mass-media advertising and marketing networks (the private-sector bureaucracy) will make-or-break a new product, regardless of what that product is, itself.



wat0n wrote:
Sure, so...? Those media campaigns don't just appear out of nothing, actual workers have the task of designing them.



Just noting it -- it's kind of akin to nature-vs.-nurture. So which is it, publicity, or *use value* -- ?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Also, since the 'internal' sales / marketing work efforts are not *guaranteed* to produce results, why should they be incentivized and rewarded with bonuses and profit-sharing -- ? Wouldn't it make more sense to invest in the *product* itself, so that people *want* it, they tell others about it, and will pay a premium for it? Remember, it's *this* kind of labor that is actually *productive*, meaning that it's all about producing the commodity / product itself, distinct from business-*internal* 'overhead' efforts that may or may not work out to spur sales.



wat0n wrote:
What if the degree of success depends on the incentives?



What if it does? (You tell me.)


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
But the *societal* question is 'Does everyone have to be a capitalist?'

Obviously *you* think so, but the implication is that everyone has to change their entire *lives* around to conform to the *market* mechanism. What if one implication of market dynamics is *international warfare* -- should people suit-up in military uniforms to protect Western intellectual property against foreign incursions on that kind of market share?



wat0n wrote:
No, I don't think so. I do think however that it is a legitimate route to follow and indeed if you are going to face the costs of doing so there must be a commensurate reward. Right?



But then what's the point of *private property* -- ?

If there's no *enforcement*, as through nationalist international *warfare*, then who gets the market share? The *employer* of labor, or the *competitor* of the employer of labor?

Shouldn't you be beating the drum of war against China and all of Southeast Asia at this point? Who's going to uphold Western intellectual private property?

To be clear, I'm of the position that individual human *need* should be collectively provided-for, as a *baseline*, with all assets and resources, goods and services collectivized as well, for a public 'commons' with free-access by all. No intellectual private property, and no private property whatsoever, at all. (Ask me how!) (grin)


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Another example: Where do you stand on *libraries* -- ? Can libraries use public government funding to buy single books from the market, and then make those books available to the *public* on a free, lending basis?



wat0n wrote:
Sure.



Okay, thanks -- what about abandoned *real estate* -- ? Should the government apparatus (cops, etc.) be actively used to *guard* and *protect* parcels of land that are obviously in disuse? Shouldn't such be considered 'unclaimed' and be released to the *public* for actual active usage?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
The capitalist, as a person, *benefits* from the surplus capital that they own or have access to -- so personal bills (rent / utilities / etc.) are implicitly *affordable*, since they are using surplus cash / capital for more *speculative* activities, after covering their own personal expenses. The same *cannot* be said for the proletarian.



wat0n wrote:
That's only true about a successful capitalist. Plenty of small business owners have trouble affording their usual bills, particularly if their business isn't performing well.



Okay, and this kind of fact goes to make *my* point for me that capitalist economic dynamics are *not humane* -- I'd argue, again, for a humane *baseline* for all, after which 'innovation' can then be considered in some kind of humane societal context.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I'd say that this shows that the private-sector / 'business' formulation may-not-be / *is not* necessarily appropriate for most people's everyday personal needs. On this discussion board someone called for 'Universal Basic Services', meaning that people should be able to receive a certain 'baseline' of government-provided services for basic living needs, across-the-board.

I agree with this kind of politics / reformism, so that no one is in a *precarious* economic situation, due to the vicissitudes of the market mechanism, personal particulars, or whatever other contingencies (like a pandemic).

Perhaps, *after* this baseline is firmly established, society could then talk about markets and what more-*civilizational* projects may be accomplished, more speculatively. Here's a sketch:


Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy

Spoiler: show
Image



wat0n wrote:
No one's saying literally EVERYONE has to participate in that scheme. Again, it's just about giving people the opportunity to do so if they wish, or as a secondary source of income.

It's quite evident not everyone has to or should be Uber drivers or AirBnB hosts.



But don't you see that you're highlighting a *discrepancy* now -- ?

What if someone *wants* to be a driver or host, but their own situation doesn't really *allow* for it, due to *market risk* -- ? Perhaps they have the house, the car, and the willingness, but that's really *all* they have, and they can't afford to *risk* it on a 'business venture'. Doesn't that kinda suck? Couldn't things be *better* for everyone somehow so that people don't have to risk their own *property* (and standard of living) values just to take on a job (basically) -- ?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I'd like to make more light-minded quips here, but I know that you're just taking a swipe at *identity politics*, from the *right*, so I'm going to have to say 'cut it out', to allow social justice warriors, or whatever, to do their thing, since their terrain is about *civil rights* and civil society. Here's an example from the news:


Karen Brigade Harasses Black Women Kissing at the Pool. Hilarity Ensues as They Get Thrown TF Out

https://www.theroot.com/karen-brigade-h ... 1847024664



wat0n wrote:
It's all a matter of degree, though, those SJWs can and often do become the kind of moralistic idiots they are trying to fight as time goes on.



Well, you really should provide an *example*, then, if you're going to be so dismissive / critical. What *I* see is the consistent defense of *civil rights*, for civil society. I don't think it goes *far enough* on its own, but neither am I *dismissive* of what Black Lives Matter, etc., does in society.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Oh, okay, well in that case then they're effectively *collectivized* in regards to the labor market.



wat0n wrote:
Indeed. And a real doctor's strike, one taken to its utmost consequences, would be far more damaging and exert a far greater pressure on their enployers than an auto workers' strike I think.



I don't want to split hairs here, or argue blue-collar-versus-white-collar-or-pink-collar, but I will note that it's arguably balancing a major part of the *transportation* sector against a major part of the *health care* sector.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I *hear* ya -- I'm not going to *argue* on the side of 'automatic' implementation of automation, that displaces workers' job positions, but I will note that overall, automation boosts *productivity* and makes more goods and services more *inexpensive* for the consumer, meaning most-everyone (who doesn't have a smartphone these days).

It's going to be interesting to see how full-, or nearly-full-automation plays out, because I would tend to argue for the benefit of *people* as the end-result, since workers may or may not be needed anymore in our contemporary highly-computerized / highly-automated industrial era.



wat0n wrote:
It's a short term vs long term problem in the end. People who aren't replaced by automation win big time, yes, but those who are face a steep cost and being able to buy cheaper stuff is not a great consolation for them. It's basically why luddites even existed to begin with.



I'll note that we still have to see how many of the major *life expenses* play-out -- home prices are obviously the major expense for most people, and 3D printing is just *starting* to cut into that, at the bleeding-edge. Ditto for car prices, where used vehicles have been quite affordable lately, due to the global glut of production.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Sorry, no, I'm going to have to contend this as being 'idealism', the (liberal) position that it's *ideas* (in this case through the technology of the printing press) that shape, and progress, society.



wat0n wrote:
They don't? I would say they do play a big role in practice, it's why something that shouldn't have happened (from a Marxian perspective) like WWI even happened. How else can you explain that the working classes from different societies decided to become ground meat instead of overthrowing capitalism together?



Bourgeois institutions, bourgeois counter-revolution.



According to the predominant opinion of modern historians,[20] the establishment of a Bolshevik-style council government in Germany on 9–10 November 1918 was impossible. Yet the Ebert government felt threatened by a coup from the left, and was certainly undermined by the Spartakus movement; thus it co-operated with the Supreme Command and the Freikorps. The brutal actions of the Freikorps during the various revolts estranged many left democrats from the SPD. They regarded the behavior of Ebert, Noske and the other SPD leaders during the revolution as an outright betrayal of their own followers.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Re ... revolution



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, you're correct -- I overlooked the initial section.

But then I'm at a loss, since I'm more familiar with the *following* data, which shows a steady *increase* in labor productivity over the past several decades, due to increased leveraging of *technology*.



wat0n wrote:
As I mentioned elsewhere, the plot is misleading because it depends on the precise definition of "compensation" you use. I also find the productivity series to be a bit odd since labor productivity slowed down from the 1980s onwards according to other sources...



Okay, if you'd like to *clarify* the appropriate metric here, regarding labor *productivity* over the decades, please do so.

*My* understanding is that the increased use of *machinery*, and computerization, and automation, leads to increased rates of commodity *production*, per hour of wage labor.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
If you don't agree that the class division is paramount in society, then you have to contend some *alternative* assertion, regarding what dynamic produces commodities and enables societal progress.



wat0n wrote:
You can find different schools here, actually. The profit incentive and rent generation is one. Other types of identity politics is another (you can't deny, for instance, that some societies are still based on ethnicity and religion, and will tend to distribute rents based on those two categories - particularly if these are rent seeking societies). Non Marxian definition of classes may also apply.



Okay, again, feel free to proffer a thesis, or hypothesis, here -- I subscribe to the Marxist 'contending classes' theory of historical development.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You obviously suck at business -- why should my counterpart get a *greater share* of the spoils when *I'm* the one who's been doing all the work?


[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

Spoiler: show
Image



wat0n wrote:
What if not giving your counterpart a greater share will leave you with less actual dollars than doing so as a result?



How so?
#15176068
ckaihatsu wrote:So, back to the *point*, regarding political economy, the worker is not just providing a *service* / commodity, but is also tending to do *managerial*-sided duties as well, as outlined.


Which ones?

ckaihatsu wrote:As the article notes, that's not so much 'incentivizing' as much as it's *gamification*.

What are the *material* rewards, or 'incentives', like bonuses or profit-sharing, offered to the workers, that executive-tier management positions would typically enjoy -- ?


I'd say the incentives are precisely to get into the platform. Yes, it's a structure similar to those from games.

Another one is to of course not piss riders off, although I guess that's based on the stick rather than the carrot.

ckaihatsu wrote:I won't quibble, but in any case such business-*internal* efforts don't 'trickle-down' to the workers themselves -- the ones who are producing the actual service commodity.


I think you already know my opinion on whether they should be considered to be workers too (they should).

ckaihatsu wrote:Just noting it -- it's kind of akin to nature-vs.-nurture. So which is it, publicity, or *use value* -- ?


Both...? I mean, publicity in principle is all about reminding potential customers is that the product being offered can solve whatever need it's meant to solve - i.e. precisely its use value.

ckaihatsu wrote:What if it does? (You tell me.)


It makes sense to provide those incentives so the product is successful.

ckaihatsu wrote: una
But then what's the point of *private property* -- ?

If there's no *enforcement*, as through nationalist international *warfare*, then who gets the market share? The *employer* of labor, or the *competitor* of the employer of labor?

Shouldn't you be beating the drum of war against China and all of Southeast Asia at this point? Who's going to uphold Western intellectual private property?

To be clear, I'm of the position that individual human *need* should be collectively provided-for, as a *baseline*, with all assets and resources, goods and services collectivized as well, for a public 'commons' with free-access by all. No intellectual private property, and no private property whatsoever, at all. (Ask me how!) (grin)


Well, that does harm the incentives for entrepreneurs outside China and is indeed an issue. It doesn't mean it needs to be solved by war, however.

ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, thanks -- what about abandoned *real estate* -- ? Should the government apparatus (cops, etc.) be actively used to *guard* and *protect* parcels of land that are obviously in disuse? Shouldn't such be considered 'unclaimed' and be released to the *public* for actual active usage?


That's an interesting question. I think eminent domain could apply here, right?

ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, and this kind of fact goes to make *my* point for me that capitalist economic dynamics are *not humane* -- I'd argue, again, for a humane *baseline* for all, after which 'innovation' can then be considered in some kind of humane societal context.


Maybe, or you could see it from another point of view: They take risks, and their earnings if they succeed is a compensation for those risks.

This doesn't mean there should not be a social safety net. There should indeed be one since it's useful to have one for plenty of reasons. But its design isn't as simple as simply giving UBIs here and there.

ckaihatsu wrote:But don't you see that you're highlighting a *discrepancy* now -- ?

What if someone *wants* to be a driver or host, but their own situation doesn't really *allow* for it, due to *market risk* -- ? Perhaps they have the house, the car, and the willingness, but that's really *all* they have, and they can't afford to *risk* it on a 'business venture'. Doesn't that kinda suck? Couldn't things be *better* for everyone somehow so that people don't have to risk their own *property* (and standard of living) values just to take on a job (basically) -- ?


Well, that's the thing about risk: It's a cost to take them, so it's normal that if you want the benefit you should face the cost. I wouldn't blame this person from abstaining from driving on Uber or hosting an AirBnB.

ckaihatsu wrote:Well, you really should provide an *example*, then, if you're going to be so dismissive / critical. What *I* see is the consistent defense of *civil rights*, for civil society. I don't think it goes *far enough* on its own, but neither am I *dismissive* of what Black Lives Matter, etc., does in society.


Cancel culture would be an example of it. It's no different from how the right used to behave at some point, particularly the religious right.

There's also the even more cynical view that this can generate jobs for these guys, too - often at the taxpayer's expense.

ckaihatsu wrote:I don't want to split hairs here, or argue blue-collar-versus-white-collar-or-pink-collar, but I will note that it's arguably balancing a major part of the *transportation* sector against a major part of the *health care* sector.


Autoworkers are in manufacturing, not transportation though. But more than that, who has a greater bargaining power in your view?

ckaihatsu wrote:I'll note that we still have to see how many of the major *life expenses* play-out -- home prices are obviously the major expense for most people, and 3D printing is just *starting* to cut into that, at the bleeding-edge. Ditto for car prices, where used vehicles have been quite affordable lately, due to the global glut of production.


We have to wait and see, if the issue of land can be dealt with then it'll be great. But even then, the costs these workers face are indeed large.

ckaihatsu wrote:Bourgeois institutions, bourgeois counter-revolution.


Please do elaborate. Note that the war began before the Bolshevik Revolution.

ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, if you'd like to *clarify* the appropriate metric here, regarding labor *productivity* over the decades, please do so.

*My* understanding is that the increased use of *machinery*, and computerization, and automation, leads to increased rates of commodity *production*, per hour of wage labor.


It's more about what are they including into compensation. Are they including benefits in specie like health insurance for instance?

ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, again, feel free to proffer a thesis, or hypothesis, here -- I subscribe to the Marxist 'contending classes' theory of historical development.


I think they all make points. Even Marxists make some valid points, points that are not incompatible with other views (particularly profit motive). Here I'm thinking about the role of technology and society.

ckaihatsu wrote:How so?


Maybe my counterpart can generate productivity in other ways.
#15176181
ckaihatsu wrote:
So, back to the *point*, regarding political economy, the worker is not just providing a *service* / commodity, but is also tending to do *managerial*-sided duties as well, as outlined.



wat0n wrote:
Which ones?



As already cited, I'd say 'sales' and 'account executive'.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
As the article notes, that's not so much 'incentivizing' as much as it's *gamification*.

What are the *material* rewards, or 'incentives', like bonuses or profit-sharing, offered to the workers, that executive-tier management positions would typically enjoy -- ?



wat0n wrote:
I'd say the incentives are precisely to get into the platform. Yes, it's a structure similar to those from games.

Another one is to of course not piss riders off, although I guess that's based on the stick rather than the carrot.



So then you're tacitly admitting that there *are no* executive-type 'perks' or material 'incentives' offered to the service provider -- the provider of the service commodity.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I won't quibble, but in any case such business-*internal* efforts don't 'trickle-down' to the workers themselves -- the ones who are producing the actual service commodity.



wat0n wrote:
I think you already know my opinion on whether they should be considered to be workers too (they should).



Perhaps, then, you can explain why only the business-*internal* (necessarily white-collar) personnel receive material incentives. Shouldn't the commodity service providers receive the lion's share of the revenue since they're the ones producing the commodities that are sold -- ?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Just noting it -- it's kind of akin to nature-vs.-nurture. So which is it, publicity, or *use value* -- ?



wat0n wrote:
Both...? I mean, publicity in principle is all about reminding potential customers is that the product being offered can solve whatever need it's meant to solve - i.e. precisely its use value.



No disagreement -- are you *sure* that there are no cases where an inventor simply went straight-to-market with their creation, and got sales strictly through word-of-mouth -- ?


---


wat0n wrote:
What if the degree of success depends on the incentives?



ckaihatsu wrote:
What if it does? (You tell me.)



wat0n wrote:
It makes sense to provide those incentives so the product is successful.



It's a blurry-line, though -- when there's *so much* that's spread around internally, to the business personnel, that means there's less available for the business itself, and then financialization is necessary to increase the exchange-value-size of the business without expanding its *operations* and *net output* at all, and certainly without *increasing wages*. At *that* rate, pretty soon the production operation takes a back-seat to the *financial vehicle* that it's become (a monster), and so then it's a *Ponzi scheme* moreso than it's a productive enterprise. With government bailouts it's a *zombie corporation*.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie_company


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
But the *societal* question is 'Does everyone have to be a capitalist?'

Obviously *you* think so, but the implication is that everyone has to change their entire *lives* around to conform to the *market* mechanism. What if one implication of market dynamics is *international warfare* -- should people suit-up in military uniforms to protect Western intellectual property against foreign incursions on that kind of market share?



wat0n wrote:
No, I don't think so. I do think however that it is a legitimate route to follow and indeed if you are going to face the costs of doing so there must be a commensurate reward. Right?



ckaihatsu wrote:
But then what's the point of *private property* -- ?

If there's no *enforcement*, as through nationalist international *warfare*, then who gets the market share? The *employer* of labor, or the *competitor* of the employer of labor?

Shouldn't you be beating the drum of war against China and all of Southeast Asia at this point? Who's going to uphold Western intellectual private property?

To be clear, I'm of the position that individual human *need* should be collectively provided-for, as a *baseline*, with all assets and resources, goods and services collectivized as well, for a public 'commons' with free-access by all. No intellectual private property, and no private property whatsoever, at all. (Ask me how!) (grin)



wat0n wrote:
Well, that does harm the incentives for entrepreneurs outside China and is indeed an issue. It doesn't mean it needs to be solved by war, however.



That's how it's been addressed by the world powers in the 20th century -- by *two* world wars, not to mention the preceding *regional* European wars of prior centuries.

Why isn't *wage labor* being materially incentivized, so that workers are given a *real alternative* to pandemic payments? Where's the incentive?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, thanks -- what about abandoned *real estate* -- ? Should the government apparatus (cops, etc.) be actively used to *guard* and *protect* parcels of land that are obviously in disuse? Shouldn't such be considered 'unclaimed' and be released to the *public* for actual active usage?



wat0n wrote:
That's an interesting question. I think eminent domain could apply here, right?



Yeah -- what do you think would be appropriate uses of eminent domain by the government?

Obviously the precedent is *interstate highways*, but why not to reclaim disused land? How about the same for *vacant apartments*, so as to provide *housing* that's available, to those who need it?

What's your position on these issues?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, and this kind of fact goes to make *my* point for me that capitalist economic dynamics are *not humane* -- I'd argue, again, for a humane *baseline* for all, after which 'innovation' can then be considered in some kind of humane societal context.



wat0n wrote:
Maybe, or you could see it from another point of view: They take risks, and their earnings if they succeed is a compensation for those risks.

This doesn't mean there should not be a social safety net. There should indeed be one since it's useful to have one for plenty of reasons. But its design isn't as simple as simply giving UBIs here and there.



I argue for Universal Basic *Services*, so as to provide the public *services*, and concomitant *jobs* for such customized treatment, instead of the coarse UBI 'block grant' approach.

Banking got bailed-out in 2008-2009, so why not the average person? What does your 'social safety net' look like, exactly?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
But don't you see that you're highlighting a *discrepancy* now -- ?

What if someone *wants* to be a driver or host, but their own situation doesn't really *allow* for it, due to *market risk* -- ? Perhaps they have the house, the car, and the willingness, but that's really *all* they have, and they can't afford to *risk* it on a 'business venture'. Doesn't that kinda suck? Couldn't things be *better* for everyone somehow so that people don't have to risk their own *property* (and standard of living) values just to take on a job (basically) -- ?



wat0n wrote:
Well, that's the thing about risk: It's a cost to take them, so it's normal that if you want the benefit you should face the cost. I wouldn't blame this person from abstaining from driving on Uber or hosting an AirBnB.



Again -- why not *underwriting* and *bailouts* for everyday living -- ?

Then these potential employees wouldn't have to face market turbulence at all to do what they *want* to do in the economy, to provide a necessary *service* to the public.

Companies got bailed-out with public funds in 2008-2009, and then again in 2020. Are you a supply-sider -- ?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Well, you really should provide an *example*, then, if you're going to be so dismissive / critical. What *I* see is the consistent defense of *civil rights*, for civil society. I don't think it goes *far enough* on its own, but neither am I *dismissive* of what Black Lives Matter, etc., does in society.



wat0n wrote:
Cancel culture would be an example of it. It's no different from how the right used to behave at some point, particularly the religious right.

There's also the even more cynical view that this can generate jobs for these guys, too - often at the taxpayer's expense.



Would you elaborate on what you mean by 'cancel culture' -- ? Is it *this*:



Cancel culture or call-out culture is a modern form of ostracism in which someone is thrust out of social or professional circles – whether it be online, on social media, or in person. Those subject to this ostracism are said to have been "cancelled".[1][a] The expression "cancel culture" has mostly negative connotations and is commonly used in debates on free speech and censorship.[4]

The notion of cancel culture is a variant on the term call-out culture and constitutes a form of boycotting or shunning involving an individual (often a celebrity) who is deemed to have acted or spoken in a questionable or controversial manner.[2][5][6][7][8]

The concept of cancel culture has been criticized on the grounds that people claiming to have been "cancelled" often remain in power and/or continue their careers as before. The practice has also been defended as an exercise of free speech.[9][10][11]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancel_culture



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I don't want to split hairs here, or argue blue-collar-versus-white-collar-or-pink-collar, but I will note that it's arguably balancing a major part of the *transportation* sector against a major part of the *health care* sector.



wat0n wrote:
Autoworkers are in manufacturing, not transportation though. But more than that, who has a greater bargaining power in your view?



You already said that both blue-collar (manufacturing) labor, *and* white-collar / pink-collar (professional health care) labor can both be *collectivized* in labor-organization, implying *collective bargaining* power for both.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I'll note that we still have to see how many of the major *life expenses* play-out -- home prices are obviously the major expense for most people, and 3D printing is just *starting* to cut into that, at the bleeding-edge. Ditto for car prices, where used vehicles have been quite affordable lately, due to the global glut of production.



wat0n wrote:
We have to wait and see, if the issue of land can be dealt with then it'll be great. But even then, the costs these workers face are indeed large.



The costs that workers face have *always* been large, hence the millennia-long predicament of the working class. It's ultimately a *rigged system*, though, so I don't think there's any way to 'sidestep' the necessity of proletarian revolution.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Bourgeois institutions, bourgeois counter-revolution.



wat0n wrote:
Please do elaborate. Note that the war began before the Bolshevik Revolution.



You're not even addressing the historical event that I provided. Start with *that*.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, if you'd like to *clarify* the appropriate metric here, regarding labor *productivity* over the decades, please do so.

*My* understanding is that the increased use of *machinery*, and computerization, and automation, leads to increased rates of commodity *production*, per hour of wage labor.



wat0n wrote:
It's more about what are they including into compensation. Are they including benefits in specie like health insurance for instance?



No, you're mixing up 'labor productivity', with 'labor compensation', meaning wages-and-benefits.

Also you're not addressing the *definition* of labor *productivity* that I provided.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, again, feel free to proffer a thesis, or hypothesis, here -- I subscribe to the Marxist 'contending classes' theory of historical development.



wat0n wrote:
I think they all make points. Even Marxists make some valid points, points that are not incompatible with other views (particularly profit motive). Here I'm thinking about the role of technology and society.



Technology *itself*, though, doesn't explain why we aren't still using the mouldboard plow for farming. Same for the use of draft animals, etc., which worked reasonably well for thousands of years. Why would we happen to have *industrial* farming these days?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You obviously suck at business -- why should my counterpart get a *greater share* of the spoils when *I'm* the one who's been doing all the work?



wat0n wrote:
What if not giving your counterpart a greater share will leave you with less actual dollars than doing so as a result?



ckaihatsu wrote:
How so?



wat0n wrote:
Maybe my counterpart can generate productivity in other ways.



But even if your counterpart *did* increase productivity it doesn't mean that your counterpart would *pass along* the *benefits* from that increased productivity to *you* (or to me) -- that's exactly what's happened in the economy since the 1970s, and the workers haven't seen any wage increases to match the increase in labor *productivity* that capital has enjoyed over that period, due to increased use of computerization, mechanization, and automation.



Most Americans believe that a rising tide should lift all boats—that as the economy expands, everybody should reap the rewards. And for two-and-a-half decades beginning in the late 1940s, this was how our economy worked. Over this period, the pay (wages and benefits) of typical workers rose in tandem with productivity (how much workers produce per hour). In other words, as the economy became more efficient and expanded, everyday Americans benefited correspondingly through better pay. But in the 1970s, this started to change.

Image



https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/
#15176210
ckaihatsu wrote:As already cited, I'd say 'sales' and 'account executive'.


How so? Both are handled through the app.

ckaihatsu wrote:So then you're tacitly admitting that there *are no* executive-type 'perks' or material 'incentives' offered to the service provider -- the provider of the service commodity.


Higher payments early into the providing the service is not an incentive to you? :eh:

ckaihatsu wrote:Perhaps, then, you can explain why only the business-*internal* (necessarily white-collar) personnel receive material incentives. Shouldn't the commodity service providers receive the lion's share of the revenue since they're the ones producing the commodities that are sold -- ?


Since when is this the case?

ckaihatsu wrote:No disagreement -- are you *sure* that there are no cases where an inventor simply went straight-to-market with their creation, and got sales strictly through word-of-mouth -- ?


I wouldn't be surprised if that had happened, particularly before mass media became a thing. However, it's often more profitable to just take the effort to actually market your invention.

ckaihatsu wrote:It's a blurry-line, though -- when there's *so much* that's spread around internally, to the business personnel, that means there's less available for the business itself, and then financialization is necessary to increase the exchange-value-size of the business without expanding its *operations* and *net output* at all, and certainly without *increasing wages*. At *that* rate, pretty soon the production operation takes a back-seat to the *financial vehicle* that it's become (a monster), and so then it's a *Ponzi scheme* moreso than it's a productive enterprise. With government bailouts it's a *zombie corporation*.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie_company


Of course there is an optimization involved here. It's one reason why formalizing your model is actually useful.

ckaihatsu wrote:That's how it's been addressed by the world powers in the 20th century -- by *two* world wars, not to mention the preceding *regional* European wars of prior centuries.


And yet the experience from those two world wars is precisely what deters war now.

ckaihatsu wrote:Why isn't *wage labor* being materially incentivized, so that workers are given a *real alternative* to pandemic payments? Where's the incentive?


Because it was hazardous to get people back to work. Things are opening up now though.

ckaihatsu wrote:Yeah -- what do you think would be appropriate uses of eminent domain by the government?

Obviously the precedent is *interstate highways*, but why not to reclaim disused land? How about the same for *vacant apartments*, so as to provide *housing* that's available, to those who need it?

What's your position on these issues?


My point is that it's already being used in the case you mentioned. In fact, in some jurisdictions you could actually squat on abandoned property and it becomes yours after some time.

ckaihatsu wrote:I argue for Universal Basic *Services*, so as to provide the public *services*, and concomitant *jobs* for such customized treatment, instead of the coarse UBI 'block grant' approach.

Banking got bailed-out in 2008-2009, so why not the average person? What does your 'social safety net' look like, exactly?


Haven't plenty of people been bailed out during this pandemic?

ckaihatsu wrote:Again -- why not *underwriting* and *bailouts* for everyday living -- ?

Then these potential employees wouldn't have to face market turbulence at all to do what they *want* to do in the economy, to provide a necessary *service* to the public.

Companies got bailed-out with public funds in 2008-2009, and then again in 2020. Are you a supply-sider -- ?


They weren't simply "bailed out". They were bought by the government and resold for profit. Can you do that with the average Joe?

ckaihatsu wrote:Would you elaborate on what you mean by 'cancel culture' -- ? Is it *this*:


That's a good definition, yes.

ckaihatsu wrote:You already said that both blue-collar (manufacturing) labor, *and* white-collar / pink-collar (professional health care) labor can both be *collectivized* in labor-organization, implying *collective bargaining* power for both.


I'm not sure about what does this have to do with which unions have more bargaining power.

ckaihatsu wrote:The costs that workers face have *always* been large, hence the millennia-long predicament of the working class. It's ultimately a *rigged system*, though, so I don't think there's any way to 'sidestep' the necessity of proletarian revolution.


But in times of technical change, where some occupations simply disappear, those workers face much steeper costs than whatever you have in mind.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're not even addressing the historical event that I provided. Start with *that*.


Which one, the invention of that plough? Or you mean the comment about bourgeois institutions and counter-revolution I would like you to elaborate on?

ckaihatsu wrote:No, you're mixing up 'labor productivity', with 'labor compensation', meaning wages-and-benefits.

Also you're not addressing the *definition* of labor *productivity* that I provided.


I'm commenting on the graph. I actually recall we already had some discussion about this, didn't we?

ckaihatsu wrote:Technology *itself*, though, doesn't explain why we aren't still using the mouldboard plow for farming. Same for the use of draft animals, etc., which worked reasonably well for thousands of years. Why would we happen to have *industrial* farming these days?


Why not? I mean, new industrial technology is more profitable than ploughing, so it makes sense for agriculture in general to have switched and become based on industrial farming.

ckaihatsu wrote:But even if your counterpart *did* increase productivity it doesn't mean that your counterpart would *pass along* the *benefits* from that increased productivity to *you* (or to me) -- that's exactly what's happened in the economy since the 1970s, and the workers haven't seen any wage increases to match the increase in labor *productivity* that capital has enjoyed over that period, due to increased use of computerization, mechanization, and automation.


As I said, I think we discussed a similar plot before. I recall I brought this compensations series up:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/COMPRNFB
  • 1
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20

Blah blah. If Russia uses nukes, the rest of the […]

World War II Day by Day

March 29, Friday Mackenzie King wins Canadian el[…]

Hmmm, it the Ukraine aid package is all over main[…]

The rapes by Hamas, real or imagained are irreleva[…]