Kansas Crimson

Good responses!

I guess I don’t view innovation and productivity as exclusive to capitalism, or that capitalism is necessary to innovate and produce.

I don’t think giving workers a bigger slice of the pie would be detrimental to innovation or productivity either. Mjl seems to also suggest hard work smart scheming is exclusive to capitalism too, and again I dunno if that’s entirely the case.

In a sense, yes, people DO have to do business with polluters. Our infrastructure is so dependent on oil that it’s difficult to get away from it. And I’m not sure it’s as simple as expecting the free market to correct itself, considering big oil seems to spend more effort doubling down on big oil and inhibiting innovation and productivity toward sustainable energy.

And yes, there’s little question of whether gummint should have some role. (If you think I’m a far lefty, you should check out those anarchist cats!)

But you suggest gummint’s role is to be a safety net for people, when they’re at least as likely to be bailing out too-big-to-fail bidnesses. And by your logic, I suppose gummint should cut that out right? Letting banks and automakers and such tank would be better incentives to innovate and produce, I guess?

Yeah the standard of living has gone way up under capitalism, but it also seems the standard of living is best when there are reasonable gummint-imposed standards, cuz capitalism otherwise left unchecked tends to just funnel all the wealth to the top.

I mean if it was up to unchecked capitalism, many of us would still be working 80 hour weeks for a nickel an hour. No sick leave, no PTO, no weekends, just keep working. And if a machine st work rips your arm off, tough luck, that’s your problem, just rub some dirt on it and get back to work.

Yes, I realize The Jungle was lkke 100 years ago. And while my capitalist cowboy owner boss can get under my skin sometimes, I don’t personally feel too terribly exploited - especially cuz I was recently able to make a power play for a much better position and pay. But I also am able to look around and see plenty of other fellow Mericans are quite exploited. Some of the biggest companies with the richest owners are also among the worst employers.

Merica tends to also operate under the assumption every other country is corrupt but us, when every other country seems to view us as the most corrupt country of all.

Capitalism works great - in theory. Just like socialism! But either requires some good faith checks and balances along the way to really work well. But the thing about the system as it stands today is, yea it’s only as strong as its weakest link. When you can have moneyed interests basically buying up the legislation they’d like, those aren’t effective checks and balances.

Qusdahls back!

If my kids start working and think that they deserve to be paid more money simply because someone else has more money....I will have failed. There's more to life.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 2:08 pm

That sounds bad, obviously.

But I wonder how much of that profit is interest based on investment of previous profits. How much of those profits are then being re-invested back into the company? How much goes to paying off earlier debts, or to compensate for years where there was a loss? And how much is being paid out in dividends?

I mean, it could be really bad, but they don't provide ALL the information. As is the nature of clickable tweets.

Yea. Of course that’s the nature of clickable tweets.

Those tweets even kind of show their work, but I still dunno what quite to think of that macro trends link.

And yeah, good questions. I too would be curious to know exactly where that profit ends up.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:30 pm Yea. Of course that’s the nature of clickable tweets.

Those tweets even kind of show their work, but I still dunno what quite to think of that macro trends link.

And yeah, good questions. I too would be curious to know exactly where that profit ends up.

I agree with the sentiment, that a profitable company should share those profits with the people who helped the company earn those profits, which is to say the employees should get raises/bonuses/promotions/overtime/etc. when things are good. And of course that doesn't happen often enough.

I just think there is probably a lot of cherry picking in those tweets.

Yeah.

I agree with agreeing with the sentiments, and also don’t disagree that there may be a lot of cherry picking in those tweets

But I also think it’s mutually exclusive in a sense to allege there’s cherry picking while also simply saying raises and bonuses should happen.

If there IS a lot of cherry picking, then why are the workers on strike then? Just for the lulz?

Rather than allege cherry picking, I think we need to do our homework on just where exactly those profits went.

A cursory search suggests around $2.5 billion paid out to shareholders at 17% dividends of late.

And, you know who DID get a raise? The executives!

The CEO alone apparently makes 160% more since the start of the pandemic, putting his salary somewhere around $14-16 mil a year, which is hundreds of times more than the workers take home, not to mention he’s a shareholder too.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 5:18 pm Yeah.

I agree with agreeing with the sentiments, and also don’t disagree that there may be a lot of cherry picking in those tweets

But I also think it’s mutually exclusive in a sense to allege there’s cherry picking while also simply saying raises and bonuses should happen.

If there IS a lot of cherry picking, then why are the workers on strike then? Just for the lulz?

Rather than allege cherry picking, I think we need to do our homework on just where exactly those profits went.

A cursory search suggests around $2.5 billion paid out to shareholders at 17% dividends of late.

And, you know who DID get a raise? The executives!

The CEO alone apparently makes 160% more since the start of the pandemic, putting his salary somewhere around $14-16 mil a year, which is hundreds of times more than the workers take home, not to mention he’s a shareholder too.

posting tweets is not doing homework though, it's just fanning a flame.

I would think that in a well run business, any employee who's been there longer than say a year and had a very good review should get at least as much of a raise percentage-wise as the executives. That seems fair. When I run a multi-billion dollar corporation, I promise that's how I'll do it.

But businesses divvy up raises how they want. Employees can strike, or ask for a raise, or quit, or form a union, they're not completely helpless.

As a consumer, I prefer to do business with companies who treat their employees well (when I'm made aware). Costco over Sam's for example. If all this is true, next time I buy a lawn mower I'll probably do some research and specifically not buy a Jon Deere. You don't have to just complain, you can be proactive.

The other thing is, I'd love it if apple gave everyone a $100/hour raise, but that wouldn't do anything for most people. It wouldn't raise my salary or yours, for sure. So, while I'd think that is cool if they did it, I'm not losing any sleep over apple employee salaries, maybe that makes me selfish, but it's true.

Yeah that seems fair, but come on, we’re talking capitalism here. Milking labor value for the benefit of the owner is the name of the game.

Businesses do divvy up raises how they want, and overwhelmingly, it’s divided only among the top.

Much of the time, the only way to get a raise is to quit. Easier said than done, especially if workers are already living paycheck to paycheck. And yeah employees can form unions, but how’s that going for, say, Amazon workers?

Yes proactive consumers is good tho that sort of depends on having reasonable consumer power and market choices to begin with. And what better way to afford more consumer power than putting more money in the pockets of consumers?

And sure, maybe it’s selfish of you. Heck, maybe it’s not your business what others earn. I suppose if there’s some argument in the macro for economic equality, it’s that it could have all sorts of greater good sorta positive effects

but ok, let’s keep it in selfish terms: maybe paying workers better will result in fewer orders being screwed up at the donut shop.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 5:56 pm Yeah that seems fair, but come on, we’re talking capitalism here. Milking labor value for the benefit of the owner is the name of the game.

We just fundamentally disagree here.

I'd say when capitalism operates the way you're describing it (and I fully admit sometimes it does), it's a failure and not at all how it should work.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 5:56 pm Yeah that seems fair, but come on, we’re talking capitalism here. Milking labor value for the benefit of the owner is the name of the game.

You'd prefer the government milking them? Without hope for a way to move up?

Or are you talking about some kind of happy anarchy where everyone provides for each other and there's unicorns and fairies?

Unicorns and fairies!

But what do you mean by the government milking them? Milking who? Is that the only role government can be expected to play? Is your view that government is only a parasite? Who is loosing hope for a way to move up?

Do you mean to suggest that the only model that could possibly ever work, is the one that lets the rich decide to make themselves richer, with little regard for anything or anyone else?

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 6:02 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 5:56 pm Yeah that seems fair, but come on, we’re talking capitalism here. Milking labor value for the benefit of the owner is the name of the game.

We just fundamentally disagree here.

I'd say when capitalism operates the way you're describing it (and I fully admit sometimes it does), it's a failure and not at all how it should work.

I’m not sure we’re disagreeing.

You fully admit sometimes capitalism operates in a way I’m describing, and even providing numbers to corroborate as much.

so it’s not a matter of disagreeing so much as it is of just how big that “sometimes” is.

And of getting you to acknowledge all the evidence that “sometimes” might happen more often than we care to admit, without dismissing the evidence as “cherry picking” while providing no evidence otherwise.

Let’s be empirical about this.

And I should just say - I view this in many ways as commentary not simply on economics, but on human nature.

We’re greedy MFers. Even phd admits he’s selfish!

We want to accumulate not just wealth, but power too.

And, while I admit I don’t have all the answers (sorry), I just think we’d be better off addressing that much with, I dunno, maybe more effective public policy? Cuz I don’t have a ton of faith that the “free market” is gonna do it.

this is a fresh steaming pile of doo doo.....I'm going to resist the urge to step in it....

Your boy Dan Price exists under capitalism and I think he's taken this to the opposite extreme.

The vast majority of businesses ARE existing in that happy medium. Most small businesses CAN'T give everyone a massive raise.

Employees and consumers aren't as helpless as you pretend.

You're also coflating two very different definitions of selfishness to try to force a point.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 7:48 am And I should just say - I view this in many ways as commentary not simply on economics, but on human nature.

We’re greedy MFers. Even phd admits he’s selfish!

We want to accumulate not just wealth, but power too.

And, while I admit I don’t have all the answers (sorry), I just think we’d be better off addressing that much with, I dunno, maybe more effective public policy? Cuz I don’t have a ton of faith that the “free market” is gonna do it.

The fact that Apple could be paying an employee making $200,000 a salary of $350,000 isn't very high on my list of global atrocities that I'd like to see corrected.

And have you ever known of a big business to just rest on its laurels? I'm fairly confident that these behemeths will try to expand, or diversify their business. They might make a new product or new department and that might create 2,000 more jobs. They might need some of that money to cover for future potential failures. It would be worse if Apple shut down as a companie if it tried to launch another Macintosh TV.

Now, there are specific things I have a pretty big problem with. I hate it that Wal-Mart keeps a huge portion of it's employees working 38 hours a week so they don't have to pay them benefits AND WORSE, shows them how to apply for food stamps and other forms of welfare as a way to essentially subsidise employee income with tax dollars.

So if you have a solution to the latter, and one that can be universally applied that doesn't hurt other businesses I'll listen to it. But, for the most part, free markets do good things. Sure some people exploit it, but I want to keep regulation to a minimum to allow for growth.

You seem to ignore the good aspects of capitalism to only focus on the negative.