Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Capitalism and the myth of deserved reward

debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 4:13:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
One of the main arguments for capitalism is "Capitalism ensures that you receive what you've worked for". In no way is this true. The exploitation of workers indicates the exact opposite of what the capitalists' argument asserts.

If you make a car in an automobile factory, for instance, the car is whisked away from you and you are given an hourly wage, assuming the factory is privately-owned as it would be in capitalism. Because this is the equation for profit-

"Profit must be greater than capital spent on production"

The factory owner, who pays you hourly wages, cannot spend more on you or non-human factors of production, as such would negate profit. Thus, as YOUR earnings are not the priority of the factory owner, and HIS are (the profit motive is what keeps businesses in business) part of the commodity you produce is taken from you and liquidated by the factory owner to create money for the use of the factory owner.

-YOU receive LESS than what you produce
-The FACTORY OWNER receives MORE than he produces (as he does not produce anything)

And since capitalism is characterized by wages, capitalism produces exactly the opposite of deserved reward for both worker and owner. In other words, that is less for the worker and more for the owner. As opposed to socialism, in which the workers sell their product rather than their labor, and ACTUALLY receive what they work for!
You can call me Mark if you like.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 9:26:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 4:13:24 PM, debate_power wrote:
Doesn't this whole premise depend upon the factory worker NOT working?
Further, what if the capitalist pays himself a wage, and desires no profit (or, at least, does not take the profit for himself)?
Why would the above negate capitalism?

I think most people equate capitalism with greed, as greed tends to influence business, but, greed factors into all economic systems.
My work here is, finally, done.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 12:16:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 9:26:18 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/11/2014 4:13:24 PM, debate_power wrote:
Doesn't this whole premise depend upon the factory worker NOT working?
Further, what if the capitalist pays himself a wage, and desires no profit (or, at least, does not take the profit for himself)?
Why would the above negate capitalism?

I think most people equate capitalism with greed, as greed tends to influence business, but, greed factors into all economic systems.

In a debate I had on this site, my opponent made such an argument. Here is the definition of capitalism:

"An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state."

Profit is an integral part of capitalism. The whole point of starting a business (as a factory owner might) is to make profit from selling a good or service.

The capitalist paying himself a wage and desiring no profit defeats the point of owning the means of production in the first place. If the capitalist were to desire no profit, that would mean that capital spent on production would equal capital gained from selling. That would defeat the entire purpose of capitalism, which is to make profit for private (as opposed to public) owners. If the capitalist were to pay himself a wage AND desire no profit, he would not be exploiting anyone, and not employing anyone. Wages would serve no practical purpose in this scenario.

If the capitalist were to not receive any profit, how would he get the money needed to survive, or just more money in general? Assuming the capitalist requires more money, he'd be forced to work just like the rest of his workers. Since he would not be selling the workers' products for profit, the workers would not receive wages (because of the disappearance of the profit motive and thus the need for exploitation), and because there is no point in losing money gained from doing work, the "wages" of the "capitalist" and those of each worker would add up to the total worth of the products produced by each worker, which, in all, is equivalent to:

A. The socialist system of labor

OR

B. A worker's collective (as opposed to a company)

All humans are greedy, of course.
You can call me Mark if you like.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 12:20:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 12:16:43 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/13/2014 9:26:18 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/11/2014 4:13:24 PM, debate_power wrote:
Doesn't this whole premise depend upon the factory worker NOT working?
Further, what if the capitalist pays himself a wage, and desires no profit (or, at least, does not take the profit for himself)?
Why would the above negate capitalism?

I think most people equate capitalism with greed, as greed tends to influence business, but, greed factors into all economic systems.

In a debate I had on this site, my opponent made such an argument. Here is the definition of capitalism:

"An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state."

Profit is an integral part of capitalism. The whole point of starting a business (as a factory owner might) is to make profit from selling a good or service.

The capitalist paying himself a wage and desiring no profit defeats the point of owning the means of production in the first place. If the capitalist were to desire no profit, that would mean that capital spent on production would equal capital gained from selling. That would defeat the entire purpose of capitalism, which is to make profit for private (as opposed to public) owners. If the capitalist were to pay himself a wage AND desire no profit, he would not be exploiting anyone, and not employing anyone. Wages would serve no practical purpose in this scenario.

If the capitalist were to not receive any profit, how would he get the money needed to survive, or just more money in general? Assuming the capitalist requires more money, he'd be forced to work just like the rest of his workers. Since he would not be selling the workers' products for profit, the workers would not receive wages (because of the disappearance of the profit motive and thus the need for exploitation), and because there is no point in losing money gained from doing work, the "wages" of the "capitalist" and those of each worker would add up to the total worth of the products produced by each worker, which, in all, is equivalent to:

A. The socialist system of labor

OR

B. A worker's collective (as opposed to a company)

All humans are greedy, of course.

The capitalist working for wages ("working") would either:

A. Cause him to attain the status of a worker if he were not obtaining income from any other source
B. Cause him to gain money from wages along with the money gained from selling for profit (He would remain a capitalist in this case)
You can call me Mark if you like.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 8:16:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 12:16:43 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/13/2014 9:26:18 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/11/2014 4:13:24 PM, debate_power wrote:
Doesn't this whole premise depend upon the factory worker NOT working?
Further, what if the capitalist pays himself a wage, and desires no profit (or, at least, does not take the profit for himself)?
Why would the above negate capitalism?

I think most people equate capitalism with greed, as greed tends to influence business, but, greed factors into all economic systems.

In a debate I had on this site, my opponent made such an argument. Here is the definition of capitalism:

"An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state."

Profit is an integral part of capitalism. The whole point of starting a business (as a factory owner might) is to make profit from selling a good or service.


The capitalist paying himself a wage and desiring no profit defeats the point of owning the means of production in the first place. If the capitalist were to desire no profit, that would mean that capital spent on production would equal capital gained from selling. That would defeat the entire purpose of capitalism, which is to make profit for private (as opposed to public) owners. If the capitalist were to pay himself a wage AND desire no profit, he would not be exploiting anyone, and not employing anyone. Wages would serve no practical purpose in this scenario.


If the capitalist were to not receive any profit, how would he get the money needed to survive, or just more money in general? Assuming the capitalist requires more money, he'd be forced to work just like the rest of his workers. Since he would not be selling the workers' products for profit, the workers would not receive wages (because of the disappearance of the profit motive and thus the need for exploitation), and because there is no point in losing money gained from doing work, the "wages" of the "capitalist" and those of each worker would add up to the total worth of the products produced by each worker, which, in all, is equivalent to:

A. The socialist system of labor

OR

B. A worker's collective (as opposed to a company)

All humans are greedy, of course.

Okay. Now, define profit.
Why is a worker's wage not a profit? If the company was losing money, that wage would not be paid.
Does it matter if, instead of a wage, the owner just takes the profits, which he strives to be only a workers wage?

So, is capitalism only a means of production? Services do not count?
If we expand to include any business, and realize that, in America, some 21 million companies (about 5/7 of all businesses) have no employees. That is the capitalist working for himself, which your criticisms exclude.

Yes, this model of exploitation does not really apply to factories, since that is an awful lot of capital required to have a business, just to have a job. However, that does not mean everyone cannot be owners of a business in a capitalist society; it is just much easier to have one owner (or stock/bond holders).
And, obviously, people want returns on their efforts and want more money.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 8:53:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 4:13:24 PM, debate_power wrote:

Regarding your criticism that workers make less than they produce (i.e. merit), how does marxism or communism allieviate this?

Aren't I making less than I produce, if the state is giving me less rations than my neighbor who has two kids?
My work here is, finally, done.
Josh_debate
Posts: 170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 8:31:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 4:13:24 PM, debate_power wrote:
One of the main arguments for capitalism is "Capitalism ensures that you receive what you've worked for". In no way is this true. The exploitation of workers indicates the exact opposite of what the capitalists' argument asserts.

If you make a car in an automobile factory, for instance, the car is whisked away from you and you are given an hourly wage, assuming the factory is privately-owned as it would be in capitalism. Because this is the equation for profit-

"Profit must be greater than capital spent on production"

The factory owner, who pays you hourly wages, cannot spend more on you or non-human factors of production, as such would negate profit. Thus, as YOUR earnings are not the priority of the factory owner, and HIS are (the profit motive is what keeps businesses in business) part of the commodity you produce is taken from you and liquidated by the factory owner to create money for the use of the factory owner.

-YOU receive LESS than what you produce
-The FACTORY OWNER receives MORE than he produces (as he does not produce anything)

And since capitalism is characterized by wages, capitalism produces exactly the opposite of deserved reward for both worker and owner. In other words, that is less for the worker and more for the owner. As opposed to socialism, in which the workers sell their product rather than their labor, and ACTUALLY receive what they work for!

First off not just one person makes a car, they are made on an assembly line with a whole factory of people all given different jobs in building a car., therefor you only get a wage split among others. If you where to make entire car by yourself and get it licensed to be street legal, then no one takes it away from you. If you sell that car, that you built yourself and its a successful design then you can get more money that what you spent to make it.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 3:48:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Okay. Now, define profit.

The gain of more capital than was spent on creation of a good or service.

Why is a worker's wage not a profit? If the company was losing money, that wage would not be paid.

The worker's wage is not a profit because the product he has given away to his employer to sell, through agreement, is worth more than the worker's wages. Likewise with services.

Does it matter if, instead of a wage, the owner just takes the profits, which he strives to be only a workers wage?

Can you clarify?

So, is capitalism only a means of production? Services do not count?

Addressed above

If we expand to include any business, and realize that, in America, some 21 million companies (about 5/7 of all businesses) have no employees. That is the capitalist working for himself, which your criticisms exclude.

Can you provide a source? Also, the capitalists you mentioned are still making profit, or ought to be, thanks to the definition of capitalism. Profit results from selling a product for more than it is worth. This is still an act of greed at the expense of others- the consumers. This is still an act of exploitation of people based on ownership of the means of production.

Yes, this model of exploitation does not really apply to factories, since that is an awful lot of capital required to have a business, just to have a job. However, that does not mean everyone cannot be owners of a business in a capitalist society; it is just much easier to have one owner (or stock/bond holders).
And, obviously, people want returns on their efforts and want more money.

More than is worth the value of the products of their labor, apparently.
You can call me Mark if you like.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 3:53:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 8:53:35 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/11/2014 4:13:24 PM, debate_power wrote:

Regarding your criticism that workers make less than they produce (i.e. merit), how does marxism or communism allieviate this?

Aren't I making less than I produce, if the state is giving me less rations than my neighbor who has two kids?

1. Communism would alleviate this by ensuring that you have to work for yourself. Thus, you exploit nobody and nobody exploits you in communism.

2. What rations?
You can call me Mark if you like.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 3:56:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 8:31:41 PM, Josh_debate wrote:
At 12/11/2014 4:13:24 PM, debate_power wrote:
One of the main arguments for capitalism is "Capitalism ensures that you receive what you've worked for". In no way is this true. The exploitation of workers indicates the exact opposite of what the capitalists' argument asserts.

If you make a car in an automobile factory, for instance, the car is whisked away from you and you are given an hourly wage, assuming the factory is privately-owned as it would be in capitalism. Because this is the equation for profit-

"Profit must be greater than capital spent on production"

The factory owner, who pays you hourly wages, cannot spend more on you or non-human factors of production, as such would negate profit. Thus, as YOUR earnings are not the priority of the factory owner, and HIS are (the profit motive is what keeps businesses in business) part of the commodity you produce is taken from you and liquidated by the factory owner to create money for the use of the factory owner.

-YOU receive LESS than what you produce
-The FACTORY OWNER receives MORE than he produces (as he does not produce anything)

And since capitalism is characterized by wages, capitalism produces exactly the opposite of deserved reward for both worker and owner. In other words, that is less for the worker and more for the owner. As opposed to socialism, in which the workers sell their product rather than their labor, and ACTUALLY receive what they work for!

First off not just one person makes a car, they are made on an assembly line with a whole factory of people all given different jobs in building a car., therefor you only get a wage split among others. If you where to make entire car by yourself and get it licensed to be street legal, then no one takes it away from you. If you sell that car, that you built yourself and its a successful design then you can get more money that what you spent to make it.

Perhaps cars these days are made on assembly lines, but if the parts were sold for the amount you, the worker, makes per part, the person exploiting you would receive no money because he'd be paying it in its entirety "back" to you. No profit= no capitalism.
You can call me Mark if you like.
Josh_debate
Posts: 170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 6:55:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 3:56:41 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/15/2014 8:31:41 PM, Josh_debate wrote:
At 12/11/2014 4:13:24 PM, debate_power wrote:
One of the main arguments for capitalism is "Capitalism ensures that you receive what you've worked for". In no way is this true. The exploitation of workers indicates the exact opposite of what the capitalists' argument asserts.

If you make a car in an automobile factory, for instance, the car is whisked away from you and you are given an hourly wage, assuming the factory is privately-owned as it would be in capitalism. Because this is the equation for profit-

"Profit must be greater than capital spent on production"

The factory owner, who pays you hourly wages, cannot spend more on you or non-human factors of production, as such would negate profit. Thus, as YOUR earnings are not the priority of the factory owner, and HIS are (the profit motive is what keeps businesses in business) part of the commodity you produce is taken from you and liquidated by the factory owner to create money for the use of the factory owner.

-YOU receive LESS than what you produce
-The FACTORY OWNER receives MORE than he produces (as he does not produce anything)

And since capitalism is characterized by wages, capitalism produces exactly the opposite of deserved reward for both worker and owner. In other words, that is less for the worker and more for the owner. As opposed to socialism, in which the workers sell their product rather than their labor, and ACTUALLY receive what they work for!

First off not just one person makes a car, they are made on an assembly line with a whole factory of people all given different jobs in building a car., therefor you only get a wage split among others. If you where to make entire car by yourself and get it licensed to be street legal, then no one takes it away from you. If you sell that car, that you built yourself and its a successful design then you can get more money that what you spent to make it.

Perhaps cars these days are made on assembly lines, but if the parts were sold for the amount you, the worker, makes per part, the person exploiting you would receive no money because he'd be paying it in its entirety "back" to you. No profit= no capitalism.

Same thing with car parts. Most car parts are built on an assembly line, or are built and molded by machinery that are maned by workers, but those workers do not own the machinery they are using to make those parts. They are owned by the business. The materials used to make the parts are also owned and bought by the business, therefore some of the money must go to the business. If you where to make car parts with material you bought yourself and build it with either your bear hands or your own machinery, then you would get the full profit.
pj43176
Posts: 306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 12:37:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
pj43176

There's nothing wrong with owning private property won by hard work and dedication. This includes everyday workers, business owners, and CEOs alike. The goods produced by owners and management, are obviously the results of their own efforts to build a business, and/or improve the desirability of a company's product, while also offering them at affordable prices. But there is a problem when those who produce our products become motivated and dependent only on the desire to make more and more money--just for the sake of making it!

Reagan's trickle down theory might produce significant results in a world without outsourcing, which often requires employees in other countries to work for slave wages and allows business owners to produce products cheaply--while owners prey on the fact that workers desperately need jobs, and that their business may offer the only jobs to be had. So what we have in the world today, is a flood of cheaper products which attract buyers in more affluent countries, and the mass exploitation of third world workers, who are not protected by unions, and are powerless to refuse harsh working conditions, because if they complain, 20 other workers will be there to take their places---without the power to collectively bargain with management, they are lost! A similar environment also existed in America when the industrial revolution (so advantageous for the creation of job), failed to provide employers who respected common place protections for their workers---such as the right to a safe work environment, or decent living wages.

When Unions first took hold, business owners frequently hired thugs who physically attacked workers who went on strike, and who even killed some of those who insisted on the need to obtain bargaining power in unity with other workers.

The way I see it, the real problems between those who pay the wages, and those who earn them, is that Capitalists originally had no reasons to treat workers like fellow human beings!---if they paid someone ten cents an hour, or even ten cents a month, all the while their senses of entitlement, assured them that they were being extremely generous just by providing jobs--no matter how meager the pay, or how harsh the working conditions---all the while under the impression that they had uniquely earned their wealth, while holding those who are poor, completely responsible for their own fates!

It's truly ironic that wealthy business owners continually rail against lower class dependence on government aid, while they, apparently feel entitled to receive THEIR wealth!---Yet, far from admitting that workers also do them a favor when providing them with their labor---they instead believe that their own ambitions and aptitudes make them superior, and thus, entitles them to look down on others who they only see as slackers, refusing to work. So who really feels entitled here?

Those of us who come from the middle class usually understand the experience of working very hard, and have also had parents who worked hard in order to give us a better life. But in those days, workers had real rights and protections, that improved their lots. Now---with their self-righteous ethic extolling the survival and virtues the wealthy, all of these hard won benefits are being systematically dismantled by a long ago conceived conservative strategy, to emphasis the entitlement of the rich---not just to become wealthy---but to become as damn wealthy as they please, while following the least rules!

I often wonder if a clever turds like Karl Rove ever have to be away from home for three months at a time, while shoveling coal in a furnace for many hours each day, and while enduring oppressive heat---as my father and so many of my neighbors did, in order to responsibly take care of their families? Sure learning to analyze the market, and developing ways to profit from wall street, while devising clever new ways invest in derivatives, takes skill and sharp instincts. But I'll bet none of the CEOS and executives working for Enron and Goldman Sachs, would last even one week, if forced to do what my father had to do, when sailing on the ore boats of the Great Lakes.

Most working men are well acquainted with hard work, and sometimes even with back breaking labor. But its not Jealousy towards the wealthy that motives me---rather its the ignorant attitudes displayed by those who feel entitled to falsely stereotype people like my father, who completely understood the necessity to do very hard work! So Again, who are the ones who really feel entitled?

I would not go so far as to vilify the natural desire to acquire material comforts or even the drive to make lots of money, but I will complain about those who are driven to become billionaires while deliberately ignoring simple rules of fairness, and refuse to respect the everyday employees who obviously do the lions share of their work!

In the days of my youth, layaway programs of six month or more, were common options offered by nearly every major department store or outlet---businesses also welcomed those WITHOUT large incomes. The things we bought were very often made in America, and by American workers, and they usually were better built, and have much better warranties. Yes they were more expensive without the influence of lay away plans which make them affordable to most of us. It was also common practice for businesses to offer free delivery and set up for any product that was even moderately expensive---and one did not have to endure the lengthy hassles of finding a relative or someone with a truck, who could do that dirty work for them--rather than having to pay $50 for the delivery of an item to one's home--- even though it be less than two miles away! Banks were also much easier to obtain loans from, and no one was forced to pay expensive fees while simultaneously being nickeld and dimed by credit cards providers, just for the privilege of being able to pay for everyday expenses.

So in the mad world of outsourcing jobs, paying desperate workers only slave wages, and providing cheaper and cheaper products, while offering much shorter warranties--- making it more economical to throw old products rather than buying new ones, who are really the most deserving?

Personally I don't care if any man makes a Trillion dollars in profit and also provides excellent products and services,---while playing by simple rules and while treating their workers fairly! But we are totally forgetting the way decent companies often went the extra mile to establish a loyal list of customers, and actually elicited better employee performances just by respecting their employees.

It would be great if all of the wealthy played by simple rules and actually respected the workers which they could not survive without. But in today's world of outsourcing, with the almighty credit card, and the all consuming bottom line, few people can possibly live at the top of the food chain without stepping on the toes of others, and without literally stealing from those who are living on the lower rungs, every step of the way!

It's understandable why Obama's "You didn't build that," gaff, offended so many businessmen. But what he was trying to point out was that, in any large society with a large economy, every single one of us is dependent on a large number of others merely to survive! Without roads and buildings, trains and boats, as well as bright and capable workers, (as well as those who might not be so bright), who fund capital ventures, and provide jobs for those who (literally) build their various enterprises---none of us could obtain dignity or even a decent and comfortable standard of living.

So why should any wealthy person feel more independent or entitled than the janitor who scrubs their toilets?---think about it!
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 1:51:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 4:13:24 PM, debate_power wrote:
One of the main arguments for capitalism is "Capitalism ensures that you receive what you've worked for". In no way is this true. The exploitation of workers indicates the exact opposite of what the capitalists' argument asserts.

If you make a car in an automobile factory, for instance, the car is whisked away from you and you are given an hourly wage, assuming the factory is privately-owned as it would be in capitalism. Because this is the equation for profit-

"Profit must be greater than capital spent on production"

The factory owner, who pays you hourly wages, cannot spend more on you or non-human factors of production, as such would negate profit. Thus, as YOUR earnings are not the priority of the factory owner, and HIS are (the profit motive is what keeps businesses in business) part of the commodity you produce is taken from you and liquidated by the factory owner to create money for the use of the factory owner.

-YOU receive LESS than what you produce
-The FACTORY OWNER receives MORE than he produces (as he does not produce anything)

And since capitalism is characterized by wages, capitalism produces exactly the opposite of deserved reward for both worker and owner. In other words, that is less for the worker and more for the owner. As opposed to socialism, in which the workers sell their product rather than their labor, and ACTUALLY receive what they work for!

Free markets give a person the ability to exchange their labor or capital at voluntary agreed on amount, which benefits both parties. If a person can use their capital or labor more efficiently they are free to reallocate as they see fit.

A worker can not be exploited voluntarily.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
miketheman1200
Posts: 49
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 1:35:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Oh my god someone still believes in the exploitation of labor theory after the 19th century? Hahaha. Do you also believe in objective value? Hahahah
jimtimmy4
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 2:32:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/5/2015 1:35:16 AM, miketheman1200 wrote:
Oh my god someone still believes in the exploitation of labor theory after the 19th century? Hahaha. Do you also believe in objective value? Hahahah

I have to agree with you. The labor theory of value is long discredited.
pj43176
Posts: 306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 12:21:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/5/2015 2:32:18 AM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/5/2015 1:35:16 AM, miketheman1200 wrote:
Oh my god someone still believes in the exploitation of labor theory after the 19th century? Hahaha. Do you also believe in objective value? Hahahah

I have to agree with you. The labor theory of value is long discredited.

pj43176,
Without power shared by workers and employers, workers will always be exploited, not just as they egregiously are now in third world countries, but wherever major employers offer the few jobs readily available. But, being able to have a job is not the only criteria to judge by. When business owners must constantly battle with a competitive bottom line, not only do the wages they offer need to be extremely low, but the prices of the goods or services they supply, must also be kept as low as possible.

The fact is that, not everyone has the background and qualifications to be hired in a good job offering good wages, and decent employee benefits---not because employees don't try, or are lazy, but because the price and availability of an adequate education, is not always there. So what do you call an employer who disses employees, in order to cut his overhead, or a world where owners can freely hire employees for jobs that have few good wages or benefits? It might be free enterprise, but it's not always fair enterprise!

We in America are lucky and usually feel only the first nip of the ringer, since social programs keep many of us afloat. But in any of the third world companies where workers are forced to work for peanuts---or else go hungry, the definition of the business model, can only be described as one of "free reigning exploitation." Migrant farm workers in America, may now have some minimal legal rights, but these are easily ignored and/or circumvented by wealthy employers with extensive financial and legal resources---employers who are basically, free to employ virtual slaves who must unconditionally agree to all of their terms! To deny all of this, one must buy into the Ayan Rand Myth, that we are all captains of our own souls, and are completely and personally responsible for all our successes or failures. But what may work for some, hardly ever works for the vast majority of us who may desperately need to put food on the table--not just fast food crap--- but nourishing foods that feed real children with real nutritional needs!
scalawag
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 11:37:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 4:13:24 PM, debate_power wrote:
One of the main arguments for capitalism is "Capitalism ensures that you receive what you've worked for". In no way is this true.

Presumably a myth is something that's commonly heard, but I never heard that one before, ever. Seems like a straw-man argument, i.e. a superficial argument that is easily refuted and is raised merely for that purpose (easy refutation).

Someone else mentioned greed. But "greed" implies that producers can simply set prices at whatever they wish, which is ludicrous. If they could do that, prices would be much higher than they are.

The term "capitalism" is a misnomer. A more appropriate name for it would be "consumerism" because it's the consumers who call the shots with their spending. The capitalists have to produce what the consumers want, if they want to remain capitalists.
pj43176
Posts: 306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 4:43:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 11:37:23 AM, scalawag wrote:
At 12/11/2014 4:13:24 PM, debate_power wrote:
One of the main arguments for capitalism is "Capitalism ensures that you receive what you've worked for". In no way is this true.

Presumably a myth is something that's commonly heard, but I never heard that one before, ever. Seems like a straw-man argument, i.e. a superficial argument that is easily refuted and is raised merely for that purpose (easy refutation).

Someone else mentioned greed. But "greed" implies that producers can simply set prices at whatever they wish, which is ludicrous. If they could do that, prices would be much higher than they are.

The term "capitalism" is a misnomer. A more appropriate name for it would be "consumerism" because it's the consumers who call the shots with their spending. The capitalists have to produce what the consumers want, if they want to remain capitalists.

pj43176,
Do you believe that business owners only respond to market forces, when deciding what wage to pay employees, and are thus never using outright greed and exploitation in order to make more and more money?

Since I provided several examples of outright exploitative practices used by business owners i.e.. the availability of what is basically slave labor, as well as the example of how numerous American migrant workers are mistreated and exploited by their greedy employers, I don't understand how you can call my statement only a straw man argument?

When business owners feel they can use every trick in the book to benefit from cheap labor, and can get around the law protecting their worker's rights with one slick legal maneuver after another, yet give the impression to the American public that they are vital job creators who treat their workers well, how can this type of chicanery, (falsely embellished with supposed concerns for employees by owners), not be considered a cultural myth? This myth, usually spread by capitalists, serves the impression that somehow businesses and corporate entities exists only for the good of everyone involved in a free market, (or in a minimally regulated market), and is definitely used to influence the laws made on Capitol Hill. Furthermore it's being implemented with the use of a beehive of lobbyists in every nook and cranny of Washington DC! So using examples of how profit motives, and ill treatment of employee are regularly used by businesses, is directly relevant to the topic, ("Capitalism and the myth of the deserved reward."). Therefore it's not a straw man argument.

The trouble is that, those with power and money are currently gaming the system, in order to avoid even minimal regulations that might hinder the way they do business. And in fact, they make frequent use of high paid lobbyists to effectively neuter any bill passed, that might upset the status quo on Wall Street and/or increase their profits, (at any costs to consumers).

I suppose not all executives and CEOs are rotten to the core, but the fact that those in positions of wealth and power, have the ability to basically re-rewrite the laws, and usually are able to avoid being held responsible for their crimes, means that they are also adept at manipulating public opinion by simply buying politicians who then speak on behalf of their own greed. So if financial gains are commonly available to businesses and corporations who have great influence over the election of politicians and the laws they make, then how can it NOT be a myth, when the narrative is spread, that any pesky regulations will interfere with the ability of those at the top to make money and create jobs is spread as economic gospel? The fact is, that they are able to achieve success all too often, based on dishonest and underhanded attempts to buy and sell politicians. Therefore the common term for what they are doing is called "cheating," which enables them to virtually steal from consumers by painting a rosy picture of investment schemes that they are completely aware, are really very risky. So the question I'm asking is, "Do these corporate criminals truly (deserve) their ill-gotten gains?" Do those who regularly cheat and steal deserve the rewards they receive under a capitalist system? Do the large farms in California which produce valuable foods picked by employees working under harsh conditions, which routinely result in overworking migrant workers---sometimes forcing the elderly to work 12 hour days under a hot sun, and then having their bosses refuse to offer to pay for ambulances once their workers are forced to seek emergency medical help---really indicate that such bosses are deserving of their lucrative rewards?

The point I am making is not that capitalism at its best is never useful to society by creating jobs and producing useful products, that make life better. Rather, I am talking about the way owners and CEOs themselves, often exploit their employees and investors, for their own selfish gains, and ,are easily able to do so using the power and wealth at their disposal.

One of my sisters used to hang a cartoon poster on her bathroom wall which said, "Remember the golden rule---he who has the gold makes the rules!" Unfortunately that's the way it has been in too many cases of corporate greed, and the subsequent circumnavigation of laws that those with power and money can accomplish. The fact is that, for a great many businessmen, greed, deception, and cheating, are integral ways that they do business, and, when discussing whether all of these underhanded dealings means that their ill-gotten rewards, (made possible by cheating and wielding power), are really deserved rewards, or ways to unethically enhance their own benefits, then I'd say the subject is definitely not being used as a straw man argument but rather, is used to directly question whether Capitalism really involves completely (deserved) rewards. Greed and deception do not deserve to be rewarded---especially when used to serve greed and/or capitalism. And, its obvious to me, that, the existence of completely unregulated markets will only make these abuses all the more hazardous!

There are absolutely no straw man arguments here, because everything I have said, involves the idea of whether capitalists truly deserve their rewards, and obviously, the notion (usually circulated by capitalists themselves)---that doing it (their) way is the only way to facilitate a robust economy, has become a myth spouted by almost every conservative commenter who writes to the opinion pages of any local newspapers, or on any forum like this. This falsehood and self-serving strategy is the myth I am commenting about, and, is one commonly believed---plain and simple!
scalawag
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 10:51:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 4:43:41 PM, pj43176 wrote:

Do you believe that business owners only respond to market forces, when deciding what wage to pay employees, and are thus never using outright greed and exploitation in order to make more and more money?

Since I provided several examples of outright exploitative practices used by business owners

You provided no examples, only imaginary scenarios. In Economics, an example would cite something that really happened, including the name of the company and how its employees were somehow kept from leaving to work someplace better, like prisoners. (Preposterous. But in a centrally-planned economy like the old Soviet Union or North Korea, that is exactly what happens.)

"Exploitation" is a wholly undefined and emotional word. Just as primitive peoples attributed lightning and storms to the intentional action of some invisible spirit rather than atmospheric conditions, people who are ignorant of Economics blame workers' plights on "greed" or "exploitation."

The only thing that has ever been proven to relieve poverty is the creation of wealth. But economic know-nothings claiming to be "for the little guy" show remarkably little interest in what policies and actions are likely to generate wealth.

The post is childish. I suggest that you read a book on basic Economics, such as "Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell. (The fifth edition is now out! I can send you my fourth edition (2011) for free.)
scalawag
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 11:14:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 4:43:41 PM, pj43176 wrote:

"Profit must be greater than capital spent on production"

And no. Profit is what remains --IF ANYTHING AT ALL REMAINS-- after the workers are paid, the factory and equipment are paid for, etc. Starting an enterprise is risky business. If any revenues are left after the bills are paid, that trickles (and I mean trickles) UP to those who took the risks with their own hard-earned money.

(There's no such thing as "trickle-down economics," and there never has been. That was some b.s. concocted by Samuel Rosenman, one of FDR's speech writers.)

Businesses are not the simple cash-cows that you're making them out to be. One-third of all new businesses fail to survive for two years, and more than half fail to survive for four years.* So obviously many businesses lose money --and not just new businesses; many long-established businesses are forced (by red ink) to close when conditions change and they don't adjust.

*Source: "Basic Economics," 5th edition, page 89.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 7:47:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 11:37:23 AM, scalawag wrote:
At 12/11/2014 4:13:24 PM, debate_power wrote:
One of the main arguments for capitalism is "Capitalism ensures that you receive what you've worked for". In no way is this true.

Someone else mentioned greed. But "greed" implies that producers can simply set prices at whatever they wish, which is ludicrous. If they could do that, prices would be much higher than they are.
By the postulate of constrained maximisation, I believe 'greed' applies to all the producers (and consumers).

Not all producers can set prices at wherever they wish, but that doesn't mean they are greedy. A price taker, who faces a horizontal demand curve, can still make a better profit by shifting their MC curve downwards, and that is, IMO, exactly what they have in mind when they exploit workers. (Usually, exploitation means they have poor or even dangerous working conditions, long working hours, wages that barely feed them, no right to form trade unions, etc.)

Economics-wise, I don't think capitalists are evil (I wouldn't have said that if this were in the society forum...) but that capitalism (which is characterised by decentralised decision making through market mechanisms and private ownership of property) does fail to ensure that workers with high replaceability and low bargaining power to lead a decent life. No, the capitalists don't decide the wages for themselves... so? If the wage is not enough to let the worker lead a decent life, there's something wrong with this system.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
pj43176
Posts: 306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 5:37:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
scalawag,

2/08/2015

About the myth of capitalism and earned income;

I did not provide specific examples because I was responding to the general theme of your post. If you need some here is a link:

http://www.theguardian.com...

It might also do you good to check out this link to the United Farm workers website:

http://www.ufw.org...

Here is also a link to a business website with an interesting pro and con, about capitalistic exploitations of workers in "sweat shops." The first comment made after it, is so interesting that I will also included a paste of that comment:

http://www.businessweek.com...

A paste:

Trina Tocco
June 5, 2007 07:50 AM
"I have just returned from a trip to Bangladesh and would like to respectfully disagree with the BW.com staff perspective. I met with a few factory managers who all agreed it was the companies that have pressured them to change, and it will continue to be the large buyers like Walmart that must enforce standards that Americans expect their products to be made under. It is the American companies that order the products and put so much time and energy into quality control. It is the American companies that approve the samples the factories produce. It is the American companies that monitor the factories. It is the American companies that determine the price they pay the factory in return for the products. It seems to me that the American companies have clearly made a commitment to their suppliers, and it is imperative that they continue to push for the enforcement of their standards regardless of whether the local governments can adequately enforce their laws. Ultimately, U.S. companies must be held to the same standards no matter where they do business, because that is what customers expect. It is the American companies (and U.S. consumers) that have created the incentives for sweatshops to exist, because of our desire for cheap products available whenever we want them. American companies can do more and should. After all, it seems that even factory managers would agree it is the American companies that have the power to make significant changes throughout their supply chains."

What is interesting about the BusinessWeek comments is that even the CON, writer admits that there are clear abuses in workers rights, all over the world, including many that involve American companies, such as Walmart. However, his defense seems to be one of passing the buck for abuses onto local manufacturers, who he feels are really responsible for skirting the laws--not American companies. He states---"Clearly, the local governments tasked with enforcing labor regulations have fallen down on the job; otherwise, abuses wouldn't happen." However, the writer of the first reader comment cites personal observations that contradicts BusinessWeek and provide specific examples, which indicate that the responsibility really belongs to American companies, and American consumers, who have, "created the incentives for workshops to exist." And also that, only American companies can truly affect positive changes.

Your demand for personal examples, seems to indicate that you are willing to deny the numerous and clear examples about worker exploitation by American companies, here and abroad. If I were to do an extensive search for the names of specific companies, that would require an effort from me that is not proportional to your own lack of examples exonerating specific American companies by name. Your own comments are likewise made only in a general sense even though you also are capable of providing the names of actual companies which may have been falsely implicated in regards to abusive practices.

The truth is that many large American corporations which benefit from outsourcing, (including electronics and clothing providers), take advantage of local laws, which they are perfectly capable of challenging in order to serve higher standards that could better safeguard their employees, and, even the writer of the (con) opinion, includes specific examples of abuses, that were perpetrated by Walmart. In addition, even many of the companies he claims are "making a noble effort with minimum-wage and overtime agreements," often just providing lip-service as proof of their compliance, and actual unannounced onsite inspections frequently reveal that they are not really trying to live up to any higher standards.

The writer of the (pro) argument provides general examples of cell-phone companies, and those which grow fruit in Mexico, and also those who process Indian cotton in our shirts. He also lists some solid ways that companies could do better if they actively avoided sweatshop models as ways to produce their products. I am also sure that if you peruse the article in the Guardian, or the lists of abuses on the United Farm Worker's website, you will find many specific examples and first hand accounts of abuse at the hands of US companies. However, I wouldn't be surprised if, for legal reasons, the specific names of these companies are sometimes withheld pending legal actions. However, in no way does that negate the fact that abuses exist, and are not just "imaginary scenarios."

Like those who deny climate change, you can insist that all of this is really an absurd plot spearheaded by jealous farm workers who subject themselves to long hours, and grueling work conditions, just to instigate some preposterous effort to control the farm industry of the future by lying about the ways they are treated today. But the fact is that abuses not only exist, but are way too prevalent in our system. The only (imaginary scenarios), are those which are those offered by people like you, who seek to deny the many facts about real abuses.

Even though many large companies claim to be working to eliminate abuses at outsourced work sites, when they are subjected to unannounced on-site examinations by human rights groups, the reality is often very different. And, if those companies are allowed to monitor their own compliance with workers rights, that's usually just one more case of the fox guarding the hen house.

You also don't seem to get your implication that, just because workers may be free to leave any job and look for another, that this would guarantee their right to adequate pay and workplace safeguards--it doesn't! In third world countries cheap labor is one of the most common reasons companies decide to outsource production, because people who desperately need money may have little education and no real freedom to turn down any form of work they can get---based on the slim hope that they can find better wages and benefits elsewhere.

As far as your allegations that the word (exploitation) is a "wholly undefined and emotional word," that could also be said of terms like "redistribution of wealth," or "right to work," and also to, "deserved reward." But regardless of what you may personally feel about such terms , it is truly an ad hominem argument to criticize a legitimate point of concern, based only on the fact that you personally don't like the language used to describe that concern---simply because when you do that, you also providing an inherent criticism about the legitimacy of the person who uses such terms to oppose your views!

And no, I am not interested in reading any books advocating for biased views of economics, or which try to candy coat the reality of businesses' own role in creating or preventing worker exploitation.
scalawag
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 4:27:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/8/2015 5:37:26 AM, pj43176 wrote:

And no, I am not interested in reading any books advocating for biased views of economics, or which try to candy coat the reality of businesses' own role in creating or preventing worker exploitation.

PJ, how do you know that that's what the book is if you haven't seen it? Prejudice = "pre-judgement." Have you considered that there could be a few "nuggets" in there? If it's what you say, it could only strengthen your argument to see what it says.

(Your ability to read and write alone is something to give thanks for regarding your standard of living, ergo the economic system that you grew up in. I worked in an adult literacy program with a learner who was plucked from a Mexican classroom as a young child so that she could work in the fields.)

Your posts are rife with economic mythology. But misconceptions of business are common in a society in which most people have never studied nor run businesses.

It might surprise you to know that not all corporations are businesses. (The first one in America was the Harvard Corporation for governing America's first college.) Fewer than 1% of American businesses are corporations.

Regarding the BW link, some rich-world critics screech about pay and working conditions provided by multi-national companies in Third World countries, childishly comparing them to those of rich-world jobs. But what matters is how those jobs compare with those workers' alternatives!

Overpay in poor countries means that the employers can hire fewer workers.

Jobs start drying up when working conditions or minimum wage rates are prescribed in disregard of productivity. Multi-national companies typically pay about double the local wage in Third World countries anyway.

If working conditions improve through competition (as opposed to government mandate), there are more options for workers!

(NOTE: I will be busy this week and might not find time to reply. Everyone have a good week.)
pj43176
Posts: 306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 5:35:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 11:14:21 AM, scalawag wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:43:41 PM, pj43176 wrote:

"Profit must be greater than capital spent on production"

And no. Profit is what remains --IF ANYTHING AT ALL REMAINS-- after the workers are paid, the factory and equipment are paid for, etc. Starting an enterprise is risky business. If any revenues are left after the bills are paid, that trickles (and I mean trickles) UP to those who took the risks with their own hard-earned money.

(There's no such thing as "trickle-down economics," and there never has been. That was some b.s. concocted by Samuel Rosenman, one of FDR's speech writers.)

Businesses are not the simple cash-cows that you're making them out to be. One-third of all new businesses fail to survive for two years, and more than half fail to survive for four years.* So obviously many businesses lose money --and not just new businesses; many long-established businesses are forced (by red ink) to close when conditions change and they don't adjust.

*Source: "Basic Economics," 5th edition, page 89.

pj43176,

I agree that there is effectively no such thing as trickle down economics but mentioned that without the abundance of current outsourcing, It might have had marginal success---since that is the only economic atmosphere which conceivably (might) respond to it.

I don't remember calling businesses "cash cows," however, companies like Exxon Mobil have had quarterly profits in the billions, so I might have used such terminology in regards to them.

Of course I am aware that any company has expenses that do not allow them keep such large sums, after taking care of other costs. My criticism is pertaining to unethical business practices and the fact that many companies are basically lying to, and stealing money from, Americans and other investors. One way they do this is by insisting on foregoing regulations that might have the authority to prevent abuses---such as those involving the home mortgage and derivatives market. Many of those who invested other people money in such dangerous schemes, were completely aware that they were likely to fail and disturb the market---but they used them anyway---as long as they could pad their own wallets and then bail out, using their golden parachutes.

I am also aware that most small businesses fail, but the crash of those businesses (too big to fail), was due to plainly unethical practices, that resulted in main street needing to foot the bill to keep them afloat at taxpayer's expense. This all illustrates that large companies and their executives who DO lie and cheat to make profits, DON'T "deserve," the rewards they receive---regardless of their attempts to spread the popular myth that regulations are not needed for economic health, and because they have the power to virtually re-write the rules under which they operate with the help of numerous Lobbyists who can effectively make certain that any new regulations are either removed, or rewritten, to satisfy these businesses' executive's and crooked investor's, own ends.

It's also well known that many employees suffer abuses at the hands of business owners, and because of the power that large farming industries have to threaten any employee who complains with deportation! This allows them to pay their employees as low wages and provide as meager benefits as they can---since anyone who dares complain can quickly be deported!

It is true that many businesses don't go to such extremes, and there are some which actually value the work of their employees. But your contention was that, currently, abuses do not exist at all, or, are someone else's problem--not wealthy business owners at all! And that is simply not true!
pj43176
Posts: 306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 11:39:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/8/2015 4:27:14 PM, scalawag wrote:
At 2/8/2015 5:37:26 AM, pj43176 wrote:

And no, I am not interested in reading any books advocating for biased views of economics, or which try to candy coat the reality of businesses' own role in creating or preventing worker exploitation.

PJ, how do you know that that's what the book is if you haven't seen it? Prejudice = "pre-judgement." Have you considered that there could be a few "nuggets" in there? If it's what you say, it could only strengthen your argument to see what it says.

I know because your statements indicate that both of us fundamentally disagree about the existence of employee abuse and corporate greed, so you are very unlikely to recommend a book to me, that agrees with my opinions and disputes yours.

(Your ability to read and write alone is something to give thanks for regarding your standard of living, ergo the economic system that you grew up in. I worked in an adult literacy program with a learner who was plucked from a Mexican classroom as a young child so that she could work in the fields.)

When did I say I was not grateful for being able to benefit from all the relative luxuries and privileges which most of we Americans have. The fact is that I have always considered myself lucky to grow up in a country like ours, and I have never been unappreciative of all the material wealth those of us who might even live at the poverty level have, in relation to the poverty and disadvantages that plague so many people living in other countries--but that doesn't mean I can't express criticisms of our economic system, and of outsourcing in general. My complaint is about the tendency for those with power and wealth to game the system and who are able to virtually buy and sell Congressmen at will. But if you think that makes me some sort of socialist, communist, or an anti-materialist, you are wrong. What I really believe is that, in the quest for businessmen to create greater profits by outsourcing and being able to produce inexpensive goods, we have lost touch with compassionate business models that once included greater ethical behavior from many capitalists. However, just because we have a wealth of goods, does not mean that those who do the labor that produces them are being treated fairly, or are always having their own dignity satisfied, (in regards to living wages and workplace safeguards)--the way that real living people should. My idea of a workable free enterprise system would be one where economic freedom does not create a disregard ethical behavior, and which provides some basic regulations and rules, that might prevent another market crash like that in 2008. As long as big businesses have no boundaries to regulate how they earn the money they have, they will very likely increase their share of the pie, by exploiting and stealing from others, with no penalties, and with the benefit of undeserved impunity.

Your posts are rife with economic mythology. But misconceptions of business are common in a society in which most people have never studied nor run businesses.

It might surprise you to know that not all corporations are businesses. (The first one in America was the Harvard Corporation for governing America's first college.) Fewer than 1% of American businesses are corporations.

Regarding the BW link,some rich-world critics screech about pay and working conditions provided by multi-national companies in Third World countries, childishly comparing them to those of rich-world jobs. But what matters is how those jobs compare with those workers' alternatives!frp,

That "rich world screech," as you call it, is a chronic example of how capitalists DO exploit people and game the system, and it's proof that your idea that somehow these things do not happen in contemporary capitalist systems, are wrong. I also never gave small businesses or nonprofits harsh criticisms, but you cannot just deny the existence of manipulative practices that satisfy greed on the basis that, (this only happens with rich multinational corporations), which somehow exonerates all contemporary businesses of any abuses.

Overpay in poor countries means that the employers can hire fewer workers.

Jobs start drying up when working conditions or minimum wage rates are prescribed in disregard of productivity. Multi-national companies typically pay about double the local wage in Third World countries anyway.

True, but those making those wages, are often forced to endure strenuous working conditions just like many who are, unfortunately not offered those relatively higher wages. If the labor pool is large and full of people who are desperate for work, I refuse to believe that those who run businesses in the third world, just forget about the fact that they are in positions which allow them to pay much less than than a relatively fair wage would provide. Due to human nature (and you're right that we all possess some greed), large corporations that outsource to countries where they can pay workers less, will not pass up opportunities to lower those amounts further, when they allowed to get away with it. This continually happens and people will always be exploited, as long as workers aren't safeguarded by unions, and if sensible regulations are not in place to diffuse the types of greed which can ultimately devastate even a large and complex economy like ours. I am not denying the benefits of having businesses which supply useful products and services, I am just not in favor of unlimited free enterprise which really does not exist anywhere, and that probably isn't a bad thing---If Junior is not sent to bed early or denied television privileges when he acts badly or selfishly, he will have no incentives to be good and to obey authority. This is true of all of us, its just that large businesses like those described as (too big to fail) can damage much more than just mom and dads nerves--they can damage an entire economic system without having any liability or regulations to contain them---and they can potentially destroy our economy as well as that of the world.

That being said, I will take you as someone who does know something about economics, but there are undoubtedly many learned economists with PhDs that can rationally dispute any one of your ideas and economic theories. And, for someone who claims to be so knowledgeable, I find your attempt to deny corporate abuses of those they employ, and the manipulation of our political system in pursuit of profits, incredibly naive!

If working conditions improve through competition (as opposed to government mandate), there are more options for workers!

True---who said otherwise! But that doesn't absolve Exxon Mobil, or BP of negligence in regards to safety inspections, and such negligence can result in bringing the entire ecosystem our gulf region to its knees--as well as stunting the well being of the many businesses in that area. It also does not prevent any company from lowering wages, when economic conditions are good, rather than attracting higher quality employees by offering better wages. When business is good and companies can offer such wages, that's also economically beneficial, but it doesn't necessarily mean that's what such companies will want to do. Wall street's dominant companies have been sitting on trillions of collective prosperity for years, yet did not dare take a chance on hiring anyone until recently, even at lower wages--and that's because of two unfunded wars and a lack of meaningful regulations that almost allowed greed to destroy our economy!

(NOTE: I will be busy this week and might not find time to reply. Everyone have a good week.)

You too, so far you're being civil enough, even though using some mild and uncalled for insults.
pj43176
Posts: 306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 11:20:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Here are some example of the economic myths you say I so often refer to:

Scalawag,

A paste about abuses done by Walmart even today. Watch the videos too. The link is:

http://mic.com...

"In Bangladesh, Walmart was just another label on the clothing being made by workers who were forced to work under sweatshop conditions in unsafe environments for pennies a day. One of the factories making the cheap Walmart clothing was located in the Rana Plaza Building in Dhaka, Bangladesh, that collapsed on April 24, 2013 killing over 1,100 people " most of them women and girls.
Since the collapse In Dhaka, retailers around the globe have signed a pact agreeing to join forces to inspect and underwrite the cost of bringing the factories used in their supply chains up to code. These companies have"some kind of moral compass and have come together to try to act so that workers are provided a safe environment in which to make the clothes that are sold around the world.
Apparently Walmart"'s moral compass has been misplaced, because they have refused to sign the pact and have said that they will provide their own inspections and will list the results of the inspections on the company website in six months. Oh boy, here we go again, self-regulation. We don"'t have to look far to find the results of other corporate/industry attempts at self-regulation: Wall Street Banks and the melt-down of the United States economy and BP with its disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that dumped more than 200 million gallons of crude oil into the water, killing over 8,000 animals (birds, turtles, mammals), and affected 16,000 miles of United States coastline, come to the forefront rather quickly. Since Walmart"'s supply chains seem to be located in third-world countries, consumers don"'t seem to have been too upset over Walmart"'s inaction on inspecting the factories. Maybe it is because none of Walmart"'s retail stores have collapsed,"killing all the employees."-Americans wouldn't stand for such a thing happening on American soil.
The United States has a different problem with Walmart. They have not only single-handily bullied"their"way into almost every neighborhood in the United States, but have"also left a wake of destruction in its path. Long-time mom & pop businesses shuttered and suppliers unable to compete with the abusive suppliers overseas have closed their doors, leaving no competition for selling its products and few alternatives for employment for local workers."-"Walmart can pretty much do as they please.
The beauty in Walmart"'s tactic(s) is that even if you don"'t shop at any of its stores, you, the American"Taxpayer, subsidize them! Here is how it works " Walmart refuses to pay its employees a"""living wage",""which means enough"for the worker to pay rent, buy groceries, etc.,"thus they need help and that help comes in the form of food and health subsidizes"from the government """paid for by American"Taxpayers! Meanwhile, the heirs and stockholders of Walmart are enjoying"the"all-time high profits and laughing all the way to the bank,"""and I imagine the banks they are running to are located in some foreign tax-"haven."

Tell me again how American companies are not guilty of abusing their workers?
Invariably when large companies injure or kill people it's because they are trying to save money and cut corners by ignoring pesky regulations. The cause is always related to their concerns about profits---either that or they just don't care! This is also the reason many of them underpay employees, even in relation to the economic conditions in the areas their workers may live.

Consider the case of the BP oil spill, which was caused by the companies own failure to properly inspect its drilling operations. This negligence originated from the companies attempt to lower costs and drill according to their own schedule.

Although some companies have now agreed to try and end abuses, all too often that process is largely ignored. The suppliers that produce Walmart's goods may understand the need to improve the safety in their work places, but you can't tell me that a corporation as large as Walmart, with ton's of both money and power could not easily make that endeavor much more easy to accomplish than it is.

Of course it is a fantasy to think that most CEO's and business owners would voluntarily agree to limit their own profits in order to end abuses and improve the working conditions of their employees, but when one considers that someone who say, has an expensive apartment in New York, a large estate In Florida and a mansion in Palm Springs, will not suffer much for agreeing to earn only 4 million a year as opposed to 5 million, its a crying shame that the welfare of extremely poor employees is often so grossly ignored! Large American companies frequently have the lion's share of abuses happen on their watch because of their own negligence or stubbornness. And their self-perceived notion of entitlement, causes them to morally judge and abuse, those who are at the bottom rung of the economic ladder.