No, because if you're not exploitative that would mean you're producing exactly as much money as you're paying out to your labor, or less. This is impossible in a capitalist system, because you go under.
It can be done and sometimes is, but we call that charity. I've seen some businesses that take 100% of their profit and just redistribute it to their employees. But they can never expand, only float, and the company exists on borrowed time.
The difference here is made up with capital - as in, we're told the myth that capital is the reason why businesses pay less for labor than it produces. Because they provide the capital.
In reality, capital can be democratically owned and capital is also not the cornerstone of our economy. People, labor, is.
> No, because if you're not exploitative that would mean you're producing exactly as much money as you're paying out to your labor, or less.
This is an incorrect understanding of exploitation. Even in the most ethical corporation to have ever lived, 100% of the money earned will not go to labor. The money earned by a corporation is always paid out to
1. Employees/suppliers
2. Government
3. Shareholders
4. Company's own balance sheet
The exploitation part happens when companies cut on 1 to boost 2, 3, and 4. They do so to boost margins.
But strictly speaking, they could cut 2 via tax deduction maneuvers, cut 3 via shareholder return cuts, and cut 4 via plain old not saving more.
Cutting 1 is the most visible cut there is. Within 1, they could cut labor, quality, suppliers, advertising, what have you. Everything is shortchanging the company.
There are so many levers at play here. Exploitation only starts at stripping your company's assets (labor, loyalty, real estate, supplies, customer goodwill) in order to boost other aspects - usually 3 and 4.
There are economic systems in which 100% of the value produced is paid out to laborers. We're just not in one.
> Exploitation only starts at stripping your company's assets (labor, loyalty, real estate, supplies, customer goodwill) in order to boost other aspects - usually 3 and 4.
First, this is merely an opinion. It's not a matter of me "misunderstanding" exploitation. It's an opinion that this is when exploitation starts.
Also, this is UNAVOIDABLE. You MUST, necessarily, take some money away from labor to give it to 3 and 4.
Your entire thought process rests on this word here - "stripping". What is that? When does that begin?
Is one dollar stripping? To me, yes, to you, no. What is that magic number? And, if you can find that magic number, why is it correct? And who decides?
> There are economic systems in which 100% of the value produced is paid out to laborers. We're just not in one.
You will need to give examples.
> Also, this is UNAVOIDABLE. You MUST, necessarily, take some money away from labor to give it to 3 and 4.
Absolutely. Can you point at where this was not implied?
> Your entire thought process rests on this word here - "stripping". What is that? When does that begin?
This where your understanding is completely off. It seems that you are missing the forest for the trees. Instead of focusing on "stripping", try to ask the question, "What steps can the company take when they are stagnating in revenue or margins?"
The problem is you're not able to quantify where the problem begins. I am, the problem starts at 0.
Apparently there's a point where siphoning money from labor becomes bad. When is that point, according to you? You have no idea. What's that number? I dunno. Apparently nobody on Earth knows.
But you're telling me you understand exploitation? Yeah, fat chance. It's obvious you've gave a very minimal amount of mental effort into your views and outlook on economy and just ran with it. If you're not actually able to quantify what the problems are, reliably, you don't have an opinion. You have a delusion that makes you feel good. Which, granted, is easier and simpler to sell to voters. But it's also nothing - it's fluff.
It can be done and sometimes is, but we call that charity. I've seen some businesses that take 100% of their profit and just redistribute it to their employees. But they can never expand, only float, and the company exists on borrowed time.
The difference here is made up with capital - as in, we're told the myth that capital is the reason why businesses pay less for labor than it produces. Because they provide the capital.
In reality, capital can be democratically owned and capital is also not the cornerstone of our economy. People, labor, is.