"Well, but I own the machines."

"How did you get the machines?"

"Sold products and bought them."

"Wait, you sold products before buying the machine? How did you make those products? That seems like circular reasoning."

"Actually, you're right, I initially took out a loan to buy the machine in the hopes I could sell enough products to pay off the loan."

"That seems like it was a risk."

"It was. But, I spent a lot of time analyzing the market, coming up with estimates of how much people would buy, how much someone who could operate the machine would cost in wages, all that sort of thing."

"That seems like a lot of work."

"It was a fair amount of work."

"Who paid you to do that work?"

"Nobody paid me, I hoped to get paid once I could start selling products."

"So, why didn't your worker start his own business and buy his own machine instead?"

"Ah, well, that's the part that's a bit unfair. See, I could afford to spend the time analyzing the market because my family is rich, and I didn't need to work gruelling 8 hour days. Also, when it came time to take out a loan to buy the machine, the bank was happy to give me the loan because of my family name."

"Ah, and your worker?"

"Great guy, but he has a family to support and no rich parents. He couldn't take the time to analyze the market for a new business because he has to hold down a job. And, even if he could find the time to do that, the bank probably wouldn't give him a loan for a new business because he doesn't have any business history, or assets to use as collateral. Also, he can't really afford to fail."

"Afford to fail?"

"Yes. Like I said, I have rich parents. If my business fails, my dad will rib me about it a bit. But, it's not like I'll be out on the street."

"And your worker?"

"Well, he could certainly try to start a business, but if the business failed he'd be in real trouble. No rich parents, you see. Plus, I have great accountants. If my business fails, they'll use it as an offset for my taxes. Technically, anybody can do that, but good luck figuring out how to do that with TurboTax or something."

"So, really, it's oversimplifying to say that you do nothing, and the worker does everything."

"Yeah, he makes what I tell him to make, but I figure out how much to charge, where to sell it, where to buy the raw materials, basically everything about the business other than operating the machine."

"But, operating the machine is important."

"Of course! It's vitally important. But, you see, I bought a machine that costs a little more but is designed to be extremely easy to use. Because just about anybody can use it, I don't need a worker with special skills. That means I don't have to pay too much in wages."

"So, really, if there's unfairness here it's structural. You come from a rich family, so it's easy for you to start a business. He doesn't, so his only real option is to get a job from someone like you."

"That's right."

"But, it seems like that could all be changed with a few changes to the laws. You pay a bit more in taxes, he pays a bit less, then he can save up and maybe start his own business?"

"Yeah, that might work. But, here's the kicker. He voted for the same guy I did. The other candidate was promising tax reforms, enforcing anti-monopoly laws, etc. But, my guy got everyone scared about trans athletes and brown people crossing the border. My worker's a good guy, but he's super racist. As long as you're going after the brown people, that's what matters to him."

$4.00 in October 1937 has the same buying power as $91.78 in August 2026.

Instead of distractions over exact numbers, apply Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit: Does the pattern of owners profiting more from workers’ labor, and compensate as "market allows", hold true regardless of the specific dollar amounts?

Let us not nitpick numbers as a distraction, but instead focus on the trend and the systemic issues of low wages, inferior benefits compared to many other nations, so they have less artificial scarcity and better lives, which is the goal. Demand better for all, not less for others once you got yours!

I can't remember for sure how capitalism defines labor. I think it's just an expense. You know, the idea is that if you can buy it for cheaper than you can pay to make it, then you'll just fire all of your workers and buy the product. Just like that.

That's why every time there's a disruptive technology, every company loses its fucking mind. "Oh, I can get AI to code for cheaper than my engineers? Time to get rid of those expenses."

Well, technically, customers pay bosses.

Gold

If he's paid four dollars a day and only makes 10 dollars worth of products, he's probably turning a loss once material costs and everything are accounted for? As 10 dollars would be revenue, not profit