3 ms·

Like it or not, in the current US Capitalist's Environment (as opposed to some mythical earlier time when corporations were supposed to have some social respons

Like it or not, in the current US Capitalist's Environment (as opposed to some mythical earlier time when corporations were supposed to have some social responsibility), in this current environment, Humans are a Commodity. If there is a human surplus, the cost(pay) goes down. If there is a human shortage, the price(pay) goes up. When there are fewer desperate humans needing Uber to eat, and Uber can't find drivers, then suddenly Uber will start paying and treating people better. This is only newsworthy because Uber by its nature of having all independent contractors with a very obvious 'market' linking drivers to passengers. Makes this clear. It becomes very starkly clear the value of the driver and how much a human is worth. And that Uber can tweak their algorithms to minimize how much drivers are paid, thus providing a 'market' price for humans. Uber isn't special, it is just this human value is starkly on display.

FrustratedMonky 2y ago
LOL I would like more feedback. Am I being downvoted by 'Capitalist's', because it sounds like I'm anti-free market? When really, I'm just outlining what a market is, how things are? Or Am I being downvoted by 'Socialist', because it sounds like I'm advocating that Capitalisms is the natural order and humans are commodities, and is just how things are? It is very hard to tell what line is being crossed.
gruez 2y ago
>Like it or not, in the current US Capitalist's Environment (as opposed to some mythical earlier time when corporations were supposed to have some social responsibility), in this current environment, Humans are a Commodity. Is that supposed to be bad? "Commodity" just means something that could be bought and sold. Is it bad that I can buy people's time, or that I can sell my time? Was it better in communism where you couldn't buy or sell labor because it was all controlled by the state, and you still had to work? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_parasitism_(offense) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_parasitism_(offense)
- FrustratedMonky 2y ago
  I don't think I mentioned communism anywhere, even once. Or made any argument supporting it. I simply explained what a market is. I guess even not having the correct 'stringent tone' in favor of capitalism can make you a communist now. It is super hard to tell, not the first time I've simply explained a free market and been called a communist. It's almost like you have to express cult like warship for the 'idea' of a free market or you are communist. "buy people's time" Sounds so benign, but from the thread, I think it was pretty clear that we aren't just talking time. Some of the other examples used are really about "people so desperate they would do anything", which is also as you say not "bad", lives are "just something that could be bought and sold". Again, I'm not saying anything in favor of communism. I'm just outlining a market. Companies are people right? Time is money, life is time. Desperate times call for desperate measures, all's fair, and on and on. Lets not be all pro-free-market, then clutch our pearls when it leads to some questionable choices.
  - gruez 2y ago
    >Sounds so benign, but from the thread, I think it was pretty clear that we aren't just talking time. Some of the other examples used are really about "people so desperate they would do anything", which is also as you say not "bad", lives are "just something that could be bought and sold". Hyperbole about equating selling your time to "lives [being] bought and sold" aside, I'm not sure what exactly the issue with such a trade is. Did the market cause such desperate circumstances in the first place? Would the people be better served by not being able to work for money, and (presumably) starve instead? Moreover, if you're upset at the prospect of having to trade a non-trivial proportion of your life in exchange for resources, shouldn't your displeasure be directed at the universe for having entropy (which all living beings must expend time/energy to fight against) in the first place?
    - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
      It's about control and freedom isn't it? If the economy is run by just a few oligarchs, mega corps. Then there really is no longer freedom to be mobile and the 'work somewhere else' arguments are gone, then the market breaks down and wages are no longer free floating based a supply/demand basis. And typically, free markets tend towards monopolies, unless there is push back, some anti-competitive laws to break up big companies, or stop them from forming (like Ticketmaster). To keep injecting competition. Because big corps, really don't like competition, and lobby against it. But in todays environment, anybody standing in the way of big corps getting bigger, are called communist. Any argument at all that capitalism should be regulated, and you are called communist. Really, any argument for employees having any rights, is communist. So yes, " Did the market cause such desperate circumstances in the first place?" , Yes, if un-regulated, it does lead to these circumstances. Though, honestly, I'm not sure where you are coming from. You seem to bring in Entropy sarcastically, but also it sounds like maybe you are leaning into the E/ACC arguments. There is no good/bad, just survival of the fittest, and Pure Free Markets are a form of Entropy that we can't stop and should stop trying. Maybe. I do tend to agree that efficient markets are most productive (efficient doesn't mean un-regulated chaos freedom). Efficient markets can have losers, and at that point it does seem that for overall productivity of a society, social programs actually help efficiencies (healthy and educated workers are more productive). But, of course, education and health care are communist, and we can't have that. I'm really not sure what the free market game plan is if everyone is sick and can't read. Where do the E/ACC people think they will get all of these dedicated educated people.

FrustratedMonky 2y ago

LOL I would like more feedback. Am I being downvoted by 'Capitalist's', because it sounds like I'm anti-free market? When really, I'm just outlining what a market is, how things are? Or Am I being downvoted by 'Socialist', because it sounds like I'm advocating that Capitalisms is the natural order and humans are commodities, and is just how things are? It is very hard to tell what line is being crossed.

gruez 2y ago

>Like it or not, in the current US Capitalist's Environment (as opposed to some mythical earlier time when corporations were supposed to have some social responsibility), in this current environment, Humans are a Commodity. Is that supposed to be bad? "Commodity" just means something that could be bought and sold. Is it bad that I can buy people's time, or that I can sell my time? Was it better in communism where you couldn't buy or sell labor because it was all controlled by the state, and you still had to work? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_parasitism_(offense) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_parasitism_(offense)

FrustratedMonky 2y ago
I don't think I mentioned communism anywhere, even once. Or made any argument supporting it. I simply explained what a market is. I guess even not having the correct 'stringent tone' in favor of capitalism can make you a communist now. It is super hard to tell, not the first time I've simply explained a free market and been called a communist. It's almost like you have to express cult like warship for the 'idea' of a free market or you are communist. "buy people's time" Sounds so benign, but from the thread, I think it was pretty clear that we aren't just talking time. Some of the other examples used are really about "people so desperate they would do anything", which is also as you say not "bad", lives are "just something that could be bought and sold". Again, I'm not saying anything in favor of communism. I'm just outlining a market. Companies are people right? Time is money, life is time. Desperate times call for desperate measures, all's fair, and on and on. Lets not be all pro-free-market, then clutch our pearls when it leads to some questionable choices.
- gruez 2y ago
  >Sounds so benign, but from the thread, I think it was pretty clear that we aren't just talking time. Some of the other examples used are really about "people so desperate they would do anything", which is also as you say not "bad", lives are "just something that could be bought and sold". Hyperbole about equating selling your time to "lives [being] bought and sold" aside, I'm not sure what exactly the issue with such a trade is. Did the market cause such desperate circumstances in the first place? Would the people be better served by not being able to work for money, and (presumably) starve instead? Moreover, if you're upset at the prospect of having to trade a non-trivial proportion of your life in exchange for resources, shouldn't your displeasure be directed at the universe for having entropy (which all living beings must expend time/energy to fight against) in the first place?
  - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
    It's about control and freedom isn't it? If the economy is run by just a few oligarchs, mega corps. Then there really is no longer freedom to be mobile and the 'work somewhere else' arguments are gone, then the market breaks down and wages are no longer free floating based a supply/demand basis. And typically, free markets tend towards monopolies, unless there is push back, some anti-competitive laws to break up big companies, or stop them from forming (like Ticketmaster). To keep injecting competition. Because big corps, really don't like competition, and lobby against it. But in todays environment, anybody standing in the way of big corps getting bigger, are called communist. Any argument at all that capitalism should be regulated, and you are called communist. Really, any argument for employees having any rights, is communist. So yes, " Did the market cause such desperate circumstances in the first place?" , Yes, if un-regulated, it does lead to these circumstances. Though, honestly, I'm not sure where you are coming from. You seem to bring in Entropy sarcastically, but also it sounds like maybe you are leaning into the E/ACC arguments. There is no good/bad, just survival of the fittest, and Pure Free Markets are a form of Entropy that we can't stop and should stop trying. Maybe. I do tend to agree that efficient markets are most productive (efficient doesn't mean un-regulated chaos freedom). Efficient markets can have losers, and at that point it does seem that for overall productivity of a society, social programs actually help efficiencies (healthy and educated workers are more productive). But, of course, education and health care are communist, and we can't have that. I'm really not sure what the free market game plan is if everyone is sick and can't read. Where do the E/ACC people think they will get all of these dedicated educated people.