Capitalism Misrepresented

[Torsten]

@liberty student

The wage labourers are paid even if the company goes bust, the capitalist loses all of his capital and generates an enormous loss. And they can freely go to work for another company, a capitalist cannot necessarily so easily replace his capital losses. That is the difference. A wage labourer can work for a company that goes bust and break even. Rarely is that so for the capitalist.

Not exactly, wage labourers only get paid, if there is money AND if the decision makers really want to pay them. I even recall a recent case in Europe were workers had to pay back wages.

[Niccolo]

It’s fairly useless debating those types of points - especially empirical ones - with many of the people on this forum.

They still can’t get past the two dimensional character of their opinions that is framed so poignantly by simply crying wildly, “omgz, stop stealinz frum John Guilt!!!”

[Stranger]

@Torsten

@liberty student

The wage labourers are paid even if the company goes bust, the capitalist loses all of his capital and generates an enormous loss. And they can freely go to work for another company, a capitalist cannot necessarily so easily replace his capital losses. That is the difference. A wage labourer can work for a company that goes bust and break even. Rarely is that so for the capitalist.

Not exactly, wage labourers only get paid, if there is money AND if the decision makers really want to pay them. I even recall a recent case in Europe were workers had to pay back wages.

The workers can walk away from their jobs at any time if their wages are unsatisfactory. They can do this because they have no capital invested in the enterprise tying them to it.

[Anonymous_Coward]

@Niccolò

They still can’t get past the two dimensional character of their opinions that is framed so poignantly by simply crying wildly, “omgz, stop stealinz frum John Guilt!!!”

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

@Torsten

]Not exactly, wage labourers only get paid, if there is money AND if the decision makers really want to pay them. I even recall a recent case in Europe were workers had to pay back wages.

One case doesn’t invalidate the whole.

You are also ignoring all the paychecks they did receive up until the time the business went bust and couldn’t make payroll. I hate to break it to you but life is inherently risky.

But there is nothing stopping the workers from selling their labor services to the second highest bidder while the capitalists will have a very hard time keeping their source of income going after they lost all the capital they risked on the enterprise. The workers lost nothing out of the deal, they still possess the skills they sold to the failed business owner, except maybe the earnings of a week or two of labor as in the case you cited.

Yeah, yeah, assuming a Free Market so I don’t get called a ‘vulgar libertarian’ by the lefties for some imagined defence of the status quo…

[JackCuyler]

@fsk

Laborers have the greatest risk. They are subject to layoff at any time. Their wages are eroded by inflation. Laborers are at risk for their skills becoming obsolete, especially in the area of software (my specialty).

In terms of trade, these are not risks. Being laid off sucks, but it is not a loss. Except in extremely rare circumstances, the employee has not performed any labor for which he or she is not compensated. Labor (the act, not the people) is just another service to be sold. It requires a willing customer. As much as I want the people to purchase my services, or my existing customers to continue to purchase my services, unless they don’t pay for services already rendered, I haven’t lost anything.

Contrast that with the investor, who spends up front in the hopes of gaining more. If I were to open a restaurant, for example, I’d have to purchase, rent or lease the property, build and/or decorate the facility, purchase insurance, purchase product and hire a staff. Under most circumstances, I will not see a dime in profit for years, most likely. My staff, on the other hand, will be paid regardless of how business is. If it’s an incredibly unpopular place and closes within a few months, I’m out almost the entire initial investment (my risk). The staff, on the other hand, is completely compensated for all labor performed. They assumed no risk whatsoever.

[Torsten]

@Stranger

The workers can walk away from their jobs at any time if their wages are unsatisfactory. They can do this because they have no capital invested in the enterprise tying them to it.

I was talking about workers not getting the agreed payment at all. They may have no capital share. However to find and commit to a job is an investment as well.

@Anonymous Coward

One case doesn’t invalidate the whole.

I’m afraid it does invalidate the notion that workers do not bear any risk or have losses from business going bad.

@Anonymous Coward

You are also ignoring all the paychecks they did receive up until the time the business went bust and couldn’t make payroll. I hate to break it to you but life is inherently risky.

I didn’t ignore that.

@Anonymous Coward

But there is nothing stopping the workers from selling their labor services to the second highest bidder while the capitalists will have a very hard time keeping their source of income going after they lost all the capital they risked on the enterprise. The workers lost nothing out of the deal, they still possess the skills they sold to the failed business owner, except maybe the earnings of a week or two of labor as in the case you cited.

Wrong again! There is opportunity cost involved for a worker to look for another job and this is stopping them from looking for other jobs. The situation must become very unbearable, before they will switch company. I hardly believe any capitalist will have all his capital tied in ONE enterprise. They merely suffer loss of reputation - Just like management does, and they even don’t suffer the loss of capital. Workers may not loose lots of tangible assets, they will however suffer some opportunity loss and of course the personal investment they may have made during their last years of work into the business that gets busted.

As for the cases I cited. Usually such (non)payments don’t start two weeks before the business got busted. This usually already starts a while before that.

However I also need to mention that factors that work against the kind of scenario I brought up:

• Non-Paying Employers get a bad reputation with workers, and will have difficulties recruiting good ones.
• Financial problems etc. do get known quickly with the workers and they may make other plans concerning issue.
• If unemployment isn’t a big problem, finding a job can be done within less then a week.