Agent Monkeysee on 28/3/2006 at 16:31
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. However it does help corporations by giving them cheap labour (in other fields than house cleaning)...
Yes that seems plausible enough. How is this anti-Capitalist?
Nicker on 28/3/2006 at 19:49
Quote Posted by TheGreatGodPan
Regarding unions, they privilege members at the expense of non-members, and without government support they don't tend to last, like other cartels.
And this differs from capitalism in what way, other than there are fewer members in the latter to share the "privilege"? Anyway, I don't think a CEO would consider a living wage a privilege, more like a life sentence.
The labour movement is less than a century old and still going strong(ish). Saying unions won't last without government support is a tad laughable. Any "-ism" can be perverted by stupidity, selfishness or outright criminality. Singling out unionism proves nothing.
Do you enjoy your weekend, the guarantee of at least a minimum wage, workplace health and safety standards, vacation pay, pensions? Any regulations or laws that protect workers can be traced to organised labour's efforts. All workers benefit from the efforts of the labour movement to bring fairness to the workplace. The very threat of organisation keeps many employers in line.
If you want to know which ideology Bush is dancing to today, ask his organ grinder.
Convict on 28/3/2006 at 21:36
Quote Posted by Agent Monkeysee
Yes that seems plausible enough. How is this anti-Capitalist?
Ok maybe I used the wrong wording - what I meant was that the price of labour should be raised to the equilibrium price of labour. However Bush et al. are refusing to pay the equilibrium price of labour which seemed anti-capitalist to me (but they would rather increase supply so that they can pay a new lower equilibrium price of labour).
TTK12G3 on 28/3/2006 at 22:09
Quote Posted by Ultraviolet
*yell yell scream rant*HEATHEN FAGGOT FUCKING HIPPY PINKO SCUM BULLSHIT!
Wow, that pissed you off (or you just wanted to scream that:rolleyes: ), AND my post got deleted (probably for brevity:nono:). I was simply trying to throw out a bit of pessimism. I do not support a "happy free labor candy land" or slavery.
Quote Posted by Convict
Ok maybe I used the wrong wording - what I meant was that the price of labour should be raised to the equilibrium price of labour. However Bush et al. are refusing to pay the equilibrium price of labour which seemed anti-capitalist to me (but they would rather increase supply so that they can pay a new lower equilibrium price of labour).
The latter sort of balances out the former. If indeed that is "the grand master plan", then it's kind of flimsy, not that anyone is going to really do anything about that. At least not right now. I am not going to try to BS much further than an assumption based on what I know.
Ultraviolet on 29/3/2006 at 00:52
Quote Posted by TTK12G3
Wow, that pissed you off (or you just wanted to scream that:rolleyes: ), AND my post got deleted (probably for brevity:nono:). I was simply trying to throw out a bit of pessimism. I do not support a "happy free labor candy land" or slavery.
That was me speaking for the Right in the good ol' US of A. Using their voice, you know.
Agent Monkeysee on 29/3/2006 at 02:20
Quote Posted by Convict
Ok maybe I used the wrong wording - what I meant was that the price of labour should be raised to the equilibrium price of labour. However Bush et al. are refusing to pay the equilibrium price of labour which seemed anti-capitalist to me (but they would rather increase supply so that they can pay a new lower equilibrium price of labour).
The problem is the conservative base sees any economic intervention like "raising the price of labor" to be "socialism" and will storm the White House and burn the Capitol if he does so.
TheGreatGodPan on 29/3/2006 at 04:29
Quote Posted by Nicker
And this differs from capitalism in what way, other than there are fewer members in the latter to share the "privilege"? Anyway, I don't think a CEO would consider a living wage a privilege, more like a life sentence.
I don't know what the analogy for membership in a union would be. And what is a living wage? Unions prevent people who want to work for less money from working.
Quote Posted by Nicker
The labour movement is less than a century old and still going strong(ish). Saying unions won't last without government support is a tad laughable. Any "-ism" can be perverted by stupidity, selfishness or outright criminality. Singling out unionism proves nothing.
Private sector union membership has been steadily declining while public sector membership is rising. Unions become powerful when governments require closed shops or pass stuff like the (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner_Act) Wagner act, enforce collective bargaining with threats of seizure by the military and subsequent nationalization. The difference in government support for unions can be clearly seen in the difference between the U.S and Europe.
Quote Posted by Nicker
Do you enjoy your weekend, the guarantee of at least a minimum wage, workplace health and safety standards, vacation pay, pensions? Any regulations or laws that protect workers can be traced to organised labour's efforts. All workers benefit from the efforts of the labour movement to bring fairness to the workplace. The very threat of organisation keeps many employers in line.
I don't attribute what employers offer to unions or the government. They offer them to attract employees. If the benefit of hiring people is artificially lowered (by the government) they rationally hire less people. I'd prefer deciding for myself what's a good deal rather than being forced into a bundle of benefits I will likely find inferior to what would have been offered with the goal of pleasing employees rather than the government.
Fig455 on 29/3/2006 at 08:49
Quote Posted by Tony
And even in the early nineteen hundreds we didn't have this widespread poverty.
Well, except for THE GREAT DEPRESSION, it was all sunshine and bubblegum!!!
Quote:
I guess I'm never going to understand economics.
Guess not.:erg:
Convict on 29/3/2006 at 11:08
Quote Posted by Agent Monkeysee
The problem is the conservative base sees any economic intervention like "raising the price of labor" to be "socialism" and will storm the White House and burn the Capitol if he does so.
No, the price of labour will automatically rise (from what it is in America - ie rise to the equilibrium price of labour) if people don't allow an increase in the supply of labour (illegal immigrants) - hence the equilibrium price of labour. Thus, wage rises for even unskilled workers is consistent with capitalism.
ilweran on 29/3/2006 at 12:06
Quote Posted by TheGreatGodPan
I don't attribute what employers offer to unions or the government. They offer them to attract employees. If the benefit of hiring people is artificially lowered (by the government) they rationally hire less people. I'd prefer deciding for myself what's a good deal rather than being forced into a bundle of benefits I will likely find inferior to what would have been offered with the goal of pleasing employees rather than the government.
Why would companies want to please individual employees? I'm wondering what work you do? I used to work in a shop and as far as I know nobody there was in a union and management were not interested in keeping us happy at all- which led to a very high turn over of staff, the highest in the company apprently but didn't lead to any changes.
Maybe if you work in a highly skilled field with a shortage of trained people you could negotiate benefits, but I think most people aren't lucky enough to be in that situation.
This is all from a UK perspective.
