Most active commenters
  • graemep(3)
  • adgjlsfhk1(3)
  • b_e_n_t_o_n(3)

←back to thread

996

(lucumr.pocoo.org)
1002 points genericlemon24 | 22 comments | | HN request time: 1.412s | source | bottom
Show context
stego-tech ◴[] No.45149449[source]
These times really do feel like those once-in-a-century redefinitions of work and labor, similar to how we got Child Labor Laws and 40-hour work weeks from the labor movement early last century. Intrinsically, more people are realizing that the former social contract was long ago fed into a shredder, and that the lack of a formal contract will have consequences. Technology broke down the 40-hour work week by enabling more work to be done both outside the office and after traditional working hours, drastically increasing productivity and profit while wages stagnated for decades in the face of skyrocketing costs. Now we’re racing ahead towards a breaking point between Capital cheering shit like 996 and AI job-replacement, while more humans can’t afford rent, or food, let alone education or healthcare on their burrito taxi wages.

Something will eventually have to give, if we aren’t proactive in addressing the crises before us. Last time, it took two World Wars, the military bombing miners, law enforcement assassinating union organizers, and companies stockpiling chemical weapons and machine guns before the political class finally realized things must change or all hell would break loose; I only hope we come to our senses far, far sooner this time around.

replies(6): >>45149684 #>>45149819 #>>45149975 #>>45150057 #>>45150329 #>>45150542 #
1. lifeisstillgood ◴[] No.45150057[source]
We probably need to rethink how companies are structured - there are (many) companies with revenues greater than most countries but are (in theory) dictatorships with no official ability to change course if the one guy who owns the shares does not want to.

Who is the ‘demos’ in a company? Who gets a vote ? Will voting really slow things down?

replies(3): >>45150308 #>>45150772 #>>45150917 #
2. cyanydeez ◴[] No.45150308[source]
Theres a whole swath of positive regulatory structure that would both improve the company and its employees, but capitalism is stuck in the delusion that self interest is the only yardstick we need to concern ourselves with.

Why? Because being poor isnt a structural problem, but a moral or ethical or laziness.

Its fascinating watching business culture basically align with prosperity gospel in that if you can grift it, it _must_ be good/just/right.

3. graemep ◴[] No.45150772[source]
> here are (many) companies with revenues greater than most countries

IS that true? What do you define as the revenue of a country? Tax revenues? That is just the government. GDP/GNP/GNI? That comparison for that should be profit, and only a handful of really big companies (Saudi Aramco, Apple, that sort of size) have a profit as large as the GDP of mid-size middle income countries (e.g. Sri Lanka) or small rich countries (e.g. Luxembourg). There is a long tail of small or poor countries so most countries by number, but most people live in a country with a GDP that is an order of magnitude or two greater than any company's profit.

replies(2): >>45151012 #>>45151859 #
4. kriops ◴[] No.45150917[source]
As long as the companies in question aren't monopolies on violence, it's a complete non-issue. So with that in mind, why would any sane person want to impose such an inefficient mechanism to allocate resources and make decisions within a company or corporation?

The only good thing about democracy in the context of a state, after all, is that every other alternative is worse. But that is strictly because of the fundamentally violent nature of the concept of a state, which does not apply to companies or corporations.

replies(4): >>45150967 #>>45151091 #>>45151183 #>>45152039 #
5. HighGoldstein ◴[] No.45150967[source]
Violence is not always physical. The likes of Meta have subjected the world to unfathomable violence, but we give them a pass because we can't see the scars with our eyes.
replies(1): >>45151898 #
6. hiatus ◴[] No.45151012[source]
Why would GDP be the proxy for a country's profit? If I pay someone to build a house and another person to tear that house down, both activities contribute to GDP while producing nothing of tangible value.
replies(2): >>45151458 #>>45152111 #
7. ohdeargodno ◴[] No.45151091[source]
[flagged]
replies(1): >>45151926 #
8. roughly ◴[] No.45151183[source]
The guy who whispers in the king’s ear also has an effective monopoly on violence.

What we’ve learned over the last half century is that extreme wealth disparities lead to extreme power disparities. Coercion doesn’t just emanate from the state.

9. tempodox ◴[] No.45151458{3}[source]
If it were the same company, that company would have made profit twice. Or did your house change country before being torn down?
10. adgjlsfhk1 ◴[] No.45151859[source]
gdp is a revenue like number, not a profit like number.
replies(1): >>45152614 #
11. samdoesnothing ◴[] No.45151898{3}[source]
Huh? Violence is defined as the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy. If you mean "harm", please use that word instead of wrongly using another.
12. b_e_n_t_o_n ◴[] No.45151926{3}[source]
violence is defined specifically as the use of physical force, and I expect the other commentator you're replying to specifically chose that word for a reason.
replies(1): >>45152158 #
13. TheOtherHobbes ◴[] No.45152039[source]
You should educate yourself about corporate violence both inside and outside the US - the use of intimidation and murder for strike breaking, the role the Pinkerton agency, the original meaning of "banana republic."

It's tragic - but not accidental - there's no mention of any of this in schools or any public memory of it.

replies(1): >>45152140 #
14. boppo1 ◴[] No.45152111{3}[source]
But they spent the money you paid them and it stimulated the economy! We assume value was created elsewhere. /s

Econ is a crock.

15. b_e_n_t_o_n ◴[] No.45152140{3}[source]
It's tragic, but it was also illegal, and that's a crucial distinction.
replies(1): >>45160364 #
16. ohdeargodno ◴[] No.45152158{4}[source]
No, it isn't. Every single definition of violence includes forms other than just physical.

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines violence as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation

replies(1): >>45152256 #
17. b_e_n_t_o_n ◴[] No.45152256{5}[source]
That's a pretty broad definition. In this context it refers to physical violence only, which is the same definition you'll find in most dictionaries.
18. graemep ◴[] No.45152614{3}[source]
It is closest to value added something most companies do not disclose but is closely related to profit but is NOTHING like revenue.
replies(1): >>45152677 #
19. adgjlsfhk1 ◴[] No.45152677{4}[source]
no, if you trade a dollar back and forth 1000 times with a friend, you are adding $1000 to the GDP.
replies(1): >>45157146 #
20. graemep ◴[] No.45157146{5}[source]
If you pay someone a dollar, that is because they supplied you with something worth a dollar - i.e. a dollar's worth of value added to the economy.
replies(1): >>45162517 #
21. immibis ◴[] No.45160364{4}[source]
Illegal things happen all the time. The current president has committed many crimes and suffered no punishment. Elon Musk is an illegal immigrant. Uber was completely illegal but they did it anyway. The law isn't actually the law - the real law is what gets enforced.
22. adgjlsfhk1 ◴[] No.45162517{6}[source]
right, but if an item goes through 10 different factories to be assembled the price each pays from the previous gets added to GDP.