Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 MDSW wrote:
I work for a Fortune 100 company and in light of the Trump tax breaks and all, the entire US division announced an across the board minimum wage increase to $16/hr for every employee. This was a significant jump for a number of positions.

I know Target did this. They were able to because their automated Self-checkout systems paid for it. They needed less workers at each store, so they could afford to pboost the wages of those left, without impacting the bottom line and help their employee retention. However, the net effect is less jobs.

Now you see the future!

 Easy E wrote:


I know Target did this. They were able to because their automated Self-checkout systems paid for it. They needed less workers at each store, so they could afford to pboost the wages of those left, without impacting the bottom line and help their employee retention. However, the net effect is less jobs.

Now you see the future!

And in the world of false narratives, there are those who would easily see that and say, "SEE!!!! this is why higher wages is BAAAAAAAD!!!!!!!"

When most of us that live in reality, and have made at least a cursory study of this stuff knows, automation is coming. . . McD's has been trying to move to kiosks and less human interaction since the 80s. Only now the technology is in a place where it's feasible for them.

There's also the fact that people tend to order more from a screen.

Honestly, I prefer ordering from a kiosk on the infrequent times I go into a McDonald's. It's faster and I have only myself to blame if I forget to add bacon to my burger.

On the other hand,I hate supermarket self-checkouts with a passion. Those can feth right off forever.

 vonjankmon wrote:
And I do really want to point out that *someone* has to do those low paying jobs. There aren't enough teenagers to fill them all so they need to pay a living wage. What "living wage" means is a discussion all it's own but while I don't think burger flipping at a fast food restaurant should pay a lot I also would be very curious to hear the reasoning behind why someone working that job should not be able to have a place to live, food to eat, and be able to afford other basics.

For that matter, many of those jobs need people when the kids are in school. So unless one is literally saying those businesses should ONLY be in operation when the kids are available to work, it's a lie.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MDSW wrote:
I work for a Fortune 100 company and in light of the Trump tax breaks and all, the entire US division announced an across the board minimum wage increase to $16/hr for every employee. This was a significant jump for a number of positions.

Out of curiosity... why only after the tax breaks? It's not like your corporate income tax was ever assessed on your payroll. Indeed, paying more payroll leaves less raw profit to BE taxed while adding value to the company by attracting better workers.

Yeah, if people don't want a coffee in the morning before work from Starbucks/Tim Hortons/Dunkin Donuts, or lunch from Subway/whatever on their break, sure.

But if only kids should be working at these places, then fast food joints and supermarkets should only be open from an hour after school until like 10pm.

EDIT: They are starting to raise the minimum wage in BC to $15 in the next few years, and all I hear from people around me is that they should get an equivalent pay raise. I just shake my head - that's literally just making inflation worse at that point, rather than giving you more buying power.

 feeder wrote:
On the other hand,I hate supermarket self-checkouts with a passion. Those can feth right off forever.

I love them usually much faster than the old way plus as someone who lives by themselves, I only need a few items so it's even faster. When I get to the store "I get in and out" I try not to waste time, speed walk from place to place, weaving through people, see a gap about to close and don't

want to walk behind a slow poke quickly get through that gap, see someone trying to sneak in front of line I cut them off, etc I got other things to do besides grocery shopping and I'm not very patient, also what's there to do at a grocery store besides eat samples and buy food? Why would you

want to linger? Occasionally I'll slow down move to the side (in an attempt to reduce the amount of space I use at the store) to do quick Google search to see if the product is a dud or not or if it's part of the recipe.

So.... Anyone feel like seizing the means of production?

 Iron_Captain wrote:
So.... Anyone feel like seizing the means of production?

I've been trying for awhile but I keep getting noobs and failing to complete the encounter.

skyth wrote:And the lie continues...

Kilkrazy wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Part of it is the fact that low end job wages aren't rising, and there are a lot more people in low end jobs now than 10 or 20 years ago.

People in better jobs, like your Caterpillar and Subaru people, are getting some rises.

I hate to be that guy, mostly, but some of those low paying jobs are low paying for a reason, and competition doesn't drive the wages up like other jobs. It's a reverse domino effect with anything $15 an hour and above. One job decides to pay marginally to nominally better than the others, they bump their pay up a touch to keep competitive, dependent on benefits package as well. Lower paying jobs go into it with a churn and burn attitude. For every worker who gets dissatisfied and bails for better pay, even slightly better pay, there are two people just starting out in the work force that will take that job. Sucks, but that's the flow of the market. It only becomes an issue when you have someone who endeavors to be a career shelf stocker at Target. There's better to be had, and a job like that isn't meant to be a main household income job.

Why are people choosing to be employed in low-skill, low-pay, low-security gig economy jobs instead of choosing the kind of job that their parents and grand-parents chose?

vonjankmon wrote:And I do really want to point out that *someone* has to do those low paying jobs. There aren't enough teenagers to fill them all so they need to pay a living wage. What "living wage" means is a discussion all it's own but while I don't think burger flipping at a fast food restaurant should pay a lot I also would be very curious to hear the reasoning behind why someone working that job should not be able to have a place to live, food to eat, and be able to afford other basics.

Easy E wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Part of it is the fact that low end job wages aren't rising, and there are a lot more people in low end jobs now than 10 or 20 years ago.

People in better jobs, like your Caterpillar and Subaru people, are getting some rises.

I hate to be that guy, mostly, but some of those low paying jobs are low paying for a reason, and competition doesn't drive the wages up like other jobs. It's a reverse domino effect with anything $15 an hour and above. One job decides to pay marginally to nominally better than the others, they bump their pay up a touch to keep competitive, dependent on benefits package as well. Lower paying jobs go into it with a churn and burn attitude. For every worker who gets dissatisfied and bails for better pay, even slightly better pay, there are two people just starting out in the work force that will take that job. Sucks, but that's the flow of the market. It only becomes an issue when you have someone who endeavors to be a career shelf stocker at Target. There's better to be had, and a job like that isn't meant to be a main household income job.

Why?

I'll address this all at once. Sorry if it seems I'm not separating out anything that needs focused on.

I have no idea why someone would want a career in retail or the fast food industry. When I first got hired on at Cat full time, back in 2012, I was making the lowest amount a Level 3 Machinist could make at the plant, and it was not enough to cover our bills. My wife worked as well as an in home care nurse, but had our daughter Charlotte in January of 2013. Because she had to stay at home, I wound up taking a part time job at Meijer in my off hours, as this was also a slow down period where I wasn't able to get overtime. Other than some high school kids, the work force was filled out by retirees, spouses who were making supplemental income, or college students trying to get spending cash while attending Purdue. There were two people that I knew of that worked there, who were not management, who were basically in their career setting there. The Target up the road, however, I knew at least 8 people who were in career mode there as non management.

The market improved at Cat, and my daughter got old enough that my wife could get back to work. So between those two events, Meijer because unnecessary. If I'd been able to, I would have easily worked another manufacturing job for 40 hours on top of what I did at Cat instead of Meijer, as I was only making $7.90 when I left. I'm lucky insofar that I make enough now that Joy doesn't have to work, which works out given all the complications and medical trips necessary due to my son's Mosaic Down Syndrome.

This is a bit long, but I guess what I'm getting at is that I am the kind of person that will do whatever it takes to support my family, but am not content to scrape by on the lowest amount I could possibly earn. I couldn't have fallen back on assistance programs as I already made too much without the side job, and truth be told, I wouldn't have tried anyway. Me personally, there's a drastic difference between existing and living. I've several friends and unfortunately a stepdaughter who are perfectly fine with the former. Maybe that's why, to answer your questions of "why", I dunno.

As far as why they pay so little? Because nobody wants a $10 Big Mac. I'm sure that the amount is exaggerated, but the principle behind it is sound: if you increase the cost of production for an item, whether in materials, procedure, or manpower cost, the cost of that item goes up.

lonestarr777 wrote:Because people like Just Tony need to look down their nose at other people to feel superior.

There is no argument for "These jobs are supposed to suck" beyond "They make me feel better about my job."

There is enough in the US to go around that no one should be struggling. But then the high and fething mighty wouldn't get to look down their nose at people and dismiss them. So they stand up and scream "No no no!" when someone suggests that minimum wage should get modernized.

We had a guy in our gaming group who posted constantly about how dare people at Mcdonalds thought they deserved a living wage. When we called him out on the fact he too would get a raise if minimum wage went up, to pay him what he was worth for his oh so arduous training, he was a part supplier in a warehouse in a job he lucked into, he proceeded to rationally block each and every one of us.

These people aren't looking for anything but a reason to be superior. They have to have more and be better. That's all there is to this and arguing otherwise is dishonest and shows you really are craven.

To be frank, lonestar, your pay scale doesn't affect my life in the slightest, nor do I give any sort of gak if there's some disparity where people make less than me OR more than me. I'm bewildered as to how you could even draw that conclusion. I am a machinist, as you are aware. There are machine shops that would pay me no more than $15 an hour for what I do, and there's a couple places with a little bit of a drive that pay more than what I make. It doesn't matter. At the end of the day, I choose to work at a pay scale that meets my needs. Looking down at you or anyone else isn't even part of my thought process. Bluntly, you aren't that important.

It all comes down to someone saying to themselves "I will work for $x, and no less. $x+7 would be nice, but $x is the bottom of the barrel." For some, that's $8. I don't understand why, but that's the way it is.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
So.... Anyone feel like seizing the means of production?

That worked out well for you guys, didn't it?

So I my next question would be do you think that people should have to work multiple jobs to support their family? You did and many people do, and have been for hundreds if not thousands of years but we're at a point in history where it is not strictly required, we as a society could change that and make things just a bit easier for future generations.

Should we do that or is this a case of "I was a dirt farmer, so my kids should be also"?

Serious question. Is maybe not having kids an option if you work a job where no one values your time enough to pay for it? Like, maybe we need a cultural shift where having a family isn't the be all and end all of existence, or maybe it's too biologically engrained?

I imagine a single person on minimum wage has a decent chance of supporting themselves, especially if in shared accommodation or with a partner.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Part of it is the fact that low end job wages aren't rising, and there are a lot more people in low end jobs now than 10 or 20 years ago.

People in better jobs, like your Caterpillar and Subaru people, are getting some rises.

I hate to be that guy, mostly, but some of those low paying jobs are low paying for a reason, and competition doesn't drive the wages up like other jobs. It's a reverse domino effect with anything $15 an hour and above. One job decides to pay marginally to nominally better than the others, they bump their pay up a touch to keep competitive, dependent on benefits package as well. Lower paying jobs go into it with a churn and burn attitude. For every worker who gets dissatisfied and bails for better pay, even slightly better pay, there are two people just starting out in the work force that will take that job. Sucks, but that's the flow of the market. It only becomes an issue when you have someone who endeavors to be a career shelf stocker at Target. There's better to be had, and a job like that isn't meant to be a main household income job.

Why are people choosing to be employed in low-skill, low-pay, low-security gig economy jobs instead of choosing the kind of job that their parents and grand-parents chose?

Are people with the skillsets needed to do better paying jobs choosing to do lower paying jobs for which they are overqualified or are people choosing to work low skill low pay low security jobs because they lack the skillset required to apply for better jobs? There are all kinds of variables at play, the skills, education and experience that you have, the location you live in, the jobs available in your area, etc. There's never been a time, even when my parents and grand parents were my age (if that were true then the solution would just be to Make America Great Again, right?) where there was a good job that paid well and was a good fit for you just waiting for you to show up and take it.

 Easy E wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Part of it is the fact that low end job wages aren't rising, and there are a lot more people in low end jobs now than 10 or 20 years ago.

People in better jobs, like your Caterpillar and Subaru people, are getting some rises.

I hate to be that guy, mostly, but some of those low paying jobs are low paying for a reason, and competition doesn't drive the wages up like other jobs. It's a reverse domino effect with anything $15 an hour and above. One job decides to pay marginally to nominally better than the others, they bump their pay up a touch to keep competitive, dependent on benefits package as well. Lower paying jobs go into it with a churn and burn attitude. For every worker who gets dissatisfied and bails for better pay, even slightly better pay, there are two people just starting out in the work force that will take that job. Sucks, but that's the flow of the market. It only becomes an issue when you have someone who endeavors to be a career shelf stocker at Target. There's better to be had, and a job like that isn't meant to be a main household income job.

Why?

Different jobs bring different levels of value to a company and therefore have different salaries. You own a small business right? How do you determine what salary is paid for a given position in your company? Do you figure out what take home pay would be necessary to afford decent housing in your area along with the cost of utilities, food, clothing, commuting etc. for a household and make sure every position pays enough to cover that? Most likely you determine how much your company can afford to budget for labor then scale the salaries of the people you employ depending on the responsibilities of the jobs with some positions being paid more than others.

Personally, I think every job, even entry level retail jobs, should pay enough to keep the employee, as a single person, above the poverty line and with enough income to not be reliant on government assistance. Working should always be a better alternative to not working, employment should be incentivized for people by being the means to a better life. Nobody in the labor force should be better off as a government dependent than as an employed person. However, a job that pays well enough to support a single person is not going to pay well enough to support an entire family which would make such a job insufficient as a career and there's nothing wrong with that. Not every job is a career, not every job can support the whole family. Not every job within a company is equally important so there will always be a pay scale, a hierarchy of value, which is never going to change. The store manager has more responsibilities and more value to the company than the shelf stocker therefore the manager makes more money than the shelf stocker therefore the job of a store manager can be a career than supports a household whereas the job of a shelf stocker cannot.

Just Tony wrote:
As far as why they pay so little? Because nobody wants a $10 Big Mac. I'm sure that the amount is exaggerated, but the principle behind it is sound: if you increase the cost of production for an item, whether in materials, procedure, or manpower cost, the cost of that item goes up.

Can you explain to me then, why the cost of a Big Mac is cheaper in many countries outside of the US, despite those countries having much higher minimum wages? Australia is usually toted around as an example of this where the Min. wage is quite higher than the US, yet the consumer price of a Big Mac is the same, if not cheaper than here in the US.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I imagine a single person on minimum wage has a decent chance of supporting themselves, especially if in shared accommodation or with a partner.

If a single person is sharing an accommodation with another person, then they really aren't supporting themselves, are they? And that's kind of the crux of what many of us in support of higher minimum wage are saying: a single person cannot support themselves on a minimum wage.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Serious question. Is maybe not having kids an option if you work a job where no one values your time enough to pay for it? Like, maybe we need a cultural shift where having a family isn't the be all and end all of existence, or maybe it's too biologically engrained?

I imagine a single person on minimum wage has a decent chance of supporting themselves, especially if in shared accommodation or with a partner.

We should discourage the wrong types from breeding..?

It may not be that ingrained for everyone, but I know women with fertility issues, and it has brought them no end of suffering. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. Proposing a society where quality of life is so bad that it incentivized voluntarily giving up a fundamental biological drive comes across as monstrous.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Serious question. Is maybe not having kids an option if you work a job where no one values your time enough to pay for it? Like, maybe we need a cultural shift where having a family isn't the be all and end all of existence, or maybe it's too biologically engrained?

I imagine a single person on minimum wage has a decent chance of supporting themselves, especially if in shared accommodation or with a partner.

For the most part it's people on higher incomes who decide against having children, puting career or leisure first. Or plainly recognising they wouldn't be good enough parents.

People on lower incomes and people on higher incomes tend to have more children than the middle classes. There's also a rural/urban split.

In Europe reduced fertility is a huge problem right now, and will only get worse with an aging population.

jouso wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Serious question. Is maybe not having kids an option if you work a job where no one values your time enough to pay for it? Like, maybe we need a cultural shift where having a family isn't the be all and end all of existence, or maybe it's too biologically engrained?

I imagine a single person on minimum wage has a decent chance of supporting themselves, especially if in shared accommodation or with a partner.

For the most part it's people on higher incomes who decide against having children, puting career or leisure first. Or plainly recognising they wouldn't be good enough parents.

People on lower incomes and people on higher incomes tend to have more children than the middle classes. There's also a rural/urban split.

In Europe reduced fertility is a huge problem right now, and will only get worse with an aging population.

People not having children on such a scale would require upping immigration to meet labor demands. Its not a viable solution to how our current economy and society is configured.

Plus children become a privilige to those with wealth is probably not a road to go down on. Its up there with people not getting proper healthcare because of their job level.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 feeder wrote:
On the other hand,I hate supermarket self-checkouts with a passion. Those can feth right off forever.

I love them usually much faster than the old way plus as someone who lives by themselves, I only need a few items so it's even faster.

Is that because there's no chance the self checkout will break your heart?

I avoid the self-checkout whenever possible. I prefer to get paid for my labor, thank you very much.

As far as why they pay so little? Because nobody wants a $10 Big Mac. I'm sure that the amount is exaggerated, but the principle behind it is sound: if you increase the cost of production for an item, whether in materials, procedure, or manpower cost, the cost of that item goes up.

Yes but the difference is minimal. If you increase a fast food worker's minimum wage from $10 to $15, that's a $5 increase (± a few cents on other expenses) for one hour of work, and not one Big Mac. How many products do McD sell on average per hour? If anybody knows where we can find those numbers we can spread those $5 over all the sold product to see how much each would need to increase in price to keep the same profitability.

Here's a random article, so who knows how accurate those numbers are (but it's a start): http://www.businessinsider.com/19-facts-about-mcdonalds-that-will-blow-your-mind-2012-4?IR=T

* McDonald's' daily customer traffic (62 million)
* McDonald's feeds 68 million people per day
* McDonald's sells more than 75 hamburgers every second

* McDonald's has 761,000 employees worldwide (and not all of them are minimum wage workers)

68 million people divided by the 761,000 (employees worldwide) = 89 = number of people each employee feeds per day (on average). Lets say each and every of these employee works 8 hours a day selling stuff to customers. That mean they feed a bit over 10 people per hour each. 10 people have to each spend less than 50 cents more for their whole order for McD to break even with a $5 wage increase. If you have a burger, fries, and a drink, that not even 20 cents on each item (and with a rather generous interpretation of the numbers.

While the point is technically correct, the average low level retail or service workers usually serves multiple customers per hour and doesn't spend two hours on one Big Mac. And yes, a price increase might lead to fewer people buying your product but you also might get good publicity for paying higher wages (like Costco does) and be able to better retain high performing individuals. Your workers end up less stressed and thus healthier and you end up needing less sick leave and so on.

 Just Tony wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
So.... Anyone feel like seizing the means of production?

That worked out well for you guys, didn't it?

Initially it did!
But then we forgot that seizing the means of production was just the first step of the plan, rather than the final goal. We forgot about step 2: Once you seize the means of production, make sure you keep control of them.
So when a certain guy named Stalin figured out that instead of the workers, it could just be he and his friends in control of the means of production, this kinda ruined the whole plan.
Which means we just need to try again!

Mario wrote:

As far as why they pay so little? Because nobody wants a $10 Big Mac. I'm sure that the amount is exaggerated, but the principle behind it is sound: if you increase the cost of production for an item, whether in materials, procedure, or manpower cost, the cost of that item goes up.

Yes but the difference is minimal. If you increase a fast food worker's minimum wage from $10 to $15, that's a $5 increase (± a few cents on other expenses) for one hour of work, and not one Big Mac. How many products do McD sell on average per hour? If anybody knows where we can find those numbers we can spread those $5 over all the sold product to see how much each would need to increase in price to keep the same profitability.

Here's a random article, so who knows how accurate those numbers are (but it's a start): http://www.businessinsider.com/19-facts-about-mcdonalds-that-will-blow-your-mind-2012-4?IR=T

* McDonald's' daily customer traffic (62 million)
* McDonald's feeds 68 million people per day
* McDonald's sells more than 75 hamburgers every second

* McDonald's has 761,000 employees worldwide (and not all of them are minimum wage workers)

68 million people divided by the 761,000 (employees worldwide) = 89 = number of people each employee feeds per day (on average). Lets say each and every of these employee works 8 hours a day selling stuff to customers. That mean they feed a bit over 10 people per hour each. 10 people have to each spend less than 50 cents more for their whole order for McD to break even with a $5 wage increase. If you have a burger, fries, and a drink, that not even 20 cents on each item (and with a rather generous interpretation of the numbers.

While the point is technically correct, the average low level retail or service workers usually serves multiple customers per hour and doesn't spend two hours on one Big Mac. And yes, a price increase might lead to fewer people buying your product but you also might get good publicity for paying higher wages (like Costco does) and be able to better retain high performing individuals. Your workers end up less stressed and thus healthier and you end up needing less sick leave and so on.

Actually it's not even that much, because wages are only a part of total expenses and the majority of wages are paid out to management. Increasing minimum wage by 50% works out to a single-digit percentage increase in expenses.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
So.... Anyone feel like seizing the means of production?

No, every socialist country has had a lower standard of living and worse economy than capitalist democracies so why would anyone consider that a good idea? There's been dozens of attempts (some working a little better than others), but on average socialism stinks so just give it up

already it's not going to work out. Part of the reason is Socialsim by it's nature deemphasizes competition, so you get lower quality products (see Russian cars) because there isn't that competitive marketplace that capitalism has where everyone is trying to get a good selling product so they

look for ways to reduce costs, find something that they do better than the competitors, use higher quality materials, etc it's innovation and quality control due to adversity. I'm not saying capitalism is perfect because when unrestrained it can be very exploitative, but it's still better than

socialism. Social democracy on the other hand, now there's a future in that where your country isn't hard capitalist or socialist (like in Scandinavia) it's a little of both, those countries have some of the highest standards of living in the world and seem to do well economically.

Hard socialism leads to a bad place a bit faster than hard capitalism.

Saying "those jobs" are for kids is saying either kids deserve to struggle or kids should be supported by their parents.

The first one pretty well makes you an ass and the second one is assuming a lot about a kids parent situation.

 feeder wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 feeder wrote:
On the other hand,I hate supermarket self-checkouts with a passion. Those can feth right off forever.

I love them usually much faster than the old way plus as someone who lives by themselves, I only need a few items so it's even faster.

Is that because there's no chance the self checkout will break your heart?

Bruh.

That is a fething epic callback.

Wow. I missed that. GG

/thread

 Ouze wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 feeder wrote:
On the other hand,I hate supermarket self-checkouts with a passion. Those can feth right off forever.

I love them usually much faster than the old way plus as someone who lives by themselves, I only need a few items so it's even faster.

Is that because there's no chance the self checkout will break your heart?

Bruh.

That is a fething epic callback.

Yeah, it's certainly a deep cut.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
So.... Anyone feel like seizing the means of production?

No, every socialist country has had a lower standard of living and worse economy than capitalist democracies so why would anyone consider that a good idea? There's been dozens of attempts (some working a little better than others), but on average socialism stinks so just give it up

Scandinavian countries regularly come at the top of quality of life rankings, and they're pretty socialist.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
So.... Anyone feel like seizing the means of production?

No, every socialist country has had a lower standard of living and worse economy than capitalist democracies so why would anyone consider that a good idea? There's been dozens of attempts (some working a little better than others), but on average socialism stinks so just give it up

Scandinavian countries regularly come at the top of quality of life rankings, and they're pretty socialist.

You didn't read my full post, did you. Also social democracy is not the same thing as socialism.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Hard socialism leads to a bad place a bit faster than hard capitalism.

You're going to have to define bad here. I can list off genocides, revolutions and all kinds of general destruction from hard capitalism from before socialism was a coherent thought.

Just US history alone we have dozens of groups of people eliminated in the name of profit, half of Mexico quite literally stolen and then a war waged on behalf of said theft, that small labor dispute known as the civil war, when some folks decided black folks were people and others decided they'd rather enjoy the economic comfort of owning people, the invasion and suppression of the indigenous people of Hawaii, the labor disputes of the industrial revolution and the literal murder and skirmishes with private security forces leaving piles of dead.

The only thing socialism has on capitalism on body count is that there were more people to kill when it got hold, we'd been learning to reign in capitalism for a century or so at that point. And even then I can dispute what you're saying with the needless death and suffering caused by private healthcare.

Capitalism, restrained, is not the worst thing in the world. But we've had some impressive destruction in it's name that a lot of folks seem to ignore, and I'm just pulling from one nation's history here. If we want to include the east india company in this one I can feth up half the planet.