Does Free Market Really Offer More Choice?
May 6th 2009 14:39
One argument in support of Capitalism states, "With free labor markets, people can choose any job they want." This allows people to move to better pay, better working conditions, etc. In such a way, employers are forced to compete for employees.
Some, however, argue that those at the lowest end of the income distribution do not have such a choice. These less-fortunate people are forced by the market to take minimum-wage jobs with poor working conditions. For example, McDonald's employees cannot just wake-up one day and decide to be the VP of Microsoft. Therefore, Capitalism offers choice to the better-off and "enslaves" the worse-off.
This counterargument by anti-Capitalists, however, does not make sense as a critique of capitalism. A McDonald's employee was not necessarily, from birth, destined to be poor. Achieving an education would have enhanced the earnings potential of this person. To this extent, lack of education, not capitalism, was the culprit. As well, capitalist countries have lower poverty rates than countries with other economic systems. So, capitalism cannot be blamed for conditions of poverty that limit job choices.
Therefore, capitalism most certainly offers the broadest range of job choice for all people. Other systems, i.e. Communism, offer no choice, and generally people's jobs are decided by the State. Thus, the mere fact that Capitalism offers anyone a choice would be an improvement. The reality is that Capitalism offers virtually everyone a choice, and those that do not seem to have a choice in a Capitalist system are victims of either poor educational policy, poverty (which is least prevalent in Capitalism), or their own life choices (sounds mean, but it cannot be denied).
Some, however, argue that those at the lowest end of the income distribution do not have such a choice. These less-fortunate people are forced by the market to take minimum-wage jobs with poor working conditions. For example, McDonald's employees cannot just wake-up one day and decide to be the VP of Microsoft. Therefore, Capitalism offers choice to the better-off and "enslaves" the worse-off.
This counterargument by anti-Capitalists, however, does not make sense as a critique of capitalism. A McDonald's employee was not necessarily, from birth, destined to be poor. Achieving an education would have enhanced the earnings potential of this person. To this extent, lack of education, not capitalism, was the culprit. As well, capitalist countries have lower poverty rates than countries with other economic systems. So, capitalism cannot be blamed for conditions of poverty that limit job choices.
Therefore, capitalism most certainly offers the broadest range of job choice for all people. Other systems, i.e. Communism, offer no choice, and generally people's jobs are decided by the State. Thus, the mere fact that Capitalism offers anyone a choice would be an improvement. The reality is that Capitalism offers virtually everyone a choice, and those that do not seem to have a choice in a Capitalist system are victims of either poor educational policy, poverty (which is least prevalent in Capitalism), or their own life choices (sounds mean, but it cannot be denied).
| 54 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
