4 ms·

Despite capitalism being lauded by many, I don't think a lot of people can actually stomach the harsh realities of how capitalism is expected to work. If realit

by bicx 5y ago

Despite capitalism being lauded by many, I don't think a lot of people can actually stomach the harsh realities of how capitalism is expected to work. If reality allowed for seamless rebalancing of labor during times of shifting supply and demand, these truckers could simply move on to a better career until shipping companies realize they need to increase their compensation and benefits. That would be ideal capitalism. However, the reality is that around 70% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck (probably much higher for truckers), and taking the time and effort to find a better industry and seek training is extremely difficult. It could hurt their families and send them into a predatory debt cycle.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mumblemumble 5y ago
It's also worth noting that even Adam Smith himself didn't seem to think that capitalism could work well without strong and effective labor unions. It's, at best, unwise to oppose workers banding together to protect their interest, and at the same time turn a blind eye to business owners colluding. Which they will always be able to do. At the very least, in the US their right to fund think tanks that run anti labor union publicity campaigns is constitutionally protected.
sdb0 5y ago
AtlasBarfed 5y ago
Your ideal capitalism would also imply that labor gets rapidly rewarded for increases in productivity, efficiency, output, and restricted supply/excess demand for their skills. Everything about America is quite the opposite. It is cartel suppression of rewarding labor, and has been for centuries now. Control of labor "costs" and hostile labor relations is openly discussed in business schools and the management community for just as long. All you have to do is watch a CEO immediately demand increased compensation for some arbitrary increase in the stock price, perhaps due to overall all boats rising, fortuitous market conditions, etc. But if you're a worker bee that saves the company a million dollars a year, or bring in 10 million dollars of sales by improving the product, what do you get? A plaque. You can also tell with the classic news story: "there's not enough available people for X job". This is literally first day of microeconomics: well, increase wages (prices) in order to spur supply increase to meet demand. Which is heresy in oligarchical and management circles, the same "laissez faire" "economics is god-science" cult. The theory and academics of economics have truths and pursue the same goals of any field of study. But the sad fact is that economics as an institution of civilization is not, it exists to server the oligarch/management class, provide the tools of their continued and expanded influence, and suppress the people. It professorships are funded and sponsored by the rich and powerful. Think tanks, elite positions in central banks and regulatory agencies, and the like implicitly and explicitly reward those "thought leaders" that serve the rich and powerful, and exert a negative career influence on economists that do not. This is not just squabbling over the share of the pie. The institution of economics is complicit in the decades-long denialism of impending environmental dangers that will threaten us collectively in the coming decades.

by bicx 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

mumblemumble 5y ago

It's also worth noting that even Adam Smith himself didn't seem to think that capitalism could work well without strong and effective labor unions. It's, at best, unwise to oppose workers banding together to protect their interest, and at the same time turn a blind eye to business owners colluding. Which they will always be able to do. At the very least, in the US their right to fund think tanks that run anti labor union publicity campaigns is constitutionally protected.

sdb0 5y ago

AtlasBarfed 5y ago

Your ideal capitalism would also imply that labor gets rapidly rewarded for increases in productivity, efficiency, output, and restricted supply/excess demand for their skills. Everything about America is quite the opposite. It is cartel suppression of rewarding labor, and has been for centuries now. Control of labor "costs" and hostile labor relations is openly discussed in business schools and the management community for just as long. All you have to do is watch a CEO immediately demand increased compensation for some arbitrary increase in the stock price, perhaps due to overall all boats rising, fortuitous market conditions, etc. But if you're a worker bee that saves the company a million dollars a year, or bring in 10 million dollars of sales by improving the product, what do you get? A plaque. You can also tell with the classic news story: "there's not enough available people for X job". This is literally first day of microeconomics: well, increase wages (prices) in order to spur supply increase to meet demand. Which is heresy in oligarchical and management circles, the same "laissez faire" "economics is god-science" cult. The theory and academics of economics have truths and pursue the same goals of any field of study. But the sad fact is that economics as an institution of civilization is not, it exists to server the oligarch/management class, provide the tools of their continued and expanded influence, and suppress the people. It professorships are funded and sponsored by the rich and powerful. Think tanks, elite positions in central banks and regulatory agencies, and the like implicitly and explicitly reward those "thought leaders" that serve the rich and powerful, and exert a negative career influence on economists that do not. This is not just squabbling over the share of the pie. The institution of economics is complicit in the decades-long denialism of impending environmental dangers that will threaten us collectively in the coming decades.