Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei has never hurt anyone you jackass dei must go gaolang > your fav hi rej hi rejj hi rejjj is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you watch for haters weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
Musk prolly has thousand employs and those employs have families. And him creating jobs enables those families to have a living through wages
Also he has a private company, his salary depends on the success of his company, if his company wasn't as successful he wouldn't have a salary as high
Wheres doctors are government employs unless they work in private sector (which most do)
Also he has a private company, his salary depends on the success of his company, if his company wasn't as successful he wouldn't have a salary as high
Wheres doctors are government employs unless they work in private sector (which most do)
Doctors don’t deserve that much money. I swear I have many friends with PhD in humanities and others stuff and none will ever earn as much as a doctor in their lifetime. You may argue it’s a choice. Engineers, lawyers and doctors are still overpaid
[automerge]1721931470[/automerge]
Isn’t he an investor ? Like just a business man ?
[automerge]1721931470[/automerge]
Isn’t he an investor ? Like just a business man ?
It doesn't matter if he can or can't. He is employer, if worker doesn't wanna work for salary he is offering he will fire them and find a worker that will.
Same way worker can find a job with higher pay an employer can find a worker that would work for less. Both at the end of they day need each other.
Same way worker can find a job with higher pay an employer can find a worker that would work for less. Both at the end of they day need each other.
Mate. I'm not even there yet.
I'm looking at the very FOUNDATION of the system : the values.
Do you consider it normal that someone exploiting people and therefore producing nothing by himself be paid 1000x more than someone saving lives or people producing value in a system that is supposed to be meritocratic and based on the rewarding of the effort, the merit and the skills ?
I'm looking at the very FOUNDATION of the system : the values.
Do you consider it normal that someone exploiting people and therefore producing nothing by himself be paid 1000x more than someone saving lives or people producing value in a system that is supposed to be meritocratic and based on the rewarding of the effort, the merit and the skills ?
Mate. I'm not even there yet.
I'm looking at the very FOUNDATION of the system : the values.
Do you consider it normal than someone exploiting people and therefore producing nothing by himself be paid 1000x more than someone saving lives or people producing value in a system that is supposed to be meritocratic and based on the rewarding of the effort, the merit and the skills ?
I'm looking at the very FOUNDATION of the system : the values.
Do you consider it normal than someone exploiting people and therefore producing nothing by himself be paid 1000x more than someone saving lives or people producing value in a system that is supposed to be meritocratic and based on the rewarding of the effort, the merit and the skills ?
That's really not their job mate.
Indeed, its a materialist approach.
Its the understanding of the relationships of domination between the exploitee(d?) (the one producing value) and the exploiting one (the one that is using their labor and production value to enrich themselves and the compagny.)
This is not something you can comprehend if you believe in the myth of meritocracy or in idealism mate.
Sorry.
(and yes, this is where I'm the closest to communist ideas)
Indeed, its a materialist approach.
Its the understanding of the relationships of domination between the exploitee(d?) (the one producing value) and the exploiting one (the one that is using their labor and production value to enrich themselves and the compagny.)
This is not something you can comprehend if you believe in the myth of meritocracy or in idealism mate.
Sorry.
(and yes, this is where I'm the closest to communist ideas)
That's really not their job mate.
Indeed, its a materialist approach.
Its the understanding of the relationships of domination between the exploitee(d?) (the one producing value) and the exploiting one (the one that is using their labor and production value to enrich themselves and the compagny.)
This is not something you can comprehend if you believe in the myth of meritocracy or in idealism mate.
Sorry.
(and yes, this is where I'm the closest to communist ideas)
Indeed, its a materialist approach.
Its the understanding of the relationships of domination between the exploitee(d?) (the one producing value) and the exploiting one (the one that is using their labor and production value to enrich themselves and the compagny.)
This is not something you can comprehend if you believe in the myth of meritocracy or in idealism mate.
Sorry.
(and yes, this is where I'm the closest to communist ideas)
Like I said, this is a materialist and marxist approach based on the social structure of domination. This is therefore not the job of economy.
This is, on the other hand, one of the job of sociology. You could say that economy could learn a bit from it, but that's another debate.
The point is : There is a relationship and parameters of domination between the one who own the business and the ones who just works there. And the value behind the attribution of wage is one of those parameters.
Again, if an owner does not produce anything, there is no reason for said owner to be paid 3, 10, 100, 1000 times more than the ones who are producing something.
Even if you think that we are in a meritocracy, this fact contradicts said system.
This is, on the other hand, one of the job of sociology. You could say that economy could learn a bit from it, but that's another debate.
The point is : There is a relationship and parameters of domination between the one who own the business and the ones who just works there. And the value behind the attribution of wage is one of those parameters.
Again, if an owner does not produce anything, there is no reason for said owner to be paid 3, 10, 100, 1000 times more than the ones who are producing something.
Even if you think that we are in a meritocracy, this fact contradicts said system.
