- 03 Jun 2021 00:48
#15175422
You're not considering relevant parts of the arrangements hosts have with AirBnB to determine the nature of their relations.
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?
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).
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.
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.
So what is it supposed to mean?
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?
They are different indeed, partly due to the less intense labor conflicts though.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You're being vague, honestly.
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.
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: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)
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)
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.