Re-Framing Capitalism

[Politesse]

Bosses don't do work? A childish immature ignorant view.

Most people have no idea what it takes to get a company going and keep it going.

They don't generate the wealth of the company. That's not the same thing as "not working". Management is important, but it isn't the actual product of any company.

 

[skepticalbip]

After all, it’s workers who generate the wealth of a company, not the bosses. Without them, everything would grind to a halt.

So my in-laws who worked 80 hour weeks completely re-vamping and pivoting the strategy of their two businesses to respond to Covid had nothing to do with keeping their businesses profitable? It was all the work of the college students serving tables?

That doesn't sound quite right..

Of course there is more than one factor that makes a business profitable. A small family business may do well without needing to employ anyone, but that's not the point here. Which is, a profitable business may not be paying their workers fair market value of their input into making the business (one that requires workers) profitable.

And how do you arrive at the workers' "fair market value"? It isn't what the worker would like to make and it isn't what the employer would like to pay. It is the value that the worker will willingly accept and the price the employer will willingly pay in a free market. If there is no free market for labor then labor uses extortion to set the price. If there is no free market for jobs offered then the employer uses extortion to set the price. Extortion does not arrive at a "fair market value".

There is a serious threat to the free market if a labor union monopolizes labor or a business monopolizes available jobs. Either leads to extortion and abuse. Essentially, you can't use free market terms like "fair market value" when advocating the use of extortion (threats to shut the business down) when 'negotiating' wages.

Not necessarily because they cannot afford to offer better pay and conditions, but management, wanting to keep costs low, see no reason to do it.

In a free market system, management has to keep costs low to keep prices low so they can successfully compete with the competition. Failure to do so means bankruptcy... which means the management and workers will no longer have an income.

 

[rousseau]

I'm not too invested in this conversation, because we're straying from the original post. But the best you can likely say is that a company as an interrelated whole is responsible for the wealth it generates. But, in addition, those higher up the ladder tend to be more heavily invested in that company.

Sticking with the example of my in-laws, their livelihood, and the livelihood of a few others, literally depends on their businesses. If they go out of business they are, to put it impolitely, fucked. The front-line workers for their businesses don't bear any of this risk, they are free to come and go at any time they like. They can start their own businesses, they can go back to school, or work for anyone they want to. While my in-laws market skill literally is business ownership. They reap great financial benefits, but they also lose out on significant time, and have minimal alternative options.

I have nothing against a fair deal between employees / business owners, but I'm also interested in actually progressing the conversation, rather than repeating dead points, thread after thread.

 

[Bomb#20]

There is something kind of Paleo Conservative about the idea that we are destined to be in direct competetion for resources.

This has it kind of backwards. Competition is what gives people a reason to make progress. Getting rid of competition is a way to make it practical to keep a society static. Can't get much more paleoconservative than that.

There will be, and should be new ways of going about things.

Well, a species with a hive mind wouldn't compete. Is that what you think we should go for?

Short of that, if we don't compete, then that means there's an overriding goal we all cooperate in pursuit of -- some common goal we all subordinate our individual goals to. Is there some goal you think people could all agree to make their top priority?

Short of that, if we all cooperate in pursuit of some goal and subordinate our individual goals to it even though some of us don't think the collective goal ought to be our top priority, who should get to decide which people get to make their goal the common collective goal, and which people have to cooperate in pursuing a goal that isn't their own?

I.e., have you thought this through? Why do you think a new way of going about things without competition is something there should be? It sounds to me like it would be a dystopian nightmare.

 

[Bomb#20]

Bosses don't do work? ... Most people have no idea what it takes to get a company going and keep it going.

They don't generate the wealth of the company.

Why do you believe that? Is it an article of faith? A deduction from premises? An inductive conclusion derived from experiments?

That's not the same thing as "not working". Management is important, but it isn't the actual product of any company.

Is that your reason? If that's a reason to think managers don't generate the wealth of the company then it's an equal reason to think laborers don't generate the wealth of the company. Labor isn't the actual product of any company either except maybe the Kelly Girl corporation.

After all, it’s workers who generate the wealth of a company, not the bosses. Without them, everything would grind to a halt.

Is that your reason to believe it? Without the bosses, everything would grind to a halt too, except in the tiniest operations.

 

[rousseau]

There is something kind of Paleo Conservative about the idea that we are destined to be in direct competetion for resources.

This has it kind of backwards. Competition is what gives people a reason to make progress. Getting rid of competition is a way to make it practical to keep a society static. Can't get much more paleoconservative than that.

There will be, and should be new ways of going about things.

Well, a species with a hive mind wouldn't compete. Is that what you think we should go for?

Short of that, if we don't compete, then that means there's an overriding goal we all cooperate in pursuit of -- some common goal we all subordinate our individual goals to. Is there some goal you think people could all agree to make their top priority?

Short of that, if we all cooperate in pursuit of some goal and subordinate our individual goals to it even though some of us don't think the collective goal ought to be our top priority, who should get to decide which people get to make their goal the common collective goal, and which people have to cooperate in pursuing a goal that isn't their own?

I.e., have you thought this through? Why do you think a new way of going about things without competition is something there should be? It sounds to me like it would be a dystopian nightmare.

Another flaw to this line of thinking is the belief that when we get to our theoretical situation where everyone is provided for adequately, that people will be satiated and not want more for themselves. That's not really how human nature works. We have productive energy and, at least the ambitious among us, always want to be more productive, to be better, to have more.

If you want to talk co-operation the state system is already doing a pretty good job of levelling things out. You basically just need to exist and can make a wage if you want to. But within individual states there is still a fight for property, jobs, sexual partners etc etc. And between states there is obvious conflict as well.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is specifically collective bargaining that gives them the leverage to negotiate a better deal.

Extortion works. Duh.

Leverage.

Leverage works both ways. If management can capitalize on their leverage, so can workers.

"If capitalism is fair then unionism must be. If men have a right to capitalize their ideas and resources of their country, then that implies the right of men to capitalize their labor" - Frank Lloyd Wright

As power is more likely to be balanced in favour of management, collective bargaining creates better balance.

That's all. A fairer outcome for the underdog.

If unions are fair then blacklist must also be fair.

How so?

Union: We workers will act as one rather than many.
Blacklist: We employers will act as one rather than many.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

After all, it’s workers who generate the wealth of a company, not the bosses. Without them, everything would grind to a halt.

After all, it's the engine that moves the car. The idiot in the driver's seat has nothing to do with the car being useful.

 

[bilby]

A small but all powerful committee, often dominated by a single person with many job titles, makes all the decisions.

All buying and selling is centrally planned, as is all productive activity.

The people actually doing the work have no say regarding policy, nor any influence on who is appointed to positions of power; Such appointments are made by those higher up in the structure, often on the basis of personal friendships rather than ability or suitability.

Work is performed according to quotas set by the hierarchy, with only the performance against the specific targets and measures imposed being considered as important; Actually doing the right thing is always subordinate to achieving the required numbers.

Any hint of dissent is stamped out; People who question the way things are done, or the suitability of those in power to be in their positions, are tagged as troublemakers, kept under close surveillance, and if (or when) they break any of the myriad rules, are ruthlessly disposed of.

If those at the bottom don’t end up with enough to survive, that’s of no particular concern to those who are able to carve out a successful niche for themselves.

The USSR was a terrible place to live; But the above is in fact a description of every large corporation in today’s America. They claim to hate communism, but they practice it as effectively as Joe Stalin.

 

[skepticalbip]

A small but all powerful committee, often dominated by a single person with many job titles, makes all the decisions.

All buying and selling is centrally planned, as is all productive activity.

The people actually doing the work have no say regarding policy, nor any influence on who is appointed to positions of power; Such appointments are made by those higher up in the structure, often on the basis of personal friendships rather than ability or suitability.

Work is performed according to quotas set by the hierarchy, with only the performance against the specific targets and measures imposed being considered as important; Actually doing the right thing is always subordinate to achieving the required numbers.

Any hint of dissent is stamped out; People who question the way things are done, or the suitability of those in power to be in their positions, are tagged as troublemakers, kept under close surveillance, and if (or when) they break any of the myriad rules, are ruthlessly disposed of.

If those at the bottom don’t end up with enough to survive, that’s of no particular concern to those who are able to carve out a successful niche for themselves.

The USSR was a terrible place to live; But the above is in fact a description of every large corporation in today’s America. They claim to hate communism, but they practice it as effectively as Joe Stalin.

There are similarities and differences:

In one case the quotas are set by a central committee. In the other quotas are set by consumer demand. In a free market economy production goals are important but so is quality and standards as the product has to be accepted by the consumer. Under the Soviets, quality was unimportant if it interfered with meeting the quota. The consumer had to accept a defective product or do without because there was no competition in the USSR but in a market economy the consumer is free to reject defective products and buy the competitor's products.

In the USSR dissidents were imprisoned while in a market economy they are fired and free to find other employment.

 

[DBT]

After all, it’s workers who generate the wealth of a company, not the bosses. Without them, everything would grind to a halt.

So my in-laws who worked 80 hour weeks completely re-vamping and pivoting the strategy of their two businesses to respond to Covid had nothing to do with keeping their businesses profitable? It was all the work of the college students serving tables?

That doesn't sound quite right..

Of course there is more than one factor that makes a business profitable.

Perhaps you could explore those factors, rather than repeating the claim that 'it's workers who generate the wealth of a company'.

The whole point of contention is related to wage rates in relation to marginalized workers who are powerless to negotiate a better rate of pay and conditions on their own.

That some businesses are profitable without needing to employ anyone is not an issue.

That some profitable businesses are paying their workers a fair market share for their input is not an issue.

The problem lies in the area where workers are essentially being poorly paid because of the described power imbalance between employer and employee.

 

[DBT]

After all, it’s workers who generate the wealth of a company, not the bosses. Without them, everything would grind to a halt.

After all, it's the engine that moves the car. The idiot in the driver's seat has nothing to do with the car being useful.

That has nothing much to do with what I said. There is no car to run unless it is first built. The car, once built, won't run for long without refueling and maintenance.

The idiot in the drivers seat drives the car in whatever direction he sees fit.

The idiot in the drivers seat needs a network of support to get things done.

 

[Bomb#20]

People call a lot of things "extortion". Historically, Coke won't sell a restaurant Coke products unless the restaurant agrees not to also buy Pepsi products. Is that extortion? Seems to me if a union negotiates a union shop contract with a company agreeing not to buy non-union labor, that's what Coke's doing to the restaurants. But if union members beat up scabs trying to cross the picket line, that's extortion.

The difference being that Coke could only withhold their product unless the restaurant agreed. The restaurant could continue operation with only Pepsi products as many did. The Union threatens to, not only withhold their product, but to shut down the company by not allowing others (scabs) to take the jobs. So yes, that is extortion.

The union can only withhold their product. The union has no authority to stop scabs from taking the jobs. Sure, they'd like to; but then Coke would like to stop Pepsi from supplying Pepsi products. It's government's job to make sure nobody else uses force and to refuse bribes to use its own force on behalf of one side or another.

The threat of refusing to sell ones product is a pretty weak "threat" in a free market system where there is competition.

Exactly. A union isn't extortion per se. Certain union tactics are extortion. Those tactics are popular with a lot of unionists -- people have been singing folk songs for about two hundred years celebrating beating up scabs -- but then certain corporate tactics are extortion and those tactics are popular with a lot of businessmen too. What a surprise -- people tend to be biased in their own favor. It's why the world needs neutral judges.

If for some weird reason the restaurant decided to agree to Coke's demand and then later Coke demanded 30% more for their product, the restaurant could say ...

If for some weird reason* an employer decided to agree to a union shop and then later the union demanded 30% more for labor, if the original contract hasn't run out the employer can go to one of those neutral judges and get an injunction against the illegal strike; and if the contract has run out the employer can fire the lot them and hire a whole new workforce.

(* And the reason isn't that weird. Employers agree to union shops when the alternative is telling the union to go to hell, getting a strike, and having to choose between shutting down for the duration or shutting down for however long it takes to hire a whole new workforce. It's the same reason Boeing agrees when Rolls-Royce jacks up jet engine prices.)

People call a lot of things "extortion". Historically, Coke won't sell a restaurant Coke products unless the restaurant agrees not to also buy Pepsi products. ...

That's not comparable. Coke says "You can deal with us or them, not both." The union says "You can only deal with us."

Union power comes from being a monopoly. Monopolies are bad.

But the union isn't a monopoly. There are thousands of unions, and billions of non-union laborers. Unions would love to say "You can only deal with us.", just like Coke would, but they have no authority to make it stick. They can make switching to another supplier a pain in the ass; but then saying bye-bye to Coke and making a deal with Pepsi is a pain in the ass too.

If unions are fair then blacklist must also be fair.

How so?

Union: We workers will act as one rather than many.
Blacklist: We employers will act as one rather than many.

Union: We 0.01% of workers will act as one rather than many.
Blacklist: We 100% of employers will act as one rather than many.

 

[Bomb#20]

It's not hard to grasp:

''When workers unite

The linked article is entitled "Collective bargaining - what is it and why it means higher pay for everyone".

to call for better wages and conditions, the boss has to listen. That's called collective bargaining - and we need more of it.
...
But if everyone gets together and proposes better wages and working conditions for all, then the boss has to listen.
...
The bosses know this, so they have to sit down, negotiate and compromise – and everybody wins.

Ms. Williamson is peddling lies. That's called propaganda and we need less of it. Collective bargaining is not "everyone gets together and proposes better wages and working conditions for all". Collective bargaining is "we get together and propose better wages and working conditions for us", and she bloody well knows it. The whole point of a union is to drive up the price of labor by eliminating competition. That means higher pay for those who have jobs; it means lower pay for those who can't get a job any more because they've been stopped from competing for one. The promise of higher pay for everyone is a lie.

 

[Bomb#20]

Any hint of dissent is stamped out; People who question the way things are done, or the suitability of those in power to be in their positions, are tagged as troublemakers, kept under close surveillance, and if (or when) they break any of the myriad rules, are ruthlessly disposed of.

Where "ruthlessly disposed of" means "shot".

The USSR was a terrible place to live; But the above is in fact a description of every large corporation in today’s America.

Only if we presume that "ruthlessly disposed of" means "shot", and we presume "no longer bought from" means "ruthlessly disposed of", and deduce that "no longer bought from" equals "shot".

They claim to hate communism, but they practice it as effectively as Joe Stalin.

... In the USSR dissidents were imprisoned while in a market economy they are fired and free to find other employment.

^^^^ This ^^^^. One of the ironic but endlessly repeated tropes of anticapitalist propaganda is that the propagandist portrays a competitive capitalist enterprise as though it were a monopoly, precisely because that makes it look awful, even though the alternative noncapitalist society the propagandist is trying to persuade people to embrace really would turn into a monopoly.

 

[Elixir]

They claim to hate communism, but they practice it as effectively as Joe Stalin.

... In the USSR dissidents were imprisoned while in a market economy they are fired and free to find other employment.

^^^^ This ^^^^. One of the ironic but endlessly repeated tropes of anticapitalist propaganda is that the propagandist portrays a competitive capitalist enterprise as though it were a monopoly, precisely because that makes it look awful, even though the alternative noncapitalist society the propagandist is trying to persuade people to embrace really would turn into a monopoly.

That is one reason why total anticapitalism is a fringe idea, as is corrupt totalitarian capitalism (now, Trumpism).
Either or both could be nigh and they both lead to monopoly, but I'd bet on totalitarianism due to its historical record of (short term at least) success in these situations.
The American experiment has semi-successfully endured or balanced these extremes for a couple of centuries plus, but it sure looks dicey now.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The USSR was a terrible place to live; But the above is in fact a description of every large corporation in today’s America. They claim to hate communism, but they practice it as effectively as Joe Stalin.

There's one fundamental difference.

In the USSR there was only one option. In capitalism there are many such people, you can choose to go with the ones that make it work properly. A company that is too bad to it's workers won't have workers, a company that is too bad to it's customers won't have customers.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The whole point of contention is related to wage rates in relation to marginalized workers who are powerless to negotiate a better rate of pay and conditions on their own.

That some businesses are profitable without needing to employ anyone is not an issue.

That some profitable businesses are paying their workers a fair market share for their input is not an issue.

The problem lies in the area where workers are essentially being poorly paid because of the described power imbalance between employer and employee.

Wages are set by supply and demand. Just look at what has been happening to the market now that Covid has take out a lot of workers.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

After all, it’s workers who generate the wealth of a company, not the bosses. Without them, everything would grind to a halt.

After all, it's the engine that moves the car. The idiot in the driver's seat has nothing to do with the car being useful.

That has nothing much to do with what I said. There is no car to run unless it is first built. The car, once built, won't run for long without refueling and maintenance.

The idiot in the drivers seat drives the car in whatever direction he sees fit.

The idiot in the drivers seat needs a network of support to get things done.

I was comparing the workers trying to cast off management to the car trying to cast off the driver. Both work about as well.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The threat of refusing to sell ones product is a pretty weak "threat" in a free market system where there is competition.

Exactly. A union isn't extortion per se. Certain union tactics are extortion. Those tactics are popular with a lot of unionists -- people have been singing folk songs for about two hundred years celebrating beating up scabs -- but then certain corporate tactics are extortion and those tactics are popular with a lot of businessmen too. What a surprise -- people tend to be biased in their own favor. It's why the world needs neutral judges.

If the union threat were simply to quit you would be right. The union threat is deliberately designed to disrupt the company, though--that makes it extortion.

People call a lot of things "extortion". Historically, Coke won't sell a restaurant Coke products unless the restaurant agrees not to also buy Pepsi products. ...

That's not comparable. Coke says "You can deal with us or them, not both." The union says "You can only deal with us."

Union power comes from being a monopoly. Monopolies are bad.

But the union isn't a monopoly. There are thousands of unions, and billions of non-union laborers. Unions would love to say "You can only deal with us.", just like Coke would, but they have no authority to make it stick. They can make switching to another supplier a pain in the ass; but then saying bye-bye to Coke and making a deal with Pepsi is a pain in the ass too.

It's not all workers, it's all workers with certain skills. And in that regard they are sometimes a total monopoly.

Union: We 0.01% of workers will act as one rather than many.
Blacklist: We 100% of employers will act as one rather than many.

Union: In some situations they are 100% of the relevant workforce.