-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Capital is Reckless of the Well-being of the Worker?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
John Doe
Member
Interesting topic, given current politics in Australia. There is currently discussion of retirement age. One of the recommendations made to government in a recent report is to raise the retirement age to 70, which is causing some consternation.
I googled the stats from 1900. When the aged pension was introduced at that time, the pension was set to begin at age 60. Life expectancy for a male born in 1900 in Australia was 55.
Nuff said.
I googled the stats from 1900. When the aged pension was introduced at that time, the pension was set to begin at age 60. Life expectancy for a male born in 1900 in Australia was 55.
Nuff said.
BSM1
What? Me worry?
Believe it or not I feel ol' Karl may have a point. Capitalism was never meant to be The Salvation Army. But how is Marxism or Communism any better? Don't you have the state dictating your choice of not only health but of wealth? How reckless is it that you receive treatment or consideration only if it's advantageous to everyone?
Whoa there! Who's defending Marxism or Communism? And are you saying they are the only alternatives to unbridled Capitalism?
I'm sorry if the OP wasn't clear. I intended to discuss the proposition that, "Capital is reckless of the health or length of life of the laborer, unless under compulsion from society." The proposition happens to have been said by Marx, but it could have been said by many people. That is, the focus here should be on the proposition, and not who said it, their theories and beliefs, etc.
Not a fan of Marx, but I must agree that the quote is the literal truth far as I can tell.
It is not even something that people attempt to hide, really.
The biggest misconception that I see with what Carl said is the assumption that businesses are created to provide gainful employment.
It is a byproduct.
All corporations need investment capital. The goal is to give the investor a return not create jobs.
It is a byproduct.
All corporations need investment capital. The goal is to give the investor a return not create jobs.
I believe another misguided concept is old folks trying to live forever consuming resources that would be better spent on our youth.
The statement is more of a truism. Capital (a mere thing/asset) does not care one whit about a human's well-being. This is also true of science, crops, biology, engineering, & even (Gasp!) socialism, so Marx must be getting at something else. But the system of capitalism (which utilizes capital), like other economic systems, doesn't have this caring as a necessary (to minimally exist) component of the system. But all economic systems will have the emergent property of caring for humans, if perhaps not as much as some would want. Incentives of success encourage keeping workers productive & long lived. Want even greater caring for humans? This is where government regulation can step in to change the incentives in that direction. Now we'll get into arguments about how do achieve it, & whether maximizing the well being of the hive or primacy of the individual should reign.
Carl, least talented of the Marx Brothers, never achieved any success in vaudeville, stage or screen. But he did gain some success with his satirical literary works, although much to his chagrin they were taken seriously. This same fate later befell other comic writers such as Ayn Rand & Deepak Chopra.
Last edited: