Don'tcha love their 'logic'?

AnthonyT

"I just don't understand your assertions. If the world worked the way you describe it, I could not be here right now."

Why not ? What about the FACT that you are not being paid the full value of your work (and therefore the company is making a profit) makes it impossible for you to be where you are ?

"... am I the magic person willing to do this job the cheapest?"

For now, you are good enough. You may not be tomorrow. I hope you realize that. (And I have to add that labor cost is not just wages, but also distance/ transport/ communication systems and training; as well as the cost of relocating operations. So those too get factored into the decision to keep a particular labor pool or go elsewhere.)

"Or am I missing something critical in my analysis?"

Absolutely.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6211250.stm?lsm

"The richest 2% of adults in the world own more than half of all household wealth, according to a new study by a United Nations research institute. The report, from the World Institute for Development Economics Research at the UN University, says that the poorer half of the world's population own barely 1% of global wealth."

In capitalism, your dollars go to increase the personal wealth (and power) of the already ultra-wealthy. In the real world, no, you don't get the trickle-down. If it were the dominant process, the disparities that exist would cease to be. Instead, they are increasing. In socialism, they go back to society at large - and that often means benefits that you may not realize privately but publicly - a well educated society, a clean environment, a healthy poulace. (Amartya Sen) You do not benefit at all from a portion of your work going privately to others in capitalism. But you do benefit, sometimes directly and sometimes indirectly, from that portion being redistributed to society at large.


***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Hello Rue,

I'm not actually sure that I *should* be guaranteed to hold this job forever if someone better is available. (Meaning they are able to do the same work more efficiently and/or cheaply.) While I'd love to retire at this job, and while I hope my usefulness is such that it is possible for me to do so, I would not want my employer to be forced to keep me here if they had better options. Even in a not-for-profit system, I would imagine a motivation to create the most efficient labor pool possible.

It is with this essential concept of freedom in which we disagree. While I would be happy to donate some of my income to create a better world, I do not appreciate anyone making such a donation mandatory. I would greatly enjoy a public option which was entirely voluntary (including voluntarily funded.) I would enjoy spending money for a better public education system. I would enjoy spending money to increase the benefits of persons who serve in the military. I think putting some money into the creation of public parks, improved sanitation services, water supply, etc is a great idea. I believe in public progress through public funding, and I further believe in providing parachutes and ladders for people who fall on hard times.

What I do not enjoy is stealing. I don't like to steal from my neighbor to buy something that I want for myself. I don't like to tell companies what they are allowed to pay people, or to tell people what they are allowed to earn. I don't like to force people to do anything, and this kind of force is an intrinsic part of socialist systems. I almost wish that the tax returns every year could have a check box: Enroll Socialist or Enroll Capitalist. If you were Enrolled Socialist you would have the Socialist responsibilities and the Social program benefits. If you enrolled Capitalist, you'd live with the struggles and boons of a Capitalist system. The important thing, to me, is not to FORCE anyone.

When people are no longer free to choose, I get very uncomfortable.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

TONY- You said

Quote:

---

It is interesting to note that even now, in the midst of this economic depression which has generated so much unemployment (20%, you say? Remarkable. One out of every five people? Really?)

---

Yes, really. 10% official unemployment. Anyone who works even one hour a week is considered "employed". The stats do not count discouraged workers or workers who're underemployed. So- yep. 20%. Real stats.

Quote:

---

somehow in this climate, [SOME] work continues to be offered at wages exceeding the legal minimum.

---

Are you offering this as proof that jobs are being CREATED? Because that flies in the face of facts. Or are you simply saying even in shitty times, SOME people can be better off than others? And if so- So what? Is that some sort of argument FOR capitalism?

Quote:

---

What factors can possibly be impacting that decision? Why on Earth would anyone, anywhere be prepared to pay higher wages when there are unemployed people doubtless willing and able to do the job for less?

---

All you're saying here is what you said before: Even in really shitty times, some peeps will do better than others. That's like pointing to labor camp guards and saying See? Everyone can become a guard we'll all be better off. Or, even more cynically I can become a guard and therefore the system is working towards maximum efficiency, as it should.

Quote:

---

Ever since the industrial revolution, a drive to increase efficiency has resulted in machines that can do more and more work. This Steam shovel does the work of 10 men! This other one does the work of 20 men! This berry-picker does the work of 40 farmers! That chicken plucker does the work of 15 feather pullers! One might naturally assume that there would be fewer jobs in the 21st century than at any point in history. With more efficient machines and processes of all types, with jobs eliminated wholesale by scientific advancement, a thousand people in our world should be able to do the job of a million people from a hundred years ago. Unemployment should be at 95% or higher.

---

It should be. I'll get to that in a bit.

Quote:

---

Right? So what is it that has been forgotten about Capitalism, the Free Market, and similar forces and structures? What has been left out of the dire prognostications, predictions, pronouncements, and proclamations?

---

Nothing has been forgotten, but YOU have failed to notice many things.

1) You agree that more efficient producers EXPORT UNEMPLOYMENT. But in this globalized market, you can't look just at USA unemployment. For example, our farms- highly efficient and also highly subsidized- have literally forced millions (possibly billions) of farmers out of work worldwide. They concentrate in the favelas and shanty towns of southeast Asia, Africa and Central and South America creating a huge reservoir of unemployed, and literally reducing people from subsistence to starvation. At the same time, the textile workers of China, and the piece-workers of Guatemala, Vietnam and the Marianas have created unemployment in our Southeast.

2) Overall, compared to the number of hours that people used to work a hundred years ago on small farms and in villages, currently "people" as a whole is far less than previously... approximately 70% less.

3) The abject poverty created by unemployment was not= repeat NOT= solved by capitalism. Unrestrained global capitalism looks like Industrial Revolution and Victorian England: abject poverty for many; grinding, desperate unemployment; poorhouses and workhouses; people starving under bridges; widespread prostitution and servitude; a few VERY wealthy people. That hell persisted UNTIL the labor unions. You assume, I think, that concentrated/ accumulated wealth of capitalism "somehow" lifted everyone. I assure you, it did not. The solution came about from labor unions, from widespread social unrest leading to two world wars and- later- by nations which collectively and routinely recycled wealth from the top back down to the bottom.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Hello,

Signy, I think we are far, far apart on understanding each other on this issue, because some of the statements you make boggle me to the point that I'm not even sure how to comment on them. I must lack a frame of reference.

Tell me, are you suggesting a system where some central power dictates the jobs available, goods to be produced, and wages to be paid?

Are you suggesting that all businesses decrease their efficiency to the point that everyone on Earth is guaranteed a position?

Should we halt the scientific advancement and implementation of technologies that do anything faster in order to preserve the well being of the labor pool?

What is it that you are suggesting? Maybe if I understand what it is that you're talking about, then I'll be able to have this conversation on equal footing. Right now I feel like I'm speaking to someone who finds my basic concepts ludicrous and whose own basic concepts seem alien.

--Anthony



"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Tony, I feel the same way. I read your writing and I am totally and absolutely boggled. I feel I have responded directly and cogently to your points, and yet... somehow... we're not getting through to each other. How can you not see what I see?

Let me ask you this: OOC, are you a business owner? Because that would explain your frame of reference. (PS, please re-read my post above. I think I clarified some concepts.)

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Hello,

I do not own a business.

Let me tell you what I am getting from what you are describing, and you can tell me where my understanding has gone astray.

**********************************

Anthony walks into a multi-goods store in Signyland.

Anthony - *approaches salesman* Hello, I'm looking for a Mega9000 video card for my computer, do you carry those?

Salesman - *chuckles* I'm afraid not, sir.

Anthony - Darn. I can't seem to find those anywhere.

Customer - *takes a purchase to the counter* Hello, I'd like to have this garden trowel, please.

Register Attendant - Of course. Let me just sign it to your household... there you go. One trowel, free of charge.

Customer - Thank you. *walks away*

Anthony - Man, you people must really like garden trowels.

Salesman - *shrugs* They're all right.

Anthony - *points outside* I saw like a thousand people using them on a construction site over there. I couldn't figure it out.

Salesman - Oh, they're just digging the foundation for a new building.

Anthony - Excuse me?

Salesman - Thay're digging a foundation. For a building. For a new trowel factory, in fact. Demand has increased 20% this quarter.

Anthony - Wait. They're digging a foundation... with trowels?

Salesman - Well yes. What else would you use?

Anthony - *laughs* I dunno. A bulldozer?

Salesman - *winces* That's barbaric.

Anthony - Barbaric? You people are using TROWELS!

Salesman - It's the only responsible way. Did you know that a bulldozer would replace one-hundred workers using trowels?

Anthony - Well, duh. That's kind of the point.

Salesman - But what about the unemployment? How would all those people make a living?

Anthony - I dunno. Maybe they could operate Bulldozers, fix Bulldozers, design better Bulldozers?

Salesman - Better Bulldozers? But that would create MORE unemployment.

Anthony - Well, then they'd just do something else.

Salesman - Nonsense. There'd be more workers than jobs.

Anthony - I think there'd just come to be different kinds of jobs.

Salesman - Maybe for a while, but to hear the way you do things, you'd just create so much efficiency that those jobs would soon be gone, too. Barbaric, really.

Anthony - *shakes head* Well, but why trowels? Why not shovels?

Salesman - Hello?! Shovels do the work of like four trowels. It's unconscionable.

Anthony - *looking out the window* I just don't see how anyone could make money investing in a building that had to be built by a thousand laborers with trowels.

Salesman - Invest? What do you mean? And what's this about making money?

Anthony - Well, you know... you invest money in a business enterprise, like your trowel factory there. And you make money selling trowels, and you pay for the construction costs and have something left over to get yourself a nice house, car, pool, the works.

Salesman - How selfish. No, we don't make profits here. That's stealing.

Anthony - Stealing? What do you mean? That's business. Why would anyone invest in a business enterprise if they couldn't make money?

Salesman - *laughs* Well, they wouldn't, of course. We don't have investors, here.

Anthony - *blinks* You don't? Well... who is building the trowel factory?

Salesman - Why, the government.

Anthony - So... they all work for the government?

Salesman - We all work for the government.

Anthony - So there's no private enterprise?

Salesman - Of course not. Private enterprise is full of greedy thieves trying to make a profit. We are a profitless society.

Anthony - Oh... but how do you get the stuff you need?

Salesman - The government supplies it. We work for the government, and the government gives us everything we need.

Anthony - *glances around* Oh. So if you need a ferrarri, the government gives you one?

Salesman - Of course not! Who needs a ferrari?

Anthony - Well... it might be nice. A little treat to work towards, you know?

Salesman - We have everything we need.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Have you re-read my post?

Good.

Okay, here's one point where we grossly misunderstand each other (I think). You seem to think that because SOME jobs are created which pay more, that implies a direction that ALL jobs will- in the future- pay more, as a result of higher productivity. Not the case. That's even inherently understood in the definition of productivity: goods produced with less labor.

Here's an example: In electronics, assume we have a hand-assembly line of 1000 people. But we hire a 10 designers who helps roboticize the system. Those 10 designers are paid well, but we've eliminated 1000 hand-assembly jobs and replaced them with 60 jobs, managing and maintaining the robots, restocking parts inventory and tracking shipping, filling with with some inevitable assembly work. Those 60 peeps are paid well, but 940 people are now not paid at all.

Then we hire a computer expert and a software engineer to computerize the line, track inventory and automatically order parts based on demand. Those two experts are paid very well, but eventually, we wind up with a factory floor which employs 12 people whose oversee the computers and maintain the software; restock the line with parts, and sweep up; and lube, diagnose and repair machines.

Eventually, we hire design experts who create self-maintaining systems. THOSE designers will be paid extremely well, but now the shop floor is managed by three people who telecommute.

Ultimately, we hire design experts who create programs which will design hardware AND software. THOSE meta-designers will be paid extraordinarily well but all the other programmers and software engineers will be out of work.

We have just created a maximally efficient system with nearly zero employment. But all along the way SOME people were paid really, really well.
----------------------

Now, you ask yourself: Why aren't we there? Why don't we have 5 billion people out of work (excluding children under 10) and SOME people really, really well-paid?

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Well, then they'd just do something else.
Salesman - Nonsense. There'd be more workers than jobs.
Anthony - I think there'd just come to be different kinds of jobs.
Salesman - Maybe for a while, but to hear the way you do things, you'd just create so much efficiency that those jobs would soon be gone, too.

---

Yes, you have just made my argument very succinctly, and you have no real answer for it, other than to wave your hands and say "something will turn up some day".

And the funny thing is, you've just described what is considered the economic powerhouse of the world: China. Their policy is towards maximal employment. If you build a factory in China and assume that it can be staffed by 300 people, the government makes you hire 1000- even if it means that some peeps trim the grass around the office with hand-shears. If you go to a store, you will be handled by at least five sales people (one greeter, one to show you the merchandise, one to bring your item from stock, one to ring you up, and one to bag/ box the purchase.) Potholes are filled by groups of people on bicycles, each bringing some cement and/or gravel and water. (But yes, they DO use shovels.) I shit you not, I know someone who goes to China frequently. China worries... a LOT... about unemployment. By policy, they feel they need at least 10% growth- GROWTH- just to soak up the under- and unemployed.

But I'm not proposing a Chinese-style system.

The real problem is not efficient production. (Well, it could be, in the future. We have a psychological need for productive work, it gives us a sense of meaningful control over our environment. A life of total leisure is unhealthy... all you have to do is look at the ultra-wealthy who barely have to lift a finger on their own behalf... to see the mental disturbances that it causes. There are studies on the topic, which I'm not going to get into here unless you want me to. But I hope we agree that total leisure is a problem.)

The problem is wealth distribution and the power to make decisions and the ability to act collectively.

The only reason WHY "something turns up some day" is because of a large middle class. You can have all of the technology in the world, with the capacity to create a zillion little housekeeper robots and a gazillion electronic assistants, for example, but unless people are able to buy them THOSE jobs will never be created.

Employment is pulled by demand NOT pushed by investment. As long as your system keeps cutting people out of work and reducing their wealth, demand falls.

So, you can ameliorate most of the negative consequences of capitalism as long as you provide a minimum income to everyone whether or not they work... in other words, by redistributing wealth. This is what the EU has done. Thats is one soltuion, but it's not capitalism and it's definitely not Tony-style capitalism!

But there are other solutions, like labor-owned cooperatives for example.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME