Sorry for ignoring this, I thought the topic didn't get any more replies after your first post, Kikko.
(10-05-2011 12:11 PM)Kikko Wrote: Well, if you can really make them work harder than they already do, raising salaries isn't much without reasonable working times and conditions. The situation was pretty much the same in western countries during the industrial revolution, but then people started to unionize and got workers more reasonable salaries and working times. We would be in the same position, as the hard working poor people, if unions wouldn't have acted to limit the businesses' rights and actions.
I guess what I was trying to say is that it doesn't seem like regulating salaries would work to remove exploitation. If the salaries are good enough that people would want to work there voluntarily, then there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with it. If you make them pay a higher salary, then they could decide to put a larger workload on each worker and just hire fewer people. It seems impractical to force the business to be altruistic without it just finding a workaround to make more profit.
I completely support the idea of unions, that's a perfect way for people to improve their situation without government intervention. But I see no reason for the government to become involved with unions.
(10-05-2011 12:11 PM)Kikko Wrote:
I'm not saying it's a good thing, but it's only common sense. The one thing you can count on is for the corporation to be greedy, and if they can make more money elsewhere then chances are they will.
(10-05-2011 12:11 PM)Kikko Wrote: What do you mean by 'making them compete for the most appealing jobs'? The only thing I know that businesses compete about is profit.
I mean that instead of trying to force them to make better working conditions, try to encourage more jobs. If there is more demand for workers compared then there are workers, then a company will have to compete against other companies to attract employees.
(10-05-2011 12:11 PM)Kikko Wrote: Aren't big businesses already influencing politics to their own benefit? (Not that I'd allow businesses to affect politicians through indirect/direct bribes.)
Basically, I think it's wrong that others can make millions by simply owning a company, or a piece of it, while the lowest workers of the company make merely enough to stay alive, although they work the hardest.
I'm not arguing that they don't or should, I'm just wary of the government interfering in order to protect people from the businesses if the businesses have a lot of influence on the government. I trust the government to act in its own best interest, not mine, and would rather they only get involved when it's absolutely necessary.
That being said, I don't like the injustices you described any more than you do. I imagine most people find that reality fairly depressing. The disagreement is about how to deal with the problem.
(08-05-2011 04:42 PM)TheKetola Wrote: Ideal Capitalism as in no corporate bullshit, people get what they earn, and those too lazy to earn die-off and the human race evolves in a positive direction?
Ideal Socialism as in everybody contributes equally and gets equal shares of what their community earns? No professional couch potatoes? And no "invaluables" in society?
If this is what you are refering to, they are both the same, Capitalism simply cuts out the middle-man. Of course we can't have either situation do to the existance of couch potatoes and corporate bullshit, so the only logical solution in a real-world situation is a very careful mix (this is in my unproffesional opinion). I personally believe that capitalism should be primary in this middle-ground.
Yeah, I guess talking about an ideal version of either is fairly pointless. It seems as if I'm not even sure what I'm trying to ask with this topic