Page 17 of 21 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 203

Thread: Higher Minimum Wage Coming Soon

  1. #161
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    12-02-16 @ 06:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,520

    Re: Higher Minimum Wage Coming Soon

    I won't eat any less fast food due to price increases, so a minimum wage increase is no big deal.
    The only downside I see is it will allow high school dropouts to earn more money.
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

  2. #162
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Between Hollywood and Compton.
    Last Seen
    11-24-09 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    5,497

    Re: Higher Minimum Wage Coming Soon

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    You are playing an absolutes game, and doing so to prove you are a "real" socialist whereas the "real" thing hasn't been tried yet, again, socialism is government ownership of resources, control is assertion of ownership.
    Actually, I'd claim nothing of the sort. If you were actually aware of the nature of my posts, you'd be aware that I've noted the implementation of libertarian socialism in various contexts, though that remains irrelevant to this thread. There's no "absolutes game" being played; I'm simply not going to accept the premise that an economic system wholly antithetical to socialist principles is somehow a representation of it. Liberal democratic capitalism would be an example of that, and would in fact be more inimical to the establishment of socialist principles than the more rightist Anglo-Saxon capitalism, since it utilizes the welfare state to appease worker militancy and thus stabilize labor allegiances so as to prevent embracement of excessively "radical" ideologies. And once again, socialism is the collective ownership and management of the means of production. Mere "government ownership" will not suffice because of the divergence between public and state interests and the inability of state ownership to maintain a legitimate participatory element in the management process.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Theft of surplus labor? You've gotta be kidding, if you aren't I'm done with you, Marxist labor theory, another tenet of socialism and communism, is nothing more than a call to empty rhetorical populism and has NO value as far as numbers are concrerned, labor has a value, it is assigned when the agreement is reached between employer and employee, nothing about current labor theory honors that.
    Any Marxist on this forum will be able to inform you that I am not one. I simply utilize a rather broad socialist critique of capitalism to which Marx was a contributor, but certainly not the exclusive contributor. The rest of your comment was too incoherent for me to piece together perfectly, but it seemed to be related to the propertarian sentiment that the "voluntary agreement" between the employer and the laborer is a moral validation of whatever arrangement they have. That is most certainly untrue, but you can take that to the "Libertarian Socialism" thread instead of derailing this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Incorrect, if someone must ask permission to allocate their resources towards investment and hiring, it is a government(populous) declaration of true ownership, that is not a mis-respresentation.
    Actually, it's an indication of overarching governmental controls rather than direct ownership and management, and important distinctions exist between the two. But more importantly, the fact that government ownership is not equivalent to and is often antithetical to legitimately public ownership stands.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    That's a nice long winded way of saying that socialism is subjective, thank you. If the government owns the means of production it is socialism, if the government asserts ownership without purchase(overregulation) it is ownership, there are no percentages in the definition, which is convenient for someone who wants to argue that we aren't in a heavy left economy, or that Keynes didn't advocate socialism, and it is likewise convenient when socialism fails in any given form because it allows people the leeway to say "we haven't tried it yet", it's all bunk. Venezuela only owns a few sectors of it's market, yet it is socialist, Cuba owns the entire enchilada, and it is socio-communist, Russia, similar, China owns the bulk of it's assets, yet is privatizing......and still communist, get it yet?
    Nope! Those assessments are all blatantly incorrect and are based on the identification of state capitalism as socialism, as well as the even more laughable premise that Keynes supported "socialism." Regardless, I'm tired of you derailing this thread with mention of these topics, and will again re-direct you to the "Libertarian Socialism" thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    If by baseless you mean backed up by economic law, and historical fact you'd be correct. Give one example of a minimum wage holding it's value, or mainaining full entry position employment, one.
    ...have you not been reading any of the empirical research that has been posted? You seemed content to dismiss my first post with a remark about its "Keynesian" elements (though that label is abused by ignorant rightists almost as much as the term "socialist" is), but you apparently didn't read it before you did so?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    How about an example of a centralized economic system that has sustained itself for over 100 years without a major overhaul, I'll even allow you the waste and fraud inherent in those systems as lattitude.
    Not that I don't adamantly oppose central planning, but how about capitalism? As previously mentioned, the history of Western economic development is centered around the heavy utilization of state protectionism to ensure maximum growth and efficiency. The government was and remains a necessary growth and stabilization agent in the capitalist economy, a reality that cannot be altered by any of the laissez-faire ramblings posted on mises.org.

  3. #163
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Between Hollywood and Compton.
    Last Seen
    11-24-09 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    5,497

    Re: Higher Minimum Wage Coming Soon

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    Except for just a few things: 1. They're only looking at one industry. It may just happen that the jobs in that industry are worth more than the minimum wage. 2. They don't take into account inflation. 3. This is much more complete.
    Wikipedia doesn't seem an especially supportive source for you to cite, considering this section:

    Several researchers have conducted statistical meta-analyses of the employment effects of the minimum wage. Card and Krueger analyzed 14 earlier time-series studies and concluded that there was clear evidence of publication bias because the later studies, which had more data and lower standard errors, did not show the expected increase in t-statistic (almost all the studies had a t of about two, just above the level of statistical significance at the .05 level).[56] Though a serious methodological indictment, opponents of the minimum wage virtually ignored this issue; as Thomas C. Leonard noted, "The silence is fairly deafening."[57] More recently, T.D. Stanley has criticized their methodology, suggesting that their results could signify either publication bias or the absence of an effect. Using a different methodology, however, he concludes that there is statistically significant evidence of publication bias and that correction of this bias shows no relationship between the minimum wage and unemployment.[58] In 2008, Hristos Doucouliagos and T.D. Stanley conduct a similar meta-analysis of 64 U.S. studies on disemployment effects and concluded that Card and Krueger's initial claim of publication bias is still correct. Moreover, they concluded, "Once this publication selection is corrected, little or no evidence of a negative association between minimum wages and employment remains."
    Aside from that, what you don't seem to understand is that even if the research that indicates that higher minimum wages cause a greater degree of unemployment in some contexts is sound, that would not invalidate my arguments that there are oligopsonistic conditions in labor markets that could cause the minimum wage to have no effect on employment whatsoever or to cause an increase in employment. The very nature of such deficiencies as monopsony power renders labor markets heterogenous in nature. However, there is no satisfactory explanation for increases in employment in correlation with increases in the minimum wage that can be derived from the textbook model of the labor market.

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    Quit trying to prove your points via verbosity. You're basically trying to say that there is no competition in the markets which is complete nonsense.
    I’d never claim that there was no competition. I'm merely saying that monopsonistic and oligopsonistic conditions exist in labor markets in that firms are faced not by infinitely elastic labor supply curves but by upward sloping labor supply curves. If they were faced by infinite elasticity, then the entire workforce would quit when wages were reduced by a cent, which is clearly nonsensical. I certainly belief that market competition in the capitalist economy is far more restricted than it would be in the socialist economy due to factors of concentration, but that isn't pertinent to my point about monopsony power.

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    Capitalism has never truly existed, but we were close before anti-trust laws came about.
    Then you'll agree that the rightists who usually attribute the economic success of the West to capitalism and free market principles are incorrect? Personally, it seems to me absurd to claim that capitalism "has never truly existed," given that that claim is necessarily dependent upon a "pure" conception of capitalism that doesn't exist outside of the economic spectrum of the textbook, and practical reality necessitates consideration of actual conditions and the applicability of appropriate labels to those actual conditions. And I'd say that an economy that involves the private ownership of the means of production, the usage of markets as the primary means of resource allocation, and the institution of wage labor is capitalist in nature.

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    See the nonsense?
    I do. But if you hadn’t posted the Murray Rothbard link, I wouldn’t have had to.

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    And the boss of the person who is doing the interviewing would fire him for doing a bad job. The analogy does not work.
    Actually, it serves its purpose, and the response you offer is desperately utopian and assumes perfect information and monitoring in the capitalist firm, conditions that do not exist outside of the textbook.

    Firstly, we have to focus on the inadvertent consequences of market concentration, in that the existence of more established orthodox capitalist firms, along with their access to an exceedingly greater amount of capital and resources, plays a role in preventing the development of firms with more productive organizational methods (i.e. worker-owned enterprises and labor cooperatives), regardless of the ability of the latter to utilize their own resources more efficiently (and effectively), than the orthodox capitalist firm. The role of inequivalent access to productive resources and financial capital prevents the worker-owned enterprises from engaging in fair competition with capitalist firms. As noted by socialist economist Jaroslav Vanek in an interview:

    If you go to a bank and ask for a loan to start a co-op, they will throw you out. Co-ops in the West are a bit like sea water fish in a freshwater pond. The capitalist world in the last 200 years has evolved its own institutions, instruments, political frameworks etc. There is no guarantee that another species could function if it had to depend on the same institutions. In capitalism, the power is embedded in the shares of common stock, a voting share. This has no meaning in economic democracy. Economic democracy needs its own institutions for one simple reason. Workers are not rich. Let's face it, most working people in the world today are either poor or unemployed. They do not have the necessary capital to finance democratic enterprises.
    Beyond the stage of the new entries into the labor market simply being naturally overwhelmed is the stage of established firms engaging in unfair business practices such as underselling, which constitutes an exploitation of inequitable and unbalanced conditions of entry that any libertarian should oppose. For instance, this letter of John Stuart Mill makes the point well:

    Sir, I beg to enclose a subscription of [10 pounds] to aid, as far as such a sum can do it, in the struggle which the Co-operative Plate-Lock Makers of Wolverhampton are maintaining against unfair competition on the part of the masters in the trade. Against fair competition I have no desire to shield them. Co-operative production carried on by persons whose hearts are in the cause, and who are capable of the energy and self-denial always necessary in its early stages, ought to be able to hold its ground against private establishments and persons who have not those qualities had better not attempt it.

    But to carry on business at a loss in order to ruin competitors is not fair competition. In such a contest, if prolonged, the competitors who have the smallest means, though they may have every other element of success, must necessarily be crushed through no fault of their own. Having the strongest sympathy with your vigorous attempt to make head against what in such a case may justly be called the tyranny of capital, I beg you to send me a dozen copies of your printed appeal, to assist me in making the case known to such persons as it may interest in your favour.
    Even more than that, any consistent proponent of legitimately competitive market exchange should oppose the conditions of the capitalist economy. As noted by Vanek, "[t]he capitalist economy is not a true market economy because in western capitalism, as in Soviet state capitalism, there is a tendency towards monopoly. Economic democracy tends toward a competitive market." Since market socialism, for example, is characterized by small, worker-owned and managed enterprises and labor cooperatives, effective market competition can be coordinated while granting effective equality of opportunity to participants.

    So we're confronted with the "sea water fish in the freshwater pond" problem noted by Vanek in that varieties of negative discrimination may occur as a result of the aforementioned market concentration. We've noted that the competitors of the cooperative may well engage in underselling, as evidenced by no less a libertarian figure than John Stuart Mill. And we'd have to note the existence of negative externalities generated by surrounding capitalist firms, and a variety of other negative conditions that are generally traced back to the fundamental reality that it is not in the interests of the financial and coordinator classes for workers' ownership and management to succeed. We can thus directly observe the profit motives of the financial and coordinator classes a whole causing them to resist the implementation of more productive organization schemes, since it would render them marginal or utterly useless, a reality well summarized by Herbert Gintis:

    [G]iven that profits depend on the integrity of the labor exchange, a strongly centralized structure of control not only serves the interests of the employer, but dictates a minute division of labor irrespective of considerations of productivity. For this reason, the evidence for the superior productivity of 'workers control' represents the most dramatic of anomalies to the neo-classical theory of the firm: worker control increases the effective amount of work elicited from each worker and improves the coordination of work activities, while increasing the solidarity and delegitimizing the hierarchical structure of ultimate authority at its root; hence it threatens to increase the power of workers in the struggle over the share of total value.
    The fundamental conflict between profit and productivity maximization, and more broadly, between labor and capital, that is bound to exist and flourish in a capitalist economy is again revealed. David Schweickart has of course noted the uselessness of maintaining a financial class whose only purpose it is to hoard and lend capital, and he's also noted that "[f]or middle managers, the incentive to resist participatory schemes is even greater, because such changes often show many middle managers to be redundant. The resistance of middle management to participatory experiments, often bordering on sabotage, is well known and widely documented." We thus observe the lengths to which both powerful classes are willing to go in order to maintain their hegemony.

  4. #164
    Molecular Biology Freak
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    USC, Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    06-21-16 @ 06:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    16,359

    Re: Higher Minimum Wage Coming Soon

    Quote Originally Posted by UtahBill View Post
    I won't eat any less fast food due to price increases, so a minimum wage increase is no big deal.
    The only downside I see is it will allow high school dropouts to earn more money.
    You may not, but some people may not be able to afford it. That said, food prices are artificially propped up by our government, and that's another issue.

    You'd think that high school dropouts would make more money with minimum wage, but in fact it makes them more prone to being unemployed.

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

  5. #165
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Redneck Riviera
    Last Seen
    07-09-11 @ 04:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,728

    Re: Higher Minimum Wage Coming Soon

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    You'd think that high school dropouts would make more money with minimum wage, but in fact it makes them more prone to being unemployed.
    This is just what we need given the record levels of unemployment we're dealing with right now. Yay, Democrats!

  6. #166
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    12-02-16 @ 06:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,520

    Re: Higher Minimum Wage Coming Soon

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    You may not, but some people may not be able to afford it. That said, food prices are artificially propped up by our government, and that's another issue.

    You'd think that high school dropouts would make more money with minimum wage, but in fact it makes them more prone to being unemployed.
    Afford it? Yeah, I'm old, and I remember not being able to afford it. Fast food is expensive at any price compared to grocery store foods.

    High school dropouts under the age of 18 should get no more than half of minimum wage.....no way should we motivate them to quit school by paying them a liveable wage...or anything close to it...
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

  7. #167
    Molecular Biology Freak
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    USC, Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    06-21-16 @ 06:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    16,359

    Re: Higher Minimum Wage Coming Soon

    This will be the tale of me shortening Agnapostate's posts since no one wants to read his long diatribes. I will then respond in an easy to read fashion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    Actually, I'd claim nothing of the sort. If you were actually aware of the nature of my posts, you'd be aware that I've noted the implementation of libertarian socialism in various contexts, though that remains irrelevant to this thread. There's no "absolutes game" being played; I'm simply not going to accept the premise that an economic system wholly antithetical to socialist principles is somehow a representation of it. Liberal democratic capitalism would be an example of that, and would in fact be more inimical to the establishment of socialist principles than the more rightist Anglo-Saxon capitalism, since it utilizes the welfare state to appease worker militancy and thus stabilize labor allegiances so as to prevent embracement of excessively "radical" ideologies. And once again, socialism is the collective ownership and management of the means of production. Mere "government ownership" will not suffice because of the divergence between public and state interests and the inability of state ownership to maintain a legitimate participatory element in the management process.
    A: I'm a socialist anarchist.
    P: Good for you.

    Any Marxist on this forum will be able to inform you that I am not one. I simply utilize a rather broad socialist critique of capitalism to which Marx was a contributor, but certainly not the exclusive contributor. The rest of your comment was too incoherent for me to piece together perfectly, but it seemed to be related to the propertarian sentiment that the "voluntary agreement" between the employer and the laborer is a moral validation of whatever arrangement they have. That is most certainly untrue, but you can take that to the "Libertarian Socialism" thread instead of derailing this thread.
    A: I use Marxism because it is convenient. Even though the employee signs a contract, he's still being abused.
    P: If we felt we were being abused then why sign the contract in the first place?

    Actually, it's an indication of overarching governmental controls rather than direct ownership and management, and important distinctions exist between the two. But more importantly, the fact that government ownership is not equivalent to and is often antithetical to legitimately public ownership stands.
    A: Government intervention does not lead to an equal distribution of wealth.
    P: I thought that wasn't the goal of socialism . . .

    Nope! Those assessments are all blatantly incorrect and are based on the identification of state capitalism as socialism, as well as the even more laughable premise that Keynes supported "socialism." Regardless, I'm tired of you derailing this thread with mention of these topics, and will again re-direct you to the "Libertarian Socialism" thread.
    A: Government interventionism is not socialism.
    P: When government tells companies how to run their business, then there is no difference between that economic system and socialism.

    ...have you not been reading any of the empirical research that has been posted? You seemed content to dismiss my first post with a remark about its "Keynesian" elements (though that label is abused by ignorant rightists almost as much as the term "socialist" is), but you apparently didn't read it before you did so?
    A: You're just ignoring the research that I've referenced because it makes use of Keynesianism.
    P: Keynesianism is a theoretical and practical failure. Besides that, research is wholly unreliable because of the many lurking variables present.

    Not that I don't adamantly oppose central planning, but how about capitalism? As previously mentioned, the history of Western economic development is centered around the heavy utilization of state protectionism to ensure maximum growth and efficiency. The government was and remains a necessary growth and stabilization agent in the capitalist economy, a reality that cannot be altered by any of the laissez-faire ramblings posted on mises.org.
    A: We have always had protectionism so it is necessary to the growth of the economy.
    P: Just because it has been there does not mean it is necessary. I could just as easily say that we grew despite that protectionism. Correlation does not prove causation.

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

  8. #168
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Redneck Riviera
    Last Seen
    07-09-11 @ 04:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,728

    Re: Higher Minimum Wage Coming Soon

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    This will be the tale of me shortening Agnapostate's posts since no one wants to read his long diatribes. I will then respond in an easy to read fashion.
    I think you deserve some sort of translation award.

  9. #169
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    11-01-16 @ 11:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,473

    Re: Higher Minimum Wage Coming Soon

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    You may not, but some people may not be able to afford it. That said, food prices are artificially propped up by our government, and that's another issue.

    You'd think that high school dropouts would make more money with minimum wage, but in fact it makes them more prone to being unemployed.
    It's funny to me that the pro MW increase side doesn't want to touch the additional unemployment fact, or when they do they blame the employers as if there is some unlimited funding, so much for "caring about the little guy".
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  10. #170
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    11-01-16 @ 11:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,473

    Re: Higher Minimum Wage Coming Soon

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    Wikipedia doesn't seem an especially supportive source for you to cite, considering this section:



    Aside from that, what you don't seem to understand is that even if the research that indicates that higher minimum wages cause a greater degree of unemployment in some contexts is sound, that would not invalidate my arguments that there are oligopsonistic conditions in labor markets that could cause the minimum wage to have no effect on employment whatsoever or to cause an increase in employment. The very nature of such deficiencies as monopsony power renders labor markets heterogenous in nature. However, there is no satisfactory explanation for increases in employment in correlation with increases in the minimum wage that can be derived from the textbook model of the labor market.



    I’d never claim that there was no competition. I'm merely saying that monopsonistic and oligopsonistic conditions exist in labor markets in that firms are faced not by infinitely elastic labor supply curves but by upward sloping labor supply curves. If they were faced by infinite elasticity, then the entire workforce would quit when wages were reduced by a cent, which is clearly nonsensical. I certainly belief that market competition in the capitalist economy is far more restricted than it would be in the socialist economy due to factors of concentration, but that isn't pertinent to my point about monopsony power.



    Then you'll agree that the rightists who usually attribute the economic success of the West to capitalism and free market principles are incorrect? Personally, it seems to me absurd to claim that capitalism "has never truly existed," given that that claim is necessarily dependent upon a "pure" conception of capitalism that doesn't exist outside of the economic spectrum of the textbook, and practical reality necessitates consideration of actual conditions and the applicability of appropriate labels to those actual conditions. And I'd say that an economy that involves the private ownership of the means of production, the usage of markets as the primary means of resource allocation, and the institution of wage labor is capitalist in nature.



    I do. But if you hadn’t posted the Murray Rothbard link, I wouldn’t have had to.



    Actually, it serves its purpose, and the response you offer is desperately utopian and assumes perfect information and monitoring in the capitalist firm, conditions that do not exist outside of the textbook.

    Firstly, we have to focus on the inadvertent consequences of market concentration, in that the existence of more established orthodox capitalist firms, along with their access to an exceedingly greater amount of capital and resources, plays a role in preventing the development of firms with more productive organizational methods (i.e. worker-owned enterprises and labor cooperatives), regardless of the ability of the latter to utilize their own resources more efficiently (and effectively), than the orthodox capitalist firm. The role of inequivalent access to productive resources and financial capital prevents the worker-owned enterprises from engaging in fair competition with capitalist firms. As noted by socialist economist Jaroslav Vanek in an interview:



    Beyond the stage of the new entries into the labor market simply being naturally overwhelmed is the stage of established firms engaging in unfair business practices such as underselling, which constitutes an exploitation of inequitable and unbalanced conditions of entry that any libertarian should oppose. For instance, this letter of John Stuart Mill makes the point well:



    Even more than that, any consistent proponent of legitimately competitive market exchange should oppose the conditions of the capitalist economy. As noted by Vanek, "[t]he capitalist economy is not a true market economy because in western capitalism, as in Soviet state capitalism, there is a tendency towards monopoly. Economic democracy tends toward a competitive market." Since market socialism, for example, is characterized by small, worker-owned and managed enterprises and labor cooperatives, effective market competition can be coordinated while granting effective equality of opportunity to participants.

    So we're confronted with the "sea water fish in the freshwater pond" problem noted by Vanek in that varieties of negative discrimination may occur as a result of the aforementioned market concentration. We've noted that the competitors of the cooperative may well engage in underselling, as evidenced by no less a libertarian figure than John Stuart Mill. And we'd have to note the existence of negative externalities generated by surrounding capitalist firms, and a variety of other negative conditions that are generally traced back to the fundamental reality that it is not in the interests of the financial and coordinator classes for workers' ownership and management to succeed. We can thus directly observe the profit motives of the financial and coordinator classes a whole causing them to resist the implementation of more productive organization schemes, since it would render them marginal or utterly useless, a reality well summarized by Herbert Gintis:



    The fundamental conflict between profit and productivity maximization, and more broadly, between labor and capital, that is bound to exist and flourish in a capitalist economy is again revealed. David Schweickart has of course noted the uselessness of maintaining a financial class whose only purpose it is to hoard and lend capital, and he's also noted that "[f]or middle managers, the incentive to resist participatory schemes is even greater, because such changes often show many middle managers to be redundant. The resistance of middle management to participatory experiments, often bordering on sabotage, is well known and widely documented." We thus observe the lengths to which both powerful classes are willing to go in order to maintain their hegemony.
    I've made my case, you keep doing this semantics dance and it's really getting old, so I'm done with you. If you can't see that you are a textbook Keynsian socialist I can't help you.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

Page 17 of 21 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •