You're viewing a single thread.
You should define what you think is capitalism, cronyism, and meritocracy, because you seem to have an answer in your head that you don't wish to divulge.
Capitalism is the idea that those that own the means of production own the profits from them.
Meritocracy is the idea that those with skill will prevail over those without.
I will argue that capitalism IS meritocratic, but the problem is that that which capitalism holds in high merits is that which generates capital at the fastest rate. Good products do not necessarily earn more money over bad products faster. Capitalism only cares about the fastest acquisition of capital through whatever barriers are present. This means it inherently does not care about labor that doesn't generate profit (immediately).
Those that hold capital get to choose what merits we look for. Software developers or teachers, which can make more money? Childcare workers or lawyers, which can make more money? We pretend like the difference in these jobs and their pay is skill, but we treat various labor differently because we assign a higher capital interest to some labor, like the ability to write a contract or write a program, and a lower capital interest to other labor, like taking care of a child or teaching someone valuable skills. We pretend like physical, emotional, and reproductive labor is less skillful than intellectual labor because it doesn't make as much money for capital, but the truth is that only capital gets to choose what is high-skilled and what gets to be paid like it's high-skilled.
Thus, while capitalism is meritocratic in a sense, it is not meritocratic for workers, and will always devolve into a class-based system by design. I could argue that by choosing what is worth more money, they create their own cronyism, but that is really more of a moot point.
Capitalism is the idea that those that own the means of production own the profits from them.
Meritocracy is the idea that those with skill will prevail over those without.
I can agree on these definitions.
the problem is that that which capitalism holds in high merits is that which generates capital at the fastest rate
I tend to disagree with this, not that it's entirely incorrect, but I think quality can't be disregarded; can the product be made safely is another factor; then innovation plays a role allowing for higher quality products at faster rates. These aren't smoke screens that some capitalist business man made up to trick you into thinking they are altruistic. These are things that might that effect bottom line.
Let's switch back to the question, how would nepotism effect any of these things. Well, if the higher quality, safely produced, innovative product can't come to market because it's competing against people who have hoarded wealth though centuries long line of succession it's not because capitalism has failed. Maybe it is, maybe this definition of capitalism would not prevent this type of stagnation. Would it be possible to expand the definition of capitalism, or even just build on the basic principle? I don't know.
Consumers do not care about safety, or else we wouldn't buy oil or gasoline, and we wouldn't buy clothing made in sweatshops. Companies follow safety guidelines because of fines or other punitive measures that could affect the bottom line, and you have to admit that the bottom line is the chief concern here, and not the safety of the workers of consumers. This is a problem that capitalism is forced to deal with with government oversight because it is a failure of capitalism.
Nepotism merely makes this failure worse, but the system would be an issue even without nepotism. Businesses can perform risk assessments to determine if ignoring guidelines would make more money than the cost of restitution would incur.
Capitalism needs oversight to work fairly, but it doesn't really need oversight to do what it does best: Make those with capital more capital. The system generates profit for those with capital, and that means it makes the wealthy wealthier (and that's entirely by design.) You can argue nepotism causes the unfairness, but it doesn't, since the profits feed back to the capital owners and not the workers by definition. Oversight is the only thing that can make it even close fair.
This a gross misunderstanding of my statement and a gross misunderstanding of safety. We are far beyond seamstresses burning up in a building with no escape route. The cost of an incident has tangible costs. How will production continue if your sugar mills keep blowing up? Who will make your product if your workers keep breaking their backs? How will tribal knowledge of your process be preserved if your workers keep dying from inhaling toxic fumes? How will you meet deadlines if you're equipment keeps igniting?
Sorry, you're up your own ass thinking only as a share holder rather then the actual labor that makes profit.
Apologies, I believe you might be confused, as I believe you proved my point succinctly: Money is the goal and the only thing a capitalist company truly cares about. You say safety matters, but you use the monetary concerns the business would incur if it failed to achieve these things because, well, the bottom line is the only thing that matters. The only way it would even be forced to do these things (besides the bottom line) is laws and oversight, since otherwise these risks are merely actuarial tables.
It doesn't really matter if your sugar mills or sweatshops or factories explode if you make a profit. It doesn't matter if your workers break their backs or inhale fumes or asbestos or coal dust or even die if you make a profit. At the end of the day, if it's just a cost of doing business, what stops capitalism from doing these things besides if you make a profit? The only thing that would stop it is the law.
The system is inherently unfair to the workers as the only choice they get to make is whether they work for a certain company or not (technically, this is untrue, as capitalism can (and historically did) use slaves, but I digress.) Many workers could (and historically did) perform work that might kill them without their knowledge because the only one allowed to make decisions under capitalism is the owner, and if an owner chooses to focus on something that is less profitable like worker safety, another capitalist can (and historically did) take that spot and undercut that company out of existence.
Thus, capitalism incentivizes the bottom line.
It doesn’t really matter if your sugar mills or sweatshops or factories explode if you make a profit. It doesn’t matter if your workers break their backs or inhale fumes or asbestos or coal dust or even die if you make a profit. At the end of the day, if it’s just a cost of doing business, what stops capitalism from doing these things besides if you make a profit
The cost.
The capilist that continues down this path will no longer turn a profit. These things leave you vulnerable to be overcome by competition. Who would work for Jeff's sugar factory if Jeff's sugar factory keeps blowing up and jim sugar factor understands the process and puts it nessisary safe gaurds.
That is, if nepotism doesn't keep them afloat by suppressing competition and providing investment capital.
Nepotism doesn't factor in in any explanation I have given because they would only factor in getting around equal access to materials, labor, production, or markets, or possibly skirting regulations. Your argument is "No, those instances of horrible working conditions were nepotism, even though there was nothing illegal or unfair about it."
Unsafe working conditions are merely a cost-analysis in capitalism. If you make more than the costs of a decision, what is stopping capitalism from implementing those unsafe conditions if they are not illegal? Nothing. Capital-holders hold all the power and make the decisions, the workers do not, and that is the problem.
Who would work for Jeff's sugar factory if Jeff's sugar factory keeps blowing up and jim sugar factor understands the process and puts it nessisary safe gaurds
If Jeff somehow makes more money than Jim, why would Jeff ever stop? What makes you think Jim wouldn't simply start doing what Jeff does? Ideally, exploding factories would be more expensive, but that isn't always the case, so I ask again, what does capitalism do to disincentivize chasing profits at the expense of the workers or consumers or safety or the environment or the planet?
It is always the case when your entire sugar mill explodes that you lose insurmountable amounts of money.
Come back to me when you touch base with reality.
Exploding sugar mills are an example and literally not the crux of my argument. The same could be said about giving your workers coal lung or mesothelioma, but it's easier to envision. You refuse to acknowledge that worker safety is not a concern unless it affects the amount of capital generated, and NONE of it is nepotism. Can you rebut that, or are you essentially ragequitting because you were wrong?
You refuse to acknowledge i never brought up worker safety in the first place.
You did.
I tend to disagree with this, not that it's entirely incorrect, but I think quality can't be disregarded; can the product be made safely is another factor
Meritocracy was shown to be related to the ability to generate capital because capital is economic power and allows you to concentrate more power. Quality didn't factor in because consumers buy bad products. Safety didn't factor in because consumers buy unsafe products. The best childcare workers aren't paid more than an average software developer because it's not meritocratic for workers.
Webadict's statement:
you have to admit that the bottom line is the chief concern here, and not the safety of the workers of consumers.
Clinicallydepressedpoochie's response:
We are far beyond seamstresses burning up in a building with no escape route. The cost of an incident has tangible costs. How will production continue if your sugar mills keep blowing up? Who will make your product if your workers keep breaking their backs? How will tribal knowledge of your process be preserved if your workers keep dying from inhaling toxic fumes? How will you meet deadlines if you're equipment keeps igniting?
As an aside: what profit do workers make when they're employees? They didn't invest in the business. They are selling their time/energy (or labour) to the company at a certain rate. You'd have to compare that rate to the value of any other potential salary, as well as minus health and stress costs, plus take into account the value of non-economic activity that could also use those resources.