/WRK/ - Wagie and Work

>workers co-ops
I sleep
>working from home
real shit

>>295
One's a pipe dream and the other is already widely adopted

>office
don't care about PMC problems

>>297
True but it's still interesting too analyze it.
Office work being moved from Office buildings to labtops has caused a decline in commercial real-estate. And it's probably going to change cities. City centers might go away.

2 new tendencies will emerge.

1 Without the high capital cost of office buildings, the barrier to entry is now much lower, and that means more co-ops and small bourgeois capital can compete.
Getting rid of office buildings means destruction of capital, and that means the profitrate might climb.
<VariableCapital the proportion of capital invested in wages.
<ConstantCapital the proportion of capital invested in stuff.
<SurplusValue the social product over and above what is required for the producers to live. The measure of value is labour time, so surplus value is the accumulated product of the unpaid labour time of the producers.
profit-rate= SurplusValue / (ConstantCapital + VariableCapital)
Office-buildings are part of ConstantCapital, if that shrinks, SurplusValue is divided by a smaller number and the profit rate goes up.

2 The second aspect is that piping all office labor through computers means that it will become entirely quantifiable as a digital IO-stream that can be used to train machine learning models. Corporate bureaucracy will be reduced to a IT-guy and a few office workers handling the edge cases where not enough machine learning training data exists.

Who would have thought that corporate managers would get automated before manual-labor. Also unexpected is that small business and co-ops might become viable again.

Speculation time
If all the organization of a company can be condensed into a software-package, it could become viable to one-click deploy an entire company just to make a single product. So it might actually be possible to reverse consolidation to some extend, which is very weird and unexpected.

>>298
Are you stoned rn?

>>299
No drugs other than coffee was consumed in the creation of this post, care to offer some criticisms ?

>>300
1)Rental space isn't the main barrier to entry for a successful tech startup

2)Elon acquiring Twitter, firing 70%+ of staff, and simultaneously expanding it's features seems to demonstrate that many tech companies are bloated not just in terms of constant capital but also variable capital

3)the whole post makes the assumption that tech companies are acting as private enterprises and not arms of the state

>>301
One more thing ..

WFH is only feasible in tertiary sectors which survive off of skimming value from the primary sectors without really expanding use value

You can't WFO with factories and restaurants, though it's feasible that they can be further automated as robotics advance further (that's a slightly different topic but largely jives with what you said earlier)

Insurance adjusters, marketers, tech companies, etc: these are just enterprises of waged parasites, a sort of modern technical aristocracy which has supplanted the labor aristocracy of Lenin's day

>>301
>Rental space isn't the main barrier to entry
Sure, but it is a barrier to entry, lowering that will have an effect.

>Elon acquiring Twitter, firing 70%+ of staff, and simultaneously expanding it's features seems to demonstrate that many tech companies are bloated not just in terms of constant capital but also variable capital
I didn't pay much attention to that, who did he fire ? Was it technical staff, "content moderators", marketing department or who else ? I heard that he intends to convert twitter into a WeChat-clone (a monolithic social media platform in China that tries to do everything), that would mean hiring a fuck ton of people.

>the whole post makes the assumption that tech companies are acting as private enterprises and not arms of the state
I don't believe that a capitalist state can suspend the laws off motion of capital, so they have to operate as capitalist enterprises to some extend. But I believe you, that state security was involved with the tech giants, for some, perhaps from the very beginning.

>>302
>WFH is only feasible in tertiary sectors
I get your meaning , but Work From Home will also apply to the primary and secondary sector, those also have office bureaucracies now.
>You can't WFH with factories
Ai doesn't appear to be gaining much ground in dynamic complex environment manual labor tasks. At least not with enough fidelity and speed for it to matter. So the next best thing is going to be workers wearing VR-gear to remote operate robots. The human operated robot has a strength advantage and it doesn't need a safe work-environment. And that means that manual labor may also become WFH as long as the home is close enough to the factory because of input latency.

>Insurance adjusters, marketers, tech companies, etc: these are just enterprises of waged parasites, a sort of modern technical aristocracy which has supplanted the labor aristocracy of Lenin's day
Haven't thought this through yet. Figuring out what is and isn't productive labor requires tedious detailed investigations. Which i haven't done for all the stuff you just brought up. I guess that at least for tech companies those definitely make tools that end up as inputs in the primary and secondary sector. Think a gps module for a farming-tractor, or a micro-controller-chip for an industrial machine.

>>297
>Declares IT workers not real workers on the most sophisticated IT system ever devised.
I kneel

>>304
How did you graduate high school with such poor reading comprehension? You must be a burger

>>306
I guess you don't know what a PMC is even though you accuse people of being in it.

>>301
>2)Elon acquiring Twitter, firing 70%+ of staff, and simultaneously expanding it's features seems to demonstrate that many tech companies are bloated not just in terms of constant capital but also variable capital
That's only because Twitter has been hemorrhaging users since he took over. The company has 66% of it's value since he took over.

>>294
The fact that everyone went back instead of you know… simply never going back is just further proof that the white collar type of people will be happy to take any kind of L, will never fight for anything, will never unionize, won't support socialism or any ideas not aligned with their ruling class… I hate it.

>>367
I don't know if you are correct about this. The working from home phase has lowered the bar to entry for worker-coops. Because things can get boot-strapped even if there isn't enough capital for office spaces.

If there was people using this opportunity it would take a while to manifest any noticeable changes.

>>294
good

>>368
Not sure I understand your point. To clarify I'm saying that workers got a huge concession of being able to work from anywhere in the world and not spend time or money commuting. That's a really big win! And they didn't fight at all to keep it. Pathetic.

>>371
>Not sure I understand your point.
I'll try to do better.
>To clarify I'm saying that workers got a huge concession of being able to work from anywhere in the world and not spend time or money commuting. That's a really big win! And they didn't fight at all to keep it.
How would they fight to keep it ? Create a picket-line and protest for turning the video-call software back on ? I don't see any potential in trying to make corporate bureaucracy go back to working from home. I don't see any hope you can convince big organizations to give up on having a special place/building, or just change them selves in general.

The potential benefit for workers is that they can create a coop even if they lack the capital to rent/buy office space. I see this as a mechanism for making boot-strapping easier, as in lowering the bar to entry. Like something people do in the beginning, to reduce costs.

So instead of seeking to change existing organizations, the goal should be creating new organizations, that's where this technology has it's strong points.

Socially and historically necessary.

Yet, remote schooling or homeschooling is still pathologised by people.