• hessenjunge@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    149
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    7 months ago

    I disagree with tax & rent being lumped together. I have no problem with my (high) tax rate as it supports education, infrastructure, etc. The outrageously inflated rent goes to the same guy that stole 95% of your pizza in the first place.

    • enkers@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      While I agree in principle, when tax dollars go to corporate tax cuts, handouts to failing financial institutions, and billionaire lunatics selling snake-oil space-based internet “solutions”, its easy to get disillusioned about taxes.

      We absolutely should be taxed to a high degree, but that money needs to be spent on collective benefits, not private corporate interests.

      • hessenjunge@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        That’s a different topic though! Don’t conflate collecting funds with usage/distribution of funds. We all need to accept that we have to pay (high) taxes. That the upper 10% haven’t paid their fair share in decades and that there is misuse has nothing to do with my tax rate. We need the upper 10% to pay way way more and we need better accountability for usage of the money. Pretty much regardless of where you live on this planet by the way.

      • Fermion@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        And to blowing up children for being born to the wrong group of people.

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Yeah I think playing into the idea that it’s being taken unjustly though is bad. It’s better to portray it like the rich roommate never paying their portion of any of the bills and leaving you to cover it all.

  • NatakuNox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Some people don’t seem to understand the meme and think this pie represents a companies whole revenue. This pie represents the revenue generated from an individuals labor. The current glaring issue with capitalism is that people think your employer is entitled to a slice of the labors pie. Your employer is entitled to Zero percent of the revenue you generate from your labor! But sadly the only reason the imaginary line in the stock market goes up is become employers and “investors” have stolen your value. While the meme is over simplified it’s accurate. Also your bosses/CEOs labor value is far lower than they would have you believe.

    Shop local, give money to co-ops, unionize your work place, unionize your living space (renter unions are a thing.), volunteer as often as possible, give leftovers to the homeless if you regularly don’t eat your leftovers, VOTE, attend town halls when able, get to know your neighbors even if you don’t speak the same language or have a rough past with them, I can go on but these things can help at the local level and prevent the race to the bottom we’re currently stuck in.

    • Asafum@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      All I can say is The Big Brain Economists have said that “the labor value theory is absolutely bunk and has no basis in reality.” Along with “only marxists believe this drivel.”

      I’m not A Big Brain or an economist so I can’t say why they say these things, but I have seen a lot of pushback on this concept. I think it all comes down to the “agreement” we make when we accept a job, not that we have a choice. “Not working” is only an option for those that are already rich.

  • griD@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    7 months ago

    YES

    I know my enemies
    They’re the teachers who taught me to fight me:
    ✔ Compromise
    ✔ Conformity
    ✔ Assimilation
    ✔ Submission
    ✔ Ignorance
    ✔ Hypocrisy
    ✔ Brutality
    ✔ The elite

  • Prunebutt@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    7 months ago

    Reminder that while the labour theory of value can be practical to understand certain aspects of society, it is still culturally biased and not “objectively” true.

    What creates value can only be answered in a cultural framework.

    • onkyo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      How is it culturally biased? It’s a theory of how exchange value functions within capitalism

        • onkyo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          Yeah but the way you said made it seem that value (exchange value according to Marx) is determined by cultural factors, thus making it untrue. The debate around labour theory of value have existed since the 19th century.

          • Prunebutt@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            I was talking about the theory, not value. Sorry if that didn’t come across.

            Now that I think about it: isn’t value culturally determined in many things? Why are apple products more expensive than other computers with the same specs? Why is a ticket to a Billie Eilish concert more valuable than one to my neighbor’s indie rock band?

            • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              7 months ago

              isn’t value culturally determined in many things? Why are apple products more expensive than other computers with the same specs? Why is a ticket to a Billie Eilish concert more valuable than one to my neighbor’s indie rock band?

              It really seems like you’re conflating ‘value’ and ‘price’ here.

    • _NoName_@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      7 months ago

      I’m not following what you specifically mean.

      Could you provide an example of when the theory fails due to a culture’s differing views of value?

      • Prunebutt@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        There’s not even academical consensus what value actually is, AFAIK. Do preasts add value to anything with their labour? If not: Do social counsellors? What if a priest acts as a counsellor? Ask different economists with their theories of value and you’ll get several answers.

        Economic theories aren’t as rigid as theories from the natural sciences or mathematics. They are dependent on the culture in which they are perceived. A non-capitalist society would have different theories or value (or none at all) than we do.

        This guy can explain it properly, I’m not an economist and kinda regret making that comment.

        • _NoName_@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          I actually watch Unlearning Economics, though only his video essays and not his streams. It’s been a while since I’ve seen this one.

          So what we’re meaning is how much of Western culture undervalues care-giving since it produces no product, so stay at home moms, nannies, therapists, etc.

          I thought of another example. In more nomadic and naturalist cultures, actually doing things to the environment destroys value, while leaving it be and allowing it to recover creates value. That is something else that is not accounted for in any theory of value to my knowledge.

          An example would be American Indians in their dependance on foraging and hunting. I think that gives creedance to the idea that they thanked the things they harvested/hunted (I don’t know the factuality of that), since from their perspective they were only a burden that the ecosystem was ‘kind’ enough to support.

          • Prunebutt@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            Thank you for that comment. I feel like finally someone understood what I was trying to get across.

            Probably formulated it badly, but still: the answers are a bit exhausting.

            EDIT: Thought of another example of your qase where harming nature decreases value. Having to buy carbon certificates for releasing CO2 models the destruction of value by polluting the environment.

          • Asafum@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Caregivers may not produce a product but they provide a service.

            We have no issues with the plumber providing you a service and getting paid well for it, I don’t know why we have such a hard time with caregivers… :(

    • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      A reminder that the labour theory of value is not a marxist concept. When people wave their hands around and say “labor theory of value isn’t objectively true!!”, they’re shadowboxing a ghost.

      Value != price

      • Prunebutt@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        Umm… Thanks for that unnecessarily aggressive seeming and a bit incompehensible addendum, I guess?

          • Prunebutt@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            Sorry, I interpreted it as aggressive. Figuring out tone in text form is hard and all that. Sorry that I wrongly accused you.

            Things I didn’t get:

            A reminder that the labour theory of value is not a marxist concept.

            Marx hasn’t been explicity brought up yet (at least not in my comment). Only implicitly in the original post. Again: thought you were attacking me and was like “umm… So what?”

            When people wave their hands around and say “labor theory of value isn’t objectively true!!”, they’re shadowboxing a ghost.

            I thought you meant me, since that was what I was basically saying. 😅

            Value != price

            Now, that one wasn’t even implicitly mentioned.

            I hope you don’t hold my misunderstanding against me.

            • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              7 months ago

              I was certainly being critical, though it was unclear by your phrasing if you were saying what I thought you were. That’s why I was using passive language.

              Marx hasn’t been explicity brought up yet

              True enough, but I assume the implicit connection your comment was making to the op was the reference to “your stolen labour value”, which would be a marxist concept, and “labor theory of value” is commonly misused as a counterargument against marx’s central critique of stolen surplus labor. Feel free clarify if I got that wrong.

              “Value != price”

              Now, that one wasn’t even implicitly mentioned.

              Well now i’m confused. If ‘labor theory of value isn’t objectively true’ isn’t making an argument about the price of a commodity not being equal to the labor it embodies, I am not sure what you’re trying to say by it.

              • Prunebutt@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                Well now i’m confused. If ‘labor theory of value isn’t objectively true’ isn’t making an argument about the price of a commodity not being equal to the labor it embodies, I am not sure what you’re trying to say by it.

                A theory o value doesn’t necessarily say anything about price. As you said: “value != price”.

    • Katana314@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      But I have moved 8 tons of dirt from location A to location B. Who else is going to do it? I deserve compensation for my task.

  • Altomes@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    7 months ago

    Yeah this meme assumes you’re given the totality of your labor value when you aren’t as a wage slave, the majority of your labor value is stolen by the same company paying you the crumbs

    • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      You’ve misread the meme. It is claiming that

      the majority of your labor value is stolen by the same company paying you the crumbs

  • wowwoweowza@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    7 months ago

    The point of this graphic is that you should dedicate your labour to doing something that you love and also benefits your community.

    My wife and I were just talking about this topic and we landed on the Jessie Eisenberg movie VIVARIUM. It’s ab allegory for being trapped in our dystopia where there are forces at work trying to oppress us with useless labour. The fact is, currently, the only choice we have is to discover work that is meaningful for us – personally. My job is a helper job. I pay taxes. I do my helper job knowing I’ve contributed. It lightens the pain of the dystopia while we wait for the top 10% to start paying their fair share again. The Eisenhower tax rates were real.

    See VIVARIUM – it may not be a banned film but the corporations sure as fuck don’t want you to see it. Welcome to your world.