The cleaning lady at SpaceX doesn't do a better job than that at Walmart. So why should she be paid more?
You think she's doing the heavy lifting there? Creating the billions? While the underperformer at VideoBuster / Radio Shack is responsible for tanking the business? That's just not true.
Finally, the case for exploitation! So brave to say people who do physical labor deserve less.
There's lots of physical labor jobs that pay more. It's all about doing something others can't.
> There's lots of physical labor jobs that pay more.
More than a billion?
... Let's keep things in perspective here.
I didn't say that. You misunderstood me. Read again.
You are saying that, you just value physical labor so little you no longer recognize it. Read again.
If you think they were commenting on physical labor your reading comprehension is poor. The example job could have been a “non physical” job, say the hallway CCTV monitor, and made the same point.
Their point is that labor they consider low impact or menial doesn’t drive returns, and therefore shouldn’t share in the returns. You’re right that the labor being physical is incidental, really they’re just classist/elitist and any job they consider beneath them would fit this model, while others wouldn’t. There’s a reason they chose a cleaner (and a woman!) instead of a product manager or CPA, though the quality is also unlikely to differ between spaceX and Walmart there.
Speaking of reading comprehension, they didn’t address the core argument of the person they were responding to, which is that labor that falls “beneath the fold” of this class line is not able to negotiate aggressively due to the inelastic costs of food, shelter, and basic necessities. It doesn’t matter how “high impact” you are, if you’re negotiating and need to eat you’ll accept any amount that lets you eat.
In fact, having impact or driving revenue is never the most important factor to reaping the rewards. Anyone who’s worked for a few years with their eyes open should reach this conclusion unless they have some strong motivation not to.
Since you've put in effort, I will return to doing so, too. But note that your ad-hominem attacks only reflect on yourself and don't strengthen your argument at all.
My point was simply that some work isn't essential to the business. Be that a cleaning lady, a corporate lawyer, or a CPA. They perform interchangeable work they could perform in the exact same way for a different company.
One obvious problem is that you can't scope the parents of success: Should the utility company get more money for supplying SpaceX than for Walmart? Should the municipal firefighter lady who stands ready for SpaceX share the spoils, should the husband who cares for their kids at home? Who knows.
Second, and you have ignored that, should they also share the defeat? If a company tanks, should we not pay the CPA who worked for that company? Because that's what happens to stocks who are worthless. If you argue the cleaning lady is responsible for success, she is responsible for failure also.
As an aside, I chose a cleaning lady because it's a relatable job. I don't even know what a CPA is but I guess it's an acronym that only makes sense in the US. See, that's what I wanted to avoid. Also it's easier to see how that is detached from the success of the core business, as you're familiar with the work (I presume you clean at home? But don't CPA at home, and don't lawyer at home.) The interchangeable work also works with corporate lawyers performing standard work, but it's not immediately obvious and harder to argue.
> which is that labor that falls “beneath the fold” of this class line is not able to negotiate aggressively due to the inelastic costs of food, shelter, and basic necessities.
Not to mention the U.S. encourages organization of the capitalist class while breaking up (often by force) organization of the working class, so any attempt at the working class gaining leverage in this negotiation is artificially limited.
Watch out, an AI bro is about to tell you you can’t read!
[dead]