ComradeMiao

Thanks for that differentiation

Thanks for taking the time to explain :)

lol! That’s a fun alternative which is kind of already the story! Minus the son of man part

Do you not think the lawyer helping the hurt win against big corporations is not sill though? And if they win them 55 mil for example they deserve a portion for their work?

The particular insurance I’m mentioning is annuities. Insuring one has steady income for life. I do see your point that even this type of insurance would not have to exist in a communist country since one would have a fair wage.

I guess I am thinking at too small a level! Thanks for your insight and sorry I’m responding via mobile so my thoughts are less complete.

Thanks! That makes a lot of sense. So if one wanted to expand and make more one would thus have to divide that amongst more workers. Any expanse, salary, and expense would all be decided and taken upon together.

Also I didn’t know haute bourgeoisie was real lol. I thought that was just a term from the horrible movie metropolitan.

Thanks for the comment and links. Will read them later tonight.

Based on what you said, how do you divide bourgeoisie and proletariat then? Those who control the means of production and those who profit is extracted right? Would the example where no one is extracting and all workers are paid well still be proletariat? I’m sure it can’t be as silly as proletariat + paid well = bourgeoisie. Both examples I provided come from dirt poor families.

So based on what you just said, profit would/should essentially not exist. It should be expenses going towards all workers fairly and the rest put back into the company and means?

So fair ownership of the company is based on who controls it's direction and choices. Got it. How does this compare to companies that give employees stock or shareholders in general? Would one say a basic shareholder is not a worker therefore the same logic doesn't apply? But employees receiving stock would give them a vote in the companies decisions and leadership positions. Or does this capitalist method of dividing the company not apply at all?

There have been a lot of bad faith lemmy users recently. Thanks for taking my question seriously and explaining why it might be taken otherwise :)

This is very clear!

So in these two examples both companies are relatively small and new and people have different responsibilities and are paid accordingly. For instance the lawyer who wins all the cases and the underwriters (if that is the term). Is it that they should be paid the same, even though their jobs are wildly different, or that they should have collective ownership in the organization? Would the latter then result in the same pay?

Thanks!

Thank you!

I think an issue here is that “ethical” and “unethical” as value judgements operate on many different levels and just because someone does something considered one or the other, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are wholly bad or good.

This is a fair point I considered. That's why I wondered how to define because it can't be on an individual basis.

Could you expand upon how getting paid a high salary is unethical? Does giving a lot to charity make it better?