4 ms·
Um yeah there is? Even the most ruthless cartoon capitalist knows that it’s bad to lose workers and then have to pay $ to train new ones. You at least have to
by gretch 3y ago
Um yeah there is?
Even the most ruthless cartoon capitalist knows that it’s bad to lose workers and then have to pay $ to train new ones. You at least have to stop the line for the day while the 1 guy who got hurt gets a replacement scheduled. It’s better if your factory operates smoothly. Not to mention hits to morale across the board.
- yongjik 3y agoHeh, if you believe your most ruthless cartoon capitalist would stop the line for a whole day just because a worker bee died, you haven't met actual ruthless capitalists.
- gretch 3y agoThey stop the line because they can’t just materialize a worker out of thin air, not because they feel sad. What exactly do you imagine happens?
- yongjik 3y ago"Hey, you, take care of this line as well as yours. Keep them running, I have a phone call to make to my buddy at the police office, I'll be back any time."
- gretch 3y agoIf the factory is inefficient (bad capitalists) then sure, this can happen. I'm sure bad capitalists exist all over the place then get darwined out of the marketplace. No need to argue for or against the strawmen here. If the capitalist is ruthless and the factory is efficient and every worker is necessary, then obviously this can't just happen. I mean do you think the ruthless capitalist is just paying a whole extra worker, even though N-1 workers can do the same job?
- yongjik 3y agoI'm not sure it's me who's doing the strawman. In many situations (in the real world), machines are expensive, they don't like stopping, and workers are relatively cheap. You can either meticulously plan your factory so that every worker always has something productive to do and pay for expensive safety equipment that also slows down the machines, OR you can just pack your factory with enough workers and make them work overtime, making sure the machines are always working. Guess what a true capitalist would do?
- gretch 3y ago> You can either meticulously plan your factory so that every worker always has something productive to do and pay for expensive safety equipment that also slows down the machines, OR you can just pack your factory with enough workers and make them work overtime A true capitalist probably wouldn't pick either side of this false dichotomy. There's a balance to things because they are forced to live in the real world. And there's no such thing in the world as making everything perfectly safe (not just in a factory setting, but everywhere in life). Here's the comment I responded to: "If you only fine for failure to abate, then there's no reason to be proactive about safety." I'm pointing out - 'actually, even someone interested only in money should still find an equilibrium with safety'
- kayodelycaon 3y agoI suggest looking in the history of the industrial revolution and child workers. Your average ruthless capitalist sees people as disposable assets that can be easily replaced.
- gretch 3y agoYour comment is pretentious because it implies I haven’t studied the history of industry, which I have. I was answering to the prompt, because the parent comment said “then there's no reason to be proactive about safety.” I pointed out some logical reasons. And it’s not based on feelings like how capitalists “see” people.
- bradknowles 3y agoYup, all people are fungible. That's definitely the Amazon way.
- FireBeyond 3y agoAmazon in my area hires like this (and this is not paraphrasing, but actual quote): > Want a job? Can pass a background check? No interview: apply today, start tomorrow. I realize it's partly orthogonal to the concept of training, but also applicable. Cogs in the machine, indeed.