I think everyone can argue that they don't get paid enough. I know my mom doesn't get paid enough -- she's the nurse's bitch. Cleans the shit out of old fart's bedpans and washes soiled linen, and a couple of other really grotty things. I don't know what her pay is exactly, but I know she ought to get paid more.

Really though, how do you justify exorbitant 'worth' for payment, at the price of the destruction of the business you work for? Imagine if every worker in your local hospital were to demand a wage, and because of that they have to deny treatment to you. Is it right for hospital workers to be unionized like that? And wouldn't it be in the business's (any business in general) best interest to keep their workers content anyway otherwise people will quit?

the whole point is to destroy the businesses you work for and then seize control of the means of production, take political power, and build socialism.

Then how do they decide what product to produce next, like, if workers owned SONY when would they invent playstation, psp computers etc?

Then how do they decide what product to produce next, like, if workers owned SONY when would they invent playstation, psp computers etc?

it would be left up to either a necessity or the democratic process. In the case of videogames, I think it would take a pretty low priority to other things.

Then how do they decide what product to produce next, like, if workers owned SONY when would they invent playstation, psp computers etc?

you can still have idea sessions man. there are loads of THINK TANKS in like europe and shit that almost operate for non-profit that just think of MEDICINES and shit.

Hm. I wonder what it'd be like to wipe my ass with 1-ply Bolshevik toilet paper.

my toilet paper is a libertarian it shys away from brown assholes who dont believe A=A and blogs about it furiously when everyone else is asleep or getting laid.

Hm. I wonder what it'd be like to wipe my ass with 1-ply Bolshevik toilet paper.

probably better than the dirt leaves and newspaper they were using prior to the revolution!

You really haven't said anything specific about how Marx's analysis of surplus value is false. The example you gave just vindicates it, the boss gives himself more money(surplus value generated by the labor of the workers), pays the people who work for him an amount less than what their labor actually produced, and puts the rest of the money toward the maintenance of capital. I'm not saying that every person who is starting a business does so with fucking other people over in mind, but that's what ends up happening. Raises are a pretty recent phenomenon that started being a regular thing during the labor movement when workers starting demanding it. I don't think it changes the fundamental dynamics of the worker's relationship to capital.This used to be the case until the labor movement stood up to capital, and is largely still the case in the 3rd world where companies produce the most of what we buy in stores.

no i didn't. labor is a form of capital, it has to be paid. if the company does well the worker might not see any wage changes but if the company does poorly they probably won't either. employers try to save money on capital. if party co has a machine that pumps out 2,000 balloons per hour and fun factory can only pump out 200 what's the labor of a balloon maker worth? what are the balloon machines worth?

mabye ht boss deserves that money for making all thsoe filthy workers work toegether to make a shirt...

knock knock whos there it's reality come to take your nose while apathy takes your shoes and roger takes your pants (it's much more efficient this way because while reality is quick at taking things everyone can take more things each person specialises in taking one thing)

i am sure moving stock in the computer is backbreaking labor

this is skill, and the possibility of losing millions of dollars with a single transaction is pretty stressful. plus cocaine is expensive dude

I think the interesting thing here is you refer to the amount of money "that their labour actually produced".  Isn't it so that one's pay is [supposed to be] relative to society's appreciation for the labour?  Now, it seems like those two should be identical, but what's out of the equation then is the management of capital (and HUMAN capital) by that boss as an appreciated service.  Aren't the workers paying their boss for managing them and their ability to work?

EDIT: I know virtually nothing about economics and even less about Marx, so I'm really asking here rather than arguing.

yo dog this is correct. from what i remember from some classes i took jobs aren't just ranked in pay on the basis of education or difficulty, but there's a couple of disparate factors that the social sciences use in determining why people are paid the way they are. other than difficulty of the job (this is meaningless really because a construction worker works just as hard if not harder than a stockbroker), and the degree of education required (a somewhat more valid reasoning for pay grades since education is fucking expensive) jobs are paid relative to the appreciation/necessity of management/customer for that service (the only computer repair guy in town is going to make a decent living since people need him and doctors are highly appreciated so he's paid more), the prestige of the position (societal respect for a position directly affects its pay; which is why an electrical engineer makes more than an electrician even though it's the same basic subfield of work), and the degree of power involved (the ability of the position to elevate its own position in the pay grade hierarchy which is why you'll never see a mayor making 20k a year).

i could be full of bullshit though.

heres a great article someone posted on sa from a hedge fund manager who didn't bet on subprimes and is now leaving with his millions and one middle finger raised.

Today I write not to gloat. Given the pain that nearly everyone is experiencing, that would be entirely inappropriate. Nor am I writing to make further predictions, as most of my forecasts in previous letters have unfolded or are in the process of unfolding. Instead, I am writing to say goodbye.

Recently, on the front page of Section C of the Wall Street Journal, a hedge fund manager who was also closing up shop (a $300 million fund), was quoted as saying, "What I have learned about the hedge fund business is that I hate it." I could not agree more with that statement. I was in this game for the money. The low hanging fruit, i.e. idiots whose parents paid for prep school, Yale, and then the Harvard MBA, was there for the taking. These people who were (often) truly not worthy of the education they received (or supposedly received) rose to the top of companies such as AIG, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers and all levels of our government. All of this behavior supporting the Aristocracy, only ended up making it easier for me to find people stupid enough to take the other side of my trades. God bless America.

There are far too many people for me to sincerely thank for my success. However, I do not want to sound like a Hollywood actor accepting an award. The money was reward enough. Furthermore, the endless list those deserving thanks know who they are.

I will no longer manage money for other people or institutions. I have enough of my own wealth to manage. Some people, who think they have arrived at a reasonable estimate of my net worth, might be surprised that I would call it quits with such a small war chest. That is fine; I am content with my rewards. Moreover, I will let others try to amass nine, ten or eleven figure net worths. Meanwhile, their lives suck. Appointments back to back, booked solid for the next three months, they look forward to their two week vacation in January during which they will likely be glued to their Blackberries or other such devices. What is the point? They will all be forgotten in fifty years anyway. Steve Balmer, Steven Cohen, and Larry Ellison will all be forgotten. I do not understand the legacy thing. Nearly everyone will be forgotten. Give up on leaving your mark. Throw the Blackberry away and enjoy life.

So this is it. With all due respect, I am dropping out. Please do not expect any type of reply to emails or voicemails within normal time frames or at all. Andy Springer and his company will be handling the dissolution of the fund. And don't worry about my employees, they were always employed by Mr. Springer's company and only one (who has been well-rewarded) will lose his job.
I have no interest in any deals in which anyone would like me to participate. I truly do not have a strong opinion about any market right now, other than to say that things will continue to get worse for some time, probably years. I am content sitting on the sidelines and waiting. After all, sitting and waiting is how we made money from the subprime debacle. I now have time to repair my health, which was destroyed by the stress I layered onto myself over the past two years, as well as my entire life -- where I had to compete for spaces in universities and graduate schools, jobs and assets under management -- with those who had all the advantages (rich parents) that I did not. May meritocracy be part of a new form of government, which needs to be established.

On the issue of the U.S. Government, I would like to make a modest proposal. First, I point out the obvious flaws, whereby legislation was repeatedly brought forth to Congress over the past eight years, which would have reigned in the predatory lending practices of now mostly defunct institutions. These institutions regularly filled the coffers of both parties in return for voting down all of this legislation designed to protect the common citizen. This is an outrage, yet no one seems to know or care about it. Since Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith passed, I would argue that there has been a dearth of worthy philosophers in this country, at least ones focused on improving government. Capitalism worked for two hundred years, but times change, and systems become corrupt. George Soros, a man of staggering wealth, has stated that he would like to be remembered as a philosopher. My suggestion is that this great man start and sponsor a forum for great minds to come together to create a new system of government that truly represents the common man's interest, while at the same time creating rewards great enough to attract the best and brightest minds to serve in government roles without having to rely on corruption to further their interests or lifestyles. This forum could be similar to the one used to create the operating system, Linux, which competes with Microsoft's near monopoly. I believe there is an answer, but for now the system is clearly broken.

Lastly, while I still have an audience, I would like to bring attention to an alternative food and energy source. You won't see it included in BP's, "Feel good. We are working on sustainable solutions," television commercials, nor is it mentioned in ADM's similar commercials. But hemp has been used for at least 5,000 years for cloth and food, as well as just about everything that is produced from petroleum products. Hemp is not marijuana and vice versa. Hemp is the male plant and it grows like a weed, hence the slang term. The original American flag was made of hemp fiber and our Constitution was printed on paper made of hemp. It was used as recently as World War II by the U.S. Government, and then promptly made illegal after the war was won. At a time when rhetoric is flying about becoming more self-sufficient in terms of energy, why is it illegal to grow this plant in this country? Ah, the female. The evil female plant -- marijuana. It gets you high, it makes you laugh, it does not produce a hangover. Unlike alcohol, it does not result in bar fights or wife beating. So, why is this innocuous plant illegal? Is it a gateway drug? No, that would be alcohol, which is so heavily advertised in this country. My only conclusion as to why it is illegal, is that Corporate America, which owns Congress, would rather sell you Paxil, Zoloft, Xanax and other additive drugs, than allow you to grow a plant in your home without some of the profits going into their coffers. This policy is ludicrous. It has surely contributed to our dependency on foreign energy sources. Our policies have other countries literally laughing at our stupidity, most notably Canada, as well as several European nations (both Eastern and Western). You would not know this by paying attention to U.S. media sources though, as they tend not to elaborate on who is laughing at the United States this week. Please people, let's stop the rhetoric and start thinking about how we can truly become self-sufficient.
With that I say good-bye and good luck.

All the best,

Andrew Lahde

if you wrote that we'd say "bullshit you aren't a hedge fund manager".

wtf there was a shitty inri cheetos post there, and now its gone.

hahahah that guy is a badass