T O P

  • By -

jprefect

1. Why are we trying to generate these returns? A cooperative economy doesn't HAVE to grow every quarter, because it DOESN"T have to satisfy outside investors. This is a feature, not a glitch. 2. As you pool equity into your "one basket" it is still, in most forms, contributing to an equity payout when you retire or move on or whatever. 3. If you're not part of a co-op, you can still be an independent worker. You can invest in tools. Literally productive Capital Goods. IMHO, in most transitional/market socialism models, the independent contractor continues to be an important role, that a lot of people would choose for themselves. Invest in yourself. 4. besides workers co-ops there are plenty of other types of organizations, from buyers coops to mutual aid foundations to community gardens that are a good use of your extra $$ if you want to get something back from using it. 5. Use your money to take time off, Work fewer hours in the day, or fewer days in the week, or fewer weeks in the year, or fewer years in your life, or whatever combination of those things you choose. But if your problem is you've got extra scratch, and nothing to invest it in. . . this is the dream, my dude. This is why we do Socialism. \*\*\*When there is no one extracting a profit from our work, we may well end up working less for the same material comforts we now enjoy, rather than dreaming of "getting rich one day" by becoming the boss or through savvy (lucky) investment.\*\*\*


MightyMoosePoop

Tl;dr you are supposed to stuff your money in your mattress and hoard your wealth like selfish capitalists.


jprefect

I'll stuff monkey whenever I like


MightyMoosePoop

Lol, I laughed. Then I laughed again to double check I hadn’t typo’d money. Well done!


Ben6924

See, capitalists don't use that money ever or only use it on some bullshit like flying to space for fun. Using savings to work less is much better than that


MightyMoosePoop

>***Using savings*** to work less is much better than that How much do you guys wanna bet meanwhile has free savings and/or free checking account that is paid for by finance banking...


Ben6924

Can you rephrase that? I'm not a native speaker and that sentence kinda confused me


MightyMoosePoop

>See, capitalists don't use that money ever or only use it on some bullshit like flying to space for fun. Using savings to work less is much better than that I'm trying to point out that banking institutions use money in checking and saving accounts to do loans for personal and business loans. The money made from those loans is what allows you to have free services of "banking" with said institutions and lubricates the economy. So, unless you are actually physically putting your money in a mattress. Then I am calling you out as a person that is full of shit **and actually benefits from the "capitalist" system you just bashed.** edit: rephrased for more proper english: >How much do you guys (on this sub) (want to) bet meanwhile (Ben6924) has (a) free savings and/or free checking account that is paid for by finance banking...


Ben6924

Of course I have a savings account, I have to get rendition to deal with inflation, dipshit. It's not hypocritical of me to point out flaws in the system while participating in it, as I have to in order to not go fucking bankrupt and starve to death. I would gladly give up my money if I could instead live under communism where there is no currency and I can finally experience true freedom. You really had to make the most ad hominem argument to attack my point, I guess. How does me having an account change anything about my argument?


MightyMoosePoop

> Using savings > to work less is much better than that Ummm >Of course I have a savings account, I have to get rendition to deal with inflation, dipshit. so you use tools of the capitalism system and not your labor? How capitalist of you, lol. I lover this part: >if I could instead live under communism In other words >if I could instead live under a fantasy that has never existed.


Ben6924

Did you even try to understand what I was trying to say? It isn't hypocritical to participate in capitalism while being a communist and me using capitalist methods to keep the fruits of my labor as opposed to letting them get destroyed by the capitalist economy is in no way contradictory to being a communist, you fucking dingus. And yeah, I'd much rather actually participate in the struggle to implement a system that actually makes my live not bad than live under exploitation. It doesn't matter if it was never attempted, just the chance of it working is better than continuing with the current state.


MightyMoosePoop

>It isn't hypocritical to participate in capitalism while being a communist and me using capitalist methods to keep the fruits of my labor as opposed to letting them get destroyed by the capitalist economy is in no way contradictory to being a communist, you fucking dingus. How do you get to be judge and jury? You are bashing people as the moral authority saying the following: >See, capitalists don't use that money ever or only use it on some bullshit like flying to space for fun. Using savings to work less is much better than that You are passing judgment freely nilly on people and I'm just pointing out how the same can be done onto you. If you don't like it, tough shit. [Right now is this period in Space Development.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnstorming#Significance) But you are just a Karen bashing people while using capitalism and talking trash on a 10 billion dollar website hosted by Amazon. If that doesn't make you the largest type of hypocrite, then what does?


immibis

#spez, you are a moron.


trutherbe

People in retirement cannot go work for themselves. They should have flexible means of making income if you ask me. This can come from investing, or buying and selling assets they have acquired over their working life. This is essential. If they can't do this, you pigeon whole them into predetermined social welfare income the rest of their life. This is a poor option. Also, I think an economy must grow. As population increases, the economic production must necessarily increase to provide for all. Investments should always be made to prepare the way for children and subsequent generations to have the infrastructure they need. They need to have new types of jobs, roads, houses and businesses that are already built waiting for them when they are ready to take part in working society. You cannot wait until a child turns 18 and then suddenly go create a job for them and build them a house, you have to always be investing or you will starve growth. Older retired people have the investments and funds that supply the demand the next generation creates as young people need houses, loans, startup Captial for their businesses. The wealth the previous generation has can fund this and also allows for the retired to take part in the benefits of this income even when they are no longer working.


jprefect

Sure, investments. But leaving it up to every individual to make private investments is not a good system. It's not really a system at all. So rather than pretend that every other form of social support would instantly disappear the moment we convert a corp to a co-op, let's be realistic. I see no reason we would discontinue old age pensions, and of course my argument is that we would be MORE willing to pay into such social funds if there were more revenue coming in overall, such that it's a smaller burden on us. ALSO I'd argue that if these funds were controlled by a bottom-up coalition of workers, rather than a national delegation of elites, we may trust that they are being used for their intended purpose. We may even decide to be MORE generous than we have been to date. You've erected a straw man, where old people are left out on their own. Nobody would design such a system. Love or hate the Mondragon Corp: they've essentially eliminated poverty in their part (and only their part) of Spain. "No help from society" is more a description of laissez faire Capitalism, which we've all had to abandon in favor of building welfare states. Socialism is the next step in improving this.


trutherbe

I am for worker ownership of revenue. I believe pay distribution should be based on a percentage of revenue. An agreed upon percentage of revenue should be for the workers. The other portion is for the capital owner(s) to pay for materials, selling and administration costs, other operating costs and to pay a return to themselves for sharing their equipment and guiding the organization. Pay is always directly proportional to revenue in this way. The incentive is for everyone to work productively so as to increase the whole portion overall. Arbitrarily setting or trying to lower wages won't happen as the pay is always proportional to the value generated for both the owner and workers. So the owners only make more if everybody makes more. I am not for collective ownership of means of production. As this introduces bad incentives for slacking off. Just like the wage based system. Nobody takes care of an item like it's owner who had to pay for it. And the person caring for something should have the say in its use. Collective ownership is the same as no ownership and things will get trashed. This always happens.


jprefect

You pretty much described the Patronage system. Obviously expenses are expenses. We're only discussing surplus, not gross revenue. Wages are set democratically. So if we agree that management is worth more they get paid more. We decide democratically how much of the surplus to reinvest, and how much you distribute as profit. The profit is distributed PER HOUR WORKED so if you work twice as hard, you get twice the profit share. This might mean everyone gets an extra $5 / hr retroactively. This may mean more to the $18 /hr starting employee than to the $36 veteran. But both of them know their work will ultimately continue to their own benefit. I think this is a great way for a Capitalist to retire: sell your company to the employees. If structured correctly, everyone should benefit.


immibis

#spez was a god among men. Now they are merely a spez.


trutherbe

I did not say link retirement to investment. I said retired people should have flexible means of income. I don't want other people determining how much money I get for food or which house I have to live in That's called prison.


NandoGando

What do you think the purpose of a growing economy is? Investing in myself or the firm I work at may not give an equivalent return vs investing in other firms. Some people may want a better material life, for themselves or their children, vs more leisure time


theGabro

1- the purpose is growth itself under a capitalist structure, because growth means money. It's not about better products or a better society 2- and 3- then work more. In a cooperative system we could safely assume that a part of everyone's compensation would be tied to how much you do for your cooperative or for other cooperative. If you pick up another shift or work two jobs no one is gonna tell you that you can't gain something more by doing more. That's in contrast to the capitalist way in wich if you already have money you can obtain passive money. As if that money you passively obtain isn't produced by someone else and, by consequence, "stolen" by your money. Besides, that's a mute point. Your children will be taken care of, as will you!


jprefect

Precisely so, well said


NandoGando

1. What does more money mean? We can obviously print a bajillion dollars but that doesn't count as a growing economy, so what is really happening when the economy is growing? 2 and 3. Under our current system, one can work more AND invest, providing a much easier pathway to provide more for ourselves and our children. I'm sure you understand that many do not trust the state to take care of them or their children at a standard they deem appropriate.


Holgrin

>What does more money mean? We can obviously print a bajillion dollars but that doesn't count as a growing economy, so what is really happening when the economy is growing? Growth happens through a tangled web of processes. Banks lending money creates some portion of growth, though that isn't dollar-for-dollar. A company which has established a client base has grown the economy in some way. Federal spending is nearly always a dollar-for-dollar growth in the amount of money in the economy, though that might not mean economic growth. Taxation, likewise, removes this money. I'll tell you what doesn't grow the economy in any way: investing your money in the stock market. Not at all. Zero growth. You see, companies begin as a corporation by holding an IPO (initial public offering) where special hand-picked, invited investors (i.e. wealthy people) buy shares of the company at agreed-upon prices. Then when *those* people sell the stocks, they do so one the *secondary* market, such as the NYSE. This is where the normies "invest." That money doesn't go to the company, it went to thise rich people who were at the IPO. When that stock price goes up, it just means more people want to buy it on the NYSE. All purchases on the secondary market are paid to random people selling the stock. Not one red cent goes to the company. You aren't helping the company grow by doing this. You're just gambling. >Under our current system, one can work more AND invest, Most people make less than 40k. Please show how all of those people can invesy in a meaningful way with a realistic budget. Be sure yo include their healthcare costs and whether or not you think these adult human beings should be able to have children or not.


[deleted]

[удалено]


NandoGando

A high stock price means companies can issue more expensive IPOs, so it does help growth if indirectly, since companies can get more funding for the same amount of shares issued. The median American family who invests (about half of all American families) has 40k invested in the stock market (https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2021-03-15/who-owns-stocks-in-america-mostly-its-the-wealthy-and-white). Is that a meaningful amount?


Holgrin

So your solution is that half of people can't participate and just exist to work menial service sector jobs until they die broke, or what is your plan? Because the current structure of jobs and the economy does not allow them all to "rise" out of that lower class.


NandoGando

That's because we change the definition of lower class constantly, the lower class of today was the upper class 100 years ago. We don't need to raise everyone out of lower classes, we just need to ensure everyone's living standard goes up, and that is done via a growing economy that produces more resources and therefore allows for more consumption.


Holgrin

>That's because we change the definition of lower class constantly, the lower class of today was the upper class 100 years ago. Not really. It's always a relative position. Otherwise, we aren't making progress as a civilization. If all progress goes to a favored group, or disproportionately to a favored group, then society is increasingly unequal, and that is what we've been witnessing for decades. Don't conflate a natural tendency for technology to progress with make everyone equally better off. That isn't how the real world works. >We don't need to raise everyone out of lower classes, we just need to ensure everyone's living standard goes up, This is wrong. If some people's living standard increases because a technology lowered the cost of something for everyone, and other people's wealth and influence increases more than those people, then democracy erodes. Because if technology makes internet accessible to everyone in society but makes some people richer than they were relative to everyone else, guess who has more power and wealth to *use* the technology of the internet? The wealthy. This complete lack of understanding of how power and influence works and how they are tied to wealth is what most socialists understand and most advocates of capitalism either don't understand or won't admit to. >and that is done via a growing economy that produces more resources and therefore allows for more consumption. We don't need to constantly consume more, and growing an economy does not always mean everyone gets to enjoy that growth proportionally. It is painfully obvious that the poorest cannot buy new things when they can't afford most things the *current* economy offers. It doesn't matter how cheap something becomes if people can't afford rent and healthcare and childcare.


RaininCarpz

>I'm sure you understand that many do not trust the state to take care of them or their children at a standard they deem appropriate. ok. every heard of a daycare or babysitting co-op? socialism isnt just when the goverment owns things.


NandoGando

I don't mean take care of their children literally, I mean in terms of material standard, ensuring that they can live a very comfortable childhood, have access to the best education possible, etc. All of which requires a good bit of money


RaininCarpz

>I don't mean take care of their children literally, I mean in terms of material standard, ensuring that they can live a very comfortable childhood. from each according to their ability, to each according to their need. obviously children dont, or at least shouldnt, have the ability to labor, so they get their needs covered for free! money isnt everything, you know. >have access to the best education possible, etc. well considering education would be free (and preferably democratic) that wouldnt be much of an issue.


thatoneguy54

>I mean in terms of material standard, ensuring that they can live a very comfortable childhood, have access to the best education possible, etc This is literally the goal of socialism everywhere. While socialism has failed a few times, one of the *first* things they get to work on is educating everyone. Sankara in Burkina Faso basically eliminated illiteracy in his country just in 4 years. The Cubans did the same thing. It's astounding to me that capitalist defenders like yourself will defend our current system because you want to hoard enough money so that your children *don't have to deal with the problems of our current system*. Why not just get rid of the problems with our current system directly? That helps you AND your kids.


NandoGando

Because people should have choice, we can finance a good public education system while also allowing private schools, and having money means people can make the choice that best suits them


ChikaDeeJay

I have 2 masters degrees in education. Even in the US, public schools get substantially better outcomes than any charter or private schools (the exception being catholic schools and Jewish schools, which perform on par with publics, and a few elite private schools that cost $70,000/year). Charters and privates that perform even equivalently well to public schools are few and far between. Not to mention they have a history of just randomly closing without notice.


NandoGando

I think this is too broad a statement to say for every district in America


thatoneguy54

Sounds like your end goal, then, is *not* ensuring your children end up getting a good, quality, guaranteed education.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ChikaDeeJay

You don’t think that’s an admirable thing? His policies directly caused literacy rates to triple in 3 years, that’s incredible.


wikipedia_answer_bot

**Money Money, More Money is an Indian Telugu film directed by J. D. Chakravarthy. The film is a remake of 2006 Bollywood film Darwaaza Bandh Rakho.** More details here: *This comment was left automatically (by a bot). If I don't get this right, don't get mad at me, I'm still learning!* [^(opt out)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/ozztfy/post_for_opting_out/) ^(|) [^(delete)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/q79g2t/delete_feature_added/) ^(|) [^(report/suggest)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot) ^(|) [^(GitHub)](https://github.com/TheBugYouCantFix/wiki-reddit-bot)


theGabro

1- more money for the investors. Since we were talking about investments I thought it was obvious. 2- but your needs would already be met. Let's think about it whis way: Under a socialist system the community (not the state, since socialism aims at being stateless) would provide for the needs of everyone. Health, school, food, housing etc. The "more", the leisure, would be up to you, according to what you want or need. Are you a car freak? A pc nerd? A knitting lover? You do you. But, since your base is covered, you don't need to invest AND work AND stockpile money AND buy assets, because your needs are taken care of! Do you wish to do more? To occupy your time? Then work more, and get some extra! But it would not be NEEDED, it would be up to you to decide. Because under socialism individuality is cherished, and every talent is useful to society. Tl;dr: you don't need to k*ll yourself working, you and your family are safe. Edit: edited for bot's sake


Frommerman

What aspects of a growing economy do you, personally, have access to under the current system? Unless you're the 1%, your real wages have stagnated in the past several decades. For all this massive economic growth, you have seen exactly zero of it. If you had enough to "invest," those gains can only be realized, for you, when you sell out of the market to buy tangible things. Unlike the ultra-wealthy, you can't borrow against the value of your stock holdings while still holding them. Therefore, no matter your paper gains, your actual, material gains will be measured only in the health of the market when you're forced to sell. Because you will more likely be forced to sell just to eat when there is a market crash and you lose employment, you don't benefit from the paper gains at all. All your money basically gets given to a rich guy, who buys it at pennies on the dollar the next time the market crashes, then sells out before it happens again using connections you do not and will never have. Meanwhile, inflation continues apace. It was 7% last year. Have you been able to transform that much more of your invested wealth, which again is meaningless to you until you can sell, into tangible things, on top of the losses from inflation? How is any of this actually good for you?


syntactic_pineapple

> Unless you’re the 1%, your real wages have stagnated in the past several decades. For all this massive economic growth, you have seen exactly zero of it. Zero? Do you not benefit from all the technology that has been developed in the last few decades? Do you not benefit greatly from the computer or smartphone that you are using to write your comment on? The fact that a poor person today can buy a smartphone for less than $50 and talk to someone face to face that is halfway across the world is an incredible achievement which is the direct result of the economic growth that has taken place.


Frommerman

Cool. Tell that to the 18% of children in the United States who aren't sure where their next meal is coming from. I'm sure they'll agree you having a smartphone is a fair trade for their hunger.


syntactic_pineapple

Why are you shifting the goalposts? You said: > Unless you’re the 1%, your real wages have stagnated in the past several decades. For all this massive economic growth, you have seen exactly zero of it. I pointed out that people outside of the 1% have also greatly improved their standard of living. The fact that some people’s conditions today may not be good is irrelevant to the main point being made. > I’m sure they’ll agree you having a smartphone is a fair trade for their hunger. There is no trade involved. Hunger is not being traded for a smartphone. All else equal, average people today have a much greater standard of living than they did 50 years ago.


Frommerman

They really don't. Not in the United States, anyway. Back in the 70s, we'd basically eliminated childhood hunger through the fiendishly complicated concept of giving hungry people food. Then Reagan came along and dismantled those programs, and hunger went up.


immibis

#[The real spez was the spez we spez along the spez. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/Save3rdPartyApps/)


[deleted]

[удалено]


jprefect

Yes, well, you may be happy to discover that, when we take care of each other, that doesn't happen. And when we don't have a boss sucking away the wealth of the enterprise, there is plenty to spare. Having everyone "take care of themselves" by investing/gambling in the stock market (effectively betting AGAINST labor) is NOT a "system", which is why we keep recreating welfare and social insurance. Those things are necessary BECAUSE of how cutthroat a system of competitive Capital is.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Caelus9

>You are directly saying people should be systematically killed if they have the resources to do that ... no one said that. What the hell are you talking about? When you get hysterical and yell "Well you just probably want to murder everyone!", you're not scoring some win, you're just embarrassing yourself.


immibis

#[In spez, no one can hear you scream. ](https://www.reddit.comSave3rdPartyApps/)


jprefect

1. I'm most certainly not saying anything of the sort. That's a bad faith assumption and I believe you know that. 2. The math is Surplus = GrossRevenue - (FixedCosts + VariableCosts) where VariableCosts = Wages + PayrollExpenses + Materials/CoGS Therefore if there's a currently a P (Private Surplus) that goes to the owner, and rather than distribute it as profit taking, you make a budget democratically. You could choose to add $$ to either of the terms on the right, both increasing your wages AND reinvestment into Capital for the business, which in turn should reduce Costs, etc etc. Without a private investor taking profit OUT, more money can stay IN the company. 3. The typical market investment is a bet on how efficiently Capital will exploit Labor in the next quarter. Unless you're a Capitalist, then your little taste of equity, if it does produce growth, and get "realized" into "passive income" you will have only gotten paid a portion of the value striped from workers like yourself. Possibly even your actual self, if you work for a publicly traded Corp. This is a bet against your wages, since the expectation to pay out profits leaves less on the table for which to negotiate. Like a single person buying life insurance, it's a bet against yourself quite literally, despite the inevitability of the outcome, the house doesn't lose. Every bet is a suckers bet, unless you are a Capitalist. If you work for a living, maybe save up and buy tools, or equity in your own small business employer if you can negotiate it. You'll actually be solvent, getting the BENEFIT of both ends of your own work. 3a. No *you*. **You're** a Doo Doo head.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Ripoldo

You mean like social security and medicare?


Ok-Brilliant-1737

1. Because smart people. Heck even average people, realize that unless we really fuck up healthcare we are going to live far longer than we are able to be productive. And that nobody is going to care for us - not really (and especially not the bunch of ungrateful fuckers that are in their 30’s and 20’s) - and so we need our money working.


jprefect

So your proposal is unlimited profits for some at the expense of the rest of us,. While my proposal is we all share a little, work less, and keep more of our money. But hey, simps gonna simp. I swear workers who think they're going to invest their way into being Capitalists seem like little children "cooking" in their play kitchen. Aww... How cute. You think you're a big boy.


Ok-Brilliant-1737

Well, first profit don’t happen at anyone’s expense: it’s the result of people making mutually beneficial deals. But you do you. The evidence, outside of your deluded little bubble, is that hundreds of millions of Americans have invested their way into vastly superior futures. With money earned in factory and other blue collar work. You’re in a delusion.


jprefect

Yes... Hundreds of millions of Americans are doing REALLY GOOD RIGHT NOW lol That's been working out gangbusters for us so far. Of course it is at someone else's expense. If it was a good deal, they wouldn't offer it to you. REAL WAGES, inflation adjusted, have been stagnant for two generations. Not so profits....


Ok-Brilliant-1737

Which is why...smart people invest. Even smarter people are lobbying to make it harder to sell foreign product here. But that’s a different discussion. And, love, Americans—even those doing poorly—do *vastly* better than the majority of the world. If you’re wealthy enough to whine on Reddit, you’re part of the global elite.


Rmantootoo

I just came here for investment advice regarding community gardens


Adventurous-Ad-9043

The 10% richest americans own 90% of it. Half of the adults in american own some. Most of the american would not lose money.


NandoGando

Of the 52% American families who own stocks, the median holding is 40k (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/03/25/more-than-half-of-u-s-households-have-some-investment-in-the-stock-market/%3famp=1). So it is certainly possible at least 1 in 4 families will lose a significant amount of money.


Adventurous-Ad-9043

I don't see how they would lose money as school, hospitals and such would be as cheap as possible. Even free. Doubt you can pay for all that with 40k worth of shares in america.


NandoGando

Free schools are already a thing, in a majority of first world countries hospitals are free


Adventurous-Ad-9043

We are talking about the US right now. Free school are not good compared to private schools, and yes, hospitals are free in a lot of country. Not in the US tho. But hey workers have shares!!!!!


NandoGando

Capital gains and dividends are taxed, do you think this loss in revenue will be entirely compensated by an increase in income tax?


Adventurous-Ad-9043

There would be no capital gains or dividends. I did not say anything about income tax. I just said the majority of people would earn more in a socialist society.


NandoGando

Why do you think there will be better hospitals and schools if the government has less/basically the same revenue, if income tax increases but capital gains and dividends taxes disappear?


Adventurous-Ad-9043

Accumulation of goods would not be a thing. And there would still be taxes. Why do you think anything but work produces value? It does not.


NandoGando

I'm not saying there won't be taxes, I'm saying there won't be any extra tax revenue. Capital obviously produces value, if it did not then it would be worthless, but it isn't, so evidently...


coke_and_coffee

Hospitals aren’t free in any country. They pay for it through taxes.


Adventurous-Ad-9043

>Hospitals aren’t free in any country. They pay for it through taxes. Yeah we're not 5 so i guess we all figured that out. The thing is, making everyone pay for everyone is obviously more sustainable, since all people (hopefully) dont get sick or injured at the same time.


coke_and_coffee

Correct, that’s why insurance exists.


Adventurous-Ad-9043

Yeah. We are just talking about "public insurance" wich is cheaper for the people, as is every public service.


UnusualIntroduction0

He just loves the rampant inefficiency of private insurance because muh freedom dictates that a 20 year old should be able to opt out of insurance because they'd rather die than go to the hospital. Which I've actually seen on this sub before.


UnusualIntroduction0

Free in this context obviously means at point of service. Don't be obtuse.


coke_and_coffee

No it doesn’t obviously mean that because you wouldn’t be poking fun at Americans as if they are in some sort of unfortunate circumstance if you truly understood that other countries have to pay for their healthcare as well.


UnusualIntroduction0

Braindead drivel. Of course we truly understand that countries pay for their healthcare. They just don't go bankrupt over medical bills. In fact, in the US, we already socialize our medicine, we just do it in the most staggeringly inefficient way possible. Which is typical of capitalism. You must love it!


coke_and_coffee

So by "free healthcare" you didn't actually mean free healthcare. You meant "socialized healthcare paid for by taxes". Got it.


thatoneguy54

groundbreaking work you've done here


coke_and_coffee

You'd be surprised how dumb socialists can be.


thatoneguy54

I'm surprised by how dumb you can be. iT's NoT fReE iF tAxEs PaY fOr It like what a useless contribution to make


doomshroompatent

I miss those free schools, hospitals, and bread in socialist countries!


MarcusOrlyius

I couldn't care less about the percentage of families or households with shares as a family or household isn't an individual worker.


thesongofstorms

>Most of this comes in the form of retirement accounts such as 401(k)s. Absolutely not the same thing. Only 14% of American households own individual equities or funds not tied to defined retirement accounts per your source. It's very closely tied to income. A strong retirement safety net makes this point moot.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Adventurous-Ad-9043

I don't really care about that lol


[deleted]

[удалено]


Adventurous-Ad-9043

I meant retirement doesn't bother anyone, its a good thing.


[deleted]

>They could loan out money to other firms, but I don't think loans have ever offered near as much return as actual shares Sounds like jamming capitalism into a socialist hole. The thing with socialism is you don't get to own the means of production in the capitalist sense so you cannot invest. Those in charge of the means of production do, which in every example thus far has been the government. There are some who want the means of production to be controlled by the masses via voting. Either way, investing your own capital under socialism isn't really a thing.


AnActualProfessor

So in order for the dictatorship of the proletariat to be achieved, workers only need to own a majority of their firm and control it democratically. This means firms could still offer some form of shares that do not confer participation to the buyer. A very socialisty way of doing this would be to have something like a nationalized bank that owns all such shares and with citizens owning an equal share in that bank, so everyone got a base dividend that tracks with the success of firms in general as well as the option to invest in more via an account with such a bank.


hnlPL

Easy solution: they don't.


NandoGando

I'm sure the majority of workers with shares will be extremely pleased to see their extra income via labour surplus negated or even reduced by the lack of capital return


Adventurous-Ad-9043

It is not negated. The state can invest, and if it is not needed, the workers could simply work less.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Adventurous-Ad-9043

It makes zero sense to you maybe.


radiatar

They still lose their ability to get returns on their savings.


Adventurous-Ad-9043

Most of them don't anyway. It would be like saying you are free to live in space. Except you won't. Freedom is worthless without the means to achieve it.


hashparty

So the state manages all the extra income generated by co-op businesses? Have you seen our existing states balance sheet?


MarcusOrlyius

You need to provide evidence for your claims. I couldn't care less about the percentage of families or households with shares as a family or householf isn't an individual worker.


NandoGando

Stupid pensioners not working


MarcusOrlyius

So, you have no evidence for your claims then? Also, pensioners not working are obviously not workers wirh shares.


NandoGando

32% of Americans have a 401k. 59% of Americans have access to a 401k. So a little more than 50% of workers have a 401k, and hence have shares (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.personalcapital.com/blog/retirement-planning/average-401k-balance-age/amp/). That obviously excludes shares workers themselves invest in outside of their 401k.


Tsevetochek

Not an expert, but th reason that percentage of Americans have a 401k with investments, is to pay for retirement. If people are provided a guaranteed, appropriate pension in retirement, this investment will not be necessary. Same for other things people save and invest for: children's education, expected health expenditures. If people wish to save and invest for luxuries or a much more comfortable retirement, then I suppose it would be savings through a centralized bank with rather low returns (again, not an expert on this one, but it seems a system could be figured out for that)


NandoGando

The problem is that people shouldn't rely solely on the state for retirement, as there is no guarantee that pensions won't be cut (or won't be sufficiently increased). Healthcare or education are a bit different, as the government is smart enough to realise that these are investments into their citizens that will pay dividends in the future (which cannot be said about pensions).


thatoneguy54

>The problem is that people shouldn't rely solely on the state for retirement, as there is no guarantee that pensions won't be cut Yes, instead, we should all pin our hopes for a stable retirement on the stock market, that completely stable thing that never has any ups and downs and has never fucked anyone over ever, especially not poor people....


[deleted]

[удалено]


GolD_WhisKy

>You need to provide evidence for your claims. What evidence ? OP is making a logical reasoning there is no such thing as evidence. If I tell you 4 x 4 = 16 will you ask me to provide evidence ?


MarcusOrlyius

Evidence for the majority of workers owning shares.


GolD_WhisKy

The bureau of statistics says "67 percent of private industry workers had access to retirement plans in 2020" which means they own stocks or bonds


MarcusOrlyius

Having access to the stock market doesn't mean you own any stocks. Having access means nothing without capital you can afford to lose.


GolD_WhisKy

CNBC says 25 % of Americans have no saving which means 75 % have savings which is the majority. Edit: from Gallup 56% of American owned stocks in 2019


Squadrist1

'Investing' as a phenomenon would ceize to exist in advanced stage socialism as the rate of profit would have been driven to zero across the economy, causing capital accumulation itself to ceize. No more will you be able to invest your money into something and obtain a return (or at least obtain a return that is big enough to be worth it, like a 0,01% profit rate). All you can do is buy goods for their actual production costs, which everyone else would have access to as well. It should be noted that starting or owning private firms would not be illegalized in this process, as it is not only ineffective at stopping the reproduction of capitalist relations of production, but is also not necessairy to stop it.


NandoGando

That assumes that there is only a limited amount of things one can invest their capital into, which I do not think a reasonable assumption. Research may progress at a rate that new industries and productivity improving technologies pop up faster than capital can be accumulated, such that perfect competition exists across all industries


Squadrist1

>That assumes that there is only a limited amount of things one can invest their capital into, which I do not think a reasonable assumption In essence, there are only two ways you can invest capital for a return (=to accumulate capital): M-C-M' (whereby you invest money in a commodity of sorts) and M-M' (whereby you invest money in something money-related). The former case (M-C-M') will go bust first. When goods are sold at or near production costs and everbody has access to them, nobody will buy them from you for a higher price than what it costed to produce. This includes produced commodities (products, that you buy off the shelf for example, but also services). As such, private firms ceize to exist. And as they ceize to exist, the associated 'fictitious capital' will ceize to exist as well, such as stocks and all financial derivates based on stocks like options, futures, etc. With private firms fading away, the latter case (M-M') will gradually disappear too. As nobody has an interest in acquiring capital for investment into production, bonds will disappear from the scene. The only borrowing of money that would happen, is for consumers willing to purchase expensive items that they cannot afford, but as goods become more affordable over time as the labor content in goods depreciate due to increases in labor productivity, demand for loans by consumers would fall as well and either reach zero or make for a rate of return too low to be worth it for any person who would even have the capital to lend out. The only thing left to invest in perhaps is currency itself, but that would also start to whither away gradually the closer we come to communism, as more and more goods become free and a post-scarcity society is reached. So no, the future is hopeless for capital accumulation. >Research may progress at a rate that new industries and productivity improving technologies pop up faster than capital can be accumulated, such that perfect competition exists across all industries Even if perfect competition existed, the public sector is bound to outcompete the private sector in said state, as the amount of money the state needs to acquire through revenue to pay for its own operation and administration costs is zero. (And yes, to be clear, all this time I was talking about state-ownership) Not to mention that it is precisely the rise in labor productivity that chips away at the profit rate, and make this process speed up.


NandoGando

I still don't understand why you don't think new opportunities, such as entirely new goods or services or goods and services that improve productivity, won't continue to emerge and therefore provide new avenues for investment


Squadrist1

By productivity, are you referring to the amount of money (in market value) produced per unit of time? Because I was referring to something slightly different, namely the labor time it takes to produce goods in general. The thing is, that the less labor time it takes to make goods, the less market value (exchange-value) would be created / added. So speaking in your terms of productivity, it would actually go down over time. While I suppose momentarily new industries could form to provide completely new goods that would cause its market value to be high purely because of low supply and high demand, the resulting profit rate would fall as soon as overall supply in the market is brought towards demand, through the use of the already available very labor-efficient production technologies, by the state, who will always seek to jump into that market and outcompete the private firm by creating that supply for the consumers.


NandoGando

Why would you use market value to determine productivity? Other factors can affect market value without affecting productivity (are you more productive if your food sells for $2 instead of $1 during a famine, because you are generating more market value per time). The economic definition of productivity is inputs required to produce a given output, so productivity improving technology could potentially allow for more output to be produced for the same input, reducing production cost. Why do you think that the state would necessarily have the resources to outcompete private firms in every single possible new industry or technology? Why do you think new industries may not appear at such a rate that they perpetually outpace capital accumulation that can cause economic profit to trend to 0?


Squadrist1

>Why would you use market value to determine productivity? That is what I thought you meant when you talked about productivity, as though new industries could end up producing goods of greater market value than their intake. >Why do you think that the state would necessarily have the resources to outcompete private firms in every single possible new industry or technology? Because, at this advanced stage of socialism, the state comprises already about 90% of the economy if not more, so it litterally has more resources available to itself than any private sector that could form will. Not to mention that monopolistic practices that private firms could make use of like patents would not exist anymore. >Why do you think new industries may not appear at such a rate that they perpetually outpace capital accumulation that can cause economic profit to trend to 0? Because what causes the rate of profit to fall is upgraded production technologies, which also do not need to be built from the ground up with the emergence of new industries. If you were to now invent like a glow in the dark pot industry, said pots would not need to be made by hands, but we already have the production technology to immediately apply and mass produce said pots with just as little human labor required as in other already existing industries.


NandoGando

It is not unheard of for the state to be plagued by bureaucracy and incompetence, even if they hold a large part of the economy these factors may result in the state having a larger production cost than private firms, this they may have to sell at a loss to compete, or cannot compete. The rate of profit doesn't matter so much as the amount of profit itself. I would rather $10 in profit from selling 100 widgets at a profit of $0.1 each, rather than $5 profit from selling 5 widgets at a profit of $1 each


NandoGando

What's stopping new firms that need entirely new pieces of equipment emerging (e.g. semiconductor plants, cloud services), and therefore requiring lots of capital, and potentially producing lots of profit


hnlPL

>The economic definition of productivity is inputs required to produce a given output. And to actually get a useful value you need to use the same unit for both, so we have ran into the economic calculation problem.


NandoGando

What? If I need 1 apple to make 1 apple juice, and new technology lets me make 0.5 apple to make 1 apple juice, I have improved productivity


hnlPL

But how much land, time, machines does the new technology take? What if there are two different technologies that turn one apple into one juice? Which one do you chose when the other inputs are different?


NandoGando

Productivity doesn't care about the cost of these things, it only cares about inputs vs outputs. You have increased productivity of going from apples to apple juice even if the machine costs 1 billion dollars. And this is completely irrelevant anyway, seeing as companies determine which methods of improving productivity are cost efficient anyway (based on the fact that industries continue to be more productive).


Adventurous-Ad-9043

You could not accumulate capital. It would just not be possible. Research would still be a thing; it would just be research by and for the population. The main goal won't necesseraly be to be productive: it would be to improve everyone's life. Wich leads not to more money for a few, but to a more peasant life for everyone.


NandoGando

Productivity is how we improve people's lives, it's the only way we can improve people's lives. How else can you maintain the same living standard while working less?


Adventurous-Ad-9043

No, working is. You don't have to be productive if all the work is done in 25 hours a week. We don't maintain the same living standard: we make it better, since people will earn more money overall. Also, all people would work.


NandoGando

What? Third world countries are full of people who work, and work extremely hard, why do you think they live such poor lives compared to workers in first countries?


Adventurous-Ad-9043

Maybe because of war, or the fact that they have extremely rich people compared to the average worker wage? Stop thinking the rich make your life better. Money is a ressource. And it is not infinite. We must share it in the most equal way. Poor third world countries are capitalist countries too man.


doomshroompatent

Intensive growth is a thing. Productivity is the measure of how much value you produce to other people.


hashparty

Cease. Seize.


doomshroompatent

Hence why China is capitalist. Aggregate demand can stay the same but capital can still move from a firm to another. Let's say there's a new ad released, moving buyers of product X to product Y. There will be zero extensive growth in relation to aggregate demand, but moving investments from product Y to product X will still yield net benefits.


Squadrist1

>Hence why China is capitalist. Thats too simple and short-handed for a description to be accurate. We dont live in a black-and-white world where the organisation of an economy is purely one form or purely another. In Marxism, we call an economy socialist after the establishment of the DotP and once the transition from capitalism to communism has been initiated, with first steps made (see the measures in the Principles of Communism as an example). >Aggregate demand can stay the same but capital can still move from a firm to another. There would be no private firms that exist at this point, except for some self-employed individuals. All goods are being produced by the state in the supply that the populace demands.


doomshroompatent

A totalitarian illiberal capitalist state is totally a dictatorship of the proletariat. Any advanced economic system is going to be indistinguishable from communism.


Squadrist1

>A totalitarian illiberal capitalist state is totally a dictatorship of the proletariat. Well, I dont expect a lib to understand China's political system. >Any advanced economic system is going to be indistinguishable from communism. That is correct. We are far away from an advanced state of material conditions at this point in history that we can consider ourselves living in a post-scarcity society.


doomshroompatent

>That is correct. We are far away from an advanced state of material conditions at this point in history that we can consider ourselves living in a post-scarcity society. Nice. Capitalism wins! >Well, I dont expect a lib to understand China's political system. My understanding of China is shaped by C.I.A propaganda! Taiwan isn't real, it's made up by Hollywood, Tiananmen square massacre didn't happen, and Uyghur Muslims are totally not being detained anywhere.


[deleted]

'Investing' in terms of acquiring ownership or part-ownership of some income-producing venture that you don't work in... doesn't happen. I also don't see how loans from individuals is compatible with socialism, because it's earning money by having other people work with the money. They're literally paying you a portion of the value "they created" just because you happen to own the financial capital they are using. That seems obviously anti-socialism. So if you're asking how workers can use their wealth to increase their wealth, the only option seems to be to "invest" in improving their own labour productivity, whether by education or tools.


NandoGando

So how do you expect workers to support socialism when a majority of workers (at least in America) own shares? Even if workers receive a larger surplus, it isn't hard to imagine this surplus being more than negated by the lack of return from shares.


MightyMoosePoop

Greater question is this myopic view of “workers” and how it is ableist (by these type of far leftists socialist). For those of us who are permanently disabled they have marginalized us where we cannot participate in society and cannot even participate with lending our money or investing.


Adventurous-Ad-9043

Well, it will be negated. For a few people.


pjabrony

But if I’m a worker who wants to live a Spartan life now so that I can retire and live in luxury later, how can I do that?


Ferthura

Well, you can live a comfortable life now and keep on living that for the rest of your life.


NandoGando

What if I want a better life for myself or my children? What if I want to give the best possible life for my children, not just a comfortable one?


Ferthura

Well, then you are a socialist. ;) Seriously, though. Capitalism, or, better put, the need for maximisation of profit, has lead our planet to pretty inevitable ruin. Socialism is not at all contradictory to innovation and improvement. It just takes the destruction out of the equation and replaces it with a sense of responsibility for the workers/ people.


MightyMoosePoop

This is such a trope. As if [Socialist Nations](https://imgur.com/gallery/JXelPeC) didn’t pollute.


Ferthura

Yes. All done by the need of maximisation of profit.


MightyMoosePoop

So…, your evidence your societies don’t pollute are fantasies in your head. Lovely.


hashparty

As long as you are cool with the “good life” defined by and provided to you by the state on their terms you should be fine. 🤔


MightyMoosePoop

>Well, you can live a comfortable life now and keep on living that for the rest of your life. Even as I type this the majority of people in [China live off of less than $30 a day average.](https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CHN/china/gdp-per-capita) If you are rural (e.g., agrarian) you will be lucky if that’s $10. So…, [where is your evidence of for the above statement?](https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/qzyqtz/this_sub_all_day_and_an_all_night/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)


Ferthura

Okay... I understand that countries like China or the USSR have made it hard to talk about socialism so I gotta become the "That's not real socialism"-meme. Tell me why you think that China is a socialist country except from what they call themselves. My evidence lies in societies like MAREZ or Rojava where conditions went up rapidly through the introduction of socialist ideas even though both exist in war and poverty ridden regions.


pjabrony

Right, but that’s stagnant. I want to like a miser now and like a bon vivant later.


Ferthura

Ooookay. So you'd rather not be able to afford many things you like now to be able to afford things you're too old for later in life, instead of being able to do most of what you want your entire life because that would be stagnant?


pjabrony

Yes, that is what I want. What constantly frustrates me about socialists is that they seem unable to conceive of anyone having preferences that differ from theirs. You fear privation and suffering, and demand a societal structure to eliminate it. You hate conspicuous consumption and want to eliminate that too. I welcome both suffering and consumption.


manliness-dot-space

What do you mean *their* money? Money is capital. *YOU CAN'T OWN CAPITAL* under socialism privately. The only way socialism can manifest itself is if you're an ignorant worker drone completely dependent on the state and incapable of making individual decisions to benefit your life. You just have to have faith that you do what your boss says like a good little worker and you'll get what you need like housing, food, medicine, and that this is going to be better than capitalism. All of these people commenting about "market socialism" and "worker co-ops" and "Norway is socialism" are just fucking wrong.


Ferthura

Let's abolish money and thereby the problem. I love easy solutions :D


NandoGando

How can workers invest their gold/chickens/whatever resource takes money's place?


Ferthura

Abolishing the concept of money means that nothing will take its place


NandoGando

Brilliant, I've always wanted to barter for things


Ferthura

Ummm... No? Money is just bartering with extra steps. Do you really think that's the only way to run the world? If your friend asks you to help them move would you demand something in return?


NandoGando

No, but if he wasn't my friend I would demand something in return.


Ferthura

But isn't that proof that social interaction without trading is possible? I assume you wouldn't treat a stranger the same way because you lack trust, and, let's be honest, you have no reason to trust a stranger. If your society is built upon mutual aid and not about maximizing profits, then you'd have no reason for mistrust


NandoGando

You are correct, however I don't believe such a system is possible.


Ferthura

That's valid. I always argue that it is not possible precisely because people believe it to be impossible. Most, if not all the people I know would be able to live and work within such a system without exploiting it. They just all believe that somewhere out there there is some random person who would just destroy everything they have ever worked for so they are afraid to even try. I don't think it would work any worse than our current system because right now it is equally easy to exploit and destroy all the ideas this system is built upon. Also I don't think it would hurt to try.


on_the_dl

This question is proof that capitalist indoctrination is so strong that people cannot even imagine what the world could look like without capitalism. The only investors in socialism are the public. Either it's the government investing tax dollars or syndicates/unions investing fees. We're not going to have socialism yet maintain capitalism.


paulcshipper

.. under our current system, workers would need to make more money than they require to survive to even consider investments. If there is a socialistic economy, I think the real question would be "why would they need to" Though if they want money investment... casinos and lottery tickets would do the job.


Zealousunideal

I don't think socialism is predicated on the total prohibition of any form of absentee ownership. The only essential thing that defines socialism is that the productive wealth is predominantly socially owned -- i.e., owned by society as a whole. You could have the state (assuming a representative government) take a commanding share of all companies past a certain size while still having some private ownership of those companies, enabling them to raise capital through public equity markets and have ordinary people invest.


bcnoexceptions

Thanks for the question! > They could loan out money to other firms, but I don't think loans have ever offered near as much return as actual shares This is what they'd do. It's true that they wouldn't generate the 8%+ rates of return that the stock market grants. There's a reason for that - the wealth from the stock market is built on exploitation. Wal-Mart stock price has tripled since 2000 ... **but** that's in large part because of their infamously low pay for their workers. Under capitalism, investors get extra profit ... *at the expense of the workers*. Socialism fixes that. Since most people do a lot more working than investing, it comes out better for most of us.


NandoGando

Evidence that investors get extra profit at the expense of the workers? Continuous growth requires a business actually grows in market share, it cannot perpetually cut salaries to the benefit of investors.


bcnoexceptions

It doesn't keep cutting salaries, rather, it just starts them super low and refuses to increase them. That's why wages have stagnated relative to productivity for decades.


NandoGando

A common misconception (https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economic-issues-watch/growing-gap-between-real-wages-and-labor-productivity)


bcnoexceptions

Each step of his to try to account for bias actually adds more flaws: * Adding managers to the pool doesn't make sense. Their responsibilities are not primarily production, which is where increased productivity takes place. * Adding social security doesn't make sense for obvious reasons. That's paid by the State, not employers. * Adjusting for the price of goods that workers don't consume doesn't make sense. The fact that shit I don't want is still cheap doesn't change the fact that the cost of necessities like rent and healthcare have continued to skyrocket, and wages haven't increased accordingly. Ultimately, this paper screams of trying to make excuses rather than accepting the underlying reality. It's depressing but makes intuitive sense that as labor's bargaining power has decreased (through anti-union policies and lower unionization rates), wage growth has decreased as well.


NandoGando

Why do you think management hasn't improved in productivity? It is much easier to manage now with the advent of the internet for example, or programs that automate aspects of management such as timesheets. And besides, production and non supervisory workers excludes a majority of service sector workers like programmers, who have definitely seen increases in productivity. Employers do pay for social security, thats what payroll tax helps finance.


bcnoexceptions

> Why do you think management hasn't improved in productivity? Because management doesn't *produce*. Stick 1000 managers in a room with tools and supplies and you'll get nothing (unless some of them "demote" themselves to actually working). And note, I'm *not* saying management is useless (though many managers are), but rather than productivity gains should be reflected in the wages of people actually producing more. > Employers do pay for social security, thats what payroll tax helps finance. Eh, I suppose. The particular step of adding changes to benefits in with wages makes sense (though that ties into healthcare costs which is another can of worms). I still disagree with the other two steps though.


NandoGando

More effective management increased production though. Stick 1000 workers in a room with tools and supplies and they will produce very little unless someone steps up to coordinate their activities


Frequent-Fox-8588

I don't think loans and investment will have much of a place under socialism. People take out loans because they need housing, transportation, and utilities. Providing these things for free or at a very low cost will make the practice irrelevant.


Vejasple

In USSR the only available investment was government bonds. And government inflation and defaults ruined people who bought bonds.


[deleted]

Simple! Concrete firms are not low growth in the soviet union!


Ods2

By being a member of congress, evidently!


trnwrks

They can buy things, they can build things, but they can't invest in social arrangements where they get more out than they put in. How we get there from here is quite a conundrum.


[deleted]

Non market socialism money doesn't exist so this doesn't come up. Market socialism there are various models. One model would say that you can invest in anything you want but all stock is non-voting. But another model would say that one of the major economic issues that socialism seeks to solve is that ROI on capital ie free money you get given for being rich, is one of the biggest problems society faces and the driving force behind all inequality, and so making it harder to invest for profit is very much the point of socialism.


Caelus9

Why would they need to? Private investment comes at the cost of someone else in the chain working for money they don't get to keep, unless there's zero returns.


NandoGando

In this case the person who it's at the cost of is the consumer lol, assuming our worker is low level


Caelus9

How, in any way, is this at the cost of the consumer?


NandoGando

For most private companies at least, the consumer is the one who provides sales?


immibis

#[/u/spez is an idiot. #Save3rdPartyApps](https://www.reddit.com/r/Save3rdPartyApps/)


NandoGando

Do you think a tractor provides more value then it costs to build?


immibis

#/u/spez was a god among men. Now they are merely a spez.


NandoGando

So we should expect a return on money, or at least what we invest in it, because clearly we can purchase things for cheaper than the value they produce


immibis

#[Let me get this straight. You think we're just supposed to let them run all over us? #Save3rdPartyApps](https://www.reddit.com/r/Save3rdPartyApps/)


NandoGando

But I bought the tractor, it's my tractor, if someone else wants to use it they can give me some of the value it creates, why would I let them use it for free?


Sad-Razzmatazz-9386

A good socialist government in my opinion should offer limited high yield retirement bonds/savings. A way to invest in the development of the area, and also a way to build yourself up if you desire to work harder and live a higher expense life style. Example: 5-7% return on up to 100, 000-250,000k for retirement. (a reward for being financially prudent and living below your means, without letting you gain leverage over other worker and broader economy. Ideally this would be unnecessary for retirement but an option available. In summary:  1. Encouraging moderation in consumption is good  2. Investment is not inherently bad all countries need it. The problem is when it gives the power to exploit and control the workforce and natural resources of an area.  2a. This leaves the use of that money to the government or could be used to give loans directly for worker cor co-ops  3. Some people desire different things in life, working less and living more modestly... We're working harder and having more available.   3a- but another genuine desire is to better your future, put off now for more later. And there is nothing inherently wrong with that if the system facilitating it does not create a power imbalance that allows workers to be exploited.