Comment on The bosses don't pay their workers. Workers pay their bosses.

realitaetsverlust@piefed.zip ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

• Arcanepotato@crazypeople.online ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Customers give the business money for the goods. It could be directly to the boss, or other employees of the business. When we say the customer pays the boss in this case, “pay” refers to an uneven relationship between the customer, the business, and the boss. The business has a product that the customer doesn’t have or doesn’t have the means to produce, so they give the business money to obtain it. In this relationship, it is considered appropriate for the company to charge more than it costs to produce the good. The price is set by the boss, who decides what profit is achievable, and what they are willing to do to maximize that.

  In the poem the worker is said to pay the boss because the employee is in a similar position as the customer. In this case, they are giving the boss a higher value than they are receiving from the boss. They are exchanging their labour and the finished goods in exchange for two items the boss has a monopoly on: money (which is required to obtain goods in a system where you are alienated from the fruits of your labour), and access to the means of production.

  You could simplify the “labour and the finished goods” for surplus labour value. I hear some guy wrote some compelling books about how many yards of linen a coat is worth. Might be worth a gander.

  source

  • realitaetsverlust@piefed.zip ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    In this case, they are giving the boss a higher value than they are receiving from the boss

    Well of course, because a business has more expenses than just paying the worker. Material needs to be paid, taxes, insurances etc. If the worker would receive the full value for his production, the company would lose money and go bankrupt within months.

    They are exchanging their labour and the finished goods in exchange for two items the boss has a monopoly on: money

    Your train of thought has a gap. The boss has no monopoly on money. The customer has. He’s the one that buys or pays something. The boss is, more or less, at the mercy of his customers. This is less of a problem if the boss sells something that is crucial to your life, like food, water, housing etc, so things you really need to survive, but a big problem if you sell something that isn’t.

    That’s why I usually say that we as society absolutely have the power to decide which companies live an die. We just don’t work together and use that power.

    source

    • Arcanepotato@crazypeople.online ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Your train of thought has a gap. The boss has no monopoly on money. The customer has. He’s the one that buys or pays something. The boss is, more or less, at the mercy of his customers. This is less of a problem if the boss sells something that is crucial to your life, like food, water, housing etc, so things you really need to survive, but a big problem if you sell something that isn’t.

      I respectfully disagree.

      This analysis ignores bank and finance capital, which are the ones who hold the monopoly on money. So yes, it would be fair to say the boss (individual capitalist) does not hold the monopoly on money, but they have access to very cheap money.

      If the individual capitalist didn’t have access to cheap loans, and the supply chain wasn’t propped up by neocolonialism (i.e. wealth extraction from other countries) then I would agree they would be dependent on the consumer. This had not been the case since the early 19th century or earlier.

      source