• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are Republicans against helping the middle class?

Are Republicans against helping the middle class?


  • Total voters
    83
Employees mostly go to their forty hour a week job with job security and without having to worry about rather or not a banker will provide the funds for next months expenses, worry about OSHA inspections or new competition or losing good employees or … About 50% of new businesses fail in the first 4 years according to some estimates and that's on the conservative side. There's no way that employees deserve the same compensation that the owners who take the risks do unless you consider the new entrepreneurs who work the first years with little or no compensation.

If you want the compensation of a doctor then become a doctor. If you want the compensation of an entrepreneur then become an entrepreneur. If you want a forty hour a week job with little stress and lots of time with family and friends then work for someone else at the best salary you can negotiate.

Labor is a commodity much like the commodity that the businesses we work for provide. Businesses promote the value of their product to get as much compensation as they can for their product and labor has the same opportunity.

BTW I was one who chose family and friends over making a lot of money.
 
No I don't. But that's a typical lefty strawman. Capitalism and the circumstances that I tried to get you to reply to address those problems.

Wtf?? How is that a strawman, and why you calling me a lefty? A society without regulation is anarchy.
 
Employees mostly go to their forty hour a week job with job security and without having to worry about rather or not a banker will provide the funds for next months expenses, worry about OSHA inspections or new competition or losing good employees or … About 50% of new businesses fail in the first 4 years according to some estimates and that's on the conservative side. There's no way that employees deserve the same compensation that the owners who take the risks do unless you consider the new entrepreneurs who work the first years with little or no compensation.

If you want the compensation of a doctor then become a doctor. If you want the compensation of an entrepreneur then become an entrepreneur. If you want a forty hour a week job with little stress and lots of time with family and friends then work for someone else at the best salary you can negotiate.

Labor is a commodity much like the commodity that the businesses we work for provide. Businesses promote the value of their product to get as much compensation as they can for their product and labor has the same opportunity.

BTW I was one who chose family and friends over making a lot of money.

From the right.

Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

Abraham Lincoln

Read more at Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and... - Abraham Lincoln at BrainyQuote
 
From the right.

Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

Abraham Lincoln

Read more at Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and... - Abraham Lincoln at BrainyQuote


dont get me wrong.....i love most of Lincoln's writings, but when it comes to economics.....maybe not so much

here is a better take imo


Why Does Capital Have More Bargaining Power Than Labour?

The debate over libertarianism and the workplace (if you can call it a ‘debate’, when libertarians make responses like this, here is a summary of what Cowen and Tabarrok are saying) seems like as good a time as any to post on the bargaining power relationship between labour and capital.

I have posted before about how the idea that wages are determined by productivity is indefensible; capital and labour only have productivity when combined, so it is impossible to separate their relative contributions, which are instead determined by bargaining power. As Daniel Kuehn also notes, a ‘job’ is generally what is bargained over, rather than specific aspects. So it would not be unreasonable to say that working conditions, hours and pay are generally all determined by bargaining power, though not separately. It is also not unreasonable to say that employers generally have the edge in this. But why?

The first reason, noted by Paul Rosenberg, is that labour requires wages to subsist every day, whereas those sitting on capital can produce for themselves. This means that labour’s situation is generally more urgent than capital’s. Now, libertarians might respond that people can save money, inherit money, and so forth. But this begs a lot of questions: what if you are born poor? Where do you get your savings from initially, if not wages?

Libertarians also might respond, as the BHL libertarians have, by advocating a universal income (something that strikes me as trying to make the world behave like an economics textbook, where workers can smoothly trade off leisure for work, from 0 hours to 24). This would indeed improve labour’s bargaining power. However, it is also the case that, even under this system, many workers would incur obligations such as debts, families, and of course social obligations, that require money. Whether these people ‘choose’ to do this is irrelevant: what we are asking is if, at the moment somebody tries to get a job, they have more bargaining power than their employer.

The second reason is that employers are fewer than employees, making the latter more readily substitutable, particularly in low skilled jobs. This starts from the obvious observation that not everyone can be a capitalist. Since wages tend to be consumed, but profits don’t, it is fair to say that an increase in the amount of capitalists over workers will reduce consumption and therefore available profits. This will result in capitalists going bankrupt. Obviously, if there are too few capitalists then opportunities will also open up, and we will go in the other direction.

It is reasonable to conclude that there is a rough ratio of capital to labour around which the economy oscillates, something similar to what Phillips was actually saying with his ‘curve.’ Capitalism generally finds it hard to deal with true full employment, as it diminishes the capital available for investment. This results in lay offs, and diminishing bargaining power for labour. Historically, capitalism appears to spend a lot more time in period of unemployment than periods of full employment.

There is the final point that under modern capitalism, labour is free to organise and create collective bargaining power. However, in the absence of legislation to assist this, unionisation falls into all the familiar problems with collective action, problems that capital doesn’t have: coordination, aligning different interests, the incentive for individual members to cheat. This is reflected by the fact that countries with strong unions generally have legislative support of those unions, too.

https://unlearningeconomics.wordpre...pital-have-more-bargaining-power-than-labour/
 
dont get me wrong.....i love most of Lincoln's writings, but when it comes to economics.....maybe not so much

here is a better take imo


Why Does Capital Have More Bargaining Power Than Labour?

The debate over libertarianism and the workplace (if you can call it a ‘debate’, when libertarians make responses like this, here is a summary of what Cowen and Tabarrok are saying) seems like as good a time as any to post on the bargaining power relationship between labour and capital.

I have posted before about how the idea that wages are determined by productivity is indefensible; capital and labour only have productivity when combined, so it is impossible to separate their relative contributions, which are instead determined by bargaining power. As Daniel Kuehn also notes, a ‘job’ is generally what is bargained over, rather than specific aspects. So it would not be unreasonable to say that working conditions, hours and pay are generally all determined by bargaining power, though not separately. It is also not unreasonable to say that employers generally have the edge in this. But why?

The first reason, noted by Paul Rosenberg, is that labour requires wages to subsist every day, whereas those sitting on capital can produce for themselves. This means that labour’s situation is generally more urgent than capital’s. Now, libertarians might respond that people can save money, inherit money, and so forth. But this begs a lot of questions: what if you are born poor? Where do you get your savings from initially, if not wages?

Libertarians also might respond, as the BHL libertarians have, by advocating a universal income (something that strikes me as trying to make the world behave like an economics textbook, where workers can smoothly trade off leisure for work, from 0 hours to 24). This would indeed improve labour’s bargaining power. However, it is also the case that, even under this system, many workers would incur obligations such as debts, families, and of course social obligations, that require money. Whether these people ‘choose’ to do this is irrelevant: what we are asking is if, at the moment somebody tries to get a job, they have more bargaining power than their employer.

The second reason is that employers are fewer than employees, making the latter more readily substitutable, particularly in low skilled jobs. This starts from the obvious observation that not everyone can be a capitalist. Since wages tend to be consumed, but profits don’t, it is fair to say that an increase in the amount of capitalists over workers will reduce consumption and therefore available profits. This will result in capitalists going bankrupt. Obviously, if there are too few capitalists then opportunities will also open up, and we will go in the other direction.

It is reasonable to conclude that there is a rough ratio of capital to labour around which the economy oscillates, something similar to what Phillips was actually saying with his ‘curve.’ Capitalism generally finds it hard to deal with true full employment, as it diminishes the capital available for investment. This results in lay offs, and diminishing bargaining power for labour. Historically, capitalism appears to spend a lot more time in period of unemployment than periods of full employment.

There is the final point that under modern capitalism, labour is free to organise and create collective bargaining power. However, in the absence of legislation to assist this, unionisation falls into all the familiar problems with collective action, problems that capital doesn’t have: coordination, aligning different interests, the incentive for individual members to cheat. This is reflected by the fact that countries with strong unions generally have legislative support of those unions, too.

https://unlearningeconomics.wordpre...pital-have-more-bargaining-power-than-labour/

It's ok to disagree with Lincoln, you'll not go to hell over it.
 
From the right.

Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

Abraham Lincoln

Read more at Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and... - Abraham Lincoln at BrainyQuote

The first capitalists, and most now, become capitalists through their own labor. When their labors allow and they want to expand hire people to add to that labor. Those people did not take the risks or work the long hours or sacrifice time with family and friends to be able to start a business and have no right to the fruits of the labor the capitalist expended to be able to hire that added labor.
 
The first capitalists, and most now, become capitalists through their own labor. When their labors allow and they want to expand hire people to add to that labor. Those people did not take the risks or work the long hours or sacrifice time with family and friends to be able to start a business and have no right to the fruits of the labor the capitalist expended to be able to hire that added labor.

I don't disagree with that, nor does that disagree with Lincoln's statement.
 
how in the hell did you come to that conclusion?
Open thread for night owls: Stagnant inflation-adjusted median household income slips in July
A Depressing Look At Income Growth Compared To Health Care And College Cost - Business Insider
Middle Class Jobs, Income Quickly Disappearing (INFOGRAPHIC)


household-income-monthly-median-since-2000.gif


MiddleClass_6.png


chart.gif




no response? well, case closed.
 
so you are saying that if the government/democrats would just let universities charge what they want the tuition would be cheaper???? lol I don't think so...you better talk to the college administrators making more than the professors....lol
 
From the right.

Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

Abraham Lincoln

Read more at Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and... - Abraham Lincoln at BrainyQuote
But without capital you cannot have increased productivity of labor. Increased productivity of labor is what grows economies in the long run and raises standards of living.

Capital is superior to labor, plain and simple. Capital is what allows labor to labor. Without capital we would not have the standard of living we have now.

What would agriculture be like without capital? Manufacturing? If you have a job, I'm 99% sure that you are using capital and that capital makes your job easier. Much easier.
 
But without capital you cannot have increased productivity of labor. Increased productivity of labor is what grows economies in the long run and raises standards of living.

Capital is superior to labor, plain and simple. Capital is what allows labor to labor. Without capital we would not have the standard of living we have now.

What would agriculture be like without capital? Manufacturing? If you have a job, I'm 99% sure that you are using capital and that capital makes your job easier. Much easier.

What would the fat guy be like setting on his pooch without a skinny guy brining him a bisquit? There is no capital before labor. Take a nap and then get back to me.
 
What would the fat guy be like setting on his pooch without a skinny guy brining him a bisquit? There is no capital before labor. Take a nap and then get back to me.
I never said that capital came before labor. Maybe you need to learn to read and get back to me.
 
I never said that capital came before labor. Maybe you need to learn to read and get back to me.

You said, "plain and simple, capital is superior to labor". But only one can exist without the other. Plain and simple.
 
You said, "plain and simple, capital is superior to labor". But only one can exist without the other. Plain and simple.
So? Just because capital can't exist without labor doesn't mean labor is superior.

Why don't you try going a week without using capital? I bet you can't.
 
So? Just because capital can't exist without labor doesn't mean labor is superior.

Why don't you try going a week without using capital? I bet you can't.

Actually I live in a solar powered house, I catch the rain for my water, I grow a garden, raise beef, cook and heat on wood stoves. I could easily go a week without capital. And labor was what sustained humans and their near predecessors for millions of years before the creation of capital.
 
Actually I live in a solar powered house, I catch the rain for my water, I grow a garden, raise beef, cook and heat on wood stoves. I could easily go a week without capital. And labor was what sustained humans and their near predecessors for millions of years before the creation of capital.
So you don't use any tools to catch the rain or raise your beef or tend your garden? Just your bare hands?

Oh wait, you use a stove. That's capital.
 
So you don't use any tools to catch the rain or raise your beef or tend your garden? Just your bare hands?

Oh wait, you use a stove. That's capital.

Not without labor it's not. And you ignored my point that humans existed far longer on labor with no capital, than they have on labor with capital. So yes you can survive without one, but NOT the other.
 
Not without labor it's not. And you ignored my point that humans existed far longer on labor with no capital, than they have on labor with capital. So yes you can survive without one, but NOT the other.
So? That doesn't mean labor is superior. And a stove is still capital without labor. Capital makes your life immensely easier and makes your standard of living immensely better, whether you want to admit it or not.

You use capital all the time. Try doing without it.
 
So? That doesn't mean labor is superior. And a stove is still capital without labor. Capital makes your life immensely easier and makes your standard of living immensely better, whether you want to admit it or not.

You use capital all the time. Try doing without it.

Who's denying that capital is an improvement. I'm arguing that it definitively is NOT superior, because as Lincoln correctly noted, capitals creator is labor. And there now, I'm finished will your silliness on this. Have the last word, and then we'll put this to rest. do svidan'ya!
 
Who's denying that capital is an improvement. I'm arguing that it definitively is NOT superior, because as Lincoln correctly noted, capitals creator is labor. And there now, I'm finished will your silliness on this. Have the last word, and then we'll put this to rest. do svidan'ya!
Of course capital is superior. What do you think living standards would be like without capital? Productivity of labor would be very low without capital.
 
Back
Top Bottom