By - Elbrujosalvaje
The minimum wage in Australia is $21.38 AUD, that's $14.35 USD.
It baffles me, just how hard done by USA citizens are. We need a rage rise here and yet we are still guaranteed double of the US wage.
You are talking about it.
Their username explains exactly how far they got in their economics degree. Kicker - they failed the course.
thats because minimum wage is $21.38 in australia, and not fucking $7.25 like in america. try finding out what the minimum wage actually is rather than just whinging about the people who talk about it.
jesus fuck i wouldnt even call it research, i just searched "australia minimum wage" and i found my answer instantly.
the point is that people in america make staggeringly little for the work they do because (and i might be overcomplicating this) :
"greedy monke hoard all banana. other monkes get teeny tiny banana and live in small tree together while greedy monke eat lot of banana and has own big tree. greedy monke no share lots because he greedy, so other monkes die of no banana and then monkes tree go bye bye because he no have enough banana to pay to greedy monke"
i hope thats simple enough for you
monke need enough banana to live in tree. if monke pick flea off greedy monke, he need get enough banana to eat, get tree for monke snooze and to go do monke things. if he not get enough banana, he either go hungy, treeless or depresso monke, which make monke ANGY, so greedy monke need pay enough banana to keep normal monke happy, instead of using all that banana to make a big banana to go to sky in.
Common point of confusion here is that persistent inflation doesn't stem simply from corporate greed. It comes from an increase in the supply of money. So, while the owners of the companies were greedy then and are greedy now, the minimum wage, along with whatever other market factors (that may or may not have brought wages above it across professions), was simply a guard rail against that greed. The money became worthless, the guardrail failed to increase to accommodate it, and so the value was appropriated. You can argue that greed also caused the inflation, by way of the government printing money to give to cronies, but that's a second thing.
This is why crime spikes. CRIME ISN’T CRIME WHEN THIS IS HAPPENING. They are the REAL perpetrators!!!!
But corporations knew that the wages they were implementing was NEVER livable wage. They could have easily increased wages and not suffer from profit loss
it's a bit systematic. The corporations that didn't do that made less profit and evejtually got bought out by the companies that commit these crimes against humanity.
Capitalism, by design, fosters that behaviour.
That's true, but the point I'm making is about something else.
I got your point for sure. see the correlation you made
I would argue that there are not enough resources to go around.
*A billionaire doesn't buy a billion dollars worth of burgers*
I would put it this way, we're not reaching a limit on resources, we're reaching a limit on our extremely wasteful use of resources. Animal agriculture comes to mind.
Yeah, but most joists and trim in homes is made from chipped second growth trees, which is sad. Plastic siding..
E: The video explains why wealth has only become a display of power.
Not to mention the generous contribution that animal ag makes to our environmental destruction!
Fun fact: The federal minimum wage increased from $6.55 to $7.25 when I was a high school student, 13 years ago. Today, it is still $7.25.
Crazier fact, when I was in hs few years before you, min wage was 5.15 and I got a raise of .50c in less than 6 months as a teenager.
my first job (circa 2001) was fast food cook. the head cook at the time got a raise and we were all excited to find out how much he was getting. they gave him a 5 cents raise, from 5.15 to 5.20 an hour. i was like, man you should quit, this is bs. he quit. i wasn't far behind.
When I was a kid in the 80's my mom made $4.25 an hour as a shift leader at McDonald's. When they gave her the raise with her promotion to shift leader it was a lousy 10¢. Yes I know that it's better than nothing, but to her it was basically a slap in the face before getting back to work as a wage slave who was never able to keep food in the house due to barely scraping by paycheck to paycheck smh.
Biggest slap in the face: when I was working at major antisemtic business outlet, Barnes and Noble, I got a bonus one year. After making the company a nice 2.6 million in CD music sales (right at turns of itunes) on my own, I received 1.00$ on my check. They paid probably 2.80 to ship and send me a taxed dollar worth of bonus. So, I had it cashed from the store and put the dollar in the trash because nobody deserves 1 slave master buck to feel like the benjis they stacking meant you were a 1$ slave.
Around same time as myself then. Spongebob squarepants I was. Literally the youngest Head Fry Cook in a beachtown restaurant across from a crab house. Just saying, lol.
my first job a thousand years ago paid me more than your federal minimum wage today. If people could afford to, they'd be furious
Hey there DragonfruitVivid5298! If you agree with someone else's comment, please leave an **upvote** instead of commenting **"THIS"**! By upvoting instead, the original comment will be pushed to the top and be more visible to others, which is even better! Thanks! :)
^(I am a bot! Visit) [^(r/InfinityBots)](https://reddit.com/r/InfinityBots) ^(to send your feedback! More info:) [^(Reddiquette)](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439#wiki_in_regard_to_comments)
it's funny because they said this to the post and not a comment, but it is a bot after all
I do sort of still agree though
^(I am a bot! Visit) [^(r/InfinityBots)](https://reddit.com/r/InfinityBots) ^(to send your feedback!)
I know that most Anarchists aren't Marxists, but I do think most of you would agree (disclaimer: I'm some kind of a Marxist-Leninist and I got here via r/antiwork): *all* value is generated by workers, and thus any value that isn't given to workers is stolen from us. Workers and the working class deserve 100% of the value we create, and of course the surplus value the Capitalists extract from us. It's not just 5, 7 or 20 Trillion dollars, but *all* profit and value that is created and was ever created.
> and thus any value that isn't given to workers is stolen from us.
Maybe "unjustly taken" or "extorted", but I've yet to see any citations of Marx or even Lenin calling the appropriation by capital owners of the surplus labour done by workers and the plus value that workers generate "theft". Doesn't mean it isn't wrong and that workers shouldn't get full ownership of the product of their labour, it's just that calling it "theft" presumes that we're already living under Socialism, when the very point is that we don't.
That’s what I make. Now adjusting that for Cali what would I make.
3:20 I’m not long for this job. I hate it. Im going to go back to college. Labor is shit. I hate it here. But it did help me fatten my bank account. That’s always good
It is not greed. That implies a human issue, whereas it's simply the capitalist pressure of competition that forces capitalists to cut wages.
Well, greed *is* a human issue -
Exactly, but wages aren't low because of greed and therefore not because of humans being greedy or otherwise bad in general, but because the structural dictate of competition in capitalism.
To simply say "greedy people pay low wages" is not analytical at all and could very well be applied to non-capitalist societies. And that's a problem because it distracts from the important issue, that low wages are a systemic issue of capitalism regardless of people being good or bad and whether they are greedy or not.
I find it hard to explain, but do you get what I'm trying to say?
Not saying that minimum wage is high . But i swear these claims getting smaller and smaller.. i haven’t seen 7$ minimum wage since 2009. now its like 15$ everywhere i look …not that it’s much
The federal minimum wage is 7.25 an hour. Which means states do not have to raise the minimum wage above the level if they don’t want to. 8 states in America have minimum wage set below 7.25 an hour. So if the federal minimum wage wasn’t 7.25, workers would be paid less than 7.25 an hour.
Until workers stop taking pride in working long hours, having second jobs, and working while sick, nothing is going to change.
The math is wrong but I like your spirit, kid
Yeah haha, a median wage would prolly work better than min.
Bad math good point
Facts needed explaining.
link for post?
That's not 'theft', that's 'exploitation'. *Theft* is when they pay you less than they promised they would for the amount you worked. It's the difference between them strongarming and browbeating and coercing you into a shitty deal, and them then breaking the terms of that deal to take even *more* from you.
The majority of the American public agrees that the minimum wage should have been raised several times and long ago. Morality is decided on by society. Therefore, it's theft.
There's a bit of a leap from 'this person should be paid more' to 'this person being paid so little is immoral', to 'this person is being *stolen* from'. That said, if society decides that exploitation constitutes the latter of the three and either advocates for the replacement of all private enterprise by cooperatives, or for the socialization of all major enterprises, far from me to get in their way.
Doesn't communism define exploitation and profit as stolen wages/labor? Why would it be a stretch for wage stagnation for 13 years, the longest period since minimum wage began, to be theft as well? It's beyond our actual control to raise it. Even 7 Democrats voted against it last year. So that leaves two choices: 1, endure it; 2, don't work and die. So, one choice really. If we are forced to work to live and we can't raise the wages ourselves, how is that not theft?
> Doesn't communism define exploitation and profit as stolen wages/labor?
Does it? Where?
> If we are forced to work to live and we can't raise the wages ourselves, how is that not theft?
Do you consider extortion and theft to not be distinct categories? What about extortion vs robbery?
> So that leaves two choices: 1, endure it; 2, don't work and die. So, one choice really.
Ahem. [A couple](https://www.reddit.com/r/SRAWeekend/comments/zdko9h/i_wish_all_railway_workers_a_very_happy_illegal/) of [alternatives](https://www.reddit.com/r/PhilosophyTube/comments/zet848/massiven_kriminellen_gewaltaten_no_19101118b_or/) may occur to those who reject the electoralist framework you just described. When the game is rigged, some find success by [other means.](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/goflip.jpg)
Not that I'm suggesting that anyone *do* that, that would likely violate the Reddit TOS, *and* probably be a crime in the eyes of several States' Reppressive Apparati. I'm only saying that these options exist.
Proudhon defines property as theft, to which the owner class can exploit the worker class. Marx defines profit as theft, to which the owner class exploits the worker class. Any amount of money taken on the labor of the working class as profit is seen as theft and exploitation. Any wages beneath what they actually earn would be considered stolen from the worker. Considering minimum wage is well-beneath what they actually earn, it seems reasonable to consider this a theft of wages.
Proudhon and Marx died long before the US instituted a minimum wage, so we can't know for sure how they would feel about it or it's stagnation. But I don't think it's unreasonable to assume they would be unhappy with it, or consider it more of the same of theft of wages from the working class.
As far as violence against the state, you won't get any argument from me, on principle. But considering the level of technology and weaponry the state wields, we will likely never again be able to counter it with equal measure.
Edit: There's another comment on here from an ML saying much of the same: https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchy4Everyone/comments/zfi8ri/trillions_of_dollars_have_been_stolen_from/izecjt5?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3
> Marx defines profit as theft
> But I don't think it's unreasonable to assume they would be unhappy with it
> or consider it more of the same of theft of wages from the working class.
They would consider it exploitation. Whether they considered exploitation to be theft is something we haven't established yet.
> As far as violence against the state, you won't get any argument from me, on principle. But considering the level of technology and weaponry the state wields, we will likely never again be able to counter it with equal measure.
That is beside the point. You do not bend a State to your will by fighting it on its own terms, and that includes meeting it "with equal measure". You *subvert* it by pulling the rug from under its feet and then stomping it in the nuts. Not that I'm telling anyone to stomp the State in the nuts, ahem.
I can't quote those exact words because that's not how he said it. I'm assuming we're talking about theft as a moral idea and not the legal definition, correct? Surely you don't think that I'm arguing that I can sue my boss for the profit I made him and he took. Marx called profit 'surplus value'. Marx wrote in his Critique of the Gotha Program: “the system of wage labour is a system of slavery.” Is not use of slavery theft in itself? It's theft from the slaves.
According to Marx in writing his first volume of Capital, labor-power is "the aggregate of those mental and physical capabilities existing in the physical form, the living personality, of a human being, capabilities which he \[or she\] sets in motion whenever he \[or she\] produces a use-value of any kind."
As Marx wrote in Wage Labor and Capital, the cost of production of labor-power is "the cost required for the maintenance as the laborer...and for his \[or her\] education and training as a laborer."
At the point of exchange the capitalist buys labor-power at its market value, but when the worker sells his labor-power he no longer has any rights to it, and he creates a use value for the capitalist, this use value creates new value. The worker can't ask for this extra value he created back because he gave it to the capitalist in a free transaction in the classical liberal sense.
Think of it like if you bought a pack of seeds from the store. You can plant the seeds, you can feed animals with them, you can eat them, you can throw them out, the seller has no right to tell you what you can do with them. Labor-power is the same, except one caveat. When you plant the seed it grows and turns into a money tree. But the seller's already been paid, they have no right to tell you to give their money tree back.
Or like buying a lottery ticket. It happens to be a winning one. The seller can't ask you to give it back. They sold the potential inside.
So basically the capitalist makes a deal with the worker and pays them under terms assuming their labor-power is sterile, when it's fertile, and creates a commodity or a service for the capitalist.
Exploitation forms the basis of all the profits shared among the entire capitalist class. It is not simply the case that the wealthy have a lot while workers have little; capitalists accumulate wealth through a system of organized theft from the working class. No, I can't quote Marx in saying that exploitation is "theft". But theft is defined as stealing something. Stolen value, profit, wages, and/or labor is theft.
> I'm assuming we're talking about theft as a moral idea and not the legal definition, correct?
What I'm about to write may come across as tedious or pedantic, but this is how I make sense of the world as I understand it. This is what makes sense to me so far:
There is no such thing as morality *or* law in a vacuum. There is no Justice in the Universe - there is just *us,* and what we *agree* upon, those shared dreams that cease to be real if enough people stop believing in them.
Both law and morality are both products and reflections of the society that creates them. They are social constructs, and so are theft, ownership, possession, and merit.
Ownership is not an inherent property of objects, but is instead *social relation*, and, as such, entirely a matter of perception and convention.
To own something isn't the same as to *possess* it, to have it in your grasp, *or* to *deserve* it, to have society agree that you *ought* to own it.
Private Property, for example, is notorious for not requiring possession, or even that you lay eyes on the object of ownership, or even that it be a tangible thing - as opposed to, say, Personal Property. Even so, a Capitalist society will enforce ownership of Private Property.
Conversely, there can be a general agreement that someone *deserves* ownership over something, while the society still refuses to grant the ownership proper and to commit to enforcing it.
To *own* something is to have society not only *agree* with the claimant that they are *allowed* certain types of control over it, and that other agents may not exert those types of control without the ownership claimant's consent, but *enforce* this agreed belief - ultimately, with the threat of violence.
From the social convention derive both the legal and the moral sense. A society that functions under a bourgeois mode of production, a bourgeois way of assigning ownership and status, power over things and power over people, in turn develops a bourgeois morality to justify it to itself, and a bourgeois set of laws that best serves that mode of production. There can be severe inconsistencies between the bourgeois morality and the bourgeois law, like when digital piracy carries harsher criminal sentencing than murder or rape - but deference to the State is one *hell* of a drug, that leaves people feeling powerless to do anything about this dissonance.
Under this bourgeois morality, exploitation is not considered theft. That society will not enforce your claim of ownership over the plus value taken from you, but will instead enforce the opposite.
To call exploitation theft is thus to assume you live in a society that recognizes it as such and is willing to fight to help you uphold and exert the rights that this ownership entails. That is objectively not the case yet - the whole point is that we're trying to bring that society about.
Why don’t we use the numbers that people actually get paid and on a year by year basis. This post is brain dead. I’m sure it will still make the same point while being a legitimate argument if you use the correct numbers… who tf is making 7.25… and 50 trillion? Yeah if the minimum wage was supposed to raise to $24 in 1961
Idk why he has to write „at least“ $17 when the math says its $16,75. No need to lie when this is bad enough.
Money is being stolen from us from all angles. For example, education still generally raises ones lifetime earning potential, but the cost burden of education has been shifted onto individuals and it is increasingly being treated as a for-profit industry to just harvest money from those willing and able to pay. Yet it seems that most jobs/industries requiring an education are also seeing massively stagnating and by now, falling wages.
In addition to wage theft, employers act like they fucking own you and way too many workplaces are an absolute nightmare. They do not care about your sense of well-being, your personal priorities, your mental health. There is so much toxicity and neglect out there, the result of precarity as policy choice. We all know about the wage theft, but what about it becoming common knowledge how these jobs are actually ruining our lives?
Ah yes, minimum wage set by the government, truly an anarchist position
Ah yes because the workers should be paid more because the machines make their jobs 10x easier.
Everyone's jobs got easier nuthead. Including C Suite. Thats what technology does.
That's just silly. They still work the same hours as they did before the machines. But because it's easier, they're expected to produce more. That means more money for the company, but apparently, not more money for them.
So, I agree with you: let's break the machines.
They work the same hours due to the increased demand of products. If you break the machines it means more people have to work more hours. Also you ever heard of unions?
Increase in demand is one way of looking at it. Overproduction is the other way of looking at it. The US throws away 30-40% of all food it produces. It throws away 50% of all produce. This isn't just for food. In manufacturing, overproduction is unprecedented. Overproduction is producing more than a population needs. One look at all of the waste we have, the landfills, the dumpsters, and crap sitting on shelves to never be bought, how can anyone pretend we don't overproduce most of our economy? Please don't tell me you think we only meet demand.
One of the largest factors in leading to the Great Depression was overproduction. We've had three large recessions in my lifetime. We wouldn't have to work more hours if we broke the machines. If we're actually at a point where we have the guts to fight back against people that make 200-300 times what we make, I'd think we would be ready to stop overproducing as well, and unions don't stop overproduction. I'm not sure what they have to do with this.
Well ok but minimum wage isnt exactly anarchist anyways is ut?
So there is a wide diaspora of anarchism. Much like some republicans don't see themselves as waiting fascism, but moderate, conservative, alt-right and so on. But they don't really travel left of center. Nor do the democrats at this point as they chose to bust the most important union they claimed winning oresidency by supporting. So really Democrats are at best Utopian Fascists.
Because of this far right based mentality in amerikkkan politics, the view of Anarchism is a splintered vessel of social warfare. Therefore, you have such entities of anarcho-environmentalist who want no industry. Then you have anarcho-syndaclism, which isn't inherently about capitalism, but because it supports industrial workers like the IWW or WWP, it then lends scope to the right over time because of the current standards of statehood. Then, you get into the whacks like the creators of Signal and WhatsApp who claim to be Anarcho-Capitalists. So they want less government overreach so they can in terms exploit people for profits like current oligarchs, while not contributing to the separation of governemnt at all, because they want financial oversight. Then technically you go further to Libertarians which are essentially anarcho-christians and anarcho-conservatives. People who want to hate other groups and di.inishing the govt for their ability to form lawlessness and some ideology of chaos skewed by right wing tactics.
So, anarchism is not a unified party. It is a concept of social warfare... as is any party. And people then commit to intertribalism which skews us all. Thats why you have white gays in the south with nazi and confederate flags like you have people with Fuck Biden flags in Scranton. To add to the Scranton comment, the domestic terrorist attack in Moore Co NC by ft bragg insurrectionist Rainey, she is from and went to college in Scranton. And she knocked out power to 40K people over protesting a drag race. She even claimed to know why and we have the fbi here. Well, the FBI is always about conservative values and never do the just thing by the people... so the outcome will inevitably be... You see?
There is no left or right in reality but a molding and breathing politisphere made like plasma that changes with how conditioned to propaganda and misinformation we attach to. 🏴
Lol right? I checked the sub and in its profile it’s anti-government.. but they want government to impose a baseline for wages?
I think this post is just trying to prove that the government can’t be trusted to help workers, another reason to destroy it.
But yeah it does feel out of place if that isn’t what OP intended
I think even more the point is regardless of the groups label, it shouldn't represent the intention at all because the effects are oligarchy in america killing us all off in the form of economic genocide.
Oh after rereading it I think you’re right. My bad
Anarchism is staunchly anti-capitalist. Seeing as this is still a capitalist society, why would fighting for better pay be anti-anarchist? Use the tools you have, right? I'm betting this was too nuanced for you to think through, but it's all good. That's why you decided to use this throwaway account to ask a question, in between posting cliched Republican comments on other subs. No worries.
Anarchism is free market capitalist entirely. You barter and trade without regulation and oversight.
Capitalism is based on hierarchy. The basis of anarchism is anti-hierachy. What you're describing is anarcho-capitalism, which is mocked and laughed at by all anarchists, because it's an oxymoron. It's like saying that you're telling a false truth, you sleep best when you're awake, or, to take a page from Megadeth, 'military intelligence' (two words combined that can't make sense).
So then how would anarchism work for a society? Drive around blowing shit up to take what you want?
So you've never read a single thing about anarchy, let alone its very definition, came to a sub about it to make ignorant comments about the economy, made bad faith assumptions based on right-wing media, and now expect me to explain it all to you? Nah, I'm good. It's not my job to educate you. Do it yourself: [https://theanarchistlibrary.org/stats/popular](https://theanarchistlibrary.org)
Can you elaborate on communism and its equating to anarchism?
Communist here, and heavy believer in Left Unity. I believe both systems can co-exist, but acknowledgement must be made about their differences.