Free Market vs Socialism

[Forged]

What quite a few buisness's have done is threaten to move if the employes form a union, kind of hard to form one if your company won't let you.

[quasi-modo]

What quite a few buisness's have done is threaten to move if the employes form a union, kind of hard to form one if your company won't let you.

The company really has no control... if everyone gets together they would have to fire their whole work force which is not what they want to do. In reality they would have you sign a contract, but I am still talking in theoretical land where there are no laws governing the market. Also in the real world some states are right to work and some are not.

[Forged]

If the whole company is unionized it wouldn't be a problem.  But expecially here in the south where unions are rare, as soon as someone tryed to start a union all the copany has to do is fire them, and threaten to fire anyone that joins the union.  Majority of people would be to scared to join one.

[quasi-modo]

If the whole company is unionized it wouldn't be a problem.  But expecially here in the south where unions are rare, as soon as someone tryed to start a union all the copany has to do is fire them, and threaten to fire anyone that joins the union.  Majority of people would be to scared to join one.

They can maybe manage to form one with maybe a third of the work force depending on the size of the company and get away with it. But if the quality of work is so bad and the pay is not good enough the people always have the option of simply not working at that company. If the market is running efficiently there should be other jobs available.

[Adron]

But if the quality of work is so bad and the pay is not good enough the people always have the option of simply not working at that company. If the market is running efficiently there should be other jobs available.

Of course there will be other jobs. 12 hour work, 7 days a week, sewing clothes for richer people. And if you're lucky you'll make $1/day!

[Stealth]

But if the quality of work is so bad and the pay is not good enough the people always have the option of simply not working at that company. If the market is running efficiently there should be other jobs available.

Of course there will be other jobs. 12 hour work, 7 days a week, sewing clothes for richer people. And if you're lucky you'll make $1/day!

The minimum you'll make in America is $5.15 an hour, so no, you'll make at least $5.15 a day, and almost surely more. This isn't 1906.

The problem with saying "The Jungle" can happen again is that it won't in America. The standard is so high that it would take a concerted effort on the part of every major company to lower their quality of work conditions to such an abysmal point. Otherwise the best workers will simply move to the best companies and performance will fall at the crappy companies.

That's the key here. Performance -- what the people calling the shots in 1906 didn't realize is that a happy worker is a productive worker. People who enjoy their job work harder and more voluntarily, and that's something companies like.

[dxoigmn]

If there are regulations then it corrupts the whole free market theory. If this were a pure market without government regulations outsoursing would not exist. That does not change the fact that capialism works and people are not getting poorer. If you have not noticed our unemployment rate is in the normal range again, those who can't find jobs are those who do not want jobs. Yes I know in the definition of employment to be unemployed you must be looking for a job, but if you can't find any work right now then you are obviously not looking.

Always fun to make up our own standards.  But the whole unemployment thing has been discussed before and it's proven that there are people who can't find work for a lot of reason.  Look at the thread again.

What reason is that? I have not seen unemployment disgussed anywhere in the thread but here.

I meant to say look at that thread before, sorry.

[dxoigmn]

Like freemarket is oppression?

The majority of people in a free market are oppressed.  The rich get richer and the poor poorer.

What kind of voodoo economics are you talking about? Explain why you think a poor person will get poorer, because that is not the way I was thought... I might have just gotten lucky on the ap if I am wrong about this eh.

What you learn in AP economics is purely theory.  But in any case, maybe I should revise it to say: "The gap between the rich and poor is getting wider."   It's something like the wealthiest 20% have nearly 50% of all income in the US.  If you compare incomes, the richer get richer much faster than the poor and I don't even think this is taking into account inflation.  So while on the surface everyone may become a little richer (or a lot richer in the case of the already rich), inflation counter acts it.

You are inherently wrong. Inflation aids the debtor but hurts the loaner.

Inflations doesn't aid a worker who's wages don't increase with the inflation.

[Adron]

The minimum you'll make in America is $5.15 an hour, so no, you'll make at least $5.15 a day, and almost surely more. This isn't 1906.

The problem with saying "The Jungle" can happen again is that it won't in America. The standard is so high that it would take a concerted effort on the part of every major company to lower their quality of work conditions to such an abysmal point. Otherwise the best workers will simply move to the best companies and performance will fall at the crappy companies.

That's the key here. Performance -- what the people calling the shots in 1906 didn't realize is that a happy worker is a productive worker. People who enjoy their job work harder and more voluntarily, and that's something companies like.

The central topic of the recent discussions has been: What happens if there are no government regulations and global capitalism gets to develop freely.

Under those circumstances, work will be done by those who do it cheapest. There is a huge workforce in development countries just waiting to take the jobs. Many of them are just as smart as you and I. And they're used to low wages.

Capitalism optimizes cost - wages will be lower. At the same time things will get cheaper to buy as well. Prices won't drop as much as wages though, as there'll be a huge group of people in the third world interested in buying more. Standards will drop in America and improve in the third world.

Globally I think it would be a good thing.

[dxoigmn]

They can maybe manage to form one with maybe a third of the work force depending on the size of the company and get away with it. But if the quality of work is so bad and the pay is not good enough the people always have the option of simply not working at that company. If the market is running efficiently there should be other jobs available.

Theoretically: What happens when this company has a monopoly on a product requiring a certain skill?  These workers are treated like crap, leave and are now out of work.  Now this skill, that they presumably went to school for is useless and they have to train for another skill.  This is time loss.  It's not like boom "I quit!  Whee! Another job the next day!"  This fear of down time is what keeps people working.  Even a few days out of work is a major blow for our standard of living.

[quasi-modo]

Like freemarket is oppression?

The majority of people in a free market are oppressed.  The rich get richer and the poor poorer.

What kind of voodoo economics are you talking about? Explain why you think a poor person will get poorer, because that is not the way I was thought... I might have just gotten lucky on the ap if I am wrong about this eh.

What you learn in AP economics is purely theory.  But in any case, maybe I should revise it to say: "The gap between the rich and poor is getting wider."   It's something like the wealthiest 20% have nearly 50% of all income in the US.  If you compare incomes, the richer get richer much faster than the poor and I don't even think this is taking into account inflation.  So while on the surface everyone may become a little richer (or a lot richer in the case of the already rich), inflation counter acts it.

You are inherently wrong. Inflation aids the debtor but hurts the loaner.

Inflations doesn't aid a worker who's wages don't increase with the inflation.

But most wages will increase over time, I know many companies increase salleries yearly with inflation.... They adjust it.

[quasi-modo]

They can maybe manage to form one with maybe a third of the work force depending on the size of the company and get away with it. But if the quality of work is so bad and the pay is not good enough the people always have the option of simply not working at that company. If the market is running efficiently there should be other jobs available.

Theoretically: What happens when this company has a monopoly on a product requiring a certain skill?  These workers are treated like crap, leave and are now out of work.  Now this skill, that they presumably went to school for is useless and they have to train for another skill.  This is time loss.  It's not like boom "I quit!  Whee! Another job the next day!"  This fear of down time is what keeps people working.  Even a few days out of work is a major blow for our standard of living.

But, there cannot be momopoly without regulation. Competition will not allow it. There can be no collusion either.

[Forged]

But, there cannot be momopoly without regulation. Competition will not allow it. There can be no collusion either. 

Tell that to the rockfellers and Carnegie(sp?)  They managed to eliminate competition through luck, good buisness sense, and later through their wealth.

[quasi-modo]

But, there cannot be momopoly without regulation. Competition will not allow it. There can be no collusion either. 

Tell that to the rockfellers and Carnegie(sp?)  They managed to eliminate competition through luck, good buisness sense, and later through their wealth.

They all took advantage of the laws at the time. Veritcal Integration was very easy back then. So was horizontal integration too.

[Forged]

And it won't if there are no laws governing it?