Why Unregulated Capitalism Naturally Creates Poverty; And How To Fix It

[PoliTalker]

Hello T. A. Gardner,

This is too simplistic. Unions have their place, and in other areas are little more than a burden on the economy.

For example, unions have a place when workers really are exploited and paid a pittance for their work. Mining is a good example of this. Conditions are usually (historically speaking) dangerous and backbreaking. Mining companies often ran company stores--

As an aside, I've actually been in a couple of the last legacy Phelps Dodge ones decades ago. Interesting historical experience. No, my parents weren't employees, the stores were open to the public and existed in a number of all or mostly company towns in Arizona. Bagdad Arizona today is still an active company mining town too--

Anyway, those stores allowed employees credit towards purchases and often they had running bills that they would never pay off. So, unions got heavy support. I don't have a problem with that when employers are clearly taking advantage of employees.

On the other hand, many companies today pay good to reasonable wages for their workforce, particularly if at least some skill levels are involved. On the other hand, companies that can train a worker in a week or two to do some particular job have no particular reason to put a lot of effort into retention like higher pay or benefits. If anybody can do the job, then anybody is perfectly acceptable to the employer.

Socialism does no better either. I gave the example of British Leyland. They built crappy, poor quality, unreliable vehicles. The company was heavily unionized and the workers regularly struck for more pay and benefits. While striking they were entitled to welfare and other unemployment benefits from their employer the British government who owned British Leyland. The workers had little incentive to be efficient or produce a quality product. The union and worker's view was their jobs were guaranteed for life (much like the UAW position).
Morale was poor because both management and the union adopted an "us v. them" attitude towards everything.

In the end, as I stated, Margaret Thatcher decided along with Parliament that it was cheaper to close the business and put the workers on welfare.

In the late 80's and 90's in Germany right after the country reunited with the fall of Communism, the German government put a program in place to incentivize hiring ex- East German workers into West German corporations. At first these companies readily accepted and hired the East Germans. But once it was found that they had become used to Socialist conditions where working hard, being on time, producing a quality part, etc., were all things they didn't do the corporations stopped hiring them because they cost more in lost productivity than the incentives paid.

Capitalism can exploit workers and others no doubt in its quest for profits. But it will turn out an acceptable or quality products in quantity because if it doesn't it won't remain in business.
Socialism can exploit owners and others no doubt in its quest for equality. But it will turn out poor quality products in inadequate amounts because there is no incentive to do better.

Thanks for the well considered reply. I enjoy such academic discussions. Far preferable to all too the common insult contests found here.

It appears, though, that the post is a case of very broad generalizations and conclusions based on some very specific examples. It does, however, suggest that neither system is ideal. That logically leads to the position that there are lessons to be learned from each example, and those lessons can be incorporated into improved ideas for generating quality products where workers and the local community are respected.

Obviously, it serves no good purpose for a manufacturer or other capitalist venture to suddenly pull up stakes and leave behind a community with a devastated local economy.

America is dotted with the wreckage of capitalism.

Society does not benefit from an employer who operates a business only long enough for a local town to be built up based on wages paid to local workers, and then in a decade or several, vacates the area leaving a huge hole in the local economy. People who have staked their lives on dependence on that employer are irreversibly negatively impacted.

Young kids grow up and go to local schools, join in extracurricular activities such as sports, and then one year it is announced that the team can no longer afford to play games or maintain the facilities. The family cannot easily move away because their wealth is tied up in a home they cannot sell. The local government can't make ends meet because the tax revenue drops off a cliff. It's all bad. Misery and crime ensues.

Capitalism has a sharp and reckless cut on society.

It is not democratic. The people who make these life-altering decisions are not the ones who are devastated by them.

That's wrong.

People should have some say in the major decisions affecting their lives.

You used an example in Germany.

Germany is required to have worker representatives on the corporate boards.

There is no such requirement in the USA.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

This is too simplistic. Unions have their place, and in other areas are little more than a burden on the economy..

An anti-union working class person is no less an Uncle Tom than an anti-civil rights African American or a misogynist woman.
The problem for unions in America is that unions require solidarity but Americans are diverse and largely dislike one another.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

the outlook that so called progressives have about capitalism is truly warped. the by product of a mindset that considers everyone inferior, meant to be ruled over by a few with money and power.............when the truth and reality could be so much simpler. But I daresay that nothing is going to change the progressive opinion about the fellow americans worth or worthiness as anything more than 'inferior'

 

[T. A. Gardner]

An anti-union working class person is no less an Uncle Tom than an anti-civil rights African American or a misogynist woman.
The problem for unions in America is that unions require solidarity but Americans are diverse and largely dislike one another.

I worked at a company that had a union. I refused to join (Right to Work state) for the $40 a payday fee. The union local president and other reps and I had an understanding once I explained things to them. They'd leave me alone and I wouldn't start shit at every union meeting, rabble rouse, and cause all sorts of legal problems for them. They were most agreeable to that once they realized I could really carry out the threat.
That meant I avoided losing all that money in dues, particularly since one local president spent about $28,000 of it on personal shit before getting caught. There were other obvious misuses of dues I heard about or saw while there too.
Aside from that, the union did nothing for me so I made out great. I suppose for the people that were fuck ups and retards it was a way to protect their employment and a small price to pay for that insurance.

Any union that doesn't support it's members getting more training, qualifications, and promotions to better jobs isn't worth joining in any case. I actually told that to one of the union national reps who tried to tell me that the union was there to protect my job when confronted with my question about promotions he said that wasn't what the union was about. As I often put it quoting from Star Trek I don't want to stop the oppression. I want to become it!

So, that became another reason not to join.

The problem with unions is they aren't there to help you make a real career out of your employment, but rather there to support mediocrity and stagnation. How is that helping the working class?

 

[NiftyNiblick]

I worked at a company that had a union. I refused to join (Right to Work state) for the $40 a payday fee. The union local president and other reps and I had an understanding once I explained things to them. They'd leave me alone and I wouldn't start shit at every union meeting, rabble rouse, and cause all sorts of legal problems for them. They were most agreeable to that once they realized I could really carry out the threat.
That meant I avoided losing all that money in dues, particularly since one local president spent about $28,000 of it on personal shit before getting caught. There were other obvious misuses of dues I heard about or saw while there too.
Aside from that, the union did nothing for me so I made out great. I suppose for the people that were fuck ups and retards it was a way to protect their employment and a small price to pay for that insurance.

Any union that doesn't support it's members getting more training, qualifications, and promotions to better jobs isn't worth joining in any case. I actually told that to one of the union national reps who tried to tell me that the union was there to protect my job when confronted with my question about promotions he said that wasn't what the union was about. As I often put it quoting from Star Trek I don't want to stop the oppression. I want to become it!

So, that became another reason not to join.

The problem with unions is they aren't there to help you make a real career out of your employment, but rather there to support mediocrity and stagnation. How is that helping the working class?

You've a right to your view, but I obviously can't begin to respect it.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello T. A. Gardner,

I worked at a company that had a union. I refused to join (Right to Work state) for the $40 a payday fee. The union local president and other reps and I had an understanding once I explained things to them. They'd leave me alone and I wouldn't start shit at every union meeting, rabble rouse, and cause all sorts of legal problems for them. They were most agreeable to that once they realized I could really carry out the threat.
That meant I avoided losing all that money in dues, particularly since one local president spent about $28,000 of it on personal shit before getting caught. There were other obvious misuses of dues I heard about or saw while there too.
Aside from that, the union did nothing for me so I made out great. I suppose for the people that were fuck ups and retards it was a way to protect their employment and a small price to pay for that insurance.

Any union that doesn't support it's members getting more training, qualifications, and promotions to better jobs isn't worth joining in any case. I actually told that to one of the union national reps who tried to tell me that the union was there to protect my job when confronted with my question about promotions he said that wasn't what the union was about. As I often put it quoting from Star Trek I don't want to stop the oppression. I want to become it!

So, that became another reason not to join.

The problem with unions is they aren't there to help you make a real career out of your employment, but rather there to support mediocrity and stagnation. How is that helping the working class?

That's only your impression of unions, which reflects on the negative aspects while ignoring the positive.

It is understandable and logical that no individual wishes to support a system which does nothing but oppresses that individual.

But by not supporting the union, and working for the unionized employer anyway, it is the same as supporting the oppressing employer.

No individual alone has much power against a large organization, but when individuals combine their power they collectively have the power to effectively oppose an oppressing force.

If a union is doing wrong, the best way for that to be addressed is for a member or members of that union to recognize the problem and correct it from within the union.

 

[Into the Night]

Capitalism thrives where there is an abundant work force with lots of competition for the given number of jobs, thus creating a market-driven low cost of labor by keeping wages low.

Where people can get fabulously rich by ripping off workers, the rip-off of workers will be prominent.

The structure of our economy does not have enough well-paying jobs for every potential worker. The unregulated free market produces this. The goal of employers it to pay as little as possible while still getting adequate performance of the worker to satisfy the business model.

If one worker betters himself or herself, and advances into a higher-paying job, somewhere, somebody else, somebody less qualified - loses out. Workers are in a constant competition with other workers to improve their qualifications. No wonder we have so many over-qualified workers!

Since there are not enough well-paying jobs for everyone, and workers are getting more and more education, this produces a situation where we see lots of over-qualified workers in less demanding less desirable jobs. Meanwhile, the education system is getting rich as student debt goes into orbit. This is ridiculous.

We, the people, do not have to accept that the rich and powerful will continue to exploit this inefficient form of capitalism which guarantees that there are not enough well-paying jobs for everyone who wants one. All we have to do is wise up to the big picture, and vote for more regulation of big corporate power, and vote for changing our government to end legalized corruption of big money in government:

Corruption Is Legal In America! Here's how to fix that...

Who is ripping off workers? Aren't they getting paid? Did you know that's capitalism too?

 

[PoliTalker]

The darker side of capitalism that proponents don't want to talk about:

America is littered with the carcasses of businesses that once employed many, then pulled out, leaving locally depressed economies in their path.

Vast amounts of manufacturing and other business equipment sit idle in warehouses and in shuttered factories across the nation. The people who once worked them struggled to put their lives back together, many with less success than others.

Homes have been lost, bankruptcies faced, evictions served: How to go from prosperous to homeless in one layoff.

 

[Nordberg]

Regulations are what helps the people against the incredible power of corporations and the ownership class. The rich know if they can ignore the environment and the potential damages their practices cause, they will make more money. That is all they care about. They also figured out with their power, they could convince the people to believe regulation is bad. Hard to believe but people bought that.
Unions also give the workers a more even status to determine wages, benefits, and working conditions. It is easy to see who is against unions. There is never a good story or talk saying anything pro-union. The owners have controlled that too.
Just recognize who is in your boat. It is not the Kochs and corporations.

 

[PoliTalker]

Capitalism is what makes the structure of medical billing so difficult to understand.

The more complicated it is, the easier it is for powerful corporations to rip the people off.

People who want affordable and reasonable medical care did not invent a system that can charge $900 for an aspirin.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Capitalism is what makes the structure of medical billing so difficult to understand.

The more complicated it is, the easier it is for powerful corporations to rip the people off.

People who want affordable and reasonable medical care did not invent a system that can charge $900 for an aspirin.

Socialism is what makes medical billing necessary to begin with...

 

[Scut Farkus]

Socialism is what makes medical billing necessary to begin with...

so capitalists don't believe in billing? come on, man.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello T. A. Gardner,

Socialism is what makes medical billing necessary to begin with...

They started that decades ago, long before PPACA.

It is a corporate plot to make it confusing so they can rip you off more easily.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

so capitalists don't believe in billing? come on, man.

Capitalists believe in getting paid. They don't care about the process. In Socialism, somebody else pays. So billing becomes a necessary part of the process. Most medical care is billed through insurance only because of Socialist-like and Socialist policies adopted by the government.

 

[Scut Farkus]

Capitalists believe in getting paid. They don't care about the process. In Socialism, somebody else pays. So billing becomes a necessary part of the process. Most medical care is billed through insurance only because of Socialist-like and Socialist policies adopted by the government.

customers and providers of all kinds demand itemization for accurate records. just stop it. you're getting sloppy.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello T. A. Gardner,

Capitalists believe in getting paid. .

And they often do not believe in paying for anything that doesn't create profits - whether it is the responsible thing to do or not:

Here's another way capitalism leads to poverty - Capitalism will run a slipshod irresponsible operation for a number of years, pull all the profit they can out of a business by ignoring environmental concerns and minimizing any 'wasted' expense to avoid pollution, create an environmental disaster, take the money, let things go downhill, declare bankruptcy, all the workers get laid off, and the government gets stuck with the clean-up.

The owners of said operation get rich; and then just walk away. They are not liable because the corporation is. When the corporation is dissolved, so is the liability. What do you want to guess the original owners of this phosphate mining operation all got rich years ago?

Capitalism pulls up stakes, leaves a big environmental mess behind for taxpayers to clean up.

"Army Corps engineers have taken over assessing the status of the leak and stability of the gypsum stacks, Hopes said. Previously a third-party engineer working with the property’s owner, HRK Holdings, was doing that work, he said.

Buchanan echoed state officials who have said they plan to hold HRK Holdings accountable for the incident and any environmental damages it causes. The added nitrogen from the discharges, environmental advocates warn, could support algal blooms in the bay.

Senate President Wilton Simpson, R-Trilby, on Monday said he wanted to spend $200 million in federal stimulus dollars to clean up the site. The amount would fund the “complete cleanup and closure” of the site, according to a news release. “This has been a catastrophe waiting to happen for too long,” Simpson said in a statement. “We don’t want to be talking about this problem again in 5, 10, or 20 years.”

The problems at Piney Point are long-running. Since its one-time owner, Mulberry Corp., closed for business a couple of decades ago, the gypsum stacks and wastewater have loomed near the bay. The state was in charge for years before HRK bought the property, taking on the management of the stacks."

 

[PoliTalker]

Dirty Corporation Tricks:

The store I like quit offering raw sunflower seeds or pumpkin seeds.

Now all they have is roasted, salted.

I am not about to go shopping around from store to store in a pandemic, so I'm getting some unwanted salt in my diet. When I feel it its safer I will abandon that store and definitely go shopping around.

I know what's going on. Big Ag corporations want to get you hooked on salt, sugar and fat because these things are addictive and habit-forming. If they can get you hooked, you're more likely to keep buying their products.

And I really don't want the extra salt in my diet, anyway.

But I've got the fix.

Just as I do for dried cranberries, where I have to soak them in water to remove the 'added sugars,' which I suspect is nothing more than a coating of corn syrup, I have found that I can briefly soak the seeds in water to remove the salt.

Works like a charm!

 

[Into the Night]

Hello T. A. Gardner,



Thanks for the well considered reply. I enjoy such academic discussions. Far preferable to all too the common insult contests found here.

It appears, though, that the post is a case of very broad generalizations and conclusions based on some very specific examples. It does, however, suggest that neither system is ideal. That logically leads to the position that there are lessons to be learned from each example, and those lessons can be incorporated into improved ideas for generating quality products where workers and the local community are respected.

Obviously, it serves no good purpose for a manufacturer or other capitalist venture to suddenly pull up stakes and leave behind a community with a devastated local economy.

America is dotted with the wreckage of capitalism.

Society does not benefit from an employer who operates a business only long enough for a local town to be built up based on wages paid to local workers, and then in a decade or several, vacates the area leaving a huge hole in the local economy. People who have staked their lives on dependence on that employer are irreversibly negatively impacted.

Young kids grow up and go to local schools, join in extracurricular activities such as sports, and then one year it is announced that the team can no longer afford to play games or maintain the facilities. The family cannot easily move away because their wealth is tied up in a home they cannot sell. The local government can't make ends meet because the tax revenue drops off a cliff. It's all bad. Misery and crime ensues.

Capitalism has a sharp and reckless cut on society.

It is not democratic. The people who make these life-altering decisions are not the ones who are devastated by them.

That's wrong.

People should have some say in the major decisions affecting their lives.

You used an example in Germany.

Germany is required to have worker representatives on the corporate boards.

There is no such requirement in the USA.

Capitalism is not a form of government. Neither is socialism. Neither socialism nor capitalism is a democracy, republic, oligarchy, dictatorship.
Socialism, however, requires oligarchies and dictatorships to survive, since no one likes to have their wealth stolen.

 

[Into the Night]

Dirty Corporation tricks:

Bigotry.

The store I like quit offering raw sunflower seeds or pumpkin seeds.
Now all they have is roasted, salted.

So go to another store.

I am not about to go shopping around from store to store in a pandemic,

Your problem. You are only putting yourself in prison.

so I'm getting some unwanted salt in my diet.

Apparently it's wanted after all. You go out to buy salted nuts.

When I feel it its safer I will abandon that store and definitely go shopping around.

Nothing is preventing you but your own fear. You are whining.

I know what's going on. Big Ag corporations want to get you hooked on salt, sugar and fat because these things are addictive and habit-forming. If they can get you hooked, you're more likely to keep buying their products.

Define 'Big Ag'. Salt is not an agricultural product. There is nothing wrong with sugar or salt. People put them on food because they taste good. Fats are used to improve flavor, and is food as well.

And I really don't want the extra salt in my diet, anyway.

Don't salt already salted food. Not all food has salt in it.

But I've got the fix.

Just as I do for dried cranberries, where I have to soak them in water to remove the 'added sugars,' which I suspect is nothing more than a coating of corn syrup, I have found that I can briefly soak the seeds in water to remove the salt.

It reduces the salt, but does not eliminate it. If you truly like bland food, don't buy food with salt in it.

You know you could always go plant your own pumpkins or sunflowers.

 

[PoliTalker]

There is compelling evidence that the world is rapidly running out of fresh water.

The Colorado River, which has flowed into the Sea of Cortez for millions of years, stopped doing so in the 1990's. It last reached the Sea of Cortez briefly in 2014.

That water is diverted, mostly for agriculture, until there is nothing left to divert.

How can we continue to expand at this rate?

Only a third of world’s great rivers remain free flowing, analysis finds

"Only a third of the world’s great rivers remain free flowing, due to the impact of dams that are drastically reducing the benefits healthy rivers provide people and nature, according to a global analysis.

Billions of people rely on rivers for water, food and irrigation, but from the Danube to the Yangtze most large rivers are fragmented and degraded. Untouched rivers are largely confined to remote places such as the Arctic and Amazonia.

The assessment, the first to tackle the subject on a worldwide level, examined 12m kilometres of rivers and found that just 90 of the 246 rivers more than 1,000km (621 miles) long flowed without interruption."

If we have done that to the planet in the last 100 years, just to support our population explosion, how can we possibly continue at such a pace?

And what happens when we begin to run out of water?

Who will pay the biggest price?

Will food only be available to the rich?

Who is going to mow their lawns?