Today I learned about capitalism

[kranky al]

Don't ruin the diatribe with some facts.

Its wasted on the RWNJ types anyway

*Taylor modus operandi

-states opinion based on personal experience

*other posters

-provide links and statistics proving taylor is off by a mile

*taylor

-nothing

*five pages later

*taylor

-posts same opinion again

 

[madmug]

*Taylor modus operandi

-states opinion based on personal experience

*other posters

-provide links and statistics proving taylor is off by a mile

*taylor

-nothing

*five pages later

*taylor

-posts same opinion again

Yer wot?

 

[DAlembert]

Don't ruin the diatribe with some facts.

Its wasted on the RWNJ types anyway

No only the GAGFUFI types.

 

[DAlembert]

All very idealistic but lacking any historical context.
Have a read of this. Gives you a little context of what Unions fought against.

The Coal Mining Massacre America Forgot

The mountains of southern West Virginia are riddled with coal—and bullets

www.smithsonianmag.com

There is little functional difference between debt peonage and slavery, just the legality of it.

I know enough about unions to say no thanks. They serve a purpose on a very limited basis in a modern economy but are a huge handbrake on the party they support. Your historical context is irrelevant and teaches us nothing about capitalism. Maybe you should start a thread on unions rather than wasting time in this thread because you are unwilling to learn about capitalism.

 

[DAlembert]

Cool. I wasn't alive 45 years ago, so you didn't have it with me.

If I mentioned Taylorism, would you know what I was talking about?

And did you not look at the wide variety of sources I quoted demonstrating that Amazon engage in aggressive tax minimisation strategies that result in them paying less tax than they should?

... across the board. For individuals that are placed within the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum, capitalism can be a weight that they need to lift off themselves before they can take the opportunities it can offer.

Simply put, just because there is - at present - no viable alternative to capitalism over time (at least, no viable alternative to soft capitalism and welfare systems) does not mean there is nothing negative concerning the system, and that we shouldn't be seeking to improve upon it.

"If I mentioned Taylorism, would you know what I was talking about?" Henry Ford wrote a number of books in the early 1920s where he obviously follows Taylor concepts some of these make excellent reading on a great capitalist. I read these books which I discovered at the local university library many years ago.
Capitalism is not a weight on any one at the bottom of anything...really it is an enabler to a better life. But heh we both know that Governments play a much larger role in the economy than ever before. This has led to a modern idea that a Govt. should look after you from cradle to grave and many adhere to this frightful concept. Lets have no doubt however that the current situation the world finds itself in will be a game changer exactly how that is going to look is still too early to say. That argument I had 45 years ago was with my best friend at the time and I met him 30 years later and asked him did he still have the same beliefs...."he said ah no I grew out of that phase fairly quickly when I realised that I had a family to support and better get on with it" Ideology you see does not put food on the table.

 

[madmug]

"If I mentioned Taylorism, would you know what I was talking about?" Henry Ford wrote a number of books in the early 1920s where he obviously follows Taylor concepts some of these make excellent reading on a great capitalist. I read these books which I discovered at the local university library many years ago.
Capitalism is not a weight on any one at the bottom of anything...really it is an enabler to a better life. But heh we both know that Governments play a much larger role in the economy than ever before. This has led to a modern idea that a Govt. should look after you from cradle to grave and many adhere to this frightful concept. Lets have no doubt however that the current situation the world finds itself in will be a game changer exactly how that is going to look is still too early to say. That argument I had 45 years ago was with my best friend at the time and I met him 30 years later and asked him did he still have the same beliefs...."he said ah no I grew out of that phase fairly quickly when I realised that I had a family to support and better get on with it" Ideology you see does not put food on the table.

And certainly unfettered capitalism doesn't put much on the table for the majority.

Capitalism has been consuming much of what we thought were the middle class in Western nations for years.

Like Communism, the other extreme, Capitalism, really isn't safe or sustainable.

I think the form of 'mixed economy', like what we believed Australia had before the run of RW Conservatives have tried to strangle it, offers the balance between both ideologies. A balance which offers a fair days reward for a fair days effort.

One that also offers a decent education & health care for all citizens. etc etc.

 

[DAlembert]

And certainly unfettered capitalism doesn't put much on the table for the majority.

Capitalism has been consuming much of what we thought were the middle class in Western nations for years.

Like Communism, the other extreme, Capitalism, really isn't safe or sustainable.

I think the form of 'mixed economy', like what we believed Australia had before the run of RW Conservatives have tried to strangle it, offers the balance between both ideologies. A balance which offers a fair days reward for a fair days effort.

One that also offers a decent education & health care for all citizens. etc etc.

Unfettered capitalism does not exist and if it did it was not for long. Socialism is what consumes the middle class as this is where most of the taxes come from to pay the huge welfare bills. Capitalism does not consume anything it creates wealth and pays taxes. You just want them to pay more. Communist Russia was a complete failure. People were never better off than they were under Howard but he did not create that boom. Australians are amongst the highest paid workers in the World seems to me we are getting just reward for our toil. Our education and health systems are envied by other nations etc etc

 

[madmug]

Unfettered capitalism does not exist and if it did it was not for long. Socialism is what consumes the middle class as this is where most of the taxes come from to pay the huge welfare bills. Capitalism does not consume anything it creates wealth and pays taxes. You just want them to pay more. Communist Russia was a complete failure. People were never better off than they were under Howard but he did not create that boom. Australians are amongst the highest paid workers in the World seems to me we are getting just reward for our toil. Our education and health systems are envied by other nations etc etc

Pure communism doesn't & never did exist either. So we'll call that a draw.

Right now we are losing the wealth of the last 20 years.

Q1) who pays the bill for all this support of private business when come the time to pay off the burgeoning Federal Debt.?

Q2) Who benefits from the sort of economic meltdown we're seeing?

A1) Not the corporate sector that's for sure. The Conservatives will keep the corporate taxes low whilst the rest of us will pay through the nose.

A2) The 1%ers who have the wealth to buy massive chunks of shares when prices are way down & ordinary folk have seen their superannuation & share values slashed.

Australia is envied by many because our mixed economy has supported our education & health systems, despite constant attacks from the Conservative cabal.

 

[Toump Ass]

Capitalism encourages Creativity that is one of its main strengths.

Sure, in theory. But in reality capitalism often leads to industries being monopolised and an uneven distribution of wealth, which means creative people end up being employed by large enterprise simply to make rich people richer.

If you are on unemployment benefits by definition you are not supposed to get ahead you need to find work.

No s**t. But your contention that people on the bottom are better than ever when the welfare system is providing less than ever is false.

Where the money goes still does not change the fact 170 Billion of taxpayers money has been spent.

Of course where taxpayers money is spent matters. Are the contracts for private companies (ie: Job Search Agencies) counted, or the 600 million on the shitty and illegal Robodebt scheme, or the crappy Newstart drug test trial?

 

[Gethelred]

"If I mentioned Taylorism, would you know what I was talking about?" Henry Ford wrote a number of books in the early 1920s where he obviously follows Taylor concepts some of these make excellent reading on a great capitalist. I read these books which I discovered at the local university library many years ago.
Capitalism is not a weight on any one at the bottom of anything...really it is an enabler to a better life. But heh we both know that Governments play a much larger role in the economy than ever before. This has led to a modern idea that a Govt. should look after you from cradle to grave and many adhere to this frightful concept. Lets have no doubt however that the current situation the world finds itself in will be a game changer exactly how that is going to look is still too early to say. That argument I had 45 years ago was with my best friend at the time and I met him 30 years later and asked him did he still have the same beliefs...."he said ah no I grew out of that phase fairly quickly when I realised that I had a family to support and better get on with it" Ideology you see does not put food on the table.

I'm not casting aspersions on your knowledge base, just geting a basis for the initial beginning point for my argument.

See, Taylor's whole thing was efficiency and efficacy; applying KPI's to manufacturing and simplifying each task to as minute a degree as could be possible. However, the other side of it was that Taylor also theorized that highly efficient workers should be paid as much as directors should, because rewarding appropriate efficiency (given how rare it was) was to be desired.

And Ford's genius was in raising his workers' wages - not as much as Taylor advocated - was inspired; he turned his workers into potential customers.

I reiterate; skills alone should not be the sole means of determining a person's wage. There should be an aspect of how good one is at their job, how rare the skills for that job are, and how valuable the capacity to do that job is.

 

[E Shed]

I know enough about unions to say no thanks. They serve a purpose on a very limited basis in a modern economy but are a huge handbrake on the party they support. Your historical context is irrelevant and teaches us nothing about capitalism. Maybe you should start a thread on unions rather than wasting time in this thread because you are unwilling to learn about capitalism.

I ran my own successful business for 20 years so I'm quite familiar with the principles of how to survive on my own wits in a free market. But thanks for patronising me.
You come across as someone with a closed mind without much capacity for abstraction, context and nuance in discussion while at the same time presuming you are smarter than the person you are lecturing so I think we'll just agree to disagree.

 

[DAlembert]

I'm not casting aspersions on your knowledge base, just geting a basis for the initial beginning point for my argument.

See, Taylor's whole thing was efficiency and efficacy; applying KPI's to manufacturing and simplifying each task to as minute a degree as could be possible. However, the other side of it was that Taylor also theorized that highly efficient workers should be paid as much as directors should, because rewarding appropriate efficiency (given how rare it was) was to be desired.

And Ford's genius was in raising his workers' wages - not as much as Taylor advocated - was inspired; he turned his workers into potential customers.

I reiterate; skills alone should not be the sole means of determining a person's wage. There should be an aspect of how good one is at their job, how rare the skills for that job are, and how valuable the capacity to do that job is.

"I reiterate; skills alone should not be the sole means of determining a person's wage. There should be an aspect of how good one is at their job, how rare the skills for that job are, and how valuable the capacity to do that job is." There has to be a demand for that job also.

 

[madmug]

"I reiterate; skills alone should not be the sole means of determining a person's wage. There should be an aspect of how good one is at their job, how rare the skills for that job are, and how valuable the capacity to do that job is." There has to be a demand for that job also.

'Skills' is how good one is at their job, isn't it?

Anyway in many cases that is how they are determined.

Corporations pay CEO's outlandish sums based on some 'perceived' incredible level of ability. That's what the recipients & board directors argue the matter

Of course one sees company's values & profits rise & fall according to outside forces such as the overall economy.

Value for money is demonstrably moot with these company 'high flyers'.

Medical specialists too charge a fee. They themselves determine to their 'worth' & charge accordingly. Most people do not have any idea if one specialist is better than any other. However the various professions control who enters the 'fellowship'. This creates a scarcity. Its worse in the US where 10% of GDP is spent on 'medicine', yet their outcomes are not commensurately better.

 

[kranky al]

"I reiterate; skills alone should not be the sole means of determining a person's wage. There should be an aspect of how good one is at their job, how rare the skills for that job are, and how valuable the capacity to do that job is." There has to be a demand for that job also.

Sounds like people in retail should be getting paid a lot more right now....

 

[Kram]

How long does it take to learn how to work in a shop, a couple of days?

 

[kranky al]

How long does it take to learn how to work in a shop, a couple of days?

Fuqed if id do it right now - stuff that

 

[Gethelred]

How long does it take to learn how to work in a shop, a couple of days?

I worked in a high volume petrol station about 2-3 months ago; it's on one of the highways going down to the Mornington Peninsula, going through Summer.

It isn't learning how to do it, it's in not making mistakes that cost the business money, and doing so to a high level over a period measured in hours. So it's not a difficult job per se, but it's not a job everyone can do because each additional customer adds another task onto you when you're already multitasking.

 

[E Shed]

This says a lot of the things I've been thinking well. Its actually a very hopefully article not an outrage piece as the title might suggest.

 

[DAlembert]

This says a lot of the things I've been thinking well. Its actually a very hopefully article not an outrage piece as the title might suggest.

"I cannot speak for you, but I imagine you feel like I do: devastated, depressed, and heartbroken." I do not feel any of those things. Yep the World will hit the reset button and life will never be the same. Never hearing the term Gaslighting again would be a good start.

 

[kranky al]

Today i learned that we dont just offshore work because the workers are cheaper - we do it because they have lower environmental standards than us :



they also have zero ohs standards and lots of them die or are horribly injured doing this.

but on the bright side - shareholders get a few more bucks.

 

[Gethelred]

Today i learned that we dont just offshore work because the workers are cheaper - we do it because they have lower environmental standards than us :



they also have zero ohs standards and lots of them die or are horribly injured doing this.

but on the bright side - shareholders get a few more bucks.

This surely isn't a surprise.

Low wages, corporation friendly labour laws, a workforce unlikely to kick up a fuss because each of them not only needs the job but so do the 20 people on the street; all of it forms a picture of perfection within a capitalist utopia.

 

[DAlembert]

This surely isn't a surprise.

Low wages, corporation friendly labour laws, a workforce unlikely to kick up a fuss because each of them not only needs the job but so do the 20 people on the street; all of it forms a picture of perfection within a capitalist utopia.

Maybe for far less cost they do the job better...well isn't that a surprise. Economics 1 0 1.

 

[kranky al]

Maybe for far less cost they do the job better...well isn't that a surprise. Economics 1 0 1.

Did you miss the bit where a lot of them die or are horribly mutilated. They have no ppe, are exposed to friable asbestos and are severely polluting the ocean as they break these ships down.

quite instructive that the ONLY thing you take from that is “cheaper”

 

[Gethelred]

Maybe for far less cost they do the job better...well isn't that a surprise. Economics 1 0 1.

I'm going to put it this way; say you're a woman who works in a Nike factory in Taiwan. Say your boss hits on you.

If that happened in Australia, you could reciprocate if you wished, and if you didn't you had workplace law in position to prevent your refusal negative repercussion. In Taiwan, you have several issues; one, if you refuse, he can fire you immediately, and fill your position in the next ten minutes. Two, if you assent at all, there's no chance at refusal later. All the power is with the employer; he can fire you because one of the girls he is sweet on inquired that day, or because when he propositioned you for sex you refused because you were married.

Even if it is efficiency is to be desired above all else - or merely the cutting of costs - this is hardly an ideal situation for the employer or the worker; does the fact that their job is constantly under threat cause them to work harder, or merely faster? You miss things when going quickly, things you wouldn't miss if you didn't. Does the fact that they must keep their job to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table and that the job is ludicrously insecure result in them doing a better job?

Probably not.

 

[DAlembert]

I'm going to put it this way; say you're a woman who works in a Nike factory in Taiwan. Say your boss hits on you.

If that happened in Australia, you could reciprocate if you wished, and if you didn't you had workplace law in position to prevent your refusal negative repercussion. In Taiwan, you have several issues; one, if you refuse, he can fire you immediately, and fill your position in the next ten minutes. Two, if you assent at all, there's no chance at refusal later. All the power is with the employer; he can fire you because one of the girls he is sweet on inquired that day, or because when he propositioned you for sex you refused because you were married.

Even if it is efficiency is to be desired above all else - or merely the cutting of costs - this is hardly an ideal situation for the employer or the worker; does the fact that their job is constantly under threat cause them to work harder, or merely faster? You miss things when going quickly, things you wouldn't miss if you didn't. Does the fact that they must keep their job to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table and that the job is ludicrously insecure result in them doing a better job?

Probably not.

I would say you no very little about Taiwan. You theoretical example is nonsense...they have sexual harassment laws in Taiwan and have had since 2002.
So all the power is not with the employer and in fact who is this "boss" you talk about...the owner a manager who exactly. So that paragraph we can ignore because it is based on a false premise.
Second paragraph does not even make sense. Truth is... your post has no basis in truth.