4 ms·

If 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 marke

by gretch 3y ago

If 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 ago
I'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'

by gretch 3y ago

yongjik 3y ago

I'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'