!!
this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2024
108 points (99.1% liked)
the_dunk_tank
15918 readers
6 users here now
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to [email protected]
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Women just naturally take worse paying jobs. It's in our nature.
The way things are set up, the more important and vital something is to the actual functioning of society, the less it is paid. The reverse of that is the more parasitic or net-negative the job is, the better paid.
Hedge fund managers are a massive net negative and are paid the most.
And mothers are arguably the greatest net positive and that’s unpaid.
No wonder chuds want there to be more mothers, regardless of material conditions and society's support or lack thereof... more unpaid labor.
Why though. Seriously, what's the reason for this? Please don't just say "capitalism". Fine, but what exact feature of capitalism would that be that says "The more critical your activity is to the functioning of our system, the less you get paid"? In capitalism's own logic, it should be the exact opposite.
The actual logic is 'the more your job serves to increase profits' which under capitalism always results in less pay for anyone that is not in that position. This is why a middle manager being good at getting workers to accept less pay is rewarded more than the most productive workers actually doing the production. It's inherent to the hierarchical stratification of social classes under capitalism. Paying people well for their productivity is not how to make profits under this system.
Capitalism requires precarity and externalized costs as much as possible as the rate of profit tends to decline. The people that actually produce the most labor value must be the most crushed for it, so they don't organize and overthrow that system with their labor power.
Capitalism doesn't value utility, though. It values the creation of profit in the immediate short term.
the hedge fund managers and c-level and other highly paid people in capitalist systems derive their wealth and income from control over ownership of capital: real estate, shares of companies, and so forth. real estate value ultimately depends on the ability to extract rents and mortgages from working people, taking a portion of their labor value in exchange for a temporary reprieve from the organized political violence that excludes people from using property. the value of ownership of a company depends on the ability of the company to make a profit, collecting more revenue than it pays out in expenses, including payroll. so it depends on the ability of the company to extract a portion of the labor value of its employees and transferring that to hedge fund managers, shareholders, and ceo's. that is the logic of capitalism, and it's how every billionaire obtains their wealth: extracting the value of others' labor.
Your name checks out with that post.
In capitalisms own rhetoric, yeah. In capitalism's actual logic, people who own things decide the rules, which means it's pretty inevitable that people who want to get paid as much as possible for as little work as possible ("passive income," etc.) would produce a system like this.
If you gave the people who are the foundation of your business some level of security or even comfort by paying them well, it suddenly becomes a lot harder to pressure them into working overtime and through breaks when they don't even need to work full-time to begin with!
Crying and sobbing when I see my beefy paycheck because it causes gender dysphoria.
this is because while women do be shopping they instinctually know they must be shopping using their husband's (who they show infinite deference to as is the natural order of humanity) money.