8 ms·

> costs of corporate capitalism But under non-capitalist systems such as in the USSR you were machine gunned or bayoneted for refusing to work (starting with t

by temphn 15y ago

> costs of corporate capitalism But under non-capitalist systems such as in the USSR you were machine gunned or bayoneted for refusing to work (starting with the Kronstadt Rebellion and ending with Solidarity), and had no option to quit or leave the country. Capitalism hasn't yet completely eradicated all drudgery from the world, but Mother Jones isn't about to acknowledge that it's better that 4000 marginal workers have jobs than not. It is horribly oppressive for a software engineer to imagine a job where you have to come in on time, but now remember your frustration at closed stores or unavailable phone support/customer service. For stores to be open at normal hours, for people to pick up the phone, for emergency rooms to be open when you need them, somebody has to care about punctuality.

guelo 15y ago
Another less extreme alternative to soviet communism is a unionized workforce similar to what we had in the US 30 years ago before Democrats gave up the fight and American capitalists started shipping jobs overseas in order to break up unions.
- saryant 15y ago
  It wouldn't make a difference. These are jobs that will be largely lost to automation as robots are increasingly able to perform these functions. I doubt anyone would be surprised if Amazon is investing in such technology.
- winestock 15y ago
  Why is this guy being downvoted? If automation were so imminent, then why weren't the robots brought in five or ten years earlier? Why did business interests work so hard for China to get "most favored nation" trading status during the Clinton administration? Why do people go on and on about the human capital of China (iPhone factories and so forth) if not for the assembly-line grunt work?
  - cynicalkane 15y ago
    He's being downvoted because knee-jerk unionism is bad for discussion, just as any other kind of knee-jerk politics is bad for discussion.
    - Steko 15y ago
      There's nothing knee jerk about his comment, he's pointing out that there's a middle ground between these warehouses and Soviet bayonets.
      - cynicalkane 15y ago
        > a unionized workforce similar to what we had in the US 30 years ago before Democrats gave up the fight and American capitalists started shipping jobs overseas in order to break up unions. This post is almost content free and to the extent it has content, it's somewhat inaccurate. Unions are just one part of why globalization saves costs. Worse, it's an inaccuracy committed for the sake of injecting politics.
        intended 15y ago
        Look I get that HN has a pretty homogenous view on politics and a strong libertarian bent, but if its come to a point that this guy is getting called out for injecting politics, then I have to say that for me the rest of the comments also are infused with politics. Its just that those other comments are infused with politics which match the dominant frame of thought on HN. The OP may not have had the subtlety as other posters, that doesn't mean that there isn't value to be taken from his point, which can be discussed further: -------------- China is eating jobs because it can afford to undercut labor prices around the world. That is their competitive advantage, and it makes their country better and stronger for it. While their work conditions degrade human beings but that IS better than what was there before. Countries like India lose jobs to China, because their workforce is better and the final products cheaper. American jobs at the bottom of the pyramid are at risk because they competition at that level is fierce. How would you employ people at the bottom of the pyramid, who don't have the jobs/education/ or ability to get into tech, while giving them decent working conditions and the chance to go up the ladder?
batista 15y ago
But under non-capitalist systems such as in the USSR you were machine gunned or bayoneted for refusing to work (starting with the Kronstadt Rebellion and ending with Solidarity), and had no option to quit or leave the country. Actually no. In anything, the socialist states were infamous for people not-working-that-much. The Kronstadt Rebellion and Solidarity had nothing to do with "refusing to work", and all to do with fighting the state power for more freedom. That said, it's not either corporate capitalism (as described in the article) or USSR. There are plenty of options in between, starting with respect for workers as human beings, and regulations that ensure that treating people as mere cogs is not an option to gain a competitive advantage with. Kind of like we abolished slavery -- we can also abolish unpaid overtime and treating employees like shit. Take a look at Europe. And, no, the reason US has a slightly more advanced economy than, say, Sweden, is not due to harsh working conditions. It's has more to do with human capital, a large unified market PLUS tons of military might abused to ensure cheap oil and resources. Capitalism hasn't yet completely eradicated all drudgery from the world, but Mother Jones isn't about to acknowledge that it's better that 4000 marginal workers have jobs than not. Having a job at those conditions or not is not the only two options --we only make them to be. It's like you're saying "it's better than 4000 slaves have an owner to feed them than not". It is horribly oppressive for a software engineer to imagine a job where you have to come in on time, but now remember your frustration at closed stores or unavailable phone support/customer service. Yes, people have been taught to behave like spoiled children, and expect others to work for them 24/7. To the detriment of their own working conditions, because you are a consumer for a few hours at most, but you are an employee most of your day.
- ekianjo 15y ago
  > the reason US has a slightly more advanced economy than, say, Sweden, is not due to harsh working conditions. It's has more to do with human capital, a large unified market PLUS tons of military might abused to ensure cheap oil and resources. Russia: huge human capital. Check. Large unified market. Check. Tons of Military Might abused to ensure cheap access to ressources. Check. Oh wait, I can do the same thing for China, too. Of course those are NOT the only factors to predict how rich people are going to be. The economic system is the only KEY differenciator to build an economy. That should have been obvious by now, after we had so many great examples in the 20th century. Let's not spread the old false myths around.
lukifer 15y ago
There's a reason I used the phrase "corporate capitalism". I meant our particular flavor of government-industrial complex, not markets in general. In my opinion, either pure libertarianism or a hybrid economy of democratic socialism would both be an improvement over the "socialism for the rich" we currently live with.
marshallp 15y ago
"Corporate" or "crony" capitalism is the key word. In real capitalism people would be in charge of their own production and not subject themselves to the above. Their are all sorts of laws on the books to prevent the poor from being charge of their own value (taxi laws, food licensing, planning permits etc.) as well as curbs on investment (you can't invest in the host upcoming company unless you're already a millionaire) and lending (poor people aren't eligible for loans to start busineses). Not to mention the biggest evil - public schools, where poor children are subjected to deskilling of their natural talents (schooling is important - why not give vouchers and let small businesses operate school - in third world countries this is the norm and they far outperform government schools).
ficho 15y ago
but Mother Jones isn't about to acknowledge that it's better that 4000 marginal workers have jobs than not. I don't think that's the issue. Whould the cost lowering productivity or making for better social conditions be so high for companies that already make so much profit? And if yes does it have to come from public pressure or enacted laws? Can't a company establish acceptable social practices by itself. I don't care if my stuff comes in a day later if it can ease up the horror of people working there. There is something to be done in connecting people using the service with the ones making it possible and at what cost. This is just nuts

by temphn 15y ago

guelo 15y ago

Another less extreme alternative to soviet communism is a unionized workforce similar to what we had in the US 30 years ago before Democrats gave up the fight and American capitalists started shipping jobs overseas in order to break up unions.

saryant 15y ago
It wouldn't make a difference. These are jobs that will be largely lost to automation as robots are increasingly able to perform these functions. I doubt anyone would be surprised if Amazon is investing in such technology.
winestock 15y ago
Why is this guy being downvoted? If automation were so imminent, then why weren't the robots brought in five or ten years earlier? Why did business interests work so hard for China to get "most favored nation" trading status during the Clinton administration? Why do people go on and on about the human capital of China (iPhone factories and so forth) if not for the assembly-line grunt work?
- cynicalkane 15y ago
  He's being downvoted because knee-jerk unionism is bad for discussion, just as any other kind of knee-jerk politics is bad for discussion.
  - Steko 15y ago
    There's nothing knee jerk about his comment, he's pointing out that there's a middle ground between these warehouses and Soviet bayonets.
    - cynicalkane 15y ago
      > a unionized workforce similar to what we had in the US 30 years ago before Democrats gave up the fight and American capitalists started shipping jobs overseas in order to break up unions. This post is almost content free and to the extent it has content, it's somewhat inaccurate. Unions are just one part of why globalization saves costs. Worse, it's an inaccuracy committed for the sake of injecting politics.
      - intended 15y ago
        Look I get that HN has a pretty homogenous view on politics and a strong libertarian bent, but if its come to a point that this guy is getting called out for injecting politics, then I have to say that for me the rest of the comments also are infused with politics. Its just that those other comments are infused with politics which match the dominant frame of thought on HN. The OP may not have had the subtlety as other posters, that doesn't mean that there isn't value to be taken from his point, which can be discussed further: -------------- China is eating jobs because it can afford to undercut labor prices around the world. That is their competitive advantage, and it makes their country better and stronger for it. While their work conditions degrade human beings but that IS better than what was there before. Countries like India lose jobs to China, because their workforce is better and the final products cheaper. American jobs at the bottom of the pyramid are at risk because they competition at that level is fierce. How would you employ people at the bottom of the pyramid, who don't have the jobs/education/ or ability to get into tech, while giving them decent working conditions and the chance to go up the ladder?

batista 15y ago

But under non-capitalist systems such as in the USSR you were machine gunned or bayoneted for refusing to work (starting with the Kronstadt Rebellion and ending with Solidarity), and had no option to quit or leave the country. Actually no. In anything, the socialist states were infamous for people not-working-that-much. The Kronstadt Rebellion and Solidarity had nothing to do with "refusing to work", and all to do with fighting the state power for more freedom. That said, it's not either corporate capitalism (as described in the article) or USSR. There are plenty of options in between, starting with respect for workers as human beings, and regulations that ensure that treating people as mere cogs is not an option to gain a competitive advantage with. Kind of like we abolished slavery -- we can also abolish unpaid overtime and treating employees like shit. Take a look at Europe. And, no, the reason US has a slightly more advanced economy than, say, Sweden, is not due to harsh working conditions. It's has more to do with human capital, a large unified market PLUS tons of military might abused to ensure cheap oil and resources. Capitalism hasn't yet completely eradicated all drudgery from the world, but Mother Jones isn't about to acknowledge that it's better that 4000 marginal workers have jobs than not. Having a job at those conditions or not is not the only two options --we only make them to be. It's like you're saying "it's better than 4000 slaves have an owner to feed them than not". It is horribly oppressive for a software engineer to imagine a job where you have to come in on time, but now remember your frustration at closed stores or unavailable phone support/customer service. Yes, people have been taught to behave like spoiled children, and expect others to work for them 24/7. To the detriment of their own working conditions, because you are a consumer for a few hours at most, but you are an employee most of your day.

ekianjo 15y ago
> the reason US has a slightly more advanced economy than, say, Sweden, is not due to harsh working conditions. It's has more to do with human capital, a large unified market PLUS tons of military might abused to ensure cheap oil and resources. Russia: huge human capital. Check. Large unified market. Check. Tons of Military Might abused to ensure cheap access to ressources. Check. Oh wait, I can do the same thing for China, too. Of course those are NOT the only factors to predict how rich people are going to be. The economic system is the only KEY differenciator to build an economy. That should have been obvious by now, after we had so many great examples in the 20th century. Let's not spread the old false myths around.

lukifer 15y ago

There's a reason I used the phrase "corporate capitalism". I meant our particular flavor of government-industrial complex, not markets in general. In my opinion, either pure libertarianism or a hybrid economy of democratic socialism would both be an improvement over the "socialism for the rich" we currently live with.

marshallp 15y ago

"Corporate" or "crony" capitalism is the key word. In real capitalism people would be in charge of their own production and not subject themselves to the above. Their are all sorts of laws on the books to prevent the poor from being charge of their own value (taxi laws, food licensing, planning permits etc.) as well as curbs on investment (you can't invest in the host upcoming company unless you're already a millionaire) and lending (poor people aren't eligible for loans to start busineses). Not to mention the biggest evil - public schools, where poor children are subjected to deskilling of their natural talents (schooling is important - why not give vouchers and let small businesses operate school - in third world countries this is the norm and they far outperform government schools).

ficho 15y ago

but Mother Jones isn't about to acknowledge that it's better that 4000 marginal workers have jobs than not. I don't think that's the issue. Whould the cost lowering productivity or making for better social conditions be so high for companies that already make so much profit? And if yes does it have to come from public pressure or enacted laws? Can't a company establish acceptable social practices by itself. I don't care if my stuff comes in a day later if it can ease up the horror of people working there. There is something to be done in connecting people using the service with the ones making it possible and at what cost. This is just nuts