4 ms·

>We were born into this world, as a species, with nothing. Some people are born with nothing, others are born with just about everything. Many laws, regulation

>We were born into this world, as a species, with nothing. Some people are born with nothing, others are born with just about everything. Many laws, regulations, etc exist so that JUST existing with nothing is not feasible. It is nigh impossible to live in this world like the birds do, flying from one food source to the next, roosting wherever you find comfort. Those with means have entire departments to police the underclass off of their property and setup obstacles to make sure riff-raff does not even get on the public property next to their private property (just look at how public transport is set up in big cities). We protect those with means, ensuring those without cannot even live without selling their labor. Die or work. It's a little like slavery (I KNOW there are large differences between traditional slavery), you must be able to see that? >but through the slow accumulation of societal benefits, over time, across an open market economy. Pretty sure most of the improvements we have made for the common man, at least in the US, have come at the behest of those born with nothing standing up and saying "we won't work unless the rewards are distributed better/we get a 40 hour work week/we get cleaner and less dangerous work conditions/etc." >It is not and will never be "fair", there will never be equality of outcomes, No one wants equality of outcomes, equality of outcomes would not seem fair to most people. Instead we want equality of opportunity. We can improve, most of us know it, and even though most improvement will only effect our kids or grandkids, I will still keep bitching that we need to improve until we're AS GREAT AS WE CAN BE.

closeparen 9y ago
>Pretty sure most of the improvements we have made for the common man, at least in the US, have come at the behest of those born with nothing standing up and saying "we won't work unless the rewards are distributed better/we get a 40 hour work week/we get cleaner and less dangerous work conditions/etc." Yes. These improvements were won through the most thoroughly and deeply market behavior possible: raising the price on what you're selling. Labor price-gouging capital is a beautiful sight to see. Usually only capital remembers it can do that.
- mojoe 9y ago
  > Labor price-gouging capital is a beautiful sight to see. Usually only capital remembers it can do that. This was a pleasure to read, although it made me wonder what the optimal unit of labor is to still have a functioning competitive market. If all capital was controlled by one entity, no market could exist -- that's basically why the US has anti-trust laws. The same is true for labor. Seems like for each market there must be an optimal unit of labor (number of workers in a union, for example), to balance well-being of an individual worker with functioning of the market. Hard problem, though.
  - aoeusnth1 9y ago
    Yes, the problems that monopoly creates are analogous problems to the problems with large unions. The union management seeks to increase their own power, and the larger the union, the more possibility to abuse that power. However, the upside of having an institutional way to apply political pressure for the benefit of the worker can definitely outweigh whatever abuses and inefficiencies most unions create.
- int_19h 9y ago
  Don't forget that the initial response to labor price-gouging capital was to hire armed goons (like the Pinkertons) to break the strikes. The fight between capital and labor that ultimately led to something more balanced wasn't a purely voluntary economic transaction - there was plenty of violence involved on both sides. And don't forget that a big part of why many Western countries started to invest more into welfare is because after 1917, their governments realized that the alternative could well be an armed uprising, and that they need to keep their citizens sufficiently content to prevent that - even if that means they have to force the wealthy to share more of their income. (Note, I'm not saying that Soviets somehow achieved better results. The point is solely that the threat of a socialist/communist revolution was a significant factor in capitalist countries shifting away from unregulated capitalism and towards welfare state.)
taneq 9y ago
> Some people are born with nothing, others are born with just about everything. Many laws, regulations, etc exist so that JUST existing with nothing is not feasible. Rubbish. Nothing stops you from wandering off into the wilderness, except for the fact that it's a crap way to live. You just feel entitled to the benefits of modern civilisation, without the costs.
- amelius 9y ago
  And why should some people benefit from progress, while others are left to live in the wilderness? (Considering only few people actually contribute to progress.)
  - taneq 9y ago
    Because progress is the net result, directly or indirectly, of the work of everyone living in that society. When you pay taxes, when you buy things, when you select which products to buy, you're contributing.
    - amelius 9y ago
      So someone who inherits a pile of money, and spends their time doing nothing is contributing to progress?

closeparen 9y ago

>Pretty sure most of the improvements we have made for the common man, at least in the US, have come at the behest of those born with nothing standing up and saying "we won't work unless the rewards are distributed better/we get a 40 hour work week/we get cleaner and less dangerous work conditions/etc." Yes. These improvements were won through the most thoroughly and deeply market behavior possible: raising the price on what you're selling. Labor price-gouging capital is a beautiful sight to see. Usually only capital remembers it can do that.

mojoe 9y ago
> Labor price-gouging capital is a beautiful sight to see. Usually only capital remembers it can do that. This was a pleasure to read, although it made me wonder what the optimal unit of labor is to still have a functioning competitive market. If all capital was controlled by one entity, no market could exist -- that's basically why the US has anti-trust laws. The same is true for labor. Seems like for each market there must be an optimal unit of labor (number of workers in a union, for example), to balance well-being of an individual worker with functioning of the market. Hard problem, though.
- aoeusnth1 9y ago
  Yes, the problems that monopoly creates are analogous problems to the problems with large unions. The union management seeks to increase their own power, and the larger the union, the more possibility to abuse that power. However, the upside of having an institutional way to apply political pressure for the benefit of the worker can definitely outweigh whatever abuses and inefficiencies most unions create.
int_19h 9y ago
Don't forget that the initial response to labor price-gouging capital was to hire armed goons (like the Pinkertons) to break the strikes. The fight between capital and labor that ultimately led to something more balanced wasn't a purely voluntary economic transaction - there was plenty of violence involved on both sides. And don't forget that a big part of why many Western countries started to invest more into welfare is because after 1917, their governments realized that the alternative could well be an armed uprising, and that they need to keep their citizens sufficiently content to prevent that - even if that means they have to force the wealthy to share more of their income. (Note, I'm not saying that Soviets somehow achieved better results. The point is solely that the threat of a socialist/communist revolution was a significant factor in capitalist countries shifting away from unregulated capitalism and towards welfare state.)

taneq 9y ago

> Some people are born with nothing, others are born with just about everything. Many laws, regulations, etc exist so that JUST existing with nothing is not feasible. Rubbish. Nothing stops you from wandering off into the wilderness, except for the fact that it's a crap way to live. You just feel entitled to the benefits of modern civilisation, without the costs.

amelius 9y ago
And why should some people benefit from progress, while others are left to live in the wilderness? (Considering only few people actually contribute to progress.)
- taneq 9y ago
  Because progress is the net result, directly or indirectly, of the work of everyone living in that society. When you pay taxes, when you buy things, when you select which products to buy, you're contributing.
  - amelius 9y ago
    So someone who inherits a pile of money, and spends their time doing nothing is contributing to progress?