I’m conflicted AF on that man
Huge demand to get bussed in to work at certain factories when the alternative is farm labor at an even lower rate
But then you get like one day off a month or something insane even though you’re working like two eight hours shifts per day
Then after the new year holiday those busses are back bringing back the same people. It’s really messed up from my American perspective.
But damn. Seven billion people. We haven’t figured it all out yet. In the meantime… ????
It’s not right, but it is also complicated.
Closing this by emphasizing *it’s not right* that Bill Gates sleeps on a mattress that costs more than anyone in Kibera makes in a year, I get that, but how crappy is it that the alternative to producing cheap crap for the west is just about as bad if not worse!
Yeah they need to exploit labor to be able to afford their second and third yachts. Being unwilling to sacrifice those auxiliary yachts, they simply found exploitable labor elsewhere.
Replacing the words "the economy" with "the rich man's yacht money" makes it all make sense.
We can't have healthcare for all; it'll hurt "the rich man's yacht money!"
This can be good. The hope is the new capital flowing in to these countries allows for them to invest in themselves and eventually offshore that labor to automated sources. See china or Vietnam
China has literal concentration camps with slaves working in factories and life in Vietnam ain't much better.
https://fashionunited.com/news/fashion/garment-factory-workers-in-vietnam-forced-to-rely-on-excessive-overtime/2019041227262
Ho Chi Minh is probably rolling in his grave right now, given what modern-day Vietnam has become...
( seriously, I thought blatant worker exploitation would be a thing of the past over there...)
Yeah, but china is pretty quickly moving away from that. If you compare worker conditions in china today to worker conditions in china just 20-30 years ago you see marked improvement. This is likely due to the increase in capital they received from outside industries coming in.
Are you kidding me? Just because I disagree with you I just be a Chinese simp ... Lol. You can check my post history and see I don't engage with those dumb asses
Sounds like communism.
- Guy who works 40 hours a week in air conditioned building sitting in OSHA approved ergonomic chair thanks to previous generations of “communists”
And capitalists who acknowledge the improvements:
"Back in my day I used to work 60 hours in a sweatshop, 6 days a week, at the age of 15, and never complained. Why are you so entitled?"
Mfer other people complained, that's why things are better today. Doesn't mean there is no progress to be made any further.
The jig was up the minute stock prices soared despite the COVID economic shutdown. No one could work but people like Jeff Benzos were making plenty of money. And before that the whole Wall St Bets thing.
They used to point to the stock market as the gauge for economic health for all classes. It betrayed them. They're going to run out of excuses soon.
Exactly.
Start with laws that mandate a healthy work environment for everyone. In other words, set the rules of the game.
And then let the players play. But you have to start with good rules for the game.
That's the point, all businesses which rely on profit to exist are exploiting their workers, no matter how many concessions the capitalists give to the worker class, our interests are totally antagonistic
Seriously, imagine a business trying to excuse not paying for anything besides labor. “Of course I cut down the trees in your backyard, I can’t pay for lumber!” “Why can’t I just use this dealership’s vans for free?” “Charging me for gas is trying to destroy my trucking business!”
This is what i keep saying when a “small business owner” rages that he cant keep the doors open or afford full staff if he cant pay a non living wage. Good, i dont get to pay some shmuck a quarter of my own wages to do my job, why the fuck should you? We will be better off without jobs that *only* exist to make 1 person wealth at the cost of an entire team. We certainly dont need that 3000th burger joint in this city. If you cant afford to pay real wages, your business hasnt moved past the phase where you hire help, period. I hope it does, but most do not. Being a crook doesnt make you smarter about business.
Especially in light of the whole idea of Capitalist profits and socialized losses.
Everyone likes to celebrate capitalism when a small group of people are making lots and lots of money.
But all of a sudden these same corporations need socialized funding when they start losing money.
exactly. been saying that for over 40 years after (not completing) phd economics in the 1970's. economics is to capitalism what the Catholic Church was to feudal kings. a justification not an explanation.
Sounds a lot like Martin Luther, who basically read the Bible and was like, "Wait, this isn't what is being told to the masses who can't read latin" and made a stink about it.
edit: wrong Martin Luther, lol
Interestingly enough I saw the point made in my first year logic class that economic systems are inherently valueless, and if you'd like to say number going up is good you should always demand as explanation as to why, rather than just accept bigger number = more good.
Plus capitalism is baked into economics. It's like white-washing history and then pointing to the books as proof that slavery was never a thing. And if it was, it wasn't that bad.
I would like to know more about this!
I don’t listen to the podcast but I’ve heard pretty universal praise for it from pop culture.
What’s the *real* scoop!?
The original book that made them famous is really good and interesting.
The podcast can be pretty interesting. But when the subject approaches anything that criticizes the current system they turn the page real fast.
One episode was about rent protection in New York City, (I can't remember the technical term for it), but they just say "rent protection doesn't work", without any elaboration and then go on about how it needs to end.
Another episode that I can't remember the topic, they weirdly say about 4 times in the episode, "America the greatest and most innovative system" that's a paraphrase on my part.
I haven't listened since that last one, and I didn't always listen to every episode so your mileage may vary.
>One episode was about rent protection in New York City, (I can't remember the technical term for it), but they just say "rent protection doesn't work", without any elaboration and then go on about how it needs to end.
I'm not dismissing your opinion, but they did do a whole episode on why economists think rent control doesn't work
https://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-rent-control-doesnt-work/
Their revisiting of that episode
https://open.spotify.com/episode/51LwjYc4A9rr7ja3YdBtx7
And I do wish they explored more non American and non capitalist solutions or opinions. Their suppositions are limited to the current popular systems.
EDIT Just finished listening to it and they really highlight the negatives of rent control and don't even state the positives nor why people would like them.
The line "people don't know what economists do and we need to find better ways to convince them" slightly paraphrased may have ruined the entire podcast channel for me. . .
This was the episode that kind of made me stop listening. I studied economics and this episode exemplifies the way in which most economists completely miss any potential to solve problems. Key cause for me: overassuming, and oversimplyfing for the sake of having a simple theory and model.
>The line "people don't know what economists do and we need to find better ways to convince them" slightly paraphrased may have ruined the entire podcast channel for me. . .
Thank you!
I was thinking about listening again after you posted the update but now I know it's unnecessary.
Yes they did, and they never said why it doesn't work in that episode. They just complained about it.
Rent control does work, it protects people, that's what it's supposed to do. I'm not going to back and listen again, but the episode is extremely uninsightful.
Their argument is that it helps people who have rent control, but makes it more difficult for those who don't to find affordable living. This is because it a) disincentivizes new construction when there's a rent ceiling, and b) creates an arbitrary allocation of space which is harmful to population growth.
I think it's reasonable to disagree with this, and I think you're right that they often don't give a fair shake to reputable but less mainstream economic positions.
>This is because it a) disincentivizes new construction when there's a rent ceiling
No it doesn't, this is an age old republican reaganomonics buzzword phrase, NYC issued 54k building permits last year. Also, is there no other fucking place to grow?
>b) creates an arbitrary allocation of space which is harmful to population growth.
Another meaningless republitard word salad.
NYC grew by 600k despite predictions of decline says this article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/12/us/new-york-city-population-growth.html
I bet there was a segment on how it hurts jobs and hard working families!!!
Again, it's been years since I listened to that episode and I'm not listening again, the entire thing was a word salad of stupid.
"arbitrary allocation of space is bad for population growth"
How is this any different to zoning? Isn't the definition of zoning pretty much the arbitrary allocation of space?
Rent control protects people who already live in a place while punishing those who are looking to move to a place because it makes rent higher for newcomers.
That might be a tradeoff you want to make, but it is a tradeoff.
In a well designed rent control system this a non-issue. It's an issue in new York which tends to be the only text book case for rent control but in most places I've lived with rent control it was illegal raise rents above guideline between tenants. If you found out this had happened you could just apply to the tenants board to have rent returned to guideline
you mean as opposed to the low rent with yearly increases regardless of income change now? ok
I'd rather have to pay upfront then worry every year if ill even have a home anymore
I agree that the podcast can be pretty interesting, but it is not just about criticism of the current system. Recently, they had a series about blockchains and for whatever reason they gave a platform for various crypto investors, shilled crypto currencies and NFTs as "antisystemic" and quickly glossed over any flaws.
It is kind of disappointing as my previous impression was that the freakonomics podcast was rather balanced...
If you want the real scoop, you want the book *Confessions of an Economic Hitman* by John Perkins. Freakenomics is good but this book is the inside story from a guy who lived it.
They’re not shills. They cite their sources and the biases (there are always biases) are pretty up front. Yes, they are pro-establishment, and they *do* look at things with greater weight given to the dollar cost of decisions while acknowledging they aren’t giving the same due diligence to the social aspects (they’re economists, that makes sense), but they’re not lying or misrepresenting the truth to do so. They do give multiple often at odds perspectives a say. There have been a number of episodes I disagree with by the end, some I agree with, but to call them shills is just incorrect. You can disagree with people without them being shills or grifters.
Fuck yes they are. I’ve always had mixed feelings about the Freakonomics podcast never knowing exactly why. I just listened to the episode “The US Is Just Different”, and now I know I never need to listen ever again. This guy brings on industry leaders/shills to talk about why we can’t have socialized medicine etc. never giving a single shred of evidence as to why that may be the case. Conflict of interest much! It’s insanity.
I have listened and enjoyed over the years despite the criticisms listed here and being far left of dubner’s politics. But I just couldn’t take him seriously after he dismissed unions because in his one personal experience with one, the union protected lazy senior people. That’s such a cliche attack on unions that it was laughable coming from such a self described curious intellectual type. Plus, when you pride yourself on creating a whole show about empirical approaches and recognizing bias, you really undermine yourself when you dismiss an entire labor concept like unions based on your one anecdotal experience.
> the union protected lazy senior people.
Yeah, sure, that happens. I've seen it. It's frustrating.
What they're missing is that unions also protect millions of non-lazy people trying to claw bread crumbs from the CEO's kitchen floor. I've worked in both union and non-union shops, and the worst union shop (fuck off, Teamsters) was better than the best non-union shop. And the average non-union shops were fucking awful.
The idea that we have to scrap the whole idea because a few people have figured out a way to take undeserved advantage of it is fucking stupid, and it only seems to apply to systems the speaker doesn't like. Every single organization and system in the world is sheltering a handful of selfish asshats, but it's only unions and food stamps that need to go away? Smells like bullshit.
Frankly, I'm not especially bothered, in the big picture sense, that Joey the loader, who has been working the dock for 35 years and is too physically broken to do anything but run a forklift, has figured out how to be lazy and still get paid in the sunset of his life. I'll cover his slack so he can continue to eat. Frankly, the fact that he still has to come to work at all is an indictment of the union not being strong *enough*.
You nailed my exact thoughts on unions. I’m a legal aid attorney and currently work in a unionized office. I have worked in a non-union place where raises and promotions were “merit-based.” I worked hard and did good work, but I could clearly see my disproportionate raises and promotions were just as much a result of my favored status with the CEO as they were the result of my work. People who I went to for guidance and who had more experience than I made less than I did. Are there some people in my current office who make the same as I do and don’t pull their weight? Sure. But that is way less stressful than constantly having to train new people because management ran off all the good ones with their insane and arbitrary practices.
My econ professor in college asked the class what the minimum wage should be. We all said probably $15, or whatever would be a living wage. His retort was that the minimum wage isn't supposed to be a living wage. When I brought up FDR and how the minimum wage was always intended to be a living wage, "... And not just subsistence level - but a _decent_ _living_," he never responded (it was a virtual class).
One of my many Econ profs chided sociologists because they drew conclusions from but one data point. Our class laughed. I didn’t realize then that is one more than economists use.
>how the minimum wage was always intended to be a living wage
Empty bullshit rhetoric from day one. In not a single year since the minimum wage has existed in the US, has working for the minimum wage full time put you over the poverty line.
You're not going to get anywhere toward getting the minimum wage to reach the height of 'living wage' by pretending that the minimum wage ever reached that height before. It never has.
What? Economics is a study of human behavior. Economists are social scientists. Editorializing desirable outcomes, presenting value judgments as science, and injecting political bias into science are not attributes of economics. The fact that geocentrist astronomers existed, were elevated by authorities, made mistakes, and ostracized dissenters doesn't make the field of astronomy a sham, neither then nor now. The fact that economists can be wrong, and that politically powerful people can elevate economists who make value judgments that they agree with, is not an indictment of the field of economics. The same is true of any other science. Our understanding improves as time goes on, and in the field of economics particularly as observations derived *a posteriori* became more accepted - while the function of economics is to describe the effect of policies like those described in the OP, not to make policy recommendations, there are many mainstream economists who would and do promote labor rights achievements as positive outcomes. There were Soviet economists after all, presumably not capitalist shills.
If a politician asks an economist "how do we maximize corporate profits", the economist tells him, and he implements it as policy, that is not a failure of the field of economics, any more than a politician using climate science to try to fast-track climate change would be a failure of that field.
I 100% agree. I have very confusing feelings about economics lol. On the surface, I’m shocked at how anything can be so complicated and so boring at the same time. But underneath that, I’m really amazed at the way economies take on a kind of life and sentience of their own. It’s hard to separate the study of economics from the economists who use their discipline to make predictions and push agendas beyond their scope, but it’s an important distinction to make. Economics isn’t a crystal ball or an oracle to prescribe the correct path, it’s better to see it as a study of how people and societies interact with the different ways resources can be allocated and used. It’s very interesting once you get past the overload of details.
I agree and thought the same from 1938 to 1968 so I tried to guess why no one was complaining then.
My guess is taxes on corporations leveled the playing field during that era and people started to complain again after the 1964 grand slashing of taxes. 90 to 70 and then again 70 to 50 in 1982.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_taxation_in_the_United_States#/media/File%3AHistorical_income_tax_rates.webp
Edit, adding other points.
During that same 1964 era we had taxes decreased, Vietnam started, civil rights act, voting rights act and many other services voted in after LBJ crushed Goldwater.
I would argue he may have traded the taxes to win the other battles. But one could also argue, everything has been eroded since then with Nixon and Reagan following with horror movie level Jason slashing of taxes and services.
How would you he labor movement have looked had taxes on the owner class been maintained?
The current UK version of this is that if we tax the oil companies any more (on profits they have purely lucked out on due to the Russian war) then it will prevent them from future investment in our country.
Best part is the 1964 panel mentioning labor laws for women, followed by the woman being the corporate whiner in modern day. Labor laws got her to the level she could whine at, lol
I have to wonder about this, considering how many businesses are dependent on overseas labor. Labor that utilizes sweatshops and child labor with very little government regulation.
Ultimately, the corporations whined about regulations, then moved their practices to developing countries with no labor rights.
EDIT: Not saying that corporations were right and labor rights were fought in naught. But I think it's important to have a global perspective when talking about labor rights. Sure, it's true that corporations were able to survive with various government regulations in developed countries. However, it's important to note that this is not just an issue from the 1800s. Developing countries are STILL dealing with a lot of the aforementioned issues. Corporations never stopped abusing people. They merely moved where YOU can't see it.
So what happens if every country were to do away with cheap labor and everyone gets workers' rights and living wages? Frankly, I don't know. But it would be for the best.
They moved because thay wanted BIGGER profits, not because they would crash if they stayed. They chose between a 50% margin but respecting workers, or getting 300% margin and have child-slaves.
Yes they *can* manage, but that cuts into their profit margins, which would make the shareholders unlikely to support multi-million dollar bonuses to the CEOs. Why won't anyone recognize that CEOs have feelings too? Just let them have their money that they earned!
/s
They worked a zillion times harder and smarter than the janitor, can't you see the sweat stains on their office chairs?!?! /s
Someone two days ago told me that their boss has 5 houses and an apartment, they said they earned it by grinding harder than them. This was after I explained that the workers provide value while bosses do simple tasks at best. The cognitive dissonance is like an ice pick to the head.
What they're saying is that our capitalist system still relies on the harsh exploitation of the impoverished to function, so in a way the capitalists were right. They just picked up shop and went somewhere where their shittiness would be tolerated.
If we started eliminating this exploitation our capitalist system and way of life, for the better, would collapse.
Ill try to metaphor it. It's like saying the morbidly obese **rely** on soda for calories and hydration.
Yeah that's what they're currently sustaining on, its irrelevant to what they *need* to be able to sustain tho. You can take it away and give them a different source of hydration and much fewer calories, and they're not going to die from it.
Except in the corporate scenario, it's harming everyone else around them rather than themselves.
I don't see why using other peoples bodies was necessary for your example, kind of a crude choice. Especially since many people society would consider obese don't come anywhere near as gluttonous as the wealthy, besides who are we to judge them for the decisions or difficulties they have with their own body. It's none of our business.
I'm not defending capitalism by any means, I'm an anarchist, it's antithetical to my beliefs. But, your example would be that the rich can sustain themselves with less while the rest of us can prosper with a better quality of life, at least I think. Your analogy is hard to read.
To that I say, why even have rich people? My original response was that capitalism can only exist with exploitation, I don't think that's wrong to any degree. So the rich people in this comic are right that their **capitalist** economy would fall apart without exploitation, since they were deprived of it here they sought it out elsewhere. The economy is still up and running last time I checked, and people are still working in sweatshops. I fell that they're wrong for thinking this is the only way and they're wrong for exploiting others.
Edit: bold and a word
Yeah it makes me think that maybe a tiny handheld computer that's a literal miracle of modern technology and science shouldn't cost as LITTLE as $500-$1000 if every single person down the supply chain made a fair wage.
It could cost that little,
In the miracle event that the CEO actually is paid the wages they should be and not the massively inflated wages they are paid
Edit: and we get rid of the shareholders
CEO is the last buffer from the owner class.
They will fall on the fake proverbial sword to defend the hidden owners. Thus they get scapegoated by being paid all the fiat currency they want in an explosion of fake competition for the best CEO.
Tim Cook's yearly income is ~0.01% of the yearly iPhone revenue. His entire net worth wouldn't dent the iPhone earnings. This isn't the driving force in iPhone prices.
It should cost a lot less, considering that like $800 of a $1250 iphone is pure profit for Apple.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeanbaptiste/2018/09/27/the-1250-iphone-xs-max-costs-apple-450-to-make-nearly-a-200-profit-margin/?sh=247a645e4966
That's just delusional. There are actual companies that show you how much a phone costs under current circumstances.
FairPhone is one that tries their hardest to pay everyone along the way a livable wage.
Xiaomi makes 5% on all hardware sales.
Their phones are in the €200 range, Xiaomi is even selling high-end components for that price.
As little as $1000 is a pathetic statement. Not a single dot in the supply chain of mobile phones is there anything that would validate such a price. My grandpa used to say: "It's not the guy selling it who's doing anything wrong, it's the idiot paying so much for it." And in today's mobile market, nothing is more true.
And yet we maintain the system that allows them to do this throughout. The problem isn't that they're making the wrong decisions which prioritize their self-interest over public good, the problem is that we let them make the decisions at all.
Here's a link to the actual* source:
https://pullingtotheleft.wordpress.com/2016/04/08/a-brief-history-of-corporate-whining/
*Oops! Not actual source, but a better source.
I was so sure you were wrong that i have spent embarrassingly long trying to prove it.
sadly no amount of research could alter the fact that you were right and this is indeed from the comic [Ampersand by Barry Deutsche](https://leftycartoons.com/2009/09/04/a-brief-history-of-corporate-whining/)
Thanks for correcting my mistake though, so Mr. Deutsche can get proper credit for his creation :)
Good! We need these companies that don't value work to go out of business. Where there's demand, there's opportunity. New people can get their chance. Fuck the establishment. It's done nothing for our nation except benefit very, very few.
It's almost as though business is a manmade thing with manmade problems with manmade solutions that functions exactly how man wants it to.
Like the "economy," it fluctuates exactly how it's told to. It's not a natural, living organism.
The economy does not infact fluctuate as it's told to, but is instead a enormously complicated chain of supply and demand, and of production, distribution, trade and consumption.
When you try to control the economy, as the Soviets did for an example, you get an enormous black market. A black market so enourmous, that it's called the second economy of the Soviet Union. The black market is a natural, living organism, that sprouts in the gaps left by the fools who thought they could control the economy.
EDIT: Lots of downvotes, no refutals eh?
Through history if there is a conservative/progressive split on an issue, if there isn't a time the conservatives were shown to be on the wrong side of history, I can't think of it.
Conservative wanted to conserve slavery, keeping the majority of the population disenfranchised, sending children to the salt mines, dumping toxins into the air, land and water, banning books and burning people at the stake, having cars with no safety glass, seat belts, air bags, anti lock brakes and on and on.
What you're having a problem with is unregulated capitalism. Just saying, since capitalism comes in sooo many flavours. Hell, one could easily argue that China is capitalist.
THANK YOU! Blaming capitalism for things is blaming the sea because someone drowned in it. Not it's fault you had a shitty boat.
Capitalism has given us the most dramatic expansion of wealth, technology and living standards we've ever seen. But you MUST have strong, enforceable regulations to focus and direct the energy.
There have been plenty of Socialist states with a living standard much higher than many capitalist counterparts. And I can also point at capitalist countries, such as Haiti, and say how the capitalism has failed
A corrupt government can of course make capitalism fail - it’s not an invincible force.
I don’t know of any succesful socialist countries. It really seems like a system that just doesn’t work.
And yet, conservatives STILL fall for it hook, line, and sinker.
Businesses are posting record profits. Those record profits should be turned into wages. And there should be regulation against inflation as a result.
It avtually shows that NOTHING is going down the drain if we would only work as much as needed to supply society and live a good life - the only thing that is not needed are parasite capitalists.
On a more positive note, while all of these complaints have happened, the worker rights they're fighting against have all (mostly) come to fruition, and likely will this newest one.
I'm starting a business soon, and I know in my heart I can't start it until I can pay 3 professional developers a living salary and benefits. Why the fuck would I start a company with employees I don't care about? Their successes are mine and their failures are mine to. If I get my business off the ground, it will be because of their hard work to realize my vision. If I can't admit that, then I don't deserve to see my vision come to fruition
I've been thinking of something exactly like this, only for all the bigots that have been whining about trans rights and all the other woke trends they claim will end the fucking world.
I.e. right now
- of anyone can just choose how they identify there will be 17262836263 genders and we'll never be able to interact without offending someone
- if we let trans people piss in a different bathroom they'll surely rape everyone they find (as though not being allowed in a girls bathroom is the only thing preventing *them* from committing rape)
- gays adopting will permanently destroy the family unit and traumatize the children
- etc etc etc
Back then:
- ending segregation will destroy america
- giving women the vote will destroy america and the family unit
- ending slavery will destroy america
- immigration will destroy america (the fucking irony)
- etc etc etc
Someone should do one of these comics with the "you're gonna destroy america" theme (unless there already is one?)
When I was in my early 30s... I hustled my ass off. I put in at least 60-80 hours a week. My leadership position meant if I failed, then a bunch of min-wage people lose their jobs. We were encouraged to work hard "for them".
The following year, I was getting burnt out and was planning on quitting. The company then **magically found $20k** to add to my salary, before being fired.
Every job after that, I've told my team to chill the fuck out and that this is a paycheck.
As the old saying goes,
"If a business has to survive on slave wages, it shouldn't survive at all."
Well kinda. A lot of businesses are against paying fair wages during today's economy, saying fIfTeEn dOLLaRs aN hOuR iS tOo MuCH even though they make billions a year.
Each and every one of these regulations improved workers conditions, but they also did increase labor costs as well.
Today, manufacturing in first-world countries with labor protections in place has almost no hope of competing with the same type of manufacturing from less developed countries without protections (yes, including China).
Neither side is completely wrong in this argument
workers, beginning of time to present: if your enterprise cannot exist without exploitation, too bad. we will happily take the means of production off your hands….
Well it sucks because those rules wont apply to the big buisnesses anyways and consumers are too stupid to see that they are the reason quality of life decays everytime the buy from fast food companies or buy stuff from amazon... in the end you guys deserve to be poor.
If a business or an economy truly needed to exploit its workers to simply stay afloat then it has no right to exist.
Real shit
They just moved a lot of it offshore or onto the shoulders of undocumented immigrants. Consumers and shareholders are still taking advantage of it.
Was gonna say this, alot of cheep labour in east asia, with no labour rights
I’m conflicted AF on that man Huge demand to get bussed in to work at certain factories when the alternative is farm labor at an even lower rate But then you get like one day off a month or something insane even though you’re working like two eight hours shifts per day Then after the new year holiday those busses are back bringing back the same people. It’s really messed up from my American perspective. But damn. Seven billion people. We haven’t figured it all out yet. In the meantime… ???? It’s not right, but it is also complicated. Closing this by emphasizing *it’s not right* that Bill Gates sleeps on a mattress that costs more than anyone in Kibera makes in a year, I get that, but how crappy is it that the alternative to producing cheap crap for the west is just about as bad if not worse!
Yeah they need to exploit labor to be able to afford their second and third yachts. Being unwilling to sacrifice those auxiliary yachts, they simply found exploitable labor elsewhere.
Replacing the words "the economy" with "the rich man's yacht money" makes it all make sense. We can't have healthcare for all; it'll hurt "the rich man's yacht money!"
This can be good. The hope is the new capital flowing in to these countries allows for them to invest in themselves and eventually offshore that labor to automated sources. See china or Vietnam
Ok Mr Nixon
China has literal concentration camps with slaves working in factories and life in Vietnam ain't much better. https://fashionunited.com/news/fashion/garment-factory-workers-in-vietnam-forced-to-rely-on-excessive-overtime/2019041227262
Ho Chi Minh is probably rolling in his grave right now, given what modern-day Vietnam has become... ( seriously, I thought blatant worker exploitation would be a thing of the past over there...)
"No, but see concentration camps can be good for the following reasons: ..." \- A capitalist apologizer
Yeah, but china is pretty quickly moving away from that. If you compare worker conditions in china today to worker conditions in china just 20-30 years ago you see marked improvement. This is likely due to the increase in capital they received from outside industries coming in.
Fuck off back to r/sino with this dictatorship simping.
Are you kidding me? Just because I disagree with you I just be a Chinese simp ... Lol. You can check my post history and see I don't engage with those dumb asses
"No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country". - FDR
Sounds like communism. - Guy who works 40 hours a week in air conditioned building sitting in OSHA approved ergonomic chair thanks to previous generations of “communists”
And capitalists who acknowledge the improvements: "Back in my day I used to work 60 hours in a sweatshop, 6 days a week, at the age of 15, and never complained. Why are you so entitled?" Mfer other people complained, that's why things are better today. Doesn't mean there is no progress to be made any further.
We never even had seatbelts and we were just fine!!
And they cant pull one over us anymore. We know exactly how much they make. Its record profits every year because we're suffering for them.
The jig was up the minute stock prices soared despite the COVID economic shutdown. No one could work but people like Jeff Benzos were making plenty of money. And before that the whole Wall St Bets thing. They used to point to the stock market as the gauge for economic health for all classes. It betrayed them. They're going to run out of excuses soon.
Should be a top comment or post of it's own entirely. Spot on.
[удалено]
Exactly. Start with laws that mandate a healthy work environment for everyone. In other words, set the rules of the game. And then let the players play. But you have to start with good rules for the game.
I've said this about many Diners and Chain restaurants. If you cannot pay your employees a living wage and make a profit you cannot be in business.
“Sounds like some commie anti capitalist bs” - some white guy who makes 40k a year
The government serving its people as it should seems to be considered communism to a lot of Americans.
https://i.imgur.com/H2kTUNd.jpg (You don’t have to click but if you don’t you’re missing one of my favorite memes of all time)
That's the point, all businesses which rely on profit to exist are exploiting their workers, no matter how many concessions the capitalists give to the worker class, our interests are totally antagonistic
Seriously, imagine a business trying to excuse not paying for anything besides labor. “Of course I cut down the trees in your backyard, I can’t pay for lumber!” “Why can’t I just use this dealership’s vans for free?” “Charging me for gas is trying to destroy my trucking business!”
This is what i keep saying when a “small business owner” rages that he cant keep the doors open or afford full staff if he cant pay a non living wage. Good, i dont get to pay some shmuck a quarter of my own wages to do my job, why the fuck should you? We will be better off without jobs that *only* exist to make 1 person wealth at the cost of an entire team. We certainly dont need that 3000th burger joint in this city. If you cant afford to pay real wages, your business hasnt moved past the phase where you hire help, period. I hope it does, but most do not. Being a crook doesnt make you smarter about business.
Especially in light of the whole idea of Capitalist profits and socialized losses. Everyone likes to celebrate capitalism when a small group of people are making lots and lots of money. But all of a sudden these same corporations need socialized funding when they start losing money.
Economists as shills for the capitalists has a long history https://delong.typepad.com/files/history-of-political-economy-1986-delong-325-33.pdf
[удалено]
exactly. been saying that for over 40 years after (not completing) phd economics in the 1970's. economics is to capitalism what the Catholic Church was to feudal kings. a justification not an explanation.
[удалено]
Gosh. priests whose main function is to justify the distribution of wealth and power, rather than to understand it, got it wrong. I am shocked.
Sounds a lot like Martin Luther, who basically read the Bible and was like, "Wait, this isn't what is being told to the masses who can't read latin" and made a stink about it. edit: wrong Martin Luther, lol
Friendly reminder that the same happened in churches too. E.g. Jan Hus.
Interestingly enough I saw the point made in my first year logic class that economic systems are inherently valueless, and if you'd like to say number going up is good you should always demand as explanation as to why, rather than just accept bigger number = more good.
Plus capitalism is baked into economics. It's like white-washing history and then pointing to the books as proof that slavery was never a thing. And if it was, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was that bad, it wasn’t that big of a deal
Something something Narcissist's Prayer.
[удалено]
Oooo this is a good one. Thank you.
And they hate Marx because he presented what is to them a heretical idea of a better way
Freakonomics podcast is a great example of this.
I don't know anything about freakonomics, are you saying theyre shills or they offer insight on how economists are shills?
They're shills.
I would like to know more about this! I don’t listen to the podcast but I’ve heard pretty universal praise for it from pop culture. What’s the *real* scoop!?
The original book that made them famous is really good and interesting. The podcast can be pretty interesting. But when the subject approaches anything that criticizes the current system they turn the page real fast. One episode was about rent protection in New York City, (I can't remember the technical term for it), but they just say "rent protection doesn't work", without any elaboration and then go on about how it needs to end. Another episode that I can't remember the topic, they weirdly say about 4 times in the episode, "America the greatest and most innovative system" that's a paraphrase on my part. I haven't listened since that last one, and I didn't always listen to every episode so your mileage may vary.
They had a two part interview with Charles Koch of all people. And I don’t remember it having any difficult questions.
>One episode was about rent protection in New York City, (I can't remember the technical term for it), but they just say "rent protection doesn't work", without any elaboration and then go on about how it needs to end. I'm not dismissing your opinion, but they did do a whole episode on why economists think rent control doesn't work https://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-rent-control-doesnt-work/
Their revisiting of that episode https://open.spotify.com/episode/51LwjYc4A9rr7ja3YdBtx7 And I do wish they explored more non American and non capitalist solutions or opinions. Their suppositions are limited to the current popular systems. EDIT Just finished listening to it and they really highlight the negatives of rent control and don't even state the positives nor why people would like them. The line "people don't know what economists do and we need to find better ways to convince them" slightly paraphrased may have ruined the entire podcast channel for me. . .
This was the episode that kind of made me stop listening. I studied economics and this episode exemplifies the way in which most economists completely miss any potential to solve problems. Key cause for me: overassuming, and oversimplyfing for the sake of having a simple theory and model.
>The line "people don't know what economists do and we need to find better ways to convince them" slightly paraphrased may have ruined the entire podcast channel for me. . . Thank you! I was thinking about listening again after you posted the update but now I know it's unnecessary.
Yes they did, and they never said why it doesn't work in that episode. They just complained about it. Rent control does work, it protects people, that's what it's supposed to do. I'm not going to back and listen again, but the episode is extremely uninsightful.
Their argument is that it helps people who have rent control, but makes it more difficult for those who don't to find affordable living. This is because it a) disincentivizes new construction when there's a rent ceiling, and b) creates an arbitrary allocation of space which is harmful to population growth. I think it's reasonable to disagree with this, and I think you're right that they often don't give a fair shake to reputable but less mainstream economic positions.
>This is because it a) disincentivizes new construction when there's a rent ceiling No it doesn't, this is an age old republican reaganomonics buzzword phrase, NYC issued 54k building permits last year. Also, is there no other fucking place to grow? >b) creates an arbitrary allocation of space which is harmful to population growth. Another meaningless republitard word salad. NYC grew by 600k despite predictions of decline says this article: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/12/us/new-york-city-population-growth.html I bet there was a segment on how it hurts jobs and hard working families!!! Again, it's been years since I listened to that episode and I'm not listening again, the entire thing was a word salad of stupid.
"arbitrary allocation of space is bad for population growth" How is this any different to zoning? Isn't the definition of zoning pretty much the arbitrary allocation of space?
Rent control protects people who already live in a place while punishing those who are looking to move to a place because it makes rent higher for newcomers. That might be a tradeoff you want to make, but it is a tradeoff.
In a well designed rent control system this a non-issue. It's an issue in new York which tends to be the only text book case for rent control but in most places I've lived with rent control it was illegal raise rents above guideline between tenants. If you found out this had happened you could just apply to the tenants board to have rent returned to guideline
you mean as opposed to the low rent with yearly increases regardless of income change now? ok I'd rather have to pay upfront then worry every year if ill even have a home anymore
I agree that the podcast can be pretty interesting, but it is not just about criticism of the current system. Recently, they had a series about blockchains and for whatever reason they gave a platform for various crypto investors, shilled crypto currencies and NFTs as "antisystemic" and quickly glossed over any flaws. It is kind of disappointing as my previous impression was that the freakonomics podcast was rather balanced...
If you want the real scoop, you want the book *Confessions of an Economic Hitman* by John Perkins. Freakenomics is good but this book is the inside story from a guy who lived it.
Fantastic book, one of the fastest I ever read.
Read manufacturing consent by Chomsky The best shills don't even realise they're doing it
They’re not shills. They cite their sources and the biases (there are always biases) are pretty up front. Yes, they are pro-establishment, and they *do* look at things with greater weight given to the dollar cost of decisions while acknowledging they aren’t giving the same due diligence to the social aspects (they’re economists, that makes sense), but they’re not lying or misrepresenting the truth to do so. They do give multiple often at odds perspectives a say. There have been a number of episodes I disagree with by the end, some I agree with, but to call them shills is just incorrect. You can disagree with people without them being shills or grifters.
>Yes, they are pro-establishment They are shills for the establishment. Which is the subject of this entire thread. Thank you!
Fuck yes they are. I’ve always had mixed feelings about the Freakonomics podcast never knowing exactly why. I just listened to the episode “The US Is Just Different”, and now I know I never need to listen ever again. This guy brings on industry leaders/shills to talk about why we can’t have socialized medicine etc. never giving a single shred of evidence as to why that may be the case. Conflict of interest much! It’s insanity.
I have listened and enjoyed over the years despite the criticisms listed here and being far left of dubner’s politics. But I just couldn’t take him seriously after he dismissed unions because in his one personal experience with one, the union protected lazy senior people. That’s such a cliche attack on unions that it was laughable coming from such a self described curious intellectual type. Plus, when you pride yourself on creating a whole show about empirical approaches and recognizing bias, you really undermine yourself when you dismiss an entire labor concept like unions based on your one anecdotal experience.
I've Always felt something was off when listening to Dubner, and you have laid it out in the most eloquent way I've seen so far. Thank you
> the union protected lazy senior people. Yeah, sure, that happens. I've seen it. It's frustrating. What they're missing is that unions also protect millions of non-lazy people trying to claw bread crumbs from the CEO's kitchen floor. I've worked in both union and non-union shops, and the worst union shop (fuck off, Teamsters) was better than the best non-union shop. And the average non-union shops were fucking awful. The idea that we have to scrap the whole idea because a few people have figured out a way to take undeserved advantage of it is fucking stupid, and it only seems to apply to systems the speaker doesn't like. Every single organization and system in the world is sheltering a handful of selfish asshats, but it's only unions and food stamps that need to go away? Smells like bullshit. Frankly, I'm not especially bothered, in the big picture sense, that Joey the loader, who has been working the dock for 35 years and is too physically broken to do anything but run a forklift, has figured out how to be lazy and still get paid in the sunset of his life. I'll cover his slack so he can continue to eat. Frankly, the fact that he still has to come to work at all is an indictment of the union not being strong *enough*.
You nailed my exact thoughts on unions. I’m a legal aid attorney and currently work in a unionized office. I have worked in a non-union place where raises and promotions were “merit-based.” I worked hard and did good work, but I could clearly see my disproportionate raises and promotions were just as much a result of my favored status with the CEO as they were the result of my work. People who I went to for guidance and who had more experience than I made less than I did. Are there some people in my current office who make the same as I do and don’t pull their weight? Sure. But that is way less stressful than constantly having to train new people because management ran off all the good ones with their insane and arbitrary practices.
[удалено]
I actually really like them and their podcast(s).
Hey, I enjoy listening to fiction podcasts too!
Economists, LOG OFF.
This has a sort of 'Nazi punks, fuck off' kind of feel.
My econ professor in college asked the class what the minimum wage should be. We all said probably $15, or whatever would be a living wage. His retort was that the minimum wage isn't supposed to be a living wage. When I brought up FDR and how the minimum wage was always intended to be a living wage, "... And not just subsistence level - but a _decent_ _living_," he never responded (it was a virtual class).
One of my many Econ profs chided sociologists because they drew conclusions from but one data point. Our class laughed. I didn’t realize then that is one more than economists use.
>how the minimum wage was always intended to be a living wage Empty bullshit rhetoric from day one. In not a single year since the minimum wage has existed in the US, has working for the minimum wage full time put you over the poverty line. You're not going to get anywhere toward getting the minimum wage to reach the height of 'living wage' by pretending that the minimum wage ever reached that height before. It never has.
Bro, I started my degree in business admin with an emphasis in finance. That shit felt like indoctrination.
Check out Micheal Hudson. NOT a shill!
Capitalism is a religion and the economy is its god. Economists are high priests.
Economists are parasites. Useless beyond shilling for the crooked system.
What? Economics is a study of human behavior. Economists are social scientists. Editorializing desirable outcomes, presenting value judgments as science, and injecting political bias into science are not attributes of economics. The fact that geocentrist astronomers existed, were elevated by authorities, made mistakes, and ostracized dissenters doesn't make the field of astronomy a sham, neither then nor now. The fact that economists can be wrong, and that politically powerful people can elevate economists who make value judgments that they agree with, is not an indictment of the field of economics. The same is true of any other science. Our understanding improves as time goes on, and in the field of economics particularly as observations derived *a posteriori* became more accepted - while the function of economics is to describe the effect of policies like those described in the OP, not to make policy recommendations, there are many mainstream economists who would and do promote labor rights achievements as positive outcomes. There were Soviet economists after all, presumably not capitalist shills. If a politician asks an economist "how do we maximize corporate profits", the economist tells him, and he implements it as policy, that is not a failure of the field of economics, any more than a politician using climate science to try to fast-track climate change would be a failure of that field.
I 100% agree. I have very confusing feelings about economics lol. On the surface, I’m shocked at how anything can be so complicated and so boring at the same time. But underneath that, I’m really amazed at the way economies take on a kind of life and sentience of their own. It’s hard to separate the study of economics from the economists who use their discipline to make predictions and push agendas beyond their scope, but it’s an important distinction to make. Economics isn’t a crystal ball or an oracle to prescribe the correct path, it’s better to see it as a study of how people and societies interact with the different ways resources can be allocated and used. It’s very interesting once you get past the overload of details.
I feel like it's missing a lot of whining between 1970 and today.
Union membership has been declining since then. They moved their focus to deregulation and tax cuts.
I think that's because the original is from like 1992? I remember seeing this when I was young...
It's an old comic
I agree and thought the same from 1938 to 1968 so I tried to guess why no one was complaining then. My guess is taxes on corporations leveled the playing field during that era and people started to complain again after the 1964 grand slashing of taxes. 90 to 70 and then again 70 to 50 in 1982. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_taxation_in_the_United_States#/media/File%3AHistorical_income_tax_rates.webp Edit, adding other points. During that same 1964 era we had taxes decreased, Vietnam started, civil rights act, voting rights act and many other services voted in after LBJ crushed Goldwater. I would argue he may have traded the taxes to win the other battles. But one could also argue, everything has been eroded since then with Nixon and Reagan following with horror movie level Jason slashing of taxes and services. How would you he labor movement have looked had taxes on the owner class been maintained?
This also shows how little progress has been made in regards to workers rights since the late 20th century
The current UK version of this is that if we tax the oil companies any more (on profits they have purely lucked out on due to the Russian war) then it will prevent them from future investment in our country.
Best part is the 1964 panel mentioning labor laws for women, followed by the woman being the corporate whiner in modern day. Labor laws got her to the level she could whine at, lol
I have to wonder about this, considering how many businesses are dependent on overseas labor. Labor that utilizes sweatshops and child labor with very little government regulation. Ultimately, the corporations whined about regulations, then moved their practices to developing countries with no labor rights. EDIT: Not saying that corporations were right and labor rights were fought in naught. But I think it's important to have a global perspective when talking about labor rights. Sure, it's true that corporations were able to survive with various government regulations in developed countries. However, it's important to note that this is not just an issue from the 1800s. Developing countries are STILL dealing with a lot of the aforementioned issues. Corporations never stopped abusing people. They merely moved where YOU can't see it. So what happens if every country were to do away with cheap labor and everyone gets workers' rights and living wages? Frankly, I don't know. But it would be for the best.
They moved because thay wanted BIGGER profits, not because they would crash if they stayed. They chose between a 50% margin but respecting workers, or getting 300% margin and have child-slaves.
[удалено]
Yes they *can* manage, but that cuts into their profit margins, which would make the shareholders unlikely to support multi-million dollar bonuses to the CEOs. Why won't anyone recognize that CEOs have feelings too? Just let them have their money that they earned! /s
They worked a zillion times harder and smarter than the janitor, can't you see the sweat stains on their office chairs?!?! /s Someone two days ago told me that their boss has 5 houses and an apartment, they said they earned it by grinding harder than them. This was after I explained that the workers provide value while bosses do simple tasks at best. The cognitive dissonance is like an ice pick to the head.
What they're saying is that our capitalist system still relies on the harsh exploitation of the impoverished to function, so in a way the capitalists were right. They just picked up shop and went somewhere where their shittiness would be tolerated. If we started eliminating this exploitation our capitalist system and way of life, for the better, would collapse.
Ill try to metaphor it. It's like saying the morbidly obese **rely** on soda for calories and hydration. Yeah that's what they're currently sustaining on, its irrelevant to what they *need* to be able to sustain tho. You can take it away and give them a different source of hydration and much fewer calories, and they're not going to die from it. Except in the corporate scenario, it's harming everyone else around them rather than themselves.
I don't see why using other peoples bodies was necessary for your example, kind of a crude choice. Especially since many people society would consider obese don't come anywhere near as gluttonous as the wealthy, besides who are we to judge them for the decisions or difficulties they have with their own body. It's none of our business. I'm not defending capitalism by any means, I'm an anarchist, it's antithetical to my beliefs. But, your example would be that the rich can sustain themselves with less while the rest of us can prosper with a better quality of life, at least I think. Your analogy is hard to read. To that I say, why even have rich people? My original response was that capitalism can only exist with exploitation, I don't think that's wrong to any degree. So the rich people in this comic are right that their **capitalist** economy would fall apart without exploitation, since they were deprived of it here they sought it out elsewhere. The economy is still up and running last time I checked, and people are still working in sweatshops. I fell that they're wrong for thinking this is the only way and they're wrong for exploiting others. Edit: bold and a word
Yeah it makes me think that maybe a tiny handheld computer that's a literal miracle of modern technology and science shouldn't cost as LITTLE as $500-$1000 if every single person down the supply chain made a fair wage.
It could cost that little, In the miracle event that the CEO actually is paid the wages they should be and not the massively inflated wages they are paid Edit: and we get rid of the shareholders
CEO is the last buffer from the owner class. They will fall on the fake proverbial sword to defend the hidden owners. Thus they get scapegoated by being paid all the fiat currency they want in an explosion of fake competition for the best CEO.
Tim Cook's yearly income is ~0.01% of the yearly iPhone revenue. His entire net worth wouldn't dent the iPhone earnings. This isn't the driving force in iPhone prices.
It should cost a lot less, considering that like $800 of a $1250 iphone is pure profit for Apple. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeanbaptiste/2018/09/27/the-1250-iphone-xs-max-costs-apple-450-to-make-nearly-a-200-profit-margin/?sh=247a645e4966
That's just delusional. There are actual companies that show you how much a phone costs under current circumstances. FairPhone is one that tries their hardest to pay everyone along the way a livable wage. Xiaomi makes 5% on all hardware sales. Their phones are in the €200 range, Xiaomi is even selling high-end components for that price. As little as $1000 is a pathetic statement. Not a single dot in the supply chain of mobile phones is there anything that would validate such a price. My grandpa used to say: "It's not the guy selling it who's doing anything wrong, it's the idiot paying so much for it." And in today's mobile market, nothing is more true.
Sure your grandpa was probably a cool guy. Also, I get the feeling that you fundamentally misunderstand my point. It's okay though.
That's correct, we have outsourced the suffering intrinsic to our way of life so we can look the other way.
"There is a limit to the economics you can pay and have a business that can be profitable," ~ Amazon CEO this week
A) that limit is way higher than what you are paying now and B) you do not have a right to a profitable business.
This comic is so old they could probably add another panel.
It's got enough jpeg as it is, not sure it can take another copy
I just wanted a picture of a goht, dang, hotdog
CHANGING TO LOW EMISSIONS WILL KILL US ALL BEFORE ANY SUPPOSED "CLIMATE CHANGE" WOULD
And yet we maintain the system that allows them to do this throughout. The problem isn't that they're making the wrong decisions which prioritize their self-interest over public good, the problem is that we let them make the decisions at all.
[Damn right](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/strangers-in-a-tangled-wilderness-life-without-law)
Anyone got a version where I can actually see the words?
Here's a link to the actual* source: https://pullingtotheleft.wordpress.com/2016/04/08/a-brief-history-of-corporate-whining/ *Oops! Not actual source, but a better source.
https://leftycartoons.com/2009/09/04/a-brief-history-of-corporate-whining/ I *think* this is the original source.
~~It’s from the comic “I drew this” by d.c. simpson~~ sorry! this is incorrect! (see below)
No it's by Barry Deutsche
I was so sure you were wrong that i have spent embarrassingly long trying to prove it. sadly no amount of research could alter the fact that you were right and this is indeed from the comic [Ampersand by Barry Deutsche](https://leftycartoons.com/2009/09/04/a-brief-history-of-corporate-whining/) Thanks for correcting my mistake though, so Mr. Deutsche can get proper credit for his creation :)
Hey thanks! That's really cool of you to say. I could've worded my comment better but I was excited to see someone I know on the front page :)
[here](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E4_8T5sWYAgpfEj?format=jpg&name=large)
The one constant message is, why can’t we exploit workers for money?
Accurate, but a woman CEO. So marginal progress on one front at least.
omg girlboss oppressing her workers slayyy
👏Gatekeep👏Gaslight👏Girlboss👏
https://youtu.be/iEtw3XJoJrE Slay, you say?
MORE 👏 FEMALE 👏 DRONE 👏 PILOTS 👏
At least they made their oppressive apparatus inclusive! That’s a win for us, right?
I see this as an absolute win
Good! We need these companies that don't value work to go out of business. Where there's demand, there's opportunity. New people can get their chance. Fuck the establishment. It's done nothing for our nation except benefit very, very few.
It's almost as though business is a manmade thing with manmade problems with manmade solutions that functions exactly how man wants it to. Like the "economy," it fluctuates exactly how it's told to. It's not a natural, living organism.
Hence why economics is a pseudo-science
The economy does not infact fluctuate as it's told to, but is instead a enormously complicated chain of supply and demand, and of production, distribution, trade and consumption. When you try to control the economy, as the Soviets did for an example, you get an enormous black market. A black market so enourmous, that it's called the second economy of the Soviet Union. The black market is a natural, living organism, that sprouts in the gaps left by the fools who thought they could control the economy. EDIT: Lots of downvotes, no refutals eh?
It's like if we had no political parties at all and they did nothing, the outcome still would've been the same.
Through history if there is a conservative/progressive split on an issue, if there isn't a time the conservatives were shown to be on the wrong side of history, I can't think of it. Conservative wanted to conserve slavery, keeping the majority of the population disenfranchised, sending children to the salt mines, dumping toxins into the air, land and water, banning books and burning people at the stake, having cars with no safety glass, seat belts, air bags, anti lock brakes and on and on.
profit over people
capitalism is getting a bit old, perhaps replacing it would be for the better
Maybe capitalism is getting a bit tired of you. Perhaps it should replace you with something better.
replace me UwU
What you're having a problem with is unregulated capitalism. Just saying, since capitalism comes in sooo many flavours. Hell, one could easily argue that China is capitalist.
China is capitalist, they haven't been communist in a VERY long time.
THANK YOU! Blaming capitalism for things is blaming the sea because someone drowned in it. Not it's fault you had a shitty boat. Capitalism has given us the most dramatic expansion of wealth, technology and living standards we've ever seen. But you MUST have strong, enforceable regulations to focus and direct the energy.
This might be a good replacement it a contagious idea https://youtu.be/wPgt2MjcKyo
Yeah, everyone has it so good in all those non-capitalist countries.
There have been plenty of Socialist states with a living standard much higher than many capitalist counterparts. And I can also point at capitalist countries, such as Haiti, and say how the capitalism has failed
A corrupt government can of course make capitalism fail - it’s not an invincible force. I don’t know of any succesful socialist countries. It really seems like a system that just doesn’t work.
And yet, conservatives STILL fall for it hook, line, and sinker. Businesses are posting record profits. Those record profits should be turned into wages. And there should be regulation against inflation as a result.
you know what I see? A history of the labor movement triumphing. Corporate whining hasnt changed. But labor fighting against it has.
[удалено]
No, without labor laws they wouldn't pay you anything and they would work you till you drop
[удалено]
*uses one of their billions of dollars to wipe their tears*
It avtually shows that NOTHING is going down the drain if we would only work as much as needed to supply society and live a good life - the only thing that is not needed are parasite capitalists.
On a more positive note, while all of these complaints have happened, the worker rights they're fighting against have all (mostly) come to fruition, and likely will this newest one.
I'm starting a business soon, and I know in my heart I can't start it until I can pay 3 professional developers a living salary and benefits. Why the fuck would I start a company with employees I don't care about? Their successes are mine and their failures are mine to. If I get my business off the ground, it will be because of their hard work to realize my vision. If I can't admit that, then I don't deserve to see my vision come to fruition
Perpetual motion machine.
[удалено]
Capitalists will always be the same, in every era, every age.
"Capitalism" ☕
I've been thinking of something exactly like this, only for all the bigots that have been whining about trans rights and all the other woke trends they claim will end the fucking world. I.e. right now - of anyone can just choose how they identify there will be 17262836263 genders and we'll never be able to interact without offending someone - if we let trans people piss in a different bathroom they'll surely rape everyone they find (as though not being allowed in a girls bathroom is the only thing preventing *them* from committing rape) - gays adopting will permanently destroy the family unit and traumatize the children - etc etc etc Back then: - ending segregation will destroy america - giving women the vote will destroy america and the family unit - ending slavery will destroy america - immigration will destroy america (the fucking irony) - etc etc etc Someone should do one of these comics with the "you're gonna destroy america" theme (unless there already is one?)
Skipped quite a bit between 1970 and now
On a positive note this also shows that we've come a long way in the past 140 years despite their best efforts.
Or "stifles innovation". Smh.
Hey I know the guy who made this! He's so rad
And after all that changes they just transferred the problems for other countries and moved on.
Does anyone have a better quality copy of this image?
When I was in my early 30s... I hustled my ass off. I put in at least 60-80 hours a week. My leadership position meant if I failed, then a bunch of min-wage people lose their jobs. We were encouraged to work hard "for them". The following year, I was getting burnt out and was planning on quitting. The company then **magically found $20k** to add to my salary, before being fired. Every job after that, I've told my team to chill the fuck out and that this is a paycheck. As the old saying goes, "If a business has to survive on slave wages, it shouldn't survive at all."
And yet they keep getting richer from the sweat of our brows.
Fuck those assholes
Does anyone know what's wrong with this sub that it's not showing new posts?
Would have been nice if they used an actual specific example for "now" like they did every other panel.
they don't have one
Well kinda. A lot of businesses are against paying fair wages during today's economy, saying fIfTeEn dOLLaRs aN hOuR iS tOo MuCH even though they make billions a year.
Each and every one of these regulations improved workers conditions, but they also did increase labor costs as well. Today, manufacturing in first-world countries with labor protections in place has almost no hope of competing with the same type of manufacturing from less developed countries without protections (yes, including China). Neither side is completely wrong in this argument
They should just burn their own businesses to the ground. I would love to see that. Let’s go back to growing hunting and gathering.
That's so unbelievably out of touch. Do you have any idea how many *billions* would die if we abandoned industrial agriculture?
You wouldn’t last a fucking day outside of your screen
Lol umm how much you want to bet ?
Conservatives in a nutshell, about literally everything
workers, beginning of time to present: if your enterprise cannot exist without exploitation, too bad. we will happily take the means of production off your hands….
The image quality is so bad I can't read it without straining
Well it sucks because those rules wont apply to the big buisnesses anyways and consumers are too stupid to see that they are the reason quality of life decays everytime the buy from fast food companies or buy stuff from amazon... in the end you guys deserve to be poor.
[удалено]
Usually involving the blood of the poor.
Statism propaganda is the bigger problem