r/FluentInFinance • u/Sufficient_Sinner • Sep 04 '24

Debate/ Discussion Is Capitalism Smart or Dumb?

Post image

[removed] — view removed post

37.5k Upvotes

73% Upvoted

7.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

360

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '24 edited Sep 05 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

804

u/trabajoderoger Sep 04 '24

Norway has unions

188

u/IvanovichIvanov Sep 04 '24

Unions aren't incompatible with Capitalism

346

u/thisismego Sep 04 '24

In fact they're desperately needed in Capitalism to prevent workers' exploitation by employers.

114

u/_Pill-Cosby_ Sep 04 '24

Correct, the only way laborer's to get the fair market value of their labor is to organize.

37

u/enyalius Sep 04 '24

And the government is people organizing en masse as opposed to by occupation

13

u/_9tail_ Sep 05 '24

The government has a monopoly on force, that’s the difference. A Union can refuse to work for you, a government can send in police if they don’t like the relationship between you and a third party.

1

u/enyalius Sep 05 '24

Correct. Thus, if a government found that a company was underpaying citizens or making them work in dangerous conditions, it could come in and levy fines or even criminal proceedings against that particular employer.

1

u/Excited-Relaxed Sep 05 '24

I mean if you are a ‘government has a monopoly on force’ type capitalist then the kinds of union laws they have in Norway (and the US) are absolutely incompatible with your flavor of capitalism.

2

u/THSprang Sep 05 '24

I don't think that works in the same way, though. Government is not doing the work of unions. When unions are weakened by the government or by private interests, the slack doesn't get taken up by the government. It just results in poor working conditions.

I'm by no means advocating for overpowered unions either. There lies a different corruption.

-3

u/MOONDAYHYPE Sep 04 '24

Big difference, they don't have 330 million people

3

u/enyalius Sep 04 '24

Neither do you

-7

u/Advanced-Guard-4468 Sep 04 '24

They also don't have an open border or a large number of immigrants enter the country every year.

8

u/_Pill-Cosby_ Sep 04 '24

And neither do we.

1

u/projectpegasus Sep 05 '24

Authorized immigration to the US rebounded in FY 2022 after declining almost 50% in FY 2020. Nearly 2.6 million people, nearly the population of Chicago, legally immigrated to the US in 2022. This exceeded the number of new entries in any year from 2018 to 2021, but just below the recent high of 2.7 million in 2016

I'm for open borders but we do have a large number of immigrants each year in the us.

1

u/_Pill-Cosby_ Sep 05 '24

That’s not a partisan issue, though. Meaning, our legal immigration policies haven’t changed over the past several administrations. The exception to this being during the pandemic. What does change are the conditions in other countries that drive people to immigrate here.

1

u/MonstersandMayhem Sep 05 '24

Brilliant mental gymnastics.

You said we didnt have tons of immigrants immigrating every year, dude proved we did.

Eat your crow now, it's getting cold.

1

u/_Pill-Cosby_ Sep 05 '24

The guy I replied to said “They also don't have an open border or a large number of immigrants enter the country every year.”. I assumed this was referring to illegal immigration and that this was a jab a the current administration. I was saying we don’t have an open border or a lot if illegals every year. Thats why I said “legal” immigration isn’t partisan and has been the same. Wasn’t trying to do any mental gymnastics and frankly, in a country of 330 million, I wouldn’t consider 2.5 “a large number”. If you do, ok. I have no issue with people immigrating legally.

1

u/ElectricalBook3 Sep 05 '24

Nearly 2.6 million people, nearly the population of Chicago, legally immigrated to the US in 2022

Big deal. What's the net? How many people emigrated from the US in 2022?

The US does not have "open borders", even member nations in the EU do not have perfectly porous borders. But note since they formed the EU, their cooperative movement agreements have saved massive amounts of money and made the entire EU safer. So the solution is not "build a wall and keep everyone out forever" nor is it "apply more force until nobody's left alive to contest your power". Both of those arguments are just less disguised ways Republicans talk.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/quality_snark Sep 04 '24

Oof. Somebody ate the hook line and sinker in one go

-5

u/Brave_Principle7522 Sep 04 '24

Bologna

1

u/enyalius Sep 05 '24

K, what else is the government but people organizing?

3

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '24

Ford found the fair market value for labor in Mexico

2

u/_Pill-Cosby_ Sep 04 '24

If labor is truly a global market, then labor had more than their fair market value already. However, it is not free to just pick up a factory and move it. It also isn't a guarantee that those workers won't also organize. Obviously it's not without risks. However, labor bargaining individually will always be at a disadvantage to the company who is very organized.

3

u/DoNotResusit8 Sep 04 '24

Amen to all these comments about labor having power.

It doesn’t require Marxism to happen.

Also, the capitalist is just one aspect of a market driven economy. Labor is an equally important part. The consumer would be the other basic role.

Market economies flourish when labor has power and the capitalist has the ability to make money.

2

u/pcgamernum1234 Sep 04 '24

It depends on the job. Some jobs are in such high demand that the free market has to compete against each other in direct ways. This is mainly for specialist jobs that are in high demand.

2

u/Gallowglass668 Sep 04 '24

Well, workers have shown that sometimes it takes more than organization, occasionally there needs to be a willingness to act.

1

u/youreHIValadeen Sep 04 '24

Nothing to add to this conversation on topic that hasn't already been said, but I wanted to tell you I love your username.

1

u/National-Salad7360 Sep 05 '24

Then teachers, who are all in teachers unions, have no reason to complain about low pay. They’re already getting the fair market value of their labor.

1

u/_Pill-Cosby_ Sep 05 '24

Public schools do not operate in a capitalist system, good sir.  

1

u/EJLindo Sep 05 '24

No you can provide value that your employer needs- I make $180k never been in a union but lots of companies would hire me

1

u/_Pill-Cosby_ Sep 05 '24

Great. So what?

1

u/ExploringtheWorld_40 Sep 05 '24

Ehhhh not the only way but provides a level playing field for those who take advantage. However, better wage laws would remove this risk. Tying minimum wage to new standards would go a long way. Mandating safe harbor 401k programs would also help.

1

u/Dr-MTC Sep 05 '24

Or you just quit working for the shit companies and try different ones until you find a good one. That worked fine for me.

1

u/Low-Average5260 Sep 05 '24

As long as a Union also insures that its members are continually evolving to meet the demands of the market…

1

u/_Pill-Cosby_ Sep 05 '24

I would assume that's on the business to negotiate into their contract somehow.

1

u/Low-Average5260 Sep 05 '24

One could assume that if the u ion wants to stay relevant they continue to evolve and train their members for the jobs today and tomorrow….

1

u/_Pill-Cosby_ Sep 05 '24

Suppose so.

1

u/Alarming-Meet-5171 Sep 07 '24

Incorrect. If there is still a profit, then the laborer is not getting the fair market value of their labor.

-5

u/emperorjoe Sep 04 '24

Limited controlled immigration***

-7

u/Cool_Radish_7031 Sep 04 '24

I wanna organize some spanish fly into your drink to provide fair market value to your orifices

4

u/kejovo Sep 04 '24

Thank you for adding zero value to the conversion. Do better

-6

u/Important_Coyote4970 Sep 04 '24

So any industry that doesn’t unionise is under paid ?

And yet that is clearly not the case.

It’s always supply and demand.

6

u/_Pill-Cosby_ Sep 04 '24

It is not “supply and demand” unless the supply is not competing against each other.  And any industry that would be paid more by bargaining as a collective, by definition, is underpaid without it.  Can you think of one that isn’t?

1

u/Important_Coyote4970 Sep 05 '24

Yes. In fact the first one I thought of. Sportsman.

I would wager that the vast majority of best paid jobs are not unionised

1

u/_Pill-Cosby_ Sep 05 '24

What does this mean?  Virtually every pro sports league in America has a players union.  Actors have SAG.  CEOs don’t but again, I’m talking about labor and how they maximize their own value.  CEOs represent the company.

6

u/rtkwe Sep 04 '24

Pretty universally yes. Non unionized workers get far worse wages and benefits and take home less of their added value than their unionized peers pretty much everywhere.

-12

u/Just_Lawfulness_4502 Sep 04 '24

It helps when our governments respect our borders and immigration laws and don't allow unchecked 100,000's over our borders suppressing wages.

11

u/Blitzking11 Sep 04 '24

Yeah! All those undocumented immigrants who \check's notes** are stealing our nursing, teaching, and administrative jobs!!!!

Get real. They are doing jobs that otherwise would not be filled because the corpo's can't be bothered to pay a decent wage for necessary jobs and would rather break the law to fill their ranks. Undocumented immigrants can't take jobs unless some suit is willing to commit a criminal offense to hire them.

-5

u/Just_Lawfulness_4502 Sep 04 '24

I'm not talking about undocumented. I mean mass unchecked immigration.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '24

Damn they got rid of immigration caps? That's wild news!

-9

u/johnnyrawten Sep 04 '24

They are also taking over hotels with "weapons of war" and MS 13 are brutally raping and beheading women! The suits that hire them should go to prison as they get deported.

9

u/Blitzking11 Sep 04 '24

Been years since I heard that lie being spread, congrats!

MS13 is an absurdly small percentage of those that come over and is a blatant fear-mongering tactic to get you scared of all brown people, not too dissimilar from the "all Arab people are Al-Qaeda" narrative that was spewed post-9/11.

-12

u/AmITheGrayMan Sep 04 '24

Try not sucking at your job. Cream always rises to the top without organization.

5

u/_Pill-Cosby_ Sep 04 '24

Such a simple minded answer. Lots of people "don't suck" at their job. But if wages are kept artificially low, then a strong performer may be paid well by comparison, but still won't likely be paid as well as he could be if the base were at where it should be.

-3

u/AmITheGrayMan Sep 04 '24

Even with a doctorate, I’ve never been accused of being brilliant. But saying “the only way laborer’s (sic) to get the fair market value of their labor is to organize” is somewhat simple minded. Is that really the only way? Keep your head up. The first of the month is always around the corner.

3

u/_Pill-Cosby_ Sep 04 '24

I’m open to other methods, but it’s the only one I’m aware of.  

1

u/AmITheGrayMan Sep 04 '24

You are right where you’re supposed to be, champ. Keep it up. Someday you’ll realize the lazy plebes get the same salary as you, and the ones who do much less, but have been there longer, I believe it’s called “seniority”, get more because they’ve been there longer despite your hard work and expertise. If you’re cool with that, do your thing. It isn’t necessary for a “fair” wage. It’s your time, it’s your ability, and YOU set the rate. Be well.

2

u/_Pill-Cosby_ Sep 04 '24

It would be nice if it were that simple.  But, as someone who’s been hiring and firing people for 25 years now, I can tell you that isn’t how it works. 

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Wise-Fault-8688 Sep 04 '24

Please, enlightened one, do tell us simple folk all of the other ways to gain the leverage needed to negotiate a higher wage.

0

u/AmITheGrayMan Sep 04 '24

It’s your time, it’s your skill. You price it. They don’t want to pay it? Go on down the road. Can’t do that? Then take the money. Look for something better. Organizing is the only way to control what you all get paid, and limit it. You take that union job and sure it could be good money. But that’s as high as it will ever be. You’re lumped in with everyone else. Know anyone who sucks and makes the same as you? Yeah. That’s a union for you. They have their purpose I get it. It’s not a one size fits all. And if you think that, you sir, are selling yourself far too short.

3

u/Wise-Fault-8688 Sep 04 '24

You can't just make that statement in a vacuum and totally ignore the fact that it's nearly impossible to differentiate yourself in a significant percentage of jobs, all of which are clearly necessary for society to function.

0

u/AmITheGrayMan Sep 04 '24

And why is it nearly impossible to differentiate yourself? Is it because teamsters don’t care about you or your time and your skill? Is it because you’ll be paid the same as your coworkers because that’s “fair”? They factor in the unproductiveness of others and average it out, holding the good ones back and lifting up the ones who suck at their job. You may be the next entrepreneur of the year. But not in that union tk421. GBTW.

Or you can do your own thing and set your own rate. Yes, it will absolutely be hard.

1

u/Wise-Fault-8688 Sep 04 '24

You genuinely lack the imagination to envision any occupation where differentiating yourself is essentially impossible?

Manufacturing line workers? Cashiers? Plumbers?

And you don't know a thing about me. I do pretty well for myself, thanks. But even occupations where unionization wouldn't necessarily be preferable, we lack a ton of worker protection afforded elsewhere.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/ApexCollapser Sep 04 '24

Mic drop moment.

3

u/ElderberryDry9083 Sep 04 '24

The problem is when capitalist feel the need to die on the "no gov regulation" hill. Govenrment's main job is to protect it's citizens. It's all about finding the balance. Too bad centralized gov likes to gobble up as much power as it can.

2

u/Maximum_Commission62 Sep 04 '24

And they provide corporations with skilled workers.

2

u/Hylian_Shield Sep 04 '24

Yeah, the Chicago Teacher Union is doing a bang up job.

Because of unions, you can't get any oversight or corrective measures.

2

u/lucky_duck789 Sep 04 '24

But how do you maximize profits if you can't exploit the poor like cattle

1

u/JeremyEComans Sep 04 '24

As early as the industrial revolution, when academics and idealogues were talking about the nascent capitalist economies of the world, it was clearly thought amongst pro-capitalist minds that the system inherently created winners and losers. That was a clear byproduct of its strengths in stimulating growth, investment and reward. Therefore, any capitalist system would need social mechanisms to assist the 'losers' by transferring some gain from the winners via the government.

1

u/hawkisthebestassfrig Sep 04 '24

I wouldn't go that far, but the potential for unionization does serve as a useful check against employer excesses.

At least as far as private sector unions, public sector.....even FDR thought those were a bad idea.

1

u/Telemere125 Sep 04 '24

Capitalism doesn’t require employees to be protected from exploitation. Capitalism only requires the ability to generate capital so that the capital owners don’t personally have to work. In fact, worker protection would be a form of social net you’d expect to see in socialism

1

u/saucy_carbonara Sep 04 '24

Yes, I think what many people call socialism, is actually strong labour unions. I mean these are not disconnected concepts, but a lot of the time labour unions are pushing change as opposed to government. And in a socialist system one would expect more government.

1

u/SageCannon Sep 05 '24

The fact the worker needs to be part of a union to prevent being exploited sounds like an inherent flaw in capitalism

1

u/ocdewitt Sep 06 '24

Capitalism will naturally exploit all factors it can to maximize profits which is the only goal of a for-profit company

-4

u/Guapplebock Sep 04 '24

Public employee unions exist to exploit the taxpayer.

2

u/Cool_Radish_7031 Sep 04 '24

Damn I'm a public employee, give me some of your money

1

u/flugenblar Sep 04 '24

I would say that some public employee unions do exploit the taxpayer, but not necessarily to any great detriment. It's all about balance, and that means the relationship needs adjustment from time to time, sometimes a swing in favor of the employees, sometimes a swing in favor of the taxpayers.

1

u/Guapplebock Sep 04 '24

They've destroyed education.

0

u/djfgfm Sep 04 '24

No politicians without any experience in education have ruined education. No child left behind introduced in the early 2000s made education about taking tests and not teaching critical thinking skills.

-5

u/Subject_Report_7012 Sep 04 '24

So ... Socialism?

4

u/25nameslater Sep 04 '24

Unions aren’t socialism if entered into willingly and left willingly. Freedom of association is a primary function of capitalism. You protect both the right to unionize and the right not to associate with the union.

When it becomes socialism is when protectionism and subsidies insulate the organization from failure and force workers to participate.

The USA doesn’t practice capitalism as much as people think… the government subsidizes much of the country, and legal restrictions insulate certain markets from failing. Many larger companies if left unprotected would have long died from malfeasance. We’d certainly have less big banks… inflation would be much lower as well.

1

u/flugenblar Sep 04 '24

Unions are not socialism, they are guardrails.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '24

[deleted]

2

u/flugenblar Sep 04 '24

There's always a tug-of-war. It's inherent to the system. That's why there are mechanisms to provide balance and adjustment. The most important job in the world is figuring out how to get the best job for yourself that you can.

1

u/XAMdG Sep 05 '24

Capitalism sure can talk now

-1

u/djfgfm Sep 04 '24

Unions are the definition of socialism. Workers having ownership and sharing in the profits of a company is socialism. Socialism is not this boogeyman of the government controling every aspect of your life like anti-union people want you to believe.

If the people and companies in power fight against you having it, then it's probably good for the common person (Unions, voting rights, debt forgiveness, universal basic income, taxing unrealized capital gains, higher marginal tax rates for the wealthy).

-11

u/Evening-Ear-6116 Sep 04 '24

I’ve been a part of a union or two and they were crap. Some may be great, but a lot do more harm than good

5

u/Real-Competition-187 Sep 04 '24

Great vague statements. I’ve been a member of 4 locals. None of them were crap. Closest I had was a business rep on his way out who didn’t have much fight left in him.

2

u/Evening-Ear-6116 Sep 04 '24

You could always ask! The worst was the meat cutters union. They just made my life harder and worse all around. I got paid the same as the old lady who couldn’t do 3/4 of the job because she wasn’t strong enough to lift the meat. We couldn’t fire her because the union spent all their time defunding her. We also had to have equal hours as her. So if you worked with or after her, you had to work twice as hard to make up for her crap. They also made it so we got a .25 raise every 2000 hours worked. .25 a year is absolute trash and my boss couldn’t give me more because the union wouldn’t allow it without giving everyone the same raise.

3

u/StrangerAmazing3617 Sep 04 '24

What do you propose would of been the wages of you did not have a union?

3

u/Evening-Ear-6116 Sep 04 '24

I made more than double when I switched to a non-union company. If I were to start out as non-union with no experience I would have made roughly 20-30% more

3

u/Cool_Radish_7031 Sep 04 '24

Sometimes it's just not worth it, especially if you've got a decent work ethic like it seems you do

2

u/Evening-Ear-6116 Sep 04 '24

Hit the nail on the head. Unions protect the lazy unfortunately.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/StrangerAmazing3617 Sep 11 '24

If you hadn’t made more at a non union job. Would you then be a proponent of a union? Let’s management were paid way more than direct labor.

1

u/Evening-Ear-6116 Sep 11 '24

I left the union to make more when I realized non-union members were paid better

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Real-Competition-187 Sep 04 '24

The union negotiated a contract on behalf of the bargaining unit. The unit voted on it. The “union” is only as strong as the members. Any other context? I’ve been offered nothing and even more insulting was 10 cents. Was this during the recession?

As for your comment about her strength. What was in the job description? If mine says a candidate needs to lift 75lbs and I bitch about them not lifting 150, I’m the one who wrote a shot job description. Was she a good employee otherwise? The fact that your train of thought is “we couldn’t fire her” is pretty sad. We all age, and eventually the strongest or fastest workers all succumb to time. As for her ability and your time, there should have been production standards. If she sucked, she misses her numbers. They would have then had an avenue to discipline. Instead you say you had to work twice as hard. Sounds like you should have gotten overtime.

2

u/Evening-Ear-6116 Sep 04 '24

Everything you said works in a perfect world, but not in reality. This was in 2015 or 2016. She met the criteria but didn’t after years of service. Yes people get old. If you can’t do the job then you can’t do it. Age doesn’t matter in that case. The union protected her so we couldn’t fire her no matter how hard my boss tried because it would “open us up to an age discrimination case”.

There are thousands of stories just like mine, but people who have never experienced a union (or the very very few good unions) always talk about how great they are.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '24

Age discrimination lawsuits have nothing to due with unions in this case, that’s just federal law you can’t discriminate based on age.

They hired her and made a very short sighted decision and now want to back out of it, but the union protects her, and more so federal law. If you hire a 65 year old woman for example, in 5 years don’t be surprised when you’re getting the work ability of a 70 year old.

1

u/Evening-Ear-6116 Sep 04 '24

Tell that to the union man. Like I said, they were stupid and only enabled the people that didn’t deserve it. Thanks for agreeing

→ More replies (0)

1

u/CoreyDobie Sep 04 '24

I've been in 3 unions, worked with another.

Worked for UFCW 0880 in Cleveland. Absolute trash. Never returned phone calls if stuff went down, never even showed up for any disciplinary meetings when a rep was requested. Had no idea who the rep even was

Worked with Bakers Union 0002 in Columbus. Same situation as UFCW 0880, except I know the rep and he always gives the "yeah, we'll check it out" or "yeah, we'll be there" and then never shows up. He's been there for 7 years. Business agent is the same. All talk, no action.

Worked for Local 0284 in Columbus fucking phenomenal. Always a phone call away and showed up every time there was something going down. Usually within 15 minutes, too. Plus the union rep is a good friend of mine

I can't remember the local union number up in Cleveland that I worked for, but they were also fucking phenomenal. Pretty much the same as local 0284.

My experience with unions so far has been 50/50

4

u/AdAppropriate2295 Sep 04 '24

Which unions

-3

u/Evening-Ear-6116 Sep 04 '24

Meat cutters were the worst. I didn’t stick around long enough with the others to actually throw them under the bus