5 ms·

> He's right in that Capitalism is not about marking up a product to generate a profit by taking the cost of the goods and the labor to produce it but rather by

> He's right in that Capitalism is not about marking up a product to generate a profit by taking the cost of the goods and the labor to produce it but rather by paying labor less than what their labor is worth. And this is what bothers people. It isn't fair. And they are helpless to change it. Given your other statements, this is not a sensible position. A widget is priced according to the value it delivers a buyer -- if there are 100 brands of widgets on the market and they are easy to make, it's priced low; if I am the only widget maker, the only limit on the price is what I can convince people to pay. And what I pay my factory workers is subject to the same competitive forces -- labor's value is limited by my ability to replace it. That's your free market in effect, labor is only extracting value for itself until it exceeds the cost of the alternative, be that a robot or another worker. So if you are a believer that free markets deliver the best pairing of choice and freedom, how do you not look at a person working in a factory, being paid a low wage, enjoying no participation in profit, and think if they had more value to offer, they would negotiate a better deal.

nemo44x 11y ago
Because of policy, as I stated. They can't negotiate a better deal because the labor pool they are competing with is global. So they are now valued less and feel it is unfair. I'm not here preaching socialism. I'm just saying a near term effect of rampant globalization is people are going to be displaced and feel they are being exploited. I think this is where unrest comes from.
s73v3r 11y ago
Your statement only makes sense in a context where both the buyer and seller have roughly equal power. As it is, that has almost never been true when talking about labor. An employer who doesn't have enough employees is still going to be able to compete and make money, just not as much. However, an employee who doesn't get enough work is going to be homeless or starve.
- zo1 11y ago
  "However, an employee who doesn't get enough work is going to be homeless or starve." Don't mean to be sarcastic here, but isn't that the whole point of government right now? Foodstamps, welfare payments, child-assistance money, social security, free medical care, etc. At what point can we stop using this supposed "power-differential" between employer and employee as some sort of silent force in the labour market?
  - s73v3r 11y ago
    Probably when people stop talking about a "supposed" power-differential, realize it exists, and do something about it. And while you're not wrong that a lot of that safety net stuff is the point of government, you'd have a pretty hard time claiming that they were doing it well, or helping everyone who needed it, especially with a lot of states slashing aid from their budgets in order to give tax cuts.

nemo44x 11y ago

Because of policy, as I stated. They can't negotiate a better deal because the labor pool they are competing with is global. So they are now valued less and feel it is unfair. I'm not here preaching socialism. I'm just saying a near term effect of rampant globalization is people are going to be displaced and feel they are being exploited. I think this is where unrest comes from.

s73v3r 11y ago

Your statement only makes sense in a context where both the buyer and seller have roughly equal power. As it is, that has almost never been true when talking about labor. An employer who doesn't have enough employees is still going to be able to compete and make money, just not as much. However, an employee who doesn't get enough work is going to be homeless or starve.

zo1 11y ago
"However, an employee who doesn't get enough work is going to be homeless or starve." Don't mean to be sarcastic here, but isn't that the whole point of government right now? Foodstamps, welfare payments, child-assistance money, social security, free medical care, etc. At what point can we stop using this supposed "power-differential" between employer and employee as some sort of silent force in the labour market?
- s73v3r 11y ago
  Probably when people stop talking about a "supposed" power-differential, realize it exists, and do something about it. And while you're not wrong that a lot of that safety net stuff is the point of government, you'd have a pretty hard time claiming that they were doing it well, or helping everyone who needed it, especially with a lot of states slashing aid from their budgets in order to give tax cuts.