Hacker News

points by paimapi 3 days ago | 0 comments

Right. People don't understand the difference between labor and value. The job of a corporation is to extract as much surplus value from its workers as possible while making it as opaque as possible to individual workers the actual revenue they bring in.

It's very normal to think that the extra revenue growth you bring in should mean you have either 1) a larger share of the pie for every efficiency increase that grows revenue or 2) less expectation from you, as a worker, to labor as intensively since you are continuing to bring in surplus value that is being actively skimmed from.

[–] coldtea 3 days ago

>It's very normal to think that the extra revenue growth you bring in should mean you have either 1) a larger share of the pie for every efficiency increase that grows revenue or 2) less expectation from you, as a worker, to labor as intensively since you are continue to bring in surplus value that is being actively skimmed from.

It's also very normal to force businesses by law to either or both. But it's not happening these days.

[–] singpolyma3 3 days ago

By law or by collective bargaining

[–] oblio 3 days ago

That's what happens when people think the government should be run like a business.

[–] paimapi 3 days ago

Arguably, I would say this has been a 50+ year-long project starting in the Reagan/Thatcher era that Clinton/Blair fully realized by ushering in de-regulatory, labor-disempowering neoliberal policies as part of the left political flank. There's been a lot written about this:

https://jacobin.com/2026/09/labour-callaghan-neoliberalism-m...

https://dissentmagazine.org/article/the-legacy-of-the-clinto...

https://sk.sagepub.com/hnbk/edvol/the-sage-handbook-of-neoli...

[–] graemep 3 days ago

I dislike the phrase neoliberal (its badly defined). I would argue that Blair (and Brown and Cameron etc.) was a lot worse than Thatcher because Thatcher did want competitive markets, whereas more recently its just been "business friendly" which is quite the opposite.

[–] paimapi 2 days ago

I prefer Graeber's definition (RIP) -

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/david-graeber-neolib...

[–] oceanplexian 3 days ago

Whenever I read comments like these I feel like people are living in a completely different reality.

Most of the tech companies I have worked at are ridiculously easy and generous, I get to work with smart people, and the entire job can be done in a few hours per week. It's not like we're doing manual labor and digging ditches; half the people on this website are laptop-class workers who occasionally use the slightest bit of energy to write a few lines of code or participate in a meeting.

I show up to work and I often do extra because I like it.

The company isn't "extracting" anything from me except the extremely consentual labor I want to give back simply out of the love of the game. If you don't feel that way, the problem isn't the capitalist system it's probably your own life choices.

[–] robotresearcher 3 days ago

You’re reading negative valence in technical language that doesn’t mean it. ‘Extraction’ and ‘labor’ aren’t bad, they are technically descriptive. You extract fun and cuteness value from puppies and LeBron labors at basketball. Not an unhappy process in itself, though of course abusive versions exist.

That’s why your happy experience is not inconsistent with this description.

[–] halfmatthalfcat 3 days ago

I completely agree and I think smart companies also understand this. There is still a lot of leverage employees have, especially in tech. Tech as "adult daycare" isn't a meme for no reason.

[–] snapcaster 3 days ago

None of this changes the facts of the comment you're responding to. Every business must extract surplus value from their employee's work to be profitable. Nobody said every business has to be miserable, or not mask this extraction in fluffy terms. Doesn't mean it isn't happening though

[–] singpolyma3 3 days ago

And yet even while you indolently phone it in, if you're any good they make a lot more off you than they pay you.

[–] flavionm 3 days ago

Would he realistically be able to make as much as they make out of him by himself? While working the same amount?

It's debatable whether he would even make as much as he gets paid currently, in that scenario.

[–] meheleventyone 2 days ago

The correct comparison isn’t him working by himself but with a similar sized cohort where distribution of revenue was fairer. Co-ops are a thing as are the productivity benefits of working with others.

Even if you don’t like the concept of co-ops it’s fairly easy to ask yourself if you would you be more or less motivated if you shared more in the success of a company rather than it being sucked up by shareholders?

[–] red_candle_wax 3 days ago

> Would he realistically be able to make as much as they make out of him by himself? While working the same amount?

According to AI boosters he should be able to make magnitude more now

[–] rtp4me 3 days ago

How else would they stay in business if they did not make money off your skill/services? Unless you are a non-profit, why would you hire people just to break even or lose money?

[–] singpolyma3 2 days ago

Break even is staying is business :)

And you do it to provide the product/service, provide for your workers, etc

[–] hobo123 2 days ago

In my experience, companies make money despite employing some people, not because they employ those people.

[–] paimapi 2 days ago

You think a company can exist with just executive leadership?

Would love to see just one example of a billion+ valuation company with nothing but C-suite and that against the ratio of companies with 1000+ employees who are worth a billion+. The only two sub-dozen workers that come to mind for me are Theranos and Bernie Madoff and I'm not sure they are examples of success.

[–] hobo123 2 days ago

No, they need good workers. IME some people are a net drain and only slow others down without much positive contribution. Sadly.

[–] singpolyma3 2 days ago

Yes this is true of some of course. But if it were true of all nothing would happen

[–] chasd00 3 days ago

I think the 80/20 rule applies to employees correct?. 20% of employees actually do the work that is making money. So for every 8 sitting around doing nearly nothing there's 2 that are actually directly related to revenue.