Capitalism cannot function without paying workers less than their labor is worth, thus creating “profit” margins for rich people to steal from
Because those nursing aids aren’t working on wealthy people. The circumstances of a worker is proportional to the level of threat and inconvenience it presents to the elite if they aren’t in good shape.
We need more friction against the corporations, be it the implication of force, strikes, or quiet quitting.
0000
Should America’s economic system be replaced in the future, a key thing to do is to eliminate most of the difference between the poorest and wealthiest. That would require standardizing incomes, capping wealth accumulation, workers voting for leadership, and using universal benefits such as free shelter and food to prevent coercive workplaces.
Our current economy is an creature that inherited the properties of feudalism, and wasn’t explicitly designed to be good for civilization. Creating a whole new system with deliberate intent & mechanisms is the best path forward.
They get paid so awful drug addicts and gamblers are mostly doing that job. One that my family pays (i have no say in this) has wrecked two of the grandparents cars, stolen hundreds of dollars, and now us bringing their kids with them when they work. I’d rather be dead than used like that.
So close yet so complete lack of critical thinking away.
How have you been alive long enough to write this post but not see why? People exploit each other for power and wealth and so not care that they hurt people or the suffering they cause. Those best at that are the CEOs and senators and leaders of nations, the most powerful positions there are, are held by psychopaths, sadists and narcissists. They convince us all that fighting back is futile, immoral or illegal. We could topple it all and every day we choose to get a latte and spend another 9 hours grinding away our time on this earth just to stay alive.
It’s all a fucking scam by rich ppl who are the most capable of the worst kinds of human beings.
You don’t understand, the CEO needs a lot of money, to bribe cops when he rapes children.
Sounds like some surplus value generated from labour is being extracted by the people owning the means of production
I think this is the first time i heave read an entire sentence written in corporo-management-speak that has made sense logically without falling in a hole of words that ‘mean nothing but sound business’.
That’s commuspeak not corpospeak, as in, it is a central tenet of communism
Fair enough mate, it all just sounds like a zoom/teams meeting nightmare to me
It’s economics jargon either way (this sentence, not Das Kapital as a whole lol)
Nursing homes are often owned by investment trusts who have to pay out to their investors based on profits, so the managers of the trust take it upon themselves to outsource the maintenance, management, and labor to other entities they control. At a healthy upcharge, the menials who perform the tasks associated are not even an afterthought. They work for a faceless corporation that is puppeteered by the same people who own the nursing home, who rents it’s facility from a real estate trust they also own, allowing them to extract as much value as possible from each level of the operation while limiting liability.
Worked in them for about 7 years.
You are correct.
We had one where could never get ANY supplies 1 year in despite a 25k lump sum buy in by residents. even before paying month to month rent.
My expeince is management will play the “heroes work here” type behavior and take advantage of people’s passion for elderly to then underpay then and mistreat them to the degree they do.
Why don’t good people start nursing homes
It takes enormous capital as property prices are high due to real estate speculation (the priority with real estate is not use but financial value), regulatory capture (excessive regulations are pushed by the largest companies to make it impossible to start a competitive business), and high insurance costs (very appealing to the biggest investors as they mean the largest investors can be self insured).
They’re run out of business if they even start. Otherwise it has to be a non-profit, which is reliant on fundraising and outside funding.
Remember the people running these are the landlords. Owners of commercial properties and the only entities with resource rights to able to develop. You know: the same entities that have been capable for generstions, but unwilling, to construct adequate housing.
This is what they build instead.
The daycare analysis is a bit different: that’s mostly just sheer insurance liability. Childcare centers need so much licensing and insurance, so it’s mostly done by backyard operations and church basements.
I feel like half these problems would be fixed if everyone woke up and unionized. Corpos would have no leverage left.
The Pinkerton agency has entered the chat.
If you’re curious, yes they’re still around, yes they’re still doing it, and they’re owned by Securitas now.
I am very aware. Fuck them.
Yeah they’re the cucks who bullied some kid over magic cards.
They also bitched about being villains in Red Read Redemption 2.
id be happy to see you stomp them flat like your country did last time.
I get what you’re saying, but even when the Pinkertons lost, the strike action was ultimately broken by force anyway. At one point the local sheriff was literally bombing coal miners.
There are certain jobs that people really want to do. No matter how little the job pays, there will be people willing to do that job. Often these are the most important jobs.
That’s not a good match for a purely capitalist system where someone can’t survive on their salary. Unions are one way to fight this. Traditionally nurses had strong unions, but these days no union seems to be particularly strong. The other way is for the government to get involved and say that certain jobs are important enough that they get special exemptions from the purely capitalist system. That could mean different minimum wages, special tax exemptions, or all kinds of other things.
Boomers built an economy based around raping the wealth and futures of their children, to fund their retirement.
They consistently voted for politicians and policies that would benefit themselves at the expense of everyone else, in basically every economic sector.
Of course they don’t pay their orderlies well either.
That would mean their 401ks wouldn’t go up by as much.
Only now that the most grotesque frontman conceivable is helming the logical conclusion of their mindset turned into policy, are they starting to regret it all.
The pathological narccisist gerontocracy society.
Healthcare is the only sector with actual job growth now.
Everything else is collapsing.
The turned the entire country into basically a big retirement home supercomplex that you can’t opt out of.
Its nearly time for a general strike
Nearly??? So long overdue!!!
In the 1980s when Regean fired all unionized Air-Traffic-Control and replaced them using the military. USA workers did nothing, and that’s when they lost the game folks! THAT was the moment, do or die, national general strike or… They COULD still knock over the table and walk out of the casino… any day now… in the last 40 years… maybe tomorrow… day after?..
PS Some kids cutting class on a Friday or Monday every 3 months is NOT a general strike!
The USA general population has been an insult to the entire world history of resistance and protest, since the late 1960s, so fuck you very much for abandoning your watch and dooming us all, you weak ass-hats.
It was the boomers who sold us out to Ronnie Rayguns and the Heritage pricks, then beat compliance into us.
Its a slow process, but people are coming around.
My friend was the director of a daycare, and she’s leaving because she works 60 hour weeks, has no help from above, and her pay is literally canceled out by sending her kids to camp over the summer. And obviously they won’t pay her more. And she’s the head of the daycare. It’s insane.
It’s because private equity capitalists took over daycares, nursing homes, funeral services, and veterinary clinics. They’re leeches on even the most indispensable aspects of society.
Just based on the outrageous “strata” fees on “owned” lots for pre-fab/trailer parks (not the rental pad lots, totally different(same?) Story)
More per month just to get your (wife’s, ass) grass mowed than to maintain my ancient building…
Private Equity got anywhere you could move also
What’s not to understand? The owning class owns the facilities and sets both the prices and the wages, and they will do this in the way that maximally benefits themselves, i.e., maximizes profits. It’s a really, really basic feature of capitalism (yes, also whatever super duper special unicorn flavor of capitalism you think works better than “crony” capitalism).
It’s a rhetorical device I forgot the name of. If I say “I don’t understand X”, that will have one of two effects on most people: either they also don’t know, realise that and hopefully get curious, or they do and know the point I’m aiming for. If they offer that explanation, it creates a Socratic approach to making an argument: Framing it as an explanation of a question the rest of the audience is hopefully also curious about.
You explanation is the second part of the argument.
So, I know of the existence of this rhetorical device, but I’ve been around enough people who operate in a theoretical framework where this statement cannot be taken as anything other than genuine, namely that of capitalist realism. This has two implications:
- the original tweet could’ve been written with this mindset (which, I should add, is the dominant mindset, btw), and should be taken at face value
- many of the readers will have this mindset, and will not have the theoretical tools on their belt to appreciate it for the rhetorical device it is, much less take advantage of it and learn something (they might walk away with anything ranging from “huh that is weird” to “it’s those darned republicans/democrats”)
In either case, making an explanation (there’s more than one) explicit is useful, if only to open up space for people to disagree with the explanation. (In fact I’d be willing to bet that the person who wrote the tweet disagrees with my explanation, specifically the part involving flavors of capitalism. I bet they’re advocating for something like the nordic model.)
- the original tweet could’ve been written with this mindset (which, I should add, is the dominant mindset, btw), and should be taken at face value
- many of the readers will have this mindset, and will not have the theoretical tools on their belt to appreciate it for the rhetorical device it is, much less take advantage of it and learn something (they might walk away with anything ranging from “huh that is weird” to “it’s those darned republicans/democrats”)
Those are good points I didn’t consider.
On the first, I tend to lean towards assuming the best of people where possible, mostly because it helps stave off defeatism. That doesn’t make it likely, just less depressing.
On the second, I genuinely didn’t see that angle. Thanks for pointing it out. They don’t need to appreciate it as rhetorical device (and in fact, it may be more effective if they’re not conscious of it), but if it leads them to make up their own conclusions to reinforce existing assumptions, instead of being curious and open-minded, that would indeed miss the mark.
I guess to some degree, it’ll be a “shotgun” approach to hopefully get some people curious, even if you’ll never get everyone. I’m not sure a more direct statement of facts would have gotten the others either.
In either case, making an explanation (there’s more than one) explicit is useful, if only to open up space for people to disagree with the explanation.
That’s the conclusion I was aiming for, yes. In thr context of the device, the question is a setup and framing for the answer. By “prompting” for it, it seems less like preaching (which may turn people away) and more like a “genuine” and natural conversation. Interviews are occasionally framed in a similar way, but with an open question on the internet, it may seem less “staged” if that makes sense?
(I’m not sure those are the best words to describe it, but I can’t put my finger on the nuances so I’ll just call it a vocab/language barrier)
In fact I’d be willing to bet that the person who wrote the tweet disagrees with my explanation, specifically the part involving flavors of capitalism. I bet they’re advocating for something like the nordic model.
The Nordic model tends to be idealised to some degree. I understand how it would look like a significant improvement over some other forms, particularly the US, and I’ll freely admit I’m also subject to bias, but it can’t cure all the problems baked into the system.
From the glimpses I’ve caught, it doesn’t seem to solve all social issues either. The specific example I’ve heard of is racism, but I didn’t do a thorough investigation about other effects. Then again, I’m not sure I have a good solution on hand to effectively shift cultural stances like that either.
Daycare is a crazy one. Insanely expensive, yet the workers are damn near indentured servants.
It’s honestly a major contributor to the labor shortage. For anyone with a decent job, it’s significantly cheaper for the spouse to just stay home until the kids are old enough to take care of themselves.
Don’t let the media force you to twist your words-- it is not a labor shortage, but a wage and cost of living crisis.
“Nobody wants to work anymore” == “I pay so shitty wages that no one can even afford to come work for me.”
I’ve run into dozens of people who are complaining about how they have applied to literally everything and never heard back or get rejected for things like gas station cashier and yet those places always put up the help wanted signs. Shortage seems like a fabrication when these places hire nobody and keep the ad up
When I.T and nurses are complaining that they keep getting ghosted and can’t find work? That feels like a major economic failure signal to me. It’s freaking mad.
nurses, usually shouldnt have a problem, i think they are desperate enough to fill spots. but its likely things like mandatory hours or whatever is required.
It’s still the same as what they’re saying.
Why do the hours suck and how can they fix it? Hire more full time nurses. Why are they denied sick and vacation leave? Under staffing.
Why can’t/don’t they? Broken system
they keep the ad up sothat when roxy and joe walk in in the morning, the employer can tell them “uhm, unfortunately we can’t find any other hire, so you 2 people will have to do the work of 3”, effectively cheaping out of paying another person’s wages.
Also because they need a person on standby when Roxy and Joe inevitably quit
You know what your life is when you are out of work; and when you do have a job, how the fear of losing it hangs over you. You are also aware what a danger the standing army of unemployed is to you when you are out on strike for better conditions. You know that strikebreakers are enlisted from the unemployed whom capitalism always keeps on hand, to help break your strike.
‘How does capitalism keep the unemployed on hand?’ you ask.
Simply by compelling you to work long hours and as hard as possible, so as to produce the greatest amount. All the modern schemes of ‘efficiency’, the Taylor and other systems of ‘economy’ and ‘rationalization’ serve only to squeeze greater profits out of the worker. It is economy in the interest of the employer only. But as concerns you, the worker, this ‘economy’ spells the greatest expenditure of your effort and energy, a fatal waste of your vitality.
It pays the employer to use up and exploit your strength and ability at the highest tension. True, it ruins your health and breaks down your nervous system, makes you a prey to illness and disease (there are even special proletarian diseases), cripples you and brings you to an early grave — but what does your boss care? Are there not thousands of unemployed waiting for your job and ready to take it the moment you are disabled or dead?
That is why it is to the profit of the capitalist to keep an army of unemployed ready at hand. It is part and parcel of the wage system, a necessary and inevitable characteristic of it.
It is in the interest of the people that there should be no unemployed, that all should have an opportunity to work and earn their living; that all should help, each according to his ability and strength, to increase the wealth of the country, so that each should be able to have a greater share of it.
But capitalism is not interested in the welfare of the people. Capitalism, as I have shown before, is interested only in profits. By employing less people and working them long hours larger profits can be made than by giving work to more people at shorter hours. That is why it is to the interest of your employer, for instance, to have 100 people work 10 hours daily rather than to employ 200 at 5 hours. He would need more room for 200 than for 100 persons — a larger factory, more tools and machinery, and so on. That is, he would require a greater investment of capital. The employment of a larger force at less hours would bring less profits, and that is why your boss will not run his factory or shop on such a plan. Which means that a system of profit-making is not compatible with considerations of humanity and the well-being of the workers. On the contrary, the harder and more ‘efficiently’ you work and the longer hours you stay at it, the better for your employer and the greater his profits.
You can therefore see that capitalism is not interested in employing all those who want and are able to work. On the contrary: a minimum of ‘hands’ and a maximum of effort is the principle and the profit of the capitalist system. This is the whole secret of all ‘rationalization’ schemes. And that is why you will find thousands of people in every capitalist country willing and anxious to work, yet unable to get employment. This army of unemployed is a constant threat to your standard of living. They are ready to take your place at lower pay, because necessity compels them to it. That is, of course, very advantageous to the boss: it is a whip in his hands constantly held over you, so you will slave hard for him and ‘behave’ yourself.
from Now and After, by Alexander Berkman, Chapter 5: Unemployment. Available to read for free here.
A perfectly apt analysis. Thank you for the link. Anarchist Library has some good gems in there!
agreed, if you look at specific industry, or different stem industry. its shortage, but its artificially caused one. its the underhanding gatekeeping by keeping out entry level and choosing people already magically having years of experience in a low level position. all sorts of things like ghost listings, "internal hire but make claims of “not being able to find candidates” on the job sites. or its academically suppressed, for CLS(clinical labs) very limited amount of universities teach this program(1 year grad program) but im hearing they have shortages. and where do you think people will try to apply(california, most of them zeroed in on norcal) and only 9 schools teacch it in cali, you are competing with out of the state people.
it’s not a crisis. companies have to pay more if they want to find employees. that’s higher wages.
that is if there was an actual labor shortage. sadly, there is not.
or depending on the field, have these BS listing on the job sites, or if thier AI/software is even looking at a cv/resume at all.
We started by doing dual income as an optional lifestyle and the rich saw that they could make more money that way, and then it became mandatory.
The dual income trap
I read an interview, probably from NPR, but I can’t find it at the moment. The upshot was that caring for infants is insanely expensive, since they need one-on-one care pretty much continuously.
But parents can’t afford that cost, so, essentially, the price they charge for infant care is a loss-leader, and parents of older children (who need less supervision and thus more favorable staffing ratios) subsidize the cost of caring for infants. Daycare operators are barely keeping afloat.
Edit: Ah, here it is: Baby’s first market failure
Feels like this would be solved with longer parental leave, but what do I know?
They may require 1-on-1 interaction, but generally the ratio for 0-2’s is around 1:4.
And many childcare companies are owned by huge multi-billion dollar investment firms because they are cash generators.
yucky, just like with MDs/nurses, MDs are being snatched up by teledoc and PE firms. so there is less private or specialists out there. the only other “common” one is based on a scam condition(chronic lyme)
This is the only answer that is not just a hand waiving “investors bad”.
Are they required to provide for the more costly babies?
It’s almost like somebody pays the workers much less than the revenues and pockets the difference
You would think, but for the most part daycare is a very low profit industry. The problem I think is that all the costs tend to scale with size. So having a lot more clients just means a lot higher costs.
There are exceptions of course, but all of those that I’ve seen also have some other luxury additions to basic care.
I can’t see it as being a high expenditure business. Majority of spending should be towards rent/mortgage and repair and maintenance. It’s not like there is a lot of consumables or anything. All that money has to go somewhere.
Not sure if we are talking about daycare or elder care at this point in the thread, but it applies to both: they work with vulnerable populations and entail a lot of risk / legal liability, thus have significant insurance costs and regulations to comply with.
Cleaning supplies alone are a huge consumable. Arts & crafts materials. Toys are basically consumables because kids play rough. Same for books. Some daycares include breakfast, lunch, and snack. First aid supplies, kids hurt themselves all the time.
But yeah, definitely also lots of diverting profits up to the CEO 😓
I appreciate your realistic assessment here.
When we consider all that reasonably goes into running such a service, we can rationally figure out how much is being diverted to the wrong pockets and make it better.
probably not as much as employee salaries, if they offer benefits. and managment or administration costs(they claim)
probably bs things like admin, or managment fees.
i assume its for some type of insurance but I also don’t run a day care.
My wife and I had to pay $1600 a month for daycare as things opened up after the pandemic. The teachers there would have made more working at the Burger King across the street.
im not surprised. thats why people dont want to join the services, why bother when you can make more at walmart, target,etc. and they have a higher min wage.
Run by private equity?
No, not really at all. Some of the more expensive ones are, but that’s only because there is a profit margin on the wealthiest kids and aged. The floor for cost of care is ridiculously high for both groups, so there’s no margin to be made at anything below the crème de la crème facilities.
Most are, the investors need to make their money too! /s
mostly but its a cost-cutting measure to avoid paying MD, and RN prices.
The responses:
most are
no not at all
🤔
I’ve served on the board of non-profit daycares and I [vaguely] know at least one person who actually owns a for profit daycare.
Only a complete idiot would think they were going to make any money on a daycare. The overhead is nuts – even when paying really shitty compensation – and the competition is relentless.
What kind of things does the overhead go to?
Cheesy poofs
if its corporate is likely Large admin/managment fees. minus the staff salary, and benefits if they even provide it. other thing like maintaing the facilities.
And, here’s the kicker, they’re not even very profitable. This is the case for both for the same reason caring for the elderly and the young is insanely expensive.
It’s a weird one because it’s a huge expense but it’s also completely concentrated to a subset of the population for a subset of their life. I think it should have a public option. 2 toddlers, not infants, could cost us 50k/year
