Work harder or the communists will win(m.signalvnoise.com)
m.signalvnoise.com
Work harder or the communists will win
https://m.signalvnoise.com/work-harder-or-the-communists-will-win/
81 comments
This isnt new. This isnt even from the early 20th century, when the western world organized its labour. It is much, much older:
https://youtu.be/E4CI2vk3ugk
https://youtu.be/E4CI2vk3ugk
"We can choose to become a retirement community like Europe"
Sounds pretty fucking amazing to me. How do we choose to do this? The more like Europe we become, the better life will be for millions of people. The path seems to be to ignore idiots like Calanis and Ma and their stupid ranting bullshit. Better for millions to live nice lives than for one scumbag like Calanis or Ma to become a multi-millionaire / billionaire. These motherfuckers have nothing to add to the conversation and frankly, people that follow their "work harder" advice are either incredibly stupid or beyond desperate. I don't think we need to be either in the US although I'm sure those morons and other morons who follow them will disagree.
Sounds pretty fucking amazing to me. How do we choose to do this? The more like Europe we become, the better life will be for millions of people. The path seems to be to ignore idiots like Calanis and Ma and their stupid ranting bullshit. Better for millions to live nice lives than for one scumbag like Calanis or Ma to become a multi-millionaire / billionaire. These motherfuckers have nothing to add to the conversation and frankly, people that follow their "work harder" advice are either incredibly stupid or beyond desperate. I don't think we need to be either in the US although I'm sure those morons and other morons who follow them will disagree.
He’s right. What an absolutely disgusting and toxic idea to work more than we do, at all. Of course it’s the biggest CEOs and VCs advocating for the rest of us to work our lives away.
Does Calacanis do anything beyond hop on the occasional podcast or talking head show? As an investor his fortunes are tied to making you work the maximum while paying as little as possible. As an employee your fortunes are tied to your physical and mental health. Both objectives are only aligned under creating a product that sells.
I also don't take anything Jack Ma says seriously. He is a member of the CCP. The CCP determines who the winners and losers are, rarely is the market consulted.
I also don't take anything Jack Ma says seriously. He is a member of the CCP. The CCP determines who the winners and losers are, rarely is the market consulted.
I think the author didn't go far enough, I'd like to see more serious discussion of a 4 day/30 hour work week being widely implemented.
I would love to work 4 10 hour shifts. Same amount of work weekly but an extra day to rest and do stuff.
While I would also prefer this, I also wonder if a 5-hour/7 day week would lead to more productivity and a better work-life balance. This would definitely require more strict work hours and would necessitate more remote work to reduce time spent commuting, etc.
No! No 7 days a week of work, that isn't good that doesn't matter how long you work, I want free days, I don't want to wake up everyday thinking about work, thank you...
Anything is possible, as long as you are in a position to negotiate the contract your way. I personally chose 5 days 6 hours over 4 days 8 hours because I can work in the afternoon (hate waking up early) and 8 hour days are making me really unproductive.
> I don't want to wake up everyday thinking about work
Wait... you don't already?
Wait... you don't already?
I'm hourly at a place that basically doesn't care how you get your 40 hours. I know people who routinely work six days for six or seven hours, but I don't think I know anyone who regularly works seven days a week outside of strange circumstances/crunch time. I personally feel like I really need at least one day a week where I don't come in or think about work. Even just popping in for like two hours on Saturday and Sunday sounds trivial but is enough for me to feel like I didn't get a real day off. Even if I added up to 40 hours, I end up feeling like I'm owed something more for the effort.
Off-peak-hour commuting happiness. But I'm thinking 5x 7 hour days including an hour lunch.
They didn't mention it in that article but they do this for a part of the year: https://m.signalvnoise.com/why-we-only-work-4-days-a-week-du...
> Accepting the terms of engagement by your so-called opponent is a basic, rookie mistake in any form of strategic out-maneuvering.
Not only is copying the Chinese work ethic a rookie mistake as a strategic generalisation, but 996 is a completely flawed strategy for cognitive work - it's a relic passed over from manual labor - treating programmers as cogs in a cotton mill is not a good long term strategy, they will create a world of shit for themselves, I think this fact is probably intuitive to any programmer reading.
Not only is copying the Chinese work ethic a rookie mistake as a strategic generalisation, but 996 is a completely flawed strategy for cognitive work - it's a relic passed over from manual labor - treating programmers as cogs in a cotton mill is not a good long term strategy, they will create a world of shit for themselves, I think this fact is probably intuitive to any programmer reading.
US and western labour are not going to compete with China in terms of scale, even when adopting Chinese 996-icu labor practices.
Where the west has always dominated has been in innovation - something sleep/leisure deprived workers are always bad at doing. Now we're giving that up because some venture capitalist who can never wrap their head around what we do says "its a good idea"?!
Its the Soviet Nail Factory, all over again.
Where the west has always dominated has been in innovation - something sleep/leisure deprived workers are always bad at doing. Now we're giving that up because some venture capitalist who can never wrap their head around what we do says "its a good idea"?!
Its the Soviet Nail Factory, all over again.
996 would completely burn out almost everyone within, say, five years, but if you have teeming masses of desperate job applicants to replace the burnouts then that might not be as much of a problem for management as you might think. Companies like Amazon and Netflix in the US are certainly no stranger to the "chew em up and spit em out" strategy and it seems to work out pretty well for them. It's even basically the same situation, with prestige and money attracting an endless queue of applicants.
That's not what I meant (although an understandable interpretation)... what I mean is this strategy is not sustainable because cognitive jobs are increasingly less about the immediate problem and more about the long term problem, driving people to work long hours addresses short term - but ensuring people have the full power of their faculties available will allow them to make decisions and create solutions that work long term.
Jason's logic is pretty poor. If winning is just a numbers game (quantity of hours > quality hours), then how can we possibly compete when our population size is a quarter of China's? Of all the consistently inane VC tweets, this one takes the cake.
Logic is a pretty strong word for that BS he’s spewing. It’s really oddly blatantly working class exploitation propaganda by a (super) rich dude who benefits from the exploitation.
[deleted]
So what do you do with types like Calacanis in the better world you might envision?
I don't think this better world involves much of anyone deciding for Calacanis what he will be doing, but rather leaving him to his own devices.
What would compel these people to give up some of their riches for the well being of your average worker, though? Voting? Asking nicely?
If history is any indication, bloodshed. When those with the power get more than they're fair share, the public tends to fix the balance by removing those with too much power.
Is this actually a good faith question? You know perfectly well that we compel everyone to pay taxes all of the time. This isn't a hard concept.
Cultural indoctrination. So yes, asking nicely. It's why I believe billionaires should be liquidated, no? Repeat en masse.
It is absolutely ridiculous to me there are still people consider China communist. It's especially hilarious when the discussion is about a hyper-rich patron Jack Ma talking about how his workers should work. It's not about capitalism vs communism; it's about capitalism vs capitalism.
Liberal market capitalism vs totalitarian state-coordinated capitalism.
In reality the level of state coordination is quite high in many countries normally considered free markets.
The amount (edit: percent) of GDP directly allocated by the Federal and State governments in the U.S. is greater than it ever was in the Soviet Union or China.
I did some fact checking. As per www.imf.org:
US General government total expenditure as Percent of GDP - %35.2 (2016)
China General government total expenditure as Percent of GDP - %31.9 (2016)
US General government total expenditure as Percent of GDP - %35.2 (2016)
China General government total expenditure as Percent of GDP - %31.9 (2016)
This has been bothering me for a long time.
Many formerly communist countries, e.g. Vietnam, have unleashed the purest form of capitalism possible, where positive feedback loops make the rich grow richer and the poor grow poorer.
No labor laws, corruption and salary ratios of 1:1000 within one company - it would be a true nightmare for the ideological socialist elite of the early 1900 to see what has become of their dream of equality.
Many formerly communist countries, e.g. Vietnam, have unleashed the purest form of capitalism possible, where positive feedback loops make the rich grow richer and the poor grow poorer.
No labor laws, corruption and salary ratios of 1:1000 within one company - it would be a true nightmare for the ideological socialist elite of the early 1900 to see what has become of their dream of equality.
How are the poor growing poorer? From what I've read they're wealth is increasing: https://www.vietnam-briefing.com/news/vietnams-average-wages...
Socialist workers built the key infrastructure that eventually gets turned over to privateers for profit. That's not capitalism.
Political ideologies are for the masses, not elites.
>Many formerly communist countries, e.g. Vietnam, have unleashed the purest form of capitalism possible.
If you had an abusive ex you'd pick the exact opposite for your rebound too.
If you had an abusive ex you'd pick the exact opposite for your rebound too.
In American public discussion China is "communist" the same way America is "capitalist". You just need to understand what those using the term intend it to mean. (I'm talking about casual, conventional use in everyday conversation and the infotainment sphere, not an academic sense.) "Capitalism" is intended to mean, "the way we do things here in the United States, which is awesome" and "communism" is meant to mean "the way people who aren't like us do things, and which is bad". It's pressure to justify American-style economic policy, while suppressing any discussion of alternatives.
Pushing workers to work extreme hours is not some sort of unusual thing for communism. Please read the following topics before you spread disinformation that communism was somehow pro-workers rights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakhanovite_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_calendar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakhanovite_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_calendar
Where did you infer I had the opinion that communism is pro-worker? This is irrelevant. China isn't communist because their economic system is exactly capitalism, not because they're pro or con worker.
How is it ridiculous? According to Lenin socialism is "state-capitalist monopoly."[0]
[0]: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/11....
[0]: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/11....
E.g. Ma is a capitalist and is not the state. So there is no state-capitalist monopoly in China. Surely, there are some Chinese industries where this is true but e.g. in Norway oil industry is owned by the state, but does anyone think Norway is communist? The truth is, the State is a very integral part of capitalism. Both regulation and state-funded industries are an important part of capitalistic economies. The degree at which we allow this (from almost none to a lot) is a political question. In a fundamental level, Chinese government allows some people to have private property and to accumulate wealth i.e. it is capitalism.
Arguably, China is not capitalist. Granted, China has a market economy, but capitalism refers to the ownership of bulk of assets by private parties. The Chinese government holds a lot of the wealth in China, and does not operate on a level playing field with private parties. Conversely, in a capitalist system, you would expect state ownership to be minimised to assets necessary for the practice of government activities (e.g. schools, courthouses, and military hardware), or even eliminated and contracted out to private enterprise.
Private ownership rights for real estate and securities are also much weaker in China, compared to typical Western nations.
Private ownership rights for real estate and securities are also much weaker in China, compared to typical Western nations.
These are good points. I wish people tried to comment arguments like this instead of downvoting and writing angry comments about how I'm insensitive to people killed by communism. I don't even support communism, just wanted to express that China is not communist.
> Private ownership rights for real estate and securities are also much weaker in China, compared to typical Western nations.
This may be true, but private property is not non-existent in China. Nor do they think it should be annihilated eventually. Capitalist private property owners like Ma exist, and China knows that they let China compete in the world. So I still find it hard to believe China does not operate within capitalistic market.
> Private ownership rights for real estate and securities are also much weaker in China, compared to typical Western nations.
This may be true, but private property is not non-existent in China. Nor do they think it should be annihilated eventually. Capitalist private property owners like Ma exist, and China knows that they let China compete in the world. So I still find it hard to believe China does not operate within capitalistic market.
"If you define winning solely as “who has the greater growth”, you’ve already lost. If you dismiss the standard of living enjoyed in Europe – one without medical bankruptcies, crushing college debts, or falling life expectancies – as a “retirement society”, you’re the one who deserves to be dismissed."
I agree with DHH's overall viewpoint. And Jason's portrayal of this issue as a "us Vs them" is idiotic.
But it is hard to overlook one point - if you were to choose to incorporate in one country today, the de facto choice is the US. When was the last time you heard someone who wasn't born in those countries say "Yeah! Lets incorporate in Denmark (where DHH was born) or Spain (where he currently resides, according to Wikipedia)"? And Basecamp itself is apparently incorporated in the US. There is probably a reason why Stripe Atlas doesn't take your money and decide they will open up an office for you in Switzerland.
Europe does seem to enjoy an excellent standard of living - good for them. But no one wants to immigrate to European countries because they think it is a "land of opportunity", at least not in the sense they do (or used to before Trump) when they immigrate to the US. The CEOs of some of the tech giants are first generation immigrants from developing countries. I don't see that happening in any European country in the near future. The success of these CEOs, by many accounts, is also directly related to their workaholic tendencies. And I am not sure if they are really exceptions (in the sense that other migrants who became CEOs at a much smaller scale can just afford to be bumming around). The success of these CEOs are signs of the same ambition and growth too.
Besides, there are some who think the issues pointed out by DHH as America's failing is actually because America wants to have its cake (high living standards) and eat it too (high growth powered by capitalist ventures) and turned into a confused mess. Well, clearly that doesn't seem possible in today's world for whatever reasons, but it isn't as if any country in Europe has managed to pull off both either.
I agree with DHH's overall viewpoint. And Jason's portrayal of this issue as a "us Vs them" is idiotic.
But it is hard to overlook one point - if you were to choose to incorporate in one country today, the de facto choice is the US. When was the last time you heard someone who wasn't born in those countries say "Yeah! Lets incorporate in Denmark (where DHH was born) or Spain (where he currently resides, according to Wikipedia)"? And Basecamp itself is apparently incorporated in the US. There is probably a reason why Stripe Atlas doesn't take your money and decide they will open up an office for you in Switzerland.
Europe does seem to enjoy an excellent standard of living - good for them. But no one wants to immigrate to European countries because they think it is a "land of opportunity", at least not in the sense they do (or used to before Trump) when they immigrate to the US. The CEOs of some of the tech giants are first generation immigrants from developing countries. I don't see that happening in any European country in the near future. The success of these CEOs, by many accounts, is also directly related to their workaholic tendencies. And I am not sure if they are really exceptions (in the sense that other migrants who became CEOs at a much smaller scale can just afford to be bumming around). The success of these CEOs are signs of the same ambition and growth too.
Besides, there are some who think the issues pointed out by DHH as America's failing is actually because America wants to have its cake (high living standards) and eat it too (high growth powered by capitalist ventures) and turned into a confused mess. Well, clearly that doesn't seem possible in today's world for whatever reasons, but it isn't as if any country in Europe has managed to pull off both either.
At some point we need to decide which we value more: attractiveness to CEOs or the happiness and healthiness of hundreds of millions of regular, everyday people. I think it's reasonable to give up any pretensions at capturing the former if it ultimately benefits the latter. It's OK to not be the bestest country evar for business if it means people are housed and fed and have access to education and healthcare.
Why does it have to be an either/or?
Because a lot of times one side's interests will be completely against the other.
> But no one wants to immigrate to European countries because they think it is a "land of opportunity"
At least no one with a high market value, yeah. I agree in general, Europe's model is very different from that of the US, it's much more stable, less flexible, much slower moving, more regulated, with higher taxes. You don't rise quite as high, you don't fall quite as low. It's "move fast and break things" vs "don't break things, move at an appropriate speed".
At least no one with a high market value, yeah. I agree in general, Europe's model is very different from that of the US, it's much more stable, less flexible, much slower moving, more regulated, with higher taxes. You don't rise quite as high, you don't fall quite as low. It's "move fast and break things" vs "don't break things, move at an appropriate speed".
More like "move fast and break people" vs " dont break people, move at an appropriate speed."
They don't have people ... they have "human resources" ;(
Though European companies (and states) have been quite happy to go break people, too. They're just not breaking them in large numbers at once, yet.
Though European companies (and states) have been quite happy to go break people, too. They're just not breaking them in large numbers at once, yet.
Calacanis's stuff is so buffoonish I second-guess whether I believe he's sincere in his unquestioning adoration of capitalism.
"democracy vs. communism"? Just asinine stuff.
"democracy vs. communism"? Just asinine stuff.
This is not an article but a cold war style capitalist sermon.
One of @jason's tweets in the same thread says
"#996 = 6 days a week, 9am to 9pm
The same exact work ethic that built America!"
Given that slaves built most of America, he kind of has a point, but not for the reasons he wants to have a point. It's so laughable to see venture capitalists appeal to some imagined moral imperative ("democracy vs. communism," which as DHH points out might have been a bit scarier in 1950) when in reality they're just arguing for shaping the system in a way that will ultimately make them more money.
"#996 = 6 days a week, 9am to 9pm
The same exact work ethic that built America!"
Given that slaves built most of America, he kind of has a point, but not for the reasons he wants to have a point. It's so laughable to see venture capitalists appeal to some imagined moral imperative ("democracy vs. communism," which as DHH points out might have been a bit scarier in 1950) when in reality they're just arguing for shaping the system in a way that will ultimately make them more money.
> Given that slaves built most of America
Where did you learn that?
Where did you learn that?
Well certainly the slave and cotton trade was a dominating part of the early American economy.
>The average slave owner held almost two-thirds of his wealth in slaves in 1860, much less than he held in land.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/news-wires-white-papers...
"America was built on slavery" is obviously a bit of hyperbole, but given the economic boost to agriculture in the south built on the backs of African slaves, or the literal building of the east-west infrastructure on the backs of Chinese ones, I don't think it's an unfair claim.
>The average slave owner held almost two-thirds of his wealth in slaves in 1860, much less than he held in land.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/news-wires-white-papers...
"America was built on slavery" is obviously a bit of hyperbole, but given the economic boost to agriculture in the south built on the backs of African slaves, or the literal building of the east-west infrastructure on the backs of Chinese ones, I don't think it's an unfair claim.
Prior to the civil war, slaves were the single largest asset, by value, that America held -- more than it's land or agricultural exports; more than it's railroads, banks, or factories. Cotton was the number one export across all of America, not just the south, at that time. And it's not like this value was destroyed by the civil war -- post-slavery institutions were extraordinarily effective at restoring or keeping pre-slavery conditions long after the end of the civil war. The slaves may not have physically built most of America -- but it's silly to suggest America's wealth isn't largely, perhaps primarily, born from the fruits of slavery.
For sources, feel free to examine any modern history book.
For sources, feel free to examine any modern history book.
Perhaps not literally built but built off the backs of slaves, definitely.
Not in American schools, certainly.
Oh, please.
Another article that bashes at capitalism. I really wonder what the author's intent is?
Right now (this instant!) there are hoardes of people trying to work their way into the United States. Why? The chance for a better life and more economic success. All this because of what? Capitalism!
On the other hand, it doesn't seem like there are many people rushing to get into Venezuela these days....
Another article that bashes at capitalism. I really wonder what the author's intent is?
Right now (this instant!) there are hoardes of people trying to work their way into the United States. Why? The chance for a better life and more economic success. All this because of what? Capitalism!
On the other hand, it doesn't seem like there are many people rushing to get into Venezuela these days....
Under capitalism, if you want to work 70 weeks, you can. That's true. However, capitalism is about people having the freedom to make their own decisions on how they conduct their life, and the "invisible hand" that the system tends to push the economy in a positive direction.
An example would be how there is a financial incentive to not work employees over so many hours since that can decrease their efficiency. Another would be how if you have at least two firms, all other things being equal, the worker will choose to go the the one with more favorable work conditions.
An example would be how there is a financial incentive to not work employees over so many hours since that can decrease their efficiency. Another would be how if you have at least two firms, all other things being equal, the worker will choose to go the the one with more favorable work conditions.
>An example would be how there is a financial incentive to not work employees over so many hours since that can decrease their efficiency.
Why does their efficiency matter if they're at the office for 10 hours anyway?
I've never seen evidence of the invisible hand helping anyone but the owners.
Why does their efficiency matter if they're at the office for 10 hours anyway?
I've never seen evidence of the invisible hand helping anyone but the owners.
To workers, the invisible hand is hovering in the middle of the their field of vision, slowly doing the jerk-off motion.
> I've never seen evidence of the invisible hand helping anyone but the owners.
Just look around you. Adjusted for inflation, the median annual income in 1920 was $41,544. For 2018, it hit $61,372. The median person these days has $20,000 worth of more stuff now than they did 100 years ago. That's only possible because of growth, and the trade and competition that goes with it. That competition has driven down costs and drove innovation. We have luxuries people couldn't have dreamt of back then: phones, grocery stores stocked full of food, safe jobs, drugs and medical treatments that would seem like sci-fi.
Just look around you. Adjusted for inflation, the median annual income in 1920 was $41,544. For 2018, it hit $61,372. The median person these days has $20,000 worth of more stuff now than they did 100 years ago. That's only possible because of growth, and the trade and competition that goes with it. That competition has driven down costs and drove innovation. We have luxuries people couldn't have dreamt of back then: phones, grocery stores stocked full of food, safe jobs, drugs and medical treatments that would seem like sci-fi.
Right but I don't see what anything of what you just said has to do with the invisible hand.
I'm talking about the post-World War II economic expansion seen in USA, aka "the golden age of capitalism."
You mean when the tax rates on the wealthy were very high?
You're arguing that the economic expansion was a result of taxing the wealthy? Or, are you saying that because there are ways that this wasn't "the one true capitalism," then that means my whole point is invalid?
Well, I'm still not sure what your point was. I think you were arguing that America's prosperity was due to the invisible hand. I'd argue it was the government creating industries such as infrastructure projects and war.
>all other things being equal, the worker will choose to go the the one with more favorable work conditions.
Assume the cow is a sphere.
Assume the cow is a sphere.
And it has no student loans.
> the worker
Yes, the hypothetical singular worker. In reality, there are many workers, all willing to undercut each other in a race to the bottom.
Competition has a tendency to force suppliers to supply at as low a price as possible without going out of business, making close to no profit. In the case of the labour supply, when fungible workers compete freely, "as low as possible" means not immediately dying, and no profit means no liberty and no prosperity. In the worst case, the supply is at even lower cost than keeping the worker alive, and the state makes up the difference.
Yes, the hypothetical singular worker. In reality, there are many workers, all willing to undercut each other in a race to the bottom.
Competition has a tendency to force suppliers to supply at as low a price as possible without going out of business, making close to no profit. In the case of the labour supply, when fungible workers compete freely, "as low as possible" means not immediately dying, and no profit means no liberty and no prosperity. In the worst case, the supply is at even lower cost than keeping the worker alive, and the state makes up the difference.
>the employer
Yes, the singular employer. In reality, there are many employers, all willing to out-bid each other in a race to the top.
Lack of competition among employers has a tendency to let labor buyers to supply as low wages as they can get away with before violence breaks out. We know that from plenitude of historical cases - in soviet & communist countries there was one and only one decider of employment conditions (the state), and negotiations were conducted via street protests. If at all.
The key difference is that in capitalism productivity is held reasonably high, and at least some people make good penny. They in turn spend it on goods and services, providing for other people. There is a long tail effect of the whole society gradually becoming wealthier. Meanwhile in soviet and communist countries productivity is low - joys of central planning and lack of meaningful competition - and people stay perpetually impoverished, equal in misery.
Yes, the singular employer. In reality, there are many employers, all willing to out-bid each other in a race to the top.
Lack of competition among employers has a tendency to let labor buyers to supply as low wages as they can get away with before violence breaks out. We know that from plenitude of historical cases - in soviet & communist countries there was one and only one decider of employment conditions (the state), and negotiations were conducted via street protests. If at all.
The key difference is that in capitalism productivity is held reasonably high, and at least some people make good penny. They in turn spend it on goods and services, providing for other people. There is a long tail effect of the whole society gradually becoming wealthier. Meanwhile in soviet and communist countries productivity is low - joys of central planning and lack of meaningful competition - and people stay perpetually impoverished, equal in misery.
If humanity doesn't make it through the crises of the 21st century, I imagine ceteris paribus will be on our figurative gravestones.
> An example would be how there is a financial incentive to not work employees over so many hours since that can decrease their efficiency.
So then you get a new employee.
> Another would be how if you have at least two firms, all other things being equal, the worker will choose to go the the one with more favorable work conditions.
Both are toxic work environments, literally, but the stuff you inhale in the latter place is slightly less likely to give you cancer.
So then you get a new employee.
> Another would be how if you have at least two firms, all other things being equal, the worker will choose to go the the one with more favorable work conditions.
Both are toxic work environments, literally, but the stuff you inhale in the latter place is slightly less likely to give you cancer.
That isn't capitalism. Capitalism says nothing about how many hours to work or freedom. Capitalism is an amoral system. Neither inherently good or bad. It's about power and who gets to wield it. In monarchic systems, the monarch has the power. In capitalist societies, the ones who control capital ( bankers and now primarily central bankers ) control power.
Your example of "financial incentive to not overwork employees" is historically and economically inaccurate. Capitalistic societies overworked their employees because it is in the amoral interest of capital to extract the most value from a resource. It's okay in capitalist society to overwork employees ( even to death ), employee children ( child coal miners ) and even drug millions of people ( chinese opium wars ) in order to accumulate capital.
Your other example workers getting the choice of the best opportunities between two firms is also false. It makes "capitalistic" sense for the two firms to collude to keep wages, benefits, etc down. We had a big story about it yesterday.
"How Apple, Google, and other tech companies conspired against their own workers"
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19666545
The point of capitalism is capital rules over the masses and that the goal of society is to accumulate the most capital. Whether it be by destroying the lives of millions or uplifting the lives of millions or whether it be by destroying the environment or protecting the environment is moot.
Your example of "financial incentive to not overwork employees" is historically and economically inaccurate. Capitalistic societies overworked their employees because it is in the amoral interest of capital to extract the most value from a resource. It's okay in capitalist society to overwork employees ( even to death ), employee children ( child coal miners ) and even drug millions of people ( chinese opium wars ) in order to accumulate capital.
Your other example workers getting the choice of the best opportunities between two firms is also false. It makes "capitalistic" sense for the two firms to collude to keep wages, benefits, etc down. We had a big story about it yesterday.
"How Apple, Google, and other tech companies conspired against their own workers"
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19666545
The point of capitalism is capital rules over the masses and that the goal of society is to accumulate the most capital. Whether it be by destroying the lives of millions or uplifting the lives of millions or whether it be by destroying the environment or protecting the environment is moot.
You're doing the Lord's work for those of us who are currently at work and therefore cannot type out long-form comments.
What's the difference between "amoral" capitalistic society and socialistic society if latter is perfectly capable of starving millions to death (see Holodomor or Great Chinese Famine) ?
Socialism, communism and capitalism are all "amoral". I think you are confusing "amoral" with "immoral". I'm not saying capitalism is immoral. I'm saying it's amoral : "Neither inherently good or bad."
As you noted, capitalist and communist societies committed horrendous genocides. And capitalist and communist societies did a lot of good.
But nothing inherent within capitalism or communism says you have to commit genocide or do good. It's up to societies and human being themselves. Did capitalism wipe out the native americans and aborigines? Or was it selfish and flawed people and society? Did communism starve millions in ukraine and china or was it self and flawed people and society?
As you noted, capitalist and communist societies committed horrendous genocides. And capitalist and communist societies did a lot of good.
But nothing inherent within capitalism or communism says you have to commit genocide or do good. It's up to societies and human being themselves. Did capitalism wipe out the native americans and aborigines? Or was it selfish and flawed people and society? Did communism starve millions in ukraine and china or was it self and flawed people and society?
> However, capitalism is about people having the freedom to make their own decisions on how they conduct their life, and the "invisible hand" that the system tends to push the economy in a positive direction.
Is that why the rich and the poor are becoming ever more separate? The disappearance of the middle class is a positive direction? The economy may be moving in a positive direction, but it is divorced from the people who compose it.
> Another would be how if you have at least two firms, all other things being equal, the worker will choose to go the the one with more favorable work conditions.
That's assuming both of those firms exist - what incentive is there for the one firm owner to make better conditions? He could possibly recruit better people, but if the two groups stay exactly equal then the pool of workers remain, and it can then be very small things to get those better workers. They won't get their pick of the best, but it may make more financial sense for there to be worse conditions and slightly worse workers. Many jobs don't need the greatest workers, they just need workers.
Is that why the rich and the poor are becoming ever more separate? The disappearance of the middle class is a positive direction? The economy may be moving in a positive direction, but it is divorced from the people who compose it.
> Another would be how if you have at least two firms, all other things being equal, the worker will choose to go the the one with more favorable work conditions.
That's assuming both of those firms exist - what incentive is there for the one firm owner to make better conditions? He could possibly recruit better people, but if the two groups stay exactly equal then the pool of workers remain, and it can then be very small things to get those better workers. They won't get their pick of the best, but it may make more financial sense for there to be worse conditions and slightly worse workers. Many jobs don't need the greatest workers, they just need workers.
As we're structured, economically and socially, corps must grow. One of the last things they have left on the table is our time beyond 40 hours.