4 ms·

Its not in any one businesses self interest to be philanthropic by paying their workers more or slashing their prices to drive up the available consumption of t

by zanny 7y ago

Its not in any one businesses self interest to be philanthropic by paying their workers more or slashing their prices to drive up the available consumption of the working class. It would be the governments responsibility to right the ship, but considering whose lobbyists that have the pen of legislature and ear of congress good luck with that. Too many seats are non-competitive, the propaganda and distraction machines too effective, and the people too ignorant to collectivize. Eventually the consequences of the constant shaving of productivity away from the workers into the Wall Street black magic money hole will destabilize the country. Not in a French Revolution kind of way, just the slow rotting death that leads to the bottom falling out a la the Soviet Union's collapse. Eventually the thread is drawn taught enough that bread stops showing up in the stores and nobody knows where it went because all the bread companies stopped manufacturing because the marginal returns from the poor by feeding them didn't justify the capital expenditure over playing books and offshoring profits. Its not even some hypothetical far future happening. The water is already undrinkably contaminated with lead and nobody has the capital to fix it. Shops supplying the lifeblood food of towns just stop getting deliveries. The houses are just left abandoned, the roads rotting, the people just leave with no idea where they are going. Its not uniform, but no collapse ever is, but nobody accounts for it or really even seems to care.

JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
> Its not in any one businesses self interest to be philanthropic by paying their workers more or slashing their prices to drive up the available consumption of the working class. Tragedy of the commons, I suppose. All large business want a slice of consumer spending, but if they don't support consumers, there is no consumer spending to capture. > Eventually the thread is drawn taught enough that bread stops showing up in the stores and nobody knows where it went because all the bread companies stopped manufacturing because the marginal returns from the poor by feeding them didn't justify the capital expenditure over playing books and offshoring profits. I hope things don't get that bad. I'm all for the idea of motivating people with money. Some inequality is a good thing. But too much inequality is a disservice to everybody: widespread food instability in the country with the highest number of guns per capita would be a national security crisis that even the wealthy could not ignore. I hope we act with some foresight. We have plenty of distance between here and that point. But I do wonder what level of inequality this country will sustain before things become slightly more egalitarian.
gridlockd 7y ago
This sounds like the old "the collapse of capitalism is imminent" narrative that socialists have been peddling for about 100 years. > Eventually the thread is drawn taught enough that bread stops showing up in the stores and nobody knows where it went because all the bread companies stopped manufacturing because the marginal returns from the poor by feeding them didn't justify the capital expenditure over playing books and offshoring profits. Offshoring profits from what? The profits from not selling bread? Will all the "bread companies" suddenly turn into investment banks? Let's say "bread companies" disappeared, what happens to the farmers? They all stop producing grain, while people are starving? What happens to the land, it's going to just sit idle for no reason? Why not just let all the starving people work the land that you own? This scenario is possible, but it would require soviet-style mismanagement that only a central government can produce, for example by fixing the price for grain or setting a minimum wage for farm labor. > Its not even some hypothetical far future happening. The water is already undrinkably contaminated with lead and nobody has the capital to fix it. Oh, there's plenty of capital to go around, but nobody wants to put up the capital to fix it in the few areas where this is a problem. > Shops supplying the lifeblood food of towns just stop getting deliveries. The houses are just left abandoned, the roads rotting, the people just leave with no idea where they are going. Its not uniform, but no collapse ever is, but nobody accounts for it or really even seems to care. Yet, at the same time, urban centers are growing at massive rates. This is not a collapse, this is a structural change. It sure ain't pretty for those involved, but it's indeed not much of concern for those already living in an urban center, rising costs of living notwithstanding.

by zanny 7y ago

JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago

> Its not in any one businesses self interest to be philanthropic by paying their workers more or slashing their prices to drive up the available consumption of the working class. Tragedy of the commons, I suppose. All large business want a slice of consumer spending, but if they don't support consumers, there is no consumer spending to capture. > Eventually the thread is drawn taught enough that bread stops showing up in the stores and nobody knows where it went because all the bread companies stopped manufacturing because the marginal returns from the poor by feeding them didn't justify the capital expenditure over playing books and offshoring profits. I hope things don't get that bad. I'm all for the idea of motivating people with money. Some inequality is a good thing. But too much inequality is a disservice to everybody: widespread food instability in the country with the highest number of guns per capita would be a national security crisis that even the wealthy could not ignore. I hope we act with some foresight. We have plenty of distance between here and that point. But I do wonder what level of inequality this country will sustain before things become slightly more egalitarian.

gridlockd 7y ago

This sounds like the old "the collapse of capitalism is imminent" narrative that socialists have been peddling for about 100 years. > Eventually the thread is drawn taught enough that bread stops showing up in the stores and nobody knows where it went because all the bread companies stopped manufacturing because the marginal returns from the poor by feeding them didn't justify the capital expenditure over playing books and offshoring profits. Offshoring profits from what? The profits from not selling bread? Will all the "bread companies" suddenly turn into investment banks? Let's say "bread companies" disappeared, what happens to the farmers? They all stop producing grain, while people are starving? What happens to the land, it's going to just sit idle for no reason? Why not just let all the starving people work the land that you own? This scenario is possible, but it would require soviet-style mismanagement that only a central government can produce, for example by fixing the price for grain or setting a minimum wage for farm labor. > Its not even some hypothetical far future happening. The water is already undrinkably contaminated with lead and nobody has the capital to fix it. Oh, there's plenty of capital to go around, but nobody wants to put up the capital to fix it in the few areas where this is a problem. > Shops supplying the lifeblood food of towns just stop getting deliveries. The houses are just left abandoned, the roads rotting, the people just leave with no idea where they are going. Its not uniform, but no collapse ever is, but nobody accounts for it or really even seems to care. Yet, at the same time, urban centers are growing at massive rates. This is not a collapse, this is a structural change. It sure ain't pretty for those involved, but it's indeed not much of concern for those already living in an urban center, rising costs of living notwithstanding.