> Giving him all his time back, which is priceless.
It's valued at "a livable wage", which isn't always but ought to be, "minimum wage". That's how much money you need to have every month to not need to work and still be considered living.
> "The OP is correct in that materially, the capitalist and the worker are largely equals. We all use the same phones, TVs and computers now."
Which is why I was trying to point out that's a sham measure, it's like saying "King Richard is your equal because you both speak English!". That might be true, but it's certainly not true that we are equals, it's a distraction from all the things which aren't equal. If nothing else, it shows that using a smartphone, TV or computer has lost its significance now we all have it, rather than we all gained signficance by having it.
> Giving him all his time back, which is priceless.
It's valued at "a livable wage", which isn't always but ought to be, "minimum wage". That's how much money you need to have every month to not need to work and still be considered living.
> "The OP is correct in that materially, the capitalist and the worker are largely equals. We all use the same phones, TVs and computers now."
Which is why I was trying to point out that's a sham measure, it's like saying "King Richard is your equal because you both speak English!". That might be true, but it's certainly not true that we are equals, it's a distraction from all the things which aren't equal. If nothing else, it shows that using a smartphone, TV or computer has lost its significance now we all have it, rather than we all gained signficance by having it.