I didn’t say they’ve never done any work. I said they don’t do work.
— Socialist Takes (@SocialistTakes) November 26, 2022
Of course they do a little bit of work for a few years (unless their wealth is inherited), but the amount of work they do in their lifetime pales in comparison to the average worker, who works for 50 years.
A guy named "Socialist Takes" has a laughably retarded notion of economics.[I almost fell out of my chair... -ed] He's making, of course, one of the classic errors that all Marxists make regarding the nature of productive employment: that "work" as a concept somehow boils down to physically doing some sort of thing. It's only in the past 30 years or so they've even considered sitting at a laptop doing something on a computer "real work" and that's mainly so that they can justify their grift (and on some occasions when niggers get upset that they have to go through the 'labour' of typing out justifications for their own bad political opinions).
Until suddenly the "capitalist" gets involved, and then suddenly this becomes almost no work whatsoever.
In practice of course, small business owners tend to do more work in the laptop sense than any three employees combined. One of the reasons they willingly do this, of course, is that if the business moves from small to smallish-medium up to medium up to largish-medium up to large up to superlarge, they reap particularly oversized benefits. No socialist losers should begrudge them this, the capitalist takes on far more risk than anybody else in the company as well. Risk + work = nonzero chance of massive payday. As well it should.
Notice however I haven't been putting in any guarantees. Outside of rare instances (Krudge for example had this happen to him in 2009 or so) if you're one of these "average workers" then over the 50 years you receive a paycheque it's for work you've done with 100% return rate. That number may not be as high as you like (spoiler alert, it never is for any of us) but it's locked in. You might be asking about layoffs or being fired or things like that, but that's the point: it's only when you stop working that the money stops rolling in. Until you quit being a worker for that company, they keep paying you. Even if they fire you they (again with rare exceptions) still have to pay you for the work you did.
Not so the entrepreneur: who can (and again I've watched this happen) work harder and harder in a struggling business only to have it collapse completely and not only not get compensated for work performed but indeed explicitly lose money because of it. True it didn't happen to the current billionaires which Socialist Takes lumps in with scam artist Sam Bankman-Fried, but the nature of the business is that it could have at any earlier point.
However that is again using "work" in the pathetically limiting Marxist definitions. Bernard Arnault is currently the world's richest man, the billionaire who foolishly didn't start a Web 2.0 firm but instead took over his father's construction company over 50 years ago. Arnault in the socialist sense hasn't done any "work" since 1971. But if we're going to hold to that, Toni Morrison hasn't done any "work" since 1971 either (roughly when she quit her job and started writing novels instead of sitting in an office on a 1971 laptop)!
Both Morrison and Arnault were doing creative projects: Morrison creating works of (ever increasing) fiction, while Arnault was creating new directions and ideas for companies he ran. At the same time Morrison was dreaming up Tar Baby Arnault was dreaming up the transformation of Ferret-Savinel the construction company into Férinel the real estate company. While Morrison was sitting on her ass not doing any work according to socialist theory Arnault was also doing "no work" as he convinced Antoine Bernheim to help him buy the holding company which owned the Christian Dior brand. In socialist-speak Arnault didn't do anything, yet there was an obvious advantageous result to his purchase. (As an aside, he was also nicknamed "The Terminator" after laying off 9000 workers, which again to a socialist perspective makes no sense since obviously 9000+x workers do more work -- therefore generate more income to "exploit" -- than x workers would)
The work required to secure financing for the winning bid is more than 0. Otherwise we get back to having to assume that coming up with the LVMH idea is worthless along with every poem or book or song ever written. Which leads us to the next thing that all socialists should be asked:
Do you agree your employer should pay you less if you do less work?
Socialist Takes is a computer programmer according to his Twitter bio, so let's use an example close at hand. Say he's writing a program that requires some sort of search functionality. In the old days, he would have to actually sit down and write that search functionality code: today he would simply plug in a pre-purchased modular piece of search code, modify it if necessary, then move on with the rest of the day. He's not being expected to write the code from scratch. Okay, that was then and this is now. Yet still today a computer programmer has to go and check his code for errors. Modern programs are certainly good at making errors easier to find, but he still has to go look for them.
Until one day another programmer writes a piece of software that intuitively understands what you "wanted" to do and fixes your code on the fly. Like how Microsoft imagines that "would you like to correct your Excel formula to this" dialog box works, only this time it literally works correctly. This is basically the holy grail programmers dream of. But here's the kicker: bringing it in makes the job easier, so now Socialist Takes does less work.
Does he agree he needs to have his pay slashed? A huge amount of the work of his job is just...gone. His job got easier. He got closer to a billionaire's level of work than he ever has been before. He also insists its "unfair" to pay somebody the same as they did before for doing "less work", remember?
Businesses now have even more incentive for improving worker efficiencies. It used to be that if you hired Remus to clean the office up, your motivation for buying new better acting cleaning products was so that Remus could do a better job, or cover more ground than before...but now you can also dock his pay.
It could be a brave new world where businesses take the Marxist nonsense about the Labour Theory of Value at their word (it could be the same world where they realize they can replace all their male employees with female employees at 71% of the pay) by slashing the pay of employees with every time saving innovation that comes along.
For a particular computer firm in Essex, one of their employees has been ripping them off and they can rectify this unfortunate situation where the socialist...takes.
