Re:Amazon Ditches 'Just Walk Out' Checkouts at Its Grocery S...
by mlrtime on Thursday April 04, 2024 @08:32AM
(#39929578)
I'm following this thread and still don't understand what you think "enough" is. The person you are replying to makes sense to me.
This is just a fyi when trying to write out your thoughts.
Re:Amazon Ditches 'Just Walk Out' Checkouts at Its Grocery S...
by Dylan16807 on Thursday April 04, 2024 @11:12AM
(#39931412)
That is because I have not given a definition for it. I don't have a specific one in mind.
I just think "100% of surplus value" is a wrong definition, so using that definition to argue that "in a very literal sense, pay can never be enough" is a very flawed argument.
I don't think I need to offer my own definition to claim that, do I? They later said it's subjective, which seems to favor my claim.
Does that clear things up? Is there a reason you thought I was trying to give a definition, and failing? Is there something wrong with my argument?
I agree. Which is why "enough" is not an objective threshold of 100% of surplus value.
> I'm also not sure what you're trying to argue.
I'm arguing that "less than 100% means not enough" is an incorrect statement. That's all. The bulk of your post isn't relevant to what I was saying.
(To be extra clear, that's my paraphrase of this line: "in a very literal sense, pay can never be enough because it is economically necessary to underpay workers relative to what they contribute because profit by definition can only exist from surplus value, i.e. making more money from selling the product of labor than you pay for that labor.")
> But you're still agreeing that the measure for "enough" [...] A better rebuke would be that "enough" is normally about need, not revenue.
But I did address that. "I feel like the lifestyle you can buy with the pay matters too, but even if we ignore that aspect,"