Historically necessary things, like unions, have a beginning and also an end. With the realization that unions, too, arose from older forms of society and must therefore give way to newer forms of society comes the realization that what is does not mean this is what has to be.
<shrug>
Well, we’re agreed that layoffs, cutting jobs, reductions in force, or whatever you wish to call them, are one way companies reduce their expenses and thus remain profitable and competitive, correct? Well, according to the BLS Current Employment Statistics chart under “Change in Payroll Employment”, some 2.2 million people lost their jobs in 2001 and 2002. (This presumably includes the 4,539 mass layoff events over the same period.) Over the same period the unemployment level in the US jumped almost 1.6 million - which tells me that only some 600,000 people who lost their jobs were able to find other jobs in that two-year period. Clearly, businesses trying to stay profitable were laying off a lot more workers than they were taking on. To me, the intrinsic connection between unemployment and profitability is self-evident. There’s no envy here - I have no desire to run a business, profitable or otherwise. Just an analysis of the question of whether profitability for companies is in the best interests of both the bosses and the workers, and the numbers are telling me it’s not.
Very true, but you have to take into account the purpose of the thing in question and ask whether or not that purpose has been achieved. Capitalism’s purpose was to free the forces of economic development from the rule of the feudal ruling class and to push those forces forward even further - which it has done quite admirably. Now, however, it’s proven its inability to even begin to take advantage of the potential to eliminate scarcity that it has created through the dramatic increase of productive power it’s engendered in the last 150 years.
However, since capitalism, like feudalism, is a class society, the development of economic forces rested on the exploitation of one class’ labor by another (and by exploitation I mean the extraction of surplus value, or paying a worker and amount that is less than the value of the goods s/he was hired to create). Unions were originally formed by the working class to resist that economic exploitation and to better the terms of their members’ employment. As capitalism progressed, some people (like Marx and Engels) realized that unions could also become tools for abolishing economic exploitation and class society permanently - organized workers taking the means of production from the capitalist class and organizing production and distribution for themselves, in their own interests as a class. That goal is still quite a ways off, so for now unions are still historically necessary.
I should also clarify that I certainly don’t think that because unions are still historically necessary, I find the current state of union organization anything close to acceptable. There needs to be a lot more rank-and-file democracy in many US unions, for one thing. There is still much work to be done.
This reminds me of a presidential debate, where a candidate is asked one question but instead provides an answer for a completely different one. No one is trying to make the case that companies have recently laid off more people than they have hired, and that they have done this in order to be profitable. But what you implied previously, and what Truth Seeker called you on, was that businesses arranged somehow to have a pool of unemployed people, making the pool as large as possible, in order to increase the supply of available labor and therefore decrease the cost. *That’s * what’s risible.
Please change “make the case” in my above post with “deny.”
I never asserted it was a conscious overall plan of any sort. Layoffs are conscious decisions by companies to maintain profitability by reducing direct labor costs, yes. But capitalism didn’t start out by planning on unemployment.There’s no smoky backroom deal where the fat sweaty C-bill smoking fatcats decide what rate of unemployment would be high enough to make everything peachy keen for the economy.
Nevertheless, capitalism cannot function without unemployment. Competition for shares of the market drive some companies to the wall; their collapse causes job loss. The remaining companies can absorb some of the redundant workforce but not all of them, since doing so would eat into their profits more than they would find acceptable. Corporations just can’t afford to hire everybody, and the BLS numbers I linked to above illustrate that quite clearly.
…hit “Submit” instead of “Preview”…
In short, how can there be a commonality of interest between workers and bosses if the workers’ interest in working at a profitable company necessarily implies that they may lose their job in order to keep the company profitable?
sigh
First, explain how anyone can work (for very long, anyway) at a company that doesn’t turn a profit. If a company’s revenue doesn’t exceed its expenses, it will soon be an ex-company and no one will work there.
Profit, in its widest sense, simply means that a company adds more value to the economy than it consumes.
Just because there are things beyond the control of the employees and management (i.e., the general state of the economy) that may make layoffs necessary to keep the company afloat does not mean that employees do not share an interest in keeping a company profitable with their bosses. Your job security is far, far better at a profitable company than it is at one hemorraging cash.
Even worse, then. If the economy is so out of control that even the captains of industry can’t do much about it, what’s the point of struggling to keep a company profitable (or “economically competitive”) if the economy will force through layoffs anyway? Where’s the job security in that?
There’s no such thing as perfect job security, but working for a profitable company gives you more security than working for one that is not.
Sometimes people die in car accidents even though they were wearing their seatbelts. That doesn’t mean wearing your seatbelt isn’t a good idea.
It sounds like you are arguing that the capitalist world is no better off now than it was 150 years ago, and that capitalist countries have made no progress at all during that time in reducing poverty and scarcity.
I want to be sure that this is what you are claiming, because it is difficult for me to believe that this is what you meant to say.
Am I correct in my understanding? The capitalist world has made almost no progress at all in reducing scarcity?
Regards,
Shodan
But still, where is the commonality of interest between workers and bosses? It’s in a worker’s interest to keep his job, but they work those jobs in a society where those jobs can be lost - and not only is it not in the worker’s interest, it’s actually in the bosses’ interest for that to happen. It’s a rather glaring contradiction, IMO.
But still, where is the commonality of interest between workers and bosses? It’s in a worker’s interest to keep his job, but they work those jobs in a society where those jobs can be lost - and not only is it not in the worker’s interest, it’s actually in the bosses’ interest for that to happen. It’s a rather glaring contradiction, IMO.
In the continued operation of the business, so they can all have jobs and make money.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m not entirely sure what you mean by this. In this claim, whose purpose are you talking about. The capitalist’s purpose? The serfs purpose? The philosophers (who developed the theories of capitalism) purposes?
Someone else asked you about this, but let me ask in another way. What exactly would it look like to “take advantage of the lack of scarcity”?
I have to disagree very strongly with this characterization. How can I exploit a worker who has agreed to work for me of his own free will?
Capitalism is most definately not a class society. Except for very odd definitions of the word class. At any given time, there will be people who have more money than others. But this is not the same thing as a hereditary (and maintained by force) class structure.
Here again, I have to ask; Value to who? Things do not have some quality “value” which is identically measurable from all perspectives. A bushel of wheat in the valley where it is grown will have one value to farmer who grew it. It will have an entirely different value to the miner far up in the mountains who needs it. But if the farmer is willing to sell it to a trader who then sells it for more to the miner how can we claim that the farmer was cheated or exploited?
Similarly, the idea that the 100 workers who build a car which sells for $50,000 are cheated when hey do not recieve $500 each is entirely without merit. It completely ignores (among other things) the build up of capital necessary to create the factory, buy the raw materials in bulk, and move and sell the cars.
If we take those workers into an empty field, with nothing but whatever tools they own, and whatever materials they can buy, how many cars will they produce? And can they afford to wait until their car is built and sold before they get any wages?
If they can build the same car, and are willing to wait, what is the difference between them and the factory owner?
If this theory has not been thouroughly debunked in the last 100 years, then none have. I’m sorry, I truly don’t mean to be dismisive or insluting. But ideas like the “means of production” (as if that were a fixed natural resource) are simply tripe.
It’s only a contradiction because you are mischaracterizing the relationship between the employee and the employer. What you’ve failed to demonstrate, is why it is in an employer’s interest to keep people unemployed. You’ve said it in several different ways, but I’ve seen no logical evidence to support that claim.
pervert touched on this briefly, but I’d like to expand. How is it possible to ever eliminate scarcity? By the simple fact that resources are finite, scarcity will always exist. This is one of the basic tenets of economics. Unless you are defining the term “scarcity” in a non-standard way, I don’t see how any system could eliminate it. We might as well blame gravity for our woes, it is as unavoidable as scarcity.
I believe Friedman said it, and I paraphrase, 'The greatest protection the employee has, is the existence of many available employers. The greatest protection the employer has, is the existence of many available employees.’ This does not mean that those available employees must be unemployed, just available to work. There will always exist some level of unemployment, in a [relatively] free society.
What Bone said.