I agree with pretty much everything you’re saying here, I still want to comment on
Middle class does not exist
I do think it’s a reasonable term to separate those that actually make a decent salary, are self-employed, own their own company (at which they work) together with others, etc. from the more clearly exploited workers that have far too few rights and are not compensated fairly.
I have no problem with selling my labour for money as long as I’m fairly compensated for it. Historically, the working class has not been.
I have no problem with selling my labour for money as long as I’m fairly compensated for it.
If you are working for a salary, you are never fairly compensated. If you received the value you actually produced, your boss can’t make a profit. Profit is only possible by a exploitation.
The intensity of said exploitation is a spectrum, there is a huge difference between having some savings and disposable income versus barely surviving. I also make a decently comfortable living as a software engineer but I’m still a crippling accident away from losing it all and depending on disability benefits.
While what you’re saying is typically true, it’s not inherently built into the system. I work in a company owned by two friends. They own the company because they took out loans with their houses as security in order to finance the lease of an office space, buying work stations, and hiring themselves and me. I work on the same stuff as them, for the same hours, and make the same salary as them.
If the company goes to shit, they have craploads of debt, while I don’t. We have a contract ensuring that I get a fair share of whatever comes in, including options to buy myself into the company at the same rate as what they initially invested once I can afford it. Nobody here is making excess money of others work. I have no reason to believe I’m being scammed.
Again, what you’re saying is true in 99+ % of cases, but it doesn’t have to be that way. There’s nothing preventing a company from deciding that profits are split evenly among all employees (with the owners also acting as employees).
This is the only point I disagree with you. Your situation is extremely rare and exists because of the cool founders, and despite the economic system. There is nothing stopping them from exploiting new hires as the company grows. In fact, “free market” encourages cost cutting and aggressive competition.
Even if life is good for you at your income level, you’re still getting scammed to a (much smaller) extent. And the Epstein class use the money they scam off you, to control society. Money has this mathematical effect where it wants to accumulate in one place. It’s like a kind of economic gravity. Any inequality will magnify itself over time if it isn’t carefully controlled by government.
Social democrats think good enough regulation can preserve that very-slightly-inequal system forever. But I say that kind of setup is inherently unstable. Capitalism will always trend towards inequality over time. Instead of trying to control money and make it go against its nature, we should abolish money. A gift economy would be better.
I agree with pretty much everything you’re saying here, I still want to comment on
I do think it’s a reasonable term to separate those that actually make a decent salary, are self-employed, own their own company (at which they work) together with others, etc. from the more clearly exploited workers that have far too few rights and are not compensated fairly.
I have no problem with selling my labour for money as long as I’m fairly compensated for it. Historically, the working class has not been.
If you are working for a salary, you are never fairly compensated. If you received the value you actually produced, your boss can’t make a profit. Profit is only possible by a exploitation.
The intensity of said exploitation is a spectrum, there is a huge difference between having some savings and disposable income versus barely surviving. I also make a decently comfortable living as a software engineer but I’m still a crippling accident away from losing it all and depending on disability benefits.
While what you’re saying is typically true, it’s not inherently built into the system. I work in a company owned by two friends. They own the company because they took out loans with their houses as security in order to finance the lease of an office space, buying work stations, and hiring themselves and me. I work on the same stuff as them, for the same hours, and make the same salary as them.
If the company goes to shit, they have craploads of debt, while I don’t. We have a contract ensuring that I get a fair share of whatever comes in, including options to buy myself into the company at the same rate as what they initially invested once I can afford it. Nobody here is making excess money of others work. I have no reason to believe I’m being scammed.
Again, what you’re saying is true in 99+ % of cases, but it doesn’t have to be that way. There’s nothing preventing a company from deciding that profits are split evenly among all employees (with the owners also acting as employees).
This is the only point I disagree with you. Your situation is extremely rare and exists because of the cool founders, and despite the economic system. There is nothing stopping them from exploiting new hires as the company grows. In fact, “free market” encourages cost cutting and aggressive competition.
Even if life is good for you at your income level, you’re still getting scammed to a (much smaller) extent. And the Epstein class use the money they scam off you, to control society. Money has this mathematical effect where it wants to accumulate in one place. It’s like a kind of economic gravity. Any inequality will magnify itself over time if it isn’t carefully controlled by government.
Social democrats think good enough regulation can preserve that very-slightly-inequal system forever. But I say that kind of setup is inherently unstable. Capitalism will always trend towards inequality over time. Instead of trying to control money and make it go against its nature, we should abolish money. A gift economy would be better.