# Re-Framing Capitalism

#### steve_bank

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
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.
Semantics aND lack of insight.

When I first began to take on project responsibility and had people under me I leaned it was no so easy. Some people come to work and some will do as little as possible and some do nothing if they can get away with it.

Working at organizing and administrating actually burns extra calories and one can feel exhausted at the end of the day as if doing physical labor. I know hat both is like.

In a manufacturing company there is direct labor. That is labor directly involved in putting together a product. Support like puchasing and human resurgences are indirect or overhead labor. Design engineering is indirect or overhead labor.

Building rent and utilities are overhead.

You might want to sit in on few business classes.

You an fame it to infer some kind of parasitic mangment relationship to Manufacturing labor, but that is a bias. More social rhetoric than reality. It goes back to the 19th century Marxist rhetoric.

#### steve_bank

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Every corporation in America? Different companies can have very differnt cultures.

There can be Trump like situations at the top or lower level management, but that has diminished over time.

#### DBT

##### Contributor
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.

It just means everyone concerned gets together. 'Everyone' doesn't refer to people in general, but employees who form or join a union in order to negotiate a better deal for themselves.

That's not propaganda. It's how it works. The benefit is a more equal footing at the negotiating table, where workers are represented by a professional negotiator.

#### DBT

##### Contributor
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.

At times, but not always. As pointed out, an employer can set a bare minimum because they hold the balance of power, and the applicant can be told 'this is our going rate, take it or leave it.'

The issue here is not the market value of labour, but power imbalance, where an employer is able to set the pay rate....and only minimum wage laws prevents a spiral into ever lower rates and outright exploitation.

You think that has never happened? Or that it can't happen these days?

That would be naive.

''In our study we defined exploitation as the following behaviours:

• economic exploitation, such as not receiving the correct pay, superannuation, breaks, holidays, or being unfairly dismissed
• exposure to unsafe work conditions, including not being properly trained or supervised, or being required to carry out tasks breaching workplace health and safety rules
• bullying, involving repeated behaviour that humiliates and intimidates the victim
• sexual harassment, involving all unwelcomed sexual behaviour such as touching, as well as jokes or unwanted communication
• verbal harassment, such as being sworn at, insulted and berated
• physical violence, including threats of a physical attack.

## What we found​

The age at which our respondents were first employed in Queensland ranged as low as 11 years old to 17 years old. The majority of respondents (84.0%) were first employed in retail or hospitality.

Just over half (51.5%) of our participants reported some kind of economic exploitation in their first job, including incorrect pay and not being allowed proper breaks.''

Verbal harassment was also a common experience (49.1%), followed by exposure to unsafe work conditions (32.1%), sexual harassment (14.5%), and violence (6.4%) in their first job.''

For instance;
''The Bill amends the Fair Work Act 2009 (the “FW Act”) to implement the Government’s “commitment to protect vulnerable workers” by:

1. Increasing penalties for “serious contraventions” of the FW Act involving “deliberate conduct”. The maximum civil penalty for such a contravention is now 600 penalty units* or $108,000 for an individual and 3,000 penalty units or$540,000 for bodies corporate (which is five times higher than the previous maximum penalty);

2. Stopping employers from unreasonably requiring their employees to make payments, for example, asking that they pay a portion of their wages back in cash;

3. Strengthening the evidence-gathering powers of the Fair Work Ombudsman to investigate cases of exploitation similar to those available to the Australian Securities and Investment Commission and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission;

4. Making franchisors and holding companies (who have a significant amount of influence or control over their business networks) liable for underpayments of staff by their franchisees or subsidiaries where they “knew or ought reasonably to have known” of the contraventions and failed to take reasonable steps to stop them.

#### Bomb#20

##### Contributor
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.

It just means everyone concerned gets together. 'Everyone' doesn't refer to people in general, but employees who form or join a union in order to negotiate a better deal for themselves.

That's not propaganda. It's how it works. The benefit is a more equal footing at the negotiating table, where workers are represented by a professional negotiator.
When a union succeeds at its goal, wages rise. Outside of heroin and the fantasies of self-deluding left-wingers who feel their assignment of most-favored-product status to labor is sufficient to magically exempt labor from economic laws, demand curves are not infinitely inelastic. When wages rise, demand for labor falls. A company that agrees to pay higher wages than it would have paid had the union not insisted on it is a company that will hire fewer workers than it would otherwise have hired.

When that deal is struck, a consequence is that some worker out there who would have gotten a job at that company is instead not able to get a job there. That worker is concerned. Perhaps you are not concerned about her, and Ms. Williamson is evidently not concerned about her, but she is concerned. So no, not everyone concerned gets together. Rhetoric that sweeps her under the rug is propaganda.

#### DBT

##### Contributor
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.

It just means everyone concerned gets together. 'Everyone' doesn't refer to people in general, but employees who form or join a union in order to negotiate a better deal for themselves.

That's not propaganda. It's how it works. The benefit is a more equal footing at the negotiating table, where workers are represented by a professional negotiator.
When a union succeeds at its goal, wages rise. Outside of heroin and the fantasies of self-deluding left-wingers who feel their assignment of most-favored-product status to labor is sufficient to magically exempt labor from economic laws, demand curves are not infinitely inelastic. When wages rise, demand for labor falls. A company that agrees to pay higher wages than it would have paid had the union not insisted on it is a company that will hire fewer workers than it would otherwise have hired.

When that deal is struck, a consequence is that some worker out there who would have gotten a job at that company is instead not able to get a job there. That worker is concerned. Perhaps you are not concerned about her, and Ms. Williamson is evidently not concerned about her, but she is concerned. So no, not everyone concerned gets together. Rhetoric that sweeps her under the rug is propaganda.

Leveraging bargaining power has nothing to do with political ideology. Some may seek to hijack the movement, union hierachy may go too far in their demands, but that's another issue.

Either side can go to far if the balance of power is tipped too heavily in their favour.

It works both ways. Nothing to do with ideology, just a balance of power enabling fair negotiation.

"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

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Leveraging bargaining power has nothing to do with political ideology. Some may seek to hijack the movement, union hierachy may go too far in their demands, but that's another issue.

Either side can go to far if the balance of power is tipped too heavily in their favour.

It works both ways. Nothing to do with ideology, just a balance of power enabling fair negotiation.

"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
You're repeating ideology without addressing the fundamental issue that unions raise wages by reducing the labor pool. People get left out.

#### DBT

##### Contributor
Leveraging bargaining power has nothing to do with political ideology. Some may seek to hijack the movement, union hierachy may go too far in their demands, but that's another issue.

Either side can go to far if the balance of power is tipped too heavily in their favour.

It works both ways. Nothing to do with ideology, just a balance of power enabling fair negotiation.

"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
You're repeating ideology without addressing the fundamental issue that unions raise wages by reducing the labor pool. People get left out.

The balance of power is real. It's not an ideology. Without a more equal footing at the negotiating room, workers concerns can easily be dismissed.

A successful business should be able to afford to pay reasonable rates.

The issue is taking advantage of the powerless. Putting aside the benefits of collective bargaining, consider what can happen without safeguards in place.

''The ACTU is concerned that the exploitation of workers has become systemic in many sectors of
the economy and noncompliance with workplace laws has become commonplace. Many low
paid workers are presently in industries with poor levels of compliance; agriculture, meat
processing, hospitality, retail and accommodation all of which have a particularly high incidence
of wage theft and exploitation.

When low-wage workers are cheated out of even a small percentage of their income, it can
cause major hardships like being unable to pay for rent, child care, or put food on the table.
Wage theft from low paid workers is also detrimental to society, as it contributes to widening
income inequality, wage stagnation, and low living standards—interrelated problems that drive
inequality in our society.

Businesses like 7 Eleven, Caltex, Pizza Hut, Dominos, Red Rooster and others must take
responsibility for their flawed business models which allow wage theft and other exploitative
practices to flourish.

What is clear from these recent wage scandals is that business size is not a
guarantee against widespread breaches of workplace laws, neither is commercial success, nor is
being a common household name or a brand that is present on many high streets.

Furthermore employers that do the right thing and pay their employees the proper level of pay and
entitlements should not be placed at a competitive disadvantage relative to firms who regularly
partake in these practices''.

"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

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Leveraging bargaining power has nothing to do with political ideology. Some may seek to hijack the movement, union hierachy may go too far in their demands, but that's another issue.

Either side can go to far if the balance of power is tipped too heavily in their favour.

It works both ways. Nothing to do with ideology, just a balance of power enabling fair negotiation.

"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
You're repeating ideology without addressing the fundamental issue that unions raise wages by reducing the labor pool. People get left out.

The balance of power is real. It's not an ideology. Without a more equal footing at the negotiating room, workers concerns can easily be dismissed.

A successful business should be able to afford to pay reasonable rates.

The issue is taking advantage of the powerless. Putting aside the benefits of collective bargaining, consider what can happen without safeguards in place.
I realize you're having a hard time comprehending blasphemy, but please at least try.

Unions work by restricting the labor pool. That means some are left out.

I'm not saying anything about fair, I'm talking about what actually happens. Quit trying to rebut it with talk of fairness.

#### DBT

##### Contributor
Leveraging bargaining power has nothing to do with political ideology. Some may seek to hijack the movement, union hierachy may go too far in their demands, but that's another issue.

Either side can go to far if the balance of power is tipped too heavily in their favour.

It works both ways. Nothing to do with ideology, just a balance of power enabling fair negotiation.

"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
You're repeating ideology without addressing the fundamental issue that unions raise wages by reducing the labor pool. People get left out.

The balance of power is real. It's not an ideology. Without a more equal footing at the negotiating room, workers concerns can easily be dismissed.

A successful business should be able to afford to pay reasonable rates.

The issue is taking advantage of the powerless. Putting aside the benefits of collective bargaining, consider what can happen without safeguards in place.
I realize you're having a hard time comprehending blasphemy, but please at least try.

Nothing of the sort. Australia has had safeguards in place for many decades, including pay and conditions. We have not gone to rack and ruin because of that.

Unions work by restricting the labor pool. That means some are left out.

To a point. In the long term, the benefits for workers outweigh the negatives.

What Are the Advantages of Labor Unions?
1. Labor unions promote higher wages.
In a majority of US jobs and careers, union representation helps workers bring in significantly higher wages. From data provided by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics in 2010, unionized workers brought in an extra $800 per month over non-unionized workers. The average union member earned$917 per week before taxes, while the average non-union worker earned $717 per week before taxes. 2. Labor unions help workers get better benefits. When workers are employed and unionized, they have a much better chance to receive essential benefits from their employer. Over 90% of unionized workers were entitled to medical benefits, while about 70% of non-union workers were entitled to the same benefit. Unionized workers usually pay less of a share of the benefits they receive, earn more vacation days, and have better access to sick days compared to non-union workers as well. 3. Labor unions help families receive better benefits. Domestic partnerships are on the rise in the United States, often with children, but non-union workers can struggle to have this family structure protected with benefits like medical care. When family care is considered, union workers had 89% of their benefit costs covered by their employers, while non-union workers had just 66% of their benefit cost covered. 4. Labor unions provide better access to a funded retirement. Over 90% of unionized workers have access to a retirement benefit that is provided by an employer. This may include access to a 401k or IRA contribution plan, a pension plan, or a combination of both. Their non-union counterparts have access to retirement benefits through an employer just 64% of the time. 5. Labor unions provider worker protections. In most states in the US, non-union workers are typically employed in what is called an “at-will” environment. This means an employer can fire someone for virtually any reason. Only limited exceptions are in place, which often involve discrimination or whistleblowing. Any reason outside of the limited exceptions will qualify as a legal termination. At best, a fired employee would have access to unemployment benefits. Unionized workers can only be fired for what is called a “just cause.” There must be evidence of misconduct and any disciplinary action can usually go through arbitration or a grievance procedure. 6. Labor unions create an opportunity to negotiate frequently. Most unions operate under a bargaining agreement that is renegotiated after a certain amount of time. Some operate on yearly contracts, but most workers tend to operate on agreements which are 2-5 years in length. This allows workers to negotiate for better wages and conditions, while providing an employer the opportunity to negotiate for concessions. When done correctly, a balance between worker and employer can be achieved where both parties can be happy. I'm not saying anything about fair, I'm talking about what actually happens. Quit trying to rebut it with talk of fairness. Fair means true market value for services rendered in the running of a company, time, skill and labour, to not be taken advantage of because of a gross imbalance of power which makes you an easy target. Nor does collective bargaining necessarily cause higher unemployment. Which may happen if wages are driven above equilibrium wage rate. Do trade unions cause unemployment? In theory, trades unions can push wages above the equilibrium wage rate. This rise in real wages can lead to less employment. However, the impact of unions on employment rates is not certain. 1. As seen above – it depends on the employer. If a firm has monopsony power, then the monopsony can restrict labour and lower wages. In this case, a trade union can provide a counter-balance to the monopsony power of an employer. Even if labour markets are competitive – demand may be quite inelastic, meaning higher wages would not cause much decline in employment. 2. Efficiency wage theory. This states higher wages can lead to increased productivity. 3. Productivity deals. A trade union may be able to bargain for higher wages in return for improving working practices and implementing higher productivity. ### ​ #### steve_bank ##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ... A lot of 'theories', but ten that is a lot of what economics is. Our system is adversarial not fir in any philosophical sense. The rates for workers at companies such as DoorDash, Uber Eats and Grubhub would begin when drivers accept an order, in an effort to help the drivers — who are contract workers, not employees — earn the city's$17.27 minimum hourly wage and receive the standard mileage reimbursement set by the Internal Revenue Service.2 hours ago

Here in Settle gig workers like Uber drivers are now guarenteed The Seattle minimum wage of \$17.27. A lot of drivers barely make a profit especially with rising gas prices. The companies classify drivers as contract workers to get around labor issues.

Some complain higher prices for services will reduce demand and people will loose jobs, and that is probably true to some degre

Unions from the start fought sometimes bloody battles for wages and working conditions and in some stes can exclude non union workers from the workplace. In other states non union workers can be hired and not have to pay dues, but they benfit from the union...

Unions can have problems like anything else. In the 50s 60s my father was a carpet and tile installer, unitized. He commuted from Stamford to NYC to work on construction. When the union that ran the construction elevators went on his strike his undion woud not cross the picket line and carry their own maerials up in the building. He was out of work for a while.

There was also a union rule you coud not borrow tools from anoter unuin. A lot os small details.

Like anything else unions have positives and negatives.

My gradfather on my father's side statred the union my father worked in. I never met him, my aunts and uncles hated him. As one of my uncles put it in those days they 'broke heads'.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
I'm not saying anything about fair, I'm talking about what actually happens. Quit trying to rebut it with talk of fairness.

In theory, trades unions can push wages above the equilibrium wage rate. This rise in real wages can lead to less employment. However, the impact of unions on employment rates is not certain.

1. As seen above – it depends on the employer. If a firm has monopsony power, then the monopsony can restrict labour and lower wages. In this case, a trade union can provide a counter-balance to the monopsony power of an employer. Even if labour markets are competitive – demand may be quite inelastic, meaning higher wages would not cause much decline in employment.
2. Efficiency wage theory. This states higher wages can lead to increased productivity.
3. Productivity deals. A trade union may be able to bargain for higher wages in return for improving working practices and implementing higher productivity
You're still going on and on about the benefits of labor unions, only this last part even tries to address my point and it fails miserably. If unions do not push wages above the equilibrium point they did nothing the worker wouldn't have gotten anyway, they're just a cost. If they do push wages above the equilibrium point they cause unemployment. A lack of adequate real-world measurements doesn't change this basic truth.

#### DBT

##### Contributor
I'm not saying anything about fair, I'm talking about what actually happens. Quit trying to rebut it with talk of fairness.

In theory, trades unions can push wages above the equilibrium wage rate. This rise in real wages can lead to less employment. However, the impact of unions on employment rates is not certain.

1. As seen above – it depends on the employer. If a firm has monopsony power, then the monopsony can restrict labour and lower wages. In this case, a trade union can provide a counter-balance to the monopsony power of an employer. Even if labour markets are competitive – demand may be quite inelastic, meaning higher wages would not cause much decline in employment.
2. Efficiency wage theory. This states higher wages can lead to increased productivity.
3. Productivity deals. A trade union may be able to bargain for higher wages in return for improving working practices and implementing higher productivity
You're still going on and on about the benefits of labor unions, only this last part even tries to address my point and it fails miserably. If unions do not push wages above the equilibrium point they did nothing the worker wouldn't have gotten anyway, they're just a cost. If they do push wages above the equilibrium point they cause unemployment. A lack of adequate real-world measurements doesn't change this basic truth.

It doesn't fail miserably. It doesn't fail at all. It shows that collective bargaining can and does benefit workers, and it can do so without increasing unemployment. Problems arise when either party has too much power. It's a matter of balance.

If excessive power lies in the hands of management, workers are exploited and underpaid, hence the need for government intervention with labour laws, minimum pay and conditions.

If union holds excessive power, that can make it hard for business, who respond by laying off some of their workers

A fine balance needs to be maintained.

#### Swammerdami

Staff member
It's wrong to consider prices — especially the wages of human labor — as always having some "natural" or "equilibrium" value. Sure, one can draw curves and solve equations but these require assumptions and political context. For example:
The problem lies in the area where workers are essentially being poorly paid because of the described power imbalance between employer and employee.
In the British Raj, wages for unskilled labor were set just above the level needed to avoid starvation. That was extreme power imbalance!

Windows 11 costs much more than Linux. Abstractly speaking, is the Windows OS really so much better? I wonder how those who feel closed-shop contracts are a restraint of free trade think about the ways Microsoft restrains trade. (The government was on the verge of forcing Microsoft to agree to a massive fine and change of business practices, but DoJ suddenly dropped its case when G.W. Bush was elected.)

There are various reasons why modern capitalism is problematic. Monopolies (e.g. Facebook and Microsoft) have emerged comparable to the trusts from the Gilded Age in the late 19th century. And note that competition doesn't function as expected: Pepsi and Coca-Cola have largely the VERY same set of fund managers as controlling shareholders.

But for all the faults of modern capitalism, average prosperity (or even lower-class prosperity) is now higher than ever by many measures. A majority(?) of Earth's inhabitants now own a smart-phone with which to brainwash themselves (annual sales are about 1.5 billion). Frankly, I worry MUCH more about the perils of such technology than what share of the proceeds labor should get.

A simple fact is that low-wage workers in the U.S. struggle harder than their European counterparts and more often suffer depression or other mental illness. With a better safety-net — e.g. free healthcare, free childcare, improved urban organization and/or universal basic income — issues like minimum wages and unionization would become much less pressing.

Prosperity requires that the most productive people be suitably rewarded. But it does NOT follow that the more inequality of wealth and income the better! And it IS a fact that the children of the affluent have a big head-start: A few examples of lower-class people who became billionaires does not change this. Economic mobility is now higher in most developed democracies than in the U.S. (a reversal of the 19th-century situation and of America's self-congratulatory myth).

A balance is needed. Pragmatic facts should be the guide, not any "ideals of fairness."

#### DBT

##### Contributor
Perhaps it becomes a moral issue when a small percentage of the worlds population are wealthier, have more power and privileged than the rest of the worlds population combined.....

''Of course, the apparent "moral neutrality" of maximization may be precisely why so many top managers, boards of directors and individual employees embrace it as the ultimate corporate objective in the first place--to evade moral accountability in the professional pursuit of wealth (Dobson, 1999).

This easygoing indifference to ethics is based in turn on a hyper-capitalist, utilitarian assumption that the "invisible hand" of free market exchange will inevitably produce (literally) the greatest good for the greatest number (Dobson, 1999; Verschoor, 2002). By mere compliance with the market mechanism, self-interest becomes virtue.

As has been suggested by the philosopher Heilbroner (1953), the popularity of Smith's theory of capitalism in the eighteenth century reflected the mood of the age, an unshakable faith in human reason and progress: "The whole complex irrational world is reduced to a kind of rational scheme where human particles are nicely magnetized in a simple polarity toward profit and away from loss" (p. 64).''

#### Bomb#20

##### Contributor
This easygoing indifference to ethics is based in turn on a hyper-capitalist, utilitarian assumption that the "invisible hand" of free market exchange will inevitably produce (literally) the greatest good for the greatest number (Dobson, 1999; Verschoor, 2002). By mere compliance with the market mechanism, self-interest becomes virtue.
It isn't indifference to ethics; it's just that trying to explain ethics to anticapitalists is exhausting and usually futile. They are trapped in a zero-sum-game mentality that got hard-wired into our brains from a million years of living as hunter-gatherers, and ten thousand years of farming hasn't been long enough to wrap their minds around the new reality that zero-sum-game thinking has become hopelessly, unethically, obsolete.

#### steve_bank

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
In general free market economics does work as advertised. Commodities like computers, cell phones, dishwashers, and cars. The range of products that the average person has today compared to the 50s when I was born is unbelievable. I remember rotary dial phones. Color TV was more of a luxury item.

Free market economics did raise standards of living. The problem today is the economy gas changed. The wide availability of skilled and unskilled jobs that paid living wages are gone.

In the free market economy auto makers are responding to demand for EVs. In the long run supply and demnd based on how people choose to spend money determines the economy.

The conservative problem is religiously believing all things mist be left to free markets. Including primary education and medical care.

#### skepticalbip

##### Contributor
In general free market economics does work as advertised. Commodities like computers, cell phones, dishwashers, and cars. The range of products that the average person has today compared to the 50s when I was born is unbelievable. I remember rotary dial phones. Color TV was more of a luxury item.

Free market economics did raise standards of living. The problem today is the economy gas changed. The wide availability of skilled and unskilled jobs that paid living wages are gone.

In the free market economy auto makers are responding to demand for EVs. In the long run supply and demnd based on how people choose to spend money determines the economy.

The conservative problem is religiously believing all things mist be left to free markets. Including primary education and medical care.
It isn't that all things must be left to the free market but a recognition that a competitive market provides goods and services to meet the demands of the population cheaper, more effectively, more reliably, greater choice, and with higher quality than a centrally planned economy.

#### steve_bank

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
In general free market economics does work as advertised. Commodities like computers, cell phones, dishwashers, and cars. The range of products that the average person has today compared to the 50s when I was born is unbelievable. I remember rotary dial phones. Color TV was more of a luxury item.

Free market economics did raise standards of living. The problem today is the economy gas changed. The wide availability of skilled and unskilled jobs that paid living wages are gone.

In the free market economy auto makers are responding to demand for EVs. In the long run supply and demnd based on how people choose to spend money determines the economy.

The conservative problem is religiously believing all things mist be left to free markets. Including primary education and medical care.
It isn't that all things must be left to the free market but a recognition that a competitive market provides goods and services to meet the demands of the population cheaper, more effectively, more reliably, greater choice, and with higher quality than a centrally planned economy.

Not quite true. The Economy is motivated by profit. New goods and service and jobs are a side effect. Way back in Econ 101 the teacher asked what is the purpose of capialism? I said something like to provide the wdest range o f goods and services at the lowest cost. He said ''Wrong! The purpose of capiyalism is to make a profit'. As I got into my work it made sense.

Health care is not subject to competition.

When you pay for medical insurance the premium is based on statistics as to how much the insurance company has to pay out every month. That depends on the health of population. Insurance companies and hospitals can improve efficiency but completion will not lower cost.

There were attempts to make medical insurance more competive and it led to companies that were awful and failed to pay as in the plans. It happend with Obama Care.

If you went onlineunder Obama Care looking for a deal on medical insurnce the reputable companies were all around the same rates.

Obama's clam his program would lower costs was doomed to fail. There are no economies of scale in medical care. Increase the number of people with health insurance and increase the number of covered conditions and costs go up.

Major medical equipment is not a high volume business. In contrast blood pressure and blood sugar meter and electronic thermometrs are high vo;iume, and they are cheap.

MRI, CAT Scan, and ultrasound machines are relatively low volume.

#### skepticalbip

##### Contributor
In general free market economics does work as advertised. Commodities like computers, cell phones, dishwashers, and cars. The range of products that the average person has today compared to the 50s when I was born is unbelievable. I remember rotary dial phones. Color TV was more of a luxury item.

Free market economics did raise standards of living. The problem today is the economy gas changed. The wide availability of skilled and unskilled jobs that paid living wages are gone.

In the free market economy auto makers are responding to demand for EVs. In the long run supply and demnd based on how people choose to spend money determines the economy.

The conservative problem is religiously believing all things mist be left to free markets. Including primary education and medical care.
It isn't that all things must be left to the free market but a recognition that a competitive market provides goods and services to meet the demands of the population cheaper, more effectively, more reliably, greater choice, and with higher quality than a centrally planned economy.

Not quite true. The Economy is motivated by profit. New goods and service and jobs are a side effect. Way back in Econ 101 the teacher asked what is the purpose of capialism? I said something like to provide the wdest range o f goods and services at the lowest cost. He said ''Wrong! The purpose of capiyalism is to make a profit'. As I got into my work it made sense.
Profit is the purpose of a company. You forgot the competition part of a capitalist system. It is competition that limits profit because companies will compete for customers and one of the methods used is for a compony to undercut the product price of their competitors or to produce a product with higher quality and/or lower price than the competitors. This doesn't happen in a centrally controlled economy. You econ-101 course apparently skipped a bit.
Health care is not subject to competition.

When you pay for medical insurance the premium is based on statistics as to how much the insurance company has to pay out every month. That depends on the health of population. Insurance companies and hospitals can improve efficiency but completion will not lower cost.

There were attempts to make medical insurance more competive and it led to companies that were awful and failed to pay as in the plans. It happend with Obama Care.
Again you are conflating a competitive market with a market heavily controlled by government regulations. Because of heavy government regulations (which adds cost), our hospitals are not a competitive market.

#### DBT

##### Contributor
This easygoing indifference to ethics is based in turn on a hyper-capitalist, utilitarian assumption that the "invisible hand" of free market exchange will inevitably produce (literally) the greatest good for the greatest number (Dobson, 1999; Verschoor, 2002). By mere compliance with the market mechanism, self-interest becomes virtue.
It isn't indifference to ethics; it's just that trying to explain ethics to anticapitalists is exhausting and usually futile. They are trapped in a zero-sum-game mentality that got hard-wired into our brains from a million years of living as hunter-gatherers, and ten thousand years of farming hasn't been long enough to wrap their minds around the new reality that zero-sum-game thinking has become hopelessly, unethically, obsolete.

Nothing that I have said has been anti capitalist. You are mistaking anti excessive concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a small percentage of the worlds population as anti capitalist.

The two are not the same. You could take it as improving capitalism.

No matter how many ways the problems of gross power and economic imbalance is explained, it is taken as anti capitalism, a left wing, socialist attack on capitalism and the free market.

That certainly does get exhausting.

#### The Disadvantages of Economic Inequality​

Inequality Stifles Growth

A degree of inequality can act as a positive influence on economic growth in the short term.[24] However, some economists find empirical evidence of a negative correlation of about 0.5-0.8 percentage points between long-term growth rates and sustained economic inequality.[25]

A variety of explanations have been proposed to explain how inequality can work to stifle growth. A high level of economic inequality means a higher level of poverty. Poverty is associated with increased crime and poor public health, which places burdens on the economy. In the face of increasing food prices and lower incomes, support for pro-growth government policies declines.[26] Wealthy citizens maintain disproportionate political power compared to poorer citizens,[27] which encourages the development of inefficient tax structures skewed in favor of the wealthy. Unequal income distribution increases political instability, which threatens property rights, increases the risk of state repudiated contracts, and discourages capital accumulation.[28] A widening rich-poor gap tends to increase the rate of rent-seeking and predatory market behaviors that hinder economic growth.[29]

According to one theory, growth is suppressed in economically unequal societies, after a phase of increased growth, by the decreasing availability of investments for human capital. Physical capital becomes increasingly scarce, as fewer individuals have funds to invest in training and education.[30] As a result, demands for human capital are difficult or impossible to meet, and economic growth stalls.[31] As an additional consequence, market demands increase for risky unsecured loans, which increase lenders’ risk exposure to the borrower’s default. More risks in the markets increase market volatility and the possibility of cascading defaults such as the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis.[32]

#### Bomb#20

##### Contributor
Nothing that I have said has been anti capitalist.

You said "After all, it’s workers who generate the wealth of a company, not the bosses.". That's anticapitalist. In capitalism the workers and the bosses and the owners and the customers and the suppliers all cooperate and all jointly generate the wealth of a company. The whole process would grind to a halt if any of those parties were left out of the wealth-generation recipe.

#### DBT

##### Contributor
Nothing that I have said has been anti capitalist.

You said "After all, it’s workers who generate the wealth of a company, not the bosses.". That's anticapitalist. In capitalism the workers and the bosses and the owners and the customers and the suppliers all cooperate and all jointly generate the wealth of a company. The whole process would grind to a halt if any of those parties were left out of the wealth-generation recipe.

Help generate. It's a partnership. Both parties are necessary, management and labour. Organizers and workers.

A partnership where one side holds greater power, unless of course management need skills that are in short supply.

The point, as explained, is that the average individual worker has virtually no negotiating power, which puts them at a disadvantage, open to exploitation, low pay, etc.

Collective bargaining is a means of restoring a bit of balance and securing a better deal for 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

#### steve_bank

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
I am not missing anything. One of many, I was witness and party to the intense competition in technology starting in the 80s.

Intel vs Motorola in the processor competition was legendary in certain communities. A main competitive point was speed driven by competion for market. At my firdt company we were always on the ge of our set waitng for the next speed upgrade. It made us more competive. Going from 8Mhz to 10Mhz in the day was a big deal.

The competion is not just business to business, it is also peer to be, part f the culture.

How free markey competition works.

IBM had a major market share in computers. The Apple II began to see business applications. IBM saw it as a threat and tasked somebody to come up with a PC. Evnetually IBM published the technical specs for the AT bus fostering a market for plug in boards. There was cometion in that market with winners and loosers.

Apple made a marketing blunder, they did not have an open architecture as did IBM. The IBM open architre opened a flood gate of application. Peole no longer needed to build a custom coputer for a system, you just built an interface plugin to the AT bus.

The founder of DELL got the idea of making motherboards and the IBM clone market was born.

Free markt competions infor PCs drove don cost, added functionality, and reduced size. It spured the development of digital displays.

At my first company we built modems for use in our system. Circa 1980 all analog. As demand grew for data communication semiconductor manufactures reduced it to a low cost chip. A chip tjat mat the original Bell 300 1200 bud modem standard.

So yes I was steepd in the free market and competion.

It is interestng to not both Apple and HP stated in garages. The oirginal HP, now Agilent, was started by two engneers making electromic instruments in a garage.

There is also rsk reward. The first transistors were not vey good and there was no market. Fzitvhild took a gamble and invested in a small group to develop a mass producible trasistor. A big gamble in the day. The group became what was Fairchild Semiconductor.

As was common in new technology, the government and the military underwrote the initial development. The group was given a govt contract for transistors, commercial companies could not afford them. Despite conservative ranting government played a big role in developing markets. The conservative idea of 'free markets' is a myth.

Government contracts for air mail helped get Boring and others going.

I an well aware of government regulation. I am also aware of what the work environment could be like before OSHA. Electronic is a very dirty manufacturing business. Back in the day a very small phosgene gas leak over time caused cancers at a fab faculty. It is used in making semiconductors and is a nerve agent.

Government regulations limiting hazardous electromagnet radiation for productsdoes increase cost.

Of course republicans want to go back to the day wen you could dump chemical waste down the toilet or into sewers or a river. I spent time in the Idaho Silver Valley and saw the effects of unresticted miming pre regulations. The top soil of Kellog had its top soil scraped because of arsenic contamination from a smelter.

Before car exaust regulations on a clear day in LA visibility might be a few miles.

Those pesky government regulations, yes indeed.

In te 70s if yu wanted to conect a modem to a Bell telephobe network yu had to use Bell equipment. Not well know federal legilation in the 70s siad any thrid paryy euipnt can be connecd to any telco network as long as it met govt safety standards to protect the netwroks. That opened up in the day vast completion to build data equipment.

Part of the role of govt is to prevent market domination that reduces competition. Microsoft is a monster that should be broken up.

Back in the day IBM used EBCIDIC instead of ASCII for its terminals. When a company began producing cheaper options for IBM customers IBM cut the price of their terminals below cost to manufacture to put competitors out of business. Microsoft has always been predatory and bought out competition to destroy it.

Last edited:

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
I'm not saying anything about fair, I'm talking about what actually happens. Quit trying to rebut it with talk of fairness.

In theory, trades unions can push wages above the equilibrium wage rate. This rise in real wages can lead to less employment. However, the impact of unions on employment rates is not certain.

1. As seen above – it depends on the employer. If a firm has monopsony power, then the monopsony can restrict labour and lower wages. In this case, a trade union can provide a counter-balance to the monopsony power of an employer. Even if labour markets are competitive – demand may be quite inelastic, meaning higher wages would not cause much decline in employment.
2. Efficiency wage theory. This states higher wages can lead to increased productivity.
3. Productivity deals. A trade union may be able to bargain for higher wages in return for improving working practices and implementing higher productivity
You're still going on and on about the benefits of labor unions, only this last part even tries to address my point and it fails miserably. If unions do not push wages above the equilibrium point they did nothing the worker wouldn't have gotten anyway, they're just a cost. If they do push wages above the equilibrium point they cause unemployment. A lack of adequate real-world measurements doesn't change this basic truth.

It doesn't fail miserably. It doesn't fail at all. It shows that collective bargaining can and does benefit workers, and it can do so without increasing unemployment. Problems arise when either party has too much power. It's a matter of balance.

If excessive power lies in the hands of management, workers are exploited and underpaid, hence the need for government intervention with labour laws, minimum pay and conditions.

If union holds excessive power, that can make it hard for business, who respond by laying off some of their workers

A fine balance needs to be maintained.
It shows no such thing. If wages are pushed up that means people are pushed out of the labor force. Unions do not create pie, they merely redistribute it. The marketplace sets the minimum profit margin, you can't take from the owner's share in the long run. Thus you have to be taking from other workers.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
This easygoing indifference to ethics is based in turn on a hyper-capitalist, utilitarian assumption that the "invisible hand" of free market exchange will inevitably produce (literally) the greatest good for the greatest number (Dobson, 1999; Verschoor, 2002). By mere compliance with the market mechanism, self-interest becomes virtue.
It isn't indifference to ethics; it's just that trying to explain ethics to anticapitalists is exhausting and usually futile. They are trapped in a zero-sum-game mentality that got hard-wired into our brains from a million years of living as hunter-gatherers, and ten thousand years of farming hasn't been long enough to wrap their minds around the new reality that zero-sum-game thinking has become hopelessly, unethically, obsolete.
This. Leftist economics is always about redistributing the pie. What they refuse to see is that without government-enforced power the only road to becoming super-rich is to grow the pie. Most of the names on the Forbes 25 are people who make pie.

If pie can't be made the leftists are right--but our species is doomed.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
It isn't that all things must be left to the free market but a recognition that a competitive market provides goods and services to meet the demands of the population cheaper, more effectively, more reliably, greater choice, and with higher quality than a centrally planned economy.
And understand that any time you mess with the market forces you are lowering the average standard of living. Only do so if you're sure that what you're doing is worth it. If you pretend there's no cost you are almost certainly supporting a bad idea.

Staff member

#### The Disadvantages of Economic Inequality​

Inequality Stifles Growth

A degree of inequality can act as a positive influence on economic growth in the short term.[24] However, some economists find empirical evidence of a negative correlation of about 0.5-0.8 percentage points between long-term growth rates and sustained economic inequality.[25]
"Some economists"--in other words, a minority opinion.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
A partnership where one side holds greater power, unless of course management need skills that are in short supply.
It should be obvious that the market considers those skills to be in short supply. If the market were wrong at this why hasn't someone figured out how to exploit the situation?

#### DBT

##### Contributor
A partnership where one side holds greater power, unless of course management need skills that are in short supply.
It should be obvious that the market considers those skills to be in short supply. If the market were wrong at this why hasn't someone figured out how to exploit the situation?

The market doesn't 'consider' anything. The employer discovers that they cannot get people with the required skills, they then raise their rate in the hope that a higher rate of pay will attract applicants. Other companies may join in and there is competition on who offers the best deal.

That is a power imbalance in favour of employees with the right skills. They may even get more than the market value of their input.

More commonly, the power lies with the employer, who can draw from a base of job seekers without consideration of offering anything but minimum rate.

If not for protection in law or equalizing the power balance through collective bargaining, the minimum tends become slave wges, working long hours, two or more jobs just to make ends meet. Peanuts for workers while the company enjoys higher profits.

Human nature 101.

How anyone can try to defend economic disparity on such a scale is astonishing.

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
A partnership where one side holds greater power, unless of course management need skills that are in short supply.
It should be obvious that the market considers those skills to be in short supply. If the market were wrong at this why hasn't someone figured out how to exploit the situation?
Because the ‘market’ for managers is comprised entirely of managers.

That they might mistakenly overvalue managers is hardly surprising.

If welders were in sole charge of deciding how much welders should be paid - if they were the only people who ever decided whether or when to hire or fire more welders, and were the only people who decided what pay and benefits to offer those welders, we would be wondering why welders are so overpaid - and you would be wondering how that could be possible, given that the market should find a way to exploit this situation.

Managers are uniquely able to rig the system in favour of managers. Who’s going to stop them?

#### Swammerdami

Staff member
This easygoing indifference to ethics is based in turn on a hyper-capitalist, utilitarian assumption that the "invisible hand" of free market exchange will inevitably produce (literally) the greatest good for the greatest number (Dobson, 1999; Verschoor, 2002). By mere compliance with the market mechanism, self-interest becomes virtue.
It isn't indifference to ethics; it's just that trying to explain ethics to anticapitalists is exhausting and usually futile. They are trapped in a zero-sum-game mentality that got hard-wired into our brains from a million years of living as hunter-gatherers, and ten thousand years of farming hasn't been long enough to wrap their minds around the new reality that zero-sum-game thinking has become hopelessly, unethically, obsolete.
Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, America's Founding Fathers, and the French revolutionaries — these were all throw-backs to the Early Stone Age who couldn't wrap their minds around the idea that it was unethical to object to inherited wealth.

#### steve_bank

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
It can be difficult to grasp the economy as a whole Like the blind men and the elephant. One grabs a leg and thinks it is a tree. Another frbs the trunk and thinks it is a snake.

Part of it is s as wages go go up creating more demand for goods and services more jobs are created. To support that the population has to grow, which is why immigraion has always ben important. When wages go up faster than inflation the economy is growing.

.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
A partnership where one side holds greater power, unless of course management need skills that are in short supply.
It should be obvious that the market considers those skills to be in short supply. If the market were wrong at this why hasn't someone figured out how to exploit the situation?

The market doesn't 'consider' anything. The employer discovers that they cannot get people with the required skills, they then raise their rate in the hope that a higher rate of pay will attract applicants. Other companies may join in and there is competition on who offers the best deal.

A non-answer. Obviously, management skills are in short supply.

And while you are technically correct in saying the "market" doesn't consider that's only because it isn't a discrete entity but rather the combined decisions of a large number of actors. Actors that find themselves making inefficient decisions lose their place. Actors that find ways of improving upon the status quo often make large sums. Thus it is a process that strongly favors making good decisions.

That is a power imbalance in favour of employees with the right skills. They may even get more than the market value of their input.

More commonly, the power lies with the employer, who can draw from a base of job seekers without consideration of offering anything but minimum rate.

If not for protection in law or equalizing the power balance through collective bargaining, the minimum tends become slave wges, working long hours, two or more jobs just to make ends meet. Peanuts for workers while the company enjoys higher profits.

Human nature 101.

How anyone can try to defend economic disparity on such a scale is astonishing.
You keep pleading morality in an economic argument. That says you know your economic position doesn't work.

#### steve_bank

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
In ENgineerg most that were good at it never wANted to beNAnagers, As A result we often got bad mangers.

#### Bomb#20

##### Contributor
This easygoing indifference to ethics is based in turn on a hyper-capitalist, utilitarian assumption that the "invisible hand" of free market exchange will inevitably produce (literally) the greatest good for the greatest number (Dobson, 1999; Verschoor, 2002). By mere compliance with the market mechanism, self-interest becomes virtue.
It isn't indifference to ethics; it's just that trying to explain ethics to anticapitalists is exhausting and usually futile. They are trapped in a zero-sum-game mentality that got hard-wired into our brains from a million years of living as hunter-gatherers, and ten thousand years of farming hasn't been long enough to wrap their minds around the new reality that zero-sum-game thinking has become hopelessly, unethically, obsolete.
Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, America's Founding Fathers, and the French revolutionaries — these were all throw-backs to the Early Stone Age who couldn't wrap their minds around the idea that it was unethical to object to inherited wealth.
Well, in the first place, DBT wasn't talking specifically about inherited wealth, but about inequality, profit and self-interest in general. And in the second place, what's your point? If you're offering an argument from authority, you might want to reconsider whether the founder of a noncombatant-murdering guerilla organization, a passel of slave-owners and the instigators of the Reign of Terror really qualify as any sort of moral authorities. Yes, most of those people appear to have been throwbacks to the paleolithic era.

#### steve_bank

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Ghandi's symbol was the spinning wheel. He promoted local entrepreneurship and 'cottage industry' as a means to financial independence and dependence on the Brits.

Gandhi and Mandela were faced with extreme wealth disparity and racism. Gandhi was contending with a strict cast system.

We are supposed to be a meritocracy but that does not apply to offspring following wealth. Trump was a millionaire before he was 18. He squandeedr it.

The questiona bout inheritance is more about social stability than ethics or fairness. I do not see it is an ethical issue, more as a social issue. Should eich kids of the wealthy get to go to Harvard without any financial burden while a poor kid graduates in debt?

#### Bomb#20

##### Contributor
Ghandi's symbol was the spinning wheel. He promoted local entrepreneurship and 'cottage industry' as a means to financial independence and dependence on the Brits.
Funny story about that. From Wikipedia...

The basic spinning of yarn involves taking a clump of fibres and teasing a bit of them out, then twisting it into a basic string shape.[3] You continue pulling and twisting to make it longer and longer, and to control the thickness. Thousands of years ago, people began doing this onto a stick, called a spindle, which was a very lengthy process. The actual wheel part of a spinning wheel doesn't take place of the spindle, instead it automates the twisting process, allowing you to "twist" the thread without having to constantly do so manually ...

The spinning wheel increased the productivity of thread making by a factor of greater than 10. ...

Gandhi said, “Machinery in the past has made us dependent on England, and the only way we can rid ourselves of the dependence is to boycott all goods made by machinery. This is why we have made it the patriotic duty of every Indian to spin his own cotton and weave his own cloth. ...​

Threads spun on a spinning wheel are goods made by machinery. Gandhi had some nutty economic ideas. But at least he wasn't nutty enough to take his own argument seriously and spin cotton with just a stick.

#### DBT

##### Contributor
A partnership where one side holds greater power, unless of course management need skills that are in short supply.
It should be obvious that the market considers those skills to be in short supply. If the market were wrong at this why hasn't someone figured out how to exploit the situation?

The market doesn't 'consider' anything. The employer discovers that they cannot get people with the required skills, they then raise their rate in the hope that a higher rate of pay will attract applicants. Other companies may join in and there is competition on who offers the best deal.

A non-answer. Obviously, management skills are in short supply.

And while you are technically correct in saying the "market" doesn't consider that's only because it isn't a discrete entity but rather the combined decisions of a large number of actors. Actors that find themselves making inefficient decisions lose their place. Actors that find ways of improving upon the status quo often make large sums. Thus it is a process that strongly favors making good decisions.

You are not willing consider the answer objectively. No matter how valid the argument for the negatives of power imbalance and excessive wealth concentration, you dismiss whatever is said because it doesn't suit your defend the profits of the super rich narrative.

That is a power imbalance in favour of employees with the right skills. They may even get more than the market value of their input.

More commonly, the power lies with the employer, who can draw from a base of job seekers without consideration of offering anything but minimum rate.

If not for protection in law or equalizing the power balance through collective bargaining, the minimum tends become slave wges, working long hours, two or more jobs just to make ends meet. Peanuts for workers while the company enjoys higher profits.

Human nature 101.

How anyone can try to defend economic disparity on such a scale is astonishing.
You keep pleading morality in an economic argument. That says you know your economic position doesn't work.

I don't plead anything. I just point out the economic and ethical issues associated with excessive wealth and power in the hands of a small percentage of the worlds population, and of course in the workplace. Which has been described and supported time and again...only to be casually dismissed or ignored.

#### steve_bank

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
I read a biography of Gandhi. He had a few quirks. However he was an educated lawyer of the day passing the bar in England. His actions were based in political calculation.

Over time ideas and views evolve. Our modern political ideologues have become fossilized. Our media will go back decades to point out and criticize a politician for changing views.

One thing the Brits did as a conial power was buy raw or minmaly processed materials from colonies, do the manufacturng back home craeting jobs and waelth, and mandating colonies buy finished goods form the Brits.

#### steve_bank

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
A partnership where one side holds greater power, unless of course management need skills that are in short supply.
It should be obvious that the market considers those skills to be in short supply. If the market were wrong at this why hasn't someone figured out how to exploit the situation?

The market doesn't 'consider' anything. The employer discovers that they cannot get people with the required skills, they then raise their rate in the hope that a higher rate of pay will attract applicants. Other companies may join in and there is competition on who offers the best deal.

A non-answer. Obviously, management skills are in short supply.

And while you are technically correct in saying the "market" doesn't consider that's only because it isn't a discrete entity but rather the combined decisions of a large number of actors. Actors that find themselves making inefficient decisions lose their place. Actors that find ways of improving upon the status quo often make large sums. Thus it is a process that strongly favors making good decisions.

You are not willing consider the answer objectively. No matter how valid the argument for the negatives of power imbalance and excessive wealth concentration, you dismiss whatever is said because it doesn't suit your defend the profits of the super rich narrative.

That is a power imbalance in favour of employees with the right skills. They may even get more than the market value of their input.

More commonly, the power lies with the employer, who can draw from a base of job seekers without consideration of offering anything but minimum rate.

If not for protection in law or equalizing the power balance through collective bargaining, the minimum tends become slave wges, working long hours, two or more jobs just to make ends meet. Peanuts for workers while the company enjoys higher profits.

Human nature 101.

How anyone can try to defend economic disparity on such a scale is astonishing.
You keep pleading morality in an economic argument. That says you know your economic position doesn't work.

I don't plead anything. I just point out the economic and ethical issues associated with excessive wealth and power in the hands of a small percentage of the worlds population, and of course in the workplace. Which has been described and supported time and again...only to be casually dismissed or ignored.
Weaslth disparity is a serius functional issue that thetens how the economy works.

owver do yiu really want 'power to the people'? That tends to mpb rule like Traumpsters.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
owver do yiu really want 'power to the people'? That tends to mpb rule like Traumpsters.
I can't recall the story but a line sticks with me:

Power to the people means one person, one vote, once.

(Look at what historically happens--power to the people movements that "succeed" elect a government that no longer allows meaningful democracy.)

#### steve_bank

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
A line from Gil Scott Heron, 'The revolution will not be televised'. 'The revolution will put you imn the driver seat'.

Power to the people was an expression of anger against racism and was adopted by young radical whites. It is a myth of a just styem run by 'the peole' without unjust politics and business.

Orewl[ls Animal Farm comes to mind. After the amimals kick out the farmer the animals that took power are worse than the farmer.

The founders did not want one person one vote deciding federal law. It would lead to chaos, direct democracy.

#### DBT

##### Contributor
A partnership where one side holds greater power, unless of course management need skills that are in short supply.
It should be obvious that the market considers those skills to be in short supply. If the market were wrong at this why hasn't someone figured out how to exploit the situation?

The market doesn't 'consider' anything. The employer discovers that they cannot get people with the required skills, they then raise their rate in the hope that a higher rate of pay will attract applicants. Other companies may join in and there is competition on who offers the best deal.

A non-answer. Obviously, management skills are in short supply.

And while you are technically correct in saying the "market" doesn't consider that's only because it isn't a discrete entity but rather the combined decisions of a large number of actors. Actors that find themselves making inefficient decisions lose their place. Actors that find ways of improving upon the status quo often make large sums. Thus it is a process that strongly favors making good decisions.

You are not willing consider the answer objectively. No matter how valid the argument for the negatives of power imbalance and excessive wealth concentration, you dismiss whatever is said because it doesn't suit your defend the profits of the super rich narrative.

That is a power imbalance in favour of employees with the right skills. They may even get more than the market value of their input.

More commonly, the power lies with the employer, who can draw from a base of job seekers without consideration of offering anything but minimum rate.

If not for protection in law or equalizing the power balance through collective bargaining, the minimum tends become slave wges, working long hours, two or more jobs just to make ends meet. Peanuts for workers while the company enjoys higher profits.

Human nature 101.

How anyone can try to defend economic disparity on such a scale is astonishing.
You keep pleading morality in an economic argument. That says you know your economic position doesn't work.

I don't plead anything. I just point out the economic and ethical issues associated with excessive wealth and power in the hands of a small percentage of the worlds population, and of course in the workplace. Which has been described and supported time and again...only to be casually dismissed or ignored.
Weaslth disparity is a serius functional issue that thetens how the economy works.

owver do yiu really want 'power to the people'? That tends to mpb rule like Traumpsters.

A better balance to enable negotiation instead of declaration, that's all. Excessive power on either side is not a good thing when it comes to negotation or bargaining.

#### steve_bank

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
That is supposed to be our system dybanics. Individuals and groups aggressively pursuing an adverserial agenda. The problme is it requires the ability to compromise, which we seem to have lost.

The qusetion is can our system with growing divisions and agendas actually function and survive in the long run. China argues it will not and their form of authoritarianism will.

The more we have divisions without compromise the more opportunity exists for a Trump.

#### DBT

##### Contributor
The world looks like an unstable powder keg. Not good.

#### Harry Bosch

##### Contributor
The world looks like an unstable powder keg. Not good.

We can uselessly argue all day about the definition socialism. But I hope that we can all agree at least that capitalism is a system where the economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. By this definition, Russia and China are clearly not capitalistic. Russia and China have capitalist companies within their country. But they are at the beck and control of the Russian and Chinese government. It's interesting that two of the most anti-capitalistic countries in the world are so militaristic and imperialistic. Russia is at war in Europe. China is threatening to invade Taiwan and any country that gets in its way.

#### Swammerdami

Staff member
The world looks like an unstable powder keg. Not good.

We can uselessly argue all day about the definition socialism. But I hope that we can all agree at least that capitalism is a system where the economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. By this definition, Russia and China are clearly not capitalistic. Russia and China have capitalist companies within their country. But they are at the beck and control of the Russian and Chinese government. It's interesting that two of the most anti-capitalistic countries in the world are so militaristic and imperialistic. Russia is at war in Europe. China is threatening to invade Taiwan and any country that gets in its way.

This is mostly correct but incomplete. Both China and Russia encourage private entrepreneurship as long as the entrepreneur adheres to the dicta of the Communist Party (in the case of China) or to the Putin crime cartel (in the case of Russia).

Viewed this way, oligarchy is the threat, not socialism.

#### DBT

##### Contributor
The world looks like an unstable powder keg. Not good.

We can uselessly argue all day about the definition socialism. But I hope that we can all agree at least that capitalism is a system where the economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. By this definition, Russia and China are clearly not capitalistic. Russia and China have capitalist companies within their country. But they are at the beck and control of the Russian and Chinese government. It's interesting that two of the most anti-capitalistic countries in the world are so militaristic and imperialistic. Russia is at war in Europe. China is threatening to invade Taiwan and any country that gets in its way.

Labels are not necessarily accurate. Does a ruling Oligarchy represent Socialism, where governence is supposed to be by the people for the benefit of the people? Is that what we see in China or Russia?

#### JohnG

##### Senior Member
One point I didn't see reading through these posts - Large corporations don't operate in a void, they rely heavily on the amenities that are paid for by local taxes - Schools, hospitals, roads, utilities, police, etc...

The large company I work for (Mitsubishi) pays a low corporate tax, they are foreign owned, the employ as little of the local workforce as possible minus 1, mostly automated now.

Without the local infrastructure, resources and educated workers they would not be able to exist here.

It's a mostly "take and very little give" relationship.

They do about 50 B in profit per year.

I am certainly not against capitalism but lets not pretend that the pendulum hasn't swung hard.