The thing I don’t like with that kind of argument is that it is inherently anti efficiency and anti progress. We don’t want jobs to be done in the most inefficient way just so that a lot of people can be paid to do them that way. We want them to be done efficiently and then everyone gets fed,… anyway because society values people over wealth.
It is not inherently anti-efficiency or anyi-progress. It is pointing out how those things have been corrupted by those in charge. In a more perfect world, Janet and Bob just work less hours due to the software while retaining their pay.
That’s not what they’re saying the issue is though, the issue is how it’s redistributed. In fact, what you’re saying quite literally is the living example of anti-progress.
It could be fine in the current state if companies paid people fairly, but they don’t, any progress or efficiency that could have been made was stifled by the company pocketing the ex-employees wage. Rather than supporting the current employee by giving them a raise or a team of members to work with, it’s taken.
To put it this way: Bob and Janet are janitors who split their work equally. A new tool the company bought is able to cut their workload down by 15% each. Now Bob and Janet only have 35% of their work, instead of 50%.
A good workplace will support Bob and Janet in various ways, making them both more efficient by being able to accomplish more tasks.
A bad workplace will fire one of them, making the work load for one of them to 70%, without supplemental pay.
That 35% of value Janet brought is no longer going into the economy, it’s going into the corporate profit.
It’s very efficient. That’s why corporations do it. Now one worker is extremely overworked and underpaid, but the job still gets done and the company makes more money? Sounds like a win.
I think you are right, and it would be better not to focus on trying to micromanage specific business practices. You cannot write a good set of regulations that will prevent companies from siphoning wealth, because profit is the entire reason for existence of a company to begin with, and they will either find a way around it or stop functioning. Instead I think they should be allowed relative free reign, and the market allowed to do what it does, except that in the end a portion of the wealth extracted is taken and given back to the people, such that the level of concentration is kept stable instead of perpetually increasing.
The thing I don’t like with that kind of argument is that it is inherently anti efficiency and anti progress. We don’t want jobs to be done in the most inefficient way just so that a lot of people can be paid to do them that way. We want them to be done efficiently and then everyone gets fed,… anyway because society values people over wealth.
It’s anti progress to say “don’t improve productivity”, but it’s anti worker to say “don’t increase wages commensurate with improved productivity”.
It is not inherently anti-efficiency or anyi-progress. It is pointing out how those things have been corrupted by those in charge. In a more perfect world, Janet and Bob just work less hours due to the software while retaining their pay.
That’s not what they’re saying the issue is though, the issue is how it’s redistributed. In fact, what you’re saying quite literally is the living example of anti-progress.
It could be fine in the current state if companies paid people fairly, but they don’t, any progress or efficiency that could have been made was stifled by the company pocketing the ex-employees wage. Rather than supporting the current employee by giving them a raise or a team of members to work with, it’s taken.
To put it this way: Bob and Janet are janitors who split their work equally. A new tool the company bought is able to cut their workload down by 15% each. Now Bob and Janet only have 35% of their work, instead of 50%.
A good workplace will support Bob and Janet in various ways, making them both more efficient by being able to accomplish more tasks.
A bad workplace will fire one of them, making the work load for one of them to 70%, without supplemental pay.
That 35% of value Janet brought is no longer going into the economy, it’s going into the corporate profit.
It’s very efficient. That’s why corporations do it. Now one worker is extremely overworked and underpaid, but the job still gets done and the company makes more money? Sounds like a win.
I think you are right, and it would be better not to focus on trying to micromanage specific business practices. You cannot write a good set of regulations that will prevent companies from siphoning wealth, because profit is the entire reason for existence of a company to begin with, and they will either find a way around it or stop functioning. Instead I think they should be allowed relative free reign, and the market allowed to do what it does, except that in the end a portion of the wealth extracted is taken and given back to the people, such that the level of concentration is kept stable instead of perpetually increasing.