Why do people honestly hate capitalism so much now?

Page 14 of 16 [ 248 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16  Next

Dengashinobi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Dec 2022
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 598

23 Jan 2023, 9:30 am

magz wrote:
Dengashinobi wrote:
Why is it ok for the state to criminalise business owners who need the extra labour but cannot afford to pay more?
Because it is okay to criminalize people who need to take things but can't pay for them.


They are paying, that's why the employee wants to voluntarily work for them.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

23 Jan 2023, 9:37 am

If we go back to Oliver Twist capitalism, there will be a great amount of pissed-off people.



magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

23 Jan 2023, 9:52 am

Dengashinobi wrote:
magz wrote:
Dengashinobi wrote:
Why is it ok for the state to criminalise business owners who need the extra labour but cannot afford to pay more?
Because it is okay to criminalize people who need to take things but can't pay for them.
They are paying, that's why the employee wants to voluntarily work for them.
That "voluntarily" term would be appropriate only for those who would know they could survive without this job. In such cases, yes.
But studies consistently show entry-level jobs are not occupied by kids wanting some extra pocket money.

Serious imbalance of power hinders healthy market mechanisms.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

23 Jan 2023, 10:19 am

There are many people who are perpetually in an "entry-level" position.

I'm actually one of those people....

I'm fortunate, though, that the job was a civil service job, and I was able to last 42 years there.

This is why I always advocate that people here seek to obtain a civil service position, even a clerical position, like I had.



Aspiegaming
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Sep 2012
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,043
Location: Hagerstown, MD

23 Jan 2023, 10:48 am

The socioeconomic ladder used to be a slow climb but people were able to reach the middle class. Now those at the top have engineered the ladder and turned it into a vertical conveyor belt ladder hybrid that only moves downward. Those who can outclimb the speed of the conveyor ladder can stay in the game. Those who reach poverty will never escape.


_________________
I am sick, and in so being I am the healthy one.

If my darkness or eccentricness offends you, I don't really care.

I will not apologize for being me.


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,176
Location: Right over your left shoulder

23 Jan 2023, 1:30 pm

Dengashinobi wrote:
magz wrote:
Dengashinobi wrote:
Anyways, my point was not aiming to demonstrate that minimum wage is causing harm to people, which it does. But to demonstrate how the government forces low abiding citizens to brake the law by working in the black.
By the same logic, we could claim that unequal distribution of wealth and opportunities forces law abiding citizens to become gangsters :D


Being a gangster an working on the black are not the same thing. Seeking an opportunity to work for an agreed salary it's not the same as trespassing other people's rights (what a gangster or criminal does).


How does selling crack trespass on other people's rights? I'm just an entrepreneur being hassled by the man. :mrgreen:


_________________
"If you stick a knife in my back 9 inches and pull it out 6 inches, there's no progress. If you pull it all the way out, that's not progress. The progress is healing the wound that the blow made... and they won't even admit the knife is there." Malcolm X
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,176
Location: Right over your left shoulder

23 Jan 2023, 1:34 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
If we go back to Oliver Twist capitalism, there will be a great amount of pissed-off people.


Exactly.
They might be socialist accelerationists without realizing it because nothing would be more likely to make revolutionary socialism more popular than eliminating worker's protections, minimum wage, etc.

The growth of social democracy and socialism among younger people is largely a reaction to the failures of neoliberalism they've seen in their lifetimes. Doubling-down on those failures will just push people towards more extreme causes.

In particular, if people like Thiel succeed at dismantling democracy there won't be any other method available.


_________________
"If you stick a knife in my back 9 inches and pull it out 6 inches, there's no progress. If you pull it all the way out, that's not progress. The progress is healing the wound that the blow made... and they won't even admit the knife is there." Malcolm X
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


Dengashinobi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Dec 2022
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 598

23 Jan 2023, 1:39 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
Dengashinobi wrote:
magz wrote:
Dengashinobi wrote:
Anyways, my point was not aiming to demonstrate that minimum wage is causing harm to people, which it does. But to demonstrate how the government forces low abiding citizens to brake the law by working in the black.
By the same logic, we could claim that unequal distribution of wealth and opportunities forces law abiding citizens to become gangsters :D


That's another topic. Should we enter the discussion about legalizing drugs
Being a gangster an working on the black are not the same thing. Seeking an opportunity to work for an agreed salary it's not the same as trespassing other people's rights (what a gangster or criminal does).


How does selling crack trespass on other people's rights? I'm just an entrepreneur being hassled by the man. :mrgreen:


This is another topic. Should we enter the discussion about legalizing drugs? :wink:



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,176
Location: Right over your left shoulder

23 Jan 2023, 2:05 pm

Dengashinobi wrote:
This is another topic. Should we enter the discussion about legalizing drugs? :wink:


There's a reasonable chance there might not be much disagreement, except perhaps when it comes to regulation of the product being sold.

I picked that example because the focus switched to gangsters and typically gangsters are business people first and foremost. The violence associated with organized crime is due to those sectors of society not having the same attachment to rule of law and not having other mechanisms available for conflict resolution.

In particular, selling drugs is a lot like buying into an MLM. Someone's making money, but it ain't gonna be you. The business model is designed to pull as much money to the top as possible while the street level operatives typically aren't making minimum wage when all is said and done.

Due to lack of oversight, in many ways the underground economy resembles how the broader economy might look in a deregulated utopia scenario. No protections for consumers, no product safety regulations, no regulations related to product purity, etc.


_________________
"If you stick a knife in my back 9 inches and pull it out 6 inches, there's no progress. If you pull it all the way out, that's not progress. The progress is healing the wound that the blow made... and they won't even admit the knife is there." Malcolm X
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


Dengashinobi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Dec 2022
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 598

23 Jan 2023, 2:56 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
Dengashinobi wrote:
This is another topic. Should we enter the discussion about legalizing drugs? :wink:


There's a reasonable chance there might not be much disagreement, except perhaps when it comes to regulation of the product being sold.

I picked that example because the focus switched to gangsters and typically gangsters are business people first and foremost. The violence associated with organized crime is due to those sectors of society not having the same attachment to rule of law and not having other mechanisms available for conflict resolution.

In particular, selling drugs is a lot like buying into an MLM. Someone's making money, but it ain't gonna be you. The business model is designed to pull as much money to the top as possible while the street level operatives typically aren't making minimum wage when all is said and done.

Due to lack of oversight, in many ways the underground economy resembles how the broader economy might look in a deregulated utopia scenario. No protections for consumers, no product safety regulations, no regulations related to product purity, etc.


I do not know much about the underground drugs market honestly. But I can think of some factors that differentiate it from the "legal" economy. First, the reason why such a market exists is because the government bans it. Second, this dissuades most talented entrepreneurs because of the penalties imposed by the government. Third, it attracts a specific kind of entrepreneur, of a special psychological build-up. People who are inclined to take high risks and participate in violence. Violence is rewarded because it's an environment allready illegal with severe penalties. What difference does it make if you also kill one or two people. Such an environment is not at all representative of your average economy. The people who participate in it are not at all your average society.

You could compare it to a Rothbardian anarchist society though. Your analogy is a good one. Except that there would be one difference. In the criminal underground you have only people who take high risks because the state penalties and violence associated with it keep others from participating. In an anarchist economy, everybody participates in it and you would have a very different outcome. Still I wouldn't like to live in such a society. I belive the state is a necessary evil.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,176
Location: Right over your left shoulder

23 Jan 2023, 4:00 pm

Dengashinobi wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Dengashinobi wrote:
This is another topic. Should we enter the discussion about legalizing drugs? :wink:


There's a reasonable chance there might not be much disagreement, except perhaps when it comes to regulation of the product being sold.

I picked that example because the focus switched to gangsters and typically gangsters are business people first and foremost. The violence associated with organized crime is due to those sectors of society not having the same attachment to rule of law and not having other mechanisms available for conflict resolution.

In particular, selling drugs is a lot like buying into an MLM. Someone's making money, but it ain't gonna be you. The business model is designed to pull as much money to the top as possible while the street level operatives typically aren't making minimum wage when all is said and done.

Due to lack of oversight, in many ways the underground economy resembles how the broader economy might look in a deregulated utopia scenario. No protections for consumers, no product safety regulations, no regulations related to product purity, etc.


I do not know much about the underground drugs market honestly. But I can think of some factors that differentiate it from the "legal" economy. First, the reason why such a market exists is because the government bans it. Second, this dissuades most talented entrepreneurs because of the penalties imposed by the government. Third, it attracts a specific kind of entrepreneur, of a special psychological build-up. People who are inclined to take high risks and participate in violence. Violence is rewarded because it's an environment allready illegal with severe penalties. What difference does it make if you also kill one or two people. Such an environment is not at all representative of your average economy. The people who participate in it are not at all your average society.

You could compare it to a Rothbardian anarchist society though. Your analogy is a good one. Except that there would be one difference. In the criminal underground you have only people who take high risks because the state penalties and violence associated with it keep others from participating. In an anarchist economy, everybody participates in it and you would have a very different outcome. Still I wouldn't like to live in such a society. I belive the state is a necessary evil.


I think we might be roughly on the same page at least on some parts of this issue, although I would say that who is drawn in isn't quite as clear-cut as you describe.

Much like many other sectors in the economy, who gets involved in bootlegging, or selling illicit substances is at least partially determined by access.

Growing up where such business occurs, having connections to people involved, etc are all going to play a role. Poverty also is a common factor. If you've got absolutely nothing, including no other viable options, dealing might look more appealing compared to if you're looking at it from a more comfortable position.

The people who get drawn in aren't inherently more prone to certain behaviours, they were just well-positioned (in terms of starting to get involved) with no other options, typically.

Also, violence isn't necessarily rewarded. Organized crime is well-known for killing off people who draw too much attention towards them. Using violence tends to attract that sort of attention, especially when it harms people who aren't involved in that world.

Keeping that part of the economy illegal essentially gives that sector to organized crime. People who aren't willing to take the risks don't get involved (as you say) but many of those people who take those risks are regular people, it's just that the cost/benefit is different from where they're standing compared to others.

If you've got no options, high risk options become easier to accept, even if one is risk averse and morally opposed.

As a hypothetical, if poverty was eliminated as a factor, fewer people would consider getting involved in that world because the cost/benefit would look worse to them.


_________________
"If you stick a knife in my back 9 inches and pull it out 6 inches, there's no progress. If you pull it all the way out, that's not progress. The progress is healing the wound that the blow made... and they won't even admit the knife is there." Malcolm X
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


Dengashinobi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Dec 2022
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 598

23 Jan 2023, 4:19 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
Dengashinobi wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Dengashinobi wrote:
This is another topic. Should we enter the discussion about legalizing drugs? :wink:


There's a reasonable chance there might not be much disagreement, except perhaps when it comes to regulation of the product being sold.

I picked that example because the focus switched to gangsters and typically gangsters are business people first and foremost. The violence associated with organized crime is due to those sectors of society not having the same attachment to rule of law and not having other mechanisms available for conflict resolution.

In particular, selling drugs is a lot like buying into an MLM. Someone's making money, but it ain't gonna be you. The business model is designed to pull as much money to the top as possible while the street level operatives typically aren't making minimum wage when all is said and done.

Due to lack of oversight, in many ways the underground economy resembles how the broader economy might look in a deregulated utopia scenario. No protections for consumers, no product safety regulations, no regulations related to product purity, etc.


I do not know much about the underground drugs market honestly. But I can think of some factors that differentiate it from the "legal" economy. First, the reason why such a market exists is because the government bans it. Second, this dissuades most talented entrepreneurs because of the penalties imposed by the government. Third, it attracts a specific kind of entrepreneur, of a special psychological build-up. People who are inclined to take high risks and participate in violence. Violence is rewarded because it's an environment allready illegal with severe penalties. What difference does it make if you also kill one or two people. Such an environment is not at all representative of your average economy. The people who participate in it are not at all your average society.

You could compare it to a Rothbardian anarchist society though. Your analogy is a good one. Except that there would be one difference. In the criminal underground you have only people who take high risks because the state penalties and violence associated with it keep others from participating. In an anarchist economy, everybody participates in it and you would have a very different outcome. Still I wouldn't like to live in such a society. I belive the state is a necessary evil.


I think we might be roughly on the same page at least on some parts of this issue, although I would say that who is drawn in isn't quite as clear-cut as you describe.

Much like many other sectors in the economy, who gets involved in bootlegging, or selling illicit substances is at least partially determined by access.

Growing up where such business occurs, having connections to people involved, etc are all going to play a role. Poverty also is a common factor. If you've got absolutely nothing, including no other viable options, dealing might look more appealing compared to if you're looking at it from a more comfortable position.

The people who get drawn in aren't inherently more prone to certain behaviours, they were just well-positioned (in terms of starting to get involved) with no other options, typically.

Also, violence isn't necessarily rewarded. Organized crime is well-known for killing off people who draw too much attention towards them. Using violence tends to attract that sort of attention, especially when it harms people who aren't involved in that world.

Keeping that part of the economy illegal essentially gives that sector to organized crime. People who aren't willing to take the risks don't get involved (as you say) but many of those people who take those risks are regular people, it's just that the cost/benefit is different from where they're standing compared to others.

If you've got no options, high risk options become easier to accept, even if one is risk averse and morally opposed.

As a hypothetical, if poverty was eliminated as a factor, fewer people would consider getting involved in that world because the cost/benefit would look worse to them.


Yes I agree.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,789
Location: London

24 Jan 2023, 9:59 am

I can see why, from a theoretical, ideological point of view, one might be opposed to the minimum wage. If I was starting from first principles, I wouldn’t have a minimum wage. I would guarantee a basic standard of living through a universal basic income funded by tax, and allow people to offer any wage they want - people will only choose those jobs that they want to do, rather than needing one to survive, so the wages will need to be attractive.

In practice, however, my ideology would be sub-optimal! The minimum wage is a much better way of raising living standards than a UBI. We do need to take a conservative approach and raise it gradually rather than in huge leaps, but it works. Small increases do not have a significant net effect on employment rates, but can mean a lot to the people earning the minimum. Ultimately, a minimum wage should not exceed 55% of the local median hourly wage or it will start to negatively impact employment.

There are some people who are probably hurt by minimum wage rises. I’m not too concerned about jobs that are only just viable, because raising the minimum wage seems to create enough jobs to balance out those it destroys. I am a bit more concerned about people who simply aren’t capable of producing eg £8 a hour but could produce £3 an hour. The ideal solution is probably UBI (or disability benefits) plus voluntary jobs. I don’t think this issue is worth throwing away the benefits of the minimum wage for.

I should also say - the minimum wage is only anti-capitalist if you have a very narrow conception of capitalism. Yes it removes your right to pay or receive a low wage, but the market is still free overall.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

24 Jan 2023, 10:05 am

Basically, in practice, very few people could live on $15 an hour for a 40-hour week in most major cities.



magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

24 Jan 2023, 10:17 am

kraftiekortie wrote:
Basically, in practice, very few people could live on $15 an hour for a 40-hour week in most major cities.
And it's often hard to find any employment at all outside of cities.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

24 Jan 2023, 11:05 am

Yep....that's true.

And the lack of public transportation in rural areas is a major hindrance.