Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Oct 17, 2018 - 11:14am PT
|
^^^ LOL
No, instead they ARE the "parasitic capitalists" themselves, as their "ideals" crash on the hard rocks of economic realities.
Gary, do you own a business? Have you ever created a job? I mean a real job, in an EIN company, benefits, health-care, the whole works? A job that lasts for years and years because your company lasts for years and years?
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Oct 17, 2018 - 11:20am PT
|
No, instead they ARE the "parasitic capitalists" themselves,
That's the whole point of socialism, amigo. The proceeds of one's labor is not siphoned off to some so-called "owning" class.
Here's one idea: you produce, you profit from your work; you do nothing, you pound sand.
Capitalists hate that idea.
|
|
Lituya
Mountain climber
|
|
|
Oct 17, 2018 - 11:39am PT
|
I suppose one must have some sort of tool in-hand to be a bonafide "producer," right? Like, say, a hammer or a sickle?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Oct 17, 2018 - 11:43am PT
|
Capitalists hate that idea.
No, capitalists do not hate that idea.
The idea that businesses hate is government setting an arbitrary, non-market-driven value for an arbitrary set of labor.
Let's keep this on topic rather than go off on a whole tangent of socialism vs. capitalism.
As I've argued above. There's just a market, regardless of the "economic system" some government tries to impose. In the most socialistic and even communist nations, there was still a market that defied all attempts to impose some economic system upon it. That principle spans all of human history, without exception.
Now, in the context of the market, different goods, services, and sorts of labor have different values. That's a frank fact that cannot be disputed. So, in that context, it is not possible to tweak just one of the related pieces in isolation. Tweak the value of labor arbitrarily, and you necessarily motivate the market to correct for that "adjustment." Prices go up. That sort of labor finds fewer jobs. And so on.
This is not just "big wall theory." We have observed this without exception everywhere we've looked, regardless of economic system.
I don't care if the laborer is also the owner. That person qua owner will tell him/herself qua laborer, "Hey, we just can't afford to raise your salary to some arbitrary minimum. There just isn't the money in the company for that. Now, if you can increase your value by increasing productivity, then that will generate more money, which can net you a higher salary."
Your problem, Gary, seems to be that you see "capitalists" doing some "skimming" (called "profit") that you think should ALL go back to the laborer.
But that's a very, very superficial assessment of how a job is created!
So, I'll ask again: Have you EVER created a job?
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Oct 17, 2018 - 12:12pm PT
|
I don't care if the laborer is also the owner. That person qua owner will tell him/herself qua laborer, "Hey, we just can't afford to raise your salary to some arbitrary minimum. There just isn't the money in the company for that. Now, if you can increase your value by increasing productivity, then that will generate more money, which can net you a higher salary."
That's why we've seen wages rise alongside increases in worker productivity?
Your whole dialog there becomes pointless when the people that work own their work.
So, I'll ask again: Have you EVER created a job?
I've done better than create a job, I've created capital.
I suppose one must have some sort of tool in-hand to be a bonafide "producer," right? Like, say, a hammer or a sickle?
You have a too narrow a definition of work.
|
|
Lituya
Mountain climber
|
|
|
Oct 17, 2018 - 12:46pm PT
|
Your whole dialog there becomes pointless when the people that work own their work.
Of course the worker owns his own labor. We agree! And if the salary arrangement he has with his employer is not market rate he is free to take his labor to another employer or to his own endeavors. As long as there is no collusion to fix his wages overtly or through “non compete” contracts or “poaching” agreements between employers, the worker will prevail within the context of the market commensurate with his skill set. Government’s role is to punish collusion and assure worker safety. Again, not to assign wages.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Oct 17, 2018 - 12:53pm PT
|
I've done better than create a job, I've created capital.
This isn't a question of "better" or "worse." This is a question of your awareness from actual experience of the constraints of creating a job.
Your view of "a job" is incredibly naive, and that stems from the fact that ALL you've ever done is "create capital." See, you really haven't, despite what you think.
You've traded something of value (your time/energy) for capital (the pay you received). They are NOT equivalent. You've done NOTHING more than engaged in a transaction (in the market), in which you agreed: "I'll TRADE some of my time/energy for some of your capital." Thus, you've agreed to RECEIVE capital in EXCHANGE for your time/energy.
What you are failing to see is that the actual capital you receive didn't emerge from the ether. Moreover, YOU didn't CREATE "it," contrary to what you assert.
You might have contributed toward creating a subset of what you received in exchange for your time/energy. But there is NO 1-to-1 equivalency between your time/energy and the capital you produce or receive. And that's because that "job" only exists in a very, very complex context. It is that context that you naively pretend does not exist.
And, until you do the hard work of creating such a context, you simply will not believe anything I say about it. CREATE an actual JOB in an actual COMPANY, and then I am certain that your entire perspective on this subject will do a 180. People that have only ever received a paycheck literally have NO idea of the vast complexity involved in creating the context in which a "job" even exists!
|
|
Contractor
Boulder climber
CA
|
|
|
Oct 17, 2018 - 01:51pm PT
|
Any law setting a minimum wage tied to a "living wage" standard is untenable and ridiculous.
The retail and tourism industries that rely on part time labor and entry level workers would go under immediately which would devastate commercial real estate and so on.
Skilled labor is market driven and takes care of itself. So get yourself skilled and work hard or suffer the consequences of poverty- that's the way it works folks.Minimum wage is a non issue in construction here in SoCal. Good concrete finishers are $350 a day...the market sets that rate.
And yes Lituya, they're legal and I don't force them to do anything they don't want to do.
|
|
Lituya
Mountain climber
|
|
|
Oct 17, 2018 - 01:57pm PT
|
Well said, Contractor. Sadly, your own Democratic Party is in the process of trying to take wage decisions away from the market--and, by extension, the success both you and the workers you share jobs with have enjoyed.
!Bienvenido al lado oscuro!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Oct 17, 2018 - 02:00pm PT
|
So get yourself skilled and work hard or suffer the consequences of poverty- that's the way it works folks.
And there it is.
In other words, become MARKETABLE, and your wages will never be "minimal."
|
|
Bad Climber
Trad climber
The Lawless Border Regions
|
|
|
Oct 17, 2018 - 05:03pm PT
|
MB1 said:
And, until you do the hard work of creating such a context, you simply will not believe anything I say about it. CREATE an actual JOB in an actual COMPANY, and then I am certain that your entire perspective on this subject will do a 180. People that have only ever received a paycheck literally have NO idea of the vast complexity involved in creating the context in which a "job" even exists!
So much truth here. Way too many people have never spent time talking to folks who create and run businesses. The risk, the stress, all the grueling work that goes into creating a job that pays a wage is hard to understand. I've never created a job, but I've got huge respect for those who do. Most workers who simply receive a paycheck have no clue.
BAd
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Oct 17, 2018 - 05:05pm PT
|
Of course the worker owns his own labor.
Under the present system, that is untrue.
|
|
Lituya
Mountain climber
|
|
|
Oct 17, 2018 - 05:39pm PT
|
The present system will remain; it is the natural order. Personal freedom and economic freedom are so intertwined, no tearing down will be tolerated for any serious length of time. Sorry, but if it makes you feel any better, here's a quote from someone I generally loathe, Peter Singer. No doubt you are familiar with it, but for the rest:
Capitalism is very far from a perfect system, but so far we have yet to find anything that clearly does a better job of meeting human needs than a regulated capitalist economy coupled with a welfare and health care system that meets the basic needs of those who do not thrive in the capitalist economy. If we ever do find a better system, I'll be happy to call myself an anti-capitalist.
|
|
Contractor
Boulder climber
CA
|
|
|
Oct 17, 2018 - 07:29pm PT
|
Yep, good discourse here. Capitalism is poisonous without a dollop of socialism and a dash of regulation. The ratio may vary according to taste of course.
|
|
Bad Climber
Trad climber
The Lawless Border Regions
|
|
|
Oct 18, 2018 - 06:53am PT
|
Yo, DMT, truth:
But he’s right we will keep the minimum wage laws in place and adjust them over time and reign in the robber baron captains of industry on occasion because we all know that unrestrained capitalism is the devil’s own playground.
We MUST have some controls over the beast. Unrestrained capitalism did give us child labor, for example. I'm all for kids having jobs within reason, but being chained to a workbench 12 hours a day ain't it! On the other hand, I thinking chaining most of my former students to a stack of good books would be an excellent idea. Who's with me?
BAd
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
Sands Motel , Las Vegas
|
|
|
Oct 18, 2018 - 06:57am PT
|
xcon...start worrying if the mariachi tunes go silent and your neighbors leave concrete boots next to your hottub...bub...rj
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Oct 19, 2018 - 08:46am PT
|
The present system will remain; it is the natural order.
Hogwash. The natural order is community living. That's how man evolved.
Capitalism is a system for failure. The world nowadays is run on capitalist principles. As you supporters of capitalism point out, even the PRC is capitalist now. Yet this glorious system has the world living in poverty.
Capitalism is a disaster for the planet. Minimum wage cam ameliorate some of it, but it's just a bandage.
http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Oct 19, 2018 - 09:43am PT
|
Oh, Gary, communes proved why single family homes sell better than barracks in the 70’s.
Heres why wages are what they are:
In a typical economic recovery, companies have to raise wages in order to attract and retain increasingly scarce workers. However, there hasn’t been as strong a demand for more workers in this recovery because global growth has been slower.
Demographic trends across developed markets are an important part of the explanation. In the U.S., the main reason for the fall in the unemployment rate has been the retirement of baby boomers, a trend that the recession probably accelerated and that is likely to continue for decades. The U.S. labor force participation rate has shrunk by almost 4%, or more than 9 million workers, since the GFC. And because the retiring boomers have been replaced by younger and cheaper workers, the usual post-recession surge in wages, after adjusting for inflation, hasn’t materialized.
It ain’t rocket science, it’s just economics, and Thomas Malthus.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Oct 19, 2018 - 10:17am PT
|
Yet this glorious system has the world living in poverty.
Please show ONE nation-state in human history that was not capitalist for a period of 50 years or more and that was not "in poverty."
You know, the reason why the PRC adopted capitalism was because while IT was in grinding poverty (like the USSR), Hong Kong was doing GREAT. Now China is finally getting out of poverty. Also, keep in mind that China remains a mostly small-farm, agricultural economy. In human history, small farmers have never been "wealthy."
Gary, until you read something like "I Chose Freedom," or you have run a business, you're literally not worth arguing with, comrade. Marxism has PROVED to be a DISMAL failure (and very quickly!) EVERYWHERE it's been tried. Socialism is just Marxism-light, and EVERYWHERE it's been tried (very short experiments thus far), it's led to economic stagnation and lines for goods and services.
A Christ said, "The poor you will always have with you." Individual charity (which is the only charity there actually is) can help in individual cases (which is the only really approach to assessing genuine "need"). You seem to be satisfied with nothing less than utopia, but that can never be.
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Oct 19, 2018 - 10:58am PT
|
Gary, until you read something like "I Chose Freedom," or you have run a business, you're literally not worth arguing with, comrade.
In other words, you have no argument to make against the facts that the world is capitalist and in poverty. Can't argue with facts, so you attempt weak insults like calling people "comrade." I get it. It's hard to go against what's been ingrained in all of us.
Reilly, surely you took an anthropology class in school? In any case, it's a fact that while profits and worker productivity rise, wages are stagnant at best. Why? Because that's the natural state of the glorious capitalist system. It's only when people organize that some fairness enters the system.
Listen:
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!