32 ms·

What's your point? That statement has nothing to do with the problem at hand.

by W4ldi 3y ago

Draiken 3y ago
How is that not the problem at hand? The only reason the inventor didn't get properly compensated is because the system is designed to reward existing capital. I can guarantee you the CEO that inherited the position due to family ties didn't earn $60k a year. Neither he worked for a year and a half without weekends. This is capitalism.
dymk 3y ago
The problem is that he was unfairly compensated by the economic system (capitalism) he works in, and had to fight for years only to just about break even on legal fees. The guy's gumption led to the invention of a multi-billion dollar pear year industry, and he got basically none of it.
- ralusek 3y ago
  The inverse also happens, though, because socialism fails to capture the value. According to the labor theory of value, for example, his work would’ve been valued at some function of (training * hours worked). Despite creating billions in value for humanity, he would’ve been treated very similarly to the rest of his coworkers
  - Draiken 3y ago
    Nobody's talking about socialism. But let's say it was a more socialist society. As a result, everyone would be earning more, including him. And maybe the CEO that tried to fuck his research would earn less. IDK but for me that sounds like a very good trade-off, given the CEO did nothing, as always, and got billions.
- legitster 3y ago
  > The guy's gumption led to the invention of a multi-billion dollar pear year industry, and he got basically none of it. But... the billion dollar industry is also capitalism? This logic is circular and makes no sense. If there is no capitalism there is no compensation to be distributed in this case, period. The argument that he was unfairly compensated based on merit is fundamentally a capitalist argument. You can't play it both ways.
  - dymk 3y ago
    Are you saying the outcome here is fair and desirable? The first step to fixing a problem is admitting one exists. This seems clearly like a failure of capitalism to reward the innovation of a person who actually did the innovation.

What's your point? That statement has nothing to do with the problem at hand.

by W4ldi 3y ago

What's your point? That statement has nothing to do with the problem at hand.

How is that not the problem at hand? The only reason the inventor didn't get properly compensated is because the system is designed to reward existing capital. I can guarantee you the CEO that inherited the position due to family ties didn't earn $60k a year. Neither he worked for a year and a half without weekends. This is capitalism.

dymk 3y ago

The problem is that he was unfairly compensated by the economic system (capitalism) he works in, and had to fight for years only to just about break even on legal fees. The guy's gumption led to the invention of a multi-billion dollar pear year industry, and he got basically none of it.

ralusek 3y ago
The inverse also happens, though, because socialism fails to capture the value. According to the labor theory of value, for example, his work would’ve been valued at some function of (training * hours worked). Despite creating billions in value for humanity, he would’ve been treated very similarly to the rest of his coworkers
- Draiken 3y ago
  Nobody's talking about socialism. But let's say it was a more socialist society. As a result, everyone would be earning more, including him. And maybe the CEO that tried to fuck his research would earn less. IDK but for me that sounds like a very good trade-off, given the CEO did nothing, as always, and got billions.
legitster 3y ago
> The guy's gumption led to the invention of a multi-billion dollar pear year industry, and he got basically none of it. But... the billion dollar industry is also capitalism? This logic is circular and makes no sense. If there is no capitalism there is no compensation to be distributed in this case, period. The argument that he was unfairly compensated based on merit is fundamentally a capitalist argument. You can't play it both ways.
- dymk 3y ago
  Are you saying the outcome here is fair and desirable? The first step to fixing a problem is admitting one exists. This seems clearly like a failure of capitalism to reward the innovation of a person who actually did the innovation.