Are Western governments purposely driving down living standards?

Great Debates
21

Too simplified. Sure, some employers understand that “happy” workers are an asset, but there are a lot of WalMarts across the spectrum, where a “well, too bad, guess you’ll have to work somewhere else (nonexistent)” attitude reigns. And there’s no shortage of companies that will go to great lengths to mask their shitty regard of employees with endless happy-happy programs. Point being, I don’t think you can make any sweeping statement about employer-employee relationships in the US.

I can drive my car to work or the store or school, or I can drive it over your dog. In both cases, it’s a lot more about the driver than the car, and getting rid of cars because your dog got hit is a pretty counterproductive vision.

It also goes back at least a couple of hundred years - “That guy is successful and has people working for him, and I’m broke and have no employees, so the system is wrong.” Uh-huh.

Yes, we’re in a bad phase of imbalance. But you’re welcome to point to any other economic system that’s worked in modern times, outside of short durations or totalitarian regimes. The natural tendency of human economics is something an awful lot like cpitlism.

22

Probably why, world wide, standards of living are plummeting except for the elite rich. At no other time in history have so many people lived in such crushing poverty around the world than this one. It’s really down to just a few rich elites and the rest of the worlds population living in crushing poverty that gets worse and worse every year! Well, except in those enlightened countries who don’t struggle under the bankrupt economic philosophy known as capitalism…THEY are all uniformly doing great. No doubt about it, and I’m sure you have so many cites demonstrating this that it will be hard for you to choose which one to display. For those folks who just don’t get it though why don’t you pick some of your favorites and let’s crush those running dog capitalists and their corrupt and bankrupt economic philosophy once and for all??

23

Another aspect of capitalism is shared risk … if one person invests and sends a ship the the East Indies for a load on nutmeg, and the ship sinks en route, that person is bankrupt … if 20 people invest equal amounts, and the ship sinks, no one single person will be bankrupt.

I don’t see that aspect of capitalism disappearing … ever …

24

There been a few comments recently that Europe will have to be come more like China - maybe we’ll end up with a Capitalist system run by communists?

25

For the same reason that Wall St. and Big Pharma are trying to depopulate the world through vaccines.

Hope that helps.

26

Well, that explains … PRACTICALLY EVERYTHING!

:stuck_out_tongue:

27

Capitalism is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful system I’ve ever known in my life.

28

Capitalism and democracy: shitty ways to run things but better than all the other choices. :slight_smile:

29

That’s so simplistic as to be useless.

All capitalism is, as far as being an economic system, is that the means of production and trade are owned and controlled privately. The main interaction mechanism is the “Market”, which, based on the information available(demand, cost, etc…) , tries to match buyers and sellers at the optimal price for those goods or services.

Nothing particularly nefarious there, and a pretty natural outgrowth of basic human nature, IMO.

I think a lot of the bitching about rich people “living off the work of others” while everyone else’s living conditions stagnate or decline is kind of stupid. First, it entirely disregards the concept of economic risk and reward, and some dumb-ass always brings up the canard about “Poor people have risk too!” and says something stupid and entirely unrelated to the discussion about city buses not running on time, or sick children. :rolleyes:

Second, the two things are likely not even all that closely related. The phenomenon of the rich getting richer is more due to investment policies and the like. The relationship between that and worker wages decreasing is tenuous at best; it’s not a robber baron/sweatshop type situation.

What’s likely going on is that over time, there have been productivity improvements that both drop the amount of labor necessary, AND make that labor less skilled. Both of those are things that are going to drop the going wage for those positions, because the workers are less skilled and less of them are necessary.

Ultimately, the goal of any market actor is to get the most they can for the least payout that they can. Labor is a market, just like any other, and there are some forces going on that are preventing workers from getting higher wages in most industries. I don’t know if it’s a matter of excess supply, low demand, or what, but something’s going on there, and it doesn’t have very much tangible with company owners pocketing profits and paying themselves handsomely.

Unless, that is, you think that they ought to pay out more than necessary out of some sort of warm and fuzzy notion that won’t help them compete in today’s global marketplace, where they’re trying to compete with Chinese manufacturers, and Indian programmers, and all sorts of people all around the world who generally work for peanuts compared to US and Western European salaries.

30

Yes. Socialists type governments want everyone poor and dependent on them.

31

However, businesses can only earn more if they sell to growing markets, and that can only take place with increasing living standards. Governments need the same because they are dependent on increased economic activity.

32

However, employers also need satisfied employees because the latter are also consumers. The catch, then, is to keep wages as low as possible to maximize profits but high enough to increase sales. The financial industry provides additional support for sales by providing credit.

Also, modern capitalism is partly dependent on totalitarian principles as private property in terms of land as well as fiat currency involve government control.

33

There are state capitalist systems and mixed economies that involve public ownership of the means of production, together with economies that are partially centralized. One interesting point to consider is that several of these economies belong to BRICS and emerging markets.

As there is no clear definition of “human nature,” it becomes difficult to see capitalism as related to such. What should be noted, however, is that modern capitalism in terms of private property involved force and government intervention.

The problem with the argument of economic risk is that the last few years showed the opposite, with the rich and multinational banks receiving bailouts, and the debt passed on to the public.

In capitalist systems, the rich will generally become richer because of the base of their investment is much larger than that of the poor.

The problem with the point of more laborers losing jobs is that the same laborers are also consumers. Thus, businesses see more productivity but also markets that are barely growing.

One reason why laborers don’t see their wages rising as fast is because corporations need to maximize profits, and that means more productivity. However, they also need more buyers of what is produced, and that means more laborers with higher wages.

34

Generally employers want their employees to receive subsistence wages, just enough to get by but not enough to build a nest egg and quit. Although private sector real wages have declined over the past few decades, wages for governmental jobs usually keep pace with inflation. As for western governments providing incentives to private businesses to suppress wages, there’s at least some evidence to the contrary in the form of minimum wage laws.

35

Yeah, but I think that guy is referring to the neo-liberal version of economics, which is indeed a truly bankrupt philosophy.

36

This is incoherent. The rich are getting richer, but they need the poor to prosper in order to keep getting rich but corporations are keeping the poor down, even though they need the poor to prosper to get rich. Do the rich want the poor to prosper or not?

What is shown in this thread is a lack of understanding about how markets work. Prices are not set by people, they are set by the market. A wage is a price for labor so wages are not set by people but by the market. Prices, such as wages, carry information about supply and demand. Wage stagnation either means labor is not being demanded or more supply has joined the market. If you look at global patterns you can see that labor in advanced countries is now competing with labor in poorer countries. This helps people in poor countries and hurts workers in rich countries. If you care about poor people this is a great thing and if you only care about rich people it is a bad thing.

37

The rich become richer because their investment base is larger. For example, if one person has $1,000,000 and has an ROI of 10 pct, then he receives more than someone who invests $1,000 with the same ROI. That explains why the gap between rich and poor has been growing worldwide for decades.

The catch is that both receive an ROI if the businesses that they invest in earn more such that they can pay for their expenses, earn the same profits or better, and pay for the ROI. That means more sales, which in turn ultimately requires a growing market. But for that to happen, more consumers have to earn more.

The next catch is that consumers are also workers, and they buy using combinations of wages and credit. Either way, they have to earn more in order to buy more, and that ultimately means higher wages. But wages can’t be very high because that eats up profits, not to mention any ROI that goes to investors.

Thus, wages have to be low enough so that investors (especially the rich) get their returns but high enough so that sales go up. For that to happen, wages have to rise but productivity has to rise faster.

This explains why wages are high in industrialized countries but not high enough to pay for houses, cars, etc. That’s why debt levels are also high.

Finally, this also explains why wages in poor countries have been rising, leading to a growing global middle class:

38

Well, sure. And I want to pay $1 for a Maserati Quattroporto, and you want all the food you’d ever need and be paid to eat it, and we all wish everything was free.

But in the REAL world, everyone, including employers, ends up paying what things are worth.

39

I bet many workers wish they lived on your planet.
First, could you point me to a set of CEOs who get compensated on worker happiness, not stock prices and profitability?
Second, if what you say is correct then there would be few companies capping hours so as not to pay benefits - since benefits make workers happy.
You can find businesses who do really care about employee morale, but you’ll find many more who don’t.
Strikes do occur when workers are unhappy. You can reduce the number of strikes by either making workers happy or by trying to kill unions. Which path do you think WalMart has chosen, to give an example.
While employee retention does save money, it is harder to measure than salaries and benefits, and lots of companies don’t seem to care. I have heard managers acknowledge that pay policies are going to make employees leave, but they do it anyway. And in my line of work someone leaving has a lot more impact than if a waitress or burger flipper leaves.
Finally, I’ve sat in on meetings go over employee feedback surveys, in a company which was actually pretty good about pay and benefits. (Nearly everyone got stock options, for example.) I assure you, no one really cares about unhappy employees, especially from HR. If 90% are unhappy about something, maybe there will be action, but not if it costs too much.

40

Well, in some administrations minimum wages have stayed static so long that they represent a decrease in purchasing power. On the whole, however, I doubt governments are doing much that is actively negative. Not preventing companies from paying the absolute minimum they can get away with does it just fine.

Governments seem to be finally taking steps against the abuse of contractor status and the “sharing economy.” So that’s something at least.