(Stream of consciousness nonsense, read at your own risk)
As someone uneducated on theory, I do have some questions. As Amazon is the company listed in the article as an example, and the place at which I work, I’ll use it as the example as well.
It’s to my understanding that when Amazon was starting out, Jeff Bezos did in fact provide labor to produce value.
(Of course he had a tremendous head start coming out of a high position at a hedge fund company and with a investment of $250,000 to $300,000 dollars from his family, the former definitely being stolen funds under surplus value and the later likely including some but my research doesn’t go that far.)
If one works to provide value but eventually rises to a position where they no longer need to, does their return on time invested still count as stolen value?
Actually writing this out, I think I may be answering my own question. That the simple fact is the value he’s receiving now is not a retirement fund as saved from his value or reward for his work, but because he owns the company. So yes, it does fit within the surplus value theory even if he did work at Amazon previously.
But that does bring me to what I originally created the example to ask, how does retirement fit into this theory? Is it just expected that a person has to put aside money for when they cannot work? Should the company they work at have a program to set aside some of the produced value for them? Should the government collect some as taxes to dole out when they reach a certain age? Is there a way to ethically design a retirement system under capitalism?
Personally, my initial thoughts lean towards the government system, similar to the social security of the us (where I live) as a program that collects money from all working citizens to assist those who cannot or should not. But that does feel like it might conflict with the surplus value theory as it has been explained here.
Aren't you missing the fact that owner Joe purchased the goods, tools, and the factory that enabled the workers to produce the shoes? Should he just do all that for free?
(Stream of consciousness nonsense, read at your own risk)
As someone uneducated on theory, I do have some questions. As Amazon is the company listed in the article as an example, and the place at which I work, I’ll use it as the example as well.
It’s to my understanding that when Amazon was starting out, Jeff Bezos did in fact provide labor to produce value.
(Of course he had a tremendous head start coming out of a high position at a hedge fund company and with a investment of $250,000 to $300,000 dollars from his family, the former definitely being stolen funds under surplus value and the later likely including some but my research doesn’t go that far.)
If one works to provide value but eventually rises to a position where they no longer need to, does their return on time invested still count as stolen value?
Actually writing this out, I think I may be answering my own question. That the simple fact is the value he’s receiving now is not a retirement fund as saved from his value or reward for his work, but because he owns the company. So yes, it does fit within the surplus value theory even if he did work at Amazon previously.
But that does bring me to what I originally created the example to ask, how does retirement fit into this theory? Is it just expected that a person has to put aside money for when they cannot work? Should the company they work at have a program to set aside some of the produced value for them? Should the government collect some as taxes to dole out when they reach a certain age? Is there a way to ethically design a retirement system under capitalism?
Personally, my initial thoughts lean towards the government system, similar to the social security of the us (where I live) as a program that collects money from all working citizens to assist those who cannot or should not. But that does feel like it might conflict with the surplus value theory as it has been explained here.
I enjoyed the metaphor here, nice work.
Aren't you missing the fact that owner Joe purchased the goods, tools, and the factory that enabled the workers to produce the shoes? Should he just do all that for free?