"But the employer took a risk" -- Richard Wolff

[@Gkuljian]

The answer to that last question is that we're damaged children raised by damaged children who didn't know how to raise their kids. And we're still playing the game of acting so that we'll make mommy and or daddy happy.

[@ocnus1.61]

Yup. Exactly

[@isesise2658]

If we know that's the answer, and we acknowledge it, then we can change.

[@GeorgWilde]

And thats your problem. You have no right to demand that whole society changes so your psychological problems go away.

[@andthengodpooped]

@@GeorgWilde what’s if it’s implemented by the democratic will of the society?

[@CrimzinEclipse2010]

I like the idea of workplace democracy in certain areas, like if you applied it to a company like Amazon, etc. But something Dr. Wolff and most workplace democracy advocates never seem to account for, is how new businesses get created. If someone is going to invest their own money, labor and work into creating a new business, which might still fail and bankrupt that person, the primary incentive for taking a colossal risk like that, is that they will own it if it *does* become successful, and will reap the profits from it. If they know that the business will eventually be taken from them and given to the workers, then why on earth would they even bother to create the business in the first place? The main problem with workplace democracy, and it’s advocates, is that they seem to blatantly ignore basic human incentives to create new economic activity.

[@ronaldpeters79]

What you say is true and obvious. Its 100% the reason why these Marxists demand employers give them profits for "risk" instead of just starting their own business, which is a much bigger and harder risk. Talk is cheap. To the Marxists: Go start your own company and then dole out equal profits to your employees. Show me how you do it. I know you won't

[@anthonyesposito7]

It almost seems like if the idea or business that they are risking for was so good then they would be able to convince others of that and therefore rally them behind that idea in a way that would get those others on board with it. Maybe they could even treat them like human beings and see if those other potential employees would want to contribute to the 'risk' of starting things up. In this way creator would still have ample say in what goes on but would also even possibly receive loyalty and more investment from the others rather then treating the employees they higher as a means to an end, just another commodity to be consumed in the capitalist process. Food for thought.

[@DarthLesbian]

@@anthonyesposito7Do it then 😀 Tell us how that goes.

[@MachYew]

Fantastic stuff as usual from the big man.. was particularly compelling and simple when he made it personal at the end

[@jamesfromvenice]

"compelling".... it was all trash.

[@jsbart96]

Such a good response to that often stated argument!

[@Shilgne1]

@Blooper Box [GD] is that really what you understood from the video?

[@GeorgWilde]

Only it's logically fallacious. Because personal risk and enterpreneurial risks are different things. Also the employee is paid regularly and instantly from the employer as long as he is eomployed. But the company doens't necessarily have constant cash flow... Employee doesn't carry the risk of bankrupcy. If he get's fired, he doesn't lose his skills which can be transferred to other place. If enteprenteur gets "fired" (bankrupt), then he lost a lot.

[@andthengodpooped]

@@GeorgWilde awww the poor business owners, how will they ever survive? Answer: if they’re big enough, they will likely get bailed out by government subsidies, unlike the workers. And if they don’t, too bad. Like you said, that was the risk. You also might want to look up the amount of wage theft that takes place each year. “Employee doesn’t carry the risk of bankruptcy.” Do you seriously think individuals don’t file for bankruptcy? Thousands of people each year file for bankruptcy from medical debt when their healthcare is taken away by their EMPLOYER.

[@30minutesLess]

And it’s so good it never goes anywhere.. yup

[@30minutesLess]

@@andthengodpooped More impotent rage. But yeah go ahead and chage the system there pal

[@Shotgun_Gospel]

Didn't the boss form something called a limited liability corporation, that exists mostly to insulate him from the risk of his endeavor? Like, if his "risk" doesn't pan out, it's not like he'll be on the hook for all the bills if it goes bankrupt. Doesn't the boss owe something to the people who ensure his risk was a worthwhile one? Without them, his mere risk of failure would be a certainty.

[@samsungfanboy]

I know some people were laughing, and I do think it's kind of funny how ridiculous our current system is. But I didn't really laugh at all. I took it in a serious way. Maybe that's just me, though

[@AceofDlamonds]

true, but I think they appreciate Dr. Wolf's delivery it comes across amusing some of the examples he gives in his lectures and story telling. It's just how he speaks I guess.

[@magicsinglez]

No. What I read a lot is that, ‘we live in a high tech global economy’. That’s when I know ‘why’ my paycheck is so low.

[@grandpa.of.10]

Thanks

[@7Subculture]

What if more and more people become self employed

[@BrainInJar]

That's not likely due to the fact that capital accumulates and leads to the proletarianization of most people.

[@AlexSchmandgesicht]

Very simple response to a stupid argument. It's sad that an absolutely empty argument can still be used so often with such confidence.

[@axeldornelles5292]

An idiot and a liar can only argue based on confidence and nothing else. I guess that's pretty descriptive not only of fash, but also of neoliberals in general.

[@AlexSchmandgesicht]

@Krónika That's a good point.

[@isesise2658]

@Krónika - Thank you.

[@isesise2658]

@@matthewlaw5107 - How someone start a business is subjective. Every one, at least smart entrepreneurs, dont use all their savings, and depending on how they start their business there can be alot of risk or no risk at all...but I do see what you are saying. With that being said, the statement, "but the employer takes all the risk," is usually voiced in context to discussions about employee wages - This kinda turns into a moral issue because founders, once their business grow enough, are in an position to work like a slave for their business, or hire people to help take on the work load. The more the business grows, the more employees will be hired, but that growth would be impossible without getting helping hands (employees) to help with the work load, so not paying them a living wage is wrong. Also the idea of a free market is not the result of capitalism, it is a natural thing. For example, if capitalism fall and you had skills to build fishing poles from scratch and I have skills making bows and arrows from scratch for hunting, we can barter (you can make me a pole and I make you a bow and arrow), or if there is some form of medium of exchange (money), I can buy a pole from you and you can buy a bow and arrow from me, or i can teach you how to make one and you can teach me how to make a pole (freeing us from depending on each other if the pole or bow and arrow breaks). So the true free market, if you want to call it that, is naturally here and will be here with or without capitalism. The definition of socialism, according to merriam Webster, is, "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods." If we focus on the collective part of the definition, that can open the door to how a lot of indigenous operate. They believe the earth/land and its resources is for all, which can open the door to that natural free market I mentioned. Now i do agree, from my understanding, that most, if not all, of socialist nations in the past had resources owned by the government, and it hasn't always turned out good. The definition of capitalism, according to Webster, is, "an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market." Capital goods and the means of production can be interchangeable. If we look at the ownership aspect in both definitions, and if we look at the gov having ownership in the socialism definition, both capitalism and socialism can be interchangeable. From that perspective, and from my little understanding of both, there seems to be no such thing as capitalism or socialism. You only have the wicked and tyrants, and the righteous and servant leaders. I think with socialism, how it has been implemented in the past, you have leaders, who may have good intentions, try to force, by law, people to do or not do what that leader view as right or wrong, and it turns people off. Like if I am a leader who forces employers to pay employees a living wage by law, but the employer dont want to do that, that law will turn him off, and he will either get decietful, or he can try to overthrow my leadership some how, or he will flee to a different country to continue to run his business how he want to, or if he is someone from another country looking to expand his business, and he dont want to pay his employees a living wage, he may not choose my country to expand his business. At the same time, leaders of socialism are at risk of becoming tyrants because power corrupts.

[@isesise2658]

@@matthewlaw5107 - No problem, bro. I think the socialism you made the distinction with is the socialism, it seems, we have seen implemented in the world. And that is part of the definition where the government owns and administers the means of production and distribution of goods. But I dont think we have seen in the world the part of the definition of socialism where the means of production is owned and administered collectively (everyone). For example, if the land (means of production) is given back to the people, how they choose to use the land will be in their decision. If they choose to give every man a acre or 2, the example I gave of the natural free market can be realized in that context. As far as the living wage, I'm not saying the employer should be forced to pay his employees more. I'm just sayin, if he doesnt then I think he is wrong. By default the employee adds value to the employer just by working. Like the example I shared, most businesses start off with one person, the founder. If the business grows, the founder can work himself like a slave to maintain the business, or he can hire to help with the work load. The value an employee adds/brings is realized in the fact that the employer chose to get help instead of working himself like a slave. My dad is like that. He dont trust no one, so he is the accountant of his business, the person who does the physical work, and he plays any other role the business requires. As a result, he has become a bitter old man who spend most of his time drinking, and it's hard to talk to him because all he can talk about is himself and his accomplishments...but he is miserable and his health is on the line because of stress. I never heard him say it, but I heard when u tell him things like he should spend more time with family, he will say, "my business is my family." Since he dont trust no one else to do the work, if he hire someone, for him, just the act of hiring someone would be a risk, because that person may not do the job, but if they do the job and do it well, he can get some of his time back which could decrease stress. From that perspective, if my dad did that, and found a good employee, why not pay that employee enough to help him be ok? (My dad can pay someone 60k a year and still have more than enough to live on). Then you have employers who are just greedy. No matter how much their employees help them bring in, they will still not pay them so they will be ok financially. I agree with you about minimum wage. So do you think the implementation of minimum wage decreased the freedom in the free market? Also, the idea of the financial safety net u mentioned, some would view that as socialism, but I think it's a good idea.

[@trevorsanso32]

this dude is the goat

[@nicoleblack438]

Goat of willful ignorance.

[@neroresurrected]

No he is not.

[@30minutesLess]

To the the dregs of society.

[@justamaninTN]

@@30minutesLess Haha. Insults are always how the right wing argues. Minds of children.

[@30minutesLess]

@@justamaninTN Yep, I learned it from feckless liberals who never walk back anything. Wage gap, crime stat, the border. Some pretty big ones, to keep it simple. Consistently wrong, always half-witted, and does not understand the sequential intellect. At least the right-wingers are consistent.

[@lenurban]

Superb analysis. Love prof wolff.

[@frankmeyer6472]

George Urban no it’s not it’s totally bogus....the employee has zero risk.....he supplies no capital that has to be repaid...he gets paid for every hour he works before and whether or not the product he made sells...if he is laid off he gets severance and/or unemployment.....he is is free to leave at any time to pursue other opportunities....he has no liability, financial or legal for the work he performs or the product he makes..........doesn’t even risk his reputation since his name isn’t on the product....

[@lenurban]

@@frankmeyer6472 life is a risk. The worker risks work injury, wage theft, unjust termination, and often gets just enough to barely survive. Society i.e. corrupt politicians just acknowledge an employer's risk. Get fired through no fault of your own due to covid? Here's inadequate insurance and $1200 bucks. Good luck. Oh, mr employer? Here's a gargantuan bailout. We got you. It's ridiculous. The deck is stacked in favor of capitalist employers, ceo's while 80% of the country lives paycheck paycheck. Time for a revolution sir. This system has failed. The USA needs, more than ever, universal healthcare, debt free college, legal marijuana, a high minimum wage, a maximum wage, UBI, strong unions, and an end of wars. This will provide dignity for all people. This is how many other countries roll, and their people are thoughtful, mentally healthy, secure, etc. Not crazy angry sick gun nuts like Murica is now. Please stop your nonsense and support the ideas I've noted. Thank you.

[@frankmeyer6472]

George Urban oh stop, Take some personal responsibility for your fate....you’re not gonna find THE ANSWERS FROM THE GOVERNMENT....develop more calluses on your hands and less on your ass...you would be a failure under any system, cupcake

[@lenurban]

@@frankmeyer6472 billion dollar corporations always seem to find THEIR answer from the govt in the form of taxpayer funded bailouts.

[@frankmeyer6472]

George Urban and it’s wrong and anti capitalist, it’s totally against free market principles

[@Shilgne1]

I f*cking love Prof Wolff

[@socksinsandals1082]

I think he is talking about capitalists, not the mere self employed. The difference he is implying is that a capitalist lives on the surplus of the workers. One may own your own farm or small business - but if you still have to clock in 9 to 5 then you are still a worker. Example: farmer, grocery shop owner or pumber service owner, they may own their business, but is still a worker until the surplus they receive is substantial enough that they don't need to work on yhe service to maintain their livestyles

[@AlbornozVEVO]

People fail to notice how the "they took a risk!" is a moral argument. not an economic argument. it would be equivalent to arguing that because thieves take a risk, they are entitled to what they steal if they manage to get away with it.

[@CrimzinEclipse2010]

You’re missing a crucial part of the argument, though. “They took a risk” is not just a moral argument. The underlying argument behind the “risk” aspect, is: how do new businesses that produce goods and services get established? A new business is an inherently risky endeavor, and one of the main incentives which drives people to take a risk like that, is that they will be making the profits from the endeavor. If a person knows that they will need to pay their employees the same as themselves down the road, or will even have ownership of the business taken from them entirely, then why would anyone bother taking the risk of opening a new business in the first place? The core question is, how do you grow an economy and incentivize new businesses in the first place? Dr. Wolff never addresses that, and seems to just assume that businesses just exist out of nowhere, without considering the question of how you get new businesses to be established in the first place?

[@AlbornozVEVO]

@@CrimzinEclipse2010 risk exists because of the free market. "capitalism is justified because we live in capitalism" is a circular argument. and economies don't *need* to grow. only in capitalism do they need growth because of the competition inherent to markets. you're begging the question, my guy.

[@threewiseman1]

​@@AlbornozVEVOHahaha. Okay. So explain to me in what universe an individual could decide to open, say, a coffee shop, obtain all the necessary goods and equipment, find an establishment to operate out of, and not be taking a risk. Find me the magical la la land where you can do all that by farting it out of thin air. The 'circular argument' you are talking about is called the 'natural laws of the universe' wherein things don't poof into existence, that there is a finite amount of time and resource, and where human beings must consume basic necessities in order to not expire from starvation - which has held true under EVERY form of economy since one cave man said to another, "Ug, I give stick, you give rock."

[@GaidexVillerX13]

Truth employers matter not. only the employees are more important. sadly because they do something.

[@axeldornelles5292]

@Claudio Cadalço Investimento Imobiliário Pois é, Bolsominion, parece que o seu inglês é tão ruim quanto o seu posicionamento político, porque pra dizer isso você claramente ou não prestou atenção ou não entendeu nada.

[@antediluvianatheist5262]

@Claudio Cadalço Investimento Imobiliário Suure. Just give me a small gift of a million dollars, and i'll get right to it.

[@Thatguy-sm8cw]

If a business goes bust, the workers only lose a future paycheck. They can immediately look for and start another job. The employer, on the other hand, is on the hook for repaying investors, whatever debt the company has, etc. So If you believe workers should “share the profits,” consistency demands you hold they should share the losses as well. I wonder if Prof. Wolff would concur.

[@Puggy42069]

Businesses owners can write off bankruptcy and suffer virtually no risk in comparison to the risk the employees face every single day working with the public, health, injury, cut benefits, etc. The owner can sit behind a desk and make all the decisions with zero input from anyone.

[@ronaldpeters79]

@@Puggy42069 Why don't you quit your job and start your own business then? You claim you have no more risk than an employee. LOL

[@Puggy42069]

@@ronaldpeters79 I have started my own small business which doesn’t have nearly as much risk as people say, I even get tax breaks. I unfortunately can’t compete with the monopolies of other companies as a result of capitalism, however.

[@anthonyesposito7]

I'll bite and give a sort of braindead take we from some poeple. Well if the capitalist didn't want to lose they shouldn't have risked in the first place! Why should they expect MORE?! There is no free lunch!!. Ok moronic take over lol. Except yea there is a free lunch in capitalism when you get to sneakily steal the value of your workers. End capitalism, and end worker exploitation.

[@DarthLesbian]

@@anthonyesposito7Moron 😂

[@billytalty]

It's as if capital doesn't exist in his world.

[@GeorgWilde]

66% businesses that go bankrupt under first few years.

[@andthengodpooped]

That doesn’t mean 66% of business owners are broke afterwards. What is your point?

[@30minutesLess]

@@andthengodpooped doesn’t mean their rich either... Jesus Christ

[@johnrubensaragi4125]

Yeah, because the employer messes up on *their own* decisions, not employee's decisions.

[@30minutesLess]

@@johnrubensaragi4125 yup sounds perfect. The employees get to hop ship unscathed while the employers will dealing with the losses for years.

[@johnrubensaragi4125]

@@30minutesLess Then fix it. Have the workers own the shares equally and let them run the company democratically. There will be no one who took more risk than other.

[@slorter10]

I gives you hope when listening to the professor!

[@Wodospad_z_Deszczoskrzydlych]

UwU

[@30minutesLess]

Impotent rage.

[@Hermetic_]

1:23 He states all business owners are rich, and thus they are not taking any risk. This is a bad assumption.

[@REALASUNDER]

100% of large businesses owners are rich.

[@soulfuzz368]

lefty aaron most businesses aren’t large.

[@REALASUNDER]

@@soulfuzz368 yes. Doesnt mean the thousands that are large dont employe millions of people and take a majority of the business turnover each year.

[@shubhamwr]

@@soulfuzz368 workers in small businesses take similar risks, in joining small and new company instead of bigger one which will give them stable job, they put their labor investment in uncertainty. Where's reward for that?

[@shubhamwr]

@@soulfuzz368 most businesses aren't large in numbers but most of the population is employed by large businesses. For example if u take junk food industry, most of them would be employed by McDonald's, domino's and so. Whole economy is run by these monopolies, they are bailed out many times. small businesses receive zero fucks from government. These small businesses are called as "petty bourgeoisie" In left literature. Meaning they continually make to and fro movement between working class and capitalist class, though many of them join working class itself due to monopolies

[@Nai-qk4vp]

Great professor Wolff once again, insightful, concise and intelligent.

[@shyama5612]

He assumes all corporations are big. If I run a small business that employs 10 people, what he says doesn't apply. I'd be taking the risk more than my employees and they are free to join mine or my competitors. if they have more skills, they'll be paid more. If I don't pay them, they'll go to the company who will. If I have loss, will the past salary be paid back? Most of his confusion would be solved, if he starts a business and tries to implement his ideas. That said, I'm curious about how Mondragon co-operatives work and that's an idea worth exploring.

[@soulfuzz368]

They always do this, they speak like we live in the 1930s ffs

[@shubhamwr]

workers in small businesses take similar risks, in joining small and new company instead of bigger one which will give them stable job, they put their labor investment in uncertainty. Where's reward for that?

[@antediluvianatheist5262]

Yeah, y'all don't get it. It's like comparing the US energy industry to your mom's car. Sure, both pollute the air, but one is the real problem, and the other is ont. The capitalists we are discussing, are the big powerful owners who can spend millions, and get laws changed. Small business owners are petit bourgeois. Not the problem. Most of them work alongside the workers. Really not who we are talking about.

[@soulfuzz368]

Antediluvian Atheist what a braindead comparison. The two examples you gave don’t even serve the same function.

[@antediluvianatheist5262]

@@soulfuzz368 Irrelevant. The point is, there is nothing to be gained by telling the small ones to clean up, when it's the big ones causing 99% of the problem.

[@ripleysigningoff1231]

I was in agreement until he said "because you're rich." Not all business owners are rich, and many have been financially ruined by the failure of their businesses. I aspire to be a business owner and I'm barely middle class.

[@deeznoots6241]

>financially ruined lol they can literally just declare bankruptcy and be better off than many people immediately, boohoo they have to get a job like the rest of us

[@redram5150]

If the employees wanna risk their money in a business, money that goes away if it fails... if they wanna be on the hook for loans and utilities the business took out, then the employee can say they took the same risk.

[@nicolasm400]

Workers also risk their health, physical integrity & sometimes even their lives, something investors never do

[@frankmeyer6472]

Nicolas Martin for most jobs that’s not true....mining, yes, Construction, yes, That’s what workman’s comp is for....and insurance and safety training and work rules and procedures

[@redram5150]

Nicolas Martin that’s all part of the negotiation for compensation. Higher skill and higher risk jobs pay more than low skill, low risk jobs. If the amount is not worth the skill and risk involved, in the laborers mind, they can refuse the offer or counter with their own

[@frankmeyer6472]

Red Ram exactly right

[@justamaninTN]

@@redram5150 The point is that, unless the business owner was an idiot and risked every penny they had, they’re going to be fine if the business fails. I rarely hear of business owners being homeless. The employees will be fucked and out on the street unless they’ve been able to save some money, which is harder and harder to do with the ridiculous cost of housing. The risk is much higher for the employee. To which I’m sure the business owners will respond, “Just get another job”, which implies that is just so easy to do. It’s not. Getting another job sucks ass. It’s a long and stressful process. It took me filling out over 50 applications and doing over 20 interviews on the phone and in person to get 3 job offers and 2 of them sucked. This is very common for most people. I’ve been with my company for 5 years and now that I have more experience it would probably be easier than when I first left college, but I don’t want to find out. Why? Because it fucking sucks!

[@Durzo1259]

So he's seriously saying that the risk of applying for a job and getting it is equal the risk of investing all your money and 10x the work & creativity into creating & maintaining a successful new business? He needs to go apply for a job. Then he needs to go figure out a successful business model, invest all his money and build it from the ground up. Then tell me if those things felt like an equivalent accomplishment.

[@NotScotus]

He runs multiple businesses and has worked many jobs throughout his life

[@dukepalatinemmxx2098]

@@NotScotus I hope those businesses are communally operated and the income shared with the less fortunate? How about giving me some of it, please? I'll start a co-op. Has he funded and established some communal towns or villages or co-ops, based on communist ideology, to demonstrate the effectiveness of these ideas and ideals? There certainly is no country, past or present, to hold up as perfect example of its workability?

[@NotScotus]

JAY SHOWCASE Richard has never gone into much detail about his businesses. Why should he give you the money to start a Co Op? Most of the time 10+ workers get together her to start one, not just a singular person.

[@dukepalatinemmxx2098]

@@NotScotus does he and his family live in a commune themselves?

[@michaelmappin1830]

@@dukepalatinemmxx2098 , what are you talkin about? Why should Richard Wolff or anyone else give something to you for free? What does that have to do with worker cooperatives? you're not making any sense.

[@killianb4042]

Sounds like sentimentality over reality or practicality from him. Employee owned companies would be more prevalent if they actually worked as well as other kinds of companies.

[@Alex-qn9og]

"If democracy worked, then we'd have less monarchies". The success of capitalist corporations is based on "profit", which a democratic workplace wouldn't generate. Non-profits could be viewed as democratic workplaces. The success of large scale capitalist corporations relies on private ownership, but it doesn't mean our lives would be worse if we had many small, democratically run firms.

[@DarthLesbian]

Such a disingenuous argument. The risk for the employee is no where near the risk for the ones who started the business. And if that job falls through there are other jobs in the area they could take. Also you should probably be smart enough not to move halfway across the country for a job without a solid contract 😂

[@threewiseman1]

I think it is incredible that anyone takes this man seriously. It's an indictment on the overall intelligence of our society that people don't burst into laughter at how pathetic his 'arguments' are. It's also very apparent this man is a con artist. He knows very well he's full of crap, and he has very nefarious reasons for convincing people of his tripe.

[@justamaninTN]

The crazy part is you actually believe that. If I’m an entrepreneur and have enough money to start a business, I will risk some or even most of my capital, but not all of it, so that if the business fails I will not be completely destitute. If you have to risk 100% of your assets, you shouldn’t be opening a business. And that capital I do not invest will be invested in the stocks of other established businesses compounding over time and paying dividends, all while I pocket a higher salary than any of my employees from the business I own even if it inevitably fails. The employees’ source of income will be completely erased if the business goes belly up and they’ll be out on the street. Unless the employer is a complete moron, the business failing will suck, but it’s not a catastrophic event to the same degree as the employee. If you actually believe these are equivalent, you are either ignorant or a liar.

[@janvincent497]

Richard wolffe is pretending as if the risk of sky diving and walking out your front door is the same. The first company I worked for the founder dropped out of an engineer PhD having no business experience to start a company from scratch 10+ years ago to build it up. I just moved 50miles away from my parents house into an apartment to be an employee. These risks are not on the same level.

[@orestiskify]

Still, probably if the engineer loses the company, he will still have money to keep on living or thinking of something else. But if you lose your job, probably with the money you have left you will wait to die or bargain. Compare the results...

[@shubhamwr]

workers in small businesses take similar risks, in joining small and new company instead of bigger one which will give them stable job, they put their labor investment in uncertainty. Where's reward for that?

[@janvincent497]

@@shubhamwr it's generally easier to move up in a smaller business than in a large one. That's part of the reason people join small business plus more autonomy and less burecracy. Its easier growing a small business from 500k a year to 5mil a year. Rather than a large company growing from 500bil to 5tril. When then small business grows you will take on more responsibilities and bigger roles so you will be compensated as such. While in larger companies where you do get a stable job. You will probably be doing the exact same thing for years without any advancement. But you are free to choose what path you take. Hell you can even start your own business if you'd like.

[@shubhamwr]

@@janvincent497 I'm in no way talking about how much it's easier to make smaller business bigger (and believe me it's extremely difficult). U can't easily say small businesses grow from 500k to 5million. If it was that much profitable then capitalism won't even exist. Everyone would start his own business, and no one would find workers. Even co-ops don't rise to this much extent in small period. Small business come under extreme pressure from larger ones,as large businesses have acquired monopoly and usually get ended up by getting eaten or merger with big businesses. Again my point wasn't to explain this, as u have already pointed out, jobs in big companies are stable. So less "risk" Of losing them. People who join smaller businesses may get some autonomy, because it's new, and boss won't be so eager to rip u off because no one will join him (and this begins to change when his business goes on growing. He becomes more of hypocrite and forgets those were workers who brought him to prosperity). This is reason that employees who are the first ones to join business usually are considered as co-founders and are major shareholders of company. And up to this, it's perfect. "Risk" Was getting shared. Profits were getting shared. Everyone's voice could be heard. They all had decision making capabilities. But in capitalists system, after this primary cooperativeness, things with business start begin to change over a time when company actually starts to "hire" Workers, who won't be shareholders of company. These new people also do similar contribution (even bigger, because shareholders no more do work but start managing things. ) still they won't have any power. And this is what Wolff is talking about. Each man working in company has his own contribution to it's growth, so they must have decision making capabilities. Also he's talking about mass migrations and not "displacement" of person's ass from one positions to another when he talked about risk of changing positions. For Example during urbanization, people ,mostly poor farmers and small land owning peasants, migrate in masses in cities from one state to another. This is major problem in most of developing countries. Their life is full of uncertainty. Despite of owning land, their farm doesn't yeild necessary grain to feed their families itself. So their children, many times they themselves migrate to cities. What they have when they do so? They don't have any backup plan. They don't know where they will even live once they are in cities. Most of them have no relatives no home nothing. Many of them end up in building slums on footpaths and tiny open places, just hoping conditions will improve due to employment. Which employment? No answer. Most of them feed themselves by Washing clothes and utensils in houses of rich. Many die due to starvation and diseases. After few days, government, instead of helping them, classify their slums as "encroachment" And burn those "houses" Made up of plastic and wood in masses. So what this all was? Wasn't it a risk to move to city? They risked their and their children's entire live. In cities in countries like India rural parents do literally dirtiest works (for example see condition of garbage workers in third world country) just for hoping for children to go school so that they won't receive similar fate as theirs. What happens when they "invest" Their hard earned money for children's colleges? Do they get job easily? No! Because they weren't only migrants in city. Labour market is already saturated due to these migration. So these children either get no job or they get it at ridiculously low wages, which will take them years to just recover expenses that their parents did to educate them, starting new business? Well it's dream of next life for them. This is life threatening risk that people are exposed to, just to earn food and living conditions in capitalist system

[@deeznoots6241]

You’re right, there is far more risk being a worker than a company owner.

[@EVERYTHINGUNEDITED1]

Why is this guy older man so off reality , some argumenta goes in favour of employer

[@nishaad771993]

Would you also include the numerous small and medium sized business owners having limited capital as opposed to the handful of tycoons who own billions.....no Dr Wolff there are business owners who work and then with limited savings build an organisation from scratch In fact these businesses are much more numerous than your multi national corporations What about the risk these people take...someone owning a plumbing business for instance They may have mortgaged their house to a creditor....or may have used up their savings to kick start a business A lot of businesses take time and effort to build and expand...many don't break even in the first few years...the employer also has to deal with the uncertainty of workers leaving at the slightest hint of financial distress or to get a raise...they also have to find qualified workers to are willing to work in their small set up You also confuse a general risk taken by people in their personal lives with the risk of starting and running an organisation...the latter has a direct multiplier effect on the economy in terms of employment and services/products created Sincerely Ex socialist

[@justamaninTN]

It’s the Pareto principle. They’re only 20% of the problem and irrelevant to the 80% we’re trying to address.

[@charlesnorm4883]

1:28 the employer doesn’t necessarily have large reserves of money to fall back on if it doesn’t work out . In many cases the employer has to take out a loan, use their life savings, or even remortgage their home in order to start and run the business until it becomes profitable which, when considering most small business fail, is statistically unlikely. This is a bad characterisation of an employer.

[@deeznoots6241]

So at most the risk is just as much as any of the workers but again the employer still gets all the power and all the profit?

[@charlesnorm4883]

@@deeznoots6241 the risk is far more than any worker. The worker can be made redundant but they can find a new job without any crippling debt or bankruptcy from the failed business.

[@threewiseman1]

​@@deeznoots6241 I don't know of any employer that demands you take on crippling debt from a bank in order to start working for them. How is it remotely the same thing, you doofus?

[@justamaninTN]

@@charlesnorm4883 You know finding a new job sucks, right? You act like it’s just so easy.

[@charlesnorm4883]

@@justamaninTN I do, but I also know starting and running a business is infinitely harder and more stressful. I'v done both in my life so I say that from experience.

[@Indomat64]

1. Clock in, clock out. Waged employees are not expected to continue working their job off hours. Employers often spend a vastly higher number of hours worked for the same days and must be available “off the clock” for emergencies. 2. Employees also take risk, but vastly lower risk. If the company is operating at a loss, or decreased profits, the employee will still get paid. At large companies, employees will get advanced notice and sometimes severance. Setting up a proper contract at the start of employment is key and somehow not mentioned here? Bankruptcy screws over both employee and employer, but trust me, the employer hurts a LOT more in this scenario. 3. Most importantly, you fail to acknowledge the power the employee has as well and only highlight that of the employer. Employees are free to seek employment elsewhere, often to direct competition. Employers need to bid to keep their workers with them. This is critical with high skill workers especially and a few high value defectors upset by working conditions or low salary can make or break a business. Employers who fail to act in this way exist, but have historically lost out to their competitors who treat their staff with a higher quality, whether that be through higher wages, fulfilling work environment, career advancement opportunity, or any other factor the employee sees as valuable.

[@deeznoots6241]

LMAO, its always funny reading these, especially when you argue that companies that treat their workers better outcompete other companies, find me a single actual example of that being the case, slavery existed for a reason, it is immensely profitable to pay workers as little as possible, market forces didn’t drive wages up, workers did through fighting for their rights.

[@Indomat64]

@@deeznoots6241 Slavery functioned through a monopoly of force. It is completely contradictory to any "free market" principles because the use of force makes it not "free." Your argument also sucks because you seem to be using the straw man of slavery as a morality argument. I never claimed free market forces are morally superior, they just lead to efficiency.

[@Indomat64]

@@deeznoots6241 Here's an obvious textbook example, Ford decided to pay all their employees substantially above minimum wage and dominated the auto market for decades.

[@jamalcalypse]

the only risk an employer takes if they lose their business is having to become a worker again

[@Logan753-g1v]

And hundreds of millions of dollars invested to attempt to keep his business going....think again sunshine. 😉

[@Logan753-g1v]

DB 804 the money being invested is from someone else who took out loans with the confidence that it would pay off in the long run. There’s a tendency in most economic fallacies to believe that economic prosperity is a zero sum game...that if one man gains another must lose. Under a free market that is blatantly false. Do not confuse capitalism with crony capitalism. The only reason why socialists would consider these monopoly capitalists is because of the very reasons you just mentioned. The government has created “liability laws, severance packages, bankruptcy, collateral, loss write-offs and incorporation” which have in turn created the wealth inequality that you complain about. It’s all due to the fact that a socialist government created subsidies, which makes it easier for monopolies to be created.

[@Logan753-g1v]

The solution is to get the government out of the way so competition can occur. Keynesians piel professor Richard Wolff believe that competition creates monopolies. It doesn’t! Under a free market with no government subsidies/bailouts, monopolies won’t be created.

[@Logan753-g1v]

DB 804 the majority of wealthy people in the U.S have become wealthy due to government support.

[@cabpmn312]

@@nataliebolles wow, that's actually amazing, go take a huge loan from the bank and make your own business then. Who knew it had such a low risk? You could also give your shares to the workers so it becomes a workers cooperative, and basically create your own socialist heaven. If what you said were true then socialist coooperatives would outearn all major corporations and eventually the communist utopia would be eventually achieved.

[@frankg7662]

People make a agreement to work for a employer. if the employee is bad or the company is tanking the employer has no choice but to fire people. the employer took the risk to start the company therefore they have a right to protect their property.

[@javiermfmaldonadofernandez1489]

the point is, Frank, that the critique he is putting forward (in fact, that Marx was putting forward) is that they make an agreement because they, in the current system, have no choice. Because the employer has no just any kind of property, but the kind of property that give access to generating wealth, if you want to have a part in the production system, so as to get a piece of the generating wealth machine, you have to sign up the agreement to work for another man who does have those means of production. To put my argument into perspective: people in the medieval ages who owned a miserable piece of land were, in Marx´s terms, richer than us. Because they did not depend on someone else to make a living (there were of course other restrains to freedom, but you get my point).

[@frankg7662]

@@javiermfmaldonadofernandez1489 my question is does a individual have more choices for employment in a marxists economy? can a average worker better himself in a marxists system/economy?

[@lorenzofabiano4766]

@@frankg7662 It's like the whole point of Marxism...

[@tharunthiruseelan4252]

@@javiermfmaldonadofernandez1489 The employer also has no choice but to make a profit. Most businesses fail, but the workers still get paid. That is the state of life. There are limited resources but unlimited wants so the employers and workers produce from the resources to make sure we live.

[@themachine9366]

@@lorenzofabiano4766 Which is why Marxism is wrong. It has never worked and it never will. Wolf is a slap in the face to Cubans all over the world that have to learn this shit since they are in Middle school and he is teaching it at university like it is some complicated stuff. Unfortunate such a big part of the American public is so gullible and misinformed.

[@danijelandroid]

The reason why people accept the new "kings" is because these "kings" pay better and the 'law' restrict them more. I think the main reason is that the "servant" can be "king" too.

[@Shilgne1]

Nah.

[@TomB205]

@@Shilgne1 such a well thought out and written argument, truly a master debater.

[@funkyskunk1]

Richard Wolff spitting facts and kicking ass

[@ronaldpeters79]

Simple solution is to be an entrepreneur. That way you get 100% of the fruits of your labor. Unless you think it's too risky to quit your job, pour your life savings and all your time to start your own business. But in that case, you just figured out what was wrong with the flawed logic of this video and exactly why Richard Wolff decided to be an employee at a college

[@frankmeyer6472]

What a dishonest lecture

[@SteelmanArgument]

If you're gonna question it at least elaborate further than that.

[@Kloutkulture]

People tend to denigrate things they can’t comprehend.

[@rockwithyou2006]

Economics is pretty difficult to understand it takes years for the effects to show up. Unfortunately the youth of this country is convinced that free markets are the reason for their problems, where it is really cronyism and heavy govt interference that has caused these problems. Given so many of the youth are suffering in this country, any dishonest lecture of this sort will get a lot of support which is very evident from what you see here in this video and comments.

[@justamaninTN]

@@rockwithyou2006 You’re just a sheep repeating what you’re told to believe. Reject any thoughts you find uncomfortable. This is the Boomer way. How blissful it must be to be willfully ignorant.

[@Robozgraggi]

Clearly this guy is either very dishonest or completely ignorant about how to run a business. He conveniently leaves out many aspects of the argument about risk. What about investment? Insurance? Real estate? The oh-so-holy means of production? The worst thing that can happen to the employee is to lose his job and thus his possibility to earn money - the business owner runs the risk of actually loosing money - and mostly a large sum of that. Also nobody ever said that the employee doesn't take any risks - everybody takes risks, that's an inescapable part of life. The question is who takes the larger risk in context of the argument.

[@dirkloyd6018]

"The worst thing that can happen to the employee is to lose his job and thus his possibility to earn money" - your point would be stronger if money wasn't required to live. Everybody needs food & transportation, and millions need money for rent which can be ridiculously high. The employer can file for bankruptcy and rejoin the workforce if a business falls through - but if an employee loses their job, they can end up homeless, or worse. Being an employee is the lowest rung of a ladder that hangs delicately above an abyss.

[@justamaninTN]

“The worst thing that can happen to an employee is they lose their job and ability to make money.” I believe the best description of that scenario is being screwed.

[@kenshikenji]

why doesnt the employee take a risk. get a fucking loan from a bank and start a business and exploit other workers? lol

[@GumballEdits]

Does Richard Wolf believe that employees should have equal power to their bosses or just an increase in the influence employees have over decision making?

[@shubhamwr]

He believes in cooperatives. There are simply no bosses

[@NameSurname-ee4sw]

no bosses at all

[@dougyoung221]

Mom and pop business is different.

[@jspyce1848]

Not really, sure the employers take more of a risk than extremely wealthy people, but their workers, generally speaking, are still taking more of a risk than them. Unless it's a coop or unionized, the workers don't have much of a say in how the business gets run, what they do, or whether or not they get fired.

[@soulfuzz368]

JSpyce1848 what risk does an employee have when taking a job?

[@antediluvianatheist5262]

@@soulfuzz368 That the job will not be there later. That after getting organised for it, it vanishes. Didn't you watch the vid? He goes over this.

[@soulfuzz368]

Antediluvian Atheist oh heard him, looking for something more convincing.

[@antediluvianatheist5262]

@@soulfuzz368 And yet you did not deal with the risk taken on by the worker.

[@MrSquigglies]

The thing that absolutely tears apart every notion this hack has. *who provides the work?* The only reason why anyone owns a business is to make money. To make money there must be profit. To make profit you must have employees: ergo you will make your employees happy or they will leave. If a new one comes in that is that person's *CHOICE* This fraud has it ass-backwards, employees have ALL the power. Is the power of choice too much for you? Join the military they'll choose for you.

[@deeznoots6241]

Lmao, this is such a braindead take. If people don’t work they can’t feed themselves and their families, thus they are financially coerced into working whatever shitty wages companies offer. If there was any real incentive for companies to offer higher wages then there would be no need for a minimum wage. Hell if the rich had their way slavery would still exist

[@dukepalatinemmxx2098]

So it's easy. Just don't work for anyone. Start your own business and take all the risks yourself.

[@JohnSmith-es2ko]

Terrible arguement. The risks are nowhere equivalent

[@dialectic5361]

Yeah the worker takes more risk

[@ezniyazov7970]

@@dialectic5361 how so

[@K6GSXRider]

@@dialectic5361 so the bartender at a small restaurant is taking more risk than the restaurant owner? Please enlighten me.

[@dashley2525]

Life without any challenge is meaningless. You become complacent and usually cannot accomplish anything.

[@JohnQ5]

So how much challenge is acceptable and how should people be rewarded for meeting a challenge?

[@dashley2525]

@@JohnQ5 The size is what you can handle and in todays society everyone is fighting each other so that is a losing situation no matter what.

[@justamaninTN]

Thank you for the platitude. That was really thought provoking.

[@tengil4595]

So why doesn't everyone just start their own businesses? If you are your own employer you get all the profit

[@Hunterchuck]

That's my favorite line from capitalists lol

[@trevorsanso32]

just shut the fuck up you idiot

[@dreadarchive-6915]

You didn’t really think that one through, did you? If everyone is their own business, all you do is enable monopolies, sooner or later and you end up with a bigger version of the problem you aimed to solve.

[@billhicks8]

Everyone eh? Cool! That way nobody gets exploited in a capitalist system! And who will do the dirty work...oh yeah they don't exist anymore! And who will buy the land? Not the poor, surely! But if they could, and *all of them did* to eradicate wage slavery, then what land would be left on this earth after private property rules? Oh, not enough!

[@shubhamwr]

This is what socialist strive for! Everyone should be their own master and each individual working in company should have one share, one person one vote. Everyone is business owner, thing which frightens capitalist most :)

[@thecoolgee18]

This guy has never owned a business or talked to a small business owner. The vast majority of small businesses are started by people who invest their life savings and suffer with scraps while paying others in the beginning years, while their employees make more than them.

[@deeznoots6241]

Then maybe they should be smart and get a job if its actually making more money than a business?

[@thecoolgee18]

@@deeznoots6241 that’s your response? You took the time to read comments and you responded that? Lol Okay Deez noots

[@justamaninTN]

Again with the small business owners. It’s like a broken record. This is clearly talking about corporations who are responsible for the vast majority of economic output.

[@gtothereal]

How any takes this utter tripe seriously is fascinating. No not all entrepreneurs are rich and no moving for a job is not the same thing is being financially at fault should a business fail. Are y’all children?

[@ezniyazov7970]

👍👌

[@couragecoachsam]

I’ve never heard such a callous perspective on middle-class small business owners. Despicable

[@siddhartha5186]

this was not just abt small and medium enterprise owners, owners of diff sizes (all encompassing). Though i dont agree with him, but i know he is more inclined to co-ops and other democratic owned enterprise

[@dorianmonroy3839]

Go cry about it.

[@justamaninTN]

Boo hoo. Is there a more coddled and self-fellatiating group than small business owners?

[@DeedsResearcher]

Is this guy a commie? The owner of that business may have invested EVERY DIME THAT HE HAD into that business, with ZERO guarantee of getting it back! The guy who works there is assured of a weekly paycheck...until the company goes bankrupt. The worker may have a union card in his or her wallet, but has invested NOTHING in terms of CASH into that business. THAT is why the worker gets what he is paid for doing his job, while the owner often has to get by without an extra dime in his pocket...until or unless the business turns a profit. Unless you have profits, there are no new jobs to be created. The owner makes the investment, so he deserves the rewards that come with that risk.

[@shubhamwr]

What do u mean by worker has invested nothing in terms of cash? His labor is what generated that cash, over which he has no control. Do u think if worker didn't do any work, employer would earn money? No! He earns because workers do job. They invest their labor, time and everything in company. Workers take much bigger risk than employer. Because employer have full control over his decisions. If it goes well, it was his decision. If something goes bad, it's still his decision. Workers don't have this decision making authority. They have to live under decision made by others with no control over those. "Employer don't have any guarantee that he will get it back". Neither do employees have any guarantee that company in which they r investing labor would be able to return it in money. Those who get affected, starve and die during crisis are not employers, but employees who have invested their life in working under someone. Workers pay back to the employer amount he invested in capital by working under him . But employer don't stop their, he also wants " Interest" Over that use, which professor is against. "Unless u have profits, there r no new jobs created". There's difference between profit and surplus. Profit is gained by ripping others off, surplus is gained by extra hard work. That's why cooperatives exist

[@TheOtherCaleb]

Worker co-ops are acceptable in capitalism. I don’t understand the anger here. Marxists are going crazy about a certain centralized business model, not capitalism. Capitalism is simply the consistent respect of private property rights. There is so business model connected to capitalism. In fact, I’m for worker co-ops. But I’m also for voluntary exchange.

[@TheOtherCaleb]

@@A99-b6h How on God’s green earth is slavery the consistent respect of private property rights? Slavery is quite literally the opposite of private property rights, it is a system of seizing other people’s private property (themselves) and using it for financial benefit. Same with feudalism, a feudal lord uses involuntary force, he does not respect the exclusive ownership of the normal people.

[@TomB205]

To do my job requires a $600k ish facility. In the grand scheme of things that's not a lot for capital in a business, but it's a lot for one person. On top of that, for me to do my job requires a network of other facilities of similar price across the US and Canada, and billions of dollars worth of equipment moving between those facilities. Now I could keep every cent of value that comes from my labor, which would be exactly 0, by sitting at home without the resources necessary to do my job. Or I could deal with someone who can provide those resources for me to do my job. One of those options puts food on my table, one does not. But can't I just go to my current job but keep all the value of my labor? That'd be swell until the power gets shut off because my employer couldn't pay the utility bill, the equipment gets repossessed because my employer couldn't pay for it, any paid-off equipment and Infrastructure falls into disrepair with time because my employer can't replace it when it's worn out, and the facility gets foreclosed because nobody's paying for it. It's crazy to think that these are the ideas that communists have focused on, and that they've consistently starved.

[@jackruby6696]

Almost like the employees should have a say and a piece of the pie. Almost like the boss and employees should set aside money to repair there equipment.

[@Greensacks]

"If you wanna reward risk, all the workers get a piece of that" that 'piece' is their wage FFS

[@soumyaemani4157]

wages are not a reward for the 'risk' taken by employees. they are paid for the tangible work that is done by them (almost always much lesser than the workers deserve to be paid, read : the theory of surplus value). The reason a CEO or an employer recieves disproportionately higher amount of money is because of the 'risk' taken by them which is what the professor is addressing here.

[@Immortality44]

Delusional

[@bobsmith175]

I don't get why this guy is so mad at employers when employees agree to their terms

[@johnrubensaragi4125]

Because there's no way to get what you wish if all other employers are like that.

[@bobsmith175]

@@johnrubensaragi4125 and what is it that you wish?

[@Ronology_]

@@bobsmith175 - you either work & accept exploitation, or starve & go homeless. Not much of a choice.

[@bobsmith175]

@@Ronology_ what do you mean by exploitation

[@johnrubensaragi4125]

@@bobsmith175 Another video. kzbin.info/www/bejne/aJ6skIWDhqqootk

[@jamesfromvenice]

This guys arguments are so shallow.... the risk the worker took is IN the agreement he/she made with the employer, no? All those sleepless nights the worker did to get better ie.. studying/extra work.. THOSE are compensated (pay) by the employer but the skills acquired do not sit with the employer, they go with the employee... to whatever job. SO, the contract the employee/employer make IS fair and equatable..... and I might it rather ignorant to suggest an employees risk is the same as the employer... coming from the mouth of a person who does NOT own a business...... pretty typical. You notice how these marxists NEVER advocate for less taxes, and more competition.... THUS, increasing the economic viability of the "worker". Instead, they advocate for more government and the theft of their neighbor.

[@VoitenZrage]

Obviously you've never had to settle for a shit job to keep yourself alive.

[@tickle296]

What that "lost" means to a human is not at all understood by that employer( who is a human too). And this is precisely why Marx quoted... "therefore religion is opium of the people".