you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 129 points 3 years ago (22 children)

Henry Ford may have been a prick, but even he had the common sense to realize paying your workers enough to buy your products was mutually beneficial. All this wealth hoarding going on serves nobody but the ultra rich that are simply addicted to watching numbers go up.

  • source
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 57 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    Which is why I’m hesitant to actually call those greedy fucks “capitalists”, because they’re the very antithesis of capitalism. They literally break the system for their own benefit, and thanks to US politicians to being corrupt enough to allow themselves to be bought out for a few bucks from said greedy fucks, nobody in power is incentivized to actually do something.

    Capitalism works with money flowing constantly, and it needs that to work well. When you have some Warren Buffet and Elongated Muskrat kind of people just hoarding wealth… well, you get the shitshow that is the the US today. $300B circulating in the system would be awesome, and I would think that is a good indicator of a healthy economy; but when $300B is pretty much tied to one person, then congrats, we missed the point of capitalism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 40 points 3 years ago

    The only goal of capitalism is to raise capital. Any method that raises capital is as valid as any other. The working class people are essentially just a bank to draw capital from, nothing more. Not to them anyway.

    Anything else they told you about capitalism in school was bullshit. It does one thing. Increase capital through any means.

    There is a logical end point where the working class can keep no capital for themselves, and produce it until they die. And what happens when there's no more shareholder value to extract from the working class I wonder?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (12 children)

    It doesn't, actually. You pay all of your workers more so some of them might buy your product, maybe?

    The increase in wages for everyone will help, but then capitalists have no choice to attract labor. See: the wages now adjusted vs. the inflation

    https://www.bls.gov/charts/usual-weekly-earnings/usual-weekly-earnings-over-time-total-men-women.htm#

    This chart shows the median wage has gone up since the pandemic, even if using 2023 dollars

    So the wages in the US are better than they have ever been, even inflation adjusted. You can go back as long as you want, they were not higher in the 50s, contrary to popular belief

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago (11 children)

    So the wages in the US are better than they have ever been, even inflation adjusted. You can go back as long as you want, they were not higher in the 50s, contrary to popular belief

    That's just obviously false. Are you saying people who could pay for college by working summer jobs, and who could buy a car and house and raise a family on a single income were making less than people today who spend decades paying off student loans, and who can barely afford rent on a one-bedroom apartment?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 3 years ago (10 children)

    https://oldurbanist.blogspot.com/2013/02/was-rise-of-car-ownership-responsible.html

    home ownership and car ownership is up since the 1950s

    how come more people have those things that are hard to afford than before?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (9 children)

    In part because black people can own those things more easily now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (8 children)

    Sure, but people pining for the lifestyle of the 50s forget they are looking at the top 10% of incomes. Life in the 50s wasn't that good compared to now for the AVERAGE person

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (7 children)

    Except they had things like the G.I. bill which gave them money to go to college or buy a house and improve their lives. Every man who was in the military in WWII had that as an option. Maybe some didn't utilize it, but that was by choice. If you include their spouses and children, that's way more than 10% of the population.

    Wages were comparatively higher too.

    But I don't know anyone on the left pining for the lifestyle of the 1950s, that's something conservatives want. I wouldn't mind the wages of the 1950s (adjusted for inflation) and I wouldn't mind taxing the rich at 90%, but I sure would mind the racism and the sexism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (6 children)

    I wouldn’t mind the wages of the 1950s (adjusted for inflation)

    Adjusted for inflation, much lower than today

    I wouldn’t mind taxing the rich at 90%

    There were loopholes that allowed most people to pay much less, so that's why they closed those loopholes later

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (5 children)

    Adjusted for inflation, much lower than today

    Evidence please.

    There were loopholes that allowed most people to pay much less, so that’s why they closed those loopholes later

    Remind me how much rich people pay in taxes now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (4 children)

    We don't have good WAGE data before 1964

    https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_real_wages_%28red,_in_constant_2017_dollars%29.png

    but we also have household income data for earlier years

    https://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/famincome.html

    but it doesn't match 100% because what a household is differs (households used to be bigger in the 1950s)

    but you can see that 1950-1964 the household incomes grew quickly, so the 1950s were a period of growth, you were a lot better off by 1970

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (3 children)

    You made a claim about 1950s income you now can't back up? Interesting.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    Yes, because women generally didn't work. That's a terrible metric.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    But that's the argument people are making, that you could live better on one income in the 50s. But actually, not really. You would have less money, even if you include inflation. People these days have higher rates of home ownership, car ownership, TV ownership than people in the 50s.

    Look at ANY metric of "having money or stuff" and people today are better off

  • source
  • parent