You're viewing a single thread.
Create your own business and skip investors, problem solved!
And when the zero entry cost business is invented, that might work!
You're kind of proving their point. Labor takes no risk of loss entering a job because generally speaking there is zero entry cost for starting a job. This is not true for starting a business.
I'm all for more equitable distribution of wealth, but OPs meme exposes a profound ignorance, not some kind of clever exposing of a contradiction.
Not really. Workers are dropped before the owner loses out. The risk is not balanced after a certain startup cost. Certainly not for mega corporations, where the owner who took the original risk is often long gone. It's now run by MBAs who's only skill is increasing shareholder value at the expense of all else.
The risk is not balanced after a certain startup cost.
This isn't even quite true because even established companies can fail after taking additional (or even by not doing so), but you're basically arguing "once you've gotten past the initial risk, there is no risk!" Of course if you discount the risk people take, there is no risk.
And don't get me wrong, I agree that there is a big imbalance now and laborers are generally getting screwed. But there is a reason I decided to take the path of becoming a skilled laborer instead of s business owner: I don't want to take that risk.
I can and do easily jump from one job to another, with little worry at all.
once you’ve gotten past the initial risk, there is no risk!”
No, that's a strawman. The risk is far reduced, not zero. To get to zero, you have to be Too Big To Fail and have the government bail you out.
The reduction in risk is obvious when you see how layoffs work. The CEO gets a big bonus for walking a whole lot of people out the door.
Libertarian types want to start with stories about farmers selling corn by the side of the road, and then expect you to believe the argument still holds when scaled up to Fortune 500s.
You're nit picking. Whether the risk goes to zero or just very low, that doesn't change the point that there is generally significant risk to start up, which does not exist with labor. Labor is almost always a zero startup risk, a business is almost always the opposite.
And you're completely missing the point that this argument doesn't scale.
I don't even know what that means. Zero risk is zero risk.
You keep saying the word risk, and liberal capitalists do this all the time. Companies limit personal liability, so risk goes to zero there for a bunch of legal issues.
What most people are talking about is money, but not everyone has access to money. If you take two people, one born into a rich family, and another born into a homeless family, the rich kid gets a massive inheritance and "risks" 30% of it starting a business. Let's say he hires the person born into a homeless family.
The liberal conception here is that the rich person, handed a massive amount of cash for absolutely nothing, deserves the surplus value of labor from the poor person because he "risked" a small part of his inheritance that the poor person never had access to. It's a wild assertion.
This might seem fabricated, but in the real world this is how it goes, people with capital accumulate more capital. Jeff Bezos "built Amazon" with a $245,000 loan from his parents, and worked out of their garage. He then used that loan and later capital investments to hire people to actually build Amazon.
His parents could've just as easily gone the standard capitalist route, and instead of loaning the money instead valuated the company at $300,000 and assumed ~80% ownership for the company. The only reason this isn't how it played out is because parents don't like exploiting their kids, there was a biological component at play that disallowed the standard capitalist exploitation from taking place. So they offered him a deal that no capitalist in their "right mind" would offer, because it left Jeff with far too much and the capitalist with far less.
Companies limit personal liability
Sure, they can limit it, and you can shield yourself personally from losses taken by the company, but there is a still (generally speaking, again) a significant financial risk to starting a company at all. You can't "shield" yourself from start up costs.
If the argument is that "rich people are financially more secure so it's easier for them to take risk" I 100% agree. There's no question that rich people start off with a massive head start. I fully recognize "the uterine lottery."
But the meme is about this risk being equal to the "risk" taken by people just being paid to do labor. Don't get my position wrong, I believe labor deserves way more of a share right now. But there is no risk in it. Sure, you can lose your job which sucks, but (again generally speaking, there are exceptions e.g. people might move across the country to take a job) you didn't invest any money into starting the job. So now you are out a job and need to find a new one. You are not in the negative.
And we need this. We need to incentivize risking capitol to make capitol, as that is what helps labor too. It's just that this isn't infinite and doesn't mean people should be able to amass any and all wealth they can. There is a middle ground and that is where the discussion needs to be. Not in this silly "well, labor is really risking it just as much too!"
Companies limit personal liability
Sure, they can limit it, and you can shield yourself personally from losses taken by the company, but there is a still (generally speaking, again) a significant financial risk to starting a company at all. You can't "shield" yourself from start up costs.
If the argument is that "rich people are financially more secure so it's easier for them to take risk" I 100% agree. There's no question that rich people start off with a massive head start. I fully recognize "the uterine lottery."
But the meme is about this risk being equal to the "risk" taken by people just being paid to do labor. Don't get my position wrong, I believe labor deserves way more of a share right now. But there is no risk in it. Sure, you can lose your job which sucks, but (again generally speaking, there are exceptions e.g. people might move across the country to take a job) you didn't invest any money into starting the job. So now you are out a job and need to find a new one. You are not in the negative.
And we need this. We need to incentivize risking capitol to make capitol, as that helps labor too. It's just that this isn't infinite and doesn't mean people should be able to amass any and all wealth they can. There is a middle ground and that is where the discussion needs to be. Not in this silly "well, labor is really involved in the risk of losses too!!"
It's not, and this is specifically why I've avoided multiple opportunities to risk shit to start a new company: I would rather be a skilled laborer as I can just jump from job to job when I want, than to risk what seems to me to be a lot of money on trying to start a company. Too much pressure. It's easy for me to not give a shit.
You misunderstood my argument slightly, it's not that it's "easier" for rich people, it's that it's literally impossible to risk money you don't have, and as a result of that you have exploitation of labor; stealing the surplus value of labor from a class that has no option other than to participate in wage labor.
Also the idea that there's no risk in labor but there is risk in being a capitalist is a liberal lens that fails to actually account for material reality. What's the absolute worst case for both the capitalist and laborer? That they lose all access to their money, and have to rent themselves out to a capitalist.
Put another way, the risk capitalists engage in is being demoted from the owner class to the working class. That risk doesn't justify them taking the surplus value of labor to accumulate vast hoards of wealth.
Left liberals view this as a quantitative issue, but it's a qualitative one. Profit is definitionally surplus value of labor, so no matter how small you make the capitalist's profit, it's always theft.
We need to incentivize risking capital
Absolutely, without capital injection the economy couldn't function. Capitalism by definition requires exploitation of labor, and theft of the surplus value of labor is what incentivizes capitalists to not hoard all their wealth.
It's a fundamentally broken system. Private entities shouldn't be the ones handling investment, nor handling direction of development. Those should be handled democratically by worker syndicates, the capital should be injected from the state/communities.
Essentially anytime private corporations are involved in an industry (housing, healthcare, capital injection, governance, etc.) it breaks the system. Liberals are slowly seeing these material realities unfold, and so the propaganda being fed to them is harder to buy. You don't find many people in support of private healthcare or governance anymore, and some are starting to learn about the others too.
it’s that it’s literally impossible to risk money you don’t have, and as a result of that you have exploitation of labor;
Except this isn't true. You can go and find investors, or get a loan if you are willing/capable of putting up something as collateral. Is it easier for rich people? Yes, we both agree it is.
But the risk does not get "demoted" to the working class. The working class did not take a risk (again, all generally speaking, I hope I don't have to keep repeating that). They applied for a job, someone offered them money for their labor, and they accepted. If the job disappears, they've lost nothing. They can go apply for another job and have another person pay them for their labor. At the end of the day, the worst they can be is back to zero.
While someone who puts millions of dollars into starting a business or expanding one can lose all of that money, and be net negative one million dollars. Might this not hurt them much because they have a lot? Sure. But they were the ones who took the risk.
That risk doesn’t justify them taking the surplus value of labor to accumulate vast hoards of wealth.
What is justified is kind of besides the point, because that is a subjective question. If one does not benefit from risking their capital, then you are simply going to see fewer, if anyone, actually risking their capitol. I'm trying to argue within what I believe to be the frame of reality: someone has to take the risk and I think the only way to incentivize that is to reward them disproportionately for doing so. Is the current balance off? Absolutely, we both agree on that.
Capitalism by definition requires exploitation of labor, and theft of the surplus value of labor is what incentivizes capitalists to not hoard all their wealth.
You're using too strong of words that is just going to turn off many rational people. It's not theft if you and I agree that you'll do something and I'll pay you for it. It's not exploitation, in and of itself, if you and I both agree upon the terms of our relationship, but I benefit more from it financially.
It’s a fundamentally broken system.
In theory every pure system works, in practice none of them does. Certainly, capitalism is no exception. But from just looking around, it seems to me that as a starting point, capitalism is unquestionably the best. I'm not some anachro-capitalists, it's clear that we need to socialize things, and I think healthcare is one of the most obvious that falls into that system, and it is also obvious that labor should have a larger share of the pie. But this idea that everything breaks because of capitalism, seems to be the opposite of what is most often the reality.
But I feel like we are getting off the point. What the meme is about is how labor is "risking" something because they can lose their job and end up back at zero. It's simply not comparable to a capitalist with their potential of actually losing money.
I had a near zero cost business. Basically I needed a computer, phone (already had that) and M365. It was $60 to create the biz myself. Any professional services company falls into this category. So they do exist, even if in small numbers.
What is it that you did? Professional service implies a profession that you'd need training/experience for which is a cost.
Business consulting. Theoretically, anyone can do it without training and experience (although unlikely due to client expectations). But graphic design falls into this category and is more likely to be possible with a portfolio rather than education. Also, I got paid for all of my experience that allowed me to become a consultant, which in turn covered the cost of my schooling - so I don't really count that. Basically, you can create this kind of business with some elbow grease.
Sorry to say but graphic design clients are dwindling extremely fast. People will constantly have arguments about the value/ethics of AI under capitalism (less work means more suffering in a capitalist society, broken system but that's what we have). However, in the real world AI exists, and capitalists have access to what they need, even if you don't want to call what DALLE produces art.
Same goes for videography, programming, essentially anything that requires the development of skill on a computer/digitally has the potential to be massively automated. Even if you believe AI can never match human intellect because of some special sauce inside of our organic sacks, it's already producing content at the level of professionals. Not the highest level professionals, usually the lowest level ones actually, but without low-level jobs people don't have clear paths to develop their resumes/careers.
Yeah, I agree we are in a big economic shift (akin to the invention of the tractor that displaced hundreds of thousands of people - side note, why does no one talk about the ethics of the tractor?). I expect AI drive new business models, and some people will lose their jobs or have them greatly changed. But I'm not totally sure that any of that negates the possibility of some (albeit few) low startup cost businesses. They may just look different that they did 10 years ago.
You are right, btw, about a 20 year training gap/issue. Businesses have to figure out how to rapidly develop their people, or they will have no experts standing at the end of the AI machine - risking the overall quality of their work and products.
Here's how I try to wrap my mind around the changes coming (I know it isn't exactly the same, but it does put the scope of AI into perspective): Amazon started as an online bookstore out of a garage. People actually laughed at them. Today, they are responsible for huge shifts in the retail and book publishing industries. Lots of jobs were lost, but other jobs and opportunities were created (such as self publishing for low cost). AI is like this, but amplified.
The comparison to the industrial revolution ignores a qualitative difference between this and that; we're in an age where automation can fully automate away jobs. When the industrial revolution happened, it absolutely did deteriorate working and living conditions for essentially everyone, however humans were still needed. It should be noted that having a system where less work leads to worse outcomes is a fundamentally toxic and broken economic system, but that's what capitalism is.
This next thought makes a lot of people uncomfortable, but we might actually not have special sauce in our organic sacks. It's possible that human-level intelligence/expertise is achievable from AI (even if it's not LLMs that get there), and it's also possible that robotics becomes as versatile as humans at movement.
Yes, AI and robots are expensive, but you want to know what else is insanely expensive? Humans. I cost my employer $150,000 a year. If they could subscribe to a future GPT6 that out performed me and my coworkers for $1000 a month that would save them a metric fuckload of money. Same thing with buying a super versatile robot, sure it might be like $100,000 for a single robot, but if it lasts 10 years it's $10,000 a year and can work far longer hours and much more consistently than a human.
What we're talking about with any non-dysfunctional economic system is utopia, a world where nobody needs to work and everything is maintained, developed, and expanded without human intervention. Under capitalism this utopia becomes a dystopia, it leads to mass starvation, lack of resource distribution, and death.
The entry is literally zero.
There's lots of 0 entry cost business. Problem is they exist because no one wants to do that work themselves.
You boomers have no idea how life actually works now. You did half the work and put in half the time it would take to get the same results today. You're privileged and you didn't work nearly as hard as you pretend you did and you know it. Which is why you're on the internet trying to prove your fantasy story is real. I know where I'm at and I know where you're at.
You dumb?
Funny, I'm a millennial
Oh, so just a regular ol' moron, then.
So you throw out a pile of insults and incorrect assumptions, get proven wrong, and therefore im the moron?
Point to my incorrect assumptions and their proof of wrongness, brainlet. I triple dare you.
Not boomer- literally the comment I replied to.
Proof - yeah, fuck off.
You can't read apparently.
If you're bad at accounting, your business will fail. If you're bad at marketing, your business will fail. If you mess up one thing early on that sours your reputation with customers, your business will fail. If you have a chronic health problem that prevents you from focusing on your business, your business will fail. If a bunch of other people try to enter the market, but don't price their product at a livable level, they will drag you down with them and your business will fail.
Avoiding these problems is more about luck than skill. This is not a real solution.
Really now? Wanna become a nanny pimp? Maybe organize a life couch group? Give me a break. All actual service jobs (jobs that don't require renting or owning an office/place of some kind) require specialized equipment or a degree, and you'll be hard pressed to find such a business opportunity without strong competition. Most people can't afford to start a business, nor have the knowhow.
Most people can't afford to start a business, nor have the know how.
And this is where that risk comes from. I'll list a pile right now:
- house cleaning/ air b&b
- gutter cleaning
- handyman services
- landscaping
- website design
- graphic design
- coding
- tutoring
- window cleaning
- waterblasting
- graffiti removal
- signprinting
- dropshipping (ew)
Most don't have the know how, but you know how you get it? You take the risk and try.
Found the nepobaby. There's so much opportunity to be had if you just have lots of money lying around and don't need investors to start a company. Damn everyone is so stupid. Why doesn't everyone just start their own business? Everyone else is just so lazy.
Go fuck yourself
Go fuck YOURself. Lazy monkey.
The day you die I'll make sure to piss on your grave
Good luck with that!
Don't bother - they are a significant troll. Block and move on
Access to capital isn't universal, some people aren't able to work out of their parents' garage with a $245,000 loan from them (Jeff Bezos if you're unfamiliar with his "self-made" story).
Without access to capital, you don't have access to food or shelter, let alone labor. You'd have to work a full time job (or more), plus create the entire business yourself with no access to any substantial means of production.
It's not an equal playing field, and it's not supposed to be. Capitalism is a system setup for capitalists to accumulate capital. Labor and people more generally are commodities to be exploited. The system is functioning exactly as it should, and the working class is miserable because of it.
We live in a service economy, the only mean of production you need is your bloody phone you're using to post dumb shit online.
You fancy a challenge?
If I can provide a place for you to stay in my home city in the UK, the rent is free for the first 7 days.
All you need to do is come here, with your phone and starting paying rent on day 8. It can’t be that hard to make money right?
Hmu if you’re down.
Thanks, but I already did that 8 years ago when I moved to UK from a poor Eastern European country. You should ask yourself how migrants without money, friends and language skills manage to live a better life than locals who have all the privileges and rights. Maybe it's not about "means of production", maybe it's about YOU.
Me? Im a software developer and doing alright.
Just because I am doing alright doesn’t mean everybody else is.
For every success story of rags to riches, how many failures are there?
Just because you made it doesn’t mean everybody can.
Where did you live when you got here? How did you support yourself whilst finding work, like paying rent and food etc.
Perhaps your tips could help others.
Lol, I thought this was a joke, then I read the comments.
Controversial take, looks like it fell flat.
Personally I agree.
Wow that's amazing! What business did you create and where did you get all the money to create it?
Sounds like a lawn care business. If I had to bet, lawn care. Probably worked three jobs one as a gas station manager, one mowing lawns, and the third.... ?? Uber?
It's prob a good racket. We can't ALL mow lawns tho.
Nope - considered lawns though. They make more initially than I do but harder to grow. No pun intended.
Have worked retail - hated it, and won't touch Uber.
Vending machines then
Also considered - didn't have the initial capital
Ugh, you don't run a restaurant do you? I mean that takes capital too but I've heard of turn key type setups.
You know like 90% of restaurants fail so that is not really super viable.
Nope - restaurants take too much start up capital and I only cook for friends and family. Learning curve is too steep for my taste and most start with significant loans - I never saw the appeal to be honest. Turn key are franchises, and im a strong believer that franchises don't belong in the service industry.
90% of restaurants do fail, but 50% of all businesses fail in the first year, 90% by 5. The numbers are the same across the board - many of that first 50% never make a sale.
Don't wanna dox myself, but to answer the second question working three jobs then 80-100 hour weeks for 4 years, missing out on birthdays, time with kids, weekends and three years without a single day off.
I then have staff turn around and expect a bonus for doing an extra 4 hour shift they were paid for.
When was the last time you took that risk?
Sounds like you were so focused on a definition of success that you forgot to live.
Sounds like they neglected their family so they can try and gaslight people into neglecting theirs for a business they don't share the profit from..
That, or like everyone else on the "100 hour grind," they're just a fuckin liar.
Sounds like you don't want to take risk or work hard and just like to be poor and complain.
Lul, okay clown
Unfortunate thing about the internet - no one ever actually knows for sure. Good thing is that other opinions and internet strangers don't actually matter - I know where I am, and you know where you are.
I'll tell you now my staff make 25% more than the industry average with a number of non-standard perks, that last time I put a job advertisement up describing my company I had over 250 applications in a week, most saying they were sick of how they were treated and we sound much better, that my staff have flexibility and understanding that would get them fired at most other businesses. But that means shit in an internet conversation and most have already made their mind up about me.
Good thing is that other opinions and Internet strangers don't actually matter
...
and I know where you are
LOL. You're a caricature of yourself. That's an insane amount of cope.
Try again - you know where you are, not I
Ohh you're one of the good ones, unlike those shiftless layabouts who want to be paid for doing more work
Sounds like you were so focused on a definition of success that you forgot to be poor.
FIFY
Sounds to me like I made an investment in my time and effort to give my family the best chance of financial success. Like I made a huge amount of sacrifice to get to where I am just for people who never tried or have any idea to tell me I only care about money and treat my staff like shit.
Almost like its possible to get ahead without exploiting your staff, or being born into money, and no matter what you do people will always accuse you if being and asshole. Great thing about it is that no matter what people may accused me of - their opinions actually mean shit.
But like… what amount of your employees’ generated profit is your sacrifice worth?
When you look at the day to day, you’re not still sacrificing like you did those first couple of years. How do you decide when you’ve reached your return on investment?
Like the meme conveys, employees are taking a risk on you as an employer, spending their time working up the ranks at your company, working in this career path instead of another.
Bleh, nvm…. It’s almost always eat or be eaten w entrepreneur types. If the employees think they are worth more, then they should fight for it, if they don’t then it’s the employers duty to squeeze them for every penny of profit as can be extracted from their dumb lazy worthless asses.
The problem with your logic is that you don't want to take risks and overwork to build your own future and at the same time you don't want others to prosper. You just want everyone to be poor.
I think what it boils down is to the agreement in place - agreement, not contract. My team are paid at a competitive rate, and in exchange I expect a certain amount of profitable work completed in that time. Expanding out of that general agreement is where much of these issues lie - my team expect secure work, but I also expect secure staff, and everyone needs to understand that isn't always going to be the case.
Why can my team decide to stop showing up one day without repercussions (because its illegal) yet I can't drop them when we have a strong downturn? Why can't I ask my team to increase productivity (because its too hard) yet expect pay increases when cost of living changes? Why can employees expect returns without risk?
For the record, none of my team are dumb lazy asses and anyone who thinks they are shouldn't be in business - they either aren't and your a prick, or they are and you're a useless boss for keeping them.
No. people are responding incredulously because you said:
There’s lots of 0 entry cost business. Problem is they exist because no one wants to do that work themselves.
And then described the 0 entry cost business as:
working three jobs then 80-100 hour weeks for 4 years, missing out on birthdays, time with kids, weekends and three years without a single day off.
So either one or both statements are untrue, but either way, you sound like an ass, getting high off his own farts.
In that case - clarification. 0 entry cost to start and do, the additional investment was to grow to where I no longer need to be the person on site. I could fire my whole team, shut down the office, sell vehicles, only work the contracts that suit me on 40 hours and sit on 100k a year. But that is all I will ever do and get to. I won't be able to try anything new, take time away or create the change i want in the world.
If you're happy that way and don't look back regretful, good for you.
However, it shouldn't be necessary to work 100 h weeks, miss birthdays, quality time with family and friends etc. just for the chance of success. Needless to say how high the stakes are regarding mental and physical health and thinking about the effects on your social environment. The latter not just for you but especially for your kids.
It's a critical problem within the system we live in, if that's what it takes for someone who doesn't come from money.
On the other matter:
Almost like its possible to get ahead without exploiting your staff
I think, as long as someone is profiting of someone else, and that relationship is not equally balanced, the one profiting more is exploiting the other. That's a general opinion, not restricted to you.
Regretful, no. Do I wish I didn't have to - absolutely, but I'm also aware that no one said I had to enjoy what it took. I lost ~5 years of events, but it gives me soo many more options for the rest of my life and that of my kids. I'm also aware that many others make these sacrifices just to stay where they are so yeah, worth it.
You're a complete brainless moron hated by everyone you know, in other words.
Why should anybody need to?