Capitalism gone wrong

**Bowden** · 12-01-2012, 12:20 PM

This is one of the reasons why the level of income inequality as to the rich getting richer and everyone else getting poorer is accelerating.
Globalization 101.

Move manufacturing to the locations where the lowest compensation and workers rights conditions are prevalent in-order to increase corporate profits and make some very very rich.
As well reduce U.S workers salary and benefits to the lowest common level possible below an income that provides a living wage and suggest that workers go on social services at tax payer expense to get health care coverage.

After all free market capitalism on the supply-side is the best path to prosperity per Kudlow and Company..
Unless you are a worker making 18 cents an hour dying in a factory fire of course.
Or you are a Wal-Mart employee.

Trickle up economics floats the yachts of the rich.
In the case of Wal-mart, it increases Wal-mart heiress Alice Walton's ability to buy million dollar paintings for her art collection.

Slave labor in foreign countries sometimes dying in fires in factories producing products at low cost and U.S Wal-mart employees working at very low wages and almost no benefits have provided a means for people in the Ozarks to view very expensive art work paid for by their slave labor wages all that have made the Walton family very very rich.
See there is a common good in free market forces and capitalism after all.

Wal-Mart Heiress Brings An Art Museum To The Ozarks : NPR

Entire article at:
Factory fire raises safety questions for big box stores like Wal-Mart, Sears - Nov. 30, 2012

The cost of cheap clothes at Wal-Mart, Sears
By Emily Jane Fox @CNNMoney November 30, 2012: 5:26 AM ET

Fires at a Bangladesh apparel factory that made items for retailers like Wal-Mart and Sears killed 112 workers last weekend.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- A deadly fire at a Bangladesh apparel factory that manufactured items for major U.S. stores like Wal-Mart and Sears raises troubling questions about the high cost of cheap clothing, and whether the world's largest companies are doing enough to monitor worker conditions in their overseas production facilities.
A total of 112 people were killed and at least 200 more were injured in a fire Saturday at the Tazreen Fashions Factory, located near Bangladesh's capital city Dhaka. Two days later, another apparel factory near Dhaka caught fire. Ten people were injured after jumping from windows to escape the inferno at the 10-story building. Eye witnesses say that managers had locked the windows and gates to the buildings, which had no fire escapes, effectively trapping the workers in.

Photos of items sold at Wal-Mart (WMT, Fortune 500) taken in the Tazreen Fashions factory surfaced in the days following the fire. The retailer responded by saying that the factory was no longer authorized to produce merchandise for it.

"A supplier subcontracted work to this factory without authorization and in direct violation of our policies. Today, we have terminated the relationship with that supplier," Wal-Mart said.
Sears (SHLD, Fortune 500) also said that the factory produced merchandise for the retailer without its approval and that it has since terminated its relationship with the vendor.
On its website, Wal-Mart says it monitors undisclosed subcontracting by conducting audits and enhancing its standards for suppliers. It defines subcontracting as factories in its supply chain that weren't properly disclosed or that it didn't know about.

Sears also said that the factory violated its code of conduct.
Related: Why Wal-Mart workers are striking

Workers rights experts, however, claim that it's unlikely that retailers wouldn't know where their stuff is produced, as a matter of cost and production control.

"In order to be profitable, you have to control the supply chain, monitor quality, prices and the speed of delivery," said Scott Nova, executive director of the Worker Rights Consortium. "It's strange that a company would say they had no idea who was making stuff for them."

Wal-Mart's website says the retailer conducted 9,737 audits on 8,713 factories that supply private-label and non-branded goods to Wal-Mart in 2011. The audits, completed by what it calls accredited or internationally recognized auditing firms, are carried out every six to 24 months.
But the reports are not published online. Nor are they shown to factory workers, according to Nova.

"There's no transparency. They never publish their findings as to whether or not there's a violation, so there's not much scrutiny about the audits," he said.
The issue, experts say, runs deeper, to a conflict between selling clothes at a cut rate price versus bolstering the rights of workers.
In order to keep production prices low, Nova said that companies rely on cheap labor, which often goes hand-in-hand with low wages, poor working conditions and safety concerns.
"On one hand, brands are telling factories to improve conditions, but on the other hand they're telling them they need lower prices," he said. "They have workers at factories making 18 cents an hour to keep prices down, but they recognize that the consequence are egregious situations like this fire."

While retailers contend with competing interests, local governments also play a role in why these issues aren't addressed. According to Charles Kernaghan, director of the Institute for Global Labour and Human Rights, the Bangladesh government is anxious to hang on to the apparel business because it is a huge part of the country's economy.
"It is such a poor country and so desperate for jobs that they ignore the most minimal labor rights standard," he said. "It's as if everything has to give way just to maintain these garment jobs. There's a fear that the labels will flee and go to another country."

**Standard Donkey** · 12-01-2012, 12:28 PM

lol.. imagine how much people will be bitching when they can no longer buy a pack of 3 white t-shirts for 4 bucks..

pay higher wages = pass extra cost onto the consumer.

if people don't like working at walmart... they can always go back and graduate middle school

**Bowden** · 12-01-2012, 12:43 PM

Originally Posted by Standard Donkey

lol.. imagine how much people will be bitching when they can no longer buy a pack of 3 white t-shirts for 4 bucks..

pay higher wages = pass extra cost onto the consumer.

if people don't like working at walmart... they can always go back and graduate middle school

Business owners have forgotten what Henry Ford knew which is why he increased his workers salaries to a level unheard of when he owned Ford Motor company so that they could afford to buy his cars.

He did it because he knew that the amount of disposable income of Workers determines the level of products and services that workers buy and that consumer demand is what powers an economy like that in the U.S in which over 70% is driven by consumption.
Reduce salary and benefits you reduce consumption.
The level of benefits i.e health care insurance provision is also directly related to worker disposable income levels.

Workers and corporations form a symbiont circle.
What happens to one of you will affect the other. You must understand this. Obi-Wan Kenobi, :-D

**Standard Donkey** · 12-01-2012, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by Bowden

Business owners have forgotten what Henry Ford knew which is why he increased his workers salaries to a level unheard of when he owned Ford Motor company so that they could afford to buy his cars.

He did it because he knew that the amount of disposable income of Workers determines the level of products and services that workers buy and that consumer demand is what powers an economy like that in the U.S in which over 70% is driven by consumption.
Reduce salary and benefits you reduce consumption.
The level of benefits i.e health care insurance provision is also directly related to worker disposable income levels.

Workers and corporations form a symbiont circle.
What happens to one of you will affect the other. You must understand this. Obi-Wan Kenobi, :-D

reduce taxes and you increase consumption... in everyone's reality cept for LAM's

idk if your Ford reference is reliable tho, didnt he have something of a monopoly on the automobile back then? seems irrelavent to bring him up

**hoyle21** · 12-01-2012, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by Standard Donkey

reduce taxes and you increase consumption... in everyone's reality cept for LAM's

idk if your Ford reference is reliable tho, didnt he have something of a monopoly on the automobile back then? seems irrelavent to bring him up

If 47% of the population already doesn't pay taxes how do you reduce them further? Rich people won't spend any more than they already do.

**Standard Donkey** · 12-01-2012, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by hoyle21

If 47% of the population already doesn't pay taxes how do you reduce them further? Rich people won't spend any more than they already do.

cut taxes on corporations... payroll taxes.. stop taking money out of people's checks for SS and other people's welfare

**hoyle21** · 12-01-2012, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by Standard Donkey

cut taxes on corporations... payroll taxes.. stop taking money out of people's checks for SS and other people's welfare

Again, roughly half the population doesn't pay taxes. I'm not trying to be an asshole here, but I don't see where that helps.

Cutting taxes on corporations just increases profits to shareholders, might get the CEO a raise.

**KILLEROFSAINTS** · 12-01-2012, 01:13 PM

its really not much on the week

**Standard Donkey** · 12-01-2012, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by hoyle21

Again, roughly half the population doesn't pay taxes. I'm not trying to be an asshole here, but I don't see where that helps.

Cutting taxes on corporations just increases profits to shareholders, might get the CEO a raise.

then more people should be shareholders.. im a shareholder in aapl and slv.

it will also encourage them to hire though..

**hoyle21** · 12-01-2012, 01:16 PM

Originally Posted by Standard Donkey

then more people should be shareholders.. im a shareholder in aapl and slv.

it will also encourage them to hire though..

It takes disposable income to by shares, so that puts us back to square one.

**Little Wing** · 12-01-2012, 01:18 PM

better keep wages low because no one in their right mind would wear a walmart t-shirt if they could afford better.

**Standard Donkey** · 12-01-2012, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by hoyle21

It takes disposable income to by shares, so that puts us back to square one.

true. im making the mistake of assuming that no one wastes their money/has children that they cant afford/irresponsible amounts of student debt.

but like i said in my original post, graduating middle school never hurt anyone's chances at success. What kinds of people do you think work at walmart? intellectual giants or inbred morons?

**KILLEROFSAINTS** · 12-01-2012, 01:23 PM

are there no college educated people without jobs?

**Standard Donkey** · 12-01-2012, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by KILLEROFSAINTS

are there no college educated people without jobs?

well college-educated can mean different things. Do they have a degree in engineering? or a degree is philosophy etc.. unfortunately we have a very business unfriendly administration now, and for the next 4 years

**KILLEROFSAINTS** · 12-01-2012, 01:29 PM

philosophy...thinking very deep thoughts about being unemployed

**hoyle21** · 12-01-2012, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by Standard Donkey

true. im making the mistake of assuming that no one wastes their money/has children that they cant afford/irresponsible amounts of student debt.

but like i said in my original post, graduating middle school never hurt anyone's chances at success. What kinds of people do you think work at walmart? intellectual giants or inbred morons?

I know a couple people who are working multiple jobs currently to get by and one of those jobs is stocking at a Walmart, third shift

For the most part part I would agree, but we are in unusual economic times

**Standard Donkey** · 12-01-2012, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by KILLEROFSAINTS

Where did the money come from...have you ever actually worked?

i worked in construction during highschool, under the table wages

**Swiper** · 12-01-2012, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by Bowden

Business owners have forgotten what Henry Ford knew which is why he increased his workers salaries to a level unheard of when he owned Ford Motor company so that they could afford to buy his cars.

He did it because he knew that the amount of disposable income of Workers determines the level of products and services that workers buy and that consumer demand is what powers an economy like that in the U.S in which over 70% is driven by consumption.
Reduce salary and benefits you reduce consumption.
The level of benefits i.e health care insurance provision is also directly related to worker disposable income levels.

Workers and corporations form a symbiont circle.
What happens to one of you will affect the other. You must understand this. Obi-Wan Kenobi, :-D

the only reason he paid his workers a higher wage than anyone else is because he created an assembly line which turned out cars at a rate unheard of at the time. this made him a ton of money which he wanted to share with his workers. Before he created the assembly line they got paid just like everyone else.

**DOMS** · 12-01-2012, 02:42 PM

I say tax the shit out of the rich and corporations. Hell, they're both pretty much the same group.

They both take advantages of all the USA has to offer, yet send work overseas to pay a lower wage and lower taxes. There is a serious disconnect there. Pay your fair share of taxes or GTFO.

**hoyle21** · 12-01-2012, 02:46 PM

For an online forum, that I would have thought is supposed to be a tool to make all of us better, everyone sure does like to use it to bring each other down a lot.

Too bad really.

**Standard Donkey** · 12-01-2012, 02:46 PM

im really sorry about your thread Bowden.. these inbred morons just have a way of getting under my skin with their stupidity.

im gunna see if i can get a mod in here to clean this up so we can get back on track

**LAM** · 12-01-2012, 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by Standard Donkey

reduce taxes and you increase consumption... in everyone's reality cept for LAM's

idk if your Ford reference is reliable tho, didnt he have something of a monopoly on the automobile back then? seems irrelavent to bring him up

Of the 750-1000 reports from economists I've read in the past two years less than 5% talk about corporates taxes. And not a single report from the OECD or ILO mentions them. But what they all do talk about are the low and stagnant wages being paid to US workers and how country's with low labor union participation rates have the highest percentage of low paid workers in the OECD with the US ranking #1 for having the highest percentage at 25% of the total labor force.

You might want to try learning global and US wage history.

**Bowden** · 12-01-2012, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by Swiper

the only reason he paid his workers a higher wage than anyone else is because he created an assembly line which turned out cars at a rate unheard of at the time. this made him a ton of money which he wanted to share with his workers. Before he created the assembly line they got paid just like everyone else.

The consensus is I think is that Ford did it to reduce employee costs related to turnover.
The side effect it created was that it allowed his employees to buy the cars they produced.

The point is that sales of products and services and growth in the economy are driven by consumer demand which is fueled by workers disposable incomes.
Driving down the wage base and benefits of the middle class in-order to increase corporate profits and shareholder ROI may increase profits and ROI in the short term but long term it is not sustainable.

Eventually a point of diminishing returns is reached.

The result is that conditions of social instability and increased demand for expensive government social services appear.
People begin to detest big business and capitalism, class warfare breaks out and more and more people are attracted towards socialism as they grow more dependent on government services for basic needs due to corporations reducing wages and benefits.
A negative feedback loop occurs.
Less worker disposable income and benefits leading to reduction of consumption, less employment as companies cut employees due to reduced profits caused by reduction of consumer consumption.

Capitalism cannot flourish under the above conditions.
Indeed the result can be a massive shift towards acceptance of socialism.

**Zaphod** · 12-01-2012, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by Standard Donkey

reduce taxes and you increase consumption... in everyone's reality cept for LAM's

idk if your Ford reference is reliable tho, didnt he have something of a monopoly on the automobile back then? seems irrelavent to bring him up

No, he didn't have a monopoly on the auto industry. There were well over a thousand automakers from 1896 to 1930. Ford simply knew how to pay his workers. Something that is lost today, even though the evidence is right there. All people need to do is read it.

**Zaphod** · 12-01-2012, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by Standard Donkey

then more people should be shareholders.. im a shareholder in aapl and slv.

it will also encourage them to hire though..

Companies are making record profits, yet they aren't hiring. Why is that?

**LAM** · 12-01-2012, 04:40 PM

I'm in NYC for the weekend and the gf her sisters and me went to the Tenement Museum and took the "Sweatshops" tour today. Reading about it is one thing but when you physically are in a building were Polish, German, Italian immigrants lived and worked in the late 1800's and early 1900's when the US had "free markets" its pretty disturbing.

Anybody that wants to return to a true "free market" system before gov regs has not a clue of what that means in reality. Apparently they would rather their children work in a sweatshop type environment tthen go to school.

**Zaphod** · 12-01-2012, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by KILLEROFSAINTS

are there no college educated people without jobs?

25 and over with a college degree aren't too bad off, but recent graduates are screwed. But the first chart doesn't specify the quality of the jobs, either. So just because they are officially employed doesn't mean it is work that pays the bills much less in their field of study.

Table A-4. Employment status of the civilian population 25 years and over by educational attainment

53% of Recent College Grads Are Jobless or Underemployed—How? - Jordan Weissmann - The Atlantic

**Little Wing** · 12-01-2012, 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by hoyle21

For an online forum, that I would have thought is supposed to be a tool to make all of us better, everyone sure does like to use it to bring each other down a lot.

Too bad really.

i can understand putting someone down because they won't work but i would think people deserve to be respected for their willingness to work even if it's a job shoveling manure. not everyone begins life or travels through it with the opportunities most of us can take for granted. it sticks in my craw for people to belittle a working man, say they can better their lot by going back to school, and a breath later berate those who take out student loans they really can't afford.

a fair day's pay for a fair day's work in this country should be every person's right even if you do shovel shit for a job. and nothing should be sold here if it was made by slaves or workers who work in unsafe conditions.

**Zaphod** · 12-01-2012, 05:02 PM

Originally Posted by Swiper

the only reason he paid his workers a higher wage than anyone else is because he created an assembly line which turned out cars at a rate unheard of at the time. this made him a ton of money which he wanted to share with his workers. Before he created the assembly line they got paid just like everyone else.

No, that isn't why. He paid a higher wage and reduced worker hours to reduce worker turn-over. In 1913 Ford had to hire 52,000 workers for only 14,000 positions.

If you don't know what you're talking about quit trying to pretend you do.

**Zaphod** · 12-01-2012, 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by LAM

I'm in NYC for the weekend and the gf her sisters and me went to the Tenement Museum and took the "Sweatshops" tour today. Reading about it is one thing but when you physically are in a building were Polish, German, Italian immigrants lived and worked in the late 1800's and early 1900's when the US had "free markets" its pretty disturbing.

Anybody that wants to return to a true "free market" system before gov regs has not a clue of what that means in reality. Apparently they would rather their children work in a sweatshop type environment tthen go to school.

Back then children had to work so the entire family wouldn't go hungry and to afford the roof over their heads. That was in the city. Logging and mining were even worse.

Thread: Capitalism gone wrong

Thread Tools

Display