Tony on 28/3/2006 at 05:30
The dumbest thing about the whole situation is that neither side can be consistently non-self-destructive.
My hands were ruined permanently by an exploitive employer. I can't even open a soda bottle. So I guess one might say that I got burned by the capitalist system. Yet I don't want to see the Commies take over. Look what Commie countries are like.
Whatever happened to what America was in the seventeen hundreds? We didn't have this kind of crap going on, did we? And even in the early nineteen hundreds we didn't have this widespread poverty. I guess I'm never going to understand economics.
As for unions, I don't really care either way. Either you give away your right to speak, or you exercise it to no avail. No one really cares about you either way. If I weren't a religious nut I'd probably be a crook by now.
aguywhoplaysthief on 28/3/2006 at 05:47
Quote Posted by Tony
My hands were ruined permanently by an exploitive employer. I can't even open a soda bottle. So I guess one might say that I got burned by the capitalist system.
I think this one deserves a little more of an exploit...explanation.
Quote Posted by Tony
Whatever happened to what America was in the seventeen hundreds? We didn't have this kind of crap going on, did we? And even in the early nineteen hundreds we didn't have this widespread poverty.
What are you talking about?
Tony on 28/3/2006 at 05:52
My thumb ligaments are badly stretched because the factory at which I worked decided that it would be a good idea to continually ramp up production while simultaneously cutting labor. Of course you might argue that it was my fault for staying there, but my alternative was unemployment - something which I now have to deal with anyway.
Do you also want pictures of the lovely cast-like objects which now encase my hands?
Quote Posted by aguywhoplaysthief
What are you talking about?
I'm talking about the American economy falling like a dropped brick. It was always rising until a few decades ago. We just crossed the peak, and I can't figure out what happened. But that's why I didn't do so well in economy class, probably. It's not like it matters; we can discuss this to death (and I believe we do) and it's not going to change anything other than making some of us feel better because we're pretending or trying to understand it.
TheGreatGodPan on 28/3/2006 at 06:14
I don't think Bush has a cohesive enough ideology to be called capitalist or anti-capitalist. He spouts whatever he thinks people will want to hear and he'll sign bills he claimed he would veto.
Regarding unions, they privilege members at the expense of non-members, and without government support they don't tend to last, like other cartels. When they're really powerful you wind up with France. Regarding immigration and unions, Cesar Chavez (I don't know if I spelled that right, but its the guy who isn't a former President, Martin Luther King or Jesus and has an official holiday in his honor in California) was faced with the problem of immigrants undercutting his member's wages, so they patrolled they border and sometimes physically attacked immigrants (whereas even giving someone some cereal and taking a picture of them with a t-shirt saying "I got caught crossing the border and all I got was this shirt" is an expulsionary offense in the Minutemen).
Convict on 28/3/2006 at 10:36
Tony that really sucks what happened to you and my opinion (rightly or wrongly) is that safety of workers should be the prime function of unions.
What Bush is really lying when he says that illegal workers are doing the jobs that Americans won't do IMO. Of course Americans will do these jobs IF YOU PAY THEM ENOUGH. Simple supply and demand IMO. Take this graph (Figure 1) below where supply is the supply of labour (of say housecleaners) at various prices and demand is the demand for labour (of housecleaners). What Bush is saying is that there are not enough American citizens willing to do the jobs at a price below Pe (equilibrium price of labour). If the price of labour was raised by employers (householders seeking cleaners) then enough American citizens would be willing to clean their houses (and some householders would stop seeking cleaners due to the higher price - heck who wouldn't want slave labour to clean their house for them?).
Figure 1:
Inline Image:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol7no2/images/scott1b.gifNow by allowing illegal workers in the country to clean houses, Bush will drive the price of labour lower (unless unions artificially raise the price of labour but at the cost of producing unemployment). By allowing illegal workers to be added to the pool of potential workers then you shift the supply curve to the right which drives down the (equilibrium) price that will be paid for labour (cleaning houses).
Figure 2:
Inline Image:
http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/rjohnson/Graduate_Policy_Analysis/imageNFL.JPGTherefore Bush's idea to allow more workers into the market will only create unemployment or lower wages for unskilled workers in America. However it does help corporations by giving them cheap labour (in other fields than house cleaning) and may get more votes for the Republican party from the Hispanic community.
SD on 28/3/2006 at 10:46
Quote Posted by Convict
What Bush is really lying when he says that illegal workers are doing the jobs that Americans won't do IMO. Of course Americans will do these jobs IF YOU PAY THEM ENOUGH.
Convict, you're entirely missing the point of a capitalist economy. If we pay a decent living wage to all menial workers, that means the suits at the top will really struggle to afford that second Mercedes - and you can darn well forget about extensions to your summer home in the Hamptons. We need an underclass to keep the status quo, and stocking that underclass full of illegal immigrants means you can get away with treating them in a way that would be considered unacceptable if they were natives.
Myoldnamebroke on 28/3/2006 at 10:55
Quote Posted by Convict
Therefore Bush's idea to allow more workers into the market will only create unemployment or lower wages for unskilled workers in America.
But that's great! That's what you want as an employer. I'm not sure why creating conditions for cheap labour is anti-capitalist. For a real free market, you'd have no minimum wage whatsoever, so everyone comes to the negotiating table as free agents - employers and employees. At the moment, the actions of businesses are restricted by government intervention.
And as the businesses get richer from not having to pay the workers much, money will trickle down to them and everyone will be better off, right?
All those graphs are telling us what we already know. Of course adding more labour will lower the price. But this is clearly the result of the unhindered market - it's hardly uncapitalistic. It seems that this is of interest because, unlike capitalism, some people care who gets the jobs - good honest Americans or crazy foreigns. The market doesn't care where you come from.
scumble on 28/3/2006 at 13:07
Quote Posted by Uncia
It's the nigh dogmatic definition of "Free Market" that people use. Instead of thinking about actions and consequences they just assume that all the good things happen because of Free Market and all the bad things because of its hinderance. Hilarity ensues whenever those conflict.
Part of the problem is that often people are talking about the "Free Market" which is actually state capitalism - and that is the system we actually live with. The interests of big business and government are not antagonistic in practice, and large, centrally organised corporations are like a counterpart to big centralised bureaucracy. Symbiosis.
Quote Posted by MONB
I'm not sure why creating conditions for cheap labour is anti-capitalist.
The conditions for cheap labour have been emerging for quite a while in that situation. The effect that it should have is to tend to equalise the incomes of Mexicans and Americans, but the border protection slows it down. If Mexicans drain out of Mexico, decreasing supply there will tend to raise wages.
I suppose what I see is people fighting against an inevitable drop in wages in richer countries as poorer people willing to work for less start to work their way up, essentially outpacing the productivity of western workers, and trying to stop it will only make things worse when the shit hits the fan. The US
is going to lose at some point, it's just a case of when, and how badly. Obviously the rest of us will suffer too, but hopefully the income differential won't be so bad across the globe afterwards. The legacy of empire can only take the "west" so far.
Uncia on 28/3/2006 at 14:47
Quote Posted by scumble
Part of the problem is that often people are talking about the "Free Market" which is actually state capitalism - and that is the system we actually live with. The interests of big business and government are not antagonistic in practice, and large, centrally organised corporations are like a counterpart to big centralised bureaucracy. Symbiosis.
I have no idea what your point was.
SD on 28/3/2006 at 15:17
Quote Posted by Uncia
I have no idea what your point was.
If it's anything like EVERY OTHER scumble post, the point is: GOVERNMENT IS BAD TEE HEE
