cormacobear
21st November 2004, 15:35
http://www.capitalism.org/ On this site they have a list of topics and their propagandist responses.
So let's see if it will stand up to Scrutiny.
"Labor and Minimum Wages
Doesn't capitalism lead to the lower labor wages?
No. Under capitalism ones wages depend on how much one can produce. That is why Michael Jordan -- or a doctor -- gets paid millions of dollars more then the minimum wage. It depends on how well and how much they produce. The reason why factory laborers receive more wages in America is because they are rendered more productive by productive use of capital. "
American productivity is increaseing due to technology, yet wages are falling.
Capitalist economic theory considers Labour a commodity, subject to the same supply and demand, construct as all other commodities. In this way Labourers are forced to compete withh one another for jobs, this competition drives down wages.
“ If in such a country the wages of labour had ever been more than sufficient to maintain the labourer, and enable him to bring up a family, the competition of the labourers and interest of the masters would soon reduce them to this rate which is consistant with the common humanity.” (Smith, Pg. 75) What he's describing is the Capitalist theory that if there are too many workers (unemployment), that do to the lowering of wages through competition that they will starve to death bring the numbers of workers back down. This is immoral in the extreme.
"Isn't the solution to low wages minimum wage laws?
If passing minimum wage laws are the secret to raising wages, then why doesn't the government make everybody rich by setting the wage to a million dollars? Would this solve poverty in third world countries, or would this make everyone -- who produces less then the million dollar minimum wage -- unemployable? The truth is that those who don't produce enough to merit the minimum wage will become unemployed by such laws, and those who do produce more then the minimum wage don't need such laws. If a laborer -- say Michael Jordan -- is not paid enough for what he produces, then someone else will hire him an pay him more. It is competition for labor -- that produces -- that pushes wages up."
If this were true the competition in overpopulated countries would drive the price of labour through the roof, instead overpopulated countries have the lowes wages on the planet. The minimum wage is a capitalist control to prevent the cost of government from skyrocketing. Since the cost of poverty (re-education, crime, falling real estate value, etc.)is greater than the meager outset of paying the minimum wage. when capital is collectively owned everyones wages are determined by necescity, and the productivity of the society, rather than Being determined by your economic status and the number of people in your region.
Micheal jordan is a stupid example, he's an anecdote, the exception rather than the rule.
"What sets prices of labor under capitalism?
The same system that sets prices. Not any particular businessman, but the free-market. It is competition between businesses for labor that pushes wages up; it is competition between laborers that pushes wages down (to reduce this competition between laborers unions create "union shops" which prevent non-union members from competing with them, by banning non-union members from working in the unionized field)."
The competition for labourers only brings up wages where there is competion for labourers, since there is always unemployment, and with the ability to move production from region to region beeing a current reality, we must look at the fact the are 16 billion people on the planet, most unemployed. Therefore there is no competition for labourers only for jobs.
"Don't laborers have a right to a share of the capitalist's profits, in addition to their wages?
Why are the laborers who demand a share in the capitalist's profits, silent in demanding their "share" when he incurs losses? Why don't they cry out and demand that they get to receive a share in those losses? If labor is the sole cause of all profit, then is it not also the sole cause of all losses? A moments reflection will point out that laborers are only responsible for their job description -- they are not directly responsible for the losses of a business -- and that the cause of an enterprise's losses lies essentially with the owner, as do the profits.
That a businessmen pays a worker less wages than the worker feels he deserves is not exploitation, as the worker is free to leave his job and look elsewhere for a higher paying one, if he thinks that someone can give him a better job for a better wage. Let any worker in Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, or Communist China try to attempt such a feat as leaving his job without permission of the state, and he will soon find what exploitation really means."
The owner of capital demands a share of the products the worker produces, and the worker suffers more when losses occur because he will lose his job. And clearly a loss of capital is far more harmfull to the poor than the more affluent.
In any contract where labour and capital is not devided equatibly, someone is being exploited.
When Capital is collectively owned it is collectively invested so the costs of any losses are devided among millions and hardly felt by any. rather in a Capitalist system individuals don't invest if there has been losses in market sectors, this causes a recession to become a depression. And over invest when things are good, falsly inflating the investment market and causeing general inflation.
This capitalist cycle of boom and bust is felt far more by the poor than the wealthy who can better survive periods without income.
References:
Smith, Adam. “An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations”, Edited By C J Bullock PhD.,_© 1909 by P.F. Collier & Son, New York
So let's see if it will stand up to Scrutiny.
"Labor and Minimum Wages
Doesn't capitalism lead to the lower labor wages?
No. Under capitalism ones wages depend on how much one can produce. That is why Michael Jordan -- or a doctor -- gets paid millions of dollars more then the minimum wage. It depends on how well and how much they produce. The reason why factory laborers receive more wages in America is because they are rendered more productive by productive use of capital. "
American productivity is increaseing due to technology, yet wages are falling.
Capitalist economic theory considers Labour a commodity, subject to the same supply and demand, construct as all other commodities. In this way Labourers are forced to compete withh one another for jobs, this competition drives down wages.
“ If in such a country the wages of labour had ever been more than sufficient to maintain the labourer, and enable him to bring up a family, the competition of the labourers and interest of the masters would soon reduce them to this rate which is consistant with the common humanity.” (Smith, Pg. 75) What he's describing is the Capitalist theory that if there are too many workers (unemployment), that do to the lowering of wages through competition that they will starve to death bring the numbers of workers back down. This is immoral in the extreme.
"Isn't the solution to low wages minimum wage laws?
If passing minimum wage laws are the secret to raising wages, then why doesn't the government make everybody rich by setting the wage to a million dollars? Would this solve poverty in third world countries, or would this make everyone -- who produces less then the million dollar minimum wage -- unemployable? The truth is that those who don't produce enough to merit the minimum wage will become unemployed by such laws, and those who do produce more then the minimum wage don't need such laws. If a laborer -- say Michael Jordan -- is not paid enough for what he produces, then someone else will hire him an pay him more. It is competition for labor -- that produces -- that pushes wages up."
If this were true the competition in overpopulated countries would drive the price of labour through the roof, instead overpopulated countries have the lowes wages on the planet. The minimum wage is a capitalist control to prevent the cost of government from skyrocketing. Since the cost of poverty (re-education, crime, falling real estate value, etc.)is greater than the meager outset of paying the minimum wage. when capital is collectively owned everyones wages are determined by necescity, and the productivity of the society, rather than Being determined by your economic status and the number of people in your region.
Micheal jordan is a stupid example, he's an anecdote, the exception rather than the rule.
"What sets prices of labor under capitalism?
The same system that sets prices. Not any particular businessman, but the free-market. It is competition between businesses for labor that pushes wages up; it is competition between laborers that pushes wages down (to reduce this competition between laborers unions create "union shops" which prevent non-union members from competing with them, by banning non-union members from working in the unionized field)."
The competition for labourers only brings up wages where there is competion for labourers, since there is always unemployment, and with the ability to move production from region to region beeing a current reality, we must look at the fact the are 16 billion people on the planet, most unemployed. Therefore there is no competition for labourers only for jobs.
"Don't laborers have a right to a share of the capitalist's profits, in addition to their wages?
Why are the laborers who demand a share in the capitalist's profits, silent in demanding their "share" when he incurs losses? Why don't they cry out and demand that they get to receive a share in those losses? If labor is the sole cause of all profit, then is it not also the sole cause of all losses? A moments reflection will point out that laborers are only responsible for their job description -- they are not directly responsible for the losses of a business -- and that the cause of an enterprise's losses lies essentially with the owner, as do the profits.
That a businessmen pays a worker less wages than the worker feels he deserves is not exploitation, as the worker is free to leave his job and look elsewhere for a higher paying one, if he thinks that someone can give him a better job for a better wage. Let any worker in Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, or Communist China try to attempt such a feat as leaving his job without permission of the state, and he will soon find what exploitation really means."
The owner of capital demands a share of the products the worker produces, and the worker suffers more when losses occur because he will lose his job. And clearly a loss of capital is far more harmfull to the poor than the more affluent.
In any contract where labour and capital is not devided equatibly, someone is being exploited.
When Capital is collectively owned it is collectively invested so the costs of any losses are devided among millions and hardly felt by any. rather in a Capitalist system individuals don't invest if there has been losses in market sectors, this causes a recession to become a depression. And over invest when things are good, falsly inflating the investment market and causeing general inflation.
This capitalist cycle of boom and bust is felt far more by the poor than the wealthy who can better survive periods without income.
References:
Smith, Adam. “An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations”, Edited By C J Bullock PhD.,_© 1909 by P.F. Collier & Son, New York