Aye rs bro. I remember 2 years ago when you dropped the video like this one. I was at home had lost my job and made the move the next day cause it’s really that simple. Now I’m sitting here in my own truck watching this one. Prime has been nothing but good to me💯
Single no kids ? Get into trucking. Stay out 1-2 months stack your bread. Travel out of the country for hometime. Rinse and repeat before going local. Plus in our current economy get all your endorments. The regular CDL barely holds any value nowadays with how over saturated the market is especially if you plan on going local
One of the best videos I’ve found out here with solid details I believe that would help people that are on the fence about trucking. It is what you make it.
All Facts… bro is right don’t stress yourself out, especially with the pre trip don’t waste your time going on TH-cam trying to watch videos. When you get that package just read that paper and you will get. Like he said, Saldy Prime has made it so easy to the point the only way you will fail unless you wanna fail.
If u wanna open ur own trucking company from the jump go lease or if u want guarantee money that's more consistent go company. Either way you will be successful, lease will be more challenging kuz some weeks you may get low pay or be in the negative whichever comes first. Been with prime for 4 years lease str8, kuz I wanted the business knowledge which is something no1 can take from you and thats for life. Ima be clear. Lease you will have more freedom but at a cost and thesethings will determine your decisions how long u need to be at work OTR, ur truck payment, deductions, how u fuel,your fleet manager,if u do favors for a favor,AVoid the east coast And WORK the midwest if u ask me,if u go reefer and INEDIBLE tanker u will EAT, from my experience. Two sides to tanker Inedible side "pet food" pays way more than "food grade", and if u ever leave prime u can find tanker or reefer work pretty easily. My 2 cents
You have provided enough information and encouragement for those who have doubts. Now, it's time for them to get it and move forward. Keep up the good work.
Dawg I’m 25 & I’m a teacher. Don’t get paid that much, don’t have anything at home worth staying for.. I been researching for bout a year and a half. I’m boutta just go for it after this school year. Been watching your vids for a minute, if you wanna train me that’ll be dope
I think if a person likes to go home then prime inc is not the company to go to it don’t matter if you go company or lease. I think it’s best to get with a company that have regional positions then you can be home every weekend.
Counter-arguments to common capitalist economic arguments Introduction: “You need money to make money” First, let's establish what capitalism is and isn't. In any society, it's economic organization can be described by the way it produces goods and distributes resources. In particular, we can describe it by the relationship between different classes in society. Under capitalism, there is something called capital. It's an umbrella term that includes but is not limited to factories, land, houses, and other forms of infrastructure that is privately owned. There are people who own capital, for example, a factory owner, and people who sell their labor for a wage. Workers go to the factory to work for the factory owner -- for instance, they take pieces of wood and make it into a chair. Say that each chair sells for $100. The factory owner takes a cut of the $100, say $70, and gives the $30 to the workers to pay their wages. This is the fundamental relation in capitalism. There are owners and workers, i.e. the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The workers labor and produce something in a factory, and the owners, who *already have* money, factories, or land take a cut of the profits. Note that the owners could only make money as owners because they already have capital, in other words, you need money to make money. Under this definition of capitalism, this relation between owners and workers has only existed for a couple hundred years. It is not the process of trading goods or buying things. What's wrong with that? The core issue at stake here is that the workers are doing the actual labor while the owner makes money simply because they own the factory. The owner produced next to nothing on their own. If all the workers one day disappeared, the owners would not be able to produce anything -- the machines and tools wouldn't operate themselves and the owner would have an empty factory. On the other hand, if all the owners disappeared and no one was informed about it, the workers could still run the factory as usual. The manager would still supervise production and the workers would still come everyday and produce goods and services. So this begs the question, why do we need owners in the first place? If we can get along fine without the owners, why do they get a cut (in practice it's more than just a *cut* of the profits, it's a gross majority)? Why does the owner get a cut simply because they have more money? Moreover, if we don't need the owners, why do they get to make all the decisions? Why can't workers run things democratically amongst themselves? This is the core of socialist ideology. Now you might say, wait a minute, a lot of times the owners are the managers! They actually come to the company and are involved in the day to day activities. And you'd be right in that not all owners are leeches who sit back and collect dividend checks. We think the business owners that work should be paid for the actual work they did in the day to day activities of the company, not the paper that entitles them to a cut of the workers' labor. If a business owner really does play an integral role in the day to day workings of a company, then surely they will still be compensated more than fairly if the workplace was democratic and everyone had an equal say. Now, of course, you might not be satisfied with just this. There are, of course, many concerns to be addressed, and the remaining sections will do just that. “Capitalism fosters innovation, or your iPhone was made under capitalism” As we've established before, capitalism has existed for only a few hundred years. Innovation and geniuses have existed long before then. Moreover, these people did *not* create what they created with a profit motive in mind. Mozart and Beethoven didn't write world class music to be rich, in fact, they were dirt broke for most of their lives and never received significant pay for the symphonies and pieces they wrote. Additionally, Edward Jenner, who developed a smallpox vaccine, and Jonas Salk, who developed a polio vaccine, did not patent their work, instead allowing it to be produced cheaply so that it could reach and save the lives of millions. Salk famously said that "there is no patent. Could you patent the sun?" In more recent times, wildly successful companies like Microsoft and Apple got their big break by stealing from others, not innovating themselves. Apple is credited for introducing the modern GUI to the world, but it was developed by Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center, which Steve Jobs stole the idea from. Microsoft, in turn, stole the idea from Jobs to create Windows. In their earlier days, Microsoft's flagship operating system, DOS, was bought by Bill Gates from a small programmer. Well what about your iPhone? Surely that was made under capitalism, right? Or at the very least, it couldn't have been created if not for the incentive structures under capitalism. As it turns out, although it is a good product, [much of the technology that made the iPhone possible was developed in the public sector](digitaltonto dot c0m/2013/where-did-the-iphone-really-come-from/). Even if capitalism did create the iPhone, there's a pretty succinct quote to counter the argument -- "It’s okay to resist capitalism on an iPhone. The feudal lord who owned the pitchforks the peasants killed him with probably observed the irony too." Additionally, it's often said by capitalists that financial incentive is necessary for innovation. On the surface, this is true, since few people are willing or able to work for nothing. However, this assertion presuposes that only businesses are capable of providing financial icentives for innovation. However, any government is capable of providing financial icentives. It's called pay. Our government paid scientists to create the atomic bomb (aka the greatest technological marvel of the 20th century). We paid scientists to create the ebola vaccine. And we can pay scientists and engineers to do anything that a private company would use them for. I end this section with the (sarcastic) quote -- "I'll never understand how the wheel was invented without a market incentive." “Well shouldn't business owners be rewarded for their financial risk?” The argument is that people who spend money in capital stand to risk losing their money if their business fails while since the workers don't own the business and won't go down with the ship. Therefore, the cut of the profits (and the income inequality) the owners take is justified because they are being rewarded for the financial risk they undertook. The problem with this is that the only risk the owners take is the risk of becoming a worker, or becoming like one of the people you employ and exploit. They will be no worse than the workers if their business fails. You might say, well, they might go bankrupt or be thrown into crippling debt. For every one business owner who loses their money, millions more workers live in poverty or debt every day. Why does the *possibility* of an owner becoming poor outweigh the *reality* of the destitute living conditions of millions of workers? The worst thing that happens is that the former business owner has to suffer the humiliation of working at McDonald's. How could they possibly bear the indignation of walking among us filthy, crude, unwashed masses as equals?
@@topdoochannel6609 for years now. Us drivers must communicate AMONGST EACH OTHER about load rates to find out how they are exploiting us. The only way we can fight back is to ORGANIZE and REJECT cheap freight. “Without our brain and muscle not a single wheel can turn” UNITED WE BARGAIN. DIVIDED WE BEG.
@@topdoochannel6609 I have been for years now. Dont scab for the bosses, dont listen to their lies, us poor folk havent got a chance unless we organize Listen to Solidarity Forever by Utah Phillips. UNITED WE BARGAIN, DIVIDED WE BEG!
Moreover, why should taking a risk necessarily be rewarded? Compulsive gamblers aren't entitled to winnings because they take risks all the time. That same logic could be used to argue that slave owners took a great financial risk by buying slaves, so abolishing slavery would be punishing the risk they took. Finally, it should be obvious but needs to be said that if the gallant, risk taking owner's business fails, the workers are also out of a job. and possibly didn't even get paid their salary before the business went under. One could argue that the workers could just find another job, and that's exactly the concern addressed in the next part. “Doesn't competition between capitalists forces them to stop exploiting workers or why don't you just find a better job?” These two go hand in hand. The first argument says that capitalists have to try to offer workers better wages and conditions because workers will just find another job that pays better. The latter argues that because of competition for workers, workers should just find a better paying job. Although it sounds good on paper, this simply is not the case. In the early days of capitalism, workers worked for 12 hour days in horrific conditions. There were no "better" factory jobs to turn to, because all of them paid the same terrible wages in dangerous factories. Working conditions and wages didn't improve then because of the Invisible Hand of the Free Market^(TM), they did because of government regulations, unions, and other forms of pushback from workers. And in what universe do you live where capitalists compete for workers? Workers compete for jobs, not the other way around. If you could just walk out and find another job, why is unemployment an issue? Why is it so devastating to be laid off? There is a reserve army of labor that capitalists take advantage of. A common tactic is to simply threaten to replace workers by hiring the unemployed who are willing to work for less. Today, capitalists in the United States often threaten to fire American workers by replacing them with cheap migrant labor or moving their production overseas. “Why don't you start your own business?” Well, as we've shown already, under capitalism, you need money to make money. If you're a worker who's just been laid off, chances are it's not realistic to just start a business because you don't have the money. If you somehow already did, then I would ask why you sold your labor for a wage all this time and didn't start a business sooner. “Don't the rich capitalists create jobs?” Even arguing under capitalist economic theory, it's consumer demand that causes business owners to produce more to increase the supply. This consumer demand comes from the consumption wants and needs of the people. On top of that, it's worth reiterating that capitalists need workers, but the workers don't need capitalists. If all the workers disappeared, who's going to operate the machinery? If the capitalists disappeared, workers could come to work and go about their business. You might say that workers need supervisors and managers, but unless the manager actually owns the business, managers are workers themselves who sell their skills for a wage. “Aren't you just devaluing intellectual work and idolizing physical labor?” No, we value intellectual work. We understand that there is a need for non-physical labor. For example, accountants, supervisors, and managers are needed. If you support a planned economy, we will obviously need people who can plan what to produce, how to produce it, and how much to produce, which isn't physical labor. The important point is that we think these people should be paid for the work they do, not because of some claim of ownership. In some cases, owners actually are the managers or supervisors, but they should be paid for their work as a manager, not because their initial lump sum of cash snowballed as the business grew. “But I don't feel exploited as a worker” In that case, good for you. But your experiences aren't universal, and just because you're happy with your position in life doesn't mean you can expect everyone else to be. Someone with a cushy job in a middle class neighborhood can be a worker who's happy with where they are, but that doesn't mean they should expect destitute factory workers making $2 an hour to feel unexploited too. “What about the common people who invest in companies or make money off private property to retire?” In theory, yes, we are opposed to anyone who makes money through money. However, we do believe in social policies provide for those in need and cannot work, i.e. the elderly, sick, or disabled. In addition, we are much more interested in the [8 people who have as much wealth as 50% of the world's population](theguardian.com/global-development/2017/jan/16/worlds-eight-richest-people-have-same-wealth-as-poorest-50) than common people who try to invest in real estate or companies. The difference is that these common people still work full time jobs and invest to pad their income or retire. I don't blame working people for doing what they can to make ends meet -- they won't help anyone by going into poverty. As the saying goes, "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism," which means that no matter where you get something from, someone is being exploited somewhere along the line. I do think, however, that their private ownership must be abolished eventually. That doesn't mean that I want to kick them out in the cold. [Billionaires Made So Much Money Last Year They Could End Extreme Poverty Seven Times](time dot c0m/money/5112462/billionaires-made-so-much-money-last-year-they-could-end-extreme-poverty-seven-times/_). Under capitalism today, [one third of all food produced is wasted, and it could feed the hungry four times over](reliefweb dot int/report/world/food-waste-enough-feed-world-s-hungry-four-times-over). The redistribution of wealth and resources that we hope to reclaim from the elite 1% is more than enough to provide for the needs of the workers who invest and the workers who are deep in poverty. We're not interested in having common people fight over who gets the crumbs; we're interested in the ones who make off with the whole loaf. “But the factories/apartments/farmland belong to the owners! You can't just take that!” That same nonsense logic has been used to justify things like feudalism and slavery. The slaves who escaped their masters have to be returned because they're the property of their owners! You can't liberate the slaves and take the plantations away, that'll be stealing property! Would you use that logic to oppose the Haitian slave revolt? Oh, but the king and the nobles and the church own all of Europe! Not the filthy peasants! They're not allowed to own land. And yet revolutionaries still beheaded the feudal lords and kings and seized their property to establish what we today call *capitalism*. “You see, that's just the way the world works” That's essentially a might makes right argument that, like the previous argument, can justify any organization. If workers being exploited by capitalists is just how the world works, then when the rich moan at how revolutionaries confiscated their wealth and property, they can just turn around and tell the disgruntled bourgeoisie that this is just how the world works. And if the existence of oppressors is how the world works, then it could also be said that the oppressed rising up to overthrow their oppressors is just how the world works.
All of us prime drivers need to organize and UNIONIZE. We must communicate with one another whenever we feel we are getting scammed and then GO ON STRIKE until our demands are met. WE HAVE MORE POWER THAN THEM. WITHOUT US THEY ARE NOTHING. WITHOUT US THEIR BUSINESS OF EXPLOITATION FAILS TO FUNCTION.
That’s a lie what you say about prime that they say for your orientation im in Florida south west and I applied for Prime . I just graduated and they shot me down so what you say is a total lie do your homework right before you come out on TH-cam. And said the things that say, bro
Solo, probably around 1,000 a week. Teaming will net you more, but I’ll never give up my privacy again. The most important thing you can do is to reject anything less than $2 a mile. “Ok for this next load/ ok for preplan?” “No, I’ll wait for something better.” That’s it
Aye rs bro. I remember 2 years ago when you dropped the video like this one. I was at home had lost my job and made the move the next day cause it’s really that simple. Now I’m sitting here in my own truck watching this one. Prime has been nothing but good to me💯
u went company or lease?
@@TuTdaWhaT lease my guy
@@MotoJ24lease as in you leased your own truck ?
@@Heman-x1n lease huge mistake. You'll see in the long run
Single no kids ? Get into trucking. Stay out 1-2 months stack your bread. Travel out of the country for hometime. Rinse and repeat before going local. Plus in our current economy get all your endorments. The regular CDL barely holds any value nowadays with how over saturated the market is especially if you plan on going local
One of the best videos I’ve found out here with solid details I believe that would help people that are on the fence about trucking. It is what you make it.
I’m up here at prime now this my 4th week I take my exam Saturday. Watching this video gave me an extra boost in my confidence 🚛
All Facts… bro is right don’t stress yourself out, especially with the pre trip don’t waste your time going on TH-cam trying to watch videos. When you get that package just read that paper and you will get. Like he said, Saldy Prime has made it so easy to the point the only way you will fail unless you wanna fail.
The best trucking video so far.
Everything he sayin is facts. Literally went through n is goin through the process now😂😂
If u wanna open ur own trucking company from the jump go lease or if u want guarantee money that's more consistent go company. Either way you will be successful, lease will be more challenging kuz some weeks you may get low pay or be in the negative whichever comes first. Been with prime for 4 years lease str8, kuz I wanted the business knowledge which is something no1 can take from you and thats for life. Ima be clear. Lease you will have more freedom but at a cost and thesethings will determine your decisions how long u need to be at work OTR, ur truck payment, deductions, how u fuel,your fleet manager,if u do favors for a favor,AVoid the east coast And WORK the midwest if u ask me,if u go reefer and INEDIBLE tanker u will EAT, from my experience. Two sides to tanker Inedible side "pet food" pays way more than "food grade", and if u ever leave prime u can find tanker or reefer work pretty easily. My 2 cents
I literally just passed my test in Springfield with prime 30 minutes ago. Trifecta
That’s wassup I’m in my first week of psd training
Congrats 🎊
You have provided enough information and encouragement for those who have doubts. Now, it's time for them to get it and move forward. Keep up the good work.
If you know the struggle, you learn to hustle🎉
I didn’t start with prime, but I finished my 1 year experience with em. 50k miles with a trainer is too long of a time, but some people might need it.
I’m in the process of upgrading to leases be safe out there
I’m about to get into the business and this video was very helpful. Thanks for sharing.
Thanks for the information
Dawg I’m 25 & I’m a teacher. Don’t get paid that much, don’t have anything at home worth staying for.. I been researching for bout a year and a half. I’m boutta just go for it after this school year. Been watching your vids for a minute, if you wanna train me that’ll be dope
Def give it a try my
Bro you can always go back to teaching !
I think if a person likes to go home then prime inc is not the company to go to it don’t matter if you go company or lease. I think it’s best to get with a company that have regional positions then you can be home every weekend.
considering that i’m homeless yes it’s worth it , 3 more weeks of school
Counter-arguments to common capitalist economic arguments
Introduction:
“You need money to make money”
First, let's establish what capitalism is and isn't. In any society, it's economic organization can be described by the way it produces goods and distributes resources. In particular, we can describe it by the relationship between different classes in society.
Under capitalism, there is something called capital. It's an umbrella term that includes but is not limited to factories, land, houses, and other forms of infrastructure that is privately owned. There are people who own capital, for example, a factory owner, and people who sell their labor for a wage.
Workers go to the factory to work for the factory owner -- for instance, they take pieces of wood and make it into a chair. Say that each chair sells for $100. The factory owner takes a cut of the $100, say $70, and gives the $30 to the workers to pay their wages.
This is the fundamental relation in capitalism. There are owners and workers, i.e. the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The workers labor and produce something in a factory, and the owners, who *already have* money, factories, or land take a cut of the profits. Note that the owners could only make money as owners because they already have capital, in other words, you need money to make money.
Under this definition of capitalism, this relation between owners and workers has only existed for a couple hundred years. It is not the process of trading goods or buying things.
What's wrong with that?
The core issue at stake here is that the workers are doing the actual labor while the owner makes money simply because they own the factory. The owner produced next to nothing on their own. If all the workers one day disappeared, the owners would not be able to produce anything -- the machines and tools wouldn't operate themselves and the owner would have an empty factory. On the other hand, if all the owners disappeared and no one was informed about it, the workers could still run the factory as usual. The manager would still supervise production and the workers would still come everyday and produce goods and services.
So this begs the question, why do we need owners in the first place? If we can get along fine without the owners, why do they get a cut (in practice it's more than just a *cut* of the profits, it's a gross majority)? Why does the owner get a cut simply because they have more money? Moreover, if we don't need the owners, why do they get to make all the decisions? Why can't workers run things democratically amongst themselves? This is the core of socialist ideology.
Now you might say, wait a minute, a lot of times the owners are the managers! They actually come to the company and are involved in the day to day activities. And you'd be right in that not all owners are leeches who sit back and collect dividend checks. We think the business owners that work should be paid for the actual work they did in the day to day activities of the company, not the paper that entitles them to a cut of the workers' labor. If a business owner really does play an integral role in the day to day workings of a company, then surely they will still be compensated more than fairly if the workplace was democratic and everyone had an equal say.
Now, of course, you might not be satisfied with just this. There are, of course, many concerns to be addressed, and the remaining sections will do just that.
“Capitalism fosters innovation, or your iPhone was made under capitalism”
As we've established before, capitalism has existed for only a few hundred years. Innovation and geniuses have existed long before then. Moreover, these people did *not* create what they created with a profit motive in mind. Mozart and Beethoven didn't write world class music to be rich, in fact, they were dirt broke for most of their lives and never received significant pay for the symphonies and pieces they wrote. Additionally, Edward Jenner, who developed a smallpox vaccine, and Jonas Salk, who developed a polio vaccine, did not patent their work, instead allowing it to be produced cheaply so that it could reach and save the lives of millions. Salk famously said that "there is no patent. Could you patent the sun?" In more recent times, wildly successful companies like Microsoft and Apple got their big break by stealing from others, not innovating themselves. Apple is credited for introducing the modern GUI to the world, but it was developed by Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center, which Steve Jobs stole the idea from. Microsoft, in turn, stole the idea from Jobs to create Windows. In their earlier days, Microsoft's flagship operating system, DOS, was bought by Bill Gates from a small programmer.
Well what about your iPhone? Surely that was made under capitalism, right? Or at the very least, it couldn't have been created if not for the incentive structures under capitalism. As it turns out, although it is a good product,
[much of the technology that made the iPhone possible was developed in the public sector](digitaltonto dot c0m/2013/where-did-the-iphone-really-come-from/).
Even if capitalism did create the iPhone, there's a pretty succinct quote to counter the argument -- "It’s okay to resist capitalism on an iPhone. The feudal lord who owned the pitchforks the peasants killed him with probably observed the irony too."
Additionally, it's often said by capitalists that financial incentive is necessary for innovation. On the surface, this is true, since few people are willing or able to work for nothing. However, this assertion presuposes that only businesses are capable of providing financial icentives for innovation. However, any government is capable of providing financial icentives. It's called pay. Our government paid scientists to create the atomic bomb (aka the greatest technological marvel of the 20th century). We paid scientists to create the ebola vaccine. And we can pay scientists and engineers to do anything that a private company would use them for.
I end this section with the (sarcastic) quote -- "I'll never understand how the wheel was invented without a market incentive."
“Well shouldn't business owners be rewarded for their financial risk?”
The argument is that people who spend money in capital stand to risk losing their money if their business fails while since the workers don't own the business and won't go down with the ship. Therefore, the cut of the profits (and the income inequality) the owners take is justified because they are being rewarded for the financial risk they undertook.
The problem with this is that the only risk the owners take is the risk of becoming a worker, or becoming like one of the people you employ and exploit. They will be no worse than the workers if their business fails. You might say, well, they might go bankrupt or be thrown into crippling debt. For every one business owner who loses their money, millions more workers live in poverty or debt every day. Why does the *possibility* of an owner becoming poor outweigh the *reality* of the destitute living conditions of millions of workers?
The worst thing that happens is that the former business owner has to suffer the humiliation of working at McDonald's. How could they possibly bear the indignation of walking among us filthy, crude, unwashed masses as equals?
How long that take to write?
It’s crazy next month will be my first year at Prime 🕺🏽
Reject cheap freight. Anything less than 2$ a mile is a SCAM.
@@DieselBlood you drive for Prime?
@@topdoochannel6609 for years now. Us drivers must communicate AMONGST EACH OTHER about load rates to find out how they are exploiting us.
The only way we can fight back is to ORGANIZE and REJECT cheap freight.
“Without our brain and muscle not a single wheel can turn”
UNITED WE BARGAIN. DIVIDED WE BEG.
@@topdoochannel6609 I have been for years now.
Dont scab for the bosses, dont listen to their lies, us poor folk havent got a chance unless we organize
Listen to Solidarity Forever by Utah Phillips.
UNITED WE BARGAIN, DIVIDED WE BEG!
@@DieselBlood😂
Do they have to set me up for physical before i get my permit?
I just got assigned my trainer at prime today.
Are you reeefer
I’ll be in MO April 15th
Use my referral my guy GRERAE!
Is 6k on a CDL a good investment
The best book to read on your drive shift is The State and Revolution by Lenin.
Workers have the power, not exploiters.
Moreover, why should taking a risk necessarily be rewarded? Compulsive gamblers aren't entitled to winnings because they take risks all the time. That same logic could be used to argue that slave owners took a great financial risk by buying slaves, so abolishing slavery would be punishing the risk they took.
Finally, it should be obvious but needs to be said that if the gallant, risk taking owner's business fails, the workers are also out of a job. and possibly didn't even get paid their salary before the business went under. One could argue that the workers could just find another job, and that's exactly the concern addressed in the next part.
“Doesn't competition between capitalists forces them to stop exploiting workers or why don't you just find a better job?”
These two go hand in hand. The first argument says that capitalists have to try to offer workers better wages and conditions because workers will just find another job that pays better. The latter argues that because of competition for workers, workers should just find a better paying job.
Although it sounds good on paper, this simply is not the case. In the early days of capitalism, workers worked for 12 hour days in horrific conditions. There were no "better" factory jobs to turn to, because all of them paid the same terrible wages in dangerous factories. Working conditions and wages didn't improve then because of the Invisible Hand of the Free Market^(TM), they did because of government regulations, unions, and other forms of pushback from workers.
And in what universe do you live where capitalists compete for workers? Workers compete for jobs, not the other way around. If you could just walk out and find another job, why is unemployment an issue? Why is it so devastating to be laid off? There is a reserve army of labor that capitalists take advantage of. A common tactic is to simply threaten to replace workers by hiring the unemployed who are willing to work for less. Today, capitalists in the United States often threaten to fire American workers by replacing them with cheap migrant labor or moving their production overseas.
“Why don't you start your own business?”
Well, as we've shown already, under capitalism, you need money to make money. If you're a worker who's just been laid off, chances are it's not realistic to just start a business because you don't have the money. If you somehow already did, then I would ask why you sold your labor for a wage all this time and didn't start a business sooner.
“Don't the rich capitalists create jobs?”
Even arguing under capitalist economic theory, it's consumer demand that causes business owners to produce more to increase the supply. This consumer demand comes from the consumption wants and needs of the people. On top of that, it's worth reiterating that capitalists need workers, but the workers don't need capitalists. If all the workers disappeared, who's going to operate the machinery? If the capitalists disappeared, workers could come to work and go about their business. You might say that workers need supervisors and managers, but unless the manager actually owns the business, managers are workers themselves who sell their skills for a wage.
“Aren't you just devaluing intellectual work and idolizing physical labor?”
No, we value intellectual work. We understand that there is a need for non-physical labor. For example, accountants, supervisors, and managers are needed. If you support a planned economy, we will obviously need people who can plan what to produce, how to produce it, and how much to produce, which isn't physical labor. The important point is that we think these people should be paid for the work they do, not because of some claim of ownership. In some cases, owners actually are the managers or supervisors, but they should be paid for their work as a manager, not because their initial lump sum of cash snowballed as the business grew.
“But I don't feel exploited as a worker”
In that case, good for you. But your experiences aren't universal, and just because you're happy with your position in life doesn't mean you can expect everyone else to be. Someone with a cushy job in a middle class neighborhood can be a worker who's happy with where they are, but that doesn't mean they should expect destitute factory workers making $2 an hour to feel unexploited too.
“What about the common people who invest in companies or make money off private property to retire?”
In theory, yes, we are opposed to anyone who makes money through money. However, we do believe in social policies provide for those in need and cannot work, i.e. the elderly, sick, or disabled. In addition, we are much more interested in the [8 people who have as much wealth as 50% of the world's population](theguardian.com/global-development/2017/jan/16/worlds-eight-richest-people-have-same-wealth-as-poorest-50) than common people who try to invest in real estate or companies.
The difference is that these common people still work full time jobs and invest to pad their income or retire. I don't blame working people for doing what they can to make ends meet -- they won't help anyone by going into poverty. As the saying goes, "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism," which means that no matter where you get something from, someone is being exploited somewhere along the line.
I do think, however, that their private ownership must be abolished eventually. That doesn't mean that I want to kick them out in the cold. [Billionaires Made So Much Money Last Year They Could End Extreme Poverty Seven Times](time dot c0m/money/5112462/billionaires-made-so-much-money-last-year-they-could-end-extreme-poverty-seven-times/_). Under capitalism today, [one third of all food produced is wasted, and it could feed the hungry four times over](reliefweb dot int/report/world/food-waste-enough-feed-world-s-hungry-four-times-over). The redistribution of wealth and resources that we hope to reclaim from the elite 1% is more than enough to provide for the needs of the workers who invest and the workers who are deep in poverty. We're not interested in having common people fight over who gets the crumbs; we're interested in the ones who make off with the whole loaf.
“But the factories/apartments/farmland belong to the owners! You can't just take that!”
That same nonsense logic has been used to justify things like feudalism and slavery. The slaves who escaped their masters have to be returned because they're the property of their owners! You can't liberate the slaves and take the plantations away, that'll be stealing property! Would you use that logic to oppose the Haitian slave revolt?
Oh, but the king and the nobles and the church own all of Europe! Not the filthy peasants! They're not allowed to own land. And yet revolutionaries still beheaded the feudal lords and kings and seized their property to establish what we today call *capitalism*.
“You see, that's just the way the world works”
That's essentially a might makes right argument that, like the previous argument, can justify any organization. If workers being exploited by capitalists is just how the world works, then when the rich moan at how revolutionaries confiscated their wealth and property, they can just turn around and tell the disgruntled bourgeoisie that this is just how the world works. And if the existence of oppressors is how the world works, then it could also be said that the oppressed rising up to overthrow their oppressors is just how the world works.
All facts it was easy at prime and I’m still at prime
All of us prime drivers need to organize and UNIONIZE. We must communicate with one another whenever we feel we are getting scammed and then GO ON STRIKE until our demands are met. WE HAVE MORE POWER THAN THEM. WITHOUT US THEY ARE NOTHING. WITHOUT US THEIR BUSINESS OF EXPLOITATION FAILS TO FUNCTION.
you got that inward facing camera ?
Good information to know
That’s a lie what you say about prime that they say for your orientation im in Florida south west and I applied for Prime . I just graduated and they shot me down so what you say is a total lie do your homework right before you come out on TH-cam. And said the things that say, bro
What’s a lie ?
On the lease side what do you think the average monthly income is if you stay out a full month?
For reefer?
You’ll make a good amount as long as no break downs ! I can’t give you an exact # because it all depends where you at
Solo, probably around 1,000 a week. Teaming will net you more, but I’ll never give up my privacy again. The most important thing you can do is to reject anything less than $2 a mile. “Ok for this next load/ ok for preplan?” “No, I’ll wait for something better.” That’s it
@@DieselBloodyou make 1000 take home only at prime ? 4k a month take home ?
@@Rassy636yes