No it isn't lol. You're doing that thing where you take a stupid statement and try to back-fill something you see as intelligent to save face.

If a company is employee-owned and can provide a million dollars per employee, that's socialism. It has absolutely nothing to do with eliminating outliers, it actually guarantees outliers because it's still market based. Just makes it more difficult to have outliers to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars because compensation is determined by all the employees.

https://mobile.twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1430888635801370624

JUST IN - Large explosion at Abbey gate at the #Kabul airport.
161
1K
1.4K

Disclose.tv
@disclosetv
·
28m
Pentagon confirms the explosion at #Kabul airport.
Quote Tweet

John Kirby
@PentagonPresSec
· 30m
We can confirm an explosion outside Kabul airport. Casualties are unclear at this time. We will provide additional details when we can.

hack capitalists love the GDP per capital calculation, because a billionaire with more money than 1,000 workers who all have 1,000$ in their savings account still calculates out as a productive society.

"if you tax this way our GDP per capita will go down" is a shady way of trying to make it seem like poor people will have less money.

there were warnings a few hours ago, not a suprise

i hope the allied soldiers are alright

I don't really care whether void says something smart or dumb, I'm just explaining what he meant. This is an age-old criticism that has been around ever since Marx popularized "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

If he meant that he can explain it himself.

And even if it was, it's still a stupid argument, because capitalism is fundamentally built on denying non-owners their full reward.

Capitalism's definition of "full reward" is the price that individuals can negotiate for their labor in a free market. Markets are never absolutely free, and there are a lot of other complex considerations going on, but in practice we see that the price of labor does rise and fall in line with supply and demand.

Socialists argue that laborers are entitled to more than the fair market value of their labor, for reasons which they never manage to adequately explain. Salaried employment is a risk free endeavor. You are entitled by law to the wage agreed to by your employer. Your employer is not entitled to those same protections, and takes on all of the capital risk associated with running the business. Just as you are paid for your time, your employer must be compensated for the risk and capital they've allocated towards the business.

If supply is taken into account then by definition you cannot be given the full value of what you provide to the company, since there is wage depression from labor competition. Additionally, you cannot be paid the full amount you add to the business or there would be net zero profit left over for the owner.

You are defining "full reward" in the capitalist sense then using that definition as a bludgeon. I could just as easily define "full reward" as the value added to the company by the role that is filled compared to if the role didn't exist and use that as a bludgeon right back, because all you did was make a semantic argument.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Aug 26 2021 09:02am

You will never be paid for the "value" your labor creates, as some of that value is owed to the capitalist for providing the capital and assuming the risk.

The capitalist definition of reward is intuitive, you negotiate a fair price with someone for labor performed. The socialist definition is not intuitive, because it's not clear at all what benefit the capitalist is receiving for assuming risk and providing the capital.