This Labor Day, It's Time For A Little Wage Rage.

[Guest BoomBoomCrash]

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/0..._wage_rage.html

[Fudge]

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/0..._wage_rage.html

The Class War.

There will be no mercy once youv'e lost.

[Authoritarian]

A sensible way to stop employers taking the p!ss would involve the rebalancing the economy to favour production and investment which would naturally raise the demand for labour. If employers had to fight over labour they have no choice but to offer better pay and conditions to see off competition.

Edited September 5, 2009 by chefdave

[Kinky John]

A sensible way to stop employers taking the p!ss would involve the rebalancing the economy to favour production and investment which would naturally raise the demand for labour. If employers had to fight over labour they have no choice but to offer better pay and conditions to see off competition.

The great utopian achievement of automation has put payed to the idea of a surplus of labour. The ideal preached in the 70s that we'd all be working a 3 day week because our labour is no longer needed has been shown up for the naive absurdity it obviously was. Gains go to the owners of capital and to the elites of government not to the workers.

Sharpen the guillotines; there's only one solution to this much corruption.

[wonderpup]

Luckily all of these people have freely agreed to their terms and conditions are are not acting under constraint of any kind.

[Authoritarian]

The great utopian achievement of automation has put payed to the idea of a surplus of labour. The ideal preached in the 70s that we'd all be working a 3 day week because our labour is no longer needed has been shown up for the naive absurdity it obviously was. Gains go to the owners of capital and to the elites of government not to the workers.

Sharpen the guillotines; there's only one solution to this much corruption.

There is a truth to this statement. Alan Greenspan reckons that on average the human race becomes 2% more efficient each year which means we can either work the same amount of hours and be materially 2% richer or we could work slighly lower hours for the same amount of wealth.

Something is going hideously wrong though I accept and the major issue is where a large proportion of the wealth ends up. Imagine that the population of a run down town on the outskirts somewhere decided to get together and all work 18 hour days to improve the wealth of their town, what would be the result? The result would be that the land owners in this location would all receieve a massive freebie in the form of capital gains on their house prices as productivity cranks up; the surpluses get consumed by the land market and now the tenants of the town would be forced to swallow higher rents. This is why you could have exactly the same building in either the heart of Chelsea or on a sink estate up North with wildly different prices. The implication is that no matter how wealthy society as a whole becomes the part left over for wages and profits tends to even out at a minimum.

Edited September 5, 2009 by chefdave

[Authoritarian]

Luckily all of these people have freely agreed to their terms and conditions are are not acting under constraint of any kind.

Both employees and employers operate in the free market. There is no conflict of interest here.

[codeine]

Luckily all of these people have freely agreed to their terms and conditions are are not acting under constraint of any kind.

That's right, the Free Market is unfallable. All of those people working 18 hour days do it of their own love for working.

I freely agree to my terms and conditions of employment but the alternative to agreeing to them is to freeze in the cold.

You'll praise the "Free Market" when it works for you, but I bet if you were on its receiving end you'd be on here crying foul.

[Authoritarian]

That's right, the Free Market is unfallable. All of those people working 18 hour days do it of their own love for working.

I freely agree to my terms and conditions of employment but the alternative to agreeing to them is to freeze in the cold.

You'll praise the "Free Market" when it works for you, but I bet if you were on its receiving end you'd be on here crying foul.

lol, I think I detect a hint of sarcasm in Wonderpup's statement.

[codeine]

my bad... not the first time I've done that

[wonderpup]

Both employees and employers operate in the free market. There is no conflict of interest here.

The slave trade was a free market too- a nice little capitalist earner in it's day.

If people are indeed 'free' to refuse to work 18 hours a day in sweatshops- any thoughts on why they contine to do so?

[Authoritarian]

The slave trade was a free market too- a nice little capitalist earner in it's day.

Employers don't take away people's liberties because they're free to turn down the offer of employment without consequence. Slaves aren't afforded this luxury.

If people are indeed 'free' to refuse to work 18 hours a day in sweatshops- any thoughts on why they contine to do so?

Becuase they need to pay the rent?

[SNACR]

The slave trade was a free market too- a nice little capitalist earner in it's day.

If people are indeed 'free' to refuse to work 18 hours a day in sweatshops- any thoughts on why they contine to do so?

Because it's still less hassle than a revolution.

[Guest BoomBoomCrash]

Because it's still less hassle than a revolution.

Don't bet the farm on that.

[wonderpup]

Employers don't take away people's liberties because they're free to turn down the offer of employment without consequence. Slaves aren't afforded this luxury.

Becuase they need to pay the rent?

But if they need to pay the rent then there is a consequence of turning down the 'offer'- They will not be able to pay the rent.

My point about the Slave trade was that it was a free market- it operated like any other market place in that 'merchandise' was bought and sold with individuals free to make and turn down offers.

So we can see that the operation of a free market does not gurantee a moraly acceptable outcome- free markets can operate quite happily in a slave trading scenario- the mechanism is amoral in it's operation.

Yet you seem to belive that the free market mechanism gurantees a moraly correct outcome- why do you belive this?

[wonderpup]

Because it's still less hassle than a revolution.

Why would free people need a revolution?

[porca misèria]

Something is going hideously wrong though I accept and the major issue is where a large proportion of the wealth ends up. Imagine that the population of a run down town on the outskirts somewhere decided to get together and all work 18 hour days to improve the wealth of their town, what would be the result? The result would be that the land owners in this location would all receieve a massive freebie in the form of capital gains on their house prices as productivity cranks up; the surpluses get consumed by the land market and now the tenants of the town would be forced to swallow higher rents. This is why you could have exactly the same building in either the heart of Chelsea or on a sink estate up North with wildly different prices. The implication is that no matter how wealthy society as a whole becomes the part left over for wages and profits tends to even out at a minimum.

That's precisely what's wrong with a tax system that penalises productive work (at up to 75% from next year) but leaves capital gains for the rich taxed at a far lower rate, often zero (e.g. in the case of owner occupiers).

[SNACR]

Why would free people need a revolution?

To free them from the tax-grabbing claws of two social democrat political parties who have minimal ideological difference. That applies to both the US and the UK.

[Guest BoomBoomCrash]

To free them from the tax-grabbing claws of two social democrat political parties who have minimal ideological difference. That applies to both the US and the UK.

And in both instances parties bought and paid for by big business.

[SNACR]

And in both instances parties bought and paid for by big business.

Self-interested electorate voting for self-interested politicians funded by self-interested backers.

[Guest BoomBoomCrash]

Self-interested electorate voting for self-interested politicians funded by self-interested backers.

Not quite.

Electorate fooled by venal demagogues voting for said venal demagogues funded by self-interested backers.