This a gross misunderstanding of my statement and a gross misunderstanding of safety. We are far beyond seamstresses burning up in a building with no escape route. The cost of an incident has tangible costs. How will production continue if your sugar mills keep blowing up? Who will make your product if your workers keep breaking their backs? How will tribal knowledge of your process be preserved if your workers keep dying from inhaling toxic fumes? How will you meet deadlines if you’re equipment keeps igniting?
Sorry, you’re up your own ass thinking only as a share holder rather then the actual labor that makes profit.
Apologies, I believe you might be confused, as I believe you proved my point succinctly: Money is the goal and the only thing a capitalist company truly cares about. You say safety matters, but you use the monetary concerns the business would incur if it failed to achieve these things because, well, the bottom line is the only thing that matters. The only way it would even be forced to do these things (besides the bottom line) is laws and oversight, since otherwise these risks are merely actuarial tables.
It doesn’t really matter if your sugar mills or sweatshops or factories explode if you make a profit. It doesn’t matter if your workers break their backs or inhale fumes or asbestos or coal dust or even die if you make a profit. At the end of the day, if it’s just a cost of doing business, what stops capitalism from doing these things besides if you make a profit? The only thing that would stop it is the law.
The system is inherently unfair to the workers as the only choice they get to make is whether they work for a certain company or not (technically, this is untrue, as capitalism can (and historically did) use slaves, but I digress.) Many workers could (and historically did) perform work that might kill them without their knowledge because the only one allowed to make decisions under capitalism is the owner, and if an owner chooses to focus on something that is less profitable like worker safety, another capitalist can (and historically did) take that spot and undercut that company out of existence.
It doesn’t really matter if your sugar mills or sweatshops or factories explode if you make a profit. It doesn’t matter if your workers break their backs or inhale fumes or asbestos or coal dust or even die if you make a profit. At the end of the day, if it’s just a cost of doing business, what stops capitalism from doing these things besides if you make a profit
The cost.
The capilist that continues down this path will no longer turn a profit. These things leave you vulnerable to be overcome by competition. Who would work for Jeff’s sugar factory if Jeff’s sugar factory keeps blowing up and jim sugar factor understands the process and puts it nessisary safe gaurds.
That is, if nepotism doesn’t keep them afloat by suppressing competition and providing investment capital.
Nepotism doesn’t factor in in any explanation I have given because they would only factor in getting around equal access to materials, labor, production, or markets, or possibly skirting regulations. Your argument is “No, those instances of horrible working conditions were nepotism, even though there was nothing illegal or unfair about it.”
Unsafe working conditions are merely a cost-analysis in capitalism. If you make more than the costs of a decision, what is stopping capitalism from implementing those unsafe conditions if they are not illegal? Nothing. Capital-holders hold all the power and make the decisions, the workers do not, and that is the problem.
Who would work for Jeff’s sugar factory if Jeff’s sugar factory keeps blowing up and jim sugar factor understands the process and puts it nessisary safe gaurds
If Jeff somehow makes more money than Jim, why would Jeff ever stop? What makes you think Jim wouldn’t simply start doing what Jeff does? Ideally, exploding factories would be more expensive, but that isn’t always the case, so I ask again, what does capitalism do to disincentivize chasing profits at the expense of the workers or consumers or safety or the environment or the planet?
This a gross misunderstanding of my statement and a gross misunderstanding of safety. We are far beyond seamstresses burning up in a building with no escape route. The cost of an incident has tangible costs. How will production continue if your sugar mills keep blowing up? Who will make your product if your workers keep breaking their backs? How will tribal knowledge of your process be preserved if your workers keep dying from inhaling toxic fumes? How will you meet deadlines if you’re equipment keeps igniting?
Sorry, you’re up your own ass thinking only as a share holder rather then the actual labor that makes profit.
Apologies, I believe you might be confused, as I believe you proved my point succinctly: Money is the goal and the only thing a capitalist company truly cares about. You say safety matters, but you use the monetary concerns the business would incur if it failed to achieve these things because, well, the bottom line is the only thing that matters. The only way it would even be forced to do these things (besides the bottom line) is laws and oversight, since otherwise these risks are merely actuarial tables.
It doesn’t really matter if your sugar mills or sweatshops or factories explode if you make a profit. It doesn’t matter if your workers break their backs or inhale fumes or asbestos or coal dust or even die if you make a profit. At the end of the day, if it’s just a cost of doing business, what stops capitalism from doing these things besides if you make a profit? The only thing that would stop it is the law.
The system is inherently unfair to the workers as the only choice they get to make is whether they work for a certain company or not (technically, this is untrue, as capitalism can (and historically did) use slaves, but I digress.) Many workers could (and historically did) perform work that might kill them without their knowledge because the only one allowed to make decisions under capitalism is the owner, and if an owner chooses to focus on something that is less profitable like worker safety, another capitalist can (and historically did) take that spot and undercut that company out of existence.
Thus, capitalism incentivizes the bottom line.
The cost.
The capilist that continues down this path will no longer turn a profit. These things leave you vulnerable to be overcome by competition. Who would work for Jeff’s sugar factory if Jeff’s sugar factory keeps blowing up and jim sugar factor understands the process and puts it nessisary safe gaurds.
That is, if nepotism doesn’t keep them afloat by suppressing competition and providing investment capital.
Nepotism doesn’t factor in in any explanation I have given because they would only factor in getting around equal access to materials, labor, production, or markets, or possibly skirting regulations. Your argument is “No, those instances of horrible working conditions were nepotism, even though there was nothing illegal or unfair about it.”
Unsafe working conditions are merely a cost-analysis in capitalism. If you make more than the costs of a decision, what is stopping capitalism from implementing those unsafe conditions if they are not illegal? Nothing. Capital-holders hold all the power and make the decisions, the workers do not, and that is the problem.
If Jeff somehow makes more money than Jim, why would Jeff ever stop? What makes you think Jim wouldn’t simply start doing what Jeff does? Ideally, exploding factories would be more expensive, but that isn’t always the case, so I ask again, what does capitalism do to disincentivize chasing profits at the expense of the workers or consumers or safety or the environment or the planet?
It is always the case when your entire sugar mill explodes that you lose insurmountable amounts of money.
Come back to me when you touch base with reality.