Is Bush anti-capitalist?

Myoldnamebroke on 29/3/2006 at 14:19

Quote Posted by Convict

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.

Actually, it's a reaction to the restriction placed upon the free market by government. The government is artificially limiting the supply of labour by saying 'you can't employ these people because they're foreign'.

You're confused because, as Paz has been crusading against, you seem to be tying together different issues under one label. There are 'RIGHT WING RAR' opinions that aren't consistent. Although the pro-market and anti-immigrant stances often go together, that doesn't mean they're the same thing. Being pro-migrant doesn't mean they have to be anti-capitalist.

Agent Monkeysee on 29/3/2006 at 17:14

Quote Posted by Convict

You're approaching this all wrong. Neither my scenario nor your scenario is inconsistent with capitalism, which is why I'm confused by your entire argument.

Yes if you cutoff the flow of cheap labor then companies must raise wages to attract more employees. If you don't cutoff the flow of cheap labor than companies will lower wages to cut costs. Neither cutting out cheap labor or increasing the flow of cheap labor is inconsistent with capitalism; it just is and a capitalist system will react to it.

I think what you're trying to argue is Bush is anti-living wages or anti-domestic labor market or something, but nothing he's doing is anti-capitalist. That would entail nationalizing industries or implementing a command economy or something.

Quote Posted by TheGreatGodPan

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.

I remember the last time I was given a raise I pleaded with my manager not to give it to me but I'm held hostage by our pay scale system.

Unions have no leverage without government backing. That's just how it works. The trick, like anything, is to strike a balance which is admittedly very difficult. But there seems to be this universal wisdom that if some economic intervention isn't working at 100% we should abandon it to the free market, which is just idiotic. Unfettered capitalism is exploitive by it's very nature. That's not good and that's not bad, that's just the way it is and there must be some control over the more ruinious tendencies of markets not only to protect individuals but to protect markets themselves. The trick is to recognize what things markets do well and what things markets do poorly and try and fix the things done poorly without adversely affecting the things they do well too much.

TheGreatGodPan on 30/3/2006 at 01:40

Quote Posted by ilweran

Why would companies want to please individual employees?

Why would they pay employees at all? It would be cheaper to pay them nothing.

Quote Posted by Agent Monkeysee

Unfettered capitalism is exploitive by it's very nature. That's not good and that's not bad, that's just the way it is and there must be some control over the more ruinious tendencies of markets not only to protect individuals but to protect markets themselves. The trick is to recognize what things markets do well and what things markets do poorly and try and fix the things done poorly without adversely affecting the things they do well too much.

What qualifies something as exploitive? That word always annoyed me, kind of like "justice" and "fairness" (I thought I knew what those words meant when I was a little kid, but they're generally used to mean something quite different). I think you have a good argument (or at least the basic idea behind one, which is better than par for internet discussions), but in order to consider government intervention justified I'd like to see an externality created by the market and evidence that the government will improve things, because it generally seems to me that the things the government does well are killing people and destroying stuff, it does a passable job of procuring money (managing it's another matter), and then in general it does other things poorly.

Agent Monkeysee on 30/3/2006 at 02:58

Quote Posted by TheGreatGodPan

but in order to consider government intervention justified I'd like to see an externality created by the market and evidence that the government will improve things

Pollution.

hopper on 30/3/2006 at 09:31

Quote Posted by TheGreatGodPan

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.

Put your money where your mouth is. Go on, show me you can do it. Apply for a job, say, at a saw mill, or chicken farm, or package delivery service or something. Tell the manager what you just said here, that he better cough up something better than those monkey-ass inferior benefits the government and the unions force him to offer you, if he wants to please you. Cos YOU DA MAN.

Good luck with that. :thumb:

ilweran on 30/3/2006 at 13:02

Quote Posted by TheGreatGodPan

Why would they pay employees at all? It would be cheaper to pay them nothing.

Someplaces used to pay very little- our local shop used to pay 98p/hr. I'd say one of the good things the Labour government has done is bring in a minimum wage

SD on 30/3/2006 at 15:05

Quote Posted by ilweran

I'd say one of the good things the Labour government has done is bring in a minimum wage

I would agree wholeheartedly.

I remember when the minimum wage was introduced (and it was just £3.60 back then, it's £5.05 now), conservatives were predicting that there would be mass unemployment as small businesses went bust in their droves.

Of course, it didn't happen, which has pretty much done nothing to shatter the widely-held belief that conservatives are reactionary asshats who talk out of their backsides.

See, when you increase the wages of the lowest-paid staff, it's true that you place an extra financial burden upon employers. But what conservatives generally don't appreciate is that those low-paid members of society (and we are talking about millions of people who earn the minimum wage) now have more disposable income, which balances out the negative effects on business. There's still the same amount of money sloshing around in the economy, it's just a bit more fairly distributed.

Sometimes people are surprised to hear me (a liberal) endorsing profoundly socialist policies like the redistribution of wealth, because it's not a classic liberal belief, but it's really a logical leap for any modern liberal to make. Because as liberals we believe in freedom for everyone - and when you 're below the poverty line, being exploited by the upper echelons of society, you cannot ever be truly free.

Umm, having written all that, I'm not sure what the point of this post was, but I think it probably belongs in this thread :).

PigLick on 30/3/2006 at 16:04

in the bin

Rug Burn Junky on 30/3/2006 at 16:06

Quote Posted by TheGreatGodPan

I thought I knew what those words meant when I was a little kid, but they're generally used to mean something quite different

We tend to think that you don't know what a lot of words mean.

TheGreatGodPan on 30/3/2006 at 22:35

Quote Posted by Agent Monkeysee

Pollution.

I don't know much about the governments track record with regards to pollution, but the pollution/emission credits system certainly sounds like something that could work, if a good way of determining the value of the damage caused by a unit of pollution. Even if someone just pulled a number out of their ass though, it would still likely be a better heuristic than systems that don't use market mechanics.

Quote Posted by hopper

I don't think you're quite clear on the concept. If I say I don't like the deal being offered (or I'm willing to accept less and wouldn't be able to get the job at the going rate) and think there is one both me and the employer would prefer, the answer is going to be "Well that sounds great, but I don't have that option". If they did, then they wouldn't be forced, would they?

In elaboration of my point on bundles: value is subjective. Different people will place different values on the same thing. If the government mandates A and B, and the company offers A, B, C and D but not E, it might be the case that for me ABCD < AECD < ABCDE and for the company AECD < ABCD < ABCDE, so both of us would prefer AECD, but we are not allowed to drop B in favor of E, so both of us are left worse off. Unless of course you believe that I (and possibly the employer as well) have no idea what's really good for us so the decision has to be made for us.

Quote Posted by Strontium Dog

See, when you increase the wages of the lowest-paid staff, it's true that you place an extra financial burden upon employers. But what conservatives generally don't appreciate is that those low-paid members of society (and we are talking about millions of people who earn the minimum wage) now have more disposable income, which balances out the negative effects on business. There's still the same amount of money sloshing around in the economy, it's just a bit more fairly distributed.

Why don't we set the minimum wage at a million dollars (or pounds for you limeys) an hour? Wouldn't we all be rich then?