5 ms·

> Well, unemployment is kind of a requirement of capitalism. Says who? The only "requirement of capitalism" is that individuals are allowed to have ownership r

> Well, unemployment is kind of a requirement of capitalism. Says who? The only "requirement of capitalism" is that individuals are allowed to have ownership rights. Outside of a few niche organizations that benefit from economic distress, I think you will find a general S&P 500 consensus that low employment is a good thing for their stock prices. > There's generally a target of 5% unemployment, which means capitalism has built-in waste. That's because, in a free society, we have discovered that it's better to get people new and better jobs than be shackled to a milling machine from childhood.

kmkemp 3y ago
Generally speaking, low unemployment leads to the Fed raising rates, the anticipation of which, hurts stock prices.
- mschuster91 3y ago
  And the US politics would be better off if politicians didn't need to worry about their decisions causing the stock markets, and with it people's pensions or healthcare, to tumble. 401k, HSAs etc are the stranglehold on US politics.
thiagoharry 3y ago
> Says who? The only "requirement of capitalism" is that individuals are allowed to have ownership rights. Outside of a few niche organizations that benefit from economic distress, I think you will find a general S&P 500 consensus that low employment is a good thing for their stock prices. If unemployment did not exist, the capitalist class would have no power to make workers work harder using the threat of losing their jobs. Of course, very high unemployment is not good for capitalism, nobody was arguing this. But very low unemployment below some threshold is also bad. Marx explained this, but if you do not believe him, capitalists themselves and their theorists say exactly the same thing, but with more gentle and less direct words: https://www.investopedia.com/insights/downside-low-unemployment/ https://www.investopedia.com/insights/downside-low-unemploym...
- drekipus 3y ago
  > If unemployment did not exist, the capitalist class would have no power to make workers work harder using the threat of losing their jobs. What is the capitalist class in this case? In a perfect world this would be done by beatings and imprisonment, right? > Of course, very high unemployment is not good for capitalism, nobody was arguing this. It's not good in socialist or communist countries either. Or is that a uniquely capitalist problem? > But very low unemployment below some threshold is also bad. Marx explained this, but if you do not believe him, capitalists themselves and their theorists say exactly the same thing. Yes, that's what we're all agreeing on. It's not saying "Marx said it's bad, thus he was right about everything" What is the substance of your post? What are you trying to say? Because it sounds like you're agreeing with capitalism but under the guise of supporting Marx
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > If unemployment did not exist, the capitalist class would have no power to make workers work harder using the threat of losing their jobs. How so? There could be 0% unemployment and anyone could find another job easily, but the other job could pay less, or have less flexibility, or be in a less convenient location, so you still prefer the job you have now. Suppose unemployment is low because prices are high, so no one can afford to go without a job and will take jobs under unfavorable terms in order to make rent.
  - malermeister 3y ago
    Because the threat of a less convenient job is nothing compared to the threat to existence that is unemployment in capitalism.
    - goatlover 3y ago
      Wouldn’t that depend on the social safety nets in place? Say unemployment in Europe versus the US. Also nothing stopping a terminated person from seeking other employment opportunities.
      - 3y ago
esarbe 3y ago
> Says who? The only "requirement of capitalism" is that individuals are allowed to have ownership rights. That's not quite complete. To have capitalism, you also need labor to leverage capital. Capitalism requires the ability to extract money from the labor of other people. If every company was worker owned, you could still have a market economy and private property, but it wouldn't be capitalism anymore.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- slowmovintarget 3y ago
  > If every company was worker owned, you could still have a market economy and private property, but it wouldn't be capitalism anymore. That's not correct. If every company was worker owned as long as the goods and services produced are traded on the open market as an exchange of value, that would still be capitalism. If "worker-owned" actually means government owned, however, then you're correct. Capitalism requires private ownership of the means of production.
  - satvikpendem 3y ago
    Sounds like that would be market socialism actually, not capitalism, as workers work the means of production.
  - esarbe 3y ago
    > If every company was worker owned as long as the goods and services produced are traded on the open market as an exchange of value, that would still be capitalism. No. We had "exchange of goods on an open market" long before we had capitalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
- legitster 3y ago
  > If every company was worker owned, you could still have a market economy and private property, but it wouldn't be capitalism anymore. Again, says who? Depending on your definition of capitalism, corporate charters pre-date capitalism! Corporate charters were rights granted by governments to pursue economic activity. What we define as the introduction of "capitalism" was the granting of individuals without nobility the rights to corporate charters. Today, a corporation is still a government defined-entitity for the purpose of generating economic activity.
ransom1538 3y ago
> "Says who? The only "requirement of capitalism" is that individuals are allowed to have ownership rights." This was extremely powerful @legitster. For some reason this cleared up economic theory to me. These threads get lost in worker rights, but, that has nothing to do with capital. Capital is about ownership rights. You should be allowed to own things and means to your own production. Socialism is about taking these rights away, the debate is which.
- jamilton 3y ago
  That seems like poor representation of socialism. Socialist policies typically increase worker rights. You could see that as merely taking away rights from existing capital-owners, but it seems to me that it's clearly a case of competing needs. Any rights you give to a worker is necessarily a restriction on their employer.
  - deadfoxygrandpa 3y ago
    yes, you're right. that's what we call "class conflict", it just means that different groups of people have different, conflicting interests based on their relationship to the work
rakoo 3y ago
Historically the people who have been shackled to a milling machine from childhood have been so under capitalism
somsak2 3y ago
check out the concept of NAIRU

kmkemp 3y ago

Generally speaking, low unemployment leads to the Fed raising rates, the anticipation of which, hurts stock prices.

mschuster91 3y ago
And the US politics would be better off if politicians didn't need to worry about their decisions causing the stock markets, and with it people's pensions or healthcare, to tumble. 401k, HSAs etc are the stranglehold on US politics.

thiagoharry 3y ago

> Says who? The only "requirement of capitalism" is that individuals are allowed to have ownership rights. Outside of a few niche organizations that benefit from economic distress, I think you will find a general S&P 500 consensus that low employment is a good thing for their stock prices. If unemployment did not exist, the capitalist class would have no power to make workers work harder using the threat of losing their jobs. Of course, very high unemployment is not good for capitalism, nobody was arguing this. But very low unemployment below some threshold is also bad. Marx explained this, but if you do not believe him, capitalists themselves and their theorists say exactly the same thing, but with more gentle and less direct words: https://www.investopedia.com/insights/downside-low-unemployment/ https://www.investopedia.com/insights/downside-low-unemploym...

drekipus 3y ago
> If unemployment did not exist, the capitalist class would have no power to make workers work harder using the threat of losing their jobs. What is the capitalist class in this case? In a perfect world this would be done by beatings and imprisonment, right? > Of course, very high unemployment is not good for capitalism, nobody was arguing this. It's not good in socialist or communist countries either. Or is that a uniquely capitalist problem? > But very low unemployment below some threshold is also bad. Marx explained this, but if you do not believe him, capitalists themselves and their theorists say exactly the same thing. Yes, that's what we're all agreeing on. It's not saying "Marx said it's bad, thus he was right about everything" What is the substance of your post? What are you trying to say? Because it sounds like you're agreeing with capitalism but under the guise of supporting Marx
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> If unemployment did not exist, the capitalist class would have no power to make workers work harder using the threat of losing their jobs. How so? There could be 0% unemployment and anyone could find another job easily, but the other job could pay less, or have less flexibility, or be in a less convenient location, so you still prefer the job you have now. Suppose unemployment is low because prices are high, so no one can afford to go without a job and will take jobs under unfavorable terms in order to make rent.
- malermeister 3y ago
  Because the threat of a less convenient job is nothing compared to the threat to existence that is unemployment in capitalism.
  - goatlover 3y ago
    Wouldn’t that depend on the social safety nets in place? Say unemployment in Europe versus the US. Also nothing stopping a terminated person from seeking other employment opportunities.
    - 3y ago

esarbe 3y ago

> Says who? The only "requirement of capitalism" is that individuals are allowed to have ownership rights. That's not quite complete. To have capitalism, you also need labor to leverage capital. Capitalism requires the ability to extract money from the labor of other people. If every company was worker owned, you could still have a market economy and private property, but it wouldn't be capitalism anymore.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
slowmovintarget 3y ago
> If every company was worker owned, you could still have a market economy and private property, but it wouldn't be capitalism anymore. That's not correct. If every company was worker owned as long as the goods and services produced are traded on the open market as an exchange of value, that would still be capitalism. If "worker-owned" actually means government owned, however, then you're correct. Capitalism requires private ownership of the means of production.
- satvikpendem 3y ago
  Sounds like that would be market socialism actually, not capitalism, as workers work the means of production.
- esarbe 3y ago
  > If every company was worker owned as long as the goods and services produced are traded on the open market as an exchange of value, that would still be capitalism. No. We had "exchange of goods on an open market" long before we had capitalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
legitster 3y ago
> If every company was worker owned, you could still have a market economy and private property, but it wouldn't be capitalism anymore. Again, says who? Depending on your definition of capitalism, corporate charters pre-date capitalism! Corporate charters were rights granted by governments to pursue economic activity. What we define as the introduction of "capitalism" was the granting of individuals without nobility the rights to corporate charters. Today, a corporation is still a government defined-entitity for the purpose of generating economic activity.

ransom1538 3y ago

> "Says who? The only "requirement of capitalism" is that individuals are allowed to have ownership rights." This was extremely powerful @legitster. For some reason this cleared up economic theory to me. These threads get lost in worker rights, but, that has nothing to do with capital. Capital is about ownership rights. You should be allowed to own things and means to your own production. Socialism is about taking these rights away, the debate is which.

jamilton 3y ago
That seems like poor representation of socialism. Socialist policies typically increase worker rights. You could see that as merely taking away rights from existing capital-owners, but it seems to me that it's clearly a case of competing needs. Any rights you give to a worker is necessarily a restriction on their employer.
- deadfoxygrandpa 3y ago
  yes, you're right. that's what we call "class conflict", it just means that different groups of people have different, conflicting interests based on their relationship to the work

rakoo 3y ago

Historically the people who have been shackled to a milling machine from childhood have been so under capitalism

somsak2 3y ago

check out the concept of NAIRU