View Poll Results: Are Republicans against helping the middle class?

Voters
83. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    28 33.73%
  • No

    51 61.45%
  • Maybe

    3 3.61%
  • Don't know

    1 1.20%
Page 49 of 50 FirstFirst ... 3947484950 LastLast
Results 481 to 490 of 497

Thread: Are Republicans against helping the middle class?

  1. #481
    Sage

    gdgyva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    near Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,587

    Re: Are Republicans against helping the middle class?

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    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.wordpres...r-than-labour/
    “Most of the shadows of this life are caused by standing in one's own sunshine.”

    Ralph Waldo Emerson

  2. #482
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 09:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Are Republicans against helping the middle class?

    Quote Originally Posted by gdgyva View Post
    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.wordpres...r-than-labour/
    It's ok to disagree with Lincoln, you'll not go to hell over it.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  3. #483
    Advisor Stoney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Last Seen
    02-27-16 @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    449

    Re: Are Republicans against helping the middle class?

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    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.
    "If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise them missionaries for dinner."
    H. L. Mencken

  4. #484
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 09:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Are Republicans against helping the middle class?

    Quote Originally Posted by Stoney View Post
    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.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  5. #485
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Last Seen
    05-28-16 @ 11:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    6,639

    Re: Are Republicans against helping the middle class?


  6. #486
    Advisor plutonium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    12-30-16 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    522

    Re: Are Republicans against helping the middle class?

    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
    I find the lack of logic in humans most disturbing...

  7. #487
    Student freeRadical's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:57 AM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    275

    Re: Are Republicans against helping the middle class?

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    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.
    "Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place."
    -- Frederic Bastiat

  8. #488
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 09:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Are Republicans against helping the middle class?

    Quote Originally Posted by freeRadical View Post
    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.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  9. #489
    Student freeRadical's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:57 AM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    275

    Re: Are Republicans against helping the middle class?

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    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.
    "Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place."
    -- Frederic Bastiat

  10. #490
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 09:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Are Republicans against helping the middle class?

    Quote Originally Posted by freeRadical View Post
    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.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

Page 49 of 50 FirstFirst ... 3947484950 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
  •