5 ms·

Capitalism...workers are just another expense to be eliminated

BLKNSLVR 8y ago
Squeezed. Not eliminated.
liftbigweights 8y ago
I believe the technical term is liability. Workers are liabilities. You are right. A part of capitalism is to increase the assets and reduce liabilities.
- FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago
  Which is why it cannot help but create its own downfall. But before that we will have to end up with that unholy alliance between government and industry called fascism, as that will be the final attempt to extract wealth from a society that has been drained, by tapping directly into taxes collected by the government. You simply cannot have a system that needs consumers to spend money when its in every single companies best interest to pay as little, preferably nothing, to those whose business and expertise you need to survive. You can expand to other nations as a temporary solution but in the end you will run out of people to sell stuff to.
  - Melchizedek 8y ago
    Not to mention the unholy alliance between the contemporary elite "left" and capital, called globalism. The only real counterforce to global capitalism has historically been the people of a nation, and the populist nationalism of a few nation states has been the only example ever known of an economic system that has upheld basic human dignity (whether it has been called social democracy, christian democracy or something else). This is now going down the drain.
    - Intermernet 8y ago
      > the populist nationalism of a few nation states has been the only example ever known of an economic system that has upheld basic human dignity Can you give me some examples? I'm honestly curious as I can't think of any off the top of my head.
      - SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
        DPRK? Nope... China? Erm...
      - Melchizedek 8y ago
        Sweden (as it used to be). By "populist nationalists" I mean what they really are, not necessarily what they call themselves. The Swedish Social Democrats of old are a good example who in practice created a national welfare state, often even with explicitly nationalist rhetoric.
    - weregiraffe 8y ago
      > contemporary elite "left" and capital, called globalism To anyone who is not in the loop (of the alt-right/4chan jargon), "globalism" is currently a code-word for "Jews".
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - Karunamon 8y ago
        WTF?!
      - Melchizedek 8y ago
        No, globalism means globalism and has nothing to do with Jews. This is simply an attempt by (extremely well financed) globalists to smear anti-globalists with antisemitism.
    - weregiraffe 8y ago
      >The only real counterforce to global capitalism has historically been the people of a nation And yet every time there is some great nation-building exercise, the nation in question immediately attempts to build a global empire for itself, by subjugating other nations. France of Napoleon. Germany of Bismark. Japan of Meiji. Germany of Hitler. USSR. Current day USA. Human dignity, my ass. PS. Arabs of Muhammad and Mongols of Genghis also qualify.
      - Kaveren 8y ago
        The US isn't trying to build a global empire of any kind, this kind of reckless hyperbole is not productive to discourse. Just because the US is involved in conflicts you may disapprove of in the Middle East does not make current day USA on par with Hitler's Germany. There's also a sizable internal backlash against recent wars and historically isolationism has been popular in the US.
        weregiraffe 8y ago
        >The US isn't trying to build a global empire of any kind You don't have to legally control or own territory to be, in effect, an Empire. When you use your military power to force economic interactions of your liking, you are an Empire. For examples, read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic
        Kaveren 8y ago
        The US isn't forcing economic interactions of its liking anywhere.
        int_19h 8y ago
        US has routinely interfered in politics of Central and South American countries - including military assistance for local anti-democratic forces, and in some cases (e.g. Dominican Republic), outright military occupation - to protect its economic interests there. Here's just one example - I picked this one because it is directly related to the term "banana republic", since the intervention was to protect the interests of the United Fruit Company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A...
    - Brometheus 8y ago
      Would say the neoliberal right-wingers are the driving force behind it...
- aetherson 8y ago
  This comment suggests that you are trying to support a political point by using obfuscated technical terms you do not understand. "Workers" do not show up on a balance sheet: they are neither an asset not a liability "technically." There may be a payroll liability briefly, though it will then be paid out and taken off the books. Accrued vacation is a liability, which is why we have "unlimited PTO" policies. It is impossible, in double entry bookkeeping, to "increase assets and reduce liabilities." Every asset must be balanced with a liability. That's the fundamental basis of that accounting system. To the extent that we're speaking metaphorically, workers are assets. To the extent that we're speaking technically, it's clear that you tried to apply jargon that you didn't understand to confuse others.
umichguy 8y ago
Well, everyone is a number somewhere on a spreadsheet. Call me cynical, but I have long given up on the notion of company loyalty etc. Looking back at my bright-eyed idealism coming out of college, makes me laugh.
- BLKNSLVR 8y ago
  "bright-eyed idealism coming out of college" Where does that come from though? Is that still the case for the current generation of college graduates? Do the kids need to be educated closer to reality? The notion of company loyalty is good for a productive workforce - UNTIL the illusion is shattered, which can take parts of the rest of an individuals positive world-view with it.
  - geezerjay 8y ago
    > The notion of company loyalty is good for a productive workforce - UNTIL the illusion is shattered It should also be noted that this illusion is not specific to any economic system. The soviet union also saw its share of jaded idealists who were gullible to the point of believing that all those promises of owning the means of production had any credibility. At least in capitalist economies workers are educated with regards to liberal ideas. Thus they are informed that a work relation is just like any business relation, and therefore they are compelled to look after their own best interests without falling for the "company loyalty" emotional trap. Your employer owes you the salary and you should expect nothing more in return, and consequently you as a worker are compelled to always look after more favourable arrangements just like your employer is perpetually doing wrt your job.
    - BLKNSLVR 8y ago
      The comment to which you're replying wasn't intended as a jibe at capitalism, just pure observation of unrealistic expectations of a college / university graduate in an ignorance-is-bliss kind of naivete. Faith in the reciprocation of loyalty with thine employer can be just as misplaced as with your government, whatever shape of ideology it follows (any system is corruptible; gosh-darn humans).

Squeezed. Not eliminated.

I believe the technical term is liability. Workers are liabilities. You are right. A part of capitalism is to increase the assets and reduce liabilities.

FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago
Which is why it cannot help but create its own downfall. But before that we will have to end up with that unholy alliance between government and industry called fascism, as that will be the final attempt to extract wealth from a society that has been drained, by tapping directly into taxes collected by the government. You simply cannot have a system that needs consumers to spend money when its in every single companies best interest to pay as little, preferably nothing, to those whose business and expertise you need to survive. You can expand to other nations as a temporary solution but in the end you will run out of people to sell stuff to.
- Melchizedek 8y ago
  Not to mention the unholy alliance between the contemporary elite "left" and capital, called globalism. The only real counterforce to global capitalism has historically been the people of a nation, and the populist nationalism of a few nation states has been the only example ever known of an economic system that has upheld basic human dignity (whether it has been called social democracy, christian democracy or something else). This is now going down the drain.
  - Intermernet 8y ago
    > the populist nationalism of a few nation states has been the only example ever known of an economic system that has upheld basic human dignity Can you give me some examples? I'm honestly curious as I can't think of any off the top of my head.
    - SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
      DPRK? Nope... China? Erm...
    - Melchizedek 8y ago
      Sweden (as it used to be). By "populist nationalists" I mean what they really are, not necessarily what they call themselves. The Swedish Social Democrats of old are a good example who in practice created a national welfare state, often even with explicitly nationalist rhetoric.
  - weregiraffe 8y ago
    > contemporary elite "left" and capital, called globalism To anyone who is not in the loop (of the alt-right/4chan jargon), "globalism" is currently a code-word for "Jews".
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - Karunamon 8y ago
      WTF?!
    - Melchizedek 8y ago
      No, globalism means globalism and has nothing to do with Jews. This is simply an attempt by (extremely well financed) globalists to smear anti-globalists with antisemitism.
  - weregiraffe 8y ago
    >The only real counterforce to global capitalism has historically been the people of a nation And yet every time there is some great nation-building exercise, the nation in question immediately attempts to build a global empire for itself, by subjugating other nations. France of Napoleon. Germany of Bismark. Japan of Meiji. Germany of Hitler. USSR. Current day USA. Human dignity, my ass. PS. Arabs of Muhammad and Mongols of Genghis also qualify.
    - Kaveren 8y ago
      The US isn't trying to build a global empire of any kind, this kind of reckless hyperbole is not productive to discourse. Just because the US is involved in conflicts you may disapprove of in the Middle East does not make current day USA on par with Hitler's Germany. There's also a sizable internal backlash against recent wars and historically isolationism has been popular in the US.
      - weregiraffe 8y ago
        >The US isn't trying to build a global empire of any kind You don't have to legally control or own territory to be, in effect, an Empire. When you use your military power to force economic interactions of your liking, you are an Empire. For examples, read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic
        Kaveren 8y ago
        The US isn't forcing economic interactions of its liking anywhere.
        int_19h 8y ago
        US has routinely interfered in politics of Central and South American countries - including military assistance for local anti-democratic forces, and in some cases (e.g. Dominican Republic), outright military occupation - to protect its economic interests there. Here's just one example - I picked this one because it is directly related to the term "banana republic", since the intervention was to protect the interests of the United Fruit Company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A...
  - Brometheus 8y ago
    Would say the neoliberal right-wingers are the driving force behind it...
aetherson 8y ago
This comment suggests that you are trying to support a political point by using obfuscated technical terms you do not understand. "Workers" do not show up on a balance sheet: they are neither an asset not a liability "technically." There may be a payroll liability briefly, though it will then be paid out and taken off the books. Accrued vacation is a liability, which is why we have "unlimited PTO" policies. It is impossible, in double entry bookkeeping, to "increase assets and reduce liabilities." Every asset must be balanced with a liability. That's the fundamental basis of that accounting system. To the extent that we're speaking metaphorically, workers are assets. To the extent that we're speaking technically, it's clear that you tried to apply jargon that you didn't understand to confuse others.

umichguy 8y ago

Well, everyone is a number somewhere on a spreadsheet. Call me cynical, but I have long given up on the notion of company loyalty etc. Looking back at my bright-eyed idealism coming out of college, makes me laugh.

BLKNSLVR 8y ago
"bright-eyed idealism coming out of college" Where does that come from though? Is that still the case for the current generation of college graduates? Do the kids need to be educated closer to reality? The notion of company loyalty is good for a productive workforce - UNTIL the illusion is shattered, which can take parts of the rest of an individuals positive world-view with it.
- geezerjay 8y ago
  > The notion of company loyalty is good for a productive workforce - UNTIL the illusion is shattered It should also be noted that this illusion is not specific to any economic system. The soviet union also saw its share of jaded idealists who were gullible to the point of believing that all those promises of owning the means of production had any credibility. At least in capitalist economies workers are educated with regards to liberal ideas. Thus they are informed that a work relation is just like any business relation, and therefore they are compelled to look after their own best interests without falling for the "company loyalty" emotional trap. Your employer owes you the salary and you should expect nothing more in return, and consequently you as a worker are compelled to always look after more favourable arrangements just like your employer is perpetually doing wrt your job.
  - BLKNSLVR 8y ago
    The comment to which you're replying wasn't intended as a jibe at capitalism, just pure observation of unrealistic expectations of a college / university graduate in an ignorance-is-bliss kind of naivete. Faith in the reciprocation of loyalty with thine employer can be just as misplaced as with your government, whatever shape of ideology it follows (any system is corruptible; gosh-darn humans).