Upward mobility: While forces are operating in capitalistic societies that tend to keep “people in their place”, there is also opportunity for movement to a higher socioeconomic class. As we have noted, capitalism requires growth. This means new positions open in the growing organizations for those workers who have been hard-working and loyal to the organization. We can add an emphasis on education and training that is directly aligned with capitalism and the emergence of public education in many capitalist societies. These sources of personal improvement yield even greater opportunity for upward mobility.
Freedom: In its purist, libertarian form, capitalism is about freedom. There is freedom in the marketplace. Freedom is also to be found in choices made by individuals regarding how hard they work, where they work, and what they believe. Without the heavy regulation of a state-controlled economy, people have the opportunity (and responsibility) to make their own decisions and live with the consequences of their decisions. Internal control reigns supreme in the land of libertarians.
Losing and suffering
With this brief portrayal of the benefits associated with and animating modern capitalism, we can identify other, often detrimental, factors that directly impact many people in capitalist societies.
As noted, the economic “bottom line” pervades a capitalistic mindset. Production and service are for sale. Income is derived from this sale, with profit remaining after expenses are deducted. This is basic accounting. However, much more is involved in this fundamental formulation of profit in a capitalistic system. First, as Ralph Estes (1996, p. 7) notes, financial profit is assigned to specific members of the organization. A troubling (and rarely asked) question might be posed (and should be posed): Who benefits from an organization’s profitability? Is it the employees? The answer is “Not often” (unless the organization has a profit-sharing plan in place). What about those receiving the product or services (the customers)? Do they benefit? This is rarely the case. It is typically assumed, as Estes suggests, that only investors should receive the benefit (profits) of their investment. Yet, customers, communities, and even nations have “invested” in the organization and should benefit from this investment (Estes, 1996, pp. 4-5).
Communities and nations might receive some return on their investment via taxes paid by the organization–unless executives in the organization skillfully avoid paying these taxes. A return on investment is typically not to be found among the employees. A strong and direct case can be made regarding the appropriate assignment of benefits to those working in the organization:
“Employees invest in the [organization]. They bring their education, skills, and experience—often gained at substantial personal expense—to the job. They invest time, energy and too often their health. They invest their careers, careers that can be effectively wiped out in a casual layoff or relocation decision. And sometimes . . . they invest their lives.” (Estes, 1996, p. 4).
Shouldn’t employees in an organization benefit as much as the owners or stockholders (if it is a corporation)? In the study Rosalind Sun and I conducted, we found no evidence that those laboring in either Lowell’s mills or Harvey’s restaurants have received any financial return on their investment, other than their wages (Sun and Bergquist, 2021). Alienation in the workplace is associated with the lack of direct connection between the amount and quality of work being done and the benefits received from this work.
