[TedDoesntTalk]

> There arent really any down sides to being at the top of the capital hierarchy

Really? What about sacrificing family time?

For example: Elon Musk has 8 children. How much time do you think he spends with them, if any? Maybe being a father is simply not a priority to him, and that’s his choice. But it’s not his childrens choice, I can guarantee that, and those children will suffer for it.

[BuckRogers]

That’s interesting but I would say that being at the top of the capital hierarchy has no connection with loss of personal time. There’s plenty of people at the top of the capital hierarchy that don’t do anything at all. Or very little. I doubt Paris Hilton is up at 6 AM. Unless it’s to get hammered by some dude that she met at the bar.

I think linking capital to work as a correlation is pretty dangerous. That conversation will only lead to people realizing that they’re not paid according to the value they produce.

They’ll learn that they’re paid according to their ability to demand it. Soon after that, you have unrest. You have workers demanding unionization. Which is the correct answer.

[wahnfrieden]

There’s a heavy capitalism realist veil over most of the other comments in this thread. And this does come down mostly to control over one’s own time (you can see it even with the most workaholic CEOs, who on whim can veer off to fancies unrelated to their CEO role or for their personal benefit with ease when they have any need or want to)

This has heavy implications. For example, with the ability for the working class to protest anything; rich business owners are the only ones who can take days off for that without collapsing through meager safety nets

[BuckRogers]

Agreed. I'm essentially out on the streets in a few months if I don't maintain in income. And that's a lot easier done with accumulated capital than it is by labor. Of course we could just chop the legs off many contrived industries like finance, and stop bilking everyone with usury, if we just realized the authority to mint money is the peoples to begin with. We could get loans from our own government. That would stop a lot of implicit or soft abuse.

One commenter said the trash man wants more money, but instead enjoys his weekends. I can't agree. He should be paid more. The books should be open, either through union power or worker's cooperative power. Taking out the trash is a valuable service, if no one does it, it's a pretty big deal very fast. That requires a form of solidarity between workers to exercise that power, but it's all about the trash man's ability to demand it. Employment is predatory if you examine the nature of the employer-employee relationship, and the goal is achieved because people are desperate. Including me, and I'm in software.

Your point about money buying back your time is an important one, because that's your freedom of choice. Freedom of choice does involve Pepsi vs Coke, but it more importantly involves how you spend a very short and finite life.

Simply put, my country (the US), needs more unions. It won't be perfect, no human endeavor ever is, but it will be better.

[zerohp]

The downside would be worse if he had 8 children as a poor person. His parenting is due to his character not his wealth.