the dogma of profit maximization was all in vogue. Being young and naive and scared to piss off my professor, I just kept my head down and got my grade.

Profit maximization, of course, implies paying people as little as possible. THIS is why unregulated capitalism is evil.

"Profit maximization, of course, implies paying people as little as possible. THIS is why unregulated capitalism is evil."

Capitalism is an economic system and itself isnt evil any more than a knife is evil. I know this sounds like I am being picky but believing that capitalism is evil goes along with the idea that capitalism is like a person and it isnt. Capitalism should be viewed as a tool which can be used for good or bad just like a knife.

Humans cannot live in society without rules. There is a natural tendency to look out for one's self. But to live in an orderly society, humans must some times sacrifice what's best for themselves to make the society function for the best of the society.

Also, it must be clear that when we say capitalism needs to be regulated, we mean "for the benefit of society as a whole" and not for a select few. Our capitalistic based system currently has lots of regulations, but they have been modified to benefit a very small, select few.

The SCOTUS did our society a great disservice in the Citizens United decision where they ruled that our Constitution restricted us as a society on how much we can regulate our capitalist system. They demonstrated their enormous power to overrule the Congress and the President. IMO this is out of hand. The SCOTUS has too much power (but that's a discussion for another day).

The argument that the capitalist (oligarchs) cant be regulated by society because it's not "democratic" is bogus. Our democracy isnt inherently laissez-faire. We as a society can and must control our democracy and economic system to benefit society as a whole and strip the oligarchs of their power.

Capitalism isnt evil, we must take responsibility to control it, by whatever means necessary.

Other than that, have a great day.

It's not a person, so it CAN'T be "greedy". It's a system and it is what it is.

It's the whole basis of the system.

...and then that somebody else will put you out of business.

That's why things like minimum wage and widespread union representation are important to society.

It's the maximization of profit. And since (as we're often told) labor costs are the biggest costs of capitalism, then it's logical that keeping labor costs down maximizes profit. Now other considerations can override this law at some historical times, but everything else being equal, this is what we get under capitalism.

the environment, which are also costs to future generations - those are not reflected in GNP or anywhere else.

I wasn't popular in my college business courses when pointing this out decades ago.

until it happens. And of course by then, it's too late.

From a corporate viewpoint, when the time comes to actually count the costs of ecological damage and damage to the environment, then it becomes a stay in business/go out of business situation that is decided at the time.

in the chapter of Asshole, under the sub title of dickhead

I used to work for a guy who who described the negotiation with the labor union rep "as a ten minute conversation, about half as long as I ordinarily haggle over the price of a car".

He wasn't a particularly nice or necessarily generous guy. He just needed a figure that he could plug into his pricing spreadsheet.

Granted, his business wasn't super competitive, but I think most business owners just want to know what the lower boundary for wages is. Is it the minimum wage? Is it what the union will agree to? Or is it the lowest offered wage at which he'll get qualified applicants?

If not the first two, then yes. He'll hire pay the lowest wage at which individuals will consent to take the job.

Griping about employers because they don't arbitrarily raise wages is pointless, and deflects the conversation from the people who are asleep at the switch.

...that as a whole, paying the lowest amount of money actually runs counter to profit maximization. Note that I said 'as a whole' -- but there is a growing body of evidence, in the form of quality, well-paying employers, that is reteaching what people like Ford knew long ago - that it is possible to 'profit maximize' yourself straight out of business.

Unfortunately, there are the old, entrenched peoples who will never listen to that argument despite the best evidence, either because they are simply too set in their ways or because they don't care about a company's long-term health, and simply put we need to stop working for them. If our beliefs are right -- and they are, make no mistake -- then any company that can offer a similar product and pay better will put them out of business. So in that respect, yes, 'start a company' is a valid (if time-consuming) proposition. Ultimately it is the secret to their demise. It just won't happen overnight.