Capitalism: Why I must lose a job to the "most qualified"?

[hellas1]

Hi all,

As you might know, I do not like Capitalism. I do like Free Will however!

With that as an intro, let me ask this question:

"Why must ANY person be a "runner up" to another when it comes to jobs?"

This questions' answer is either:
A. They got beat out by someone Really more qualified.
B. They got beat out by someone putting on airs and B.S.ing
C. They got beat out by someone who knew the someone interviewing and you never really had a chance!

Why? Hmm?
Why must I compete constantly against others?

In the Capitalistic framework, ONLY 1 person can get the job, NOT 2.
This system creates "winners" and "losers."
I want YOU, the reader, to deeeeeply understand that. Get it?

"Winners" are seen as "successful" and "Losers" are seen as not driven enough.

Is that so? OR Have we been so brainwashed to think that Life is just Power, Position and Money? :hmmm:

Comments?
hellas1

[Rich86]

"Why must ANY person be a "runner up" to another when it comes to jobs?"

Some jobs do require the most skilled to take that role.

I assume you want your Doctor to be the 'best' possible doctor? When it comes to jobs like that I want the most merciless, unforgiving selection system possible. I want to know that the guy who operates on me will be the best available.

[bthizle1]

Human life generally isn't fair....however capitalism contributes greatly to the financial imbalances that create unfairness based upon money needs.

Ever heard of Charles Ponzi? His is similar to the kind of scheme the U.S. government has implemented through "capitalism".

Our work (labor) is taxed, while we're simultaneously sold all kinds of bonds, deposit certificates etc...interesting thing is, the government pays us with our very own money!

The government cannot tax those who do not legally work, so they are extremely dependent on big businesses to continue providing jobs for people who have no apparent problem playing into this system in which they are being utterly duped. Proof of this overly "quasi" relationship is the recent bailout, in which the government literally gave millions of dollars to big businesses in an attempt to maintain it (the relationship). It's extremely ironic too, because these "public policies" that are supposidly aimed at redistributing wealth and promoting equal opportunity have truly done the exact opposite. But hey, in a society where people believe what they are told rather than what is, what did you expect?

This form of economy/government was never intended to be fair, why people hold that common misconception I'll never know.....well, I suppose I do....KEEP THE PEOPLE DOCILE BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY! TV, commercials, sports, pop culture, brands, you name it, they probably made it to keep you ignorant and pleasurably content, which in the long run will allow for em to make a buck. We live in a market driven society, those with the most control the dollar ($=power) and therefore make the rules.

[Roman Knight]

Hi all,

As you might know, I do not like Capitalism. I do like Free Will however!

With that as an intro, let me ask this question:

"Why must ANY person be a "runner up" to another when it comes to jobs?"

This questions' answer is either:
A. They got beat out by someone Really more qualified.
B. They got beat out by someone putting on airs and B.S.ing
C. They got beat out by someone who knew the someone interviewing and you never really had a chance!

Why? Hmm?
Why must I compete constantly against others?

In the Capitalistic framework, ONLY 1 person can get the job, NOT 2.
This system creates "winners" and "losers."
I want YOU, the reader, to deeeeeply understand that. Get it?

"Winners" are seen as "successful" and "Losers" are seen as not driven enough.

Is that so? OR Have we been so brainwashed to think that Life is just Power, Position and Money? :hmmm:

Comments?
hellas1

Every form of government has winners and losers, and capitalism is no exception. You are the victim of a bad school system that tells everyone they're special.

[Nietzsche]

How does your free will like taking it away from others?

Capitalism, which you hate, is an extension of the idea of freedom to act, choose, or decide. The anti-thesis removes those choices from others.

So, my answer to your pubescent raving is to consider it in this way: your selection wasn't decided by some out of context capitalist principle, you weren't selected because the bureaucracy decided that another applicant had a more important need. Or, even worse, the other applicant had to fill a quota mandated by government. Enjoy your free will with the other losers.

[MET]

The reason that that system exists is so that the profit of the company will be the highest. Since more productive people will do more work in less time.
So te president of the company get's more money and thus more power.
I don't see the problem.

[Syron]

If there is no competition a system stagnates. As has been said do you really want your surgeon to have only just scraped though their exams? (in the UK only the top 5% of medic grads can become surgeons, the rest GP's).

While you think that this system is somehow "unfair" in the end everyone benefits.

Every form of government has winners and losers, and capitalism is not exception. You are the victim of a bad school system that tells everyone they're special.

^^^ This.

[Lord de Lyonesse]

Is that so? OR Have we been so brainwashed to think that Life is just Power, Position and Money? :hmmm:
hellas1

If you look at life negatively thats all that it is..

[Taiji]

If you share the job you do with the 50 or 500 other people who want to do it then doesn't that mean you have to do another 49 or 499 jobs of same kind to make a living?

It would actually work out worse than that, your work would be worth less due to the administrative costs of having 50 people do one persons job.

Also if these 50 jobs are not in the same place your travel arrangements would be horrific.

This has nothing to do with capitalism.

[Junius]

We live in a world of limited resources. That means that people will have to compete for those resources, the better the competitor, the better, or more, resources they will win. Capitalism is the complete freedom to attain those resources, be it money, property or any other kind of material wealth. It is the philosophy that if all individuals are acting to do the best for themselves, this will automatically mean the best for society, since society is made up of people.

Socialism on the other hand recognises that not all people can be as prosperous as they would like. It breeds as sense of duty to your fellow man to help him where he cannot help himself. It is the state stepping in to help those parts of society which cannot help themselves, by taxing the most able, and redistributing the wealth. It acts by focusing on society as a whole, and helping the entire spectrum, seeing that what is best for the individual may not be best for the whole.

Both these systems need people who are good at what they do. No government would force the employment of lesser skilled workers because it is inefficient, and the wealth creating power of industry will not be maximised. When it is maximisied, tax revenue will increase because overall income will have increase. This benefits all of society, in both capitalist and socialist countries.

Your list of the three ways that someone other than you might get a job make it seem like you harbour resentment, because you feel this has happend to you. There is also one category, at least, which I feel you have forgotten. That is the most able person for the job. They may not be the most qualified, but they may live closer, have a better work ethic, be more productive than the others, increasing the marginal productivity they bring to the firm.

The way you phrased your thread title, and what is contained in your post also don't match up. You at first seem to deal with it, then launch into another question about what success is. You only, superficially, deal with the real issue at hand, which is the economics of the labour force.

All in all, I don't know what success is, but I do know that the more qualified person, or the better able one, will get the job since they are more profitable, both to the individual and to society as a whole, then the employment of a lesser able worker. It's the economy.

[bthizle1]

We live in a world of limited resources. That means that people will have to compete for those resources, the better the competitor, the better, or more, resources they will win. Capitalism is the complete freedom to attain those resources, be it money, property or any other kind of material wealth. It is the philosophy that if all individuals are acting to do the best for themselves, this will automatically mean the best for society, since society is made up of people.

There's more than enough agrarian resources in the world to go around....granted many people currently have far more of an "agrarian build up" than others, but if people actually went about "it" the right way we could completely stamp out things such as starvation, malnutrition and so forth.

Raw materials (ie. logs, iron ore and crude oil, etc...) are a bit more scarce, but there's still more than enough to go around if every country, or individual expended at least close to the same amount as eachother. So, competition actually isn't necessary, it's a completely man made necessity that drives people to do irrational and selfish acts that end up hurting the physical being of others to the point that their life is at risk, or already gone.

Socialism on the other hand recognises that not all people can be as prosperous as they would like. It breeds as sense of duty to your fellow man to help him where he cannot help himself. It is the state stepping in to help those parts of society which cannot help themselves, by taxing the most able, and redistributing the wealth. It acts by focusing on society as a whole, and helping the entire spectrum, seeing that what is best for the individual may not be best for the whole.

Both these systems need people who are good at what they do. No government would force the employment of lesser skilled workers because it is inefficient, and the wealth creating power of industry will not be maximised. When it is maximisied, tax revenue will increase because overall income will have increase. This benefits all of society, in both capitalist and socialist countries.

Very true, that's why the education needed to obtain these jobs should virtually be free, if anything close to "equal opportunity" is to exist. Or at the very least much more assistance/grants given to those who cannot afford it. Look at the current state of getting a degree. It pretty much acts as a screening process for employers, so without one they are much less inclined to higher. He ll even trade schools are getting pretty spendy these days. So, I agree that both systems (any system for that matter!) need individuals who are good at what they do, and that it shouldn't be about the government forcing employment upon lesser skilled workers. However the government does need to provide more help to the general populace so that they may have the means to get the education they need in order to get that job that they'll never get without it.

The thing about Capitalism in comparison to Socialism is that businesses have no incentive to help other small businesses, in fact they have quite the opposite. This is where the government is needed to help maintain a sort of "equality" not just in terms of the opportunity of employment, but in regards to the limiting of monopolization of the economy and therefore the government.

(It's basically much more likely for big business to run the government in a Capitalist society than it would be in a Socialist one.)

[Last Roman]

in short, capitalism, or really, a mixed market, is the best worst (ie, it still sucks, but better than anything else) system we have. It's supposed to work out the weakest of the herd (in theory anyways) so that the market will run better. Of course, that's not always the case, but I can't think of any better system out there.

[Garrigan]

Money, get away.
Get a good job with good pay and you're okay.
Money, it's a gas.
Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash.
New car, caviar, four star daydream,
Think I'll buy me a football team.

Money, get back.
I'm all right Jack keep your hands off of my stack.
Money, it's a hit.
Don't give me that do goody good .
I'm in the high-fidelity first class traveling set
And I think I need a Lear jet.

Money, it's a crime.
Share it fairly but don't take a slice of my pie.
Money, so they say
Is the root of all evil today.
But if you ask for a raise it's no surprise that they're
giving none away.

[Thanatos]

OP, you act as though it was only with the advent of capitalism that competition came along.

[Manco]

This questions' answer is either:
A. They got beat out by someone Really more qualified.
B. They got beat out by someone putting on airs and B.S.ing
C. They got beat out by someone who knew the someone interviewing and you never really had a chance!

You seem to oppose A the most, while it's B and C who are the problem.

Unfortunately capitalism differs in reality from it's ideal version, and that's where B and C come in. But those would also happen in other systems.

[Tigrul]

This is rather pointless

Why would I, the owner of a company (hypothetically speaking, I'm not in such a position), make sure that I pay 200.000 Euros per year for two people, one of them great at their job, the other not, when I can pay let's say 150.000 Euros per year for just the best person for the job to work enough?

It is only a matter of human nature actually. If I run a company, I run it because I want to gain as many goods and services as possible, I don't run a charity action, and very few people would actually accept the state forcing them to hire more people, even though it would be less cost-efficient.

Furthermore, as someone from a former communist country, I can more than assure you that in a system where EVERYONE gets a job and there is no competition, most goods and services are of mediocre quality, AT BEST (most of the time though, we're talking about incredibly poor quality). Because that's just human nature. When one struggles for their own gain (i.e. company owner), one struggles harder, because one knows that better company means better life for them and worse company means worse life for them. But when the system takes this away from you, when the system makes sure that you provide more jobs, but with the cost of you gaining less, you automatically struggle less, because the system has taken the instinctual desire for better from you. It has kidnapped purpose away from you, and this doesn't work.

I don't really know why you hate capitalism, but I will most probably guess that you're either one of the types of people that receives payment from the state (retired, minor, unemployed, or just state-worker (i.e. education)), in which case your view is understandable, but it is still incorrect from an economical point of view, or that you are someone that at one point in their lives was on the losing side of competition.

You do have to understand that there are economical agents that pay for jobs, and that they don't do that for charity reasons, but for personal profit. And that means they'll always want the best for the job for the smallest salary. It's very natural for them to think that way, and I also consider it's very healthy for a country's economics. The current crisis is, of course, one of the failures of capitalism. Then again, I can assure you that Islanders, for instance, who have been hit pretty badly by this crisis, still live a lot better than my parents lived during communism. I can also assure you that economical crisis have happened for a long time and in various systems, not just capitalism.

[dragonsign]

Capitalism is based on a marked economy, in the marked several producers compite( who earns the most money, profit). To get a leg up against the rivals a company must find ways to as effective as possible. So if a person is better qualified, the company belives that this person will make a greater contribution to the production than you, at the same cost(wage).

I'm not fan of it either.

[hellas1]

Hi all,

Thanks for the input!

I posed this question and the A, B, and C answers to have people question WHY?

I understand competition and its' effects, I understand a "market driven economy" concept, I understand consumerism too!

I realise that when it comes to professions, the most qualified ONLY should get work. As a previous poster has said: "I don't want the least qualified physician."

My point is this: Not everyone can get hired for ONE job opening in a company and as suchm people like me and you who busted their arses DO NOT FIND WORK. They get relagated to mediocre positions, IF they land a position in their respective courses of study AT ALL.

"Paying your dues" B.S. pop lingo usually takes the form of corporate "hazing" via being given crap work or doing mundane tasks for peanuts or just doing tough work which is draining.
Will such employees ever see their educational dreams, and by extension economic means, come to fruition?

The U.S. version of Capitalism sucks. It does not address the mentally ill adequately, or the disabled adequately, or those who have multiple illnesses that are not "lifethreatening" as such, like panic attacks.

As a disabled veteran who has panic attacks and multiple spinal column issues, my job pool is severely limited. Not to mention that I'm the only person in my family to have a Batchelor's degree and I learned thru crap management trainee "opportunities" and by being manipulated in retail work, what the business "industry" is all about. It's all about $$ and how an employer can squeeeeeeeeze the life out of you for a buck.

Incidentally, I'm reeeealy looking to leave the "business world" behind altogether by going back to school and either being a University Professor or a Mental Health Councelor, even though these positions are tied to the Capitalistic framework I was born into.

How does that sound?
Comments please, hellas1

[Roman Knight]

Hi all,

Thanks for the input!

I posed this question and the A, B, and C answers to have people question WHY?

I understand competition and its' effects, I understand a "market driven economy" concept, I understand consumerism too!

We know that, you just don't support it for reasons that no one understands.

I realise that when it comes to professions, the most qualified ONLY should get work. As a previous poster has said: "I don't want the least qualified physician."

My point is this: Not everyone can get hired for ONE job opening in a company and as suchm people like me and you who busted their arses DO NOT FIND WORK. They get relagated to mediocre positions, IF they land a position in their respective courses of study AT ALL.

I know it's massively cliched, but life isn't fair, all you can do is make your chances better, but you don't "deserve" anything. If you don't have a job, then work your way up from the bottom, do extra training and practice. All that can increase your chances but you aren't assured anything.

"Paying your dues" B.S. pop lingo usually takes the form of corporate "hazing" via being given crap work or doing mundane tasks for peanuts or just doing tough work which is draining.
Will such employees ever see their educational dreams, and by extension economic means, come to fruition?

Why does every employee deserve their educational dream? The only way to make your dream come true is to work on it, but it still won't always happen.

The U.S. version of Capitalism sucks. It does not address the mentally ill adequately, or the disabled adequately, or those who have multiple illnesses that are not "lifethreatening" as such, like panic attacks.

That's the government itself, not the system.

As a disabled veteran who has panic attacks and multiple spinal column issues, my job pool is severely limited. Not to mention that I'm the only person in my family to have a Batchelor's degree and I learned thru crap management trainee "opportunities" and by being manipulated in retail work, what the business "industry" is all about. It's all about $$ and how an employer can squeeeeeeeeze the life out of you for a buck.

I'm going to sound like a heartless troll here, but it's not what I intend. Any disability or advantage does not change what you deserve, because what you deserve is rarely dealt with in political systems. Especially in a meritocracy like capitalism, it's all based around how much you can get, and if you can't get it, then it isn't really your problem.

Incidentally, I'm reeeealy looking to leave the "business world" behind altogether by going back to school and either being a University Professor or a Mental Health Councelor, even though these positions are tied to the Capitalistic framework I was born into.

How does that sound?
Comments please, hellas1

That's a choice for you, unless you want to reveal every detail of your life on the internet so we can tell you what we think.

[Hunter Makoy]

Incidentally, I'm reeeealy looking to leave the "business world" behind altogether by going back to school and either being a University Professor or a Mental Health Councelor, even though these positions are tied to the Capitalistic framework I was born into.

How does that sound?
Comments please, hellas1

yes, spending your life in school is the easiest way to hide from the real world. which is basically what all this boils down too. that, and the completely defetist attitude you have.

there always has to be a winner and a loser, there cannot be a right without a wrong, its yin and yang and all that mess that i always thought everyone knew.

You say your going to go back to school to escape the "competition". well, lets say your "non competitive" dream world makes it to your school. you bust your ass on a test, and get an A, but your real grade turns out to be the class average C because "oh well, you have to be fair to everybody!". in reality, by spending all your time in school, you wont be moving away from any of the competition that you mentioned. you will still have to prove your self better then the other applicants to get your job as a professor. you will still have to "pay your dues" to make tenure.

you will not escape capitalism.
IT
WILL
FIND YOU!!