What does it say inside that big red circle?
this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2026
1040 points (98.6% liked)
Work Reform
17819 readers
544 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
"Well, but I own the machines."
"How did you get the machines?"
"Sold products and bought them."
"Wait, you sold products before buying the machine? How did you make those products? That seems like circular reasoning."
"Actually, you're right, I initially took out a loan to buy the machine in the hopes I could sell enough products to pay off the loan."
"That seems like it was a risk."
"It was. But, I spent a lot of time analyzing the market, coming up with estimates of how much people would buy, how much someone who could operate the machine would cost in wages, all that sort of thing."
"That seems like a lot of work."
"It was a fair amount of work."
"Who paid you to do that work?"
"Nobody paid me, I hoped to get paid once I could start selling products."
"So, why didn't your worker start his own business and buy his own machine instead?"
"Ah, well, that's the part that's a bit unfair. See, I could afford to spend the time analyzing the market because my family is rich, and I didn't need to work gruelling 8 hour days. Also, when it came time to take out a loan to buy the machine, the bank was happy to give me the loan because of my family name."
"Ah, and your worker?"
"Great guy, but he has a family to support and no rich parents. He couldn't take the time to analyze the market for a new business because he has to hold down a job. And, even if he could find the time to do that, the bank probably wouldn't give him a loan for a new business because he doesn't have any business history, or assets to use as collateral. Also, he can't really afford to fail."
"Afford to fail?"
"Yes. Like I said, I have rich parents. If my business fails, my dad will rib me about it a bit. But, it's not like I'll be out on the street."
"And your worker?"
"Well, he could certainly try to start a business, but if the business failed he'd be in real trouble. No rich parents, you see. Plus, I have great accountants. If my business fails, they'll use it as an offset for my taxes. Technically, anybody can do that, but good luck figuring out how to do that with TurboTax or something."
"So, really, it's oversimplifying to say that you do nothing, and the worker does everything."
"Yeah, he makes what I tell him to make, but I figure out how much to charge, where to sell it, where to buy the raw materials, basically everything about the business other than operating the machine."
"But, operating the machine is important."
"Of course! It's vitally important. But, you see, I bought a machine that costs a little more but is designed to be extremely easy to use. Because just about anybody can use it, I don't need a worker with special skills. That means I don't have to pay too much in wages."
"So, really, if there's unfairness here it's structural. You come from a rich family, so it's easy for you to start a business. He doesn't, so his only real option is to get a job from someone like you."
"That's right."
"But, it seems like that could all be changed with a few changes to the laws. You pay a bit more in taxes, he pays a bit less, then he can save up and maybe start his own business?"
"Yeah, that might work. But, here's the kicker. He voted for the same guy I did. The other candidate was promising tax reforms, enforcing anti-monopoly laws, etc. But, my guy got everyone scared about trans athletes and brown people crossing the border. My worker's a good guy, but he's super racist. As long as you're going after the brown people, that's what matters to him."
I think the thing I find deeply unfair about the situation is let’s say this arrangement of work is 100% accurate.
The owner did the analysis, took out the loan, set up the machine that the worker works.
At some point that work ends for the owner, the analysis is complete, the loan is paid back. There capitalists work effectively ends and the workers goes on forever and the split stays the same.
There is no point where the owner goes, “well if I had billed the company for my analysis and the initial loan I’d have been paid back 10 times over, time to give more to the worker.”
They get to set up the machine because of the wealth and privilege that is indicated here and then extract forever.
When they die, they can hand that enterprise to their heir, who did nothing. Not one ounce of analysis, not one drop of risk in taking out a loan, and that heir can extract value forever.
And they will get to take $6 of every $10 forever because they had the good fortune of being able to afford the machine and take advantage of a system set up by people that own machines which unsurprisingly has a simple rule, the people that own machines get the money.
load more comments
(4 replies)
I can't tell if this is pro or anti capitalist tbh
It's a wink and a nudge on the pro-capitalism ("I'm fine with the world as it is") side and a "Of course! This is what I'm trying to tell you is wrong with the economic system" response from the anti-capitalism ("things need to change") side.
Good.
it's almost like the economic model name we give it is irrelevant and we should instead be focused on processes and outcomes 🤔
“Processes and outcomes”
The title of the book you are describing is literally “Capital.”
load more comments
(1 replies)
I think it (maybe unintentionally) falls on the pro-capitalist side because it suggests that the fundamental contradiction of capitalism — that private ownership of the means of production inevitably leads to class-based unequal relationships to production — can be reformed. In reality, reforms are used by the capitalist class to placate workers and defuse revolutionary fervor, and are eroded almost immediately after passing. Only a complete revolution to collective worker ownership of the means of production can resolve the contradiction.
I meant because the trope of the poors being ignorant racists was a bit too hard to believe someone would want to admit to.
"Yeah, that might work. But, here's the kicker. He voted for the same guy I did. The other candidate was promising tax reforms, enforcing anti-monopoly laws, etc. But, my guy got everyone scared about trans athletes and brown people crossing the border. My worker's a good guy, but he's super racist. As long as you're going after the brown people, that's what matters to him."
Yeah, that’s a bit anti-worker, but racism and bigotry is one way that capitalists stoke division in the ruling class, and it has been very effective so far.
it suggests that (...) can be reformed.
it could. unfortunately the boss's dad owns the politicians making the law, so it won't be.
Only a complete revolution to collective worker ownership of the means of production can resolve the contradiction.
that's just delusional. if such thing happened, and every person in the world would get the same amount of money and means of production, it would only take time for those better at management/leadership to - again - have more than the others.
people are not equal. i am not taking position and claiming it is good/bad, but it is a fact, no matter how someone might not like it. and all this is not saying that the current system is not fucked up.
load more comments
(2 replies)
pretty obviously pro cap
in what way is describing how a system works pro anything?
The best systems are those that analyze the practical processes and outcomes and optimize for distributed prosperity regardless of the individual component processes' economic model.
Some systems make sense to be capital-driven because of the massive initial investment required to ship the first product for things that are luxury-only (movies, etc)
Other systems should NEVER be capital-driven because they are tied to basic human needs and rights (health-care, education, etc)
The first step towards reaching the best system for everyone to attain a minimum level of prosperity that scales upward based on their own desire for additional luxury is breaking down existing systems to identify the exact places where they fail, so we can be selective about how build systems going forward and intelligently implement safeguards when we choose one system vs another for a given vertical.
load more comments
(5 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(26 replies)
A relatively fair assessment, overall I approve of the framing. But, you're describing the petit bourgeoisie.
"Yeah, he makes what I tell him to make, but I figure out how much to charge, where to sell it, where to buy the raw materials, basically everything about the business other than operating the machine."
If, as a business owner, you're doing all that, then yeah you're doing real labor and deserve recompense. But the broader critique is of the owners who don't do any of those things. In larger businesses, those tasks tend to be handled by other wage workers.
It would be better if the person in charge of determining the runnings of the factory and the allocation of all that wealth could be an elected position that could be unelected if the business was not going well.
Similarly, it's a crazy concept to say that all of that purchasing of machines, property, and resources could be a waste because we predicate the whole thing on "risk" like it's a game designed explicitly to put one person into a higher class over the other and not a matter of wasted resources that should be meant to increase the well-being of both individuals equally.
load more comments
(2 replies)
$4.00 in October 1937 has the same buying power as $91.78 in August 2026.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Instead of distractions over exact numbers, apply Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit: Does the pattern of owners profiting more from workers’ labor, and compensate as "market allows", hold true regardless of the specific dollar amounts?
Let us not nitpick numbers as a distraction, but instead focus on the trend and the systemic issues of low wages, inferior benefits compared to many other nations, so they have less artificial scarcity and better lives, which is the goal. Demand better for all, not less for others once you got yours!
Gold
Well, technically, customers pay bosses.
Customers give the business money for the goods. It could be directly to the boss, or other employees of the business. When we say the customer pays the boss in this case, "pay" refers to an uneven relationship between the customer, the business, and the boss. The business has a product that the customer doesn't have or doesn't have the means to produce, so they give the business money to obtain it. In this relationship, it is considered appropriate for the company to charge more than it costs to produce the good. The price is set by the boss, who decides what profit is achievable, and what they are willing to do to maximize that.
In the poem the worker is said to pay the boss because the employee is in a similar position as the customer. In this case, they are giving the boss a higher value than they are receiving from the boss. They are exchanging their labour and the finished goods in exchange for two items the boss has a monopoly on: money (which is required to obtain goods in a system where you are alienated from the fruits of your labour), and access to the means of production.
You could simplify the "labour and the finished goods" for surplus labour value. I hear some guy wrote some compelling books about how many yards of linen a coat is worth. Might be worth a gander.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I wonder how many outraged posters have ever tried to be their own boss. I gladly trade 50% of my potential income for uninterrupted family time, PTO, marketing, customer service, support, accounting, tax declaration, and all the other crap that I had to do myself as a freelancer.
Some people like doing those other tasks and the owner/boss doesn’t do them but pays others to (while still taking the biggest chunk of the proceeds).
There are other forms of organization than capitalistic corporations with a parasite at the top. Cooperatives, collectives, and other organizations like that even exist today and are successfully functioning. The parasite serves no vital function and can be cut out to the benefit of everybody else.
In the company I work for the CEO does quite a lot of work, in the previous company the owners were there when I came in the morning and still there when I left home, writing code like me but also meeting customers, doing acquisition, finding out why the cleaning company didn't send anyone that week, etc.
If being "a boss" is so easy, I don't understand why don't everyone here just go freelance, hire people and start browsing for Ferraris.
You are describing other workers who own part of the company. Just because you call them "boss" does not make them the same as all "bosses", and it certainly doesn't make them the same as those taking the bulk of market profits in general.
So we consider CEOs and owners not bosses?
Just to clarify: this was a startup and all 3 were the only co-owners, +5 employees .
It depends on the person and situation.
The part of the strata they occupy is the petite bourgeoisie. Within this group there are people who work their asses off and compensate themselves accordingly, while giving a fair share to the workers under them. There are also people who squeeze their workers for every penny, giving the bare minimum to survive while doing nothing of note themselves except rent seeking.
I have worked for business like what you are describing. My bosses ate and slept their jobs. They took a greater share. They also compensated us well and gave us a part of the profits when things were good.
When people are complaining about "bosses" and what they do, they are not complaining about those people. They are complaining about the much larger set of bosses (by market share) that absolutely do not do those things.
Do you think Zuckerberg is like your boss? Musk? Trump? The family that runs Walmart does not put in as much labor as their entire employee base.
Even in the lower strata, most bosses are not like the people you describe, and to come here and defend "bosses" with your outlier examples (by market share), is disingenuous.
This isn't about small companies with a handful of people, it's about the ones with thousands of employees. And being a freelancer basically means not having anyone beneath you.
The whole point is about the massive amount of surplus value the employer takes off the employee. In small companies, due to a lack of machines, experience, connections in the industry and other things, there needs to be more work done for the same profit. So the employers will have to work themselves to rival other major corporations.
You shouldn't see these type of things as a critique on the person, but on the system. You have to exploit your workers, otherwise you won't be able to compete with the ones that do.
If you are a fair boss, and you give your employees the actual value of their work, you don't have any to invest, and will eventually fall behind on technology. So the more someone exploits others, the more they're able to invest in tech, therefore increasing their workers productivity, and the amount of money they can extract.
The owner of a major company has to be a major exploiter, otherwise they wouldn't be where they are.
That's why the problem is the system, not the person
I'd love to see a company of thousands of people without bosses...
I'm not talking about salaried management. Of course you need those positions. I'm talking about the owner/shareholders, who do no/next to no work, and reap the profits of the company.
What if the employees are shareholders? What if the shareholders paid for "the means of production"? What if the owner worked 80h a week for 10 years to start the company?
If you are not happy with the share of profits that you get, demand more. Unionize. Strike. Quit. Vote for politicians that support workers. Or start your own company. It's a free country (wild concept, huh?).
How does that boot taste?
Awesome, it is exquisite. I happily trade 2-3 hours everyday with my kids for some concept of "boot" of strangers on the internet.
If you are unhappy with your boss I'd say it's a skill issue.
I can't remember for sure how capitalism defines labor. I think it's just an expense. You know, the idea is that if you can buy it for cheaper than you can pay to make it, then you'll just fire all of your workers and buy the product. Just like that.
That's why every time there's a disruptive technology, every company loses its fucking mind. "Oh, I can get AI to code for cheaper than my engineers? Time to get rid of those expenses."
view more: next ›