Good to hear, but it's still a huge stretch to call skills capital - what does any of us gain by redefining words in free conversation?
When arguing for or against communism (as is the theme of the article and thread) we need at least to have some common understanding of what a word means. "Capital" is generally understood as exclusive ownership.
> In the sense that most of their pay is return on capital, not "labor"
No, most workers earn their pay from labour. Applying your skills is still labour.
I think the pandemic was a happening that made more people than ever realize they can and should change their life course to better suit their needs. So many people are changing careers to get a better return on their skills and effort. There are whole industries now that are starting to have a hard time getting enough labour, because they can't find anybody willing to be exploited even short time. And sometimes that's not deliberately by the individual business owner, some sectors are just not lucrative enough to continue - unless they change profoundly.
> "Capital" is generally understood as exclusive ownership.
Sure, and you exclusively own your skills, so they meet this definition.
> Applying your skills is still labour.
The time you spend applying them is labor, yes.
The knowledge on your part of how to apply them to produce much more value in that time than a unskilled worker could produce, is capital. And the fact that you can get paid much more than an unskilled worker if you have that knowledge, and use it to be more productive, is return on capital.
> many people are changing careers to get a better return on their skills and effort.
I.e., return on their capital. Yes, exactly! They are realizing that the capital they own is worth more than they were being paid before, so they are changing careers to increase their return. Try doing that as an unskilled worker and see how far you get.
> Sure, and you exclusively own your skills, so they meet this definition.
You can never exclusively own skills. If somebody else achieves some skill or knowledge that I have, I cannot use the force of the government to stop him from having those. A capitalist can and will use the force of the government to stop others from using the things he has laid claim to: Land, natural resources, equipment. A capitalist can create capital out of thin air by making money, and use the force of the government to stop others from making money.
That's the difference that matters.
> Try doing that as an unskilled worker and see how far you get.
Right now I think it is mainly unskilled workers who are changing sectors, as they are the ones who can benefit most from it. If your job cannot get worse, there is no reason not to change. As for skilled workers, they have already climbed a few steps on the ladder.
> If somebody else achieves some skill or knowledge that I have, I cannot use the force of the government to stop him from having those.
That is true, but it's irrelevant here. When you use your skills to increase your productivity, it's your productivity that gets increased, not someone else's, even if they have similar skills. That is the sense of exclusive ownership that is relevant to this discussion.
> A capitalist can and will use the force of the government to stop others from using the things he has laid claim to
So can a non-capitalist. Anyone who is willing to use the government as a tool to further their own ends can. That is a much broader set of people than "capitalists".
> A capitalist can create capital out of thin air by making money
No, that's not what creates capital out of thin air. What creates capital out of thin air is creating something that increases productivity. Just "making money" does not do that. Money can of course help with creating something that increases productivity, but it can't be done just by making (or spending) money.
> and use the force of the government to stop others from making money.
Again, this is not a problem of capitalism, it's a problem of corruption: people using the government as a tool to further their own ends.
> Right now I think it is mainly unskilled workers who are changing sectors, as they are the ones who can benefit most from it.
I don't think this is true. Skilled workers are far more likely to be underpaid as compared to the productivity they are capable of.
> As for skilled workers, they have already climbed a few steps on the ladder.
I don't think this is true either. Skilled workers very often are not able to climb on the ladder, because their skills are not being recognized or compensated properly as compared to other skills that ladder climbers have, like schmoozing and taking credit for other people's work. And once they recognize this, they are far more likely to be both willing to and capable of finding a better job that compensates them better for the skills they have.
When arguing for or against communism (as is the theme of the article and thread) we need at least to have some common understanding of what a word means. "Capital" is generally understood as exclusive ownership.
> In the sense that most of their pay is return on capital, not "labor"
No, most workers earn their pay from labour. Applying your skills is still labour.
I think the pandemic was a happening that made more people than ever realize they can and should change their life course to better suit their needs. So many people are changing careers to get a better return on their skills and effort. There are whole industries now that are starting to have a hard time getting enough labour, because they can't find anybody willing to be exploited even short time. And sometimes that's not deliberately by the individual business owner, some sectors are just not lucrative enough to continue - unless they change profoundly.