Quote:
Originally Posted by Origen
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Depends. Winona Ryder was just as mentally ill as some nobody shoplifting, but she had the resources to weather it. And she was famous so people noticed.
But some person who owns a few McDonalds'es can't feasibly run the franchises if they pay each employee fifty bucks an hour. There is an incentive to pay the poverty wages that they usually do, so they are "forced" to rob their employees of the value they each produce. Not to mention whatever arcane franchise contract rules that might affect the dough.
Musk steals the labor value of engineers just like Jobs did, and the rich guys before them, but I'd guess most of them knew it was gonna pan out that way and are fine with it.
I think it varies.
|
Can we please stop with the debunked LTV crap? There is no surplus value. LTV is not a valid theory. It's been debunked seven ways to Sunday and yet it's still parroted around here as if saying it seventeen times in a conversation makes it more true. It isn't. Value is subjective and the value of labor is the wage. Labor done today isn't worth revenues minus non-labor costs in the future because this ignores the time value of money: namely that capital isn't contributed at the same time that workers do the work or that workers get paid or that product sells. These are different points in time. It makes absolutely no economic sense to suggest that money invested today is worth exactly the same when product sells a year later, just as it makes no sense to suggest that $X borrowed today will always be worth $X repaid at any indefinite point in the future. Borrowing money (and by extension resources) has a real cost over time that can't be just ignored, and "we'll all lend at 0%!" is fiction and not a real solution.