top | item 39315970

(no title)

W4ldi | 2 years ago

What's your point? That statement has nothing to do with the problem at hand.

discuss

order

dymk|2 years ago

The problem is that he was unfairly compensated by the economic system (capitalism) he works in, and had to fight for years only to just about break even on legal fees.

The guy's gumption led to the invention of a multi-billion dollar pear year industry, and he got basically none of it.

ralusek|2 years ago

The inverse also happens, though, because socialism fails to capture the value. According to the labor theory of value, for example, his work would’ve been valued at some function of (training * hours worked). Despite creating billions in value for humanity, he would’ve been treated very similarly to the rest of his coworkers

legitster|2 years ago

> The guy's gumption led to the invention of a multi-billion dollar pear year industry, and he got basically none of it.

But... the billion dollar industry is also capitalism? This logic is circular and makes no sense. If there is no capitalism there is no compensation to be distributed in this case, period.

The argument that he was unfairly compensated based on merit is fundamentally a capitalist argument. You can't play it both ways.

Draiken|2 years ago

How is that not the problem at hand?

The only reason the inventor didn't get properly compensated is because the system is designed to reward existing capital.

I can guarantee you the CEO that inherited the position due to family ties didn't earn $60k a year. Neither he worked for a year and a half without weekends.

This is capitalism.