Capitalism...workers are just another expense to be eliminated
Where does that come from though? Is that still the case for the current generation of college graduates? Do the kids need to be educated closer to reality?
The notion of company loyalty is good for a productive workforce - UNTIL the illusion is shattered, which can take parts of the rest of an individuals positive world-view with it.
It should also be noted that this illusion is not specific to any economic system. The soviet union also saw its share of jaded idealists who were gullible to the point of believing that all those promises of owning the means of production had any credibility.
At least in capitalist economies workers are educated with regards to liberal ideas. Thus they are informed that a work relation is just like any business relation, and therefore they are compelled to look after their own best interests without falling for the "company loyalty" emotional trap. Your employer owes you the salary and you should expect nothing more in return, and consequently you as a worker are compelled to always look after more favourable arrangements just like your employer is perpetually doing wrt your job.
Faith in the reciprocation of loyalty with thine employer can be just as misplaced as with your government, whatever shape of ideology it follows (any system is corruptible; gosh-darn humans).
A few years down the line and a few job changes later, I've come to the realization that broadly they are similar in what they do, the way they treat people. It's just different shades of politics, infighting, employee indifference, and perks and benefits. I don't expect anyone from corporate to have my back no matter how good the work is and how much effort I put in.
Maybe it's just my jaded inner self-talking. Christ, I am not that old, only just mid-30s and the way I am writing makes me sound like a grizzly 60 yr old! Now, get off my keyboard!
"Workers" do not show up on a balance sheet: they are neither an asset not a liability "technically." There may be a payroll liability briefly, though it will then be paid out and taken off the books. Accrued vacation is a liability, which is why we have "unlimited PTO" policies.
It is impossible, in double entry bookkeeping, to "increase assets and reduce liabilities." Every asset must be balanced with a liability. That's the fundamental basis of that accounting system.
To the extent that we're speaking metaphorically, workers are assets. To the extent that we're speaking technically, it's clear that you tried to apply jargon that you didn't understand to confuse others.
You simply cannot have a system that needs consumers to spend money when its in every single companies best interest to pay as little, preferably nothing, to those whose business and expertise you need to survive. You can expand to other nations as a temporary solution but in the end you will run out of people to sell stuff to.
The only real counterforce to global capitalism has historically been the people of a nation, and the populist nationalism of a few nation states has been the only example ever known of an economic system that has upheld basic human dignity (whether it has been called social democracy, christian democracy or something else). This is now going down the drain.
To anyone who is not in the loop (of the alt-right/4chan jargon), "globalism" is currently a code-word for "Jews".
Can you give me some examples? I'm honestly curious as I can't think of any off the top of my head.
By "populist nationalists" I mean what they really are, not necessarily what they call themselves. The Swedish Social Democrats of old are a good example who in practice created a national welfare state, often even with explicitly nationalist rhetoric.
And yet every time there is some great nation-building exercise, the nation in question immediately attempts to build a global empire for itself, by subjugating other nations.
France of Napoleon.
Germany of Bismark.
Japan of Meiji.
Germany of Hitler.
USSR.
Current day USA.
Human dignity, my ass.
PS. Arabs of Muhammad and Mongols of Genghis also qualify.
It has always struck me as weird that the moment a nation enjoys some stability and prosperity, it immediately decides to throw them away for ever-growing expansionistic ambitions.
I mean I get it, we as humans can never get enough -- I've witnessed that in many people, myself included.
It's just so very sad to observe historically. It seems that if somebody sees they can get away with X, they immediately jump to doing something 10*X.
Ironically, this is the exact scheme through which many criminals have been caught -- they admitted they felt a thrill because they have not been caught, and wanted to up the risk. (The police would have never caught them if they haven't did that as well.) I don't believe the same exact phenomena is involved with nations but if you squint your eyes really hard then it does look very similar.
Just because the US is involved in conflicts you may disapprove of in the Middle East does not make current day USA on par with Hitler's Germany.
There's also a sizable internal backlash against recent wars and historically isolationism has been popular in the US.
You don't have to legally control or own territory to be, in effect, an Empire. When you use your military power to force economic interactions of your liking, you are an Empire.
For examples, read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A...