1028
What does it say inside that big red circle?
I wonder how many outraged posters have ever tried to be their own boss. I gladly trade 50% of my potential income for uninterrupted family time, PTO, marketing, customer service, support, accounting, tax declaration, and all the other crap that I had to do myself as a freelancer.
Some people like doing those other tasks and the owner/boss doesn’t do them but pays others to (while still taking the biggest chunk of the proceeds).
There are other forms of organization than capitalistic corporations with a parasite at the top. Cooperatives, collectives, and other organizations like that even exist today and are successfully functioning. The parasite serves no vital function and can be cut out to the benefit of everybody else.
In the company I work for the CEO does quite a lot of work, in the previous company the owners were there when I came in the morning and still there when I left home, writing code like me but also meeting customers, doing acquisition, finding out why the cleaning company didn't send anyone that week, etc.
If being "a boss" is so easy, I don't understand why don't everyone here just go freelance, hire people and start browsing for Ferraris.
You are describing other workers who own part of the company. Just because you call them "boss" does not make them the same as all "bosses", and it certainly doesn't make them the same as those taking the bulk of market profits in general.
So we consider CEOs and owners not bosses?
Just to clarify: this was a startup and all 3 were the only co-owners, +5 employees .
It depends on the person and situation.
The part of the strata they occupy is the petite bourgeoisie. Within this group there are people who work their asses off and compensate themselves accordingly, while giving a fair share to the workers under them. There are also people who squeeze their workers for every penny, giving the bare minimum to survive while doing nothing of note themselves except rent seeking.
I have worked for business like what you are describing. My bosses ate and slept their jobs. They took a greater share. They also compensated us well and gave us a part of the profits when things were good.
When people are complaining about "bosses" and what they do, they are not complaining about those people. They are complaining about the much larger set of bosses (by market share) that absolutely do not do those things.
Do you think Zuckerberg is like your boss? Musk? Trump? The family that runs Walmart does not put in as much labor as their entire employee base.
Even in the lower strata, most bosses are not like the people you describe, and to come here and defend "bosses" with your outlier examples (by market share), is disingenuous.
How does that boot taste?
The early 20th century labor movement negotiated with the 1% to get a ceasefire in the class war. Here we are now.
What have we learned about negotiating with capitalists?
That they are often reasonable and quick to adjust to market conditions to maintain the quality of life of employees because they care deeply!?!?! Is it that?!
Narrator: it was not that
load more comments
(4 replies)
"Well, but I own the machines."
"How did you get the machines?"
"Sold products and bought them."
"Wait, you sold products before buying the machine? How did you make those products? That seems like circular reasoning."
"Actually, you're right, I initially took out a loan to buy the machine in the hopes I could sell enough products to pay off the loan."
"That seems like it was a risk."
"It was. But, I spent a lot of time analyzing the market, coming up with estimates of how much people would buy, how much someone who could operate the machine would cost in wages, all that sort of thing."
"That seems like a lot of work."
"It was a fair amount of work."
"Who paid you to do that work?"
"Nobody paid me, I hoped to get paid once I could start selling products."
"So, why didn't your worker start his own business and buy his own machine instead?"
"Ah, well, that's the part that's a bit unfair. See, I could afford to spend the time analyzing the market because my family is rich, and I didn't need to work gruelling 8 hour days. Also, when it came time to take out a loan to buy the machine, the bank was happy to give me the loan because of my family name."
"Ah, and your worker?"
"Great guy, but he has a family to support and no rich parents. He couldn't take the time to analyze the market for a new business because he has to hold down a job. And, even if he could find the time to do that, the bank probably wouldn't give him a loan for a new business because he doesn't have any business history, or assets to use as collateral. Also, he can't really afford to fail."
"Afford to fail?"
"Yes. Like I said, I have rich parents. If my business fails, my dad will rib me about it a bit. But, it's not like I'll be out on the street."
"And your worker?"
"Well, he could certainly try to start a business, but if the business failed he'd be in real trouble. No rich parents, you see. Plus, I have great accountants. If my business fails, they'll use it as an offset for my taxes. Technically, anybody can do that, but good luck figuring out how to do that with TurboTax or something."
"So, really, it's oversimplifying to say that you do nothing, and the worker does everything."
"Yeah, he makes what I tell him to make, but I figure out how much to charge, where to sell it, where to buy the raw materials, basically everything about the business other than operating the machine."
"But, operating the machine is important."
"Of course! It's vitally important. But, you see, I bought a machine that costs a little more but is designed to be extremely easy to use. Because just about anybody can use it, I don't need a worker with special skills. That means I don't have to pay too much in wages."
"So, really, if there's unfairness here it's structural. You come from a rich family, so it's easy for you to start a business. He doesn't, so his only real option is to get a job from someone like you."
"That's right."
"But, it seems like that could all be changed with a few changes to the laws. You pay a bit more in taxes, he pays a bit less, then he can save up and maybe start his own business?"
"Yeah, that might work. But, here's the kicker. He voted for the same guy I did. The other candidate was promising tax reforms, enforcing anti-monopoly laws, etc. But, my guy got everyone scared about trans athletes and brown people crossing the border. My worker's a good guy, but he's super racist. As long as you're going after the brown people, that's what matters to him."
A relatively fair assessment, overall I approve of the framing. But, you're describing the petit bourgeoisie.
"Yeah, he makes what I tell him to make, but I figure out how much to charge, where to sell it, where to buy the raw materials, basically everything about the business other than operating the machine."
If, as a business owner, you're doing all that, then yeah you're doing real labor and deserve recompense. But the broader critique is of the owners who don't do any of those things. In larger businesses, those tasks tend to be handled by other wage workers.
I think the thing I find deeply unfair about the situation is let’s say this arrangement of work is 100% accurate.
The owner did the analysis, took out the loan, set up the machine that the worker works.
At some point that work ends for the owner, the analysis is complete, the loan is paid back. There capitalists work effectively ends and the workers goes on forever and the split stays the same.
There is no point where the owner goes, “well if I had billed the company for my analysis and the initial loan I’d have been paid back 10 times over, time to give more to the worker.”
They get to set up the machine because of the wealth and privilege that is indicated here and then extract forever.
When they die, they can hand that enterprise to their heir, who did nothing. Not one ounce of analysis, not one drop of risk in taking out a loan, and that heir can extract value forever.
And they will get to take $6 of every $10 forever because they had the good fortune of being able to afford the machine and take advantage of a system set up by people that own machines which unsurprisingly has a simple rule, the people that own machines get the money.
At some point that work ends for the owner
It doesn't really. They need to keep aware of what's happening in the market. What are their competitors doing? Is the market becoming saturated? Are there new technologies which will change things? Are fashions changing? Are laws changing?
It's probably less work to keep things going than it is to initially open the business, but the work never ends. Most businesses don't even last 10 years, let alone "forever". 5 years is about the average a business lasts. That's because the job of the owner, spotting problems before they hit the business and adapting the business to the new situation, is hard. It's not difficult labour, like running a machine can sometimes be, but it is difficult to get it right.
When they die, they can hand that enterprise to their heir, who did nothing
Estate taxes and inheritance taxes exist. They're far too generous most of the time, but they exist.
In general, a successful business is a good thing for everyone. The fact that it's successful means that people think that whatever it's selling is worth buying. They're better off with less money and whatever the business is selling than they were with just the money. Their world is better because the business exists. In addition, a successful business that generates a profit can be taxed. Taxes from successful businesses can be used by the government to provide services for everybody.
So, we should be encouraging people to start businesses. One obvious way of encouraging it is to allow them to keep some of the profits that result. Of course, that should be offset by the taxes the business pays. The question is what level of taxation is too little vs. too much.
It's also unfair that starting a business is easy for some people who are already rich, and difficult for everyone else. Something like UBI would start to even the playing field, allowing someone the opportunity to fail without losing everything.
Fundamentally, the problem is that the rich and powerful always ensure that the laws and the structure of society benefits the rich and powerful. But, it goes in cycles. When they get too rich and too powerful, there is often unrest that takes the power back.
Yes, the owner does important work, but that work should not give them the right to all the profits produced by the business. Taxes are not a solution to the structural inequality created by private ownership of the means of production, they are a bandaid that alleviates some of the worst consequences. The only way to resolve the structural inequality is for the means of production to be collectively owned by all of the workers who use it, and for business decisions to be made democratically by said workers or by a person elected democratically by the workers (who should themselves be an equal owner of the means of production).
It would be better if the person in charge of determining the runnings of the factory and the allocation of all that wealth could be an elected position that could be unelected if the business was not going well.
Similarly, it's a crazy concept to say that all of that purchasing of machines, property, and resources could be a waste because we predicate the whole thing on "risk" like it's a game designed explicitly to put one person into a higher class over the other and not a matter of wasted resources that should be meant to increase the well-being of both individuals equally.
I can't tell if this is pro or anti capitalist tbh
Good.
it's almost like the economic model name we give it is irrelevant and we should instead be focused on processes and outcomes 🤔
“Processes and outcomes”
The title of the book you are describing is literally “Capital.”
load more comments
(1 replies)
I think it (maybe unintentionally) falls on the pro-capitalist side because it suggests that the fundamental contradiction of capitalism — that private ownership of the means of production inevitably leads to class-based unequal relationships to production — can be reformed. In reality, reforms are used by the capitalist class to placate workers and defuse revolutionary fervor, and are eroded almost immediately after passing. Only a complete revolution to collective worker ownership of the means of production can resolve the contradiction.
I meant because the trope of the poors being ignorant racists was a bit too hard to believe someone would want to admit to.
"Yeah, that might work. But, here's the kicker. He voted for the same guy I did. The other candidate was promising tax reforms, enforcing anti-monopoly laws, etc. But, my guy got everyone scared about trans athletes and brown people crossing the border. My worker's a good guy, but he's super racist. As long as you're going after the brown people, that's what matters to him."
Yeah, that’s a bit anti-worker, but racism and bigotry is one way that capitalists stoke division in the ruling class, and it has been very effective so far.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(34 replies)
I got a solution: we stop rewarding this by all taking a risk and making our own stuff, instead of bending over backwards to get exploited.
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
$4.00 in October 1937 has the same buying power as $91.78 in August 2026.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Instead of distractions over exact numbers, apply Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit: Does the pattern of owners profiting more from workers’ labor, and compensate as "market allows", hold true regardless of the specific dollar amounts?
Let us not nitpick numbers as a distraction, but instead focus on the trend and the systemic issues of low wages, inferior benefits compared to many other nations, so they have less artificial scarcity and better lives, which is the goal. Demand better for all, not less for others once you got yours!
Gold
Well, technically, customers pay bosses.
load more comments
(2 replies)
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2026
1028 points (98.7% liked)
Work Reform
17755 readers
1935 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