3 ms·

Someone could interpret that as a lack of capitalism rather than the opposite. That is, Henry Ford changed the world because he deployed capital to make worke

Someone could interpret that as a lack of capitalism rather than the opposite. That is, Henry Ford changed the world because he deployed capital to make workers so productive that they could afford to buy the cars they make. A person paid to do child care in an organization with overhead, who has to pay taxes, etc. is not productive enough to put their own children in child care. So child care fails to revolutionize the world the way the car did. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol_effect

throw0101a 4mo ago
> Someone could interpret that as a lack of capitalism rather than the opposite. In Capitalism surplus economic value goes to the Capital class, so it seems like it is working as designed.
- PaulHoule 4mo ago
  Some goes to the capital class, some goes to workers. The Marxist eschatology is that there are pressures that cause the fraction that goes to capital increases over time and breaks the system. Look at the good deal that the UAW has gotten for auto workers in the system, both US car makers and the union are pretty happy right to keep this system in place and shrink in the face of technological change like electrification not to mention abandoning small cars for large cars that are profitable for now. (Funny how I often I see "good old boys" driving Asian compacts because they can afford Asian compacts, and I see office workers driving big-ass trucks)
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
- digitaltrees 4mo ago
  But if that capital accumulation is unchecked it destroys the very market forces such as competition and price setting functions through supply and demand necessary for capitalism to work. So capitalists should want to prevent monopolies and concentration of wealth.
  - throw0101a 4mo ago
    > So capitalists should want to prevent monopolies and concentration of wealth. Why do you assume that Capital class has an ideological loyalty to the capitalist system? If they can get rich without having to compete or do any kind of effort, don't you think they'd prefer that to actually 'working' for the money? Once they've got theirs, do you think they care about what happens after?
    - digitaltrees 4mo ago
      I don’t. That’s why I said capitalist not the capital class. Those are distinct groups. You can be a capitalist with no capital and a monopolists that would be happy with state capture once you win and a feudal oligarchy. Much of Silicon Valley is revealing themselves to be just that. They’re going to find out the stark consequences of taking all the toys on the playground
mmooss 4mo ago
> A person paid to do child care in an organization with overhead, who has to pay taxes, etc. is not productive enough They are highly productive but the market doesn't value them. It values the backup forward on a basketball team - an almost completely non-productive job - more than a doctor. It values the owner of a company at $1 trillion, which is obviously absurd.
- newfriend 4mo ago
  It's not "absurd"... you're confusing moral value with economic scale. A $1T founder is rewarded for building a massive system that employs hundreds of thousands of people, moved technological progress forward dramatically, and has positively affected the lives millions. A doctor provides life-saving care, but they are physically limited to helping one person at a time. A backup NBA forward might not save lives, but their work is broadcast and monetized across millions of screens at once. Arguing that entertainment is "non-productive" ignores human nature. People gladly pay to be entertained. If sports have no value, do you feel the same way about books, art, and movies?
  - PaulHoule 4mo ago
    To get to the Baumol effect, the movie actor can perform once and be seen by millions whereas the theater actor has to perform at least once a night in front of one roomful of people. So the former can get paid more, a lot more. Probably the highest paid athletes in the world are european soccer players and the thing there is that these salaries can be justified in terms of the value top players bring in a game where being relegated can bring the money train for a team to a halt. You don't see working-class soccer fans complaining about this (they feel the value!) but the owners and many representatives of capital get fuming mad about it. (Funny, growing up in youth soccer in the US taught me to think of the game as an exercise in Brownian motion where there are too many people on the field who aren't held accountable. It wasn't until I had an argument with a recommender system that couldn't accept that I hated soccer that changed my mind and turned me into one of those sports fans who rolls out of bed Saturday mornings to watch the Premier League that I realized how high the stakes are in the European game.)
digitaltrees 4mo ago
Innovative companies at the beginning of growth cycles are always generous to employees. Look at all the perks showered on staff for a long time. They are starting to pull that back as they get monopoly market power. I would agree with you that more capitalism would be better but only if you acknowledge that monopolies are not capitalism; they are the logical end and death spiral in unregulated and unmanaged capitalism. They are the black hole that a dead star collapse into.
wolvesechoes 4mo ago
> Someone could interpret that as a lack of capitalism rather than the opposite. Only someone blinded by ideology.
AngryData 4mo ago
That story about Ford is just PR. Ford had to increase wages because he was churning through so many employees from injury and burnout that he had to convince people even living 1000 miles away to consider moving to Detroit and working on an assembly line. Otherwise he literally could not fill all the positions needed to run an assembly line.

throw0101a 4mo ago

> Someone could interpret that as a lack of capitalism rather than the opposite. In Capitalism surplus economic value goes to the Capital class, so it seems like it is working as designed.

PaulHoule 4mo ago
Some goes to the capital class, some goes to workers. The Marxist eschatology is that there are pressures that cause the fraction that goes to capital increases over time and breaks the system. Look at the good deal that the UAW has gotten for auto workers in the system, both US car makers and the union are pretty happy right to keep this system in place and shrink in the face of technological change like electrification not to mention abandoning small cars for large cars that are profitable for now. (Funny how I often I see "good old boys" driving Asian compacts because they can afford Asian compacts, and I see office workers driving big-ass trucks)
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
digitaltrees 4mo ago
But if that capital accumulation is unchecked it destroys the very market forces such as competition and price setting functions through supply and demand necessary for capitalism to work. So capitalists should want to prevent monopolies and concentration of wealth.
- throw0101a 4mo ago
  > So capitalists should want to prevent monopolies and concentration of wealth. Why do you assume that Capital class has an ideological loyalty to the capitalist system? If they can get rich without having to compete or do any kind of effort, don't you think they'd prefer that to actually 'working' for the money? Once they've got theirs, do you think they care about what happens after?
  - digitaltrees 4mo ago
    I don’t. That’s why I said capitalist not the capital class. Those are distinct groups. You can be a capitalist with no capital and a monopolists that would be happy with state capture once you win and a feudal oligarchy. Much of Silicon Valley is revealing themselves to be just that. They’re going to find out the stark consequences of taking all the toys on the playground

mmooss 4mo ago

> A person paid to do child care in an organization with overhead, who has to pay taxes, etc. is not productive enough They are highly productive but the market doesn't value them. It values the backup forward on a basketball team - an almost completely non-productive job - more than a doctor. It values the owner of a company at $1 trillion, which is obviously absurd.

newfriend 4mo ago
It's not "absurd"... you're confusing moral value with economic scale. A $1T founder is rewarded for building a massive system that employs hundreds of thousands of people, moved technological progress forward dramatically, and has positively affected the lives millions. A doctor provides life-saving care, but they are physically limited to helping one person at a time. A backup NBA forward might not save lives, but their work is broadcast and monetized across millions of screens at once. Arguing that entertainment is "non-productive" ignores human nature. People gladly pay to be entertained. If sports have no value, do you feel the same way about books, art, and movies?
- PaulHoule 4mo ago
  To get to the Baumol effect, the movie actor can perform once and be seen by millions whereas the theater actor has to perform at least once a night in front of one roomful of people. So the former can get paid more, a lot more. Probably the highest paid athletes in the world are european soccer players and the thing there is that these salaries can be justified in terms of the value top players bring in a game where being relegated can bring the money train for a team to a halt. You don't see working-class soccer fans complaining about this (they feel the value!) but the owners and many representatives of capital get fuming mad about it. (Funny, growing up in youth soccer in the US taught me to think of the game as an exercise in Brownian motion where there are too many people on the field who aren't held accountable. It wasn't until I had an argument with a recommender system that couldn't accept that I hated soccer that changed my mind and turned me into one of those sports fans who rolls out of bed Saturday mornings to watch the Premier League that I realized how high the stakes are in the European game.)

digitaltrees 4mo ago

Innovative companies at the beginning of growth cycles are always generous to employees. Look at all the perks showered on staff for a long time. They are starting to pull that back as they get monopoly market power. I would agree with you that more capitalism would be better but only if you acknowledge that monopolies are not capitalism; they are the logical end and death spiral in unregulated and unmanaged capitalism. They are the black hole that a dead star collapse into.

wolvesechoes 4mo ago

> Someone could interpret that as a lack of capitalism rather than the opposite. Only someone blinded by ideology.

AngryData 4mo ago

That story about Ford is just PR. Ford had to increase wages because he was churning through so many employees from injury and burnout that he had to convince people even living 1000 miles away to consider moving to Detroit and working on an assembly line. Otherwise he literally could not fill all the positions needed to run an assembly line.