Human greed

lufties

wazky wrote: »

You dislike large corporations ethos, yet you are happily paid them?, not just leave no?

Yes i am trying to get out as a matter of fact, but i work hard for the money and i get to see/live in a different part of the world.

I dont disagree with capitalism, but its gotten out of hand with human greed, i dont have the answers but perhaps put some strict laws in place.

hju6

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

1. You didn't answer my question.
2. There are not infinite resources.
3. Fukushima was caused by a natural disaster.
4. I'm not sure what "dollar stew" is but it sounds yummy.

1. No point
2. Correct
3. Correct
4. Enjoy

Wibbs

catallus wrote: »

The West does better because of the historical rape and pillage of the rest of the world.

That's only a small(if well dodgy) part of the reason. After all the "West" would have to have been more advanced to rape and pillage in the first place. Accidents of history, culture, geography and philosophy was what did it. Take the aforementioned China. Those feckers invented soooooo much it's beggars belief(the compass, the rudder, paper, gunpowder, blast furnaces... Even my longwinded posts couldn't begin to contain their inventiveness). True innovators, yet didn't capitalise in nearly the same way as the west did on it's innovations or when they nicked the ideas from elsewhere like from China. Why? Culture and philosophy had a helluva lot to do with it. In Chinese philosophy nature was king and man couldn't hope measure it or replicate it in another form, so while they built an incredible philosophy based on the inner and outer life of man, they lagged far behind what came to be science. The Greeks on the other hand considered nature measurable by man and ran with that.

Secondly the culture was very different socially. Social mobility in China was pretty much impossible. If you were born a turd polisher from a family of turd polishers, well then your lot in life was to be a turd polisher. In Europe social mobility was significantly stronger. As an extreme example, in Rome a son of a slave could become caesar and a couple did. Tacitus got sniffy about it, noting that in caesar's court and the senate the sons and grandsons of slaves were everywhere. This makes a huge diff. Chinese bloke invents something great, but his standing is low and no matter what he'll rarely profit from it in cash or standing. Venetian bloke invents something great and it's a way to become great. Venice wins.

Thirdly political geography. Europe was made up of loads of small states vying for position. This increases competition, which increases the likelihood that innovation gets noticed. China being a stable empire for a long time, with few enemies that can challenge it, means that the status quo remains for longer. Competition in close quarters also means more ideas get born shared or nicked. Europe gets the compass and rudder from the Chinese and the astrolabe from the Muslims and each nation in turn starts to use them to beat the next guy. In China there was no real next guy. I'd call this the Lennon/McCartney effect. Lennon on his own would likely have been a pub folk singer, maybe a minor hit or two. McCartney on his own may have ended up writing jingles or musicals, with the odd hit or two. Put them together and Whammo! they compete and egg each other on in this competition and we end up with genius. When they split and that pressure wasn't there look what happened(even songs like Jealous guy and Imagine were written when he was still in the beatles).

Fourthly, pure dumb luck. China and the Muslim world had printing before Europe, yet did little with it. Their written language is so complex it was a PITA to translate it into widespread mass production and ditto with Arabic(the first Quran was printed in the west). The western alphabet is simple, add printing and within a generation we had the first true information revolution. Literally within a lifetime, even a short one. You could be ten when you saw your first printed book and by the time you'd have been 50 they would be everywhere. Sometimes luck can go in odd ways. The Chinese had nailed porcelain and other ceramics long before Europe. Great you'd think, but this meant they neglected glass. Europe had OK ceramics, but nothing like the Chinese, so they invested much more into glass production. From glass you get optics, windows, scientific vessels, knowledge of mineral chemistry and control of high temps etc.

Jester252

Why do people always hold greed in a negative light? Greed like the other deadly sins are some of our basic driving forces that give us the power to achieve goals that we had set out. Humans greed has led to some of the greatest moment in history. While having man walk on the moon is more to do with our pride yet it was greed that lead to the space race. The small pox vacation was released to everyone by Leslie Collier when he could have made millions off his method was greed. He desired to cure everyone. Greed is important for human to push forward, to what better, to achieve perfection.

lufties

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They're unskilled labourers who are working a job they otherwise wouldn't have. No one is forcing them to stay but they prefer to work as you put it "into the ground" rather than be unemployed.

You seem to be a very negative person. Instead of hating your job embrace it. See how they're providing jobs for people. Actually if you hate your company so much why do you stay with them? I'm serious there are plenty others who would rather have your job.

I know you don't identify as socialist but that's what you come across as.

thats ironic since china is still supposed to be communist. I'm actually looking for work elsewhere. Im not negative and im all for jobs, but fair jobs, not a race to the bottom in the hunt for maximum profit.

catallus

Wibbs wrote: »

That's only a small(if well dodgy) part of the reason. After all the "West" would have to have been more advanced to rape and pillage in the first place. Accidents of history, culture, geography and philosophy was what did it. Take the aforementioned China. Those feckers invented soooooo much it's beggars belief(the compass, the rudder, paper, gunpowder, blast furnaces... Even my longwinded posts couldn't begin to contain their inventiveness). True innovators, yet didn't capitalise in nearly the same way as the west did on it's innovations or when they nicked the ideas from elsewhere like from China. Why? Culture and philosophy had a helluva lot to do with it. In Chinese philosophy nature was king and man couldn't hope measure it or replicate it in another form, so while they built an incredible philosophy based on the inner and outer life of man, they lagged far behind what came to be science. The Greeks on the other hand considered nature measurable by man and ran with that.

Secondly the culture was very different socially. Social mobility in China was pretty much impossible. If you were born a turd polisher from a family of turd polishers, well then your lot in life was to be a turd polisher. In Europe social mobility was significantly stronger. As an extreme example, in Rome a son of a slave could become caesar and a couple did. Tacitus got sniffy about it, noting that in caesar's court and the senate the sons and grandsons of slaves were everywhere. This makes a huge diff. Chinese bloke invents something great, but his standing is low and no matter what he'll rarely profit from it in cash or standing. Venetian bloke invents something great and it's a way to become great. Venice wins.

Thirdly political geography. Europe was made up of loads of small states vying for position. This increases competition, which increases the likelihood that innovation gets noticed. China being a stable empire for a long time, with few enemies that can challenge it, means that the status quo remains for longer. Competition in close quarters also means more ideas get born shared or nicked. Europe gets the compass and rudder from the Chinese and the astrolabe from the Muslims and each nation in turn starts to use them to beat the next guy. In China there was no real next guy. I'd call this the Lennon/McCartney effect. Lennon on his own would likely have been a pub folk singer, maybe a minor hit or two. McCartney on his own may have ended up writing jingles or musicals, with the odd hit or two. Put them together and Whammo! they compete and egg each other on in this competition and we end up with genius. When they split and that pressure wasn't there look what happened(even songs like Jealous guy and Imagine were written when he was still in the beatles).

Fourthly, pure dumb luck. China and the Muslim world had printing before Europe, yet did little with it. Their written language is so complex it was a PITA to translate it into widespread mass production. The western alphabet is simple, add printing and within a generation we had the first true information revolution. Literally within a lifetime, even a short one. You could be ten when you saw your first printed book and by the time you'd have been 50 they would be everywhere. Sometimes luck can go in odd ways. The Chinese had nailed porcelain and other ceramics long before Europe. Great you'd think, but this meant they neglected glass. Europe had OK ceramics, but nothing like the Chinese, so they invested much more into glass production. From glass you get optics, windows, scientific vessels, knowledge of mineral chemistry and control of high temps etc.

Nah. I'll stick with rape and pillage to explain it, thanks

Iwasfrozen

hju6 wrote: »

1. No point
2. Correct
3. Correct
4. Enjoy

1. There's every point, it's your central argument not mine.
2. That's a direct contradiction to when you sai there were, which is it?

Loony left just gets loonier.

lufties

Jester252 wrote: »

Why do people always hold greed in a negative light? Greed like the other deadly sins are some of our basic driving forces that give us the power to achieve goals that we had set out. Humans greed has led to some of the greatest moment in history. While having man walk on the moon is more to do with our pride yet it was greed that lead to the space race. The small pox vacation was released to everyone by Leslie Collier when he could have made millions off his method was greed. He desired to cure everyone. Greed is important for human to push forward, to what better, to achieve perfection.

I'd buy that for a dawllor :rolleyes:

jobeenfitz

lufties wrote: »

would you prefer get your car repaired in china or Ireland, china being much cheaper of course.

Ireland, shur how would I get it to china?

197th User Id

We want the new expensive gizmo for cheap.
Wei makes it.
We complain.
Wei took our jobs.

Can't have it both Wei's.

Wibbs

lufties wrote: »

thats ironic since china is still supposed to be communist. I'm actually looking for work elsewhere. Im not negative and im all for jobs, but fair jobs, not a race to the bottom in the hunt for maximum profit.

Well it's how you race is the thing. There was the famous example of the Chinese Honda 50 moped ripoffs. Chinese bloke rips off* a Honda 50(IIRC even nicked the name with a slight spelling change)and makes and sells it for far less than the real deal. Cool beans, however other Chinese folks see him making a few quid and do their own ripoff of a ripoff and this begat a mad race to the bottom, to the point where the bikes were shíte and were selling for less than the cost to make them and the market collapsed. The Japanese way of doing things was more like, Bloke comes up with Honda 50, others may make their own version, but different enough to stand out on their own merits, or they decide to supply parts to HOnda 50 bloke. A much more sustainable market idea.


*Copyright seems to be a word missing from Mandarin. Fine in the wild west of the early days, but ultimately damaging in the long run. The Japanese were also famous for copying western stuff, but they made it better. The Chinese rarely do. That makes a big diff longterm.

Iwasfrozen

lufties wrote: »

thats ironic since china is still supposed to be communist. I'm actually looking for work elsewhere. Im not negative and im all for jobs, but fair jobs, not a race to the bottom in the hunt for maximum profit.

You have to stop looking at it as a race to the bottom, it's not it's the opposite. The companies cut costs and up productivity while the foreign workers are being given jobs they otherwise wouldn't have so they can feed their families. It's a win win situation for both parties.

HansHolzel

According to a couple of sources (Petronius & one of the Plinys), Tiberius executed a craftsman who'd made an unbreakable glass dish on the grounds that, if the knowledge were made public, gold would become as cheap as muck.

In a similar vein, Vespasian declined the services of an engineer who offered to drag some huge columns up to the Capitol by means of a simple mechanical device he had invented. Vespasian explained he had to ensure that the plebeians could earn enough money to buy food.

A lot of progress (or lack thereof) depends on the power of vested interests.

Annasopra

sonny jim bob jones wrote: »

What about the people on the scratcher that have never worked a day in their lives and milk the system for every cent it's worth whether it is medical card, rent allowance etc. Are they greedy?

No

lufties

Fioripiccoli wrote: »

Humans have always for the most part act3d through self interest. Nothing much there has changed.

yes i agree but when is enough? Russel brandt was on paxman recently talking about a revolution. something has to change.

Spokes of Glory

lufties wrote: »

oh yea the sneering, patronising post. how does it not make sense that big corps coming and going as they please paying shag all tax. My point is workers are being reduced to slaves and we are moving backwards.

Your statement might look good on a SWP poster, but it makes no sense, at least not in this country.

I work for one those "big business" corporations, and I don't class myself a slave in any sense. I get a fair wage and reasonable conditions for providing a professional and competent service to my employer. If you want to survey the the 1000's of employees working for MNCs in the country, I'm pretty sure you'd get a similar response. The question of tax is a different one, and there are definite cases to answer by MNCs, but that doesn't impact the employed worker in terms of their direct relationship.

Most cases of alleged exploitation that I can think of in the last few years have involved indigenous companies (eg Irish Ferries), or smaller companies employing low or unskilled labour (eg building contractors and hotels).

Spokes

lufties

Spokes of Glory wrote: »

Your statement might look good on a SWP poster, but it makes no sense, at least not in this country.

I work for one those "big business" corporations, and I don't class myself a slave in any sense. I get a fair wage and reasonable conditions for providing a professional and competent service to my employer. If you want to survey the the 1000's of employees working for MNCs in the country, I'm pretty sure you'd get a similar response. The question of tax is a different one, and there are definite cases to answer by MNCs, but that doesn't impact the employed worker in terms of their direct relationship.

Most cases of alleged exploitation that I can think of in the last few years have involved indigenous companies (eg Irish Ferries), or smaller companies employing low or unskilled labour (eg building contractors and hotels).

Spokes

There isn't much job security though is there? look at all the MNC's that moved on on when they please to maximise gains.

lufties

Fioripiccoli wrote: »

What has to change? Do you have suggestions?

the increase in the gap between rich and poor has to change, the fact gamblers and speculators are still in luxury despite all the chaos they've caused. I'd suggest that governments act in the interest of their own people and not greedy elites.

HansHolzel

Wibbs wrote: »

That's only a small(if well dodgy) part of the reason. After all the "West" would have to have been more advanced to rape and pillage in the first place. Accidents of history, culture, geography and philosophy was what did it. Take the aforementioned China. Those feckers invented soooooo much it's beggars belief(the compass, the rudder, paper, gunpowder, blast furnaces... Even my longwinded posts couldn't begin to contain their inventiveness). True innovators, yet didn't capitalise in nearly the same way as the west did on it's innovations or when they nicked the ideas from elsewhere like from China. Why? Culture and philosophy had a helluva lot to do with it. In Chinese philosophy nature was king and man couldn't hope measure it or replicate it in another form, so while they built an incredible philosophy based on the inner and outer life of man, they lagged far behind what came to be science. The Greeks on the other hand considered nature measurable by man and ran with that.

Secondly the culture was very different socially. Social mobility in China was pretty much impossible. If you were born a turd polisher from a family of turd polishers, well then your lot in life was to be a turd polisher. In Europe social mobility was significantly stronger. As an extreme example, in Rome a son of a slave could become caesar and a couple did. Tacitus got sniffy about it, noting that in caesar's court and the senate the sons and grandsons of slaves were everywhere. This makes a huge diff. Chinese bloke invents something great, but his standing is low and no matter what he'll rarely profit from it in cash or standing. Venetian bloke invents something great and it's a way to become great. Venice wins.

Thirdly political geography. Europe was made up of loads of small states vying for position. This increases competition, which increases the likelihood that innovation gets noticed. China being a stable empire for a long time, with few enemies that can challenge it, means that the status quo remains for longer. Competition in close quarters also means more ideas get born shared or nicked. Europe gets the compass and rudder from the Chinese and the astrolabe from the Muslims and each nation in turn starts to use them to beat the next guy. In China there was no real next guy. I'd call this the Lennon/McCartney effect. Lennon on his own would likely have been a pub folk singer, maybe a minor hit or two. McCartney on his own may have ended up writing jingles or musicals, with the odd hit or two. Put them together and Whammo! they compete and egg each other on in this competition and we end up with genius. When they split and that pressure wasn't there look what happened(even songs like Jealous guy and Imagine were written when he was still in the beatles).

Fourthly, pure dumb luck. China and the Muslim world had printing before Europe, yet did little with it. Their written language is so complex it was a PITA to translate it into widespread mass production and ditto with Arabic(the first Quran was printed in the west). The western alphabet is simple, add printing and within a generation we had the first true information revolution. Literally within a lifetime, even a short one. You could be ten when you saw your first printed book and by the time you'd have been 50 they would be everywhere. Sometimes luck can go in odd ways. The Chinese had nailed porcelain and other ceramics long before Europe. Great you'd think, but this meant they neglected glass. Europe had OK ceramics, but nothing like the Chinese, so they invested much more into glass production. From glass you get optics, windows, scientific vessels, knowledge of mineral chemistry and control of high temps etc.

“Nietzsche was the first… to recognize the force in the Greek heritage of an interplay of two mythologies: the pre-Homeric Bronze Age heritage of the peasantry, in which release from the yoke of individuality was achieved through group rites inducing rapture; and the Olympian mythology of measure and humanistic self-knowledge that is epitomized for us in Classical art. The glory of the Greek tragic view, he perceived, lay in its recognition of the mutuality of these two orders of spirituality, neither of which alone offers more than a partial experience of human worth.” (Campbell 1991:141)

For Joseph Campbell, this is an effect of the conquest of a local matriarchal order by invading patriarchal nomads and their reshaping of the local lore of the productive earth to their own ends, and is used to validate in mythological terms not only a new social order but also a new psychology (1991:80).

Campbell writes that the archaic Bronze Age philosophy is the most important single creative force in the history of civilization. He goes on to say that its import is “experienced immediately in the ultimate mythic rapture of non-duality, or mythic identification” (1991:57). Here is Campbell’s comment on the part of the Odyssey where Odysseus is finally left without companions:

“Had Odysseus been a sage of India, he would not now have found himself alone, floating at sea, on the way back to his wife Penelope, to put what he had learned into play in domestic life. He would have been united with the sun – Noman forever. And that, briefly, is the critical line between India and Greece, between the way of disengagement and of tragic engagement” (1991:173).

Thus Campbell asserts that a Bronze Age image of the cosmos “still intact in the Orient, renders a fixed world” (1991:6) and that in the Far East, as well as in India, “the world was not to be reformed, but only known, revered and obeyed” (1991:191).

The work of William McNeill gives considerable support to Campbell’s analysis of myth. In The Rise of the West (1963), McNeill devotes the fifth chapter to comparing the the Greek, Indian and Chinese civilizations. He writes that the beginnings of Greek philosophy may be viewed as a fruitful projection upon the cosmos of the busy, ordered world of the polis. The polis, arising from an “unusual plasticity of circumstance” experienced by Greek settlers in Ionia (1963:193), was to become the “master institution” of Greek civilization. A citizen of such a city was as free as man can be from subjection to any alien will; yet his life was rigorously bound by law. Thus it is scarcely surprising, writes McNeill, that a few speculatively inclined citizens imagined that the universe might be similarly governed, yet this “implausible guess” gave a distinctive bent to all subsequent Greek (and European) thought (1963:215).

Systemic Risk

lufties wrote: »

They way the world is today seems to be a race to the bottom with regard to sqeezing middle and working classes, working hours are longer, salaries are lower and most jobs are on 'contract'. This all to the benefit of big business with increasing profits. It seems in Ireland that if big corporations see a cheaper option ( ie moving to china), they're gone.

This is a worrying trend the world over, fat cats getting super rich and that wealth gap increasing. I wonder though why humans have become so damn greedy, is it a mental illness ?where enough is never enough. Personally I like to try and be comfortable but never at the expense of others. In my job I have dealt with employment agencies and a lot of them are there as a middle man out for a quick buck, made off the back of the employee. I wonder how they can sleep at night making a living that way.

This is very worrying for humanity IMO, I dont have an alternative to capitalism but a system that benefits such a small few to the detriment of others can't be the way forward.

It is a tough problem to solve OP and one which I am not sure if there is a solution to. The amount of jobs that are going to contract work is ridiculous. People can be laid off after their short term contract ends at the drop of a hat. How can people plan a life for themselves and settle down if they dont know if they will have to up sticks and move to another area for work after their contract ends. If legislation was brought in at a European level to increase worker rights and limit these temporary contracts then, due to the global nature of business these days, companies would migrate to regions with lax employment legislation.

One could argue that legislation could be introduced at a European level to restrict the importation of goods that are produced using labour which falls below some minimum standards of wages, job protection and general conditions. This would however be politically infeasible and may lead to an increase in tariffs on goods leaving the EU to other countries. In short, for something to be done about this it would have to be done on a global scale and as you said OP there is too much greed out there for this to ever be implemented. Look at how badly the plans to introduce a small levy on financial transactions went to try and reduce speculation in financial markets.

Systemic Risk

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They're unskilled labourers who are working a job they otherwise wouldn't have. No one is forcing them to stay but they prefer to work as you put it "into the ground" rather than be unemployed.

You seem to be a very negative person. Instead of hating your job embrace it. See how they're providing jobs for people. Actually if you hate your company so much why do you stay with them? I'm serious there are plenty others who would rather have your job.

I know you don't identify as socialist but that's what you come across as.

That is exactly the point. Forgetting about any differences in quality, nationality etc. these multinationals are moving to countries such as china where the employees have very little rights and are exploited because the other option is unemployment and real poverty.

I suppose the problem isnt really with the multinational, its with us and I include myself in this. Its us who buy the products without caring about were they came from. Most people want decent quality product for cheap and lots of them. Therefore, large companies cut their costs by moving their operations to places where production is cheaper. If people made a conscious choice to know what they are buying and only buy ethically produced products then maybe this race to the bottom would end. But hey I'm a hypocrite and dont practice what I preach.

Systemic Risk

Fioripiccoli wrote: »

How about you set up your own business and provide these rights for your employees. Lead by example.

I'm not talking about anything too radical, I just think that the increase in contract work and a trend of reduced job security is worrying. I am not really blaming the individual businesses, they are doing what they have to in order to survive. As i said in my last post it really is down to customers (including me) wanting more for less.

Jester252

lufties wrote: »

I'd buy that for a dawllor :rolleyes:

Someone has a bit too much pride.

KyussBishop

We don't need to think up a whole new system overnight, we just need to look at the problems and inequalities in the current system, and see what we can fix right now.

To start with, we can see that banks are able to create money by extending loans (not limited by deposits/reserves either, like is taught in textbooks, but limited by capital requirements), and get to charge interest on that; in other words, they get to create money from nothing, and get to demand we pay interest on it (which is an incredibly unequal special privilege).

Stemming from that (though not obvious at first), are most of the economic problems we face. When we look at the alternatives to that as well (such as public banks - but that is not the only potential solution), stem most of the solutions to our economic problems.

Money created by private banks is debt-based (and makes up something like 97% of all money in the economy), money created by public institutions can be made non-debt-based; relying solely on debt-based money pretty much (for complicated reasons) guarantees future economic crisis (so you need a mix of both).


These issues aren't talked about, and people have very little understanding of them (and they're not easy to talk about - took me a long while to understand, and am still getting my head around much of it) - they're the most important political/economic issues out there though, because they tie into all the other problems we face.

Dubbug

Matthew 26:11

Systemic Risk

KyussBishop wrote: »

We don't need to think up a whole new system overnight, we just need to look at the problems and inequalities in the current system, and see what we can fix right now.

To start with, we can see that banks are able to create money by extending loans (not limited by deposits/reserves either, like is taught in textbooks, but limited by capital requirements), and get to charge interest on that; in other words, they get to create money from nothing, and get to demand we pay interest on it (which is an incredibly unequal special privilege).

Stemming from that (though not obvious at first), are most of the economic problems we face. When we look at the alternatives to that as well (such as public banks - but that is not the only potential solution), stem most of the solutions to our economic problems.

Money created by private banks is debt-based (and makes up something like 97% of all money in the economy), money created by public institutions can be made non-debt-based; relying solely on debt-based money pretty much (for complicated reasons) guarantees future economic crisis (so you need a mix of both).


These issues aren't talked about, and people have very little understanding of them (and they're not easy to talk about - took me a long while to understand, and am still getting my head around much of it) - they're the most important political/economic issues out there though, because they tie into all the other problems we face.

Very interesting. So in effect we have a credit driven economy rather than one driven by interests rates. The amount of credit/debt extended by the banks increases during good times, causing higher peaks in the economic cycle, and contracts during busts causing lower troughs in economic activity. In other words when the economy is going well banks lend more money to businesses and individuals, causing an increase in economic activity. When the economy goes into a downturn the banks restrict lending and call in loans, thereby sucking money out of the economy and causing the recession to deepen.

I can see how in theory public banks could be a good thing as they could be run in a conservative manner, keeping the level of credit relatively steady and perhaps implementing Keynesian strategies and slightly decreasing credit in a boom cycle and increasing credit in a recession. This however is dependent on the people in charge knowing what they are at. Also it could be argued that a central bank could fulfil this role through reserve requirements, liquidity facilities and targeting a money supply. However, this would not stop private financial institutions creating and speculating in complex derivatives. Mortgage backed securities were seen as great because they created increased the liquidity in the system i.e. banks could sell on their pooled mortgages and lend out more money.

When you say money creation not being debt-based, how do you mean? IS this if there were no private banks then public banks would keep the level of credit steady and then money supply can be controlled more accurately by the central bank?

Tony EH

lufties wrote: »

They way the world is today seems to be a race to the bottom with regard to sqeezing middle and working classes, working hours are longer, salaries are lower and most jobs are on 'contract'. This all to the benefit of big business with increasing profits. It seems in Ireland that if big corporations see a cheaper option ( ie moving to china), they're gone.

This is a worrying trend the world over, fat cats getting super rich and that wealth gap increasing. I wonder though why humans have become so damn greedy, is it a mental illness ?where enough is never enough. Personally I like to try and be comfortable but never at the expense of others. In my job I have dealt with employment agencies and a lot of them are there as a middle man out for a quick buck, made off the back of the employee. I wonder how they can sleep at night making a living that way.

This is very worrying for humanity IMO, I dont have an alternative to capitalism but a system that benefits such a small few to the detriment of others can't be the way forward.

From the point of view of working life, we certainly do seem to be going backwards.

People fought long and hard for decent working conditions and a lot of what was gained in the 20th Century is getting eroded, slowly, but surely.

Jobs with any kind of permanency are becoming a thing of the past for many people, as corporations move to keep their workforce on a temporary level. The reasons for which should be obvious to everyone. It creates a situation where people cannot enter into even the most essential things in life. Without permanent employment, you will find it very difficult to get a loan. You will not be able to buy a house. In some cases you won’t be able to even rent. I’ve known people that have been turned away from the doors of rented accommodation because they were only on a contract and not in a permanent job.
Such things are not causes to be championed, but instead are elements that should be fought against.


Corporations, are, by their nature cold entities. But, it wasn’t always this way. Years ago, many companies played fair by their employees and owners recognised that they survived on the labour of their workforce. In the era of global capitalism, such things are dead. When a bigger profit margin can be had in some out of the way backwater, companies will outsource to them, despite the inevitable drop in quality. I have yet to be involved in a company where an outsourced “solution” has increased the quality of a given product, even if it did offer more profit for the owners. In the main, most workers seek job security. They want a job that they know is going to be there in a few years’ time and not whisked from underneath them, leaving them in the dust of unemployment.


The Gordon Geko’s of this world are WRONG. Greed is NOT good. It’s destructive, by and large, and responsible for much of our world’s hardship and misery. It keeps the majority of people down, while elevating the very few. It’s greed that starts wars. It’s greed that keeps many people in poverty. It was greed that brought many financial sectors of the western world to its knees. The fallout of which has been devastating, not to the bastards that caused it, but to the unfortunates that have been tasked get their societies out of it, who are in the main, the faceless middle classes, who are being squeezed mercilessly, more and more, year by year.


Even worse off are those on the bottom rungs of the ladder and those bottom rungs are becoming more numerous, as less fortunate position expands to include more and more people. People, who believed that they were doing fine, five years ago, are looking at very different situation today and often with no way out. On top of this, they often have the full blame for their situation placed squarely upon their shoulders too, despite the fact that they the majority find themselves in situations of unemployment through no fault of their own. In Ireland, alone, we have been seeing, increasingly, the absurd situation where unemployed people are being penalised for not having work, in a country that doesn’t do an awful lot to generate employment opportunities for its citizens. There’s nearly half a million people unemployed in this country. That’s an incredible number, when one pauses to think about it.


Frankly, only the foolish sing the praises of corporations, as they exist in today’s world. These are entities that care only about profit, even above their own very existence. Such is the state of the capitalist system that extreme profit has become the only goal for large corporations, who can usually do very well without the continuous drive to maximise profit into ridiculous brackets. We live in a world where incredibly unsound decisions are made by company owners and CEO’s regularly, often leading to disastrous situations, not only to the employees, who are nothing but expendable numbers these days, but to the actual companies themselves. Mergers are commonplace, aggressive takeovers are the norm and large companies that have existed for decades, or even centuries, have folded all because of greedy decisions, taken with the myopic short-sightedness of profit above everything else.


Unfortunately, it’s very difficult to see any way out of the current downward spiral. I think we are going to continue on this current path, or race to the bottom as it’s been called, with conditions continuing to become more and more difficult to the average person. It’s the inevitable outcome of a system that places the profit of the few above the welfare of the majority.

HansHolzel

"Socialism encourages a slovenly attitude to work." - Vaclav Havel

If everybody in Europe were guaranteed a permanent job, it would be hopelessly un-competitive. It's like legalising drugs - if one place does it, all the junkies from surrounding parts flock there.

As for the profit motive, the Anglo-American love of speculation stands in unhealthy contrast to (1) the German standard that 4% is an adequate annual return and (2) the Chinese cultural ideal that 30% of income should be saved.

Systemic Risk

Tony EH wrote: »

From the point of view of working life, we certainly do seem to be going backwards.............
.

I would be inclined to agree with everything you say in this post. I really see the trend towards less and less job security as a huge problem. I also agree that greed by corporations is a huge cause of this; SMEs have to follow suit and cut costs and remain flexible to try to compete. However, I think we have to take some responsibility as individuals. We have been convinced that we need loads of stuff, clothes, gadgets, new cars etc. and we want them relatively cheaply (a generalisation I know).

Quite often we dont care where they were made; be it Pennys clothes in Bangladesh or cheap electronics in China. If we accept that companies will produce using ethically questionable labour policies then why wouldn't companies uproot from Ireland and move their manufacturing bases abroad. How can companies which are based in Ireland offering fair wages and job security compete with that. The same applies to aspects of "the knowledge economy", to compete companies want cheap software solutions, administrative supports etc. so they will be happy to move between service providers offering better value. Therefore the companies that provide these services do not know how long they will have these big contracts for and are not in a position to take on permanent employees.

If nothing is done this "race to the bottom" will continue but if legislation is brought in to limit short term contracts and offer higher job security it is possible that companies will go elsewhere. It is not clear to me how this could be solved. Maybe it wont get worse but I cant see it getting any better.

Systemic Risk

HansHolzel wrote: »

"Socialism encourages a slovenly attitude to work." - Vaclav Havel

If everybody in Europe were guaranteed a permanent job, it would be hopelessly un-competitive. It's like legalising drugs - if one place does it, all the junkies from surrounding parts flock there.

As for the profit motive, the Anglo-American love of speculation stands in unhealthy contrast to (1) the German standard that 4% is an adequate annual return and (2) the Chinese cultural ideal that 30% of income should be saved.

Its not about a permanent job, its about a full time job where the employee gains rights after a period of temporary employment. This means that the employee cant be fired without good reason and that if the company needs to lay off employees due to scaling back operations or moving elsewhere they have to offer redundancy payments. I really don't think that is too much to ask. With the temporary contracts the employee can be let go after the contract ends.