• uralsolo [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well the main thing is the concentration of capital. Guys like Jeff Bezos aren’t interested in founding cooperatively-owned companies, and they have all of the money. Add in the fact that average people are very strongly atomized and prevented from forming stable social bonds, and the likelihood that you’ll get a cadre of people together who want to start a cooperative business and can also afford to do so is very, very low.

      That said, the few coops that manage to exist are often the best places in their industry to work, precisely because the profits are shared more equally than in the more common private or publicly traded corporations.

            • uralsolo [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              19
              ·
              1 year ago

              That is how capitalism works.

              Yes. And it is deeply unfair in how it rewards entrenched wealth rather than giving everyone equal opportunities. That’s why socialists are opposed to it.

                • uralsolo [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  20
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’ve worked hard for what I have too. That doesn’t stop me from looking around, seeing that there are billions of people on this planet who work way harder than I do for way less than I have, and saying “this system should be changed.”

                  idk what communist countries you’ve been to, but if you compare for example the average Cuban’s quality of life to that of the average person on any other Caribbean island, capitalism doesn’t come out looking too hot. Most post Soviet countries are still poorer today than they were in 1989, almost everyone who has been lifted out of poverty in the past generation is Chinese, and there are literally hundreds of capitalist countries that have been doing capitalism for a hundred years or more that have remained the poorest countries in the world regardless.

                  The objective reality is that communism is leaps and bounds better at organizing society than capitalism can ever be, full stop.

            • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              14
              ·
              1 year ago

              This is ironically a poor sales pitch, unless you believe that networking, marketing, and familial wealth should be what orders society.

              And I never said that 250k was all they had, and in fact being able to throw that much money at something is going to be less and less of a concern the more money you have, though I don’t think his family was “poor as hell” to start with. Unfortunately for this point, their finances at the time are not publicized that I can find.

                • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  23
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It’s all part of how society works.

                  I said should, not does.

                  But he didn’t steal profits.

                  Back then, he used a considerable amount of money to run at a loss. Nowadays, he does steal a remarkable level of profits in the unpaid wages of the employees who keep winding up in the news for being forced to piss in bottles or drive to work in a hurricane.

        • BurgerPunk [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          30
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          He started out with a small loan of $250,000 from his parents, in 90s $s if memory serves.

          You’re just a bootlicker aren’t you? Lazy workers could be billionaires if they just tried

    • gerbilOFdoom@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sure: becoming a member of a corporation costs money. You either have to pay to get it set up or buy a share to get in so those who already paid are made whole.

      Unfortunately, the US as an example, our society is structured such that the majority of people here have zero savings with wages decreasing in value every year due to inflation. A person in this situation cannot produce money to buy-in; squeezing water from a stone situation.

      • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        All people are essentially born with no assets, and if they want to secure wealth, they must sell their labor to achieve it.

        In other words, children of parents who own an outsized number of assets do not have to sell their labor to achieve it, because it is offset by their parents assets. This inherently produces an unequal/unbalanced system where some people simply never have to work this way. This is why extremely in-demand internships at companies in places like New York City are often unpaid, and thus generally end up going to people who already have money, access, and support systems. Because only those kind of people can afford to take on an unpaid internship to move upward in the capitalist system.

        This is also the source of generational poverty, because it can be really hard to escape when generation after generation are born to no assets.

        • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          All people are essentially born with no assets

          False. The children of rich people are born rich. That’s a major part of the problem. It creates dynasties.

          • DataDecay@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            This is an area I have said needs to be taxed to hell, there is no good reason we should allow the passing of wealth without heavy penalty. I’m convinced that if we taxed all forms of wealth transfer at something like 80%, we could pretty much get rid of income tax. Income you have earned should be your entitlement, assets passed down to you should be where the taxes cut in.

            • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              So, you have to sell off 80% of your dead mother’s mementos unless you’re rich? Careful—your proposal is good in spirit, but has ugly side effects that need to be carefully avoided.

              • DataDecay@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I’d rather sell off mementos than lose livelihood. We all know the top 1% shelter and live off non income based tax shelters, and then just pass those shelters on through legacies. Given the arbitrary caps on assets your grandmother’s Polaroids would likely be safe. You wont see good faith attempts to fix taxes regardless though, as politicians are in the business of making money, so would never go after their own livelihood.

        • gerbilOFdoom@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Inflation’s been happening since currency was created. We don’t notice day to day because the effects are stretched over a long period.

          Try calculating the value of a 2010 dollar against the current 2023 dollar. You’ll find the cumulative effect of ~5% inflation each year is significant.

          In addition, periods exist throughout American history during which inflation has spiked noticably within a year or two - this is nowhere near the first time.