5 ms·

Under capitalism, if you want to work 70 weeks, you can. That's true. However, capitalism is about people having the freedom to make their own decisions on how

Under capitalism, if you want to work 70 weeks, you can. That's true. However, capitalism is about people having the freedom to make their own decisions on how they conduct their life, and the "invisible hand" that the system tends to push the economy in a positive direction. An example would be how there is a financial incentive to not work employees over so many hours since that can decrease their efficiency. Another would be how if you have at least two firms, all other things being equal, the worker will choose to go the the one with more favorable work conditions.

lawlessone 8y ago
>all other things being equal, the worker will choose to go the the one with more favorable work conditions. Assume the cow is a sphere.
- SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
  And it has no student loans.
komali2 8y ago
>An example would be how there is a financial incentive to not work employees over so many hours since that can decrease their efficiency. Why does their efficiency matter if they're at the office for 10 hours anyway? I've never seen evidence of the invisible hand helping anyone but the owners.
- rudiv 8y ago
  To workers, the invisible hand is hovering in the middle of the their field of vision, slowly doing the jerk-off motion.
- defertoreptar 8y ago
  > I've never seen evidence of the invisible hand helping anyone but the owners. Just look around you. Adjusted for inflation, the median annual income in 1920 was $41,544. For 2018, it hit $61,372. The median person these days has $20,000 worth of more stuff now than they did 100 years ago. That's only possible because of growth, and the trade and competition that goes with it. That competition has driven down costs and drove innovation. We have luxuries people couldn't have dreamt of back then: phones, grocery stores stocked full of food, safe jobs, drugs and medical treatments that would seem like sci-fi.
  - komali2 8y ago
    Right but I don't see what anything of what you just said has to do with the invisible hand.
    - defertoreptar 8y ago
      I'm talking about the post-World War II economic expansion seen in USA, aka "the golden age of capitalism."
      - unparagoned 8y ago
        You mean when the tax rates on the wealthy were very high?
        defertoreptar 8y ago
        You're arguing that the economic expansion was a result of taxing the wealthy? Or, are you saying that because there are ways that this wasn't "the one true capitalism," then that means my whole point is invalid?
        komali2 8y ago
        Well, I'm still not sure what your point was. I think you were arguing that America's prosperity was due to the invisible hand. I'd argue it was the government creating industries such as infrastructure projects and war.
rudiv 8y ago
If humanity doesn't make it through the crises of the 21st century, I imagine ceteris paribus will be on our figurative gravestones.
SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
> However, capitalism is about people having the freedom to make their own decisions on how they conduct their life, and the "invisible hand" that the system tends to push the economy in a positive direction. Is that why the rich and the poor are becoming ever more separate? The disappearance of the middle class is a positive direction? The economy may be moving in a positive direction, but it is divorced from the people who compose it. > Another would be how if you have at least two firms, all other things being equal, the worker will choose to go the the one with more favorable work conditions. That's assuming both of those firms exist - what incentive is there for the one firm owner to make better conditions? He could possibly recruit better people, but if the two groups stay exactly equal then the pool of workers remain, and it can then be very small things to get those better workers. They won't get their pick of the best, but it may make more financial sense for there to be worse conditions and slightly worse workers. Many jobs don't need the greatest workers, they just need workers.
basetop 8y ago
That isn't capitalism. Capitalism says nothing about how many hours to work or freedom. Capitalism is an amoral system. Neither inherently good or bad. It's about power and who gets to wield it. In monarchic systems, the monarch has the power. In capitalist societies, the ones who control capital ( bankers and now primarily central bankers ) control power. Your example of "financial incentive to not overwork employees" is historically and economically inaccurate. Capitalistic societies overworked their employees because it is in the amoral interest of capital to extract the most value from a resource. It's okay in capitalist society to overwork employees ( even to death ), employee children ( child coal miners ) and even drug millions of people ( chinese opium wars ) in order to accumulate capital. Your other example workers getting the choice of the best opportunities between two firms is also false. It makes "capitalistic" sense for the two firms to collude to keep wages, benefits, etc down. We had a big story about it yesterday. "How Apple, Google, and other tech companies conspired against their own workers" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19666545 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19666545 The point of capitalism is capital rules over the masses and that the goal of society is to accumulate the most capital. Whether it be by destroying the lives of millions or uplifting the lives of millions or whether it be by destroying the environment or protecting the environment is moot.
- rudiv 8y ago
  You're doing the Lord's work for those of us who are currently at work and therefore cannot type out long-form comments.
- Sommer_Son 8y ago
  What's the difference between "amoral" capitalistic society and socialistic society if latter is perfectly capable of starving millions to death (see Holodomor or Great Chinese Famine) ?
  - basetop 8y ago
    Socialism, communism and capitalism are all "amoral". I think you are confusing "amoral" with "immoral". I'm not saying capitalism is immoral. I'm saying it's amoral : "Neither inherently good or bad." As you noted, capitalist and communist societies committed horrendous genocides. And capitalist and communist societies did a lot of good. But nothing inherent within capitalism or communism says you have to commit genocide or do good. It's up to societies and human being themselves. Did capitalism wipe out the native americans and aborigines? Or was it selfish and flawed people and society? Did communism starve millions in ukraine and china or was it self and flawed people and society?
gnode 8y ago
> the worker Yes, the hypothetical singular worker. In reality, there are many workers, all willing to undercut each other in a race to the bottom. Competition has a tendency to force suppliers to supply at as low a price as possible without going out of business, making close to no profit. In the case of the labour supply, when fungible workers compete freely, "as low as possible" means not immediately dying, and no profit means no liberty and no prosperity. In the worst case, the supply is at even lower cost than keeping the worker alive, and the state makes up the difference.
- dexen 8y ago
  >the employer Yes, the singular employer. In reality, there are many employers, all willing to out-bid each other in a race to the top. Lack of competition among employers has a tendency to let labor buyers to supply as low wages as they can get away with before violence breaks out. We know that from plenitude of historical cases - in soviet & communist countries there was one and only one decider of employment conditions (the state), and negotiations were conducted via street protests. If at all. The key difference is that in capitalism productivity is held reasonably high, and at least some people make good penny. They in turn spend it on goods and services, providing for other people. There is a long tail effect of the whole society gradually becoming wealthier. Meanwhile in soviet and communist countries productivity is low - joys of central planning and lack of meaningful competition - and people stay perpetually impoverished, equal in misery.
mikojan 8y ago
> An example would be how there is a financial incentive to not work employees over so many hours since that can decrease their efficiency. So then you get a new employee. > Another would be how if you have at least two firms, all other things being equal, the worker will choose to go the the one with more favorable work conditions. Both are toxic work environments, literally, but the stuff you inhale in the latter place is slightly less likely to give you cancer.

lawlessone 8y ago

>all other things being equal, the worker will choose to go the the one with more favorable work conditions. Assume the cow is a sphere.

SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
And it has no student loans.

komali2 8y ago

>An example would be how there is a financial incentive to not work employees over so many hours since that can decrease their efficiency. Why does their efficiency matter if they're at the office for 10 hours anyway? I've never seen evidence of the invisible hand helping anyone but the owners.

rudiv 8y ago
To workers, the invisible hand is hovering in the middle of the their field of vision, slowly doing the jerk-off motion.
defertoreptar 8y ago
> I've never seen evidence of the invisible hand helping anyone but the owners. Just look around you. Adjusted for inflation, the median annual income in 1920 was $41,544. For 2018, it hit $61,372. The median person these days has $20,000 worth of more stuff now than they did 100 years ago. That's only possible because of growth, and the trade and competition that goes with it. That competition has driven down costs and drove innovation. We have luxuries people couldn't have dreamt of back then: phones, grocery stores stocked full of food, safe jobs, drugs and medical treatments that would seem like sci-fi.
- komali2 8y ago
  Right but I don't see what anything of what you just said has to do with the invisible hand.
  - defertoreptar 8y ago
    I'm talking about the post-World War II economic expansion seen in USA, aka "the golden age of capitalism."
    - unparagoned 8y ago
      You mean when the tax rates on the wealthy were very high?
      - defertoreptar 8y ago
        You're arguing that the economic expansion was a result of taxing the wealthy? Or, are you saying that because there are ways that this wasn't "the one true capitalism," then that means my whole point is invalid?
        komali2 8y ago
        Well, I'm still not sure what your point was. I think you were arguing that America's prosperity was due to the invisible hand. I'd argue it was the government creating industries such as infrastructure projects and war.

rudiv 8y ago

If humanity doesn't make it through the crises of the 21st century, I imagine ceteris paribus will be on our figurative gravestones.

SketchySeaBeast 8y ago

> However, capitalism is about people having the freedom to make their own decisions on how they conduct their life, and the "invisible hand" that the system tends to push the economy in a positive direction. Is that why the rich and the poor are becoming ever more separate? The disappearance of the middle class is a positive direction? The economy may be moving in a positive direction, but it is divorced from the people who compose it. > Another would be how if you have at least two firms, all other things being equal, the worker will choose to go the the one with more favorable work conditions. That's assuming both of those firms exist - what incentive is there for the one firm owner to make better conditions? He could possibly recruit better people, but if the two groups stay exactly equal then the pool of workers remain, and it can then be very small things to get those better workers. They won't get their pick of the best, but it may make more financial sense for there to be worse conditions and slightly worse workers. Many jobs don't need the greatest workers, they just need workers.

basetop 8y ago

That isn't capitalism. Capitalism says nothing about how many hours to work or freedom. Capitalism is an amoral system. Neither inherently good or bad. It's about power and who gets to wield it. In monarchic systems, the monarch has the power. In capitalist societies, the ones who control capital ( bankers and now primarily central bankers ) control power. Your example of "financial incentive to not overwork employees" is historically and economically inaccurate. Capitalistic societies overworked their employees because it is in the amoral interest of capital to extract the most value from a resource. It's okay in capitalist society to overwork employees ( even to death ), employee children ( child coal miners ) and even drug millions of people ( chinese opium wars ) in order to accumulate capital. Your other example workers getting the choice of the best opportunities between two firms is also false. It makes "capitalistic" sense for the two firms to collude to keep wages, benefits, etc down. We had a big story about it yesterday. "How Apple, Google, and other tech companies conspired against their own workers" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19666545 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19666545 The point of capitalism is capital rules over the masses and that the goal of society is to accumulate the most capital. Whether it be by destroying the lives of millions or uplifting the lives of millions or whether it be by destroying the environment or protecting the environment is moot.

rudiv 8y ago
You're doing the Lord's work for those of us who are currently at work and therefore cannot type out long-form comments.
Sommer_Son 8y ago
What's the difference between "amoral" capitalistic society and socialistic society if latter is perfectly capable of starving millions to death (see Holodomor or Great Chinese Famine) ?
- basetop 8y ago
  Socialism, communism and capitalism are all "amoral". I think you are confusing "amoral" with "immoral". I'm not saying capitalism is immoral. I'm saying it's amoral : "Neither inherently good or bad." As you noted, capitalist and communist societies committed horrendous genocides. And capitalist and communist societies did a lot of good. But nothing inherent within capitalism or communism says you have to commit genocide or do good. It's up to societies and human being themselves. Did capitalism wipe out the native americans and aborigines? Or was it selfish and flawed people and society? Did communism starve millions in ukraine and china or was it self and flawed people and society?

gnode 8y ago

> the worker Yes, the hypothetical singular worker. In reality, there are many workers, all willing to undercut each other in a race to the bottom. Competition has a tendency to force suppliers to supply at as low a price as possible without going out of business, making close to no profit. In the case of the labour supply, when fungible workers compete freely, "as low as possible" means not immediately dying, and no profit means no liberty and no prosperity. In the worst case, the supply is at even lower cost than keeping the worker alive, and the state makes up the difference.

dexen 8y ago
>the employer Yes, the singular employer. In reality, there are many employers, all willing to out-bid each other in a race to the top. Lack of competition among employers has a tendency to let labor buyers to supply as low wages as they can get away with before violence breaks out. We know that from plenitude of historical cases - in soviet & communist countries there was one and only one decider of employment conditions (the state), and negotiations were conducted via street protests. If at all. The key difference is that in capitalism productivity is held reasonably high, and at least some people make good penny. They in turn spend it on goods and services, providing for other people. There is a long tail effect of the whole society gradually becoming wealthier. Meanwhile in soviet and communist countries productivity is low - joys of central planning and lack of meaningful competition - and people stay perpetually impoverished, equal in misery.

mikojan 8y ago

> An example would be how there is a financial incentive to not work employees over so many hours since that can decrease their efficiency. So then you get a new employee. > Another would be how if you have at least two firms, all other things being equal, the worker will choose to go the the one with more favorable work conditions. Both are toxic work environments, literally, but the stuff you inhale in the latter place is slightly less likely to give you cancer.