[a_bonobo]

Before globalization, you company's funds would stay in your local community. Success of the company would mean more funds in your community, which would mean a safer or better living environment for you.

Nowadays, of course, most of that money disappears overseas so you're right.

[over_bridge]

Plus that company would look after you if you committed to them and they might employ your kids and grandkids too if you could help keep them around.

Now... Doesn't matter if your employer succeeds or fails. You just go somewhere else and do the same thing for a similar salary, and some numbers go up or down in wealthy people's portfolios. Not sure if that's freeing or depressing.

[piva00]

I'm on the camp that it's depressing, devoid of meaning, I'm human, I want to care. It's definitely not freeing to me to feel this jaded, this "whatever" feeling... I'd love to actually care more deeply about my employer if I knew there was a counterpart to it, the feeling of being a cog is life-sucking, why does it matter I work except for the money I'm paid for it?

Typing this out made me realise that it's exactly the kind of metric that is hidden, all the bean-counting and MBAs cannot put a value into the engagement of an individual towards their employer when they feel safe and cared for. It does not have value on the next quarter or next year, it has value over 10-20 years, and given climate change and other issues that devolve over a long term it seems that late-stage capitalism simply does not care about 10-20 years spans, at all. There's no incentive and no punishment for caring or not caring, it's all in the now.

This immeadiatism will be the bane of the whole system, it's not sustainable.

[steve1977]

You mean the capitalists ensured that they exploited you enough so that they also had your offspring on the hook for further exploitation? You almost made that sound like a good thing.

[over_bridge]

That's a pretty cynical take but there are some truly old businesses in the world where generations of families have worked and enjoyed a good life. Work can uplift people and be a centre of the community. Or it can be like most are today where you work away for some faceless shareholders who fire you when they need a stock price boost.

[steve1977]

> enjoyed a good life

Did they? As good as the capitalists company owners life?

Or have they just been told that „this is the good life“?

I think the problem today is that a lot of work is actually not needed anymore. It’s just there to make a small elite richer and keep people under control.

[7speter]

Sometimes being able to buy a house and raise a family is a good enough life.

[steve1977]

The question is, what would they have been able to buy without the exploitation?

[rajin444]

No system can fix a corrupt elite. Even Adam Smith acknowledged that capitalism is an abusive system when you have elites that do not have their people’s best interest in mind.

A high trust, cohesive populace is the minimum for any societal progress. And that starts with rulers who work to ensure they’re doing right by their people. America, instead, has rulers on both sides working to ensure the populace hates one another.

[steve1977]

At least where I‘m living (Switzerland), the company‘s funds would stay with the very rich local company owners and make them even richer. Technically the funds stayed in the local community of course, but without benefit for the commoners.

I don‘t see a fundamental difference here.