|
MixMastaTJ posted:Firstly, if 30% of the wealth you generate puts you above, say, GDP per capita there's a pretty good chance your work is overvalued and your company is ultimately skimming profits from some other workers. Not saying this as a call out or imply you don't deserve what your making, just that in the abstract when I say workers deserve 100% it would account for that sort of thing. eh i'd say, without knowing any of the relevant details, that it's more likely he's having his labor marginally less exploited due to the advantageous social position he occupies. granted, said position is almost certainly built on a throne of blood but 
|
#
¿
May 18, 2019 21:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 03:15 |
|
|
BrandorKP posted:A invoice for me I would have done tip to tail. From quoting out the job, to the sceduling, to the field work, to the invoicing and reporting, and then possibly to chasing the account if delinquent. That's not going to be the case for like anybody else in any other line of work. I do the whole shebang. I mean, you being in a position to take a job that's fairly compensated to do socially valuable work is 100% built upon the exploitation of the global south. It's good that you're trying to mitigate the effects of it, but that doesn't change the reality of being a subject of capitalism.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2019 22:55
|
|
|
somfin it's really loving obvious you're doing the philosophical debate thing where you try to get your opponent to agree to very specific premises so that you can then knock down that premise. like I'm guilty of that myself sometimes so I know it's tempting to think that you're doing it so that both parties can agree on the specific meaning of the things they are talking about, but people get really annoyed when you do it because you're trying to get the conversation to follow a specific script that you've conceived of beforehand. Not only is it really tedious, it undermines the foundation of a good-faith discussion, that being give and take.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2019 01:27
|
|