4 ms·

OK, so you're a right-libertarian. In that case I suspect we won't agree, because I think capitalism has to be constrained or we'd be heading back towards Victo

OK, so you're a right-libertarian. In that case I suspect we won't agree, because I think capitalism has to be constrained or we'd be heading back towards Victorian working conditions. Not universally, but the most exploitative employers would surely love to strip some more workers' rights away. > People are used to the leftist way of thinking about "us vs them" and automatically think of corporations and "employers" as evil oppressors. Eh, a lot do, but I don't. Capitalism is a system that encourages becoming a capitalist, and rewards greater sociopathy in being a capitalist. That means that some people like Jeff Bezos are pretty obviously exploitative, but the problem is the system that incentivises such behaviour, not that people with low moral standards are capable of following incentive models to their inevitable conclusions. > I think "workers" are just a social construct If you mean that wage labour is a social construct, then yes - under capitalism. "Workers" are people who perform labour, and is not a social construct. If you start a freelance business, you are both a worker and a capitalist; that's what being self-employed is. > Now regulators perhaps give unions the right to determine how I am supposed to work. That's completely fucked up. Unions represent your workers, so it's not the regulators negotiating how you work, it's the people who actually do that work. > The correct response to bad working conditions is for employees to quit and change jobs. If that worked, then companies with bad working conditions would be shutting down from lack of workforce. This isn't happening systemically, so clearly this approach does not work. Amazon is one of the biggest companies on the planet and it's been well-documented how badly their workers are exploited. > here in Europe we have to senselessly click on cookie banners thousands of times, because of a misguided regulation on cookies. I agree that this regulation is pretty stupid, and would've been better implemented as a legally-required setting in your browser. Do-Not-Track with teeth, essentially. > Worse, we will soon have upload filters, destroying freedom of speech for good, as "indie publishers" won't be able to afford the required infrastructure and legal teams This is done for the protection of copyright, no? I thought you would be in agreement with this, as it benefits corporations.

kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
"or we'd be heading back towards Victorian working conditions" I can understand why people think that, but the history of capitalism is much misrepresented in that way. There was a huge rush of poor people into the cities because of the breakdown of feudalism, among other things. So many poor people desperate for work - asking for modern working standards might have prevented many of them from getting jobs. You can still see that in China and India, I suppose - bad as the working conditions may be, they seem to be better than starving doing subsistence farming in the countryside. And demanding factories there would have the same standards as, say, in the US, would just mean jobs wouldn't be outsourced there anymore and the people would be back to starving doing subsistence farming. As the factories ramp up and make more money, they also have more resources ("capital") for improving the working conditions. Also why should things degenerate to that, if people simply quit if an employer misbehaves. If "workers" are in demand, employers can't afford to treat them badly. Look at the Google offices with their slides, free food and childish gadgets. They provide that because they compete for "workers". "If you mean that wage labour is a social construct, then yes - under capitalism. "Workers" are people who perform labour, and is not a social construct. If you start a freelance business, you are both a worker and a capitalist; that's what being self-employed is." You enter a contract and exchange labor for money. That's it. There is no need for creating an arbitrary class of "workers". "> Now regulators perhaps give unions the right to determine how I am supposed to work. That's completely fucked up. Unions represent your workers, so it's not the regulators negotiating how you work, it's the people who actually do that work." If unions make demands, it is fair game (negotiation). If governments give unions special rights, it is not. For example in my country I think you can not fire people who form a union in your company. That's fucked up. Those people are free to say "if you don't give in to our demands, we quit". Yeah, go ahead, quit. "If that worked, then companies with bad working conditions would be shutting down from lack of workforce. This isn't happening systemically" I think that is happening, there is just a huge amount of leftist journalists who try to frame everything as "exploitation of workers". Like the endless stories about Amazon warehouses. It seems likely to me that the things that sound bad from the outside may be necessary to make things work. Like you and me probably wouldn't take a 5 hour long toilet break to spite our employers, but some warehouse workers may do so. So they have limits on toilets breaks to make it possible for people to work there who couldn't work anywhere else. (Just a guess, I have never been inside of an Amazon warehouse - in any case, as always, if you don't like it, quit). Also there may be government regulations preventing free flow of workers, for example the health care issue in the US seems weird (not sure what is going on). "This is done for the protection of copyright, no? I thought you would be in agreement with this, as it benefits corporations." I am not for corporations, I am for freedom. And that law wouldn't even benefit corporations, as it is impossible to adhere to it. In my opinion the only fair way would have been for the government to provide an API that everybody could query to check for copyright. Instead they just created an unsolvable challenge and require businesses (and individuals) to solve it.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  > I can understand why people think that, but the history of capitalism is much misrepresented in that way. Oh for sure feudalism was worse than capitalism. My concern is that we can do better than neoliberalism, in terms of looking out for individual welfare, reducing oppressive/exploitative living or working conditions, and solving collective problems that are not well-addressed by market dynamics (e.g. global warming, climate destruction and other civilisation-tier concerns). > As the factories ramp up and make more money, they also have more resources ("capital") for improving the working conditions. They don't tend to though, as working conditions are not their motivation; profiteering is. Tesla Motors' factories have a pretty high injury rate, despite being one of the most over-capitalised companies in existence. > Also why should things degenerate to that, if people simply quit if an employer misbehaves. This works in theory, but many people do not have the option to just quit. Many are living paycheck to paycheck, others are in various countries on work visas attached to their employer (e.g. H1B in the US), or just don't have many options. Given that market pressure on unskilled, and thus highly competitive jobs, pushes wages towards subsistence levels, this will always be the case for the lowest rungs of the career ladder. You only need to look at reality compared to the theory of "you can just quit" to see that it clearly doesn't solve the problem. If you've worked an entry-level job in retail, an office or wherever, you will likely have experienced some pretty miserable conditions. > If "workers" are in demand, employers can't afford to treat them badly. Look at the Google offices with their slides, free food and childish gadgets. They provide that because they compete for "workers". That's true of Google because of the market dynamics of California's software engineer job market. It doesn't scale to everybody; also, many of these perks are designed to blur the lines between work and social life so that their employees spend more time in the office. It's soft exploitation, but it's still exploitation. > You enter a contract and exchange labor for money. That's it. There is no need for creating an arbitrary class of "workers". It's not arbitrary; it's the people who earn money working. I'm not sure what your opposition is to the drawing of economic class lines? > If unions make demands, it is fair game (negotiation). If governments give unions special rights, it is not. For example in my country I think you can not fire people who form a union in your company. That's fucked up. Those people are free to say "if you don't give in to our demands, we quit". Yeah, go ahead, quit. This just comes back to "if you don't like it you can just quit" though, because under this model strikebreaking, bussing in non-union workers and such are legitimised. You might as well ban unions if you give workers no leverage in any negotiations, and by default the employer holds all the leverage because they're not the ones who need a wage to put food on the table. > I think that is happening, there is just a huge amount of leftist journalists who try to frame everything as "exploitation of workers". Like the endless stories about Amazon warehouses. It seems likely to me that the things that sound bad from the outside may be necessary to make things work. Like you and me probably wouldn't take a 5 hour long toilet break to spite our employers, but some warehouse workers may do so. So they have limits on toilets breaks to make it possible for people to work there who couldn't work anywhere else. (Just a guess, I have never been inside of an Amazon warehouse - in any case, as always, if you don't like it, quit). My dad worked in an Amazon warehouse. He's an extremely hard worker and a tough guy all round, he said it was pretty tiring work because they were constantly sprinting round the warehouse to meet deadlines and had 5-10 minute bathroom breaks. There's been quite a lot of reports of workers having to urinate in bottles because they don't have time to go to the bathroom - do you really think that's acceptable working conditions in a first-world country? > Also there may be government regulations preventing free flow of workers, for example the health care issue in the US seems weird (not sure what is going on). What is going on is that that's what happens then your healthcare is run for profit by large corporations. Regulation seems to exacerbate the problem, but in that case the problem is that the incentives are not correctly aligned between healthcare and profiteering, hence healthcare should be a government service first and foremost. > I am not for corporations, I am for freedom. Freedom is not one thing, it's a series of tradeoffs. Your tradeoffs seem to prioritise freedom of trade, which primarily benefits businesses, over freedom from oppression, which would benefit workers. > And that law wouldn't even benefit corporations, as it is impossible to adhere to it. It's impossible to adhere perfectly, but companies are rolling out copy protection laws all over the place to try to protect their interests as best they can. > In my opinion the only fair way would have been for the government to provide an API that everybody could query to check for copyright. Instead they just created an unsolvable challenge and require businesses (and individuals) to solve it. So you actually want even more power held for the enforcement of copyrights compared to now. Because you want it to be not just a corporate responsibility, but a government one. How is that any different to the upload filter you expressed disdain for?

kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago

"or we'd be heading back towards Victorian working conditions" I can understand why people think that, but the history of capitalism is much misrepresented in that way. There was a huge rush of poor people into the cities because of the breakdown of feudalism, among other things. So many poor people desperate for work - asking for modern working standards might have prevented many of them from getting jobs. You can still see that in China and India, I suppose - bad as the working conditions may be, they seem to be better than starving doing subsistence farming in the countryside. And demanding factories there would have the same standards as, say, in the US, would just mean jobs wouldn't be outsourced there anymore and the people would be back to starving doing subsistence farming. As the factories ramp up and make more money, they also have more resources ("capital") for improving the working conditions. Also why should things degenerate to that, if people simply quit if an employer misbehaves. If "workers" are in demand, employers can't afford to treat them badly. Look at the Google offices with their slides, free food and childish gadgets. They provide that because they compete for "workers". "If you mean that wage labour is a social construct, then yes - under capitalism. "Workers" are people who perform labour, and is not a social construct. If you start a freelance business, you are both a worker and a capitalist; that's what being self-employed is." You enter a contract and exchange labor for money. That's it. There is no need for creating an arbitrary class of "workers". "> Now regulators perhaps give unions the right to determine how I am supposed to work. That's completely fucked up. Unions represent your workers, so it's not the regulators negotiating how you work, it's the people who actually do that work." If unions make demands, it is fair game (negotiation). If governments give unions special rights, it is not. For example in my country I think you can not fire people who form a union in your company. That's fucked up. Those people are free to say "if you don't give in to our demands, we quit". Yeah, go ahead, quit. "If that worked, then companies with bad working conditions would be shutting down from lack of workforce. This isn't happening systemically" I think that is happening, there is just a huge amount of leftist journalists who try to frame everything as "exploitation of workers". Like the endless stories about Amazon warehouses. It seems likely to me that the things that sound bad from the outside may be necessary to make things work. Like you and me probably wouldn't take a 5 hour long toilet break to spite our employers, but some warehouse workers may do so. So they have limits on toilets breaks to make it possible for people to work there who couldn't work anywhere else. (Just a guess, I have never been inside of an Amazon warehouse - in any case, as always, if you don't like it, quit). Also there may be government regulations preventing free flow of workers, for example the health care issue in the US seems weird (not sure what is going on). "This is done for the protection of copyright, no? I thought you would be in agreement with this, as it benefits corporations." I am not for corporations, I am for freedom. And that law wouldn't even benefit corporations, as it is impossible to adhere to it. In my opinion the only fair way would have been for the government to provide an API that everybody could query to check for copyright. Instead they just created an unsolvable challenge and require businesses (and individuals) to solve it.

beaconstudios 5y ago
> I can understand why people think that, but the history of capitalism is much misrepresented in that way. Oh for sure feudalism was worse than capitalism. My concern is that we can do better than neoliberalism, in terms of looking out for individual welfare, reducing oppressive/exploitative living or working conditions, and solving collective problems that are not well-addressed by market dynamics (e.g. global warming, climate destruction and other civilisation-tier concerns). > As the factories ramp up and make more money, they also have more resources ("capital") for improving the working conditions. They don't tend to though, as working conditions are not their motivation; profiteering is. Tesla Motors' factories have a pretty high injury rate, despite being one of the most over-capitalised companies in existence. > Also why should things degenerate to that, if people simply quit if an employer misbehaves. This works in theory, but many people do not have the option to just quit. Many are living paycheck to paycheck, others are in various countries on work visas attached to their employer (e.g. H1B in the US), or just don't have many options. Given that market pressure on unskilled, and thus highly competitive jobs, pushes wages towards subsistence levels, this will always be the case for the lowest rungs of the career ladder. You only need to look at reality compared to the theory of "you can just quit" to see that it clearly doesn't solve the problem. If you've worked an entry-level job in retail, an office or wherever, you will likely have experienced some pretty miserable conditions. > If "workers" are in demand, employers can't afford to treat them badly. Look at the Google offices with their slides, free food and childish gadgets. They provide that because they compete for "workers". That's true of Google because of the market dynamics of California's software engineer job market. It doesn't scale to everybody; also, many of these perks are designed to blur the lines between work and social life so that their employees spend more time in the office. It's soft exploitation, but it's still exploitation. > You enter a contract and exchange labor for money. That's it. There is no need for creating an arbitrary class of "workers". It's not arbitrary; it's the people who earn money working. I'm not sure what your opposition is to the drawing of economic class lines? > If unions make demands, it is fair game (negotiation). If governments give unions special rights, it is not. For example in my country I think you can not fire people who form a union in your company. That's fucked up. Those people are free to say "if you don't give in to our demands, we quit". Yeah, go ahead, quit. This just comes back to "if you don't like it you can just quit" though, because under this model strikebreaking, bussing in non-union workers and such are legitimised. You might as well ban unions if you give workers no leverage in any negotiations, and by default the employer holds all the leverage because they're not the ones who need a wage to put food on the table. > I think that is happening, there is just a huge amount of leftist journalists who try to frame everything as "exploitation of workers". Like the endless stories about Amazon warehouses. It seems likely to me that the things that sound bad from the outside may be necessary to make things work. Like you and me probably wouldn't take a 5 hour long toilet break to spite our employers, but some warehouse workers may do so. So they have limits on toilets breaks to make it possible for people to work there who couldn't work anywhere else. (Just a guess, I have never been inside of an Amazon warehouse - in any case, as always, if you don't like it, quit). My dad worked in an Amazon warehouse. He's an extremely hard worker and a tough guy all round, he said it was pretty tiring work because they were constantly sprinting round the warehouse to meet deadlines and had 5-10 minute bathroom breaks. There's been quite a lot of reports of workers having to urinate in bottles because they don't have time to go to the bathroom - do you really think that's acceptable working conditions in a first-world country? > Also there may be government regulations preventing free flow of workers, for example the health care issue in the US seems weird (not sure what is going on). What is going on is that that's what happens then your healthcare is run for profit by large corporations. Regulation seems to exacerbate the problem, but in that case the problem is that the incentives are not correctly aligned between healthcare and profiteering, hence healthcare should be a government service first and foremost. > I am not for corporations, I am for freedom. Freedom is not one thing, it's a series of tradeoffs. Your tradeoffs seem to prioritise freedom of trade, which primarily benefits businesses, over freedom from oppression, which would benefit workers. > And that law wouldn't even benefit corporations, as it is impossible to adhere to it. It's impossible to adhere perfectly, but companies are rolling out copy protection laws all over the place to try to protect their interests as best they can. > In my opinion the only fair way would have been for the government to provide an API that everybody could query to check for copyright. Instead they just created an unsolvable challenge and require businesses (and individuals) to solve it. So you actually want even more power held for the enforcement of copyrights compared to now. Because you want it to be not just a corporate responsibility, but a government one. How is that any different to the upload filter you expressed disdain for?