The way things are set up, the more important and vital something is to the actual functioning of society, the less it is paid. The reverse of that is the more parasitic or net-negative the job is, the better paid.
Hedge fund managers are a massive net negative and are paid the most.
Why though. Seriously, what's the reason for this? Please don't just say "capitalism". Fine, but what exact feature of capitalism would that be that says "The more critical your activity is to the functioning of our system, the less you get paid"? In capitalism's own logic, it should be the exact opposite.
The actual logic is 'the more your job serves to increase profits' which under capitalism always results in less pay for anyone that is not in that position. This is why a middle manager being good at getting workers to accept less pay is rewarded more than the most productive workers actually doing the production. It's inherent to the hierarchical stratification of social classes under capitalism. Paying people well for their productivity is not how to make profits under this system.
Capitalism requires precarity and externalized costs as much as possible as the rate of profit tends to decline. The people that actually produce the most labor value must be the most crushed for it, so they don't organize and overthrow that system with their labor power.
the hedge fund managers and c-level and other highly paid people in capitalist systems derive their wealth and income from control over ownership of capital: real estate, shares of companies, and so forth. real estate value ultimately depends on the ability to extract rents and mortgages from working people, taking a portion of their labor value in exchange for a temporary reprieve from the organized political violence that excludes people from using property. the value of ownership of a company depends on the ability of the company to make a profit, collecting more revenue than it pays out in expenses, including payroll. so it depends on the ability of the company to extract a portion of the labor value of its employees and transferring that to hedge fund managers, shareholders, and ceo's. that is the logic of capitalism, and it's how every billionaire obtains their wealth: extracting the value of others' labor.
the hedge fund managers and c-level and other highly paid people in capitalist systems derive their wealth and income from control over ownership of capital: real estate, shares of companies, and so forth. real estate value ultimately depends on the ability to extract rents and mortgages from working people, taking a portion of their labor value in exchange for a temporary reprieve from the organized political violence that excludes people from using property. the value of ownership of a company depends on the ability of the company to make a profit, collecting more revenue than it pays out in expenses, including payroll. so it depends on the ability of the company to extract a portion of the labor value of its employees and transferring that to hedge fund managers, shareholders, and ceo's. that is the logic of capitalism, and it's how every billionaire obtains their wealth: extracting the value of others' labor.
In capitalism's own logic, it should be the exact opposite.
In capitalisms own rhetoric, yeah. In capitalism's actual logic, people who own things decide the rules, which means it's pretty inevitable that people who want to get paid as much as possible for as little work as possible ("passive income," etc.) would produce a system like this.
If you gave the people who are the foundation of your business some level of security or even comfort by paying them well, it suddenly becomes a lot harder to pressure them into working overtime and through breaks when they don't even need to work full-time to begin with!
In a regular job (not owning capital), your wage depends on the cost to your boss if you quit
if you are enslaved and cannot quit, no one has to pay you anything, because you have no leverage
if you are easily replaced, you have little leverage by yourself, but a group of you might strike, so your boss has to pay enough to prevent that
and because repeated strikes lead to unrest and possibly a larger movement, the government reluctantly enforces some minimal protections
if you are hard to replace and your work is central to production, you have more leverage and your boss has to pay you more
Most essential work, like harvesting food and hauling away garbage, does not involve special skills, which puts it in the "workers are easy to replace" category. Even though this crucial work is often exhausting, demanding, and at times dangerous, a large pool of people are willing and able to do the work, so the workers have very little individual leverage. Emphasis on individual—a large strike would bring society to its knees.
this is because while women do be shopping they instinctually know they must be shopping using their husband's (who they show infinite deference to as is the natural order of humanity) money.
!!
Women just naturally take worse paying jobs. It's in our nature.
The way things are set up, the more important and vital something is to the actual functioning of society, the less it is paid. The reverse of that is the more parasitic or net-negative the job is, the better paid.
Hedge fund managers are a massive net negative and are paid the most.
And mothers are arguably the greatest net positive and that’s unpaid.
No wonder chuds want there to be more mothers, regardless of material conditions and society's support or lack thereof... more unpaid labor.
Why though. Seriously, what's the reason for this? Please don't just say "capitalism". Fine, but what exact feature of capitalism would that be that says "The more critical your activity is to the functioning of our system, the less you get paid"? In capitalism's own logic, it should be the exact opposite.
The actual logic is 'the more your job serves to increase profits' which under capitalism always results in less pay for anyone that is not in that position. This is why a middle manager being good at getting workers to accept less pay is rewarded more than the most productive workers actually doing the production. It's inherent to the hierarchical stratification of social classes under capitalism. Paying people well for their productivity is not how to make profits under this system.
Capitalism requires precarity and externalized costs as much as possible as the rate of profit tends to decline. The people that actually produce the most labor value must be the most crushed for it, so they don't organize and overthrow that system with their labor power.
the hedge fund managers and c-level and other highly paid people in capitalist systems derive their wealth and income from control over ownership of capital: real estate, shares of companies, and so forth. real estate value ultimately depends on the ability to extract rents and mortgages from working people, taking a portion of their labor value in exchange for a temporary reprieve from the organized political violence that excludes people from using property. the value of ownership of a company depends on the ability of the company to make a profit, collecting more revenue than it pays out in expenses, including payroll. so it depends on the ability of the company to extract a portion of the labor value of its employees and transferring that to hedge fund managers, shareholders, and ceo's. that is the logic of capitalism, and it's how every billionaire obtains their wealth: extracting the value of others' labor.
Your name checks out with that post.
Capitalism doesn't value utility, though. It values the creation of profit in the immediate short term.
In capitalisms own rhetoric, yeah. In capitalism's actual logic, people who own things decide the rules, which means it's pretty inevitable that people who want to get paid as much as possible for as little work as possible ("passive income," etc.) would produce a system like this.
If you gave the people who are the foundation of your business some level of security or even comfort by paying them well, it suddenly becomes a lot harder to pressure them into working overtime and through breaks when they don't even need to work full-time to begin with!
It all comes down to leverage
In a regular job (not owning capital), your wage depends on the cost to your boss if you quit
Most essential work, like harvesting food and hauling away garbage, does not involve special skills, which puts it in the "workers are easy to replace" category. Even though this crucial work is often exhausting, demanding, and at times dangerous, a large pool of people are willing and able to do the work, so the workers have very little individual leverage. Emphasis on individual—a large strike would bring society to its knees.
Crying and sobbing when I see my beefy paycheck because it causes gender dysphoria.
this is because while women do be shopping they instinctually know they must be shopping using their husband's (who they show infinite deference to as is the natural order of humanity) money.