1073
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2026
1073 points (98.6% liked)
Work Reform
17768 readers
1299 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Well of course, because a business has more expenses than just paying the worker. Material needs to be paid, taxes, insurances etc. If the worker would receive the full value for his production, the company would lose money and go bankrupt within months.
Your train of thought has a gap. The boss has no monopoly on money. The customer has. He's the one that buys or pays something. The boss is, more or less, at the mercy of his customers. This is less of a problem if the boss sells something that is crucial to your life, like food, water, housing etc, so things you really need to survive, but a big problem if you sell something that isn't.
That's why I usually say that we as society absolutely have the power to decide which companies live an die. We just don't work together and use that power.
I respectfully disagree.
This analysis ignores bank and finance capital, which are the ones who hold the monopoly on money. So yes, it would be fair to say the boss (individual capitalist) does not hold the monopoly on money, but they have access to very cheap money.
If the individual capitalist didn't have access to cheap loans, and the supply chain wasn't propped up by neocolonialism (i.e. wealth extraction from other countries) then I would agree they would be dependent on the consumer. This had not been the case since the early 19th century or earlier.