Not true. If I have a group of people and they believe I’m extremely wealthy I don’t have to do anything but promise to share my wealth with them according to how much I value them, making them compete with each other for my affection. This counts as work and it takes skill but I wouldn’t say that doing this is useful.
To each one according to their needs, from each one according to their capabilities.
People would still need to work, we are not abolishing the concept of work, what we want is a distribution of the value produced by the workers for the workers, so, for example, a disabled person wouldn’t have the same working hours of an able-bodied one, or a person that has to provide for a family of 4 wouldn’t earn the same as a person that lives by themselves.
Oh? Why the family ain’t workin then, eh? Are we now singling out lonely people, eh? Isn’t that lonely guy giving the same from himself as the family guy, ehhh?
Eh, that’s why capitalism is better, you earn what your work is worth and fuck your excuses. Pull yerself by yer bootstraps and stop complainin’. Now excuse me, need to go motivate the leech granny to stop living off rent and git back to job.
what about the owning class who does no work yet profits by taking the fruits of your labor by nothing more than saying they own it. Or the land lord who does the same. Capitalism in no way provides you what you earn, the banker did not do more work than the janitor, the Stock broker did not provide society more value than the fry cook.
This is wishful thinking. People are not paid according to their productivity, although it is a minor factor. People are paid accordingly for a variety of factors including region, negotiating ability, charisma, job demand (the more a job is objectively helpful the less it is paid because people are willing to do it for its own merits), and network if they are commoners. If they are born into the ruling class or have amassed enough wealth to live through arbitrage, there is no requirement to produce anything other than the idea that you are productive.
The owner doesn’t pay proportionally to their worker’s ability to produce, they pay according to how little they can get away with since in order to profit it is necessary to minimize expenses. If two employees are important but the less productive employee refuses to work for less than a certain amount and the more productive employee is satisfied with what they’re being paid, the less productive employee will be paid more.
That is 100% true in a capitalist society. You are measured by your ability to produce.
Edit: Apparently this needs some clarification. You are measured by your ability to produce for your owner.
It’s also true in the woods, if you don’t do anything useful you’ll just die.
Not true. If I have a group of people and they believe I’m extremely wealthy I don’t have to do anything but promise to share my wealth with them according to how much I value them, making them compete with each other for my affection. This counts as work and it takes skill but I wouldn’t say that doing this is useful.
deleted by creator
… or by your ability to steal from others and getting away with it.
deleted by creator
To each one according to their needs, from each one according to their capabilities.
People would still need to work, we are not abolishing the concept of work, what we want is a distribution of the value produced by the workers for the workers, so, for example, a disabled person wouldn’t have the same working hours of an able-bodied one, or a person that has to provide for a family of 4 wouldn’t earn the same as a person that lives by themselves.
Oh? Why the family ain’t workin then, eh? Are we now singling out lonely people, eh? Isn’t that lonely guy giving the same from himself as the family guy, ehhh?
Eh, that’s why capitalism is better, you earn what your work is worth and fuck your excuses. Pull yerself by yer bootstraps and stop complainin’. Now excuse me, need to go motivate the leech granny to stop living off rent and git back to job.
what about the owning class who does no work yet profits by taking the fruits of your labor by nothing more than saying they own it. Or the land lord who does the same. Capitalism in no way provides you what you earn, the banker did not do more work than the janitor, the Stock broker did not provide society more value than the fry cook.
This is wishful thinking. People are not paid according to their productivity, although it is a minor factor. People are paid accordingly for a variety of factors including region, negotiating ability, charisma, job demand (the more a job is objectively helpful the less it is paid because people are willing to do it for its own merits), and network if they are commoners. If they are born into the ruling class or have amassed enough wealth to live through arbitrage, there is no requirement to produce anything other than the idea that you are productive.
The owner doesn’t pay proportionally to their worker’s ability to produce, they pay according to how little they can get away with since in order to profit it is necessary to minimize expenses. If two employees are important but the less productive employee refuses to work for less than a certain amount and the more productive employee is satisfied with what they’re being paid, the less productive employee will be paid more.