/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10859947
Im very much against unionisation.
That means we put all our eggs in one basket.
What happens when the leader of the union is closely related with the government or is close to the big heads in the industry?
This is what happens in eastern europe and ex communist countries and let me tell you unions are not solution.
Some form of decentralized organisation is needed and I would say one that will take even more radical measures instead protesting on the streets like monkeys.

>>10859990
dude just elect the leader

>>10859996
Oh man you are in a world of delusion if you think thats easy.
When the time comes to "eject" the leader the union internal bureaucracy and politics will surface much like shit surfaces when toilet gets clogged.
They will most likely kick the one that brings the initiative to change the leader.
Not to mention there are always people that will support anyone for 3 pieces of silver.

I don't even like you guys why would I help you make more money you don't deserve?
because you spend ten years studying a worthless shit degree that you knew was worthless and a shit?
unless you are fuckign homeless i don't give a fuck and even then I wouldn't.
top ramen to fulfill your calorie requirement to survive is about 200 bucks. get over it retard sorry you can't afford a tesla.
>hurrdurr I went to school for ten years I deserve money
if someone spent ten years shoving shit into their ear do they deserve money because of the time they wasted?
funny part is they spent a fucking fortune on the shit too.

>>10860017
That's not how things are wtf
My degree contributes to curing cancer. Chances of cancer being cured by someone of my degree is really really high.

>>10859947
Mine owners ENABLE the finding of gold.
Mine owners ENABLE the mining of gold.
Mine owners ENABLE the milling of gold.
Thus, the gold belongs to them.

>>10860186
You mean molecular biology? It's a stamp collecting degree. Cancers will be cured by computer scientists and mathematicians who dabble in mathematical biology.

>>10860186
>im curing cancer
>what I do matters
I think the shit got shoved so far up the ear it's starting to come out the mouth.
you get paid what you get bitch and they guy that manufactures and sells it gets the real money.
cancer didn't need YOU unspecific to cure it, there would have been someone else. fuck einstein could have been killed by nazis and relativity still would end up coming out from someone else.
stop being an asshole you don't need the tesla.
if you wanted money you should have been a code monkey
>>10860224
based
>>10860207
extra based
people who complain about that shit are faggots, they literally owned NO mine, they make an agreement to do labor to find gold for the owner for a wage and if they refuse someone else will do it instead and for cheaper.

>>10860224
Computational biology is next door to my degree I actually intend to go into it. So you just got rekt there buddy.

>>10860235
Except there aren't many people with my degree. The chances of cancer getting cured are exponentially increased if opportunities are provided to people like me.
If Einstein had been killed by nazis, relativity would have been delayed by a long shot I believe. You're delusional if you think you can replace the first guy who makes something with no problems.

>>10859947
Implying the mine owners did not disburse some of the gold to pay the prospectors, miners, millers...

Implying I give a fuck about the green text implying shit.

>>10860224
>Cancers will be cured by computer scientists
>computer scientists

Can't even tell if this is bait or not anymore

>>10859947
this quotation is the most braindead thing I've read all day, thanks

>>10859996
>dude just elect the leader

Can't tell if it is a troll or not.

>>10859996
>i've never been a member of a union or spent any time learning about unions: the post

>>10860733
Dude Einstein had finished all his theories long before the Nazis came into power

>>10859990
>What happens when the leader of the union is closely related with the government
that's what's supposed to happen
>is close to the big heads in the industry
kill him and find a new leader
>This is what happens in eastern europe and ex communist countries and let me tell you unions are not solution.
what happens in america is people are starving to death because they have no unions

>>10860896
People don't understand what you're saying because they love bootlicking.

>im gonna cure cancer with my degree
oh sweet sweet child

unions are already in science. Most chemists are organized and most EEs are organized. All nurses/techs are organized too. It's only compsci that isn't.

>>10860973
There's many cancers and make ways to cure it. My experiments could lead to a cure that could save at least a few million people.

>>10860207
>Mine owners ENABLE the finding of gold.
Lrn2prospect for gold fgt pls

>>10859990
>Im very much against unionisation.
>Im very much against the right to organise
>Im very much against the right to bargain for wages
>Im very much against fair treatment of minorities
>Im very much against the 8-hour workday and the 40-hour workweek
>Im very much against safety in the workplace

>>10860982
Filthy CS trannies

>>10861427
>le strawman

>>10859947
>man owns gold
>hires guy to collect and clean gold
>the gold is no longer the man’s because of this

>>10861481
no, that's what unions go us. Unions got us weekends, ended child labor etc

>>10859990

the major problem with unions that workers dont see and many economists see is that unions are exempt from the sherman anti trust act

if we could have competing unions, there would be even better deals and less corruption

but if you form a different union, you get your teeth kicked in

>>10861522
We should cut down own fossil fuels
>I hate cars
>I hate planes
>I hate electricity

>>10861522

Unions didnt end child labor thats a myth

>>10861522
do you actually know anybody in a union? Just curious. i do, and they're corrupt as shit.

>>10860017

Low I.Q. post

>>10860982

>EE
>CS

Not science or math

>>10861809
EE is science as they have to apply the scientific method when doing research.
And EE also contains alot of math e.g. : differential equations, complex analysis, lin alg etc.

>>10859947

In many countries unions for academics already exist. These countries tend to have more corporatist tripartite economies, and the unions tend to have great power over the academia and government. As a result unionised academics tend to suffer less from oversupply of labor and wage deflation in their economic sectors. On the flipside they tend to artifically limit the supply of academic labor in the market which can have adverse effects to the rest of society.

>>10861814

Research EE, done by people with doctoral degrees, is science. The vast majority of EEs do no research, however, and are glorified code monkeys with valuable crystallized knowledge about code monkey techniques. Also, EE doesn't contain math, it contains trivial computations. Those are all subjects a self respecting high schooler should have exposure to.

>>10859996
Mine owners OWN the mine. What kind of mental gymnastics you need to do in order to come to the conclusion the gold in the mine belongs to anyone but them?

>>10861854
How can we have both of these?
How can we have maximum people in stem and at the same time have high wages? >>10861854

>>10862061

By having a demand that us astronomical.

You cannot have both. Either a job is easy to get into or not in high demand causing low wages. Or the job is high demand or discriminatory.

And any jobs that are good money tend to draw people trying to make that money which floods it with labor and brings wages down until the juice is no longer worth the squeeze.

Which is why the unions restrict access or push progressive credentialism, to keep labor supply artificially low to prop up wages.

And thus making $9/hr pajeet codemonkies attractive outsourcing.

>>10859947
only brainlets and sociopaths need unions and communism.

>>10860207
they acquired 'their' mines through unjust means, therefore they don't even belong to them.

>>10863613
Everyone needs them

>>10864475
>the world is filled with brainlets and sociopaths

yeah, we know

>>10864475
You need to look up what "need" means

>>10861888
government actually owns mines

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/who-owns-the-minerals-under-your-property.html
>In the United States, mineral rights can be sold or conveyed separately from property rights. As a result, owning a piece of land does not necessarily mean you also own the rights to the minerals beneath it. If you didn’t know this, you’re not alone. Many property owners do not understand mineral rights.

>>10861888
property "rights" are actually agreements and theyre always up for negotiation.. you only can control what you can leverage, usually with a pointy stick or a bunch of other people willing to help you with pointy sticks

>>10864624
What a good idea making things too complicated

>>10860224
Biggest kek good bait

>>10859947
Physics dude here, former scientist.
I got my PhD, did a few rounds of post doc, discovered monumental academic inbreeding at the universities I tried to get a job at. Money running low, what do?

I just quit, went to industry, suddenly got disposable income (I am still not used to this, seriously) and I see no reason to return. The thing is, if you win the rat race you are still a rat. So don't complain, just leave quietly, get a better job where you are more appreciated. I did, no regrets, very satisfied.

>>10864624
You do know that private entities can also buy and sell mineral rights, correct? Your point is moot.

>>10860017
>unless you are fuckign homeless i don't give a fuck and even then I wouldn't.
>if someone spent ten years shoving shit into their ear do they deserve money because of the time they wasted?

We have no natural environmental stressors, no lions or tigers or bears but we do have poverty.

Whether or not this is morally justified is up to the individual. Some believe elk who step on traps get eaten and others think the floor being traps for when the elk stops dancing is inhumane. Whatever moral "stance" you take the weight is the same in the real world. We are omnivores. Sometimes we are predators and sometimes we are prey. You can be born a shepard a sheep, mason or civilian, a Trump or a redneck, a Bezos or a Prime member. We form societies with hierarchies and we are more efficient that way. But if you pressure any one part too much, no matter the power they hold in the social contract, they'll use their teeth. We are born the same animals in different rooms. You can't expect the starving to stay that way just because you're allowed to call the shots.

>>10861581
>if we could have competing unions, there would be even better deals and less corruption

The problem of course being that the purpose of a union is to become a monopoly to speak with the big guys. The ability for labor, necessarily constructed of many individuals from different communities doing integral work to the actual value clients exchange their money for, to interact meaningfully with faces or departments that could destroy their local economy with the wave of a hand. Unions are for the powerless to form a monopoly and anti-trust laws are there to make sure they can't run away from this. No matter the here nor there of where unions will end up or how they can be corrupted, encouraging competing unions is the kind of failure that would not only immediately destroy the goals of the organization, it would be presented as a just and plausible reason unions Just Don't Work.

(1/2)

>>10867622

Not to say that competition is not obviously helpful in ending corruption. Unions are pretty corrupt, especially in sectors that are paid well enough and treated well enough they get to be penny-pinchers and wish they didn't have to pay their dues, taking for granted their PTO, benefits, safety and comfort legislation, severance pay, 401k. I get mad when opting out of an email requires me to open their website or call at a certain time. Imagine the jimmies rustled when the union garnishes your wages and there's nothing you can do but abandon your high-paying career you spent your whole life in training for. Forty years later the same Jim comes to pick your pocket and you just have to smile and nod. When does your quality of life become accepted? When do you have to stop paying cash for people to not come wreck your shit?

The answer is unfortunately never. It's not the union's fault for being thieves, it's not the mineowner's for hiring economic labor, it's not yours for being a cuck. Either pay a group to stand for you, keep your neighbors in constant civic activity, or find out how flipping burgers feels, where you work for $8/hr, are limited to 40hr/wk, and if you ever take a sick day you aren't welcome back. It's probably what your job was like in 1880.

(2/2)

>>10867164
To get that good income you need unions.

My state forbids public bargaining agreements for public workers

>>10861888
>What kind of mental gymnastics you need to do in order to come to the conclusion the gold in the mine belongs to anyone but them?
in an ideal world the workers would own the mine, not some third party that doesn't do any actual work in the mine

>>10869052

And if the workers want to assume the risk and liability of the mine, I'm sure the filthy capitalist scum that owns it would be willing to sell it to them.

>>10861859
Due to engineerings highly empirical nature you would consider most of the math to be trivial calculations. Your autistic obsession with analytical solutions doesn’t invalidate the fields legitimacy. There is ALWAYS some device that needs testing/experimentation on to compile tabularized data and it’s done at the baccalaureate level.

>>10859996
If you think that an election automatically grants legitimacy then why would one have a problem with the union boss being in bed with government officials?

>>10860207
>Mine owners ENABLE the finding of gold.
>Mine owners ENABLE the mining of gold.
>Mine owners ENABLE the milling of gold.
How? By permitting labourers to work the land? Private owners are not necessary, why would we not cut them off when they are parasites who own and profit unjustly whilst not even being necessary?
>Thus, the gold belongs to them.
Under capitalism, the system supported only by the most incredible mental gymnastics, you're right.
>>10860802
>Implying the mine owners did not disburse some of the gold to pay the prospectors, miners, millers...
They aren't necessary for that role to be fulfilled. A worker could fill it without the wage exploitation. You guys are so fucking dumb.
Working as an owner != being a worker
>>10869268
>And if the workers want to assume the risk and liability of the mine, I'm sure the filthy capitalist scum that owns it would be willing to sell it to them.
>muh risk and liability
Do you unironically think risk and liability excuses wage exploitation?
And if the workers were paid what they were due I'm sure they would happily purchase the mine.

>>10859947
Guilds are preferable. Unions were designed to co-opt workers rights movements.

>>10869388

>do you think being on the hook and going bankrupt justifies making decisions that maximize your profit.

Yes.

You either make money through high risk investment or low risk labor.

There is no free lunch. No one is going to pay anyone to exist.

>>10869558
ITT: Americucks

>>10869558
True. Nobody will pay anyone to exist but nazis somehow want it

>>10869558
>strawman
>doesn't even understand what wage exploitation is yet disputes it
Sasuga burger. First of all, don't act like all investments are high risk -- very few are. A millionaire opening a new Walmart and exploiting hundreds of workers is not high risk. Does the variance of risk justify higher or lesser exploitation?
It's clear you're unfamiliar with Marx's work so at least familiarize yourself a bit with wage exploitation from an actual economist: https://youtu.be/YMdIgGOYKhs
The owner is not necessary and his profit by merely owning is not justifiable by his risk. It is inefficient and bad for the vast majority, provably impeding innovation and hurting the vast majority.
Noone but the owner is asking for a free lunch you dumbfuck. Workers want to be paid in equivilance to their labour rather than giving up the vast majority of what they produce to a fat rich fuck who simply owns. The owner is provably a parasite and has been thought as such from almost every economic theorist since Smith; why does he get a free lunch?

>>10869558
>>do you think being on the hook and going bankrupt justifies making decisions that maximize your profit.
>Yes.
strawman
>You either make money through high risk investment or low risk labor.
Sasuga burger. First of all, don't act like all investments are high risk -- very few are. A millionaire opening a new Walmart and exploiting hundreds of workers is not high risk. Does the variance of risk justify higher or lesser exploitation?
And don't even try and say investors carry risk alone. Employees carry just as much, if not more, considering their entire livelihoods are at risk when their jobs are lost or a business shuts down. This is not the same for any even mildly competent investor. Don't even try and tell me all the low income workers living from pay cheque to pay cheque barely able to pay rent are working a low risk job, how fucking stupid can you be?
>There is no free lunch. No one is going to pay anyone to exist.
>doesn't even understand what wage exploitation is yet disputes it
It's clear you're unfamiliar with Marx's work so at least familiarize yourself a bit with wage exploitation from an actual economist: https://youtu.be/YMdIgGOYKhs
The owner is not necessary and his profit by merely owning is not justifiable by his risk. It is inefficient and bad for the vast majority, provably impeding innovation and hurting the vast majority.
Noone but the owner is asking for a free lunch you dumbfuck. Workers want to be paid in equivilance to their labour rather than giving up the vast majority of what they produce to a fat rich fuck who simply owns. The owner is provably a parasite and has been thought as such from almost every economic theorist since Smith; why does he get a free lunch?

>>10870441
if it's so easy to be a rich parasite, then how come you're a broke loser?

>>10870499
What does difficulty justify?

>>10870441
>Workers want to be paid in equivilance to their labour rather than giving up the vast majority of what they produce to a fat rich fuck who simply owns.
So they can work for a co-op. Or get paid in shares. Except anyone will tell you that sucks in the real world because then you’re taking all the risk too. Company didn’t make any money this year? You don’t get paid. People prefer a steady wage. If the company they worked for didn’t make a profit off their labour they still get paid, and if the company shuts down they just get another job.

There’s nothing stopping workers just getting together and forming co-ops. Plenty of them exist. But they come with draw backs most workers are unwilling to stomach.

>>10861522
Just because something did good for society in the past doesn't mean it still will now. Aren't you fucks the ones who usually go on about how we need to move on from the old ways and not let archaic modes of organization hold us back?

>>10870499
he wasn't born in a rich family, which is the main reason rich people are rich
Do you have other retarded questions?

>>10870564
>So they can work for a co-op. Or get paid in shares.
no they can't because the capitalist stole the means of production and prevents people from unionizing, drowns them in debt and generally enslaves them so they can never form co ops in the first place.

>>10870646
If that was true then co-ops, paid-in-shares job and unions wouldn’t exist. But all these things do exist in pretty much every modern capitalist economy in the world.

Are you a schitzo?

>>10870651
they really don't, they're marginal at best.
Also every country that tries encouraging this or nationalizing gets attacked by the american empire both economically and militerily. See south america for the most recent examples.

>>10870662
But they exist in the US and every economy in Europe. The problem is people don’t like working for pay like that generally.

If a company offers to pay you in shares, that’s usually a red flag because it means they don’t have to raise any money to hire you or risk their own money paying you. If the company fails they don’t lose as much money because you accept the risk of bot being paid at all if the company didn’t make a profit.

Now anyone can invest in a company and be a part owner, even with small savings. Anyone can buy shares in Apple just like the big hedge funds do. But not everyone bothers because of the risk involved.

>>10870679
your point is moot because the shares you get paid with have less value than the value your work creates

>>10870695
Depends on how much shares you get paid in. Some people only work for shares and get paid very handsomely.

>>10870701
Either they're still not receiving adequate compensation or worse they're the oppressing class themselves since they extract the value created by the other laborers for themselves

>>10870709
But you can be paid in 50% the value of the company in shares. How is the “owner” of the other half making an unfair amount of money this way and the worker is not being paid enough? Assume the owner has put the same work into the company the worker has.

Elon Musk takes all his pay in shares. Do you think he doesn’t get paid enough for his labour either?

>>10870727
>Elon Musk takes all his pay in shares. Do you think he doesn’t get paid enough for his labour either?
I'm pretty sure the boss will make sure he gets paid more than enough
>How is the “owner” of the other half making an unfair amount of money this way and the worker is not being paid enough?
because the total is less than the value produced by this person.
You can pay me a year of work for $20000, with 10000 being in shares, it's still less than the value I add to the company through my work if my contribution is say $60000
Furthermore shareholders get dividends in a lot of cases, while contributing nothing to the work the company does.
You have no case anon. It's basic pigeonhole principle. If someone makes less than they should, someone else is making more than they should.

>>10870740
But the shares literally mean you are getting paid the extra value you provide to a company by building the car.

Not sure what you method is for measuring what peoples pay is worth. Is socialist economics everyone gets paid less for doing the same work as people do in capitalist countries because of how the economics of both systems plays out.

>>10870746
typical neoliberal density right here

>>10870746
>But the shares literally mean you are getting paid the extra value you provide to a company by building the car.
This necessarily cannot be the case.
>Not sure what you method is for measuring what peoples pay is worth. Is socialist economics everyone gets paid less for doing the same work as people do in capitalist countries because of how the economics of both systems plays out.
Why do you fucks argue against Marxism when you have no grasp of what it is? This is addressed so obviously.
Ill give you a simple, unnuanced explanation: people's pay should be equal in value to what they produce minus costs of means of production. Their pay should be worth what that value translates to, i.e, something worth the same amount of valuable labour. This is why the USSR used labour vouchers. You measure how much they should be paid based on how much labour they contributed to the product, and how you determine that labour varies based on what product you're talking about.
As far as your last statement goes I dont even know what you're talking about. How can you possibly substantiate that?

>>10870803
>You measure how much they should be paid based on how much labour they contributed to the product, and how you determine that labour varies based on what product you're talking about.

And how do you actually measure that in any individual case? In capitalism you treat labour as an open marketplace + employee protections, unions, minimum ect. In general, you pay the employee what they are willing to work for you for.

If someone’s job is putting wheels on a car, how do you calculate the value of their labour in marxism?

My understanding was everyone just gets paid the same amount and everyone is given a qouta of work they are expected to meet.

>>10870499
I am rich in India.

>>10859947
hurr durr if they own the land then the mineral deposits which doth reside there also are one unto him

>>10868414
Good luck bartering with TPTB-owned academia.

>>10870651
i can think of maybe three co-op businesses in my region and one of them is a grocery store with two locations

>>10871069
And?

>>10871077
"something existing" is not anywhere near the same thing as "this thing has a meaningful role in the economy". if there were more than three or four people in my city who wanted to join a co-op, they'd be shit out of luck

>>10871080
Like i said. They don’t play a big role because most people prefer not to work for them. There’s nothing stopping all the workers in any industry getting together to start a co-op. But they have to accept the down side of running a business then. Employment is actually pretty sweet by comparison most of the time.

>>10871089
>because most people prefer not to work for them.
i don't think we have enough evidence to say that either way. if no one has experience with co-ops, nobody is going to consider them an option. it might turn out they like it, they might hate it, but we can't know before it happens

>>10871099
>if no one has experience with co-ops, nobody is going to consider them an option.
That's fucking stupid. If 10 workers got together and figured they don't get paid enough at the company they work for and they'd get better pay if they started a co-op, they would learn what they needed to do that, unless they were extremely lazy.

The reality is what I said is true. Running your own business sucks sometimes. Being self-employed sucks. I run my own business and it's a shitload of extra stress and risk compared to when i was employed. I certainly would be open to getting back into normal employment in the future.

People like to work for companies because companies are willing to provide risk-free steady salaries and competitive rates, and if you don't like your job any more you can leave without any real problems.

In a co-op you might be working there for years before any profit is made, and then someone decides they want to leave and the whole company falls apart and everyone loses all the work they put in. People lose their shirts trying to run businesses all the time.

>>10871107
>they would learn what they needed to do that, unless they were extremely lazy.
or unless they don't have enough money to quit their job and start a new risky venture, and that's assuming they even know that forming a co-op is an option, which I bet most people don't

>>10859947
Unionists are luddites that will do everything to stop progress and efficiency

>>10871244
>or unless they don't have enough money to quit their job and start a new risky venture
EXACTLY!!! That's why people like employment.

>assuming they even know that forming a co-op is an option, which I bet most people don't
So most people who would thrive in a co-op don't because they are too dumb and ignorant to know what one is? Well heaven help them. If they can't be bothered to read business 101 with the almost unlimited free resources there are for such things they certainly won't thrive running any kind of business by themselves.

>>10871257
>EXACTLY!!! That's why people like employment.
sure, it makes financial sense in a capitalist system to submit to working for someone else for less than you're worth. that's... what i've been saying this whole time, ever since >>10871080

the point people are making is that the entire system is fucked

>>10871299
It makes sense in every system. In socialism the state is responsible to producing the capital to start these companies, which all has to be taxed from the workers.

If you can convince a bank that your you're competent enough to run a co-op, you should be able to get an easy loan. Even big businesses take out debt to start projects. The money has to come from someplace no matter the system. But capitalism is much much better at producing value out of capital, so everyone has a higher standard of living in capitalism. There's a reason famines are nearly synonymous with socialism. Even in the modern age.

>>10871309
>It makes sense in every system.
except in the systems where you literally don't do that

>>10871299
>it makes financial sense in a capitalist system to submit to working for someone else for less than you're worth
It...doesn't?

>>10871317
No such thing. You need to get capital from somewhere to start companies no matter the system.

>>10870818
>And how do you actually measure that in any individual case? In capitalism you treat labour as an open marketplace + employee protections, unions, minimum ect. In general, you pay the employee what they are willing to work for you for.
That's true, thanks to unionists, socialists, and communists pushing and dying for unions, including in the US.
>If someone’s job is putting wheels on a car, how do you calculate the value of their labour in marxism?
The same way you would under capitalism. I would recommend reading into the LTV yourself, but basically, value and price are two different things, value being a product's inherent value, determined by how much useful labour is put in and how intense said labour is, and price is simply what it is being sold for, but in essence different products are held as equal in value based on the labour put into them. The means of production are useless without labour, thus fundamentally making workers the only vital component of production. The worker gives the means of production value, and as they are the only fundamental unit, should receive full compensation minus the cost of resources and such to maintain. When the capitalist owns which, as it turns out, is a philosophically, logically, and morally ridiculous concept, his profit has to come from somewhere.
This is one of the fundamental bases of the Marxist critique of capitalism: i.e, how it is under capitalism.
So to address your question, value itself isn't exactly calculated but can be expressed in price. If a product is sold for $100 and its components cost $20, the worker added $80 worth of value to the product. How we calculate price depends on what kind of economy we are looking at.
>My understanding was everyone just gets paid the same amount and everyone is given a qouta of work they are expected to meet.
Equality of outcome has nothing to do with Marxism. If you produce more, your labour is more valuable, thus you are compensated more.

>>10871323
>How we calculate price depends on what kind of economy we are looking at.
Basically dodged the entire question you retard.

Let's say i have one worker making spoons. I give him some metal. He hammers the metal into a spoon. The metal costs $1 per spoon. How do I calculate the cost of the labour of the worker?

>>10871323
>merchant and le wojak spinoff
Just go back

>>10871318
i should have been more clear, i mean "makes sense" as like, it's the easiest thing to do

>>10871319
the need to source capital is not what I was referring to

>>10860733
We would have discovered string theory first and derived the relativity from it. We would be colonizing space right now instead of shitposting on this board...

>>10871309
>It makes sense in every system. In socialism the state is responsible to producing the capital to start these companies, which all has to be taxed from the workers.
Soviet socialism != socialism. Socialism is simply when the workers own the means of production. This is like saying Zimbabwean capitalism = capitalism.
>But capitalism is much much better at producing value out of capital, so everyone has a higher standard of living in capitalism. There's a reason famines are nearly synonymous with socialism. Even in the modern age.
How is capitalism at all better at producing capital? Some of the fastest growing economies in human history have been socialist, the most notable example being the USSR. They went from a broke agrarian shit hole devastated by two world wars and civil war to being a world superpower rivaling your own over mere decades. China did the same thing with their brand of socialism. Are you actually telling me capitalism beats socialism in that regard? It took your country literal fucking centuries of extreme economic luck to build to the same state they did from the worst starting circumstances imaginable. It's incredible you actually think that.
Famine is correlated with socialism because it's been a propaganda point for decades. The USSR solved the worst famine in human history because of socialism saving god knows how many lives by the industrialization but you dumbfucks ignore that fact and talk about how there simply was a famine in a socialist country and blame it on socialism, somehow forgetting about the first world war, civil war, and the worst drought recorded in that area -- yet they still got over it. You fuckers could hardly even get through the great depression, and only did thanks to the leftists who pressured FDR.
China had similar circumstances with theirs and were ruined by locusts and drought but still rebounded because of industrialization. The list goes on and on.

>>10871337
>it's the easiest thing to do
So work for a wage you agree is worth your time

>>10871345
>>10871309
They also simply don't have a higher living standard under capitalism: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/2430906/

>>10871345
I keep hearing that the URSS wasnt socialist but State capitalism.
In fact, I heard that the only moments in the history where socialism worked where in Paris Comune and Catalunia.

>>10871345
>They went from a broke agrarian shit hole devastated by two world wars and civil war to being a world superpower rivaling your own over mere decades. China did the same thing with their brand of socialism. Fuck, most of China is still abject poverty apart from the developed areas in the east.
Massively lagging behind their capitalist peers and nothing being famine prone.

Social is terrible at producing value out of capital due to lack of free markets. When the state produces everything there's no real competition, no drive for innovation except in very select areas of focus for the state. Capitalism drives everyone to compete with one another in taking capital and producing something of greater value with it, and only the best survive creating a very efficient system.

Just add one a welfare system, europe style, and now everyone has a minimum standard of living that the shithole USSR couldn't dream of.

>>10871349
They also suffer from a level of government corruption and oligarchy that is unparalleled in the west.

>>10871349
>1986
Yeah, somewhat screwed by the fact that the USSR hadn't bankrupted itself yet. I'm sure life is pretty good in socialist countries where the system is backed by massive oil reserves or some shit, or unsustainable government spending.

>>10871334
I guess no ones gonna answer this one huh?

>>10871354
ehhhh... its all kind of a mess of terms desu. where the USSR ended up was a totalitarian state that was a pretty far cry from what some of the framers of communism/socialism wanted (the terms are used distinctly now but were pretty interchangable back then). you can look around the world and see social democracies and democratic socialist states that manage to approach socialism as much as they can. some of them are doing pretty awfully, others are doing just fine.

chasing "true socialism" is a fool's errand just like chasing any pure political and economic ideology is. there is no true democratic state either, but the existence of countries like DPRK that claim to be democratic doesn't invalidate other countries' legitimate blends of democracy.

>>10871357
>Massively lagging behind their capitalist peers
there's a point here that needs to be made more nowadays, actually. yes, capitalism does create a higher standard of living for many (but not all) of the people living in capitalist states, but at a cost to the planet that is fundamentally unsustainable. capitalism is destroying the planet, and there's almost no way to make long-lasting change within a capitalist system to reduce our resource consumption in time. i'm not saying it would be easy with socialism, but at least we wouldn't be fighting an inherent profit motive driving people to consume more

>>10871334
I didn't, you just lack reading comprehension.
>Let's say i have one worker making spoons. I give him some metal. He hammers the metal into a spoon. The metal costs $1 per spoon. How do I calculate the cost of the labour of the worker?
You cannot calculate the price of the labour of the worker without the price of the product. If we say the spoon sells for $2, then the labour should cost $1. The labour produces $1 worth of use value.
I already went into this.

>>10871374
The answer is the value of labor (an all other things) is subjective. Marxists literally cannot grasp this.

>>10871379
So labor is 50% the value of the market price? Sounds arbitrary as hell.

>>10871383
not 50% of the market price, it's whatever the value of the product is minus it's material cost. the other anon went over it in >>10871323 . by that system, if the worker turned three dollars of metal into ten dollars of spoon, they'd be owed 7 dollars

>>10871366
Then let's talk about how to fix that like socialists have been doing for decades. If they have such a high standard of living improportinate to their wealth then clearly they are onto something -- why would any intellectually honest individual not want to criticize the system to bring more out of it? Why do people expect socialism to be flawless on its first attempts when capitalism is still shit after centuries of development?
>>10871370
The USSR didn't bankrupt itself, what are you even on about?
>>10871376
>>10871349
Capitalist countries do not produce higher standards of living.

>>10871376
>but at a cost to the planet that is fundamentally unsustainable
LOL!! You're killing me. Yes I suppose capitalism is probably worse for the planet in some way at the moment because it's higher efficiency means people consume more resources faster. Making capitalism compatible with a sustainable economy is much easier than in socialism, because.. like I said.. capitalism uses its resources much more efficiently.

Just apply some carbon taxes to cost in the future cost of burned fossil fuels, and watch the markets scramble to innovate lower carbon alternatives. Solar, wind, nuclear, hydro and battery banks to help. Capitalism is much better equipped to adjust the economy to consume less while dropping standards of living by the minimum amount.

Socialism would have to do the exact same stuff, cut back on fossil fuel usage, but would be slower to produce new solutions for people so people's quality of life would suffer more from the change.

>>10871382
I know it's subjective. Duh. But how do you determine the value? Who does the subjective valuation? Or what mechanism.

Do you even know? This seems like a pretty important aspect.

>>10871389
feel free to name one (1) socialist state that did not have far reaching internal corruption. reminder that the Scandinavian countries are capitalist economies with large welfare programs.

>>10871393
>Who does the subjective valuation
The valuation comes from a mutual agreement between the employer and employee, if we are talking about a free market.

>>10871397
We're talking about the other posters socialist economy.

>>10871391
>Making capitalism compatible with a sustainable economy is much easier than in socialism, because.. like I said.. capitalism uses its resources much more efficiently.
How can you possibly substantiate this?
>Just apply some carbon taxes to cost in the future cost of burned fossil fuels, and watch the markets scramble to innovate lower carbon alternatives. Solar, wind, nuclear, hydro and battery banks to help. Capitalism is much better equipped to adjust the economy to consume less while dropping standards of living by the minimum amount.
How?
>Socialism would have to do the exact same stuff, cut back on fossil fuel usage, but would be slower to produce new solutions for people so people's quality of life would suffer more from the change.
Centralized planning is provably more effective at innovation than the market. You place way too much trust in capitalist theory. Under a planned economy fossil fuel can easily be cut out and replaced with a centrally planned alternative as porky isn't there to literally lie about and do everything he can to impede innovation and change. This is happening in China right now.
If you were right environmentally conscious countries like Canada, a world leader in it, wouldn't be in the laughable positions they are, unable to solve their problems despite a desperate desire to.

>>10871394
feel free to name (1) capitalist state that did not have far reaching internal corruption
And Cuba.
But did you completely miss what I said? Why, if we see it does so well in raising quality of life, would we reject socialism in entirety without evaluating why corruption exists and how we can combat it? We've developed incredible socialist democratic models like that of Cockshott and you fuckers completely ignore them. Ideology really does blind.

>>10871391
>Capitalism is much better equipped to adjust the economy to consume less
an unsubstantiated statement of faith. nobody has ever tried to seriously test that

The workers should just leave. But they won't because most people are lazy so they would rather complain

>>10871412
>feel free to name (1) capitalist state that did not have far reaching internal corruption
Canada
Japan
Ireland
The Netherlands
Latvia

>>10871407
>How?
Simply put a high tax on carbon fuels. Oil and Coal. 200% tax.. 500% tax. 1000% tax. Whatever is needed to encourage people not to use it. Use the tax money to discount other taxes like income tax. People will find they have more income, but anything that requires oil or coal in large amounts to be produced will be expensive, so there will be huge pressure to find low carbon products by both the producers and the consumers.

Really very simple.

>Centralized planning is provably more effective at innovation than the market.
err. disagree

>This is happening in China right now.
China is more capitalism that almost all other countries in the world right now jesus christ.

>If you were right environmentally conscious countries like Canada, a world leader in it, wouldn't be in the laughable positions they are, unable to solve their problems despite a desperate desire to.
err.. but they are? China has better stats because consumption for China is very low per capita anyways. You don't need to switch to an electric car when you a impoverished subsistence farmer who has never seen a car in his life.

>>10871413
No I explained it in my post. keep reading.

>>10871382
>t. has never read Marx and knows only what /pol/ and sargon had taught him
Price and value are different. Use-value can be subjective and is not equivilant to value.
Don't criticize something when you haven't even the most basic understanding of it.
>>10871393
I answered this in both of my posts:
>>10871323
>>10871379

>>10871426
Market price is quite literally how value is quantified in the modern era, you absolute ignoramus

>>10871379
>t calculate the price of the labour of the worker without the price of the product. If we say the spoon sells for $2, then the labour should cost $1. The labour produces $1 worth of use value.
>I already went into this.
I see. So you set the price of the spoon first. So how do you set the price of the spoon?

What if the spoon doesn't sell well and you need to lower the price to sell it, do you pay the worker less too? If you need to sell the spoon at 50% off to sell it, does that mean the worker gets paid nothing?

Unions are almost impossible under fixed-term contracts. Thanks, capitalism.

Marx was an industrially illiterate NEET who quite literally thought he was living at the peak of human technology. His criticism of capitalism has been proven incorrect on quite a few of his key points.

In 2019 pretty much anyone can participate in capitalism. You can buy stock on your phone with no fees, you can rent your house to a vetted pool of tenants with the push of a button. Industry has actually DECENTRALIZED (Marx explicitly said this was impossible) because logistics have improved so much that hulking conglomerates aren’t agile enough to keep up. Freelancing and being an independent contractor is the norm nowadays and Marx never defined the difference between a business to business service provider and an employer IE a company like Uber or Upwork.

>>10871440

>>10871437
Why are bunch of Uni fags complaining about capitalism. Unis are ran by the government

>>10871419
>Simply put a high tax on carbon fuels.
>Really very simple.
Why has there been little to no movement from fossil fuels in the countries that have done this? I'll tell you: because it hits the worker much harder than it does those that cause the problem. All it does is take away money from workers who otherwise may be willing to invest in personal property to help if it was affordable. If we are working under capitalism I would agree we need to tax corporations ruthlessly, though i would assert we need to give massive incentive to workers, but there's a bigger problem, and that's that the free market is hyper inefficient at encouraging change. This is proven by all the countries attempting to do this right now.
>>Centralized planning is provably more effective at innovation than the market.
>err. disagree
ok
>China is more capitalism that almost all other countries in the world right now jesus christ.
They are a mixed economy with a largely publicized economy spearheading change. The "private" aspects of the power industry are crown corporations split from the state. They are not a free market and only do this in order to encourage investment.
>err.. but they are? China has better stats because consumption for China is very low per capita anyways. You don't need to switch to an electric car when you a impoverished subsistence farmer who has never seen a car in his life.
They are doing so at a ridiculously slow pace which proves the inefficiency of trying to push for things in the way you advocate. It simply is not possible without much larger state intervention in economics and literally would not be a problem in a planned economy.
You're right about their stats but are ignoring their rapid movement towards sustainable energy.

>>10871440
excellent post

>>10871449
>Why has there been little to no movement from fossil fuels in the countries that have done this?
It has you're just dumb.

>because it hits the worker much harder than it does those that cause the problem.
LOL. no. If we reduce carbon pollution fast like we need to, everyone has to take the pain. *all* of use use a lot of carbon in our daily lives, and we'll all have to do with less of that and strain to find new low-carbon options to fulfill our needs. There's no quick fix. And there's no socialist magic way of making it any less painful either.

>They are a mixed economy with a largely publicized economy spearheading change.
Live every capitalism economy. Cool.

>>10871440
Idk, the modern economy all comes back to Google and Amazon ruling everything.

If they lose the anti-trust and are forced to split up then I'd agree with you.

>>10871436
>I see. So you set the price of the spoon first. So how do you set the price of the spoon?
Under capitalism the price is determined by supply and demand. Marx is quite clear about this.
>What if the spoon doesn't sell well and you need to lower the price to sell it, do you pay the worker less too? If you need to sell the spoon at 50% off to sell it, does that mean the worker gets paid nothing?
Yes and potentially.

>>10871461
> the price is determined by supply and demand
Wrong. It's sibjective idealism. The price is defined by labour

>>10871460
>google and amazon rule everything
Yeah, if you're completely fucking naive

>>10871457
>It has you're just dumb.
Ohh I see
>>because it hits the worker much harder than it does those that cause the problem.
>LOL. no. If we reduce carbon pollution fast like we need to, everyone has to take the pain. *all* of use use a lot of carbon in our daily lives, and we'll all have to do with less of that and strain to find new low-carbon options to fulfill our needs. There's no quick fix. And there's no socialist magic way of making it any less painful either.
There is a socialist magic: a planned economy in which we don't have to waste time with your bullshit and we can quickly change industry to coincide with modern technology.
>>They are a mixed economy with a largely publicized economy spearheading change.
>Live every capitalism economy. Cool.
If you concede this why on earth would you think a full public economy would not be infinitely more efficient?

>>10871461
How is it determined under socialism?

>yes
Lol. Pretty shit deal for the worker no?
>the spoons didn’t sell well this month kids, so no food for you.
So if the spoons don’t sell well for any reason it’s the workers who made the spoons who get punished. Unironically hilarious that there’s people who think this is a good system.

>>10871470
Because the public part is overwhelming the least efficient part of these economies?

>>10871465
You're making them money by just being on the internet. If you truly believe society has Google under control then why is there no real competitive search engine/web advertiser anymore?

>>10871491
But google does have competitors? Even if they suck and are small in comparison, that isn't a monopoly is, retard. In any case, google being a monopoly does not meat "everything in the economy comes back to them." Pretty sure google has no handle on the petroleum industry, no chips in the weapons or aerospace industries, and no stake in the manufacture of microprocessor or integrated circuitry. It's like I'm talking to an actual 14 year old/humanities major

>>10871473
as opposed to:
>the spoons didn't sell this month we don't need you anymore bob
>but at least be thankful you didn't gather the benefits of when the times were good, that's for me to keep

>>10871473
This would be like capitalism, but instead of employment everyone was forced to be paid only in company shares and got a share of the profits at the end of the quarter if there are any.

>>10871460
Google and Amazon aren’t structured the way you think they are. Most of their “employees” work for a completely different company and they operate as a leaned out platform provider for other businesses. They don’t really sell their “product” to the public. Having legit, on the books employees is a massive liability that just isn’t profitable anymore.

>>10871530
uh... yes, that is much better.

Bob still gets paid for the work he did even though the spoons didn't sell. Now he can find a new job and maybe only miss a few weeks pay or less. Not to mention you get shit like severance pay ect in most countries.

Which system would you rather make spoons under? A system where if you makes spoons you get paid no matter what, or one where you can make spoons and then told "your spoons were great, but the truck delivering the spoons lost them, so no money for you.

>>10871473
>How is it determined under socialism?
Depends on what application of socialism you're using. If we're talking about a planned economy we can adjust based on need as well. It depends on the product and can be adjusted if necessary for things rather than profit. It is simply better.
>Lol. Pretty shit deal for the worker no?
>>the spoons didn’t sell well this month kids, so no food for you.
Are you retarded?
>spoons didn't sell well this month
>let's adjust the spoon production downwards for next month so we don't waste resources, we aren't living under capitalism after all
>I want to pick up a new PC later, I think I'm going to do some janitorial work after my 4 hour shift since we're living in a society where only necessary work is done.
>thank god we dont live in a capitalist shithole where my livelihood his hurt by something like the markets being down
Holy fuck you're retarded.
>So if the spoons don’t sell well for any reason it’s the workers who made the spoons who get punished. Unironically hilarious that there’s people who think this is a good system.
No, we aren't talking about a brutal capitalist shithole. If demand is down we shift production downwards and provide what they need, giving them supplementary work since we would live in a society where 0% unemployment is almost too easy.
It's unironically hilarious that there's people who think this is a bad system.

>>10871566
>Depends on what application of socialism you're using. If we're talking about a planned economy we can adjust based on need as well. It depends on the product and can be adjusted if necessary for things rather than profit. It is simply better.
Dodging the question again. Given any specific system of socialism you like. How do you set the cost of the spoon?

>spoons
Right.. but the worker still doesn't get paid that month because the spoons didn't sell enough. Sure they can make less spoons next month, but maybe they aren't selling at all because there are better cheaper spoons available. The worker doesn't get paid here right?

Just say yes or not please. Or call me "retarded", i'll take that as a yes.

>>10871500
>But google does have competitors? Even if they suck and are small in comparison, that isn't a monopoly is, retard.
They have fucking 70% market share. That's for all advertising everywhere, not just the internet.

>In any case, google being a monopoly does not meat "everything in the economy comes back to them."
Yes it does and there's actually been numerous studied done on this fact. Major companies have an extreme advantage due to getting cheaper adds and having an organic, self referential search engine optimisation. Amazon itself owes it existence to Google and traditional companies can't complete against Amazon which will only grab a bigger and bigger market share and that's all due to the fact that 60% of all internet users always click the first Google search result (not to mention the impossibly rare even of ever going past the first page).


>Pretty sure google has no handle on the petroleum industry, no chips in the weapons or aerospace industries, and no stake in the manufacture of microprocessor or integrated circuitry.
Think about how the top consulting firms and companies get more clients. Think about how smaller companies get supply contracts. Google has become a major factor in this.

>>10871545
When your entire business model relies on a platform, then that platform can blink you out of existence.

Imagine if tomorrow Asus does something to insult Bezos and he just decides to ban them from selling products on Amazon. They become Amazon's bitch.

In particular Google has used it's position to squeeze favourable deals for itself countless times before.

>>10871436
Okay, so it is the same way goods are priced in a regular economy. It's still competitive. Really the currency could still be backed by gold or even land.
So that aspect is still there, but the attitude of society has changed. This is fundamental and also impossible due to our nature.
Destroying inequality would accelerate humanity. But, we are still in the "capitalist" stage and not the post-capital hyper advanced socialist future utopia where cost of production is near zero.
The future will be socialist getting to explore the galaxy with nearly unlimited resources.
It just can't be done. There isn't to free energy (we've all read the research on it, it will happen with the quantum physics revolution), free food, etc. It will happen.
You are an actual brainlet, but collectively we are all too smole brained to be communist.
You're naïve if you don't play the game right now, end of story. It's our nature. Unless you have different Virtues, ofcourse. But, it doesn't seem like that is a thing in this thread.

>>10861511

>Gold belongs to noone but nature
>whoever dug it out with his own labor owns it

The other side of bland argumentation.

>>10871593
... lol

>>10871436
More or less, societies values and innate human needs would have to change so drastically in the current circumstance that it's impossible.
Marx was also right in saying that Capitalism does change people. It does, you become indoctrinated by class views.

An example would be going to the "fairest" company where CEO's are not ruling over politics (not saying this is entirely a bad thing) and taking similar to somewhat higher pay. This might mean the employee makes less capital out of this virtue.

This level of collectivism simply can't happen. That is not what we value. We value Darwinian things currently. When goods get cheap enough that an Audi is sold for the same price as a Toyota (both of which for 1$) then we will start getting places.

>>10871574
>>Depends on what application of socialism you're using. If we're talking about a planned economy we can adjust based on need as well. It depends on the product and can be adjusted if necessary for things rather than profit. It is simply better.
>Dodging the question again. Given any specific system of socialism you like. How do you set the cost of the spoon?
I answered your question in that quote. Read it again.
>Right.. but the worker still doesn't get paid that month because the spoons didn't sell enough. Sure they can make less spoons next month, but maybe they aren't selling at all because there are better cheaper spoons available. The worker doesn't get paid here right?
No, because we are operating under a planned economy. Read what I write.
When we are living in an economy which doesn't produce 100000 different kinds of the same spoon the economy becomes hyper efficient and we don't need to worry about these things. Their labour is still valuable and we can simply shift their labour to something else. The spoons will sell, we can take care of the people because that is the most efficient way of ensuring human happiness and security.

>>10871619
>An example would be going to the "fairest" company where CEO's are not ruling over politics (not saying this is entirely a bad thing) and taking similar to somewhat higher pay. This might mean the employee makes less capital out of this virtue.
What?

>>10871613
You could also think of the the watchmaker analogy. Humanity is literally just too stupid for communism and socialism is not exactly viable right now.
We have to walk the tight rope until more breakthroughs are made IMO. Just keep it stable and moving forward. That's utopian aspect to it and why so many hippes just "end up believing maaaan" instead of being realistic.
Dude Johnny gave me a bag of weed for a pizza, that's communism duuude.

>>10871625
>I answered your question in that quote. Read it again.
lol

>>10871632
I don't exactly see at what point it will become viable.

>>10871630
Employees choosing to work for more "communist" companies almost, but we only pursue capital. Not the betterment of society like the UberMenche. Which I also tend to think is a false Idolization at this point.
Even monks are acting somewhat out of self interest.

>>10871637
What would you get for working for a "communist" company? I didn't understand what you were saying.

>>10871636
Think autonomization. It will actually get to the point where we will have socialism because the government could give you 100 dollars a month, but production has gotten so efficient that a millionaire and billionaire have relatively the same buying power in terms of goods.
I don't think we will ever be communist, but we will end moving to socialism. Not right away, I'm no Bernie fan. But, jobs will start being lost to robots CEO's can still make bags of money while supporting some form UBI.
We all live in magical mansions already. Think what the common man will have in 50 years and for how much.
A 20,000 car can perform aswell as a car from the year 2,000 that was $100,000.
>>10871644
If you valued a "fair" company more than one that pays the best salary then that would be moving towards communist ideals. You work for a company that does best for eliminating wealth inequality among it's ceo's and employees regardless of what they are paying you.
The freemarket would drive towards a stable communist society... but do you see anybody taking a lower paycheck? I'm certainly not.
The people have to change as a whole for communism to work. That just won't happen.

>>10871576
>>10871589
You have gone from talking about employee/employer dynamics to talking about inter business partnerships and customer service. There is no socialist/Marxist framework for those interactions because they are wholly unique to capitalism.

>>10871576
>They have fucking 70% market share
Thanks for conceding my point that google does indeed have competitors.

>>10871737
you can't fake being this stupid

>>10871729
>There is no socialist/Marxist framework for
Never said a thing about Marxism.

>>10871737
They literally only keep the 30% around to avoid anti-trust lawsuits. They can crush that """competition""" any time they want.

Besides that 30% consists of several million employees and an even bigger number of stocks while Google only employs around 100k.

>>10872022
you can't fake being this stupid

>>10872022
>They literally only keep the 30% around to avoid anti-trust lawsuits. They can crush that """competition""" any time they want

No, they can’t. The FTC does not play and will violently enforce its mandates with jail time and freezing of assets. Simple lawsuits would be considered cost of doing business. Moreover, those companies don’t need to engage in morally dubious business practices to maintain market share as it’s always more effective to just offer a quality product at a good price.

>Google only employs 100k
Yeah, I already explained why that is. That 100k is on the books employees and doesn’t include contractors or freelancers. Big companies like that do their best at keeping internal headcount as low as possible because having to hire/fire people as the markets shift around is exceptionally expensive. Almost every top company staffs itself like that now.

I think you are confusing amazon and googles first to market advantage with being a monopoly, it’s not. Intel was in the same boat back in the 90’s and sure enough it’s competition chopped away at the market share. The data age is still very much in its infancy, you’ll see.

>>10869272

>Due to the mathematically trivial nature of engineering, you would consider their math to be trivial calculations

Ftfy

>>10872287
>No, they can’t. The FTC does not play and will violently enforce its mandates with jail time and freezing of assets.
Look at him! He still believes in the FTC! Look at him and laugh.

The FTC is criminally underfunded, they only bother to pursue one in every few hundred complaints and that's only if there's overwhelming evidence already in place.

>Simple lawsuits would be considered cost of doing business.
Of course.

>Moreover, those companies don’t need to engage in morally dubious business practices to maintain market share as it’s always more effective to just offer a quality product at a good price.
The problem is the "quality product at a good price" itself. It kills off competition. The internet has forced all regional companies to either become international or die off. This is resulting in a lot of social and economic issues.

>That 100k is on the books employees and doesn’t include contractors or freelancers.
Do you not understand how this is labour market manipulation and unconstitutional. In addition outsourcing has proven to be extremely inefficient and usually ends up costing the company more long term.

Now, the above two paragraphs would still be acceptable IF those companies were allowed to get punished by free market forces due to stupid policies (such as Boeing was supposed to be). However, because of the effect of killing off competition that the internet created those conglomerates have become so massive, with such a big lobbying war chest, that they are virtually assured of getting tax funded bailouts.

So not only are these companies fucking over the labour market, they are using labourer's taxes to keep doing it.

>Almost every top company staffs itself like that now.
And yet it wasn't like this 20 years ago at all.

>I think you are confusing amazon and googles first to market advantage with being a monopoly, it’s not.
Neither of them were first to market. Neither of them had the best platform/tech either.

>>10873013
Honestly the modern social issue isn't a need of unions or wealth redistribution. In all irony the issue is communist policies demanded by major companies, banks and other corporate conglomerates. The myth is that these bailouts help the entire economy and the labour market. It doesn't. It props up GDP temporarily (thus helping some idiotic politician's career) and it funds large salaries/bonuses of terribly ineffective management. If these companies just die off then younger, leaner companies would quickly fill the market gaps. An explicit example is how Deutsche Bank canned several thousand employees and it turns out they were all sucking 7 figure incomes. This is a bank that hasn't made a profit in 10 years, and they were paying their employees that much who clearly weren't providing any worth.

>>10871309
>state socialism
>unions
Anon what have we told you about opening the liquor cabinet before 4

>>10859947
Medical professionals have a system that serves the purpose of a union.
The number of offered residencies is kept limited (by AMA or one of the medical college associations) which keeps the supply of professionals scarce.
The claim is that this scarcity is in order to keep the quality high but it is really to keep the labor supply low and salaries high.
They also don't let foreign doctors practice medicine in the US even if they are first-world doctors, again, for "quality" purposes.

Keeping the domestic labor supply low and prohibiting foreign laborers does wonders for salaries.

If you want to see better salaries in STEM fields, you would need to see a similar restriction of domestic supply and disallowance of foreign laborers.
This would need to take place in law (for foreigners) and in universities (for domestic).
The problem is, universities are profit-seeking businesses that stand to make more money by accepting/graduating as many people as they can.
Universities are, in a sense, polluting the job ecosystem to make an extra buck.

>>10859947
>We need to unionise.
You need to get rid of capitalism. If you don't, then a few years after you make a union, your union reps will be corporate shills.

>>10860896
>starving to death in america
Literally impossible you nigger. Every "poor" person is an obese piece of shit. Unions aren't necessary because poverty doesn't exist in welfare states. More than basic sustenance is supplied for parasites who do nothing. Every welfare nigger has an iphone, a house, and more food then they need.

>people are going spend time, money and resources to get factories to produce a product they only break even on

t. communist retard

Or maybe you think the government should own all production facilities and pay for it with taxes (by taking a cut of the workers production value against the commandments of communism you just argued for)? I actually can't imagine how delusional you have to be to ever think this clown fiesta could work. It's a thinly veiled attempt to grab them by the pussy (seize the means of production) and force all the proles into indentured servitude by dictating their exact production value and then taxing 50% of that.

>>10859990
Right, because the bargain power of a literal cog in the machine will magically get the machine to accomodate on its own. Not only does that not work, your logic is fallacious as it assumes that because there are worst case scenarios, one should therefore avoid the scenario in the first place. If the world operated under the logic, there would be nothing at all.

>>10861586
Except that cars, airplanes and electronics are not responsible for fossil fuels and can be powered by other means. You even fail at your own strawmen.

>>10873252
it already worked and it keeps working.
This is such a crab bucket mentality holy shit. You think humans can't work for something meaningful? And worse, you don't want them to get what they actually deserve instead of the meager pay they do now?
The fact that your life has no purpose and that you project that onto others is your own issue, not that of everyone else. Put a gun in your mouth and pull the trigger already faggot.

>>10873315
>other people should do "meaningful" charity work and build me a factory to work in while I work for what I "deserve".

>inb4 everyone does "meaningful" work so it's okay

The effect is the same. The only difference is that instead of relying on the "goodwill" of other people (an impossibility, just by looking at your dumb hateful ass). Everyone works for themselves first and choose to be good based on their character rather than state mandated smiles. A better system for everyone since those of good character can avoid evil, spiteful, retards like yourself, who only put on (a really pathetic attempt of) a facade of friendliness to fool others into supporting your parasitism.

>>10873333
The moment we can convince people to demand wages that are equal to the science discovered, we will have a period of prosperity.
Doing science for real wages> doing science for peanuts