Friedman's Critique of Unions [Archive]

shaderabbit85

15th November 2010, 08:01

It's total crap, at least the first part. Non-unionized companies, in sectors of industry where there is a union representing a section of the workforce, raise wages in an attempt to keep the unions out. Not to the same level as a union job, but they try to make them close enough that workers decide it's not worth risking their job in an attempt to unionize for a couple more bucks an hour. It's pretty much regarded as economic fact as far as I've heard. I also used to work in a factory and I dealt with a lot of truckers, and both the teamsters and the non-union truckers told me so. The non-union truckers also told me when there was a suspected union "incursion" that they usually got some kind of a slight pay raise.

There are exceptions to this, such as the auto workers at "transplants" (car factories, usually Japanese). Not wanting to deal with the UAW, the bastards located their factories in the American south, which is traditionally more resistant to unions (because of the social culture down there, yuck) and also because it is far away from Detroit. I wouldn't say the workers at the "transplants" had their wages decreased because of the unions, just not increased.

The second point may be accurate, it depends how much the union fights against work speedups. If the union leadership is a corporate circlejerker, and doesn't fight back (and there are quite a few of them in the US), then I suppose companies could whip the workers to increase productivity, and thus circumvent the need to hire more workers, up to a point.

You are aware that Milton Friedman was a very conservative capitalist puppet economist, right? I'm assuming you are, and that's why you posted it in OI, but I just wanted to make sure you didn't just see "Famous Economist Milton Friedman said....." instead of "Famous Conservative Economist Milton Friedman said....."

Sir Comradical

15th November 2010, 08:24

Of course he'll arrive at such a conclusion. By constructing a hypothetical model that doesn't allow for surplus value to be redistributed, it follows logically that the only cure for unemployment is for the working class to redistribute amongst themselves the relative crumbs offered to them as wages. If his argument made empirical sense, it would mean that the regions of the world with the lowest wages would have full employment while welfare-states like Norway would have high unemployment. In reality, Norway's unemployment rate stands at 3.3%.

Amphictyonis

15th November 2010, 08:37

I would desecrate Friedmans grave if I had he chance. Pinochet died one month after that bastard. Go figure.

Jimmie Higgins

15th November 2010, 08:51

Forward Union

15th November 2010, 09:16

ComradeMan

15th November 2010, 11:32

I think it varies from place to place and you can't draw up a general rule.

In this part of the world- union protected labour enjoys a lot more benefits than non-union protected labour. It's a constant source of bitterness for those who work in the private sector that they are badly paid and have fewer backups than those who work in union protected areas and the private sector. With the general trend of de-industrialisation fewer people work in the union protected sectors. It's complicated I know- and I also appreciate there are a lot of unions out there but the ones that have any might are the big ones in the public sector or the big industries.

Jimmie Higgins

15th November 2010, 13:06

Well also his critique only really applies to Trade Unions and not Industrial Unions.Yeah, and obviously trade-unions are problematic for workers from our perspective too (elitism, lack of rank and file democracy, protectionism), but even then, a bad trade-union is still better than total and unaccountable control over working conditions and wages by the bosses. When pro-free-market thinkers criticize the bad practices (for workers) of trade-unions, it's like fascists or monarchists criticizing the limitations of bourgeois elections - they aren't interested in how to make democracy actually work, they want something worse altogether. Free-market hacks are the same way - they are not interested in the lot of workers being prevented from getting jobs because of a shop closed by a trade-union, they want a shop closed and controlled solely by the boss.

RGacky3

15th November 2010, 20:37

Summerspeaker

15th November 2010, 21:49

When pro-free-market thinkers criticize the bad practices (for workers) of trade-unions, it's like fascists or monarchists criticizing the limitations of bourgeois elections - they aren't interested in how to make democracy actually work, they want something worse altogether. Free-market hacks are the same way - they are not interested in the lot of workers being prevented from getting jobs because of a shop closed by a trade-union, they want a shop closed and controlled solely by the boss.

Yes, that sounds about right. A clear way to put it.

L.A.P.

15th November 2010, 23:17

I respect Milton Friedman as a smart and intelligent man who just so happens to go against my views but with all due respect, FUCK FRIEDMAN!

Other than that, I have nothing intelligent to say right now about his theories.

RGacky3

16th November 2010, 08:13

I'm smarter than Milton Friedman.

LeftSideDown

17th November 2010, 19:57

Not true at all.

If anything it raises wages for others because the industry standard goes up.

It does'nt create fewer jobs if anything it creates MORE jobs because they want less hours, and more benefits which mean more workers required.

Capitalists will ALWAYS cut labor costs when they can, unions prevent that, non union workers benefit too because unions create benefits which are universal, and create an atmosphere in which Capitalists are afraid of unions.

Milton is full of shit.

They = Workers, I assume?

So, workers want less hours and higher wages (benefits). Less hours is equivalent to a lower supply schedule of workers. Given constant demand, it means there is a fewer quantity of workers demanded at the higher price. Pretty simple supply/demand analysis.

Capitalists will always cut ALL costs when they can. A cartel of steel would, theoretically, reduce the ability of steel buyers to get lower cost steel, but ultimately this means a shift away from steel and towards other things. In the case of workers cartelizing, capitalists shift away from labor and more towards capital, which, in the short run, means fewer workers demanded (until the cartel breaks).

Higher benefits do not come free, so even if wages stay the same but benefits go up, the real cost of labor goes up so those with less productivity than the real wage lose their jobs. Simple as that.

RGacky3

17th November 2010, 20:05

In the case of workers cartelizing, capitalists shift away from labor and more towards capital, which, in the short run, means fewer workers demanded (until the cartel breaks).

Shifting away from labor and more towards capital? That makes absolutely no sense, Thats like saying they'll "shift away from peasents and more towards land."

Higher benefits do not come free, so even if wages stay the same but benefits go up, the real cost of labor goes up so those with less productivity than the real wage lose their jobs. Simple as that.

If their jobs CAN be cut they will be anyway, simple as that. The only option left over is cutting into either profits or executive compensation, thats what we want.

LeftSideDown

17th November 2010, 20:17

Marx debated this point (or at least the point that collective struggle for higher wages causes harm to other workers or increases prices) in the speech "Value Price and Profit (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/)" which is available online.

In a nutshell, workers and employers in a wage negotiation are really battling over the distribution of the surplus wealth created in capitalist production. Increased wages don't increase the cost of production (because if I am making toy cars, I make 10 in a day but only get paid the value of maybe 2 or 3 toy cars) they just change the ratio of what a worker makes from what they produce. Marx explains it better:lol:

Cost of just toy car parts (per car): $2 dollars
Cost of labor per car: $1 dollar

Cost per car: $3 dollars

HIGHER WAGE!

Cost of just toy car parts (per car): $2 dollars
Cost of labor per car: $2 dollars

Cost per car: $4 dollars.

But on a more anecdotal and maybe less abstract level, the argument by Friedman does not hold water because unionization has declined in the US and this has corresponded with a stagnation and now decrease in the standard of living. In the anti-union "right to work states" all wages are lower than in the industrial union strong-holds. And the industrial areas that are in decline are in such a state because companies have moved their production to southern states with anti-union laws... so, in fact, non-unionization creates a "race to the bottom" in wages.

There are hundreds of other things going on outside of labor participation that could've caused this. Since the only evidence you've presented is your word, this hardly counts as evidence. I do not see how you can be against a "right to work"... why shouldn't people be allowed to sell their labor for whatever price they want? All "Right to work states" do, to my knowledge, is not allow FORCED union membership... you see this as a bad thing?

And you're just enforcing Friedman's argument. There are people unemployed because labor unions drove the price of labor above their DMVP, so they moved to where labor was cheaper. At the labor price in the northern, industrialized states, there are less companies willing to hire which means more unemployment.

If Friedman was correct, the last generation of US workers would have seen an increase in their living standards but in reality what we have seen is a massive increase in inequality coinciding with the decline of organized labor. So back to Marx's formulation: the decrease in workers struggling on the offensive for more of a share of what their labor produces has increased the amount of the surplus wealth that is controlled by the bosses - hence increased corporate profits and inequality over the last generation.

Really? The last generation doesn't have higher standards of living? I'd like to see by what measure you've concluded that from.

RGacky3

17th November 2010, 21:42

Jazzratt

17th November 2010, 22:04

Capitalists will always cut ALL costs when they can. A cartel of steel would, theoretically, reduce the ability of steel buyers to get lower cost steel, but ultimately this means a shift away from steel and towards other things. In the case of workers cartelizing, capitalists shift away from labor and more towards capital, which, in the short run, means fewer workers demanded (until the cartel breaks).

Higher benefits do not come free, so even if wages stay the same but benefits go up, the real cost of labor goes up so those with less productivity than the real wage lose their jobs. Simple as that. See, you've highlighted one of the problems with capitalism right there. You're learning.

shaderabbit85

17th November 2010, 22:51

why shouldn't people be allowed to sell their labor for whatever price they want? All "Right to work states" do, to my knowledge, is not allow FORCED union membership... you see this as a bad thing?

And you're just enforcing Friedman's argument. There are people unemployed because labor unions drove the price of labor above their DMVP, so they moved to where labor was cheaper. At the labor price in the northern, industrialized states, there are less companies willing to hire which means more unemployment.

Really? The last generation doesn't have higher standards of living? I'd like to see by what measure you've concluded that from.

If you don't want to work in a union shop, don't work there. There are plenty of non-union employers around (unfortunately). A union can also be de-certified the same way it got in, so if you're a bottom-feeding scumsucking shit you can work to convince your coworkers to kick the union out. I don't live in a "right to work" (shit by any other name would smell as bad) state, but from what I understand, if an employee refuses to join a union, they still benefit from the collective bargaining agreement with regard to wages and what not. Sounds like a free ride to me.

Jobs moved away to where labor is cheaper because bosses had their profit margins cut, not because union labor was too expensive to make any kind of a profit on a product. You are right in that in a country like the US with unrestricted imports from slave labor nations like China, Indonesia, and India, union made products do have a problem competing, but that's a problem with our one-way trade system, not unions.

It's a fact, cost of living has gone up, wages have not, proportionately. I can't remember if this is since the 70s, 80s, or 90s, but it's been going on for a while. Any capitalist economist will concede that fact. Standard of living: in the toilet.

LeftSideDown

18th November 2010, 02:48

Your missing profit, executive pay (thats a big bunch of it) and a bunch of other stuff.

We're not analyzing that. Your friend made the assertion that higher labor costs do not mean a higher cost per car. I just did some arithmetic to prove otherwise.

LeftSideDown

18th November 2010, 02:58

See, you've highlighted one of the problems with capitalism right there. You're learning.

I don't see what flaw I've pointed out. I've pointed out the substitution effect and part of the reason why cartels don't work... another reason is that its in the best interest of every member of the cartel to defect, but this is not the focus of the discussion.

LeftSideDown

18th November 2010, 03:11

Shifting away from labor and more towards capital? That makes absolutely no sense, Thats like saying they'll "shift away from peasents and more towards land."

It makes perfect sense, even your statement. If the price of hiring peasants, for whatever reason, goes up a lot, people are going to tend to use less labor. The only thing, other than increase in capital or technology, that could cause this is a much smaller supply of laborers. So instead of spending money hiring peasants (which, lets say, are now unemployable for simple farm labor) people will buy land and rent it out to these newly rich (or at least newly higher-wage) laborers. If you don't have enough workers, you move towards capital (if you can only get two laborers to work your large farm, then you need tractors and other capital in order to not only get yield from your crop, but also to be able to profit (make money in excess of costs)... if the wage is such that it is impossible to profit, people won't hire laborers)

If their jobs CAN be cut they will be anyway, simple as that. The only option left over is cutting into either profits or executive compensation, thats what we want.

All jobs could be cut. I don't see what you're saying. Every capitalist COULD fire every worker, but we don't see this happening. I assume you mean if the cost (wage) of the worker is higher than their productivity than they will not be kept around. It would hurt EVERYONE (except that worker) to keep a worker around who costs more than he produces. You might not see why this is, but lets say there is a metal that is key in both toasters and computers (and lets say it is the only input OTHER than labor). A computer company enters the market and begins buying up this metal at $600 dollars. This $600 dollar amount is enough to make one computer, but this company can only sell the computers it manufactures for $500 dollars. The company is making losses and will eventually, and thankfully, be put out of business, but the reason its making losses because that metal is more valuable when put to the other end (toasters)... the company was in effect wasting the resources of "society" by applying the key metal to a less urgent need than would've been met had the resources been applied to toasters. The same is true of labor.

RadioRaheem84

18th November 2010, 04:17

Revolution starts with U

18th November 2010, 05:23

It makes perfect sense, even your statement. If the price of hiring peasants, for whatever reason, goes up a lot, people are going to tend to use less labor.
That is not necessarily true, if by "tend(ing) to use" you mean demand will go down. Take the plagues for example. The price of labor went way up, and the demand for labor rose right along side it.

A computer company enters the market and begins buying up this metal at $600 dollars. This $600 dollar amount is enough to make one computer, but this company can only sell the computers it manufactures for $500 dollars. The company is making losses and will eventually, and thankfully, be put out of business, but the reason its making losses because that metal is more valuable when put to the other end (toasters)... the company was in effect wasting the resources of "society" by applying the key metal to a less urgent need than would've been met had the resources been applied to toasters. The same is true of labor.

Well, first, this says nothing about capitalist skimming off the top.
The problem here is not so much the theory behind it is the method used to garner what "value" is. Using purchasing power (at least purchasing power by itself) this value is created in a very autocratic way; those with more money have more say. This also creates a dilema wherein previous "creators of value" have a larger say in future value creation (which may not sound bad at first, previous value guy may possibly be knowledged in how to create value, but that is not necessarily true).

RGacky3

18th November 2010, 08:10

people are going to tend to use less labor. The only thing, other than increase in capital or technology, that could cause this is a much smaller supply of laborers. So instead of spending money hiring peasants (which, lets say, are now unemployable for simple farm labor) people will buy land and rent it out to these newly rich (or at least newly higher-wage) laborers. If you don't have enough workers, you move towards capital (if you can only get two laborers to work your large farm, then you need tractors and other capital in order to not only get yield from your crop, but also to be able to profit (make money in excess of costs)... if the wage is such that it is impossible to profit, people won't hire laborers)

Except that also according to you, the price of capital will go up too, if wages rise. Also Capitalists are gonna cut workers as uch as they can ANYWAY!!!!

All jobs could be cut. I don't see what you're saying. Every capitalist COULD fire every worker, but we don't see this happening. I assume you mean if the cost (wage) of the worker is higher than their productivity than they will not be kept around. It would hurt EVERYONE (except that worker) to keep a worker around who costs more than he produces. You might not see why this is, but lets say there is a metal that is key in both toasters and computers (and lets say it is the only input OTHER than labor). A computer company enters the market and begins buying up this metal at $600 dollars. This $600 dollar amount is enough to make one computer, but this company can only sell the computers it manufactures for $500 dollars. The company is making losses and will eventually, and thankfully, be put out of business, but the reason its making losses because that metal is more valuable when put to the other end (toasters)... the company was in effect wasting the resources of "society" by applying the key metal to a less urgent need than would've been met had the resources been applied to toasters. The same is true of labor.

If they could cut the jobs without loss of revenue, thats what I mean. If someone is producing "less" than what he's paid, they might still need him anyway, thats the way companies work.

You know who's paid WAY WAY WAY more than what they are worth? executives.

BTW, in your argument against unions your viciously attacking capitalism as inefficient and bad for society.

But just take note, free marketeers are NOT interested in freedom really, just power for the rich, unions are not government, yet they hurt capitalists, so they are against them.

Jazzratt

18th November 2010, 12:22

I don't see what flaw I've pointed out. I've pointed out the substitution effect and part of the reason why cartels don't work... another reason is that its in the best interest of every member of the cartel to defect, but this is not the focus of the discussion. You indicated that the ruling class seeks to fuck the workers at every turn:

Capitalists will always cut ALL costs when they can. Workers on a living wage are just another sodding expense to the empathy-shorn weasels in charge.

LeftSideDown

18th November 2010, 19:56

That is not necessarily true, if by "tend(ing) to use" you mean demand will go down. Take the plagues for example. The price of labor went way up, and the demand for labor rose right along side it.

I did mention, I believe, that in my example the reason the cost of peasants went up was a rapid decrease in supply (the supply schedule). If you did the supply-demand analysis, than you would see that the supply schedules shifts left/up so, given a constant demand, the Quantity demanded of laborers, at the new (higher) equilibrium price, is smaller.

Well, first, this says nothing about capitalist skimming off the top.
The problem here is not so much the theory behind it is the method used to garner what "value" is. Using purchasing power (at least purchasing power by itself) this value is created in a very autocratic way; those with more money have more say. This also creates a dilema wherein previous "creators of value" have a larger say in future value creation (which may not sound bad at first, previous value guy may possibly be knowledged in how to create value, but that is not necessarily true).

I don't think the capitalist is "skimming" off the top. We have different views of what capitalists/entrepreneurs do in an economy, and I'm not going to try and argue against your LTV, suffice it to say I think capitalists in an evenly rotating economy tend to make the "discount". Workers make discounted marginal value product, which is to say a worker in a factory does not have to wait for the car to be sold before he gets paid, he gets paid regardless of whether or not what he makes sells (at least until the company goes bankrupt).

LeftSideDown

18th November 2010, 20:12

Except that also according to you, the price of capital will go up too, if wages rise. Also Capitalists are gonna cut workers as uch as they can ANYWAY!!!!

I don't know where I said that, but a result, I suppose, would be a rise in the price of capital. However, before the increase (there would be a lag between the old price and the equilibrium) the price of capital would be relatively cheaper than it will be, which opens up people to A) buy the capital and sell it later for arbitrage gains B) buy the capital and begin using it. There would be a new market equilibrium where the price of capital has risen (assuming increasing demand schedule and constant supply) and the price of labor has risen (we're assuming a decrease in supply and a constant demand schedule). Capitalists are going to cut whatever costs allow them to compete to serve the consumer's interest. I would not want a farmer to hire 1000 workers to till his 1 acre plot, because the price of corn (or whatever) from that plot will be huge.

If they could cut the jobs without loss of revenue, thats what I mean. If someone is producing "less" than what he's paid, they might still need him anyway, thats the way companies work.

I think you're confused. Revenue has nothing to do with how many people they hire, it has to do with the returns from the product their selling. I believe you mean profit, which is revenue - costs.

Please give me an example of where a capitalist would need to hire someone who costs more resources than they create.

You know who's paid WAY WAY WAY more than what they are worth? executives.

Besides this being totally untestable, I recently saw a video by Stefan Molyneux talking about the increase in executive pay as a direct result of government regulation (If you're interested: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOHcfiMwlAQ)

BTW, in your argument against unions your viciously attacking capitalism as inefficient and bad for society.

Please explain how I'm doing this? I'm stating that if a cartel tries to increase the price of something beyond the old market equilibrium, then companies will tend to shift away from using that resource, at least as much as possible. For companies that are heavily reliant on that resource will mostly go out of business, and only the most efficient users of that resource will stay in business.

But just take note, free marketeers are NOT interested in freedom really, just power for the rich, unions are not government, yet they hurt capitalists, so they are against them.

I don't know how you define freedom, but what I'm interested in is people having the ability to make decisions that concern themselves. I don't believe in the 'freedom' of people to hurt others, to steal from others, or to force others to join a union.

LeftSideDown

18th November 2010, 20:13

You indicated that the ruling class seeks to fuck the workers at every turn:

Workers on a living wage are just another sodding expense to the empathy-shorn weasels in charge.

I think your problem is you put worker interest before consumer interest. I'm not interested in workers having wages of 1000 dollars an hour because honestly that would mean a whole lot less stuff for me and everybody else. And also a whole lot less employable workers.

Thirsty Crow

18th November 2010, 20:16

I think your problem is you put worker interest before consumer interest. I'm not interested in workers having wages of 1000 dollars an hour because honestly that would mean a whole lot less stuff for me and everybody else. And also a whole lot less employable workers.

An honest expression of actual, material interest, also probably class based.
That's refreshing. Even though it professes to one goal alone: hoarding up stuff.

RadioRaheem84

18th November 2010, 20:48

Don't you love it when libertarians show their true colors?

Dimentio

18th November 2010, 20:54

shaderabbit85

19th November 2010, 00:20

I think your problem is you put worker interest before consumer interest. I'm not interested in workers having wages of 1000 dollars an hour because honestly that would mean a whole lot less stuff for me and everybody else. And also a whole lot less employable workers.

What good are $15 shoes from china at walmart if you don't have a job to buy them? (not to mention the fact they don't last as long) Or if you've got a job but you're so squeezed from rent/mortgage, gas, utilities, insurance, etc that you can't afford them with the shit money your job pays?

RadioRaheem84

19th November 2010, 01:50

shaderabbit85

19th November 2010, 02:02

Speaking of which, Wal Mart sales have been in a slump since the recession.

Fucking Wal Mart is hurting. Wal Mart is getting too expensive for working people now!

Have you been to a Wal Mart lately? From what I've read, they're trying to cater to a slightly higher market in some areas.

I guess that proves my point...
I promised not to step in a slave-mart store (made my slaves, sold by slaves, to slaves) ever again around two years ago....
Walmart trying to cater to a higher market? Isn't that Target? :)

RadioRaheem84

19th November 2010, 03:09

Yup, they want that Target money now.

When people are too snooty to shop at Wal Mart, you'll always have Target.

Sosa

19th November 2010, 04:03

I guess that proves my point...
I promised not to step in a slave-mart store (made my slaves, sold by slaves, to slaves) ever again around two years ago....
Walmart trying to cater to a higher market? Isn't that Target? :)

Me too...haven't stepped into a wal-mart in about 3 years

Lt. Ferret

19th November 2010, 04:11

i tried doing that until i learned that all military towns are shitty and you either have walmart, the cheaper place where the mexicans shop (i shop here, Food4Less) or the more expensive place that the townies shop at (Vons)

LeftSideDown

19th November 2010, 04:32

An honest expression of actual, material interest, also probably class based.
That's refreshing. Even though it professes to one goal alone: hoarding up stuff.

You're right! Worker's don't want stuff, I must be bourgeois!

My goal isn't hoarding up stuff (I wouldn't get pleasure from hoarding cars). The ability to hoard up stuff (vs not being able to get it) is an outcome of my goal, which is individual freedom.

LeftSideDown

19th November 2010, 04:36

What good are $15 shoes from china at walmart if you don't have a job to buy them? (not to mention the fact they don't last as long) Or if you've got a job but you're so squeezed from rent/mortgage, gas, utilities, insurance, etc that you can't afford them with the shit money your job pays?

Well obviously one reply (one that I would endorse) is that if these things exist it kind of implies the existence of someone who can buy them at that price. If I'm not productive enough to afford the 'essentials' and these admittedly low priced shoes, I can steal them from someone who does. So thats one "good", if you want to call it that. But, regardless, just because I am not productive enough to afford a shoe, doesn't mean that the $15 shoes have no use. Obviously the were produced for someone to buy. So their "good" is in someone else getting them. By your argument, most things we get in the US aren't "good" because people in Africa cannot afford them.

shaderabbit85

19th November 2010, 04:38

Please explain the difference between "not being able to get it" (I assume this is a reference to soviet union bread lines) vs not being able to afford it. It makes no difference, unless you're one of those people who doesn't have to worry about how much things cost, which it sounds like you are.

My point in the previous post was, what does it matter if the price of shoes have dropped to $15 because they're made in china with slave labor, if you're job was sent over to china and you can barely pay the rent? You're not going to give a shit if shoes are $15 instead of $30, if you're picking daisies to pay $800 rent on a one bedroom apartment. Wages in the US have fallen right in the fucking toilet. Where I live, factory work pays $9.50 an hour, yet you're lucky if you can find an apartment for $800/month. I'd rather pay $40 twice a year for shoes and have a good job, rather than $15 shoes and a shit job that you can't even pay the rent on.

LeftSideDown

19th November 2010, 04:42

What good are $15 shoes from china at walmart if you don't have a job to buy them? (not to mention the fact they don't last as long) Or if you've got a job but you're so squeezed from rent/mortgage, gas, utilities, insurance, etc that you can't afford them with the shit money your job pays?

Also, look at the stuff you're complaining about "having" to pay for. You're crying because what about after paying rent for a nice ass apartment (relative to 90% of the rest of the world), gas/heat (most of the world doesn't have), utilities (OH MY GOD, you have to pay for electricity, internet, running water, and cable? You're complaining about being able to afford something most people cannot afford and which no one before 50 years ago could've afforded to buy), and insurance (if you're complaining about car insurance, it should be pretty clear why this complaining is just hogswash, if you're complaining about health insurance, again, how much of the world could afford this alone if they bought NOTHING else?).

If you can afford these things, your job doesn't pay shit, it pays gold and you're just too wrapped up in what you think is due you to realize that you're living better than 99.9999% of people who have ever lived.

LeftSideDown

19th November 2010, 04:43

shaderabbit85

19th November 2010, 04:50

Hmmmmmm, I can't tell if you're a capitalist or a third-worldist.

I get by without cable TV, internet, I plead the 5th on, we're not going to talk about....the miracles of modern technology...

Well, I guess since living in huts and eating coconuts was good enough for most people in the first half of human history, we should go back to that. Obviously all this modern living is hogwash.

Aren't productive enough? I forgot, the working class actually makes and does things. Those guys on wall street are real productive. They came running to daddy in washington when their make-believe fantasy kingdom of "money making money" came crashing down.

LeftSideDown

19th November 2010, 04:58

Hmmmmmm, I can't tell if you're a capitalist or a third-worldist.

An-Cap

Well, I guess since living in huts and eating coconuts was good enough for most people in the first half of human history, we should go back to that. Obviously all this modern living is hogwash.

Well this is what you'll get if your communist paradise comes about, so you've got something to look forward to! IF you got what you wanted then in just a few short generations no one would worry about utilities because they wouldn't exist... now you'll have all those wages to buy... food.

Aren't productive enough? I forgot, the working class actually makes and does things. Those guys on wall street are real productive. They came running to daddy in washington when their make-believe fantasy kingdom of "money making money" came crashing down.

If I make/harvest one coconut a day I cannot afford things that cost more than one coconut a day.

I don't endorse the bailouts, so if you think thats an attack on my view you are sadly mistaken. Much of the financial sector has been corrupted by the touch of Washington and the Federal Reserve, so no, a lot of them are not productive because they are relying on the resources of stolen funds.

shaderabbit85

19th November 2010, 05:06

An-cap? What is that, anarchist-capitalists?

The rich have expropriated the means of production through primitive accumulation, and thus the working class is stuck selling its labor. And guess who sets the price? Don't talk about productivity, that's a crock. I can count on one hand the number of "rich" people I've met who've actually worked hard for their money (the "horatio algers" and most of them have less than $500000), and I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the ones I've met who haven't.

shaderabbit85

19th November 2010, 05:08

An-Cap

If I make/harvest one coconut a day I cannot afford things that cost more than one coconut a day.

And the rich coconut farmer has already killed his neighboring coconut farmers, and has their trees, with coconuts, and a stockpile of harvested coconuts, and so, feeling oh so generous, he offers you a penny for your coconut. "Good boy, run along now. I'm going to sit on my ass on my pile of coconuts now. But I'll give you another penny for another coconut!"

LeftSideDown

19th November 2010, 05:16

And the rich coconut farmer has already killed his neighboring coconut farmers, and has their trees, with coconuts, and a stockpile of harvested coconuts, and so, feeling oh so generous, he offers you a penny for your coconut. "Good boy, run along now. I'm going to sit on my ass on my pile of coconuts now. But I'll give you another penny for another coconut!"

If the coconut farmer killed people, he should be punished severely or at least put in jail to prevent him from harming others.

shaderabbit85

19th November 2010, 05:33

LeftSideDown

19th November 2010, 06:35

haha, touche. Nice deflection there. Maybe he just put them in jail. Or exiled them on a raft of coconuts.
One either believes that working people have a right to some of the spoils of their labor or you don't. Some people have it ingrained in their value system that they do, and others don't. And when you peel back almost any economic issue, it's going to come back to that, as it has here, in a thread that started out about unions.

I think that working people have a right to some of the spoils of their labor... if thats what they voluntarily agreed to. I do not think working means you should get paid, because if I (or anyone) thought this, then "charity" and "volunteering" would be evil. Clearly, this is pretty ridiculous.

Revolution starts with U

19th November 2010, 07:01

In charity you get paid spiritually.

LeftSideDown

19th November 2010, 07:42

In charity you get paid spiritually.

But they're not being paid what they produce! Clearly their being exploited. People who work making soup in the soup kitchen and then don't get that soup are being stolen from!

Revolution starts with U

19th November 2010, 07:44

The difference is they are not forced to feed the homeless to feed themselves.

LeftSideDown

19th November 2010, 07:53

The difference is they are not forced to feed the homeless to feed themselves.

No one under the system I propose would be forced to do any labor to feed themselves. If they don't think the costs (having to give up so many hours of the day) are worth the benefits (eating food) that is entirely their choice. If someone offers them money for a certain amount of their time and the laborer accepts this, there is no exploitation; only in the event that the laborer wouldn't have done this offer were he not being coerced is this not true.

Revolution starts with U

19th November 2010, 08:18

No one under the system I propose would be forced to do any labor to feed themselves. If they don't think the costs (having to give up so many hours of the day) are worth the benefits (eating food) that is entirely their choice. If someone offers them money for a certain amount of their time and the laborer accepts this, there is no exploitation; only in the event that the laborer wouldn't have done this offer were he not being coerced is this not true.

That would be nice if could it play out effectively in practice, rather than theory.
In reality all the land, at least anything meaningful, is already owned. You want a place to live (with your family and kids)? You want food to eat? Pay interest (on top of any other necessary costs) on it. Hope your boss or your government supports you enough to profit yourself so you can "buy" your own.
The problem comes when you leave Crusoe's Island and enter the real world where Coca Cola kills union organizers, and columbian coffee farmers are making substandard wages where the (only) truck in and out stops for 4 hrs after work each night at the bar (conveniently owned by the large farm owner).
This is when keepin it real goes wrong.

Thirsty Crow

19th November 2010, 08:31

You're right! Worker's don't want stuff, I must be bourgeois!

My goal isn't hoarding up stuff (I wouldn't get pleasure from hoarding cars). The ability to hoard up stuff (vs not being able to get it) is an outcome of my goal, which is individual freedom.

Oh, I guess you couldn't resist the temptation. Well, it's even a lousy mystification, you can do better than that, can you?

LeftSideDown

19th November 2010, 08:45

That would be nice if could it play out effectively in practice, rather than theory.
In reality all the land, at least anything meaningful, is already owned. You want a place to live (with your family and kids)? You want food to eat? Pay interest (on top of any other necessary costs) on it. Hope your boss or your government supports you enough to profit yourself so you can "buy" your own.
The problem comes when you leave Crusoe's Island and enter the real world where Coca Cola kills union organizers, and columbian coffee farmers are making substandard wages where the (only) truck in and out stops for 4 hrs after work each night at the bar (conveniently owned by the large farm owner).
This is when keepin it real goes wrong.

Yes, if I want stuff I have to produce enough to be able to afford it. What is your point? That ideally the world would just be full of abundance everywhere? Yeah, I would agree, but while thats nice in theory, the world doesn't work that way in practice, so things have to be economized.

The problem comes where you leave this Garden of Eden and enter the real world where union workers kill scabs and destroy other people's property and government's go around committing genocide and starting wars.

This is when keepin it real goes wrong.

LeftSideDown

19th November 2010, 08:45

Oh, I guess you couldn't resist the temptation. Well, it's even a lousy mystification, you can do better than that, can you?

Couldn't resist what temptation? What lousy mystification? What exactly am I doing poorly at?

Thirsty Crow

19th November 2010, 08:52

Couldn't resist what temptation? What lousy mystification? What exactly am I doing poorly at?
You are mystifying the actual reltionship between individual freedoms withz respect to economic competition.
Also, in your previous post, you are mystifying the historical, contingent character of the current mode of production and presenting it as something eternal and/or natural.*

* "Yeah, I would agree, but while thats nice in theory, the world doesn't work that way in practice, so things have to be economized."

LeftSideDown

19th November 2010, 08:56

You are mystifying the actual reltionship between individual freedoms withz respect to economic competition.
Also, in your previous post, you are mystifying the historical, contingent character of the current mode of production and presenting it as something eternal and/or natural.*

* "Yeah, I would agree, but while thats nice in theory, the world doesn't work that way in practice, so things have to be economized."

Are you saying that communism or socialism will get rid of scarcity? Because it won't. I don't think An-Cap will get rid of it either, but not because some capitalist wants to make profit, but because it is literally impossible. Even if every resource in the world were made to infinity, I would still have to economize time. There would still be scarcity. No 'mode of production' can contradict the laws of thermodynamics, so, ultimately, there is only so much energy/mass in the universe so it is ultimately scarce as well (on top of time being scarce).

Thirsty Crow

19th November 2010, 09:07

Are you saying that communism or socialism will get rid of scarcity? Because it won't. I don't think An-Cap will get rid of it either, but not because some capitalist wants to make profit, but because it is literally impossible. Even if every resource in the world were made to infinity, I would still have to economize time. There would still be scarcity. No 'mode of production' can contradict the laws of thermodynamics, so, ultimately, there is only so much energy/mass in the universe so it is ultimately scarce as well (on top of time being scarce).

:laugh::laugh:
Mysification? Oh yeah. When you try to use laws of thermodynamics :laugh:to contradict a socio-economical theory you know you've hit rock bottom! :laugh:

RGacky3

19th November 2010, 11:08

What I find interesting asbout this thread is that left-side down, is trying is damndest to assert that if workers had a say over conditions, conpensations and benefits, it would all go to hell.

Also he's going under the assumption that executive compensation and profits are untouchable.

What its like saying is that democracy sucks because what about people that don't vote? So lets just have a dictatorship instead.

LeftSideDown

19th November 2010, 13:01

What I find interesting asbout this thread is that left-side down, is trying is damndest to assert that if workers had a say over conditions, conpensations and benefits, it would all go to hell.

Where did I ever say this? I'm skeptical that it would be more efficient (If it were more efficient, why haven't we seen it on the free-market?), but when did I say it would go to hell? I'm merely pointing out what the effects of a cartel are on an input of production.

Also he's going under the assumption that executive compensation and profits are untouchable.

I'm not under that assumption. Do you know whats rather funny? Executive compensation is negative about half the time (50% of new businesses fail, or at least I've heard that number thrown about).

What its like saying is that democracy sucks because what about people that don't vote? So lets just have a dictatorship instead.

What I'm saying is that I think its better if I can choose Coke and you can choose Pepsi, rather than having you and your friends get together and impose your will on me, get a 60% vote and make me drink Pepsi (or at least not give me the option of Coke).

LeftSideDown

19th November 2010, 13:03

:laugh::laugh:
Mysification? Oh yeah. When you try to use laws of thermodynamics :laugh:to contradict a socio-economical theory you know you've hit rock bottom! :laugh:

I'm saying that, if its your assertion that Communism will create infinite abundance, this can easily be seen as nothing but malarky because there is a constant amount of matter in the universe. Ultimately, everything is scarce. Even if this were not the case, you still have to economize time.

RGacky3

19th November 2010, 13:23

I'm skeptical that it would be more efficient (If it were more efficient, why haven't we seen it on the free-market?), but when did I say it would go to hell? I'm merely pointing out what the effects of a cartel are on an input of production.

Efficient? What does that mean? Efficient for whome? Efficiency is'nt important in the market place unless it increases profitability for those who control it.

Your pointing out effects that just don't happen, because there are major differences between capital and labor.

I'm not under that assumption. Do you know whats rather funny? Executive compensation is negative about half the time (50% of new businesses fail, or at least I've heard that number thrown about).

Every evaluation you mentioned has taken that stuff out, for example the ONLY solutoin when cost goes up is to fire people (as if that would'nt happen any way). The fact is executives will take as much as they can, when costs go up, they'll have to take less.

As far as your second fact, yeah sure, but lets be serious, we're talking about the big picture here.

What I'm saying is that I think its better if I can choose Coke and you can choose Pepsi, rather than having you and your friends get together and impose your will on me, get a 60% vote and make me drink Pepsi (or at least not give me the option of Coke).

or maybe, whats more likely to happen. is that me and my friends will realize that many different people like different things so we take that into account.

No one cares what you drink.

RadioRaheem84

19th November 2010, 14:20

Where did I ever say this? I'm skeptical that it would be more efficient (If it were more efficient, why haven't we seen it on the free-market?), but when did I say it would go to hell? I'm merely pointing out what the effects of a cartel are on an input of production.

There you have it folks. Democracy would be less efficient. Workers, which make up the vast majority of people, would run things into the ground vs. the enlightened masters of industry and finance.

And how is not obvious to you why workers in control of production has not materialized in the free market? We do not control it because we live in a capitalist society.

Does there have to be this much of an obvious presupposed bias in your writing, Leftupsidedown, that if it doesn't materialize in the free market then it's not a viable alternative?

A few posts back you were trying to chide a comrade about how if he can simply afford the basic necessities than that was good enough and he was living better than 99.9% of the people in past epochs.

How did you even begin to think this was a relevant point? The point was that why do workers have to try and maintain with less while the rich gain more? It's about not succumbing to the worst possible outcome each time living standards drop a notch and perking up because at least it's better than living in mud huts.

The playing field has been completely skewered to favor the rich, and you're telling us that it's OK because we can still afford some level of subsistence in this society? That is good enough for you to call this system the fairest of all systems?

LeftSideDown

19th November 2010, 16:16

Efficient? What does that mean? Efficient for whome? Efficiency is'nt important in the market place unless it increases profitability for those who control it.

Efficient in terms of meeting consumer demand. Requiring less inputs for desired ouputs.

Your pointing out effects that just don't happen, because there are major differences between capital and labor.

Please explain. And I'm not just talking about capital vs labor. In fact, I don't believe I've brought up capital. I'm merely saying that if the cost of an input, ANY input, goes up relative to other inputs marginal users of that resource will shift away from that resource.

Every evaluation you mentioned has taken that stuff out, for example the ONLY solutoin when cost goes up is to fire people (as if that would'nt happen any way). The fact is executives will take as much as they can, when costs go up, they'll have to take less.

Lets say you spend $1000 dollars a month on gasoline. If the price of gasoline goes up you HAVE to buy less, because the $1000 dollars buys less gasoline. Even if you have other money, if you don't want to change how you allocate your resources, you will spend the same percentage/amount ($1000) on gasoline, you will just use less.

As far as your second fact, yeah sure, but lets be serious, we're talking about the big picture here.

This is serious. Its a serious difference between capitalists and workers. Only a few people are willing to undergo a project that takes years and could end with them losing money. How many workers would go to their job tomorrow if there was a 50% chance they would have to pay the company per hour, instead of be paid?

or maybe, whats more likely to happen. is that me and my friends will realize that many different people like different things so we take that into account.

No one cares what you drink.

But thats not what happens in a democracy. The majority get what they want, and the minority do not. If they agreed on what they would be getting, they would vote unanimously.

LeftSideDown

19th November 2010, 16:32

There you have it folks. Democracy would be less efficient. Workers, which make up the vast majority of people, would run things into the ground vs. the enlightened masters of industry and finance.

Basically. If workers are better at owning/running their own businesses, why can't they do it in a free market? You're sacrificing what consumer's want (the largest group of all) for a smaller group. If you want to form a commune, get together, run a factory democratically nothing would stop you in a free market. As it is, you'd have to jump through all the government regulations, but thats not fault of the free market.

And how is not obvious to you why workers in control of production has not materialized in the free market? We do not control it because we live in a capitalist society.

If this method of control allowed greater profits (more consumer demand to be met), it would've emerged. That is hasn't indicates that it does not meet consumer demand, at least not as well.

Does there have to be this much of an obvious presupposed bias in your writing, Leftupsidedown, that if it doesn't materialize in the free market then it's not a viable alternative?

Its not a viable alternative in the absence of coercion clearly, or at least it has been up to this point.

A few posts back you were trying to chide a comrade about how if he can simply afford the basic necessities than that was good enough and he was living better than 99.9% of the people in past epochs.

How did you even begin to think this was a relevant point? The point was that why do workers have to try and maintain with less while the rich gain more? It's about not succumbing to the worst possible outcome each time living standards drop a notch and perking up because at least it's better than living in mud huts.

Its better than living than kings of the past. My point was to say hes complaining about not being able to afford things on top of all this other stuff he can afford what most people would've eaten tarantula's mixed with earthworms and dog feces for. I could just as easily write capital theory of value and write how workers exploit capitalists (I could do it very easily), but it would be intellectually dishonest.

The playing field has been completely skewered to favor the rich, and you're telling us that it's OK because we can still afford some level of subsistence in this society? That is good enough for you to call this system the fairest of all systems?

I'm saying its okay because you agree to work for the wages you work for. Even if you couldn't afford all those amenities it would be okay, because you're doing it voluntarily. I'm saying on top of being okay, its actually pretty damn good.

RGacky3

19th November 2010, 16:39

Efficient in terms of meeting consumer demand. Requiring less inputs for desired ouputs.

In that case slave labor is the most efficient.

I'm merely saying that if the cost of an input, ANY input, goes up relative to other inputs marginal users of that resource will shift away from that resource.

In the cost of tractors go up in farming, tractors are still going to be used, because they HAVE to be used.

Labor is not something you eliminate.

BTW, your making WONDERFUL arguments against capitalism.

Lets say you spend $1000 dollars a month on gasoline. If the price of gasoline goes up you HAVE to buy less, because the $1000 dollars buys less gasoline. Even if you have other money, if you don't want to change how you allocate your resources, you will spend the same percentage/amount ($1000) on gasoline, you will just use less.

What will happen is you'll HAVE To use more money, thats a terrible argument.

Its a serious difference between capitalists and workers. Only a few people are willing to undergo a project that takes years and could end with them losing money. How many workers would go to their job tomorrow if there was a 50% chance they would have to pay the company per hour, instead of be paid?

THe vast majority of the economy is controlled by a few large corporations. So its not serious.

But thats not what happens in a democracy. The majority get what they want, and the minority do not. If they agreed on what they would be getting, they would vote unanimously.

Thats a way way overly simplistic view, but you know what happens in Capitalism? The rich get what they want, and everyone else gets whatever they can.

LeftSideDown

19th November 2010, 16:51

In that case slave labor is the most efficient.

Clearly not. In fact I could bring up any one of numerous economic reasons why it is not most efficient, but I will just say coercion is wrong and slavery would not be enforceable in a free market.

In the cost of tractors go up in farming, tractors are still going to be used, because they HAVE to be used.

Some people are going to need to use them. But the marginal tractor buyers will not buy them. If the cost of tractors went up to a trillion dollars, I very much doubt they would HAVE to be used.

Labor is not something you eliminate.

I agree, but it is something you can cut back on if it achieves a wage higher than the market wage.

What will happen is you'll HAVE To use more money, thats a terrible argument.

If you don't have more money you can't. Let me use a different, more clear example (since clearly this one passed you by). If you have a fixed income of $10,000 and the price level raises from 100 to 150 you MUST buy less goods. You literally cannot buy more.

THe vast majority of the economy is controlled by a few large corporations. So its not serious.

Well this isn't the result of a free market, so if you're critiquing government interference I agree with you 100%, it creates inefficiencies inherently.

Thats a way way overly simplistic view, but you know what happens in Capitalism? The rich get what they want, and everyone else gets whatever they can.

In our current system of government transfer payments it is not always true that the rich get what they produce. In a free market, this would be the case. We're getting into tricky semantic ground, suffice it to say wants are unlimited, so I don't so much care about people getting what they want (since its possible), but people getting what they exchange for. Ultimately, this leads to more people getting more of they what the want.

Jimmie Higgins

19th November 2010, 17:05

Cost of just toy car parts (per car): $2 dollars
Cost of labor per car: $1 dollar

Cost per car: $3 dollars

HIGHER WAGE!

Cost of just toy car parts (per car): $2 dollars
Cost of labor per car: $2 dollars

Cost per car: $4 dollars.So capitalism doesn't make any profits ever? Where do profits come from in your equation? Are profits just a little extra price inflation added by the boss randomly: parts $2 + labor $1 + profits $X = price?

As I see it, higher wages cut into profits but do not change the value of the commodity and have no correlation to its price. Of course the bosses want as much profits as they can get - if they could we'd all be living like workers in China or India or Mexico. Of course, most people do not want to live in these kinds of conditions and so they resist it - this is why unions are important vehicles for workers defending past gains and potentially for workers to voice their interests and fight for them.

I do not see how you can be against a "right to work"... why shouldn't people be allowed to sell their labor for whatever price they want?Well workers can not sell their labor at the price they want if they have no collective bargaining or some kind of union.

Right to work laws and states have absolutely nothing to do with the right of workers to work - if you were for that, why not support a full employment program. Considering that in most places there is about 10% official unemployment (including in right to work states), obviously "right to work" has little about the right to have a stable job or income or anything else that actually helps working people. The only thing it helps is bosses to do what they want without the ability of workers to have much of a collective say about their job conditions.

And you're just enforcing Friedman's argument. There are people unemployed because labor unions drove the price of labor above their DMVP, so they moved to where labor was cheaper. At the labor price in the northern, industrialized states, there are less companies willing to hire which means more unemployment. It's a race to the bottom in wages, organizing is the only way workers have any say in the process, without unions of some kind, the bosses get to dictate the conditions of our lives both at work and the quality of life we have beyond the 30-50 hours we work each week.

But the move of industries away from unionized labor has nothing to do with "costs being too high" and everything to do with increasing profits. GM was unionized for generations and was highly profitable - the right blaming recent economic problems on "union entitlements" is just bullshit. The companies that moved production to southern states were not doing it because they had no other choice, they did it because they could and it was more profitable and they could use the threat of moving to non-union southern states as a club to beat northern unionized workers into giving concessions - which they have.

Really? The last generation doesn't have higher standards of living? I'd like to see by what measure you've concluded that from.Really? Stick your head out the fucking window every now and then!

1) Personal debt is the highest since the depression and has been so for a while.

2) While household incomes have remained relatively stagnant, this is only because people have borrowed more money, the number of 2 income households has increased and hours of work has risen.

Between 1979 and 2006, 91 per cent of income growth in the U.S. went to the top 10 per cent of earners. The other 90 per cent had to make do with nine per cent of income growth.

3) Inequality. Form wikipedia: "The United States has one of the widest rich-poor gaps of any high-income nation today, and that gap continues to grow.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_living_in_the_United_States#cite_note-Rich-Poor_Gap_Widening-15) In recent times, some prominent economists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economists) including Alan Greenspan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Greenspan) have warned that the widening rich-poor gap in the U.S. population is a problem that could undermine and destabilize the country's economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy) and standard of living (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_living) stating that "The income gap between the rich and the rest of the US population has become so wide, and is growing so fast, that it might eventually threaten the stability of democratic capitalism itself"

For the last generation - since the mid-70s - there has been a war on unions and a war on our standards of living in terms of wages, rate of work, hours of work, conditions of work, and I don't think any serious working class people in generation X or Y or beyond really expect to do better than their parents generation.

If you don't believe in any of that, then I guess you must live in Rand Paul's imaginary land where there is no rich, poor, or middle class.

RGacky3

19th November 2010, 17:23

but I will just say coercion is wrong and slavery would not be enforceable in a free market.

Of caorse it would, by the same way property is enforced.

But the marginal tractor buyers will not buy them. If the cost of tractors went up to a trillion dollars, I very much doubt they would HAVE to be used.

Tractors will never go up to a trillion dollars so thast a stupid argument.

Who's a marginal tractor driver? Who's a marginal employer?

I agree, but it is something you can cut back on if it achieves a wage higher than the market wage.

Union wages ARE market wages, unions are market players, but if you could cut back on it you'd cut back anyway because its cheaper.

If you don't have more money you can't. Let me use a different, more clear example (since clearly this one passed you by). If you have a fixed income of $10,000 and the price level raises from 100 to 150 you MUST buy less goods. You literally cannot buy more.

Except thats not the cast with the economy, because profit is made and executive pay is made, and those are a HUGE part of the money distribution.

Well this isn't the result of a free market, so if you're critiquing government interference I agree with you 100%, it creates inefficiencies inherently.

Yes it is the result of the free market, the "freer" the market has gotten the more centralized the wealth.

In our current system of government transfer payments it is not always true that the rich get what they produce. In a free market, this would be the case. We're getting into tricky semantic ground, suffice it to say wants are unlimited, so I don't so much care about people getting what they want (since its possible), but people getting what they exchange for. Ultimately, this leads to more people getting more of they what the want.

Most of the rich don't produce anything, not a damn thing. BUt I love that your saying the rich arn't getting their fair share :).

But lets face it, you want to get rid of unions because the ONLY thing you want to be in control is the money market, i.e. the rich people, you want a plutocracy.

Your not interested in freedom, or liberty, your interest is that money is the determaning factory in society.

Revolution starts with U

19th November 2010, 18:00

Yes, if I want stuff I have to produce enough to be able to afford it. What is your point? That ideally the world would just be full of abundance everywhere?
Don't lie to yourself. That wasn't my point and you know it. So all this below, is nonsense. Nice try tho. It could have been funny, if you would have thought it out first. (BTW, my point is about the waste of private "ownership" of resources already available.)

Yeah, I would agree, but while thats nice in theory, the world doesn't work that way in practice, so things have to be economized.

Yes, yes they do. And private ownership of currently existing resources is tyranny. They should be managed democratically. That may scare you, but democratization of politics scared feudal landowners as well. And look how well capitalist democracy worked out for them :thumbup:

The problem comes where you leave this Garden of Eden and enter the real world where union workers kill scabs and destroy other people's property and government's go around committing genocide and starting wars.

Governments start wars for the benefit of labor?!?!?!!! Are you fucking kidding me? How far will you go to delude yourself?
For every example you can show me of union members killing scabs (I'm not saying it hasn't happened, you're fuckin w people's lives. it's not good but...) I can show you 100 examples of ownership killing union, or calling in state thugs to do it for them
But I don't try to delude myself to think that a lot people won't violently protect their interests.

Revolution starts with U

19th November 2010, 18:08

RadioRaheem84

19th November 2010, 18:15

......because you're doing it voluntarily

That's what all of your points basically boil down to, that you lack the perspective to see that capitalist society is coercive.

You do see capitalism as merely an economic model not an entire social order.

Revolution starts with U

19th November 2010, 18:22

Basically. If workers are better at owning/running their own businesses, why can't they do it in a free market?
Don't fool yourself, you know why. They don't own anything. What are you saying, progress only happens because rich people want to maintain their privelaged status above the unruly populace? :rolleyes:

You're sacrificing what consumer's want (the largest group of all) for a smaller group.
No, we're not. Labor is the only consumers. Anybody who consumes is definitely a laborer, by definition, because consumption is a form of doing; i.e. labor.

If you want to form a commune, get together, run a factory democratically nothing would stop you in a free market.
:laugh::laugh::laugh:
Once again, what free market, where? In reality previous value production would use its power (it gains because it has wealth) to keep me out of the market, to protect its profits.

As it is, you'd have to jump through all the government regulations, but thats not fault of the free market.

Yes! Yes it is!

... nonsense... nonsense.. nonsense...

I'll let my comrades respond to that :laugh:

[QUOTE]
I could just as easily write capital theory of value and write how workers exploit capitalists (I could do it very easily), but it would be intellectually dishonest.

Do it. Let me see it. It would be intellectually dishonest, and bye that you mean to say that we are being as such to.
But the difference is, your explanantion would be absolutely ridiculous to suggest power can be exploited by non-power.

I'm saying its okay because you agree to work for the wages you work for. Even if you couldn't afford all those amenities it would be okay, because you're doing it voluntarily. I'm saying on top of being okay, its actually pretty damn good.

You're so crazy I can't believe it :laugh:
WHen workers are given access to the companies profit sheets before contract negotiations (collective bargaining mind you), I'll agree that workers "agree" to work for what the capitalist will pay them.

RadioRaheem84

19th November 2010, 18:32

....run a factory democratically nothing would stop you in a free market

There are co-ops out there, successful ones, but most end up succumbing to some of the basic principles of the marketplace due to the overwhelming competition. I am sorry but a small co-op cannot compete with a juggernaut corporation that uses cheap labor abroad and has vast political sway to win new markets. You attribute the lead these exploitive corporations have as a notch to the inherent genius of the market structure, but in reality it's nothing more than a result of society being run in favor of private enterprise.

This is why as socialists, our aim is not merely economic change, but total social transformation.

If this method of control allowed greater profits (more consumer demand to be met), it would've emerged. That is hasn't indicates that it does not meet consumer demand, at least not as well.

"Consumers" (funny that's how you look at people) have been demanding economic and social change for years. Every time they've demanded it they've been pushed back by reactionaries of reformers. Why would you even think that a socialist organization was just going to organically form out of a seriously flawed hierarchic economic/social structure, without revolutionary social change?

Its better than living than kings of the past. My point was to say hes complaining about not being able to afford things on top of all this other stuff he can afford what most people would've eaten tarantula's mixed with earthworms and dog feces for. I could just as easily write capital theory of value and write how workers exploit capitalists (I could do it very easily), but it would be intellectually dishonest.

I don't think anyone talked about the vast technological and social innovations about Capitalism than Marx. Yet, I believe the entire point was that it would always be concentrated into the hands of the few. Any major changes in this structure have come from class struggle, where the people fought for a more equitable distribution of the surplus value and had a say as to where their taxes would go. It was a reaction to free enterprise.

You remind me of Milton Friedman when he used Pinochet's Chile as a successful model of free markets, while he denounced the dictatorship, he said that Chile ended up democratic in the end thanks to the free market.

So in essence he is saying that the free market should be credited for all of the workers demands for better living conditions? Because without all the inequities in the system, there would nothing to fight for and gain?

Capitalists, like you, are so fucking delusional as to think that it's OK for the people to be exploited and miserable because soon they'll fight for their rights, gain some concessions, and the standard of living will improve a bit. That is a credit to the free market?!

If they're still complaining and want more, well then they're just plain selfish because a while back they were living off of nothing and before then they were living in huts. So capitalism improved their lives by making them miserable first!

inyourhouse

19th November 2010, 19:48

According to Milton Friedman, unionized labor causes a decrease in the wages of non-unionized labor, and that unionization produces higher wages at the expense of fewer jobs. He has argued that, rather than cutting into corporate profits, unionized labor cuts into the wages of other workers.

Opinions? Critiques?

I think it's worth pointing out that there is a broad consensus among economists on the existence and magnitude of the union wage premium (the extent to which the wages of unionized workers are greater than those of similar non-unionized workers). The most recent survey I know of is Fuchs, Krueger & Poterba (1998) (http://www.jstor.org/pss/2564804). The mean result was 13.1%, the median result was 15%, and the standard deviation was 4.1%, so there is relatively little disagreement among economists themselves. As for the econometric evidence, the most recent meta-analysis I know of is Jarrell & Stanley (1990) (http://www.jstor.org/pss/2523429), which aggregated the results of 114 different studies and found a mean of 10.3%. Of course, this varied over time with the degree of unionization and with macroeconomic conditions. The fact that there haven't been more recent surveys and meta-analyses is, I think, indicative of the fact that the existence of the union wage premium is relatively uncontroversial. What's more interesting is the nature of the wage premium. In particular, does it come at the cost of higher unemployment and lower wages for non-union workers? Friedman's view is that it does, and I would say that's probably the view of the majority of the profession (although I'm not aware of any surveys).

The argument can be illustrated with a standard textbook labour market model. Consider two labour markets, one for union workers and one for non-union workers, both of which are in equilibrium such that the wage equals the marginal revenue product of labour (MRPL). A collective bargaining agreement to increase the wages of union workers is essentially a price floor, which should result in an excess supply of union workers (ie. a higher unemployment rate among union workers). That's because certain workers will be adding less to revenue than this new wage, so a profit maximizing firm fire them and not hire such workers. However, because firing union workers or discriminating against them in hiring is costly (due to regulations and the cost of industrial action), the excess supply will be small or non-existent. Instead, to compensate for the higher wages firms will have to pay non-union workers a wage below their MRPL and hire less of them (whether the effect on unemployment or wages is greater depends on whether the elasticity of supply is relatively elastic or relatively inelastic, respectively). It's possible to maintain this in equilibrium because union workers have market power while non-union workers do not.

There are two counter-arguments to this. First, I assumed that workers wages were equal to their MRPL. However, it may be the case that firms have more market power than workers, in which case the equilibrium wage would be below the MRPL. In that case, as long as unions only pushed up the wages of union workers to their MRPLs, there would be no negative effect on the employment or wages non-union workers. The burden would be borne entirely by the profits of the firm. However, to the extent that the MRPL is lower than the new wage for union workers, non-union workers will be effected. The second counter-argument is that I also took the MRPL as given, but efficiency wage theory suggests that a higher wage may induce higher productivity. In that case, if the increase in MRPL was equal to or greater than the increase in the wages of union workers, there would be no negative effect on the employment or wages of non-union workers. Again, to the extent that the increase in the wages of union workers is greater than the increase in the MRPL, non-union workers will be effected.

What does the empirical evidence suggest? I'm not aware of any meta-analyses (probably simply due to my own lack of knowledge), but my own take on the literature is that the effects Friedman describes are dominant because while there is evidence of statistically significant negative effects on profits and positive effects on productivity (e.g. Addison & Hirsch (1989) (http://www.jstor.org/pss/2534990)), there is also evidence of statistically significant negative effects on employment (e.g. Blanchflower (1997) (http://www.nber.org/papers/w6100.pdf)) and wages of non-union workers (e.g. Neumark (1992) (http://www.nber.org/papers/w4046.pdf)).

It's total crap, at least the first part. Non-unionized companies, in sectors of industry where there is a union representing a section of the workforce, raise wages in an attempt to keep the unions out.

This is usually called the "threat model", but it doesn't appear to hold up empirically. The Neumark (1992) paper I mentioned above is a direct test of the theory and shows that "[i]n contrast to the prediction of the threat model, decreases in the percent organized (reflecting a declining union threat) are associated with increases in the nonunion wage. Furthermore, increases in union wages appear to decrease, rather than to increase, nonunion wages.".

You are aware that Milton Friedman was a very conservative capitalist puppet economist, right? I'm assuming you are, and that's why you posted it in OI, but I just wanted to make sure you didn't just see "Famous Economist Milton Friedman said....." instead of "Famous Conservative Economist Milton Friedman said....."

I don't think it's helpful to approach an argument by looking at the political views of the person proposing it.

If his argument made empirical sense, it would mean that the regions of the world with the lowest wages would have full employment while welfare-states like Norway would have high unemployment. In reality, Norway's unemployment rate stands at 3.3%.

This kind of anecdotal reasoning is not very scientific. I think it is fair to say that there are numerous influences on the unemployment rate in addition to the possible effects of unionization and these factors need to be controlled for before any conclusion can be reached.

Dimentio

19th November 2010, 19:59

I'm saying that, if its your assertion that Communism will create infinite abundance, this can easily be seen as nothing but malarky because there is a constant amount of matter in the universe. Ultimately, everything is scarce. Even if this were not the case, you still have to economize time.

Infinite abundance is an impossibility. But relative abundance is indeed a possibility. In a situation where we have a garden of wild apples enough for 1000 people during a year, and we only have 200 people living near the garden, we would have a relative abundance.

The usual solution for this problem is to create property rights, to deny the majority of those people access to the resource in order to make them workers and consumers on a market. That is accomplished by making the garden the private property of one or a few individuals.

In the world today, enough food is produced to allow 12 billion people to have access to a western European calory consumption. But most of the food production is under the control of privately owned corporations, which are making it a prerequisite that food has to be buyed, and that those who don't afford to buy the food somehow don't have the right to eat.

Instead, food is made into fuels or simply destroyed, so the prices won't sink too low and destroy the profitability of the businesses.

I believe that the survival interests of people are trumping private property. You obviously do not agree. Try to explain your position to the 1 billion people in the world who are starving though...

LeftSideDown

19th November 2010, 23:42

So capitalism doesn't make any profits ever? Where do profits come from in your equation? Are profits just a little extra price inflation added by the boss randomly: parts $2 + labor $1 + profits $X = price?

It is the difference between revenues and costs, and it exists when entrepreneurs take undervalued resources and put them to more valued uses.

As I see it, higher wages cut into profits but do not change the value of the commodity and have no correlation to its price. Of course the bosses want as much profits as they can get - if they could we'd all be living like workers in China or India or Mexico. Of course, most people do not want to live in these kinds of conditions and so they resist it - this is why unions are important vehicles for workers defending past gains and potentially for workers to voice their interests and fight for them.

If there are profits in something new that relies solely on steel, it isn't because steel is being exploited, it is because it is being put to a more valuable use (at the old price) than it costs. Eventually this difference in costs and revenue will drive more capitalists into a sector and this will drive the cost of steel up towards a new market equilibrium. PEOPLE WANT AS MUCH PROFIT AS THEY CAN GET, not just monetary though, psychic. Workers want profit. They get it when they agree to work because benefits outweigh costs. Workers are profiting. Profit =\= exploitation.

Well workers can not sell their labor at the price they want if they have no collective bargaining or some kind of union.

No one can sell anything at any price they want. I need to be more clear, you're correct. Workers can sell their labor at whatever price they agree to. Just like a bread maker cannot sell bread for more than a customer is willing to pay for it. This is not unjust, this is the market. I don't think you would like to live in a world where a bread man comes up to you and can sell his bread to you for any price and you have to exchange. No doubt you'll say this is the world we live in, but its not. IF you don't want the bread at that price, you don't have to buy it. IN your system, if someone didn't want to buy labor at the price being offered, well too bad, your rights don't matter.

Right to work laws and states have absolutely nothing to do with the right of workers to work - if you were for that, why not support a full employment program. Considering that in most places there is about 10% official unemployment (including in right to work states), obviously "right to work" has little about the right to have a stable job or income or anything else that actually helps working people. The only thing it helps is bosses to do what they want without the ability of workers to have much of a collective say about their job conditions.

Its the name of the program. All it says is people can't be forced to join unions. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS?

It's a race to the bottom in wages, organizing is the only way workers have any say in the process, without unions of some kind, the bosses get to dictate the conditions of our lives both at work and the quality of life we have beyond the 30-50 hours we work each week.

It's a race to the bottom in prices, organizing is the only way for capitalists to have any say in the process, without cartels of some kind, the consumers get to dictate the products we make at work! Oh how easily this dumb reasoning can be applied to anything. I could anthropromorphize oil and make an argument for an oil cartel!

But the move of industries away from unionized labor has nothing to do with "costs being too high" and everything to do with increasing profits. GM was unionized for generations and was highly profitable - the right blaming recent economic problems on "union entitlements" is just bullshit. The companies that moved production to southern states were not doing it because they had no other choice, they did it because they could and it was more profitable and they could use the threat of moving to non-union southern states as a club to beat northern unionized workers into giving concessions - which they have.

They are relatively high. Why would I use steel from France if it costs 100 dollars per pound when I could use it from Germany where it costs 90 dollars a pound. I wouldn't want capitalists to go around using more expensive resources to make the same product.

Really? Stick your head out the fucking window every now and then!

1) Personal debt is the highest since the depression and has been so for a while.

2) While household incomes have remained relatively stagnant, this is only because people have borrowed more money, the number of 2 income households has increased and hours of work has risen.

Yeah, you know what we have that no one in the last generation had? Cell phones, personal laptops, the internet, mp3 players, way nicer cars, social networks, and countless other things that I haven' tthought of that make life better. Income =\= standard of living. I wouldn't want to have the wealth I have now 30 years ago because there was so much less and so much crappier I could've bought with it.

3) Inequality. Form wikipedia: "The United States has one of the widest rich-poor gaps of any high-income nation today, and that gap continues to grow.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_living_in_the_United_States#cite_note-Rich-Poor_Gap_Widening-15) In recent times, some prominent economists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economists) including Alan Greenspan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Greenspan) have warned that the widening rich-poor gap in the U.S. population is a problem that could undermine and destabilize the country's economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy) and standard of living (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_living) stating that "The income gap between the rich and the rest of the US population has become so wide, and is growing so fast, that it might eventually threaten the stability of democratic capitalism itself"

For the last generation - since the mid-70s - there has been a war on unions and a war on our standards of living in terms of wages, rate of work, hours of work, conditions of work, and I don't think any serious working class people in generation X or Y or beyond really expect to do better than their parents generation.

If you don't believe in any of that, then I guess you must live in Rand Paul's imaginary land where there is no rich, poor, or middle class.

Computers have also been increasing in use since the 1970s... maybe thats why things have changed! Or the price of oil has gone up! Or the USSR fell apart. Anyone can draw correlations (the number of books available for purchase have been increasing since the 1970s too... maybe this is it). Thank you for offering 'facts' (i use the term lightly) with no evidence and then implying causation.

LeftSideDown

19th November 2010, 23:54

Of caorse it would, by the same way property is enforced.

Me owning myself isn't slavery. The logical extensions of self ownership aren't either.

Tractors will never go up to a trillion dollars so thast a stupid argument.

Who's a marginal tractor driver? Who's a marginal employer?

You made the assertion that prices don't matter because people HAVE to use them. Clearly not, if the price goes up too high. I don't know the people who are marginal purchasers of tractors, its really impossible to tell. But its easy to see if the price goes up a certain extent the marginal purchasers do not purchase. A marginal employer is one whom the cost of hiring someone barely outweighs the benefit. An increase in price will cause them to not hire.

Union wages ARE market wages, unions are market players, but if you could cut back on it you'd cut back anyway because its cheaper.

I will give you that, if you accept that cartel prices are market prices.

Except thats not the cast with the economy, because profit is made and executive pay is made, and those are a HUGE part of the money distribution.

Its possible, but if thats not what they prefer, who are you to say its wrong? If their personal income is more important than the business, that is their decision, they are free to make it, it is their property. What you're saying is that, and this is specifically targeted at you, if the price of something you use (lets say bread) goes up you should take the hit to your income and buy the same amount, even if its not what you want at that price. This is clearly a ludicrous argument, if the price of something goes up, you can buy something else.

Yes it is the result of the free market, the "freer" the market has gotten the more centralized the wealth.

Really? because government has grown vast amounts in the past 80+ years, and it seems, according the statistics you guys fling around, there is a lot more income inequality. A larger government necessitates a less free market (it is using more resources), and our government regulates practically everything, much more than it did 80 years ago.

Most of the rich don't produce anything, not a damn thing. BUt I love that your saying the rich arn't getting their fair share :).

So go produce nothing and be rich with them... or is it a little more complicated than that... I wonder.

But lets face it, you want to get rid of unions because the ONLY thing you want to be in control is the money market, i.e. the rich people, you want a plutocracy.

Your not interested in freedom, or liberty, your interest is that money is the determaning factory in society.

I do not want to get rid of unions. People can voluntarily get together and try to do anything they want. If they succeed, they should know that it will probably mean someone else their job, but if thats what they want and they go about it voluntarily so be it. However, I cannot consistently support worker's rights to organize to try and rise their prices without also companies right's to get together and cartelize. The fact that it won't last long is not of concern, because you cannot consistently support labor cartelization and not support companies doing it.

Revolution starts with U

20th November 2010, 00:05

Oh how easily this dumb reasoning can be applied to anything. I could anthropromorphize oil and make an argument for an oil cartel!
If the charge is that we are anthropomorphizing humans... well.. duh.
What were you saying about "dumb reasoning?"
Humans are not to be traded as commodities.

Revolution starts with U

20th November 2010, 00:15

Me owning myself isn't slavery. The logical extensions of self ownership aren't either.Technically, they are. For you to own something called "the self," which is a human being you have absolute mastery over, makes "you" the slave-master of "yourself." Does the mind own the body, or the body own the mind, or does it all own itself? If it owns itself, what does that mean... how can something own that which is it?
One way to claim ownership does not fit the definition of ownership at all.
The other is clearly slavery.

You made the assertion that prices don't matter because people HAVE to use them. Clearly not, if the price goes up too high. I don't know the people who are marginal purchasers of tractors, its really impossible to tell.And there's the problem. By "marginalizing" labor, you "marginalize" human beings. There are ways to tell who are "marginal producers of tractors." They're out there, unemployed and struggling. You just choose not to know about it.

I will give you that, if you accept that cartel prices are market prices.What free market? Where? Please, I implore you to show it to me..

So go produce nothing and be rich with them... or is it a little more complicated than that... I wonder.We could, or at least they couldn't, if the system of ownership over resource didn't inherently favor past "value creation" over current.

However, I cannot consistently support worker's rights to organize to try and rise their prices without also companies right's to get together and cartelize. The fact that it won't last long is not of concern, because you cannot consistently support labor cartelization and not support companies doing it.You can. Because there's a difference between oil and a member of the human species. You are not a commodity.

LeftSideDown

20th November 2010, 00:19

Don't lie to yourself. That wasn't my point and you know it. So all this below, is nonsense. Nice try tho. It could have been funny, if you would have thought it out first. (BTW, my point is about the waste of private "ownership" of resources already available.)

If private ownership is a waste, then why don't we see more worker owned businesses floating around? If there is waste (economic resources being squandered) because of small groups of owners for companies, than go get together with your buddies start a business and, because of your improved efficiency, be able to lower prices while maintaining the same wage rate and paying the same (or since you're entering the market and would consume more of the inputs) or slightly more for the resources. If you're right your company will be rich.

Yes, yes they do. And private ownership of currently existing resources is tyranny. They should be managed democratically. That may scare you, but democratization of politics scared feudal landowners as well. And look how well capitalist democracy worked out for them :thumbup:

I'm an existing resource. I own myself. I do not think this tyranny, and I do not think just because a majority vote to kill a minority that this action is somehow just. Majorities are no more just than individuals.

Governments start wars for the benefit of labor?!?!?!!! Are you fucking kidding me? How far will you go to delude yourself?
For every example you can show me of union members killing scabs (I'm not saying it hasn't happened, you're fuckin w people's lives. it's not good but...) I can show you 100 examples of ownership killing union, or calling in state thugs to do it for them
But I don't try to delude myself to think that a lot people won't violently protect their interests.

I didn't say that they start wars for workers. I merely am pointing out that tons of people support government action when it helps them.

I can give you proximate evidence, explain why there would need to be a court case deciding "that union officials may destroy property, assault employees, and even murder them, while escaping prosecution under federal extortion laws, so long as such violence is undertaken to secure what the Supreme Court called “legitimate” objectives, such as wage increases", if these activities have not gone on?

There was a whole book with more than half a thousand pages: "In 1983, the Industrial Research Unit of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania published a 540-page book on the history of union violence in America entitled Union Violence: The Record and the Response by Courts, Legislatures, and the NLRB, by Professors Armand J. Thieblot, Jr. and Thomas R. Haggard. The book notes at the very beginning that employers have also resorted to violence in labor disputes, which they indeed have. But two wrongs do not make a right, and the theme of the book is that, for the reasons mentioned above, violence against "rats, scabs and strikebreakers" is an inherent feature of unionism and always has been.

Surveying newspaper accounts and judicial records for a period of several decades, the authors note that such records are

Full of examples of murder, assault with intent to kill, destruction of property, arson, sabotage, mayhem, shooting, stabbing, beating, stoning, dynamiting, intimidating, threatening—in short, physical, verbal, and psychological abuse of every sort (p. 3)."

Thus, strikes—and unions in general—represent a conflict between unionized and non-unionized labor much more than between unions and management. Among the tactics that unions have historically used against non-union labor, notes Reynolds, are "mass picketing, insults, threats, throwing rocks and bottles, car chasing, abusive phone calls, physical assaults, property destruction, and even murder."

And "Police say the incident began Wednesday morning when non-union construction workers attempted to gain access to the new Toys R Us site, but were blocked by protesting union workers.
When the victims were unable to gain access to the construction site, they drove to the area of the Transportation Center in the King of Prussia Plaza lot to wait for police assistance.
Authorities say while waiting for police to arrive, a black sedan pulled up and several white males exited with baseball bats and shattered both rear windows of the two work trucks. As the victims exited the trucks in fear, police say at least two were physically assaulted with the baseball bats. One of the victims was taken to the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania for treatment."

and for killing by unions:

A bomb was set off during a "Preparedness Day" parade in San Francisco, killing 10 and injuring 40 more. Thomas J. Mooney, a labor organizer and Warren K. Billings, a shoe worker, were convicted, but were both pardoned in 1939.

LeftSideDown

20th November 2010, 00:25

What free market? Where? When?

Fine, why hasn't it appeared in the US during the past 3 centuries?

Ya except nobody is saying that. Nice straw man, dorothy :laugh:
If Pepsi stayed in business and coke didn't, that only means its ownership couldn't stand the amount of profit that would go to the people who do all the work.
Consider the guy that recently gave ownership of his factory to the workers.

Thats what a democracy is: majority rule: the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group

So if 51% they don't want to make Coke, sorry 49%.

LeftSideDown

20th November 2010, 00:29

That's what all of your points basically boil down to, that you lack the perspective to see that capitalist society is coercive.

You do see capitalism as merely an economic model not an entire social order.

Coercive: Using violence or the threat of violence against someones self or just property.

I don't see capitalists going around beating people up with bats or threatening to do so, so no, its not coercive.

Revolution starts with U

20th November 2010, 00:42

If private ownership is a waste, then why don't we see more worker owned businesses floating around? If there is waste (economic resources being squandered) because of small groups of owners for companies, than go get together with your buddies start a business and, because of your improved efficiency, be able to lower prices while maintaining the same wage rate and paying the same (or since you're entering the market and would consume more of the inputs) or slightly more for the resources. If you're right your company will be rich.
This doesn't address my assertion at all. Current labor is at a disadvantage to past wealth in proceeding to create value. Current labor must sell itself (slavery anyone) to past wealth in order to have even the hope of future wealth.
But either way, it does happen, and the companies do fine. Of course, they cannot make the large profits of private owned companies, so they attract less investment, an inherent feature of our system. So they're mostly local.
The private owned companies grow large, and then start buying off government to protect themselves, only growing larger. Then they fail, and socialize their losses, rising costs on the smaller, locally owned business.

I'm an existing resource. I own myself. I do not think this tyranny, and I do not think just because a majority vote to kill a minority that this action is somehow just. Majorities are no more just than individuals.
That's a crude understanding of democracy. Sure, some democracy is straight majority rule, but that has hardly been the case for most. The fact is, if one has the right to represent himself in political matters that may adversely effect him, why do you deny him the right to do as much economically?
It is no different than a feudal apologist claiming that he owns his land and the majority have no right to take that from him.

I didn't say that they start wars for workers. I merely am pointing out that tons of people support government action when it helps them.
Yes, and those with large purchasing power get the most support. Many of us here are anarchists, we're well aware of the problems of government.

I can give you proximate evidence, explain why there would need to be a court case deciding "that union officials may destroy property, assault employees, and even murder them, while escaping prosecution under federal extortion laws, ...
, which they indeed have. But two wrongs do not make a right, and the theme of the book is that, for the reasons mentioned above, violence against "rats, scabs and strikebreakers" is an inherent feature of unionism and always has been.
You're right that two wrongs don't make a right... and there are far more cases of ownership bringing violence against the unions first (whether themselves, with private defense agencies, or state thugs). Like I said, you're messing with people's livelihoods, their means of subsistence.

Surveying newspaper accounts and judicial records for a period of several decades, the authors note that such records are

Full of examples of murder, assault with intent to kill, destruction of property, arson, sabotage, mayhem, shooting, stabbing, beating, stoning, dynamiting, intimidating, threatening—in short, physical, verbal, and psychological abuse of every sort (p. 3)."
As long as you realize this goes on for both sides, and that numbers are very minor for labor in comparison to ownership, we don't have a problem.

Thus, strikes—and unions in general—represent a conflict between unionized and non-unionized labor much more than between unions and management. Among the tactics that unions have historically used against non-union labor, notes Reynolds, are "mass picketing, insults, threats, throwing rocks and bottles, car chasing, abusive phone calls, physical assaults, property destruction, and even murder."
Notice how the first one is not bad at all, but it's thrown in the list to be guilty by association :laugh:
The next 5 are kind of bad, but not anything major. But once again they are thrown in for the rare cases of the last 3.
So now all labor movements are violent, no matter how peaceful. guilt-by-association fallacy.

Please take a study in labor/owner relations in capitalism's early history, or in modern history in the 3rd world. Private ownership is a bloody, bloody affair. (Look no further than the "trail of tears" undertaken to open new ownership over land for white people so they can trade the commodities made off it on the "free market.")

Revolution starts with U

20th November 2010, 00:45

All democracy is crudely labeled as "majority rule." As if 2/3 rule, and constitutional protections, human rights, minority protection, etc don't play a role in the matter :rolleyes:
I'm gona go ahead and say you probably fall into Hoppe's "monarchy is better than democracy" camp...
Ridiculous.

Jimmie Higgins

20th November 2010, 06:54

It is the difference between revenues and costs, and it exists when entrepreneurs take undervalued resources and put them to more valued uses.So then an entrepreneur could take an undervalued resource, like say an empty housing development and give it to a bunch of homeless people - therefore creating a valuable use for something that was sitting around making no money before?

PEOPLE WANT AS MUCH PROFIT AS THEY CAN GET, not just monetary though, psychic. Workers want profit. They get it when they agree to work because benefits outweigh costs. Workers are profiting. Profit =\= exploitation.Workers want a WAGE because without money they can not live anywhere, not being able to live anywhere means being subject to police repression (in San Francisco it is now illegal to sit on the sidewalk - if they don't like the looks of you). This is no way the same as capital for investments (which comes from profits generally) which capitalists can choose to invest, not invest, sit on or roll cigars with if they want.

Now profit comes from exploitation because one pound of steel can only equal one pound of steel - sure you can take steel from one market and resell that steel at another point or another area for more money, but that money has not created any new wealth, it's still just worth one pound of steel even though the price for steel has gone up. If capitalism worked this way, then there would always be more or less the same amount of wealth with no much new wealth being created other than from the raw extraction of natural resources - capitalists would just be passing around the same amount of wealth between them - some winning off of the bad choices of others but no real growth. It would be like a game of poker - there is a set amount of wealth and the players fight over it and can gain or lose subjectively, but can not create new wealth that did not exist before.

But labor is the one commodity that is more than it's base value. While other commodities like overhead costs fluctuate but always equal their value (one pound of steel is worth on pound of steel even if I sell it for $100 on week and $200 next). My labor at work does not cost my employer the same as the value of my labor. If in 40 hours of work I produce $2000 worth of value, I am not paid $2000 - I am only paid my hourly wage, but the value that I created by melting the steel and making a car frame is still factored into the value of the comity when my bosses sell it later. So if it takes 2 steel frames for the cost of my labor to be paid off, every frame I make after that is still sold at a price with my labor as a commodity factored into the price - it's not like they knock off $60 from the price of cars that were made from surplus labor, it's still sold as if the worker's hourly wage was part of the overhead.

This is how profits are made - my surplus labor crates wealth that my boss then gets to decide what to do with - to invest, sit on, or smoke away or whatever. That profit is then potentially capital to re-invest and this is how capitalism works in the abstract and exploitation is 100% a part of that just as Slaves were exploited and Peasants... just in different and more direct ways.

Its the name of the program. All it says is people can't be forced to join unions. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS?Nobody is forced to join unions in the first place, second, that is not what these laws are designed for - they are designed to destroy collective bargaining and workplace solidarity that is necessary in order for workers to have any real input into decision-making.

It's a race to the bottom in prices, organizing is the only way for capitalists to have any say in the process, without cartels of some kind, the consumers get to dictate the products we make at work! Oh how easily this dumb reasoning can be applied to anything. I could anthropromorphize oil and make an argument for an oil cartel!So the well-being of working class people is about as important to you as the well-being of some oil? Well the race to the bottom in prices does have a bottom - based on the average costs of the commodities (including average cost of labor) put into the product. Customers would ideally like to have a cheap car or home or free food... it can never happen.

Capitalists in the race to the bottom in wages (but not necessarily, sometimes it is a race to the top of long hours and time-management - or speed-ups - as has been the case in the US over the last generation where wages have remained more or less stagnant while production rates and hours worked have increased) also have a bottom which is either forcing workers into a position where they can no longer maintain production physically or have lives so unstable they can not labor effectively. But inlike the other example, capitalists often have hit this bottom and it results in workplace shooting rampages, flip-outs, suicides, substance-abuse, broken families, stealing from work, sabotage, job-place injuries, and besically just misery for millions and millions all over the world.

Yeah, you know what we have that no one in the last generation had? Cell phones, personal laptops, the internet, mp3 players, way nicer cars, social networks, and countless other things that I haven' tthought of that make life better. Income =\= standard of living. I wouldn't want to have the wealth I have now 30 years ago because there was so much less and so much crappier I could've bought with it.Golly-me, this is a dumb argument. So people in the 1930s had it better than people in the 1920s because there were talkies instead of silent movies, color movies, passenger planes, and the first TVs?

RGacky3

20th November 2010, 12:08

Me owning myself isn't slavery. The logical extensions of self ownership aren't either.

YOu ARE yourself numbnuts. Also that has nothing to do with property ownership.

LAWS backed by the state make property ownership which are the same laws that can make slavery laws.

You made the assertion that prices don't matter because people HAVE to use them. Clearly not, if the price goes up too high. I don't know the people who are marginal purchasers of tractors, its really impossible to tell. But its easy to see if the price goes up a certain extent the marginal purchasers do not purchase. A marginal employer is one whom the cost of hiring someone barely outweighs the benefit. An increase in price will cause them to not hire.

First of all, obviously unions are not going to make the prices so high that they are immpossible to hire.

As far as your marginal employer I don't think many of them exist, most industry is not just value in value out, its like a car, you NEED wheels and you NEED a tire for it to function, most industries workers are workers you NEED to make it function, its not just value in value out.

Plus with people working less, you'll need to hire more.

But this argument of infinate wage increases is rediculous, it would'nt BE infinate.

I will give you that, if you accept that cartel prices are market prices.

Cartels are a natural part of markets.

Its possible, but if thats not what they prefer, who are you to say its wrong? If their personal income is more important than the business, that is their decision, they are free to make it, it is their property. What you're saying is that, and this is specifically targeted at you, if the price of something you use (lets say bread) goes up you should take the hit to your income and buy the same amount, even if its not what you want at that price. This is clearly a ludicrous argument, if the price of something goes up, you can buy something else.

This is'nt a moral argument at all, I'm saying that unions will FORCE them too.

OF COARSE their personal income is more important than the wages of their workers, not shit, thats why workers should organize and force them to switch that priority otherwise they'll loose more profits.

Thats the whole point of unions, they CAN'T buy something else to replace workers, if they could have they would have. Its not that morally they should'nt, they can't, and workers should take advantage of that and force capitalists to give up power and money.

Really? because government has grown vast amounts in the past 80+ years, and it seems, according the statistics you guys fling around, there is a lot more income inequality. A larger government necessitates a less free market (it is using more resources), and our government regulates practically everything, much more than it did 80 years ago.

Government has grown because the world economy has grown, show me a percentage. Also governmetn growing does not nessesitate a less free market, government is'nt just regulations and national industry, it could juts be a player in the market, like buying weapons.

Also durin the 1980s massiave deregulation and privitization took place, and thats when the inequality stuff happened, and when the disasters happened.

BTW 80 years ago was the 1930s, so I would'nt be bragging about your imagined market "glory days."

So go produce nothing and be rich with them... or is it a little more complicated than that... I wonder.

They either just are really good with manipulating finance markets (not producing), or they go to buisiness school, become an executive and write checks (again, not producing). Most rich people get rich through those ways, none of which are productive.

I do not want to get rid of unions. People can voluntarily get together and try to do anything they want. If they succeed, they should know that it will probably mean someone else their job, but if thats what they want and they go about it voluntarily so be it. However, I cannot consistently support worker's rights to organize to try and rise their prices without also companies right's to get together and cartelize. The fact that it won't last long is not of concern, because you cannot consistently support labor cartelization and not support companies doing it.

If won't mean anyone elses job, because they'll want to work less hours which means more workers are needed, your rediculous theory of marginal workers i.e. companies not actually needed workers but hiring them anyway because its cheap :P, less hours mean more workers, it also means less layoffs because workers would'nt want that.

As far as Cartels, yeah, companies would AND DO Cartelize, why would'nt they if it benefits them? Thats one reason why markets don't work, its funny, in your effot to attack unions your tearing up your own market fundementalism :). Of coarse Markets Cartelize.