"Nobody wants to work anymore."

[Nihilistic_Impact]

Think you might be misunderstanding the way exploitative is being used here. The most basic way it is used in leftist rhetoric is the example of a worker. A worker produces X amount of work for an employer; but the employer only pays the worker X-y. That is the exploitation.

In this case the property is worth X to the owner, but in order to make a profit they need to sell it for more then X, X+y. This is exploiting the consumer. Is this wrong? Not on their own. But if you are required to purchase an item/service or are unable to leave a job due to externalities then it becomes coercive and depending upon the value of y vs X it become more or less bad.

So exploitation is value neutral under capitalism as it's the system working as intended. Leftist just don't like it because they value things more than profit.

 

[Light-Fox]

The last part is where we disagree, though as in any system it is open to exploitation in a capitalistic system. Though not a feature of the system. Buying a house to rent out for more than you paid is like scalping products, and a practice I despise. Might start my own thread about this once I have put my thoughts in order

I am not saying we can't have better items, but for some reason they stop making more basic things, and this is the part that bothers me.

Nah. Capitalism is exploitative as a feature, not a bug, flaw, or corruption of the system. Look at Sync's defense of constant unsustainable growth via companies maintaining constant profit margins. Greed is inherent to capitalistic practices.

 

[Arclight1988]

Constant growth is unnatural and, more importantly, unsustainable. When such unnatural growth occurs in the human body, it's frequently referred to as 'cancer'. It's normal for businesses to hit plateaus. Realistically, companies can do with smaller profit margins. Because most of those profit margins don't go towards the development stuff you mentioned. Especially not with people like Jeff Bezos having the obscene amounts of personal wealth that they do.

We do not entirely disagree here, I am capitalistic by nature, but have an issue of all these cities giving big business tax breaks and such just because they produce jobs as they also displace jobs. As well as in Amazon's case does more damage to streets, and local business.

 

[Sync]

Constant growth is unnatural and, more importantly, unsustainable. When such unnatural growth occurs in the human body, it's frequently referred to as 'cancer'. It's normal for businesses to hit plateaus. Realistically, companies can do with smaller profit margins. Because most of those profit margins don't go towards the development stuff you mentioned. Especially not with people like Jeff Bezos having the obscene amounts of personal wealth that they do.

Yes, you cite people like Jeff Bezos to support you overall claim as if one small group of too-rich people are responsible for all of the issues you've noted. I'm not going to disagree with you that people like Bezos, Zuckerberg, Musk, and many A-list Hollywood actors are all way too rich for anyone's good, and are also very good at NOT practicing what they preach.

However, most of the businesses in an economy are small and medium-sized family companies. These businesses very often cannot afford to absorb climbing costs such as wage increases, and so much pass those cost increases on to the consumer. For a lot of small businesses, an increase in wages can mean that they have to let a staff member go if they don't/can't put up their prices; wage increases can often become a choice like "I increase my price to the consumer and pay the higher wages and therefore risk losing sales, or I pay the higher wages and keep my prices the same, but I have to let someone go; if I do neither, I risk my business failing and then everyone I employ will be out of a job".

 

[Sync]

Nah. Capitalism is exploitative as a feature, not a bug, flaw, or corruption of the system. Look at Sync's defense of constant unsustainable growth via companies maintaining constant profit margins. Greed is inherent to capitalistic practices.

Explain to me exactly HOW I defended "constant unsustainable growth" when I asked whether or not companies have the right to keep their profit margins?

 

[Nihilistic_Impact]

Those tax incentives aren't even good for the community necessarily, just look at the absolute failure of Wisconsin's Foxconn deal.

 

[Nihilistic_Impact]

Yep, all those small to mid size family owned businesses that make up the majority of the economy.

 

[Light-Fox]

We do not entirely disagree here, I am capitalistic by nature, but have an issue of all these cities giving big business tax breaks and such just because they produce jobs as they also displace jobs. As well as in Amazon's case does more damage to streets, and local business.

Do you know what it means to capitalize on something? Take advantage of. The concept of profit, or to make back more than you put in, is hardwired into capitalism. Natural laws function more closely on the concept of equivalent exchange. You get back, what you put in. You can never get from nature more than nature has to offer. Our resources, even made up ones like money, are finite. Constant growth and profit margins, no matter what form of business, is unnatural and unsustainable.

 

[Arclight1988]

Constant growth is unnatural and, more importantly, unsustainable. When such unnatural growth occurs in the human body, it's frequently referred to as 'cancer'. It's normal for businesses to hit plateaus. Realistically, companies can do with smaller profit margins. Because most of those profit margins don't go towards the development stuff you mentioned. Especially not with people like Jeff Bezos having the obscene amounts of personal wealth that they do.

We do not entirely disagree here, I am capitalistic by nature, but have an issue of all these cities giving big business tax breaks and such just because they produce jobs as they also displace jobs. As well as in Amazon's case does more damage to streets, and local business.

View attachment 15222
Yep, all those small to mid size family owned businesses that make up the majority of the economy.

Yes, and for some reason they get all the incentives because they can lobby people by paying off to their campeigns. Yet again this is not a feature of capitalism, but an exploitation due to the capitalistic system.

To be fair the same is true for socialism people for some reason equate the corruption of those systems to the system itself which is not always fair. It might be fair in a debate where someone is touting the success, and overlooking the negative, but not of the system itself.

 

[Nihilistic_Impact]

It's not a bug though, it's a feature. Especially when you remove regulations from it. Crony capitalism is just capitalism with a pr campaign.

Corruption under socialism is the same issue of the concentration of power within fewer people. This is why I favor an increase in democracy and a decentralization of powers.

 

[Light-Fox]

It's not a bug though, it's a feature. Especially when you remove regulations from it. Crony capitalism is just capitalism with a pr campaign.

Corruption under socialism is the same issue of the concentration of power within fewer people. This is why I favor an increase in democracy and a decentralization of powers.

Grassroots Democracy!

 

[Arclight1988]

Democracy is the majority suppressing a minority, but we both agree a decentralizen of power would probably be a benefit to the system.

I disagree that is a feature, to me that's the same as selling food stamps, and claiming you are supposed to be able to. People do it regularly, but it is not called for by the system itself.

 

[Nihilistic_Impact]

Power from the bottom, the true dictatorship of the proletariat.

 

[Nihilistic_Impact]

I'd rather have the tyranny of the mob vs the tyranny of the monarch, because it at least represents society as a whole a lot better.

And do you think that absent of any regulation capitalism would not see a consolidation of power?

EDIT:

Like Adam Smith talked about this and how without regulation monopolies would form.

 

[Light-Fox]

Democracy is the majority suppressing a minority, but we both agree a decentralizen of power would probably be a benefit to the system.

I disagree that is a feature, to me that's the same as selling food stamps, and claiming you are supposed to be able to. People do it regularly, but it is not called for by the system itself.

Would it seem more fair to you for a minority to suppress the majority?

 

[Arclight1988]

Would it seem more fair to you for a minority to suppress the majority?

No what's more fair to me is the minority to go do their thing, and the majority go do their thing. Kinda the whole point of the states were supposed to be separate, but united in purpose.

The system needs to be tweaked much like any future use of a socialist system needs to be tweaked.

 

[Arclight1988]

I'd rather have the tyranny of the mob vs the tyranny of the monarch, because it at least represents society as a whole a lot better.

And do you think that absent of any regulation capitalism would not see a consolidation of power?

EDIT:

Like Adam Smith talked about this and how without regulation monopolies would form.

I do not believe in zero regulations for many reasons, but the system itself should not be scraped for imperfections. Also part of the problem is the common person is simply willing to keep doing what is comfortable, and change is hard.

 

[Light-Fox]

No what's more fair to me is the minority to go do their thing, and the majority go do their thing. Kinda the whole point of the states were supposed to be separate, but united in purpose.

The system needs to be tweaked much like any future use of a socialist system needs to be tweaked.

At the state level, the states do do their own thing. As a nation though, we all have to be on the same page to a degree, so people can't simply go do their own thing or we aren't united in anything. And that would be utter chaos.

I do not believe in zero regulations for many reasons, but the system itself should not be scraped for imperfections. Also part of the problem is the common person is simply willing to keep doing what is comfortable, and change is hard.

The problems inherent to capitalism go well beyond 'imperfections'. And change is less hard when people stop defending the current system.

 

[Arclight1988]

At the state level, the states do do their own thing. As a nation though, we all have to be on the same page to a degree, so people can't simply go do their own thing or we aren't united in anything. And that would be utter chaos.


The problems inherent to capitalism go well beyond 'imperfections'. And change is less hard when people stop defending the current system.

By your logic we can use that against any system, socialism is a lost cause cause it always ends in corruption, we can't do our own thing, because it will cause issues. No matter what you do there are issues the problems with capitalism are not inherently capitalism it's people using crooked methods to stay on top, the same thing that happens in EVERY system since the dawn of time those in power never want to give it up no matter the safeguards used. That's why George Washington walking away from power ended up in the history books cause it is counter to what we expect, and had a profound impact.

 

[Jericho Z. Barrons]

Should a business survive if it can't pay fair wages to employees? Let's make no mistake here, it would be better for profits if they didn't have to pay employees anything. But to compete in the market, they are required to make themselves appealing for the trade of labor an employee would give them. And that's the capitalist model, so, meritocracy demands they sink or swim competitively.

The more I learn about this stuff, the more empathy I have for workers. Which is ironic since I've never owned my own business, I've been a worker my whole life. Yet I've been manipulated into defending the business owner and employer who is not my friend, by the by, but wants what I have both as a consumer and a laborer in order to benefit themselves. I'm done buying the propaganda that I should be worried or empathize with a business owner who can't survive in a destructive market model that inherently supports monopolies. The whole thing sucks and yes, we should do something different.

 

[Arclight1988]

Should a business survive if it can't pay fair wages to employees? Let's make no mistake here, it would be better for profits if they didn't have to pay employees anything. But to compete in the market, they are required to make themselves appealing for the trade of labor an employee would give them. And that's the capitalist model, so, meritocracy demands they sink or swim competitively.

Well first you have to decide what is a fair wage, and why.

Is it any wage the employer, and employee agree upon before the job is accepted.

Is it the minimum wage they business is required to pay. (Minimum wage was never from it's inception supposed to be the base wage despite as it happens it did.)

Is it the minimum wage needed to survive in a given area?

All these are vastly different, and do not include cost of living increases, inflation raises, or any other benefits.

Then you run into the issues of should it be based on one or two people? (One of the mistakes of recent times imo is that we have for some reason decided a household needs too incomes 32 hours or 64 hours a week to function at the lowest level.)

This is an issue of Capitalism that is based on exploitation, and is part of the system that needs to be tweaked some how to me. As companies hire people, and are encouraged to keep costs low so if they can get away with someone inexperienced, but cheap they will. While this has been the downfall of many small businesses, larger places get away with this detestable practice.

Edit: actually as an addition some of my views of Capitalism do come from the fact that my Dad embodies some of the better qualities as he has owned, and worked for small businesses, and if he charges to low for a job, he eats the cost, and pays his employees what they make. We grew up just below to slightly above the poverty line depending the time of year, and now he does pretty well from himself. Which is Capitalism at it's best, and his employees all live good lives. Though like socialism it only really shows it is far more effective small scale, and the more scaled up the more everything goes to hell.

 

[Sync]

The more I learn about this stuff, the more empathy I have for workers. Which is ironic since I've never owned my own business, I've been a worker my whole life.

I would dare say that if you did own your own small business - complete with the burdens of determining incomes & revenues, paying staff, sourcing & paying suppliers, paying banks, paying councils, paying taxes, covering for staff when they're on leave, paying rates & utilities, and a whole lot more - then your outlook might change somewhat.

As a worker, all you really have to do is turn up, do your job, collect your pay at the end of it, and bitch and moan about how miserly your boss is.

It's easy to argue against a position when you've never been in that position to know that side of the argument.

 

[Jericho Z. Barrons]

So, in this system, only one set of people get to benefit? Either the workers/consumers or the business owners. And you're siding with those who are complaining that people got to eat and so they just can't compete competently?

Do you think that the monopoly Amazon has on supply channels right now is good for anyone? Do you think THAT might be the unfairness factor and not the needs of those who are offering labour in exchange for the ability to survive? What if I could work and it wasn't propelled by my desire not to starve? Like, my needs are taken care of but I'm there because 1. The community needs me and I want money to fulfill my other extracurricular needs and 2. Because I'm passionate about what I'm doing(a wait staff or line cook who wants to contribute to the restaurant business and is passionate about food; a cashier who is passionate about helping people and is good at it, etc.) Do you think that might be a better employee and consumer or worse?

 

[Arclight1988]

So, in this system, only one set of people get to benefit? Either the workers/consumers or the business owners. And you're siding with those who are complaining that people got to eat and so they just can't compete competently?

Do you think that the monopoly Amazon has on supply channels right now is good for anyone? Do you think THAT might be the unfairness factor and not the needs of those who are offering labour in exchange for the ability to survive? What if I could work and it wasn't propelled by my desire not to starve? Like, my needs are taken care of but I'm there because 1. The community needs me and I want money to fulfill my other extracurricular needs and 2. Because I'm passionate about what I'm doing(a wait staff or line cook who wants to contribute to the restaurant business and is passionate about food; a cashier who is passionate about helping people and is good at it, etc.) Do you think that might be a better employee and consumer or worse?

Not sure where you get only one side gets to profit, or benefit. The employer has the space, the materials, the equipment all which costs money. This is a high risk high return relationship.

The employee idealistically has the skills to use said machine to make a product to which for their efforts get paid. (No risk, Low pay)

The employer then has to sell said good, to see any profit at all.

Amazon has no Monopoly on supply chains, browns, UPS, fed ex all deliver right now independent of Amazon. Sometimes delivering Amazon as well as a few smaller companies in my area. I am sure the UK is the same.

While I suppose you could work a job just cause it needs to get done which sounds good on paper, but there would be a lot of jobs left undone cause no one would do them just because it should be done.

 

[Sync]

So, in this system, only one set of people get to benefit? Either the workers/consumers or the business owners. And you're siding with those who are complaining that people got to eat and so they just can't compete competently?

If you can show me exactly where I said I was siding with anyone, I'll concede your point.

Otherwise you've either misunderstood the point I was trying to make, or you understood and are now misrepresenting me to make your point.

I was NOT siding with anyone. You've indicated that you are siding with a particular argument (the needs of the workers), through your own confession that you've no knowledge of the other side of the argument (the responsibilities of business owners).

Further - I specifically said small business. As small-medium businesses typically drive between 75-80% of a given economy, that is where most of the employment will be directed. I am in no way defending the excesses of the top end of large corporations.

ALSO - the employer is entitled to make a profit: it's the reward for putting up the capital and risk when starting a business. If a small business goes broke, who has the most to lose? Hint: it won't be the worker.