Capitalist ethos

[Tridimity]

Just in case any members are under the illusion that the major capitalist institutions in our societies are willing to protect us as individual consumers or have any reasonable capacity for empathy with their customers - indeed, the Royal Bank of Scotland (Lloyds, RBS and Barclays were all involved in the present scandal) select against existing or potential employees who display too much empathy with the customer, when selecting staff for their Global Restructuring Group programme:

 

Panorama: Britain's New Banking Scandal

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03dz52t/Panorama_Britains_New_Banking_Scandal/

 

Features two cases of the mis-selling of complex financial products, 'interest rate swaps'. The crux of the contract is designed such that the product protects customers should the interest rate on their loan increase. However, what is not explained to the customer beforehand, is that in the event that the interest rate drops, the customer must pay huge costs. The fact of having an interest rate swap, on its own, when rates drop, means that the customer is then viewed as riskier and so has to pay even more! The rogue deal has cost one couple running a small/medium-sized nursery business in the region of £100,000, which they can ill afford and may well cost them the survival of their business. Barclays offered the couple an opportunity to buy themselves out of the deal - at the price of £100,000 - knowing and acknowledging to the customer that the customer would be unable to afford this option. The couple are now on medication to treat the clinical depression that the financial abuse by Barclays has inflicted - it is easy to see the impact on the customers' lives and wellbeing, that have been stripped by the bank. In another case, a banker contacted a customer while the customer's attention was diverted as he was driving in his car - and mis-sold to the customer a product worth £4.5 million, the terms were read aloud over the phone! Bank staff could stand to gain bonuses worth double their salary and so, once again, bonus culture facilitated the morally reprehensible transactions. Thirty thousand cases are currently being investigated for mis-selling. The new regulatory body overseeing the banks, the Financial Conduct Authority, is working with the banks on a redress scheme, the terms of which are being kept secret. In a flagrant dismissal of conflict of interest, customers seeking redress are directed to a solicitor who is appointed by the bank!

 

This is the gratitude shown by banks towards the taxpayers who have bailed them out; this is the problem with privatisation; this is the problem with the greed-based capitalist model.

 

They don't care about the human cost resulting from their own actions.

 

They don't care about us!

 

 

[kindheart]

I'm a bit torn on this issue. On one hand, I recognize that businesses are amoral rational actors: their sole raison d'etre is to maximize profits by any means necessary. By selecting out workers who might be empathetic to customers, these banks are fulfilling their mission of profit maximization. After all, a stern, hard-nosed employee who does things "by the book" and attempts to make high-pressure sales is more likely to maximize profits than one who tries to be kind and fair to accountholders. That's capitalism, that's business, that's just how it works.

 

On a more personal level, however, I'm quite bothered by these banks' practices, and the cold logic of capitalism in general. Although I'm technically an ethical nihilist (I believe there are no moral facts or objective moral duties), I do have a type of personal, subjective "code" I follow that basically boils down to three values: fairness, kindness, and respect for other sentient beings. It's hard to mesh those values with the cutthroat nature of modern consumer capitalism, so I'm inclined to oppose that system. Still, the problem with capitalism is that it's the worst modern economic system, except, of course, for all the others we've tried. Anti-capitalist economic and social systems, like, for example, communism and socialism, have been consistently more adept at producing human suffering than capitalism, despite the fact that the latter is founded on avarice.

 

So, what's the solution? I'll be honest and say I don't know. The idealist in me wants to formulate some other system that can replace the profit-seeking economic we have today, while my pragmatist side says "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Either way, there's no quick fix available for something (competition and greed) for which the balance of scientific evidence says is ingrained in human nature.

[Tridimity]

I'm a bit torn on this issue. On one hand, I recognize that businesses are amoral rational actors: their sole raison d'etre is to maximize profits by any means necessary. By selecting out workers who might be empathetic to customers, these banks are fulfilling their mission of profit maximization. After all, a stern, hard-nosed employee who does things "by the book" and attempts to make high-pressure sales is more likely to maximize profits than one who tries to be kind and fair to accountholders. That's capitalism, that's business, that's just how it works.

 

On a more personal level, however, I'm quite bothered by these banks' practices, and the cold logic of capitalism in general. Although I'm technically an ethical nihilist (I believe there are no moral facts or objective moral duties), I do have a type of personal, subjective "code" I follow that basically boils down to three values: fairness, kindness, and respect for other sentient beings. It's hard to mesh those values with the cutthroat nature of modern consumer capitalism, so I'm inclined to oppose that system. Still, the problem with capitalism is that it's the worst modern economic system, except, of course, for all the others we've tried. Anti-capitalist economic and social systems, like, for example, communism and socialism, have been consistently more adept at producing human suffering than capitalism, despite the fact that the latter is founded on avarice.

 

So, what's the solution? I'll be honest and say I don't know. The idealist in me wants to formulate some other system that can replace the profit-seeking economic we have today, while my pragmatist side says "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Either way, there's no quick fix available for something (competition and greed) for which the balance of scientific evidence says is ingrained in human nature.

 

Businesses do have to maximise profits, and some businesses do this by any means necessary, although I would not condone this approach. Even taking the obvious humanitarian question out of the picture, it is not in the interest of businesses to make such risky investments and demands of their customers that their customers are unable to pay them back, as in the case above. If capitalism was so successful, we would not have just witnessed the near collapse of the global economy under its reign. As for the historic attempts at radical socialism and communism, as far as I am aware all attempts have been authoritarian - as in the enforced agricultural collectivisation under Stalin which caused the loss of millions of lives - and so in my opinion it does not reflect so much on the relative merits of capitalism versus communism than it does on the relative merits of authoritarianism versus libertarianism. The advantages of capitalism are arguably incentivisation of profit generation and entrepreneurship, and a certain flexibility to respond to changing market forces; the disadvantages are lack of balance between profit generation and human welfare. The advantages of socialism are the intention and action (under mild-moderate socialism) to protect the individual and to protect human welfare; the disadvantages are reduced incentivisation of profit generation and entrepreneurship, and a diminished capacity for flexibility to respond efficiently to changing market forces. The ideal system would therefore mesh the attributes of both systems and while conventional mixed economies have achieved a measure of success, the pain of their failures is still being felt by almost every citizen in the West, with young people's futures being sold to pay for the excesses of the baby boomer generation. A better system, in my opinion, would feature two distinct subsystems operating in parallel - one unrestricted capitalism and one a moderate socialism (stronger than our current so-called 'kind capitalism') with an ability for citizens to move between subsystems come election time, should they so wish. The switch to this system and its maintenance could be achieved peaceably and would retain the aforementioned attributes to a greater or lesser extent (in that profit generation would be a higher priority in the capitalist subsystem, whereas protection of human welfare would be the highest priority in the socialist subsystem).

Edited October 20, 2013 by Tridimity

[Tridimity]

I guess this is what is most worrying about capitalism: the transformation of market economies into market societies

 

http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_sandel_why_we_shouldn_t_trust_markets_with_our_civic_life.html

 

Michael Sandel articulates it far better than I ever could

[Delbert]

This is the gratitude shown by banks towards the taxpayers who have bailed them out; this is the problem with privatisation; this is the problem with the greed-based capitalist model.

 

They don't care about the human cost resulting from their own actions.

 

They don't care about us!

I don't understand the objection to this so called 'capitalist' business. Because I suggest, it's something we all engage in and do, but don't like it when others engage in it and we are on the receiving end.

 

Take a simple example: a friend of mine constantly complains about shop prices and will only buy items when he considers them to be the best bargain at the lowest possible price. And at more or less the same time, he constantly reminds me about the low wage his employer pays him.

 

So, why is it he feels it to be perfectly right and justifiable to seek out the lowest price for the most gain, but wrong for his employer to do the same?

 

I've watched the TV when demonstrators are protesting about so called corrupt capital businesses, but doubtless they're doing exactly the same as the corrupt capital businesses with their own interactions in life!

 

Also, I recall not too long ago it was fashionable when personal borrowing got out of control to simply go bankrupt. I know someone who did exactly that. All perfectly normal and okay as far as he was concerned. Never mind about those lost money as a consequence. Again, we like doing these things and feel it's all perfectly okay, but don't like it when others like the banks do it, as appears to be inferred by Tridimity.

[imatfaal]

I don't understand the objection to this so called 'capitalist' business. Because I suggest, it's something we all engage in and do, but don't like it when others engage in it and we are on the receiving end.

 

Take a simple example: a friend of mine constantly complains about shop prices and will only buy items when he considers them to be the best bargain at the lowest possible price. And at more or less the same time, he constantly reminds me about the low wage his employer pays him.

 

So, why is it he feels it to be perfectly right and justifiable to seek out the lowest price for the most gain, but wrong for his employer to do the same?

 

I've watched the TV when demonstrators are protesting about so called corrupt capital businesses, but doubtless they're doing exactly the same as the corrupt capital businesses with their own interactions in life!

 

Also, I recall not too long ago it was fashionable when personal borrowing got out of control to simply go bankrupt. I know someone who did exactly that. All perfectly normal and okay as far as he was concerned. Never mind about those lost money as a consequence. Again, we like doing these things and feel it's all perfectly okay, but don't like it when others like the banks do it, as appears to be inferred by Tridimity.

 

Searching for the lowest price in a free market is the basis of capitalism - and most approve of it (I don't but that's me); but deliberately weighting the labour market such that large employers have carte blanche to manipulate the market to seek and enforce the lowest price for labour is a complete perversion of capitalism.

 

Personally I do not agree either morally or ethically with the "devil take the hindmost" basis of free market neo-classical liberalism - but if we are going to insist on it then it should be done evenly. If employers have the ability to use zero-hour contracts, temporary staff working permanently, and ever-decreasing rewards for employees; then employees should have the ability to move freely from one position to another, to join unions and bargain collectively, and complete freedom of movement to seek work.

 

Your example of the banks is particularly telling. Personal Bankrupts are, until they discharged their debt, in a pretty dreadful situation and risk losing their home, livelihood, and social standing - however bankrupt banks must (according to current wisdom) continue as normal. RBS still pays salaries and bonuses that are ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE higher than the national median wage - and yet we hear that their fine for mis-selling financial instruments in the United State of America will be of a similar size to that of JP Morgan. So they are state-owned; yet pay huge salaries and bonuses and when the fine comes it will be from the shareholders (ie your and my) pockets. Great

[EdEarl]

Wow, this issue may cause an endless discussion, and could spark numerous other threads. Over the past half century my socioeconomic position has swung like a pendulum as history played on news videos. My position now is not idealistic and based on many facets of human nature. Basically the needs of people are varied, and when people are satisfied they are less likely to be violent. Reducing violence is my primary objective, and I believe, a goal shared by most people.

 

How can that objective be accomplished? There are both social and economic reasons for violence. The social reasons should not be discussed in this thread. The economic reasons may be discussed in this thread, because the OP, the Capitalist ethos, opens the door. People who are either dissatisfied or desperate may resort to violence, especially people who are desperate for the necessities of food, clothing, shelter and medical care. I will discuss dissatisfaction later, but first I shall describe violence which includes but is not limited to physical violence.

 

Violence to a person's body for economic gain includes any kind of physical assault including murder. However, violence is not limited to physical assault, it includes causing stress and other mental anguish. Thus, it includes robbery, embezzlement, extortion, fraud, shoplifting, vandalism, and verbal abuse. A person who is happy is less likely to be curse and otherwise be violent than one who is dissatisfied or desperate. Moreover, a person who suffers from another being violent will usually experience at least momentary dissatisfaction and may act out (i.e., do something that is violent to another person). Thus, violence creates violence, and the world is currently a living example of that phenomenon, which the history records through war and peace. Unfortunately, peace means a time without war or a time of reduced violence, not a time of no violence.

 

People are dissatisfied for many reasons. Sadists are satisfied by hurting people; masochists by hurting themselves. Some people are satisfied to be followers, and some must be leaders. Some must collect, and some must give. Some need gold, and some need none. But, we all need food, clothing, shelter, and health care, and are more likely to be violent if deprived of those things. Thusly, my socioeconomic and political philosophy is constructed. To reduce violence, it is necessary to give everyone the hope they can satisfy their needs, and give everyone food, clothing, shelter and health care. Reducing the number of people who are satisfied increases violence, and a society can exist with some level of violence.

 

We will debate the level of economic violence we are willing to endure in this thread. The socially minded are in favor of reducing violence through social engineering. The capitalists are willing to endure higher levels of violence to satisfy their need to increase their wealth. The power hungry are willing to endure higher levels of violence to subjugate unwilling people. In other words, whenever satisfying the needs of one person makes another dissatisfied, violence from the dissatisfied person is more likely, and that means violence increases in populations. I do not consider this struggle as a "class struggle" but as many individual struggles. They are natural and inevitable.

 

It might be possible to study data from the internet that statistically characterizes people according to their dissatisfaction level, and calculates an optimal socioeconomic-political position for various personality types that would minimize violence (i.e., maximize personal satisfaction). It might be published like horoscopes, and might be called a horrorscope by those who disparage science.

 

In any case, I see the capitalist ethos as a natural struggle for some people to satisfy themselves regardless of hurting others. Furthermore, that mode of operation may make them less safe. They may maximize their safety from violence, if they modify their behavior to help others satisfy their needs, because we are each safer when we are all free of violence. There are many unknowns, for example, I don't know if thrill seekers are prevalent enough to overwhelm safety seekers.

[ralfy]

Three reasons why the global capitalist system will not last: debt, peak oil, and global warming.

 

We are seeing the effects right now. What was discussed in this thread is related to the first predicament. Money supply increases given profit and return on investment, and as more engage in financial speculation, debt levels go up further. The latter is not difficult to achieve as the global economy is essentially controlled by a financial elite:

 

"Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the world"

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed--the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html

 

which explains why much of the wealth of the world consists of debt, in the form of numbers in hard drives:

 

"Top Derivatives Expert Estimates Size of the Global Derivatives Market at $1,200 Trillion Dollars … 20 Times Larger than the Global Economy"

 

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/05/top-derivatives-expert-finally-gives-a-credible-estimate-of-the-size-of-the-global-derivatives-market.html

 

Only a fraction of that quadrillion-dollar market, in the form of a trillion dollars in subprime lending in one country, brought the global economy to its knees, with over $30 trillion vaporized worldwide as governments scrambled to bail out the investors, in turn leading to increased debt passed on to the public. The implication is that there's more where that 2008 crisis came from.

 

This brings us to the next predicament: peak oil. Increased production and consumption of resources are needed to keep that credit afloat, and there is no such thing as falling demand due to a growing global middle class:

 

"The rise of the global middle class"

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22956470

 

How much oil will be needed to meet that demand? According to the IEA, demand increased by 2 pct a year the last three decades, which means production has to increase significantly to meet that. And the present middle class can't argue otherwise because their own income, profits, and investments are dependent on growing sales to the same emerging market of consumers.

 

Is there enough oil production to meet that? According to the IEA, the best-case scenario is that oil producers will have to reach maximum depletion rates to achieve at most a 9-pct increase in oil and gas produced during the next two decades:

 

"World Energy Outlook 2010 Edition"

 

http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/publications/weo-2010/

 

Meanwhile, various banks and businesses warn of various oil supply problems to come. For example,

 

"If You Think This Oil Spike Is Temporary, Check Out This Chart"

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/oil-spare-capacity-2013-2011-2

 

The IEA includes this predicament with the third, global warming, as seen in this article:

 

"World headed for irreversible climate change in five years, IEA warns"

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/nov/09/fossil-fuel-infrastructure-climate-change

 

In short, by resorting to unconventional oil and continuing with fossil fuel consumption levels, we will be affected by both peak oil and global warming in the long term.

 

The IEA recommends that we cut down fossil fuel consumption increase by 70 pct, and then replace it with renewable energy. These plus maximum production of oil and gas resources will require "strong" government policies, something which can't happen given the first predicament (see above).

 

In short, governments in general won't engage in such policies because that will mean lower sales of goods and services given a global manufacturing and food production system that are heavily dependent on oil:

 

"It Will Take 131 Years To Replace Oil, And We've Only Got 10"

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/131-years-to-replace-oil-2010-11

 

which is why they are not talking about peak oil or agreeing on what to do regarding global warming.

 

Businesses obviously won't cut down on oil use for the same reasons, not to mention large amounts of credit that need to be propped up, and a growing global middle class won't agree as well.

 

That means the global economy will maintain continuous economic growth until it hammers at the oil resource ceiling and with that gets hammered in return with one oil spike after another:

 

"Our Oil-Constrained Future"

 

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/08/our-oil-constrained-future

 

while the effects of global warming take their toll on food production, various ecosystems, etc. For example,

 

"Researchers Find Historic Ocean Acidification Levels: ‘The Next Mass Extinction May Have Already Begun’"

 

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/10/03/2725431/unprecedented-ocean-acidification/

[Tridimity]

I don't understand the objection to this so called 'capitalist' business. Because I suggest, it's something we all engage in and do, but don't like it when others engage in it and we are on the receiving end.

 

Take a simple example: a friend of mine constantly complains about shop prices and will only buy items when he considers them to be the best bargain at the lowest possible price. And at more or less the same time, he constantly reminds me about the low wage his employer pays him.

 

So, why is it he feels it to be perfectly right and justifiable to seek out the lowest price for the most gain, but wrong for his employer to do the same?

 

I've watched the TV when demonstrators are protesting about so called corrupt capital businesses, but doubtless they're doing exactly the same as the corrupt capital businesses with their own interactions in life!

 

Also, I recall not too long ago it was fashionable when personal borrowing got out of control to simply go bankrupt. I know someone who did exactly that. All perfectly normal and okay as far as he was concerned. Never mind about those lost money as a consequence. Again, we like doing these things and feel it's all perfectly okay, but don't like it when others like the banks do it, as appears to be inferred by Tridimity.

 

Delbert, I see your point in that superficially the complainant seems to be hypocritical; scouting out the biggest bang for the buck while simultaneously rebuking their employer for doing the same. However, I think that where your argument falls down is that you are putting the cart before the horse. If the employee was receiving fair wages for his/her labour then (s)he would not need to hunt around for bargains. Perhaps you might suggest that the employer is strapped for cash and therefore they too ought to have a moral right to seek out the best bargains. Well, yes. The case with the major banks is though, I think, very different to this hypothetical scenario. For one, banks ordinarily make huge profits - except when they are recoiling from a sour high risk deal wagered on the back of the fortunes of ordinary workers - and yet hardly any of this profit trickles down to the bank's own ordinary workers (clerks and middle management). Grotesquely, in times of prosperity and in times of financial collapse - it is the highest levels of management (CEOs) that receive, as imatfaal has mentioned, 'bonuses that are ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE higher than the national median wage'. This is the crux of the moral degradation and it is a cultural phenomenon that needs to be stamped out for good. Whereas in your hypothetical scenario the employer might pay the employee 10% less than their labour is worth, and the employee therefore spends 10% less on consumer goods than the goods are worth, the reduction in spending on both sides is at least proportional and, so, affordable. The banking scandal cited above is more like the bank stripping customers of 75% of their income without first informing the customer, and the customer not being able to make commensurate reductions of this extent in their own spending. The results are all too human. Puts people on streets. This is why the banking situation, and capitalist ethos more generally, is so morally reprehensible.

 

EdEarl, I agree entirely with your insights on the relationship between violence and the provision of basic amenities. It yields a mental image of the capitalist elite swigging champagne in their marble castles, turning up the Beethoven to drown out the noises of suffering of regular folk outside, who are fighting among themselves for food, water, education, healthcare, housing. I guess this is what is actually happening, even if it is not happening so picturesquely.

Edited October 22, 2013 by Tridimity

[EdEarl]

... the relationship between violence and the provision of basic amenities. It yields a mental image of the capitalist elite swigging champagne in their marble castles, turning up the Beethoven to drown out the noises of suffering of regular folk outside, who are fighting among themselves for food, water, education, healthcare, housing. I guess this is what is actually happening, even if it is not happening so picturesquely.

A hackers missile can be fired from anywhere in the world, crash through glass walls, strike the jugular, and drain a pint or two of green blood. No one is safe when violence is commonplace, and friends like Bernard Madoff promise great rewards and steal savings at the same time.

[Delbert]

 

Searching for the lowest price in a free market is the basis of capitalism - and most approve of it (I don't but that's me); but deliberately weighting the labour market such that large employers have carte blanche to manipulate the market to seek and enforce the lowest price for labour is a complete perversion of capitalism.

Presumably what you are saying is that labour costs should in some way be excluded from the free market system. I'd be interested as to how that would be engineered.

 

A sort of wage control I think was tried a while ago without success. Probably for the simple reason if you can't control costs the market system eventually collapses.

 

Just picture the scene: you're running a business and some jobs-worth comes along and says you have to pay your employees £X.

 

As I think I've mention previously. A friend of mine was thinking of opening a coffee shop. Just a small shop in my local high street. When he discovered rent was £65,000 pa and business rate was £13,000pa (business rate, you know what the local authority wants), he didn't. And that's nowadays. What would it be like with some jobs-worth telling him what to pay an employee?

 

Personally I do not agree either morally or ethically with the "devil take the hindmost" basis of free market neo-classical liberalism - but if we are going to insist on it then it should be done evenly. If employers have the ability to use zero-hour contracts, temporary staff working permanently, and ever-decreasing rewards for employees; then employees should have the ability to move freely from one position to another, to join unions and bargain collectively, and complete freedom of movement to seek work.

'Done evenly! Are you saying things aren't done evenly nowadays?

 

"Employers have the ability to use zero-hour contracts" And equally, employees have the ability not to accept zero-hour contracts. As for "should have the ability to move freely from one position to another", what country are you living in? Because over here in the UK, they can move perfectly freely. Join a union, bargain collectively and free to seek work wherever they like.

 

Your example of the banks is particularly telling. Personal Bankrupts are, until they discharged their debt, in a pretty dreadful situation and risk losing their home, livelihood, and social standing - however bankrupt banks must (according to current wisdom) continue as normal. RBS still pays salaries and bonuses that are ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE higher than the national median wage - and yet we hear that their fine for mis-selling financial instruments in the United State of America will be of a similar size to that of JP Morgan. So they are state-owned; yet pay huge salaries and bonuses and when the fine comes it will be from the shareholders (ie your and my) pockets. Great

Yes, the consequences of bankruptcy are dreadful. That is the consequence of overspending; the freedom to spend is one aspect the free market. We have the freedom to either be circumspect or the freedom to spend until we enter a dreadful situation. It's called a freedom in a free society.

 

And as for this bank salary business, what sort of salary in comparison to others would you think would be appropriate? Again, the free society. Anything else is state control, and I think we all know about state control. You might not like it (there are lots of things I don't like), but that's how it works. Take it away and the consequences would render the recent bank crisis a mere ripple in comparison I would suggest.

 

 

However, I think that where your argument falls down is that you are putting the cart before the horse. If the employee was receiving fair wages for his/her labour then (s)he would not need to hunt around for bargains. Perhaps you might suggest that the employer is strapped for cash and therefore they too ought to have a moral right to seek out the best bargains.

No, I'm putting the horse before the cart. He's not necessarily going for the bargains because of low wage because he say's otherwise. It might be in his best interest, but that is not what he says. And as for his job, bizarrely he voluntarily stayed in his job and didn't want the responsibility of a better paid one! And yet he complains about it! But then again, that is the free society and free market. He is free to enter such a contradiction.

[overtone]

A capitalist business (or any other, but the OP is narrow) is not a person, but a machine.

 

We don't wonder about the ethos of bulldozers - we restrict the manner in which people can operate them, and we hold their operators, owners, etc, accountable for misuse according to their degree of guilt and control.

 

The day a bank manager is brought into court in handcuffs, convicted of doing premeditated harm to people with his bank, and tossed into jail for a year or so to think better of his behaviors, will be the day this stuff comes to a screeching halt

 

Penalizing a corporation is a waste of time - you of course take the ill-gotten money back, whatever has accumulated in the corporation while it was being misused (all of JP Morgan's wealth accumulated during the time of misuse, executive bonuses and pension contributions, investment holdings acquired thusly, and so forth, for example), but that is not mistaken for a punishment or penalty or the like - that's just squaring the books, repairing the bulldozer's hydraulics. The punishment is jail time, for the perpetrators.

 

With all the talk of deterring crime via punishment, the one area of crime in which jail is a real, demonstrated, effective deterrent seems to be overlooked.

[Delbert]

 

The day a bank manager is brought into court in handcuffs, convicted of doing premeditated harm to people with his bank, and tossed into jail for a year or so to think better of his behaviors, will be the day this stuff comes to a screeching halt

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not excusing them, but companies and banks are run and directed by a board of directors! So presumably you'd lock up the lot.

 

I can still recall a chancellor of UKs previous administration upon opening a new London branch of Lehman's bank, when he indicated that he would like to run the UK economy like Lehman's run their bank!! And as we all know a little while later they went bust and very nearly brought the world economy down. And UK chancellor wanted to be able to run the county like that!

 

When things are running apparently okay, party poopers are ignored.

 

For example, how many people are sounding caution over the current philosophy of QE, or more accurately known as printing money? I think we all know that it can't go on, and as sure as eggs are eggs it will end in tears. It'll only be viewed as a bloody stupid thing when it all goes wrong. Like the guy jumping off a 50 story building, and says as he passes floor 25: well, it's all okay up to now.

 

Hindsight is the only exact science.

 

And a little side issue: I for one would be interested in how much money the average bank has to invest just to run one high street branch. You know something that earns enough to pay the rent, business rates, staff wages, computer system, bills and all the rest. Don't forget this earning will be the difference between the cost of borrowing and the gain from subsequent investment. And of course, the consumer wants free banking.

Edited October 24, 2013 by Delbert

[Tridimity]

Presumably what you are saying is that labour costs should in some way be excluded from the free market system. I'd be interested as to how that would be engineered.

A sort of wage control I think was tried a while ago without success. Probably for the simple reason if you can't control costs the market system eventually collapses.

Just picture the scene: you're running a business and some jobs-worth comes along and says you have to pay your employees £X.

As I think I've mention previously. A friend of mine was thinking of opening a coffee shop. Just a small shop in my local high street. When he discovered rent was £65,000 pa and business rate was £13,000pa (business rate, you know what the local authority wants), he didn't. And that's nowadays. What would it be like with some jobs-worth telling him what to pay an employee?

 

Engineering the system in such a way that labour costs are standardised in a fair way, to a greater degree than they are currently, would require existing measures such as minimum wage with a tallying of salaries in line with the rate of inflation - and some mechanism to ensure that people who are doing broadly the same jobs are paid approximately the same for their labour - regardless of any inherent or acquired phenotype (e.g. age, nationality, sex, sexual orientation, social standing, etc). If a person cannot afford to pay their employee the going rate, a rate that is fair for their labour, then they should not be advertising the employment opportunity. That is a matter of straightforward fairness.

 

And equally, employees have the ability not to accept zero-hour contracts. As for "should have the ability to move freely from one position to another", what country are you living in? Because over here in the UK, they can move perfectly freely. Join a union, bargain collectively and free to seek work wherever they like.

 

Employees have a de jure right to not accept zero-hour contracts - but you fail to acknowledge the de facto inability of people to not accept zero hour contracts. Most people living in the UK are living under conditions of more or less financial stress; in previous decades they have perhaps taken out too much credit and are now failing to pay off their loans and mortgages. Both unemployment and the cost of living are high, and these people still have bills to pay, mortgages to pay, loans to pay back, food to put on the table, ever-increasing energy bills, the kids need new school shoes etc etc. These people are not in a position to demand the true worth of their own labour or their deserved working conditions; many would not even qualify for welfare payments should they lose their job. So, there is an option there, but it's more a choice of whether or not to survive, rather than which of two lucrative options to select.

 

 

And as for this bank salary business, what sort of salary in comparison to others would you think would be appropriate? Again, the free society. Anything else is state control, and I think we all know about state control. You might not like it (there are lots of things I don't like), but that's how it works.

 

 

CEO to earn 10x, perhaps 15x, the salary of the clerk. Seems fair to me - why would anyone need any more than this anyhow? Anything beyond this is pure greed. "Oh, don't! Don't! Don't tell me I can't have three Lambourghinis!" *pouts*

 

Anything else is state control. And we already have state control, it's just not absolute state control. This kind of wage control would not require absolute state control in other areas of the economy. By implication, I think you mean to say that state control equates to totalitarianism and crimes against humanity. Absolute state control often does have this consequence; but absolute state control is not being suggested.

 

Finally, there are plenty of things that people do not like and that are amenable to change (disease, as one obvious example). Your approach of deciding at the outset that change is impossible would be a self-fulfilling prophecy. I do not think that you really think this change to be impossible. You just do not want it to be possible.

Edited October 25, 2013 by Tridimity

[EdEarl]

Change is one of the few things that is inevitable in the Universe. People who oppose change are doomed to grow older; thus, they change, and they change in other ways too.

 

I believe opposition to change is often Future Shock or Culture Shock.

[Tridimity]

Change is one of the few things that is inevitable in the Universe. People who oppose change are doomed to grow older; thus, they change, and they change in other ways too.

 

I believe opposition to change is often Future Shock or Culture Shock.

 

I agree, EdEarl. I think some degree of exposure to change while a person is still young is healthy and helps them to learn both the inevitability of change, and that changes of circumstance can be managed successfully, so raising a well-adjusted child with robust flexibility of mind who is more likely to survive and thrive under real world conditions. Also, change forces you to consider your priorities; the life interests which you are willing to preserve through investment of your own energy against the backdrop of universal entropy allow you to recognise your ultimate values in life. E.g. changing institutions, working with one set of colleagues then changing to another, making outrageous sacrifices for study and work in the field of Science involves a lot of change. The constant is the love of Science. Or, likewise, being prepared to sacrifice a long-held ambition and to relocate to someplace on the other side of the globe in order to be with somebody, involves a lot of change. The constant is the love of that person.

Edited October 26, 2013 by Tridimity

[Delbert]

Employees have a de jure right to not accept zero-hour contracts - but you fail to acknowledge the de facto inability of people to not accept zero hour contracts. Most people living in the UK are living under conditions of more or less financial stress; in previous decades they have perhaps taken out too much credit and are now failing to pay off their loans and mortgages.

If you believe in freedom then an employer has to be free to offer what is best for his business. Freedom can't be one sided. An employer is not responsible for an employee's loans and mortgages. Nobody owes anyone else a job. And what's more, the business finances may well have been secured by the boss mortgaging his own home!

 

In a free society nobody can be burdened with the responsibility to provide others with what they think is their justified working contract.

 

If a person cannot afford to pay their employee the going rate, a rate that is fair for their labour, then they should not be advertising the employment opportunity. That is a matter of straightforward fairness.

Fairness! How can it be fair that an employer is so straight-jacketed?

 

And as for 'cannot afford to pay', who or what on earth decides what an employer is required to pay? It seems to me you're looking at state control, and I think we all know what happens with state control: destruction of aspiration, destitution, starvation and eventual collapse.

 

Anything else is state control. And we already have state control, it's just not absolute state control. This kind of wage control would not require absolute state control in other areas of the economy.

So you would have state control over wages but not prices?

 

But do I hear you say that the wage control would be linked to prices? I'm sorry, but that would lead to positive feedback undoubtedly resulting in runaway inflation and eventual collapse.

 

I'm sorry, but once one gets into attempting to control the market like that disaster will, in the fullness of time, be the consequence.

[EdEarl]

If you believe in freedom then an employer has to be free to offer what is best for his business. Freedom can't be one sided. An employer is not responsible for an employee's loans and mortgages. Nobody owes anyone else a job. And what's more, the business finances may well have been secured by the boss mortgaging his own home!

 

In a free society nobody can be burdened with the responsibility to provide others with what they think is their justified working contract.

 

Fairness! How can it be fair that an employer is so straight-jacketed?

 

And as for 'cannot afford to pay', who or what on earth decides what an employer is required to pay? It seems to me you're looking at state control, and I think we all know what happens with state control: destruction of aspiration, destitution, starvation and eventual collapse.

 

So you would have state control over wages but not prices?

 

But do I hear you say that the wage control would be linked to prices? I'm sorry, but that would lead to positive feedback undoubtedly resulting in runaway inflation and eventual collapse.

 

I'm sorry, but once one gets into attempting to control the market like that disaster will, in the fullness of time, be the consequence.

Control of the market is a struggle that is part of the evolutionary process. Everyone and all organizations struggle to control some part of the economy, whether it is through begging, negotiation, intimidation, or legislation. Control by various power centers change over time. It is the nature of a free market economy. Expecting otherwise is naive. In a democracy, a person can try to persuade voters, but the majority are supposed to have their way.

[Tridimity]

If you believe in freedom then an employer has to be free to offer what is best for his business. Freedom can't be one sided. An employer is not responsible for an employee's loans and mortgages. Nobody owes anyone else a job. And what's more, the business finances may well have been secured by the boss mortgaging his own home!

 

In a free society nobody can be burdened with the responsibility to provide others with what they think is their justified working contract.

 

Fairness! How can it be fair that an employer is so straight-jacketed?

 

And as for 'cannot afford to pay', who or what on earth decides what an employer is required to pay? It seems to me you're looking at state control, and I think we all know what happens with state control: destruction of aspiration, destitution, starvation and eventual collapse.

 

So you would have state control over wages but not prices?

 

But do I hear you say that the wage control would be linked to prices? I'm sorry, but that would lead to positive feedback undoubtedly resulting in runaway inflation and eventual collapse.

 

I'm sorry, but once one gets into attempting to control the market like that disaster will, in the fullness of time, be the consequence.

 

It depends on what you mean by freedom. One person's freedom can be the cause of another person's oppression. Why is it that the American psyche is pervaded by this obsession with freedom/liberty? If the focus was instead shifted to responsibility for oneself and for others then I think US society would run much more smoothly. I think your concept of freedom is basically allowing the employer to decide upon the terms of employment, no matter how unfair they may be, no matter if it results in a kind of salaried slavery on the part of the employee. You fail to recognise that the employer's freedoms must have a limit so as to preserve the freedom of the employee. Perhaps it would be better to express the working relationships in terms of responsibility: the employer has responsibility for ensuring that the employee is paid fairly (> minimum wage) and at a level comparable to the competition, and that the terms of employment are clearly explained in the contract, and that the security of those terms of employment are upheld, and that the employee receives the necessary support (in terms of training) required in order to perform their job successfully. The employee has responsibility for ensuring that they uphold the terms agreed in the contract including with regards to notice period, and that (s)he performs to the very best of his/her ability while on the job.

 

At no point did I suggest that the employer is responsible for the credit taken out by the employee or that anybody owes anybody else a job. The first point was that you fail to recognise the human reality and that not all decisions are as autonomous as you seem to assert. Likewise, an employee is not responsible for the employer's re-mortgage! The second point was that, as a society, all citizens have a collective responsibility towards fellow citizens in the welfare and employment stakes. This collective responsibility could be abolished, but then you would no longer have a society. You would have a group of people in-fighting over scarce resources.

 

Having an employer secure fair working conditions for their employees is not equivalent to 'straight-jacketing' the employer - unless the employer is a tyrannical slave-master (which I think you would be happy for them to be - pushing the labour costs down and down until they are non-existent. Free labour! Imagine that! Imagine how well that would float on your free market!)

 

"And as for 'cannot afford to pay', who or what on earth decides what an employer is required to pay? It seems to me you're looking at state control, and I think we all know what happens with state control: destruction of aspiration, destitution, starvation and eventual collapse."

 

Greater than or equal to minimum wage for basic entry level jobs, and higher wages that are standardised across private and nationalised sectors, so that people doing roughly the same job receive roughly the same reward for their labour. Tally the rate of pay with the rate of inflation. What is difficult about that?

 

Now, you keep on conflating state control with "destruction of aspiration, destitution, starvation and eventual collapse". I think you will find that the surest means to destruction of aspiration is to pay employees less than their labour is worth, with no realistic prospect of improvement, and to deny them basic safeguards on working conditions. Destitution, starvation and eventual collapse have historically been the result of regimes with absolute state control. I don't like to do this but you have brought me to the point of using caps lock since I made this point in my previous post and you ignored it very efficiently. NOBODY IS PROPOSING ABSOLUTE STATE CONTROL. The modifications would be more like tighter regulations on working conditions.

Edited October 26, 2013 by Tridimity

[Delbert]

 

It depends on what you mean by freedom. One person's freedom can be the cause of another person's oppression. Why is it that the American psyche is pervaded by this obsession with freedom/liberty? If the focus was instead shifted to responsibility for oneself and for others then I think US society would run much more smoothly. I think your concept of freedom is basically allowing the employer to decide upon the terms of employment, no matter how unfair they may be, no matter if it results in a kind of salaried slavery on the part of the employee.

What on earth are you taking about? How on earth can an employer's freedom cause the consequence you describe - you even intimate slavery! I'm sorry, but that's an outrageous conclusion.

 

It's obvious to me that you take the view that an employer has some sort of social responsibility. Sorry, but an employer certainly has no such responsibility, including the responsibility that you appear to describe.

 

It's clear that there's a lack of understanding of how the market works. An employer offers a job; an employee looks at the offer and decides of his or her own free will whether or not to accept the offer. That's how it works. There is no oppression, slavery (salaried or otherwise) or any degradation at all.

 

Having an employer secure fair working conditions for their employees is not equivalent to 'straight-jacketing' the employer - unless the employer is a tyrannical slave-master (which I think you would be happy for them to be - pushing the labour costs down and down until they are non-existent. Free labour! Imagine that! Imagine how well that would float on your free market!)

 

Again, you're going into hyperbole with this slavery business. You obviously don't understand the situation at all. All you have to do is politely inform an employer that you wish to terminate your employment - there is no compunction at all and certainly no slavery.

 

It seems that there's a view going around that employers are in some sort of special privileged position in life. Well to those who think that I challenge them and suggest they start their own business and experience the position for themselves. Perhaps they'd then experience the frazzled effect upon returning home at the end of a day after dealing with the bills, business rates, rent, Vat man, disgruntled employees, health and safety, the business up the road undercutting you and consequently taking your customers away, complaining customers returning goods after changing their mind and all the other things to numerous to mention. And now according to you, the employer is deemed to be some sort of slave driver!

 

 

Greater than or equal to minimum wage for basic entry level jobs, and higher wages that are standardised across private and nationalised sectors, so that people doing roughly the same job receive roughly the same reward for their labour. Tally the rate of pay with the rate of inflation. What is difficult about that?

Minimum wage. Who on earth decides that? Presumably some jobsworth sitting in an ivory tower.

 

Tally the rate with inflation! Again, you obviously don't understand the system. Inflation goes up wages go up just repeats which is positive feedback leading to hyperinflation and eventual collapse. Like, what did I hear on the news the other day about a particular country apparently employing policies similar to what you suggest? They are experiencing the benefits of 50% inflation!

 

I'm sorry, but guaranteed wages, a controlled system as you describe is, in the fullness of time, the path to the begging bowl.

[Tridimity]

What on earth are you taking about? How on earth can an employer's freedom cause the consequence you describe - you even intimate slavery! I'm sorry, but that's an outrageous conclusion.

 

 

I’m saying, IF an employer had unlimited freedom, then it could lead to the oppression of the employees. Take, for example, child labour in foreign (foreign to the US and European) countries – the children may be paid a small amount for their hard labour, and so the work is, technically-speaking, salaried – but I think that we would all agree that this is a form of slavery; salaried slavery. Hence why we have certain safeguards in place (i.e. the minimum wage) – designed by, as YOU would choose to say, quote:

 

Minimum wage. Who on earth decides that? Presumably some jobsworth sitting in an ivory tower.

 

 

“Some jobsworth sitting in an ivory tower”.

 

It's obvious to me that you take the view that an employer has some sort of social responsibility. Sorry, but an employer certainly has no such responsibility, including the responsibility that you appear to describe.

 

 

Yes, any employer worthy of the title has social responsibilities. I don’t know what planet you are living on but it is a fact that employers must work in accordance with workers’ rights and Human Rights legislation.

 

It's clear that there's a lack of understanding of how the market works. An employer offers a job; an employee looks at the offer and decides of his or her own free will whether or not to accept the offer. That's how it works. There is no oppression, slavery (salaried or otherwise) or any degradation at all.

 

 

 

Free will. So imagine this. A person with zero qualifications or connections looking for a job and surviving on welfare. The terms of the agreement are that the jobseeker accept any offer of work. How is there any choice there? How can that individual really be said to be in a position to secure just working conditions for their labour? This is the case, even more so, since the global recession and the decreased demand for labour. Employers are pushing the boundaries as far as possible to see what they can get away with in terms of pay (real term cuts), zero hour contracts and other working conditions.

 

 

It seems that there's a view going around that employers are in some sort of special privileged position in life. Well to those who think that I challenge them and suggest they start their own business and experience the position for themselves. Perhaps they'd then experience the frazzled effect upon returning home at the end of a day after dealing with the bills, business rates, rent, Vat man, disgruntled employees, health and safety, the business up the road undercutting you and consequently taking your customers away, complaining customers returning goods after changing their mind and all the other things to numerous to mention. And now according to you, the employer is deemed to be some sort of slave driver!

 

 

 

The slavemaster comment was a response to your suggestion that to secure decent working conditions for employees would be to ‘straight-jacket’ the employer. My conclusion was that the only type of employer who would be ‘straight-jacketed’ in this way by such a proposal would be one unworthy and unfit to employ anyone. However we seem to have descended into a strawman versus strawman argument with no prospect of sensible or constructive discussion.

Tally the rate with inflation! Again, you obviously don't understand the system. Inflation goes up wages go up just repeats which is positive feedback leading to hyperinflation and eventual collapse. Like, what did I hear on the news the other day about a particular country apparently employing policies similar to what you suggest? They are experiencing the benefits of 50% inflation!

 

I'm sorry, but guaranteed wages, a controlled system as you describe is, in the fullness of time, the path to the begging bowl.

 

 

 

Okay, so you are right on this point:

 

For sustained inflation to get going, workers have to be able to demand higher pay to make up for increases in their cost of living. And today, whatever inflation is caused by the rising cost of raw materials is being offset by below-normal increases in wages.

 

 

http://business.time.com/2013/03/12/if-theres-no-inflation-why-are-prices-up-so-much/

However I still deem the underpayment of employees to be unsustainable and, in the fullness of time, the nation’s path to the begging bowl. How is it possible to generate sufficient profit in the absence of consumer demand?

Edited October 29, 2013 by Tridimity

[overtone]

 

 

It's clear that there's a lack of understanding of how the market works. An employer offers a job; an employee looks at the offer and decides of his or her own free will whether or not to accept the offer. That's how it works. There is no oppression, slavery (salaried or otherwise) or any degradation at all.

Tell that to the coal miners of West Virgnina, the migrant field workers of California, or the recent high school grads lining up at the nearest WalMart or temp agency. And that's the US - richest country ever seen on the planet. In China one finds factory dormitories in which the employees are on call 24/7, and management has strung nets under the windows to catch the attempted suicides.

 

Nothing in capitalism requires, or even prefers, a "free market" in labor. To create a situation in which anyone is actually free to turn a job down or quit a job they hold, when the exchange of labor for wages is in fact a free market decision, is one of the central and most difficult tasks of government.

[Delbert]

 

I’m saying, IF an employer had unlimited freedom, then it could lead to the oppression of the employees.

I'm sorry, but you're confusing issues here. An employee's freedom is not oppression to anyone. If you don't like the job then don't do it. And if you don't like any employee's conditions then become one yourself by setting up a business. You don't need much, you could start by opening a market stall. Or, if you don't like that then stick a lawnmower on a wheelbarrow (assuming you haven't a car) and go around mowing lawns. I only mention that as an example because my next door neighbour is currently paying £15 an hour for someone to do just that. Speaking to him he does about three a day and spends two hours at each (he does a bit of weeding as well) . That's £90 a day and he only has to pay for a bit of petrol for his mower. Now there's a reasonable little earner to start with.

 

 

Yes, any employer worthy of the title has social responsibilities. I don’t know what planet you are living on but it is a fact that employers must work in accordance with workers’ rights and Human Rights legislation.

Workers' rights! What you're really saying is employers' burden. How about workers' duties and responsibilities?

 

Lets get things in perspective here. Businesses are the only activity that generates a country's income. It comes from taxes imposed upon said businesses, both directly and indirectly from wages paid to any employees. Businesses aren't just making profits for themselves, but also providing the money to run the county and livelihoods for their workers. But according to what you've said previously, bordering on - if not actual - slavery.

 

If businesses and the free market collapse, the county collapses.

 

Free will. So imagine this. A person with zero qualifications or connections looking for a job and surviving on welfare. The terms of the agreement are that the jobseeker accept any offer of work. How is there any choice there?

Zero qualifications! I left what was described as a school (not how I described it) just about able to write my own name. Then someone mentioned 'logs' in conversation; I thought he was talking about lumps of wood! Anyway, that was it and off down to the library. And from that I think I'm safe in saying I'm doing reasonably well. It's all down to the individual.

 

And this business about workers having to accept any offer of work is nothing to do with employers. That's politics. That's the state saying that welfare has consequences and is not entirely free.

 

Anyway, that's the conundrum, burden businesses too much and they collapse (I think you even previously mentioned that businesses don't come up to what you think are reasonable expectations shouldn't be operating!), which means lack of choice.

 

 

I’m saying, IF an employer had unlimited freedom, then it could lead to the oppression of the employees. Take, for example, child labour in foreign (foreign to the US and European) countries – the children may be paid a small amount for their hard labour, and so the work is, technically-speaking, salaried – but I think that we would all agree that this is a form of slavery; salaried slavery. Hence why we have certain safeguards in place (i.e. the minimum wage) – designed by, as YOU would choose to say, quote:

 

Yes, there appears to be one or two things in other places that go too far. I wouldn't condone child labour and the dodgy building that I think we've all seen or read about in the media.

 

But I think you confuse safeguards with this minimum wage business. The freedom to choose an employer and the subsequent remuneration has no connection with slavery as you appear to suggest.

Edited October 30, 2013 by Delbert

[john5746]

Lets get things in perspective here. Businesses are the only activity that generates a country's income. It comes from taxes imposed upon said businesses, both directly and indirectly from wages paid to any employees. Businesses aren't just making profits for themselves, but also providing the money to run the county and livelihoods for their workers. But according to what you've said previously, bordering on - if not actual - slavery.

And how do businesses create money? Do businessmen pee coins? I don't think so. They leverage resources of the country. Minerals, infrastructure and chiefly people. They also enjoy safety from theft of property, both physical and intellectual. Everyone enjoys the fruits of those around them and before them. The more fruits you enjoy, the more you should pay and the more you should invest in sustaining and improving the system. Adam freaking Smith understood this in times when we still thought slavery might be OK.

 

You seem to balk at the idea that one would not mow lawns for £15 an hour(that is pretty good, I would do that myself, until I ran over my foot), are you worried that one would not run a company if they can't be a billionaire?

 

If businesses and the free market collapse, the county collapses.

Yep and if the foundation that the businesses rest upon collapses, they are gone as well. Of course, the wealthy would leave to some other country, since they have true freedom.

 

 

Anyway, that's the conundrum, burden businesses too much and they collapse (I think you even previously mentioned that businesses don't come up to what you think are reasonable expectations shouldn't be operating!), which means lack of choice.

I'll just speak as an American. The truth is that Americans are overpriced compared to the rest of the world. This is true of the labor class, but more so the white collar and owner class, imo. The labor and white collars are getting hammered by competition from overseas. Not so for top level management and ownership. Just more opportunity for them. They can move operations to enjoy low wages or automate here. The system is rigged to increasingly lower wages for actions that add value - such as food, production, etc. while increasing returns for actions that just leverage assets.

 

Yes, there appears to be one or two things in other places that go too far. I wouldn't condone child labour and the dodgy building that I think we've all seen or read about in the media.

 

But I think you confuse safeguards with this minimum wage business. The freedom to choose an employer and the subsequent remuneration has no connection with slavery as you appear to suggest.

I've worked in manufacturing and while I dislike unions, I do see the need for workers to be protected in some way. Financial pressure makes many good people do bad things. Safety protocols, hazardous waste procedures, maintenance and especially QA go out the door if enough pressure is applied. It happens all the time with the wealthy who are just protecting their standard of living, you can imagine how it happens when you have a children whose healthcare and food depend on you.

 

So you can keep ranting about how monopoly is a game where everyone who loses, chose to lose and that the game can't be changed. I don't buy it.

 

I doubt this link is completely accurate, but you get the message. Top management doesn't have to make so much more than workers. Investors don't need to make sky high returns. Sure, I want to get money for nothing and my chicks for free, but that's not the way to run a society. Culture can change. Maybe posting ratio's like this for companies would be a start.

 

 

 

Edited October 30, 2013 by john5746

[Tridimity]

Thanks John for the accurate and succinct answers.

 

Delbert, you have just re-hashed the same comments as in your previous post without taking into consideration my responses to those comments.

 

E.g.

An employee's freedom is not oppression to anyone. If you don't like the job then don't do it. And if you don't like any employee's conditions then become one yourself by setting up a business.

 

 

I have already outlined one way in which employer's freedoms, when taken to their logical conclusion, may result in oppression, as in child labour, salaried or otherwise.

 

How about workers' duties and responsibilities?

 

 

 

On 26^th October (post #19 in the thread) I also addressed your query regarding workers’ responsibilities:

 

The employee has responsibility for ensuring that they uphold the terms agreed in the contract including with regards to notice period, and that (s)he performs to the very best of his/her ability while on the job.

 

 

The freedom to choose an employer and the subsequent remuneration has no connection with slavery as you appear to suggest.

 

 

 

I have already addressed this point in post #21.

 

I can only assume that either you are intentionally ignoring my responses to your comments, or else you have some kind of reading comprehension difficulties.

 

Now for the more novel points of your post:

 

Businesses are the only activity that generates a country's income. It comes from taxes imposed upon said businesses, both directly and indirectly from wages paid to any employees. Businesses aren't just making profits for themselves, but also providing the money to run the county and livelihoods for their workers.

 

 

And how do you suppose that capitalist businesses generate their profit? It is essentially a pyramid structure in which employees at all levels receive less in terms of remuneration than their labour is actually worth, so that the profit can feed up into the next level. Most employees, who exist in the largest numbers and so form the base of the business, experience the largest discrepancy between their contributed labour and their subsequent remuneration. I.e. at every level except the very most senior level (CEO) the capitalist regime is exploitative – and is most exploitative at the lower levels, at the level of ordinary workers. The workers represent the capacity for profit generation, without them the managerial and senior levels would be superfluous, and the businesses would collapse.

 

 

If businesses and the free market collapse, the country collapses.

 

 

 

If every business were to collapse simultaneously, then yes, the country would collapse. Yet again you fail to acknowledge the fact that businesses already operate under a degree of state control and that what is being suggested is a safeguarding of working conditions – not any form of absolute state control.

 

Anyway, that's the conundrum, burden businesses too much and they collapse (I think you even previously mentioned that businesses don't come up to what you think are reasonable expectations shouldn't be operating!), which means lack of choice

 

 

It does not mean lack of choice. It means the converse – increased choice for employees between multiple companies, each of which has safeguards in place to protect workers’ rights.

 

But I think you confuse safeguards with this minimum wage business

 

 

 

The minimum wage IS a safeguard on working conditions in itself.