861
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2024
861 points (95.2% liked)
memes
12953 readers
860 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
people become billionaires through wage theft. that money should not be his to give in the first place. Plus, the starving are unemployed because the unemployment rate is artificially controlled economically in order to pressure the working class into accepting bad work conditions.
Quite the ~~assumption~~ assertion. Can I also just ~~assume~~ assert bad things you did with no evidence? PS: I mean that he specifically became billionaires through wage theft. I am sure many others did.
Which, even if it was true, he would be unable to change, just as the two of us are.
That's established economic science. Billionaires cannot possibly create added value to account for their wealth, just as you or I cannot become billionaires at the sweat of our brow. These people end up billionaires for being at the giving end of an oppressive labor system, and often, of untaxed inheritance.
Maybe look up definition of wage theft first. The one most people use.
In addition:
Name one thing that one person created that became worth billions. Something that is rightly credited to a single person.
Google is rightly credited to two people and valuable enough to make both billionaires.
World wide web is credited to a single person, idk if rightly. It is probably the most valuable piece of sw in history, despite being given away for free. Even if it was really made by a decently sized team, would be billions in value per person.
well, i simply dont agree that googles worth comes down to the work of those two people. what they did may have been necessary for the success of google, but so was the work of a lot of their employees.
again, the www is founded on the work of uncountably many people. the person credited is usually the one at the end of the chain of production. the end of the chain is necessary for there to be a product at all, but each of the other nodes of the chain is equally as important.
So do you believe that if I have two quality assurance people doing exactly the same procedure, if first checks Nokias and the second checks iPhones, the exact same work of the second one is 10 times as valuable, just because he works on iPhones?
What about a baseball player signing a ball and changing its value from few $ to 10s of thousands. Is he stealing the wages of the people that made the ball if he doesn't trace back the people who made the ball and share portion of the money?
In case of google, if it is not the founders who made the valuable part, the same marketing and other support people doing the exact same thing generated 10x the value than their colleagues at Bing? What about the janitor? Is his floor cleaning producing 10x the value if the building has Google logo on it instead of Bing?
What about people making parts like screws? Does the value of a screw retroactively change based on whether you put it into a Nokia or an iPhone, or an Alibaba alarm clock?
Ok, so how does this work? Group of people makes a computer, that is used for accounting at CERN. They take equal part of the Value created by the accounting, split with the actual accountants. But then a researcher creates www. The computer was suddenly worth much more and they should retroactively get more money? What about the accounting Value? Do they have to return money to accountants because their computer was used for www and since it was used for multiple things, the share of accounting Value they took originally was too high?
No, thats not what im saying.
Just that if everyone involved in the process of making something was paid fairly, there wouldnt be enough money to make the end node billionaire.
That massively depends on what you consider fair.
Is a million dollars a year fair?
Alphabet (google parent), based on employee numbers had about 1,550,000 man years of work put into it in its entire history 1.
Alphabets current market capitalization is 2.5 trillion dollars.
If each employee was paid an extra million $ yearly in addition to what they were already paid (excluding stocks), there would still be almost a trillion dollars left over for the founders and investors.
Now sure, I had to make a lot of simplifications to calculate this, but even so, it should give you an idea just how valuable Google actually is, compared to the amount of work put into it.
So unless your definition of fair is something along the lines of splitting the profits evenly among employees, then they absolutely could have become billionaires while paying people fairly.
Would that market cap be so high if all those employees were paid that extra million yearly? Market caps depend on more than the actual value of the company's product to society.
Yes, that is what I meant by simplification.
On the other hand Google as search engine and ads (the part that makes money) needs fraction of the employees alphabet has. If they had to pay them that much, they would have never hired most of them.
exactly. A company tant doesnt overexplore its workers cannot grow like alphabet did. The underpayment of the workers is an essential feature of alphabet, and part of what makes its market capitalization that high.
This implies that the answer to my question is "no": if the workers had been paid properly from the start, there wouldnt be the discrepancy that makes the founder billionaires.
Google was started by two people who became billionaires. The very valuable company isn't run by just those two people. That's the point. No one has ever made anything or worked so hard they made a billion dollars by their effort and their effort alone.
If you really think otherwise, Would you hire me at a loss? Usually people hire someone and they make the company more money than what they are paid, because, you know, business, but if you want to hire me and pay me more money than what I make you, I'm down.
So you think that the same people doing the exact same work (marketing, sales, etc.) produce 10x more value if you put google logo on them vs Bing? Because the companies can be run in the exact same way with the core sw being the only differentiator.
What about a janitor. Is his cleaning the floors 10x more valuable if the building has Google logo on it compared to Bing?
Lol, you strawmaned him so hard you just straight up pretend he said the opposite. Good job lad.
Google what straw man argument is. I am asking a question.
There are two types of employees in google. The ones who created the search engine SW and the support staff. He claims the creators of the SW are not the people who created billions in Value, so it must be the support staff. The support staff that does more or less the same kind of work as support staff in all other tech companies, yet Google is wastly more profitable per employee, so these support staff somehow create much more value by doing the exact same thing. So who exactly is creating the Value?
Google AKA Wikipedia says "refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion"
They said that it takes a lot more than the sweat of literally only 2 people to make Google. And "No one has ever...made a billon dollars by...their effort alone.".
So to answer your question for them, no, they do not belive that. They belive all those people deserve a piece of the pie, as all of them are needed to keep everything afloat. Without your so called supporting staff, the 2 so called visionaries wouldn't be able to bring forth shit and they sure a shell didn't just put in more effort than everyone else to deserve the wealth an entire city would blush at.
Also your weird fixation on logos is irrelevant here, or rather a completely separate discussion you started fighting the strawman.
As for the janitor example, I'd need to do some wild assumptions like you to answer for them, so I'm not gonna bother.
As for my personal opinion in all this? I'm honestly having too much fun watching from the outside to ruin it xD Fuck you're a silly goober.
I am not arguing they made a billion alone, I am arguing their work increased the value of Google by billions (which IMO makes them deserve some percentage of the billions).
If all the support staff went to do the exact same work for a average different company, the product/value of that company would be less than Googles by over a billion. I used Bing as a comparable example.
Also, you accuse me of straw-maning while straw-maning yourself? What is this, Donald Trump debate club?
Your point is irrelevant to what they said, as it is arguing a completely different point. The question of what work can one person possibly bring and how much they deserve for it vs the question of is your value to society dictated by your employer's market share. Two quite distinct can'o'worms. The idea of one being multiple times more valuable due to their market is in direct conflict with the idea of "a person can only make so much". Regardless of which argument is right or wrong, it's a strawman, just because they literally can't hold that view xD
And plese, do explain to me how me stating something, regardless of the truth of that statement, that has nothing to do with you, is strawmaning you? I'm genuinely curious how you arrived there lol. You can't just keep using "no you" over and over. OR CAN YOU??? XD Or hold up, ya saying I'm strawmaning them instead? Please do elaborate xD
Also I'm not disproving you, I'm being pedantic about semantics, you trying to double down just digs a deeper hole around you. If you don't understand, I'm ending it here, a predictable discussion is quite boring.
Yeah, I am arguing against their belief by showing a contradiction with an obvious truths such as that things have intrinsic value and people can increase said value by much more than others. That is what arguing is. If you think disagreeing with people is straw-maning them, then there is no point for me to waste my time with you.
The contradiction didn't exist, until you assumed another idea they never demonstrated. They wouldn't agree that a company's market share should directly translate into compensation for individuals, because it has "intrinsic value". It's only a contradiction if you belive that they belive in the same dogma of "obvious truths" you propose. They could very well say that everyone's work or life has intrinsic value. Again, who is right or wrong doesn't matter in this case, just that they belive something else, than what you assume they do.
Personally, I'd argue "intrinsic value" is subjective bullshit as we people are the harbingers of meaning and in turn value, and that a system that awards value as you describe is monopolistic and so detrimental to society at large and thus has negative value.
You can say I'm wrong, but it doesn't change the fact that it's yet another example of a view that isn't contradictory to your "obvious truths" as it simply builds on different values. A thing that's different in every culture FYI.
Go learn what the term "assumption" means.
Huh, I misunderstood that word for quite a while. Fixed it now. Thanks.