Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Helgoland]

SG, although I mostly agree with your analysis, I believe you've made the same mistake as Marx - you treat the economy as a zero-sum game. Strictly speaking, that's true for basic resources like iron or uranium or real estate on Manhattan island, but for the most part that kind of thinking fails to account for a) the possibility of a raised standard of living and b) the possibility of economic growth. That's precisely why Marx's vision of the future hasn't come true (yet): Wealth consolidation and the impoverishment of the masses were again and agains stopped or slowed by those two factors. (And wealth redistribution and wars and so on, but you get my point.)
Another thing you ignore (maybe because you live in America; it would be unthinkable in France or Germany): The possibility of trade unions, strikes etc, giving employees and labourers a much better bargaining position. Unionisation is a necessary step in the reduction of economic iinequality!

TL;DR: Your analysis is right, but incomplete; you can't explain the golden fifties, the welfare state or the existence of succesful enterpreneurs.

[Descan]

Why do people hate unions, but (esp. libertarians) are all about the whole idea of "If an employer doesn't do good by the employee, he'll just leave!"?

It's fairly obvious that leaving impacts the employee so much more than the employer, by dint of the employee loses 100% of their wages until they find a new employer, while the employer loses like, 1-2% of productivity until they get a new employee.

And a union fixes that, by making it so if the employer doesn't do right by the employee, the employees will lose 100% of their wages (temporarily, hopefully, by going on strike), while the employer loses 100% of the productivity (Well, depending on how widespread the union is, and scabbing)

It seems fairly obvious to me.

[10ebbor10]

Actually, in countries with a decent Union law, and during a legal strike, people still get paid.

Prevents people from thinking that you can wait them out.

[Lagslayer]

I would argue that solar energy is limited by the surface area in which we can collect it. The earth gets hit by only so much sunlight at a time, and it having to go through the atmosphere limits it even more. Then you have to take that sunlight from something else that would otherwise use it. Sunlight warms the oceans, gives energy to plants, and provides warmth for nearly all life. We could expand solar collectors into space, sure, but it takes other, additional resources to create and maintain those.

Why do people hate unions, but (esp. libertarians) are all about the whole idea of "If an employer doesn't do good by the employee, he'll just leave!"?

It's fairly obvious that leaving impacts the employee so much more than the employer, by dint of the employee loses 100% of their wages until they find a new employer, while the employer loses like, 1-2% of productivity until they get a new employee.

And a union fixes that, by making it so if the employer doesn't do right by the employee, the employees will lose 100% of their wages (temporarily, hopefully, by going on strike), while the employer loses 100% of the productivity (Well, depending on how widespread the union is, and scabbing)

It seems fairly obvious to me.

If employers are going to be allowed to compete, shouldn't labor as well?

[Descan]

Crab mentality, lagslayer. Too much competition leads to cost-cutting safety and environmental issues on the employer side, and pulling the people around you down on the employee side.

[10ebbor10]

Labor can compete, after all, Unions are, well, Unions. You kinda need all of the people to get involved for it to work, and when the employer wants to change out his entire workforce, you can say something's wrong.

[Lagslayer]

Crab mentality, lagslayer. Too much competition leads to cost-cutting safety and environmental issues on the employer side, and pulling the people around you down on the employee side.

Then how would you determine the cutoff point? When and where is competition going to be allowed? How big is too big?

[Descan]

When competition leads to safety and quality issues, poor worker quality-of-life, and environmental degradation. :I

Don't get me wrong, competition is great for efficiency, I acknowledge that. (Though I haven't seen much non-anecdotal evidence that governments are bad at efficiency)

But the idea that "We don't have an easy method of detecting 'too much competition', therefore any regulation is bad" is absurd.

[10ebbor10]

It's a case by case basis. Basically, you can eliminate competition when it starts destroying smaller business and threatens to form a monopoly.

The other symptoms of competition are harder to avoid, and are commonly treated symptomatically.

[Lagslayer]

How dangerous is too dangerous? How poor is too poor? How much degradation is too much degradation?

And, most importantly, who gets to decide all of this? Why should their opinions be held so much higher than anyone else? Are you prepared for the risk that this person could be a jackass manipulating the system, or to genuinely hold beliefs completely contradicting your own?

[10ebbor10]

- Unions tend to be pretty good in deciding that. When the majority of the workers get's pissed off, change is usually needed.
- I'd say under 60% of the average income of a country. Generally accepted poverty line.
- The polluter pays for the cleaning costs. The company itself can make the balance.

Democratically elected government usually decides stuff like this.

[Lagslayer]

Democratically elected government usually decides stuff like this.

Glad to see that's working out for everyone.

/snark

[10ebbor10]

Democratically elected government usually decides stuff like this.

Glad to see that's working out for everyone.

/snark

It works for most of Europe. Don't blame us for America's horrible corrupted system.

[Descan]

Edit: 10ebbor offers another method, which just reinforces my idea that "I can't think of a way to do it, therefore no one can and we'll just let employers get away with anything." is a stupid fucking idea.

Anyway, to my original post: Dangerous is lose-of-life and lose-of-mobility/limbs above a global threshold for that industry (obviously mining will be more dangerous than trucking will be more dangerous than warehouse work will be more dangerous that burger-flipping)

Too poor is some combination of debt-to-income, poverty levels, and food/shelter/electricity availability/consumption. Too low a level, or too high a debt-to-income, and obviously something is wrong.

Too much degradation is when global sea-levels rise, temperature increases across the globe, areas become de-forested or polluted, animals and plants in the region (esp. if they're endemic) become either genetically degraded (cannot breed with a wide enough population) or go extinct, etc.

Who gets to decide? No single person. Economics, biological and environmental sciences, hospital rates and public health statistics.

This is all thought off the top of my head, Lagslayer. People eminently more qualified and with a wider knowledge-base than I would be able to come up with better and more nuanced ideas than just me, sitting in my bedroom and thinking for a few minutes. You can do better than that, surely.

Assuming you aren't playing devils advocate.

[SalmonGod]

SG, although I mostly agree with your analysis, I believe you've made the same mistake as Marx - you treat the economy as a zero-sum game. Strictly speaking, that's true for basic resources like iron or uranium or real estate on Manhattan island, but for the most part that kind of thinking fails to account for a) the possibility of a raised standard of living and b) the possibility of economic growth. That's precisely why Marx's vision of the future hasn't come true (yet): Wealth consolidation and the impoverishment of the masses were again and agains stopped or slowed by those two factors. (And wealth redistribution and wars and so on, but you get my point.)
Another thing you ignore (maybe because you live in America; it would be unthinkable in France or Germany): The possibility of trade unions, strikes etc, giving employees and labourers a much better bargaining position. Unionisation is a necessary step in the reduction of economic iinequality!

TL;DR: Your analysis is right, but incomplete; you can't explain the golden fifties, the welfare state or the existence of succesful enterpreneurs.

Why should I account for factors that are non-capitalist as part of a critique of capitalism?  Yeah, the economy grows and raises standards of living with it... but only for those who are able to participate.  Without welfare, and other products of it that you mentioned, the number of people able to participate would be constantly shrinking, both because of wealth consolidation and because of technology.  And welfare is constantly under attack by leading players and proponents of capitalism, who have succeeded in weakening it over decades.

I did mention earlier that I think a basic income guarantee would solve a fuckton of problems.  It's not my ideal, but it would be a huge improvement and do away with the worst problems.  So I'm very definitely not leaving out welfare.

And unions... others have already mentioned that it's really difficult for them to function without legal protections (a non-capitalist intervention), and as the population and desperations of the poor increase (an inevitability when society functions on pursuit of profit, unless there is constant and total wealth re-distribution), the likelihood for successful union action decreases.

And anyway... that whole thing was just to respond to LordBucket's request for explanation as to why I equate money with resource control, and other questions.  Not intended to apply beyond the scope of responding to him.