It’s honestly hilarious (in the fucked up shit way of course) that people are against this or making it $30, $50… who knows? What if, and let me assure you this is a CRAZY idea… but what if… workers received 100% of the value they produce and through a contract negotiated amongst their coworkers they can choose to scrape some of that 100% to reinvest in this company. Or would this be a cooperative of workers? Kinda like it is now. Actually EXACTLY like it is now. Except, there’s one or only a few people missing from the equation. Hmm. Ah yes, the investors/owners/executives. You know. The ones who PRODUCE FUCKING NOTHING YET SUCK ALL THE SURPLUS VALUE FROM THOSE WHO DO? Those people. Just yoink their stolen property and capital, give it to those who produce, and, like I said, I dunno, crazy ideas, let them figure it out. Or, more crazy ideas, perhaps some amount of the value is scraped “without consent” necessarily and goes into a giant pool of funds. Some massive reserve… perhaps headed by a federal agency of some sort. Hmm, who knows, maybe a federal reserve we could call it. And this centralized federal pool collector distributes the funds in a way as to invest… but it’s the workers investing in what benefits the workers, the vast majority of people in the country (or world) and not just little grifts and schemes to enrich those formerly capitalists who are now forcefully part of what they fear most… the proletariat.
I dunno, crazy fucking ideas though. Probably best to just remain completely atomized and cope by telling myself my boss stealing 9/10 of the value I create is fine because some other schlub gets 9.5/10 of his stolen and boy boy… man what an idiot! Glad I’m smart and aren’t being fucked over only a tiny amount less!
deleted by creator
The whole mechanism behind capitalism is that workers are payed less than they produce, hence they produce surplus value, the graph you provide, I do not see how it is linked to this discussion. Essentialy every worker is having their surplus value stolen
deleted by creator
Marx had choice words for those who confuse productive and unproductive labor.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1864/economic/ch02b.htm
"That worker is productive who performs productive labour, and that labour is productive which directly creates surplus value, i.e. valorises capital.
…
Only the narrow-minded bourgeois, who regards the capitalist form of production as its absolute form, hence as the sole natural form of production, can confuse the question of what are productive labour and productive workers from the standpoint of capital with the question of what productive labour is in general, and can therefore be satisfied with the tautological answer that all that labour is productive which produces, which results in a product, or any kind of use value, which has any result at all.
…
Every productive worker is a wage labourer; but this does not mean that every wage labourer is a productive worker. In all cases where labour is bought in order to be consumed as use value, as a service, and not in order to replace the value of the variable capital as a living factor and to be incorporated into the capitalist production process, this labour is not productive labour, and the wage labourer is not a productive worker. His labour is then consumed on account of its use value, not as positing exchange value, it is consumed unproductively, not productively. The capitalist therefore does not confront labour as a capitalist, as the representative of capital. He exchanges his money for labour as income, not as capital. The consumption of the labour does not constitute M-C-M’, but C-M-C (the last symbol represents the labour, or the service itself). Money functions here only as means of circulation, not as capital.
… This phenomenon, that with the development of capitalist production all services are converted into wage labour, and all those who perform these services are converted into wage labourers hence that they have this characteristic in common with productive workers, gives even more grounds for confusing the two in that it is a phenomenon which characterises, and is created by, capitalist production itself. On the other hand, it gives the apologists [of capitalism] an opportunity to convert the productive worker, because he is a wage labourer, into a worker who merely exchanges his services (i.e. his labour as a use value) for money. This makes it easy to pass over in silence the differentia specifica of this “productive worker”, and of capitalist production — as the production of surplus value, as the process of the self-valorisation of capital, which incorporates living labour as merely its AGENCY. A soldier is a wage labourer, a mercenary, but he is not for that reason a productive worker."
Yes they do, if a service worker was not there, there would be a loss of value, their labor produces value. I can also prove they produce surplus value, as there are service industries, that employ people, and that we rely on, and would consider essential, and yet the companies they work for still make a profit, the profit has to come from somewhere, that somewhere is from the surplus value of the labor, that is stolen from the worker.
deleted by creator
I am not going to argue that the most exploited, and therefor the people with the most suplus labor stolen are the workers from the global south, however I do think it is ridiculous to say that no surplus value is created, as if that where the case, no profit could be made. No capitalist is going to hire someone for more than they can exploit them for.
Again none of what I am saying is ment to imply or say that the amount of exploitation or surplus labor being generated by the worker in the global north even compares to the worker in the global south, I would be foolish and, incorrect to try to say they are anywhere near equivalent. I am also not saying that the Global North worker does not benefit from unequal exchange, because again, that would be a grossly untrue statement.
Also I have not read much Walter Rodney, would you mind sending me the theory that says this, it genuinely sounds like an interesting read.
deleted by creator
Not addressing your claim but I think we should avoid using Statista as a direct source. They require you to pay to get access to their full reports and often obfuscate the original sources of their data. They are up there with numbeo on “worst shit recommended by google.” I am not sure if I agree with the claim, but I’m not acquainted enough with that to actually discuss that part properly.
deleted by creator
It’s crab in a bucket mentality to so many people that make slightly more than minimum wage. “Why should burger flippers make as much as EMTs?” “If they raise minimum wage they will just raise the cost of living so I’ll be poor.” I know someone like this. They only care about themselves and their own status.
Here’s a good clip explaining why, that despite overwhelming majority support on a policy, it won’t get passed.
https://youtube.com/clip/Ugkx12DM8w6EDQHrvGll0UoHoMnYPwv-i_zJ
deleted by creator
