this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2023
39 points (97.6% liked)

Canada

7080 readers
512 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


๐Ÿ Meta


๐Ÿ—บ๏ธ Provinces / Territories


๐Ÿ™๏ธ Cities / Regions


๐Ÿ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


๐Ÿ’ป Universities


๐Ÿ’ต Finance / Shopping


๐Ÿ—ฃ๏ธ Politics


๐Ÿ Social & Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 31 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

"Persistently low productivity" sounds a lot like a euphemism for "workers are lazy" but when the owning class want an ever increasing portion of the surplus value of labour, it shouldn't come as a surprise when nobody wants to perform said labour.

[โ€“] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They could try paying people decent wages, which have been stagnating for 35 years. Maybe then they'll be more motivated to be more productive.

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

which have been stagnating for 35 years.

In fairness, incomes have been stagnant since the dawn of time. Wages only saw a period of growth because wages were only invented a couple of hundred years ago. Selling time is a product of industrialization. Before that, people only sold things. Now that the vast majority of the population only sells their time, there is nowhere left for wages to go.

During the transition, if 90% of your income is from selling things and 10% selling your time the first year, 50% selling things and 50% selling your time the next year, and 100% selling your time in the third year โ€“ there's your wage growth. 900% growth in just three years! How wonderful! Except your income didn't change, so...

[โ€“] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Such worthless pedantry.

[โ€“] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Wealth gap gets bigger and bigger, workers feel less and less secure in their jobs and lives, and companies try to blame the people who are making them rich.

Even worse, they inspire infighting between the working and "middle" class. A person making $100K a year is a lot closer to someone making $45K a year than the executives making many millions a year.

[โ€“] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Time to make the rich afraid

[โ€“] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

A person making $100K a year is a lot closer to someone making $45K a year than the executives making many millions a year.

Not really, because someone making $100k per year has $55k each year to invest in capital. And capital compounds. 20 years later that person will be making millions per year too, while the person making $45k is forever stuck there with no opportunity for escape.

Like you pointed out yourself, it is the wealth gap, not the income gap, that is pertinent.

[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I can agree with that overall.

But in this specific case (the link in OP), the discussion is centred around employee/employer relations. In that context itโ€™s employee compensation that seems more relevant to the discussion.

Employers have control over how much they pay people, so if they are complaining about โ€œlazy peopleโ€, it feels fair to point out lowered compensation and benefits year over year if you factor in inflation.