• J Lou@mastodon.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It wasn’t even the case in the 50s. Giving workers what they are responsible for producing would require changing the structure of property relations. An employer cannot do it without abolishing their own role

    • taiyang@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well, it was closer I guess? I mean, compared to the income disparity we are today.

      Of course whenever there is anyone who makes money simply by owning a company, I’d agree they aren’t really worth anything except maybe the effort to found said company (which isn’t really the case with investors, share holders, corporations, etc). There is some value in taking the initiative and risk, just not like… hundreds times more than the employee.

      • J Lou@mastodon.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Workers should be able to realize the value of what they produce in basically getting the pure profits of the firm.

        Value doesn’t get to the heart of the matter. Property rights to positive and negative fruits of labor do. When you consider what taking on the risk and initiative means in this context, it is really taking on the negative fruits of labor (liabilities for used-up inputs). Workers should get both the positive and negative fruits of their labor, and take the initiative