Is "benevolent Capitalism" an oxymoron?

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

It seems to be but I don't understand why that is the case.

If a company makes millions and millions in profit, why does it always seemed to be vacuumed away by the highest echelon with little to no thought of sharing the wealth with all levels of workers? That only seems to happen if the employees "demand" it if they become unionized. Otherwise, the goal is always to lower the cost of labor even when the profits support the current cost and even an increase. It's not like the executives and BODs are looking out for the shareholders in trying to lower the cost of labor. They are not lowering the cost of labor in order to pay out more in dividends, they are lowering it in order to take more for themselves.

Does being a capitalist mean that all manner of fair play and decency get thrown by the wayside? Is there ever a concept of "enough" for the upper tier? Does a healthcare executive lose any sleep at all cashing in their multi, multi, multi million dollar paychecks and stock bonuses while also knowing that their industry gathers those dollars by practicing "murder by spreadsheet" and denying procedures?

What happened to the moral core of the Enron traders who laughed while they stuck it to Grandma Millie in the California grid gaming that brought despair into the lower and middle class households of California when they saw their electric bills climb to unthinkable levels, resulting in business closures and job losses and bankruptcy?

What would make a company a benevolent capital enterprise? Excellent wages, excellent benefits, adequate vacation time, tuition re-reimbursement, a social conscience about their products and procedures, a desire to better their communities, a reasonable compensation for the upper tier of executives, and a return on investment for shareholders to let them know they can support a benevolent company and still make money doing it.

[blindpig]

1. Indeed it is.

There ain't no such thing. At a time there was there was a stain of paternalistic capitalism, but those overbearing attempts at making exploitation palatable ended when the workers formed unions to look after their interests.

No such thing as 'fair play' with capitalism, the mandate is profits.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

2. It seems that about the closest you could get would be employee owned companies. nt

[blindpig]

3. But then it wouldn't be capitalism. n/t

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

4. Employee owned companies are not capitalism? Why not? nt.

[blindpig]

5. For it to be capitalism you would need capitalists.

If the employees 'own' the company and receive the full benefits of their labor without a parasite appropriating a portion thereof then it ain't capitalism.

That's all we want, no parasites.

[pinqy]

8. where on earth are you getting that definition from?

Capitalism refers to private ownership of Capital (which employee owned would still be) and a market system for allocating goods and services.

To not be capitalism, ownship of the Capital would have to be by the government or community and/or distribution of goods and services by other than market allocation.

[yodoobo]

6. I think so. In no way is it actually benevolent

Sure some end up on the winning side, but only because someone is on the losing side.

[anonymous171]

7. The only entity that can make Capitalism "benevolent" is the Government.

Though Progressive taxation, the Government can get enough money to help those who are exploited by Capitalism.

[pinqy]

9. "benevolence" is irrelevant to capitalism

In a market system, people buy and sell goods and services (including labor) at a price others are willing to pay. Sometimes some people benefit more from the transaction, but eveyone benefits, or is at least not made worse, by the transaction. Slavery and coerced labor are NOT capitalism, of course, because labor is forced and not determined by the market.

"Excellent wages, excellent benefits, adequate vacation time, tuition re-reimbursement, a social conscience about their products and procedures, a desire to better their communities, a reasonable compensation for the upper tier of executives, and a return on investment for shareholders to let them know they can support a benevolent company and still make money doing it.All those things are subjective, so can they all be done? Would everyone agree on what they are?

The purpose of a business or person is to maximize revenue/income - costs. All of what you suggest can help that, but might not. Why would a company increase its costs if it didn't see a corresponding increase in revenue?