That's not quite the topic. Regardless, to pursue it: workers aren't being paid a decent wage, in reality. And the reason they're not is partly determined by these OP questions -- namely, how profits are distributed and who makes the decisions. The decisions certainly aren't being made by workers.
But let's assume they are being paid a decent wage. They get enough to eat and live and have healthcare. Is that it? They deserve only that? What if they're the ones doing the lion's share of the work? Don't they deserve more than simply a "decent living wage"? — Mikie
I don't recall Marx claiming that shareholders care solely about profit at the expense of everything else?
...
To be clear: in my view, a shareholder cares more than simply profit above all else. — Mikie
I think so too: Namely, the “class” of owners. The capitalists, really. Today that’s mostly owners of particular property, like stocks. — Mikie
In all kinds of cases. — ssu
f this is truly the state of things, the question becomes: is it just? Has it always been this way?
— Mikie
I think you are confusing two things here. — ssu
I think possibly the counterargument being made here is that the distribution of profits doesn't have a moral component - in other words, there's no answer to "how ought the profits be distributed?" — Isaac
I am merely noticing that throughout this thread you
1. Advocate the reversal of global warming by suppressing those activities that contribute to global warming.
2. Advocate that the workers be paid more than what's enough to eat, pay for healthcare and live. — god must be atheist
think I'm resistant to the notion of responsibility really applying. — Moliere
[you, Mikie] Advocate that the workers be paid more than what's enough to eat, pay for healthcare and live. — god must be atheist
I haven’t advocated for either on this thread. — Mikie
But let's assume they [the workers] are being paid a decent wage. They get enough to eat and live and have healthcare. Is that it? They deserve only that? What if they're the ones doing the lion's share of the work? Don't they deserve more than simply a "decent living wage"? — Mikie
Why? It’s like arguing there’s no answer to how we cut a pie. It depends on many things, and there’s not one ultimate answer that applies in all cases, but there are answers to be had. — Mikie
I don’t think distributing 90% of profits to shareholders is fair, and I don’t think the undemocratic decision making process that leads to that distribution is fair either. — Mikie
Well choose a better word then. If the blame cannot be placed on the board of directors of multinational corporations, because our governments structure how business is conducted, then the state is ultimately the culprit.
I don’t completely agree with this picture, but if this isn’t what you’re saying I really don’t see what your point is. — Mikie
“We’re all responsible” isn’t saying much, however true that may be. Can’t we say that about any problem whatsoever? The war in Iraq…we all share blame. The Challenger explosion? We all share some responsibility. Etc. Fine — but let’s narrow it down a bit. — Mikie
The other idea is that we can collectivize the farms so that all the food belongs to society so that we can all share in the profits, but instead we all starve. — Hanover
All the same, if the chicken killers organize, and the farmer and the engineer and the veterinarian and the marketer aren't going to kill the chickens then there's a dependency relationship which can be utilized to drive the price of labor up. — Moliere
American farms are pretty heavily subsidized, and we haven't starved. It actually doesn't make sense to pay CEO's the bizarre reimbursements they get. — frank
That will change in the next big economic adjustment. We always lurch toward the left when the whole system starts breaking down, as during the Great Depression. — frank
There is no free market. At this point in development it's simply stupid to think that there is. There is an environment set up some degrees away from what economic actors do through the relationships between states and other economic actors.
As ↪frank notes -- them chicken owners are plenty organized with how much state funding they get. — Moliere
The subsidization of farming is to protect a dysfunctional industry that society isn't willing to allow to adjust to true economic forces. — Hanover
I know. The revolution is at hand. — Hanover
I think it's that rich farmers know how to lobby. I don't think the average American knows how much they're actually getting. In some cases they're being paid to withhold planting. It's state sponsored price fixing.
All of that started as an attempt to help small farmers, but the wealthy quickly turned it to their own advantage. That's happened over and over, which is one reason to let the poor starve: if the state tries to help them, it just ends up making the rich more powerful. — frank
It will happen eventually. — frank
So last Great Depression it didn't happen here, but it did happen in Russian and millions died. So, sure, this time it will happen in the right way, or whatever Marxist thought says. — Hanover
The reason owners get to be owners and maintain a higher percentage of profits is because it works better that way and people want it that way. — Hanover
So last Great Depression it didn't happen here, but it did happen in Russian and millions died. So, sure, this time it will happen in the right way, or whatever Marxist thought says. — Hanover
The subsidization of farming is to protect a dysfunctional industry that society isn't willing to allow to adjust to true economic forces. The net result of ending subsidies would be the loss of many unprofitable farms, but that wouldn't result in a lack of food.
In any event, subsidies bear no resemblance to the forced collectivization of farming, which did in fact lead to starvation of 10s of millions of people. — Hanover
Are they unprofitable or are they forced to price their goods lower than they would because of competition from counties that don't have all sorts of EHS and labour standards and you want to ensure a critical industry continues to exist in your county? — Benkei
Of course there is regulation. Such does not implicate Marxism though. Marxism becomes implicated when you speak of the great worker revolt and the reorganization of labor where the workers unite and control — Hanover
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.