What can be done about mega-corporations that are too big to fail?

[Endus]

Not that I agree with Amadeus (lol how could I) but I hope you're talking about past China, not current China. I mean, what part of current China would be considered communistic by any stretch of the definition?

Fun fact, the current problems in China are because of capitalism, how funny is that?

I just really, really don't want to get into a huge "no true Scotsman" fight over what fits the definition. It isn't productive on either level. I'm perfectly willing to concede that China's an example of communism, even if I think it's a fairly shitty implementation of the principles.

Especially since if we apply the standard in reverse, there's no "good" implementations of capitalism, either, and then we're just left spinning our wheels pointlessly. On both sides.

Plus, mid-20th-Century China leading into modern China would still qualify as "success" by pretty much any objective measure of an economic system's function.

[Doctor Amadeus]

That's not a legitimate opinion. You're just wrong about what those things are. That's the point. It's like claiming that a manatee looks the same as a killer whale.

What the fuck do you mean it's not a legitimate opinion and who the fuck are you to make yourself the judge of what is legitimate when it comes to my fucking opinion.

It's not an academic opinion, but we aren't in school and I am not seeking credentials from you, we are also NOT passing legislation here.

So is parenting. So is being a conductor in an orchestra. This is an utterly useless definition that does not describe either idea adequately on in any useful manner.

Yes, it is HOPEFULLY, unless you have those parents that set no rules have no structure and literally don't give a shit what your kids do. Yeah as parents we have a dictatorships, the rule of law is the law we decide. There is no voting unless we allow it.

Similar to the law, and society over all, we tend to like to forget that but yeah. That's authority, that really isn't confusing to anybody living everyday.

When I tell you you're wrong about something, and are using a word incorrectly, and you say you don't care and you'll use it however you like, that's an admission that you don't care what the word means and you're going to misuse it on purpose.

Me pointing that out isn't some accusation out of nowhere.

No it's you trying to tell me my opinion is wrong, while ignoring what I actually said or pretending to be confused as you call me a propagandist. I am not freaking out over the word communism like I am some right wing Jimmy Boy from the 50's. I know what communism is, that has never been the issue this entire fucking thread. You're specifically arguing with me over an opinion based nothing but my own perspective concerning similarities of propping up phony sub prime mortgage crises then bailing private banks out at the behest of the very people those same greedy fucking banks fucked over. Even though it's not communism and I never claimed it was, my point is that kind of nonsense is as close as I want to get to any totalitarian government trying to do the right thing or not but in the end fucking over the very people they meant to help or said they did.

That isn't even Capitalism in my view in the strictest sense of the word, but we are a Capitalist society and unlike you I am not going to claim if some perfect scenario or theory were realized that wouldn't happen or whatever, it's Capitalism late stage or otherwise.

But in my view OPINION it's pivoting towards the worst practices to make up for failed applied ones like Capitalism. If you want to help people with homes, built more homes to bring the prices down, regulate industries that lock out entire blocks with vacancy to drive up the prices, make sure those working are catching up if they WORK to being able to save and afford those homes as they should.

Even though it's a shitty example of communism; the USSR. Absolutely pasting the West in terms of economic growth for decades, and so wildly successful it turned a backwards nation into a global superpower. This is simple historical fact.

That is a perspective and one I don't share because again it fucking failed, it serves almost nobody before it did, wasn't around nearly as long as Capitalism now, and even China and other Communist nations have moved away from it by in large.

Argue all you want as to why that is and those external factors again, but Communism in and of itself has killed millions of people.

And no, that it collapsed is not an argument that "communism doesn't work". Everything collapses, on a long enough time scale.

If you want another, China. Same kind of deal, minus any actual collapse, yet.

This is real fuckin' easy, dude, and that's why it's difficult to take your position as one that's actually honestly held.

Communism doesn't work and not because it some mythical essence or complicated idea, it's not sure there is nuance and as much as you might not see.

I AGREE with you totally calling me out about language, because I AGREE words absolutely have to have meaning, and as adults we should be using them correctly, but as intelligent men we also have to appreciate context and apply the nuance to specifically what we are talking about.


If I am not fourth coming with explanation to any of my positions then have at it and paint all you want and give it to me with both barrels. And Consistency is ALSO par for the course as well.

I am being honest, and capable. But I am not an Academic, My Discipline absolutely is not in economics, or even Philosophy

I'm curious as to why you've forgotten that China exists.

I didn't forget they exist they are also a fucking brutal regime, that while isn't failing the way the U.S.S.R. was they in MY OPINION are as strictly Communist as the U.S.S.R. was. And why you particularly bring them up as some kind of better example I don't know. I wouldn't but oh well.

And by any standard that isn't "it eventually comes to an end", which applies to literally everything, communism did "work". Claiming otherwise is false on its face. It created a global superpower

.

Some systems serve certain societies, and up until a certain point where the people grow out of it, say like tribalism for example Monarchy's IN MY OPINION. But ultimately they change.

But that is no reason to say Dictators and Fascisms works because in SOME applications it didn't exactly result in the same thing as what happened in Germany. The problem is those system are a tool that with flaws helped facilitate especially some of the worst atrocities.

Again, forgetting that China exists, not to mention Cuba (poor, although that's far more to do with American embargo and hostility than their economic system).

Cuba is another horrible example before communism and up until now. And yes external factors had an impact.

I suppose had they been isolationist like North Koreans, but I wouldn't consider North Korea successful of Anything either.

- - - Updated - - -

I just really, really don't want to get into a huge "no true Scotsman" fight over what fits the definition. It isn't productive on either level. I'm perfectly willing to concede that China's an example of communism, even if I think it's a fairly shitty implementation of the principles.

Especially since if we apply the standard in reverse, there's no "good" implementations of capitalism, either, and then we're just left spinning our wheels pointlessly. On both sides.

Plus, mid-20th-Century China leading into modern China would still qualify as "success" by pretty much any objective measure of an economic system's function.

Too late you past that marker miles and miles back.

China is a brutal regime that is pretty totalitarian an authoritarian, I wouldn't call that especially success.


Were talking about too big to fail as it relates to tech companies control on the internet.

- - - Updated - - -

It's also ironic as 2008 started when Lehman Brothers (one of the big banks) was allowed to fail as an example to others.

Additionally some claim that the governments actually made money on the crisis from "too big to fail", in a similar way as some old robber barons. Basically one strategy when the entire economy is tanking is to buy companies at huge discount; which is exactly what the government did (as it can just print more money if needed). And some of them have been sold with profit afterwards. Obviously that doesn't take into account the cost associated more directly with the crisis, and it depends on the government (most of the discussion is focused on the US - but e.g., Iceland was a pretty large player in the crisis and did poorly).

Yeah kind of unfortunate the government was paid back, but likely not the people that felt the worst of it. I I've been invested for a long time, but short selling or selling based on someone else taking a loss, always seemed a bit of twisted concept.

And don't forget that this isn't just for pure tech: if you don't like how Uber Eat etc treat their employees; go to a real restaurant (do some similar sanity checks there as well), or cook yourself.

Yeah used to be once upon a time giving up something or sacrificing for the cause no matter how much it meant for you, was life or death. Now a simple inconvenience is cause to pass fucking legislation for some people.

It's weird LOL

[Endus]

What the fuck do you mean it's not a legitimate opinion and who the fuck are you to make yourself the judge of what is legitimate when it comes to my fucking opinion.

It's not an academic opinion, but we aren't in school and I am not seeking credentials from you, we are also NOT passing legislation here.

It's factually incorrect. That's what makes it illegitimate. It's like claiming that avocados are animals. They just aren't, and you don't get to claim they are. Not without people point out your position is ridiculous.

Yes, it is HOPEFULLY, unless you have those parents that set no rules have no structure and literally don't give a shit what your kids do. Yeah as parents we have a dictatorships, the rule of law is the law we decide. There is no voting unless we allow it.

Similar to the law, and society over all, we tend to like to forget that but yeah. That's authority, that really isn't confusing to anybody living everyday.

Jesus wept.

That's not what "authoritarianism" means. This is exactly what I mean about you making stuff up, and why your arguments don't hold up.

No it's you trying to tell me my opinion is wrong, while ignoring what I actually said or pretending to be confused as you call me a propagandist. I am not freaking out over the word communism like I am some right wing Jimmy Boy from the 50's. I know what communism is, that has never been the issue this entire fucking thread. You're specifically arguing with me over an opinion based nothing but my own perspective concerning similarities of propping up phony sub prime mortgage crises then bailing private banks out at the behest of the very people those same greedy fucking banks fucked over. Even though it's not communism and I never claimed it was, my point is that kind of nonsense is as close as I want to get to any totalitarian government trying to do the right thing or not but in the end fucking over the very people they meant to help or said they did.

1> "Communism" carries no necessary implication of "totalitarianism". Again, you claimed that repeatedly, it remains false.
2> Your "opinion" is based on intentional misrepresentations of what basic concepts actually mean. Why are you so resistant to using terms correctly so your views don't get confused? You keep insisting you can use words to mean whatever you want, and that's not how language works.
3> I am taking you at what you actually said. If I'm getting your views wrong because you're using words incorrectly and refuse to change that, you can't blame me (or anyone else) for misunderstanding you. We can only go off the words you actually use. We don't have access to your inner thoughts. The onus is on you to stop mangling the language.

That is a perspective and one I don't share because again it fucking failed

I'm gonna say this one more time;

Any argument that points out a particular system collapsed and thus it's "bad" is an intentionally, maliciously misleading argument. All systems fail, in time. Any argument you make based on a particular nation's system collapsing, I am going to straight-up ignore moving forward, because it isn't an argument. Especially because plenty of capitalist nations have "failed" in that respect, too; it isn't even a distinguishing factor.

Argue all you want as to why that is and those external factors again, but Communism in and of itself has killed millions of people.

That's a stat you're pulling from the Black Book of Communism, a literal propaganda piece so egregiously dishonest that several of its three co-authors disavowed it and the third (primary) author, for misrepresenting their work. By any equal application of the Black Book's methodology, "Capitalism" has a much larger death toll.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bl...k_of_Communism
http://www.spectrezine.org/global/chomsky.html

This is what I mean when I say you're pushing propaganda. Like, I can point to your specific propaganda source.

I didn't forget they exist they are also a fucking brutal regime, that while isn't failing the way the U.S.S.R. was they in MY OPINION are as strictly Communist as the U.S.S.R. was. And why you particularly bring them up as some kind of better example I don't know. I wouldn't but oh well.

As I said much earlier, I'm capable of separating totalitarianism as a political system from communism as an economic system. When analysing the "success" of an economic system, you kind of have to look at economic outcomes, like productivity growth and the like, not political outcomes, which are the result of the political system.

You keep conflating the two while claiming you understand "nuance", and that's the opposite of understanding nuance.

Were talking about too big to fail as it relates to tech companies control on the internet.

And we're here because you decided to claim that any socialist reforms to check these things couldn't possibly help, because communism is bad. We're at this point because you've failed to back that claim up, or how it applies to socialist reforms.

[cubby]

What the fuck do you mean it's not a legitimate opinion and who the fuck are you to make yourself the judge of what is legitimate when it comes to my fucking opinion.

This is something that you have continuously and consistently failed to understand. An opinion can be entirely illegitimate. The judge of that is reality. If you thought a strawberry was an animal, your opinion would be illegitimate and wrong. Because in reality a strawberry isn't an animal.

If you had an opinion that a strawberry tasted better than animals, that is a legitimate opinion, because it isn't inconsistent with reality.

What you fail to do, over and over again throughout these forums, is understand this very basic tenet of communication. Opinions aren't infallible. They can literally be wrong. Because reality trumps opinion, every time. When you do finally understand this most fundamental point, you will feel much better, like a weight being lifted off your chest.

[Doctor Amadeus]

It's factually incorrect. That's what makes it illegitimate. It's like claiming that avocados are animals. They just aren't, and you don't get to claim they are. Not without people point out your position is ridiculous.

This comparison is ridiculous, that is not how legitimacy works or opinion.

Jesus wept.

That's not what "authoritarianism" means. This is exactly what I mean about you making stuff up, and why your arguments don't hold up.

No this is just another example of you "Look at my link" rather then articulate what it means. Use your keyboard. Also again this is you misapplying the term to what I said and forgetting the entire point of my quote which was a response to you talking about enforcing rules.

1> "Communism" carries no necessary implication of "totalitarianism". Again, you claimed that repeatedly, it remains false.

No I didn't

2> Your "opinion" is based on intentional misrepresentations of what basic concepts actually mean. Why are you so resistant to using terms correctly so your views

No it's not in fact this entire conversation and back and fourth was initiated by you, after my comment about the thread discussion at hand. You are at this point actively just championing Communism at this point.

don't get confused? You keep insisting you can use words to mean whatever you want, and that's not how language works.

No I'm saying language is just as important as context and you have completely lost that point thus far.

3> I am taking you at what you actually said. If I'm getting your views wrong because you're using words incorrectly and refuse to change that, you can't blame me (or anyone else) for misunderstanding you. We can only go off the words you actually use. We don't have access to your inner thoughts. The onus is on you to stop mangling the language.

You mean that I made a reference to Communism as it relates to the bail outs part of the sub prime mortgage crises?

I'm gonna say this one more time;

Any argument that points out a particular system collapsed and thus it's "bad" is an intentionally, maliciously misleading argument.

Based on what, am I reading the news, am I giving an update, are you under some believe I influence anybody here in terms of important journalistic or academic facts. That I absolutely must because not to offend or slight WHO communist?

All systems fail, in time. Any argument you make based on a particular nation's system collapsing, I am going to straight-up ignore moving forward, because it isn't an argument. Especially because plenty of capitalist nations have "failed" in that respect, too; it isn't even a distinguishing factor.

Apples and Oranges, at this point because Capitalism and what and how it's understood works and thrives while Communism doesn't

That's a stat you're pulling from the Black Book of Communism, a literal propaganda piece so egregiously dishonest that several of its three co-authors disavowed it and the third (primary) author, for misrepresenting their work. By any equal application of the Black Book's methodology, "Capitalism" has a much larger death toll.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bl...k_of_Communism
http://www.spectrezine.org/global/chomsky.html

I'll actually click on the link's for those because I am curious what you are referencing

This is what I mean when I say you're pushing propaganda. Like, I can point to your specific propaganda source.

Well there do exist people who hate communism and don't know what it is, and others who use it as a dog whistle as everything wrong with anything. I am not one of those people. However I can for sure say Stalin or no Stalin Communism has by it's failures cause for millions to starve to death, millions more to be subjugated under brutal government rule. That has happened I am not exactly sure what your problem is with me pointing that out.

As I said much earlier, I'm capable of separating totalitarianism as a political system from communism as an economic system. When analysing the "success" of an economic system, you kind of have to look at economic outcomes, like productivity growth and the like, not political outcomes, which are the result of the political system.

Yes and I can point out the fact it's used as a measure of control and great harm without being supposed that I am rabid mouthing Communism. I am not

You keep conflating the two while claiming you understand "nuance", and that's the opposite of understanding nuance.

Nuance in that what arguments are about what subjects are specifically discussed and the CONTEXT of that conversation.

Me saying I love Strawberry Ice Cream it's the best, isn't your opportunity to fucking scream You don't know what the best is or that I am wrong because someone in a link found it's Cherry.

It doesn't fucking matter, I could say Cherry taste like a Hot Damn Gorilla, that doesn't fucking mean you get to tell me I am Wrong, or regulate my take. You can disagree.

But that doesn't suddenly mean I am saying whatever the fuck you make up as it applies to anything else. I also don't need to editorialize If I am speaking literal or figuratively.....

And we're here because you decided to claim that any socialist reforms to check these things couldn't possibly help, because communism is bad. We're at this point because you've failed to back that claim up, or how it applies to socialist reforms.

No I didn't say that at all, but I did say people are fucking stupid and no people in general should never be in control of private enterprise unless they are a share holder of said Tech Company's

- - - Updated - - -

This is something that you have continuously and consistently failed to understand. An opinion can be entirely illegitimate. The judge of that is reality. If you thought a strawberry was an animal, your opinion would be illegitimate and wrong. Because in reality a strawberry isn't an animal.

Nope and I just touched on this, NO I DO NOT!

If you had an opinion that a strawberry tasted better than animals, that is a legitimate opinion, because it isn't inconsistent with reality.

It's legitimate simply because I said it, that's the beauty of freedom of speech, I am free to say as I please, believe and express myself, and you can say nope.

What you fail to do, over and over again throughout these forums, is understand this very basic tenet of communication. Opinions aren't infallible. They can literally be wrong. Because reality trumps opinion, every time. When you do finally understand this most fundamental point, you will feel much better, like a weight being lifted off your chest.

If Trumps opinion was that of Strawberries he'd likely still be President and nary a single fuck would be given. However when this moron doesn't know how The Law Works, The Constitution, Executive responsibility, or appreciates experts in fields critical to the entire nation he serves. That is a different story.






Anyways, I am done responding to anymore post on this issue from Endus or anyone else of said conversation, BECAUSE, I really have no intention of derailing the thread. Sometimes conversations start and they keep going and going and have to realize there is only so much space in a space to conclude that conversation.


I will be MORE than glad to go into a thread if it's allowed to argue ANY of what has been discussed or more Specifically Communism, or Opinion if someone makes the Appropriate thread. SO unless it's specifically a reply to me about big teach companies being too big to fail and requiring any kind of oversight by the government which I say they clearly shouldn't ever then I am done.

[cubby]

It's legitimate simply because I said it, that's the beauty of freedom of speech, I am free to say as I please, believe and express myself, and you can say nope.

It's fine if you don't understand how opinions work, your ignorance is your business. But while opinions are definitely yours to give, because of freedom of speech, they aren't legitimate if they conflict with reality. Strawberries aren't animals, and no amount of freedom of speech shouting will change the legitimacy of that opinion.

If you have any other questions or need clarifications, just let us know. But I agree, we can put this to bed.

[Cthulhu 2020]

It explains why "employee" isn't clear anymore, as we think it was 19th century. And most megacorporations are publicly listed with thousand (or more) owners - the CEO of Amazon owns 0.02% of the company.

And the things employees consider important may not be what you care about; combined that's why employee-owned is an unclear concept that will not solve these issues.

Remember that Google employee stopped Google from doing some work? Not about anything discussed in this thread, but just because they were peace-loving "hippies" and didn't want to work on military projects. (I know some people with similar concerns, and others without it.)

And? Share/stock holding is just another one of those functions of late stage capitalism that allows wealth to accumulate at the top. If people want side hustles where they have no stake in the company, that's fine. That still doesn't change the fact that employee owned would be better for both the employees and the customers. The only one who benefits from the top down model is the people at the top.

And again, just because companies are abusing contracting work doesn't mean jack shit to your point. Employee owned and operated works just fine even if people WANT to contract. Which, by the way, most people don't. Contracting is only used in such large amounts these days IN THE USA because it's just another way to get around paying full time and part time benefits. It's further proof that companies with low numbers of owners actively seek methods to compensate their employees as little as possible.

[Mayhem]

That the company makes more money depends on the business decisions the company makes - and does not indicate that they should be paid in proportion. The flip-side of paying more in successful companies is that people in failing companies should be paid considerably less - and that's a bad idea - they should change or go bankrupt.
(There's likely some bonus in those companies, as in many others; see below.)

And for the flip-side of cost of living non-salary benefits have increased in recent years in the US (better from a tax point of view).

Do tell, how much does a company make that makes the best business decisions but their workforce is on strike?

I also saw those figures and the figures for Alphabet do not make sense; and trying to compare it with the "competitor" Google indicates that something is very wrong. (Originally Alphabet was a owned by Google, and now it is reversed - but in no way are they competitors, and comparing them doesn't make sense.)

Others claim the median pay at Alphabet was nearly 200k in 2018
https://www.investopedia.com/news/go...ay-close-200k/

And total compensation was even higher in 2021 - https://www.spglobal.com/marketintel...rinks-67215930
Those figures are not consistent with the alleged average, and normally I would expect that the average is above the median.

So you only trust the figures that help your argument?

yeah that's a take

Also, I take contract workers for 1000 Mayim. What are the bestest richest companies paying them and how are they treated?

Amazon isn't primarily a tech-company as the others so it makes sense that the salaries differ, and Proteus and Cardinal will do the work of those employees (well, according to the press-release they will just supplement the workers and reduce the dangerous parts, but wait a few years - and possible successors - and the number of employees in fulfilment centers will likely start to decline).

And, as in most cases, it wasn't the case of starting a company to build those robots, but buying an existing one (or two).

What does this have to do with being a tech company? Amazon revenue was 460bn (that's 4x google) last year and they can't afford to pay their workers accordingly? wtf

- - - Updated - - -

I just really, really don't want to get into a huge "no true Scotsman" fight over what fits the definition. It isn't productive on either level. I'm perfectly willing to concede that China's an example of communism, even if I think it's a fairly shitty implementation of the principles.

Especially since if we apply the standard in reverse, there's no "good" implementations of capitalism, either, and then we're just left spinning our wheels pointlessly. On both sides.

Plus, mid-20th-Century China leading into modern China would still qualify as "success" by pretty much any objective measure of an economic system's function.

Oh sure, they did something with it, also I wouldn't say it's the "no true Scotsman" fallacy but at some point, communism was exchanged for national capitalism.

[Forogil]

Do tell, how much does a company make that makes the best business decisions but their workforce is on strike?

Are Microsoft, Apple, and Google employees actually on strike?

No, because they don't view it the same way.

So you only trust the figures that help your argument?

No, I mistrust figures that don't make sense. We have multiple sites reporting numbers that seem to make sense, and one outlier that is comparing Alphabet (stock ticker: GOOGL) with Google - I see multiple red flags for that site, and dismiss it.

You should as well.

One of the problems with 'Google' (and other search engines, and auto-generated web-pages listing salaries etc) is exactly that people, like you, can easily find some webpage and disengage the brain and don't question whether the numbers make sense. When confronted they then double-down and thus we have all the various conspiracies floating around.

So, be wary of false information on the internet.

BTW - you might also find Alphabet Preschool. Allegedly they have an average salary above $3M. Make sense, right?

What does this have to do with being a tech company?

Lack of workers in tech, for various reasons including the length and complexity of education and training mean that tech companies normally pay a high salary.

You do know that different jobs pay different salaries on average?
You do know that the life-average also differs substantially?

Additionally the difference in productive of a good tech worker compared to an average is huge, and thus some leading tech companies are willing to pay a premium to attract them. The impression I get is that Amazon's warehouse workers are in a different situation.

- - - Updated - - -

And? Share/stock holding is just another one of those functions of late stage capitalism that allows wealth to accumulate at the top.

Lots of shares are owned by ordinary persons directly or indirectly; this in contrast to the earlier wealth accumulation in the hands of one owner.

And again, just because companies are abusing contracting work doesn't mean jack shit to your point.

It wasn't just about Uber abusing contracting work but that many companies use contracting in various forms because it makes business sense (specialization, economies of scale, and variations of demand over time, etc), and/or is desired by the employee (for various reasons).

You should visit earth and see how it is in the reality.

- - - Updated - - -

Plus, mid-20th-Century China leading into modern China would still qualify as "success" by pretty much any objective measure of an economic system's function.

That's is such an despicable statement.

Tens of millions died in China due to those policies, and all you can think of is trying construct a nice sounding quip to gloss over it.

Moreover it is based on a false understanding of the economies of the world. China's economy isn't that amazing - what has happened is that they've gone from piss-poor to slightly below average; while having a large population.

Here's GDP/capita to show that:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/m...N~OWID_WRL~JPN

China was practically stagnant between 1950 and 1970, when they tried to implement communism, whereas Taiwan, S. Korea steamed ahead and are now close to caught up with the western world. Note that Taiwan transitioned from an autocracy to a multi-party democracy while having that growth.

What is even more striking is that China has actually grown more slowly than the Taiwan, S. Korea, and Japan despite having a larger gap to cover.
(Note that it's difficult to do this comparison with most GDP-databases due to the political status of Taiwan.)

Note the decline in 1958-1962 without any war; to quote wikipedia:

CCP Chairman Mao Zedong launched the campaign to reconstruct the country from an agrarian economy into a communist society through the formation of people's communes.

[Muzjhath]

Managed to reply to all that, but still missed out this bit about Amazon:

Weird.

Wait for deflection about how Amazon employees are well-paid.
Omitting how contractors or technically independent delivery companies who only service one supplier underpays

[Mayhem]

Managed to reply to all that, but still missed out this bit about Amazon:

Weird.

Ah, he also ignored the part about contract workers because that makes Apple, Google, and Microsoft look like bad employers and you don't want that.

- - - Updated - - -

Are Microsoft, Apple, and Google employees actually on strike?

the point









you

[Forogil]

Wait for deflection about how Amazon employees are well-paid.

From whom? Amazon employees in warehouses aren't paid well in absolute terms - but that's because most of them have jobs with low entry requirements. I already explained why it doesn't make sense to compare them to Google, Apple, etc.

Whether they are well-paid compared to similar jobs is harder to say - both because there aren't many identical jobs so it depends on what you compare with, and because it depends on whether it is just the salary or benefits (they have shifted from one to the other).

Omitting how contractors or technically independent delivery companies who only service one supplier underpays

That depends; contractors is such a varied description - from high-paying ones at management consultants like Accenture to low-paying ones.

In many cases contracting exist because it makes business sense (specialization, economies of scale, and variations of demand over time, etc), and/or is desired by the employee (for various reasons). It's not necessarily wrong or problematic in itself.

But "independent contractors" at the likes of Uber (and especially food delivery companies like Uber Eats) has problems - and it seems the companies in general go with the motto "move fast and break laws". However, the reason for all that contracting issue is to demonstrate that "employee" isn't a clear concept nowadays.

Added: That's the main point - the modern world is more complicated, and we need 21st century solution to 21st century problems; and actually analyze the problem first - not kneejerk reactions for solutions that haven't worked before. The listed companies aren't "too big to fail" and attempting to "break them up" indicates a failure to understand why they have grown large; if there is a problem it is in terms of impact when they are successful - and then we need to analyze that to see if it can and should be regulated.

(A separate issue is that whether they are too big to tax; there's some effort of introducing a minimum global corporate tax to correct that - but it's unclear if Amazon have found a loop-hole again or not.)

[Cthulhu 2020]

Lots of shares are owned by ordinary persons directly or indirectly; this in contrast to the earlier wealth accumulation in the hands of one owner.

Last I checked something like 50% of stocks and shares are owned by less than 1% of the population. Just because Joe Schmoe owns $100k in diversified shares doesn't mean anything, nor does it give them any kind of realistic control over a company. And further illustration, the shares and stocks of most companies are largely owned by their own leadership. The people who own the rest of the shares are people who don't even work there. They just want a secure financial future. The amount of stocks owned by normal every day people is laughably small, making your "point" horrible.

It wasn't just about Uber abusing contracting work but that many companies use contracting in various forms because it makes business sense (specialization, economies of scale, and variations of demand over time, etc), and/or is desired by the employee (for various reasons).

I mean, you're just wrong. There's little else to say. Next time you use an uber, ask them if they're doing it because they WANT to be a contractor, or if it's just a side gig because their primary work doesn't pay enough. Uber offers basically no benefits, and the pay is garbage. Ask anyone who does contracting work with zero benefits if they'd rather have a full time job with full time employee benefits and I guarantee you basically all of them will prefer the full time work.

Some people drive Uber because they have disabilities, but again, it's because that's their only option as it allows them to work when they want and for how long they want, and stop working when they work. Why? Because most full time and all part time jobs work you to the absolute bone. Anyone who ever says minimum wage work is "easy" has never worked a day in retail in their lives, or is in peak physical fitness and in the early part of their life.

You should visit earth and see how it is in the reality.

You are so hilariously tone deaf to why people even do the work they do, I wonder why I'm even bothering to explain these simple concepts to you. You are utterly blind and ignorant of the job market and why it sucks. Things like being a youtuber or twitch streamer are a dream job for many. But that's not because they necessarily want to be a contractor. It's because it "looks" like an easy job where you just play video games or make fun videos. For every youtuber or streamer that makes it, I can show you a thousand that don't.

It's utterly mind boggling just how ignorant you can be about jobs and the reasons people take them.

Like even if someone WANTS to work for Uber, I can guarantee the reasons mostly involve how much working for massive megacorporations is like being fucked in the ass for 12 hours a day every day, and not because they find the work inherently desirable on its own merits. Imagine, not working for rich assholes who want to squeeze every penny out of you they can. Except you still are. They're just leaving the hours up to you.



Seriously though, this is me trying to comprehend how you can come to the conclusions you have. It's like you're stuck in your own little bubble completely locked off from reality.

And circling back to what this is all about - JUST BECAUSE A FEW SELECT PEOPLE WANT A SIDE HUSTLE DOES NOT MEAN EMPLOYEE OWNERSHIP OF BUSINESSES IS OUTDATED. There is zero cause-effect going on here. You've failed to illustrate your point on this because you fundamentally misunderstand why so many people do contract work and why it is abused by massive companies.

- - - Updated - - -

Wait for deflection about how Amazon employees are well-paid.
Omitting how contractors or technically independent delivery companies who only service one supplier underpays

Like this guy. And so many other people understand why contracting is being abused. So many people understand that contracting is common not because people want to "Work for themselves" but because sometimes it's their only option and they can't get full time or even part time work with any decent benefits.

Forogil, I imagine you've heard so many success stories from people who work for themselves and are loving it. And they're all trying to sell you something. They're either MLM schemes or courses on how to work for yourself and make a fortune. None of which ever work. People build up stories about how great working for yourself is because they want to sell you their course that doesn't actually teach you anything.

- - - Updated - - -

Added: That's the main point - the modern world is more complicated, and we need 21st century solution to 21st century problems

On this one thing we agree. The world sucks. Businesses suck. Our economic model is failing us. Time to tear down the oligarchy and give the power back to the people.


But for what, the fifth time now? You have yet to answer why democracy is good for governments and bad for businessses.

You keep ignoring it. Why is that? Because you KNOW that dictatorships suck? And that can easily be extrapolated to businesses and how a small ruling elite mistreats and underpays their employees?

[Endus]

Last I checked something like 50% of stocks and shares are owned by less than 1% of the population.

Perhaps more meaningfully; 89% of stocks in the USA are owned by the top 10% of wage earners; https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/18/the-...us-stocks.html

Stock ownership is a rich man's game. It does not benefit the working class. Either in terms of dividends, or in terms of control.

You are so hilariously tone deaf to why people even do the work they do, I wonder why I'm even bothering to explain these simple concepts to you. You are utterly blind and ignorant of the job market and why it sucks. Things like being a youtuber or twitch streamer are a dream job for many. But that's not because they necessarily want to be a contractor. It's because it "looks" like an easy job where you just play video games or make fun videos. For every youtuber or streamer that makes it, I can show you a thousand that don't.

Being a successful streamer is also a hell of a lot of work that goes largely unrecognized. It isn't just "playing games and chatting". You're pumping your donors constantly, because maintaining those parasocial relationships keeps the money coming in. You're sticking to a schedule and making content, because just watching you play is boring. Streaming video games is like playing competitive e-sports while simultaneously conducting a live improv show and also pitching/selling product, whether that's your own merch, a sponsor's product, or just your other content and that of other streamers (who'll do the same for you in return).

Anyone saying it's just making money by playing video games doesn't understand the job. Also, this isn't "independence"; because you're only getting half your sub money on Twitch; Twitch makes the other half. You're still being exploited by the owner class, it's just a model where they don't pay you directly, they take a cut of your earnings. Like when a band works with a record label, say. This isn't

- - - Updated - - -

On this one thing we agree. The world sucks. Businesses suck. Our economic model is failing us. Time to tear down the oligarchy and give the power back to the people.

21st century models for 21st century economies? So, like, modern market socialism?

Hell, it'd help if we could at least break things down to simple questions like "what three things should an economy seek to achieve, above all others", because that's how you define what's "successful", and so many Capitalists hold principles like "make as much money for the owner class as possible" as a primary principle, and do not include any comparable principle for the worker class. And stating that shit outright would at least expose the biases and implicit dishonesty.

[gondrin]

Ok, some of the conversations here are talking about employee-owned businesses. I work for one of those businesses. Biggest misconceptions is who actually owns the business and what do employees get out of said businesses.

Most of the employee-owned businesses are called ESOPs(Employee Stock Ownership Plan). You own a share of the stocks in said businesses and after it is fully vested, you will get a payout regardless of how you leave the company(fired, quit, retired) as the company buys it from you when you leave. However, these are generally non voting shares so, as an employee, I do not get a vote in how things are run, whether raises are given out, benefits or the like. I also neither get a share of the profits of said company as it isn't dividend generating shares. There is a standard structure in the business where you still have supervisors and corporate. As I tell people, I am owner in name only. I get no say on how things are run except in the department I run nor is my job safe from being terminated if I do something against the rules as would be an owner of the company(barring anything illegal that the owner does).

While not all employee-owned businesses are like this, most in the US are set up this way. This is coming from personal experience and only pertains to myself.

[Cthulhu 2020]

21st century models for 21st century economies? So, like, modern market socialism?

Hell, it'd help if we could at least break things down to simple questions like "what three things should an economy seek to achieve, above all others", because that's how you define what's "successful", and so many Capitalists hold principles like "make as much money for the owner class as possible" as a primary principle, and do not include any comparable principle for the worker class. And stating that shit outright would at least expose the biases and implicit dishonesty.

Pretty much. They can either have the American dream where they seek to make it so that everyone can succeed and have a respectable middle class income of, what would it be compared to the 1950's, $200k a year? And the ultra wealthy won't be AS ultra wealthy, but they'll still be far richer than everyone else.

Or they can resign us to an oligarchy of rich ruling elite and everyone kept under their thumbs and in terrible working conditions.

Prosperity for everyone does not work in the current conservative model. As long as they continue to defend the mega corporation wages, working conditions, employee benefits, etc. will all remain shit. These people defend mega corporations in the name of capitalism, and then have the audacity to turn around and blame the job market being shit and the US run by some shadow elite and George Soros. It's like, motherfucker, it was your economics that got us here in the first place.

This model of trickle down economics that we've been chasing since the 1970's is like trying to climb a mountain by digging a hole.

"Don't worry, just keep throwing money at megacorporations and things will get better, we promise!"
"Why aren't things getting better?! It's all the socialists' faults! We don't know nor can we explain why it's their fault, but it is! Quick give the rich and corporations more tax breaks!"

[Poopymonster]

This model of trickle down economics that we've been chasing since the 1970's is like trying to climb a mountain by digging a hole.

I'd tell you a joke about trickle down economics, but 99% of you wouldn't get it.

[Strawberry]

Wasn't one of the Samsung heirs pardoned by South Korea because he is too important for the country economy?
Yeah that right there is a bad example of a company becoming way too big to affect a whole country.

Edit:
Here's a link: https://arstechnica.com/information-...conomic-needs/

[Draco-Onis]

Wasn't one of the Samsung heirs pardoned by South Korea because he is too important for the country economy?
Yeah that right there is a bad example of a company becoming way too big to affect a whole country.

Edit:
Here's a link: https://arstechnica.com/information-...conomic-needs/

No different in the US where we have coined the term too big to jail.

[Rennadrel]

Breaking up big companies like Google and Amazon has wide support across the spectrum...it's inevitable.

Google needs to be regulated, as do the social media companies, as much as any other company. The issue with Google is more that they have way too much power with curating information, and even Google Search will always prioritize either big tech, big media or any other large corporation relating to what you are searching. So all the big companies keep benefiting from the page visits and as revenue. Doesn't help that you also have social media outright influencing elections in many countries around the world now, which needs to stop.