• 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!

Beginning of the End for Public Unions?

Last two years beginning of a downward slide for Public Sector Unions?

  • Yes, their power has waxed and now it shall wane.

    Votes: 40 62.5%

  • Unions will respond and their power will grow.

    Votes: 14 21.9%

  • It depends on November.

    Votes: 10 15.6%
  • Total voters
    64
Camlon said:
Nothing exist in vacum. Sometimes the "cure" hurts more than doing nothing.
Click to expand...

You response does not answer the question. Perhaps you can explain how this cure is best?
 
cpwill said:
Yeah. And he did it on a forum about public unions. Whose jobs can't be outsourced.




All-together, though, I have to say I'm pleased with this thread. Not a single person thus far has offered a reasonable path forward for public unions to regain their slipping power and prestige.
Click to expand...

And an ostrich can claim there is no daylight either. :roll:
 
I saw you claim that they would because "people would react". I failed to see you lay out a plan for how a public sector union movement came back from it's recent setbacks, losses, and increasing inability to depend upon protection from Democrats in an era where states and localities have no choice but to par back expenses, and they are it.
 
cpwill said:
I saw you claim that they would because "people would react". I failed to see you lay out a plan for how a public sector union movement came back from it's recent setbacks, losses, and increasing inability to depend upon protection from Democrats in an era where states and localities have no choice but to par back expenses, and they are it.
Click to expand...

We are simply on the far end of the rightward swing of the pendulum. It will go back - it always does. That is the nature of our system. The right will overplay its hand as it is already doing and sooner or later they will pay for it and the pendulum goes back the other way.

I am 62 years old. I have been around long enough and have both studied and taught history to know this reality of life.
 
haymarket said:
We are simply on the far end of the rightward swing of the pendulum. It will go back - it always does. That is the nature of our system. The right will overplay its hand as it is already doing and sooner or later they will pay for it and the pendulum goes back the other way.

I am 62 years old. I have been around long enough and have both studied and taught history to know this reality of life.
Click to expand...

Who are you kidding? You haven't studied history and don't try to hide behind your teaching experience. Your posts speak for themselves on what knowledge you actually have.
 
haymarket said:
We are simply on the far end of the rightward swing of the pendulum. It will go back - it always does. That is the nature of our system. The right will overplay its hand as it is already doing and sooner or later they will pay for it and the pendulum goes back the other way.

I am 62 years old. I have been around long enough and have both studied and taught history to know this reality of life.
Click to expand...

While I agree with your analogy I am unsure if we have reached the full travel of the right-wing swing. The past 'left-wing' swing began in '06 and continued again in '08. The 'swing back' began in '10 but I don't think it has fully extended or move back to the 'center' much. I personally see a split decision this November...but that is a subject for another thread.
 
Henrin said:
Who are you kidding? You haven't studied history and don't try to hide behind your teaching experience. Your posts speak for themselves on what knowledge you actually have.
Click to expand...

Well you got me finally. I only have a seventh grade education and have been on public assistance the last forty four years less the seven for that stint in the pen for voter fraud. :roll:;)

Some of the warriors of the far right are really too much. Just because people disagree with you suddenly they think they can discredit every thing someone may have done in their lives and all they know.

Are they that insecure?

It matters not to me if you have a Ph. D. in five different things and fifty years experience. I am not going to try to take that away from you.

My posts do indeed speak for themselves and what they have done is demonstrate that there is far more behind them than my own self imposed belief system.

But go ahead, insult me some more in the hopes it gives your own musings increased credibility. :2wave:
 
Last edited:
Dickieboy said:
While I agree with your analogy I am unsure if we have reached the full travel of the right-wing swing. The past 'left-wing' swing began in '06 and continued again in '08. The 'swing back' began in '10 but I don't think it has fully extended or move back to the 'center' much. I personally see a split decision this November...but that is a subject for another thread.
Click to expand...

I would tend to agree. November will tell us much. But the pendulum does indeed swing back as one side always overreaches. Americans tend NOT to like open ideological conflict and tend to drift back to the center after forays to the fringes from time to time.
 
haymarket said:
My posts do indeed speak for themselves and what they have done is demonstrate that there is far more behind them than my own self imposed belief system.
Click to expand...
I have read many of your posts, and it seems to me highly ridiculous that you have come to that conclusion considering the dim bulb of dogma which invariably betrays anything of yours that I have ever read.
 
cpwill said:
:lol: like it's my fault you made a stupid point.
Click to expand...

And what stupid point was that, the fact that those who own the means of production do, in fact, attempt to get as much money for them at market as they can? Do you really deny this phenomenon?

actually they can't unless they have a monopoly.
Click to expand...

Actually, they can. It is their product. According to the tenets of free market capitalism, they can charge whatever the hell they want. They might not stay in business very long if they ask too much, but nevertheless, it is their prerogative.

when they have a monopoly, it is because they are being protected by, or are government. The area's you mentioned (food, housing, etc) are not that, with the exception of utilities, which are protected by government and therefore can get away with fixing prices.
Click to expand...

Actually, they are that. The cost of a loaf of bread does not vary widely from store to store in any given market, nor does the cost of housing per square foot. The point of the matter is that those who own such products and bring them to market invariably sell them with every intention of maximizing profits, either sooner or later. This is the basic business strategy: to maximize profits.

then perhaps you can explain things like this?

or just generally

don't theories involving secretive cabals of super rich power brokers secretly controlling the levers of the world belong (for good reason) in the conspiracy forum?
Click to expand...

You wanna cut the crap? Of course the cost of food has decreased significantly over the past 100 years, but this is a function of ever increasing technological efficiency in the areas of food production and distribution in an arena of competitive capitalism. It is certainly not a function of the good will of the capitalists engaged in said production and distribution. Every one of them has every intention of selling their products for the most money they can possibly get for them, even if they have to sell for less in order to undercut their competition long enough to eliminate them so that they can one day be free to charge whatever they want when they are the only game in town.

I demand a new set of government. You won't find me doing things like supporting agricultural subsidies.
Click to expand...

I want a new socioeconomic system. You won't find me bailing out corporate entities that are too big to fail.

the greed of people in corporations is no greater or less than the greed of people in unions. The difference being, in order to succeed, corporations have to create something. Unions just have to take something.
Click to expand...

Actually, it is the workers who keep the whole damn enterprise in production. Without them, there is no corporation. This is why collective bargaining is so effective, at least when it can be practiced without fear of intimidation or reprisal.

:shrug: I would tend to suspect that with unions making up a vanishingly small percentage of the private workforce, that this is for most employers a relatively small worry. What I've seen thus far has generally centered around an unwillingness to lose workers that one has trained, or that produce effectively, when others will require extra time and effort and lost productivity to get up to speed.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, you see what you want to see. You are obviously educated. I refuse to believe that you are totally ignorant of the gross exploitation of labor which occurred during the 19th and early 20th century, exploitation which quite literally forced the hand of labor to unionize. What exactly do you think is wrong with your mind that you can repress your awareness of this history so completely?

Really? I'll be sure to ask my brother who works in auto manufacturing about that. I'll write an email perhaps, or maybe just ask him next time I'm visiting him at the Toyota plant in Kentucky.
Click to expand...

While you're at it, ask your brother what sort of wage he might be earning right now if there was never such a thing as UAW.

You ever wonder why it's unionized companies that have to seek elsewhere? You raise the cost of something beyond what the market will bear... and it won't bear it for long.
Click to expand...

Do you mean to say that it is those damn real estate developers who keep raising the cost of housing for union workers who are to blame, or are you suggesting that the union workers pitch a tent instead of asking for an increase in their wage.

no, it is reality. Housing prices aren't set by some kind of "Cabal Of Nabobs".
Click to expand...

Then who sets them?... Wait, don't tell me, those damn unions! Right? It is the unions who set the price of housing because... well, because... unions are just plain evil and this what they do. They insist that the real estate developers ask for increasingly higher rents and higher mortgages because they want to force their members to demand a higher wage from their employers. Yeah, that's it! It's the unions. The real estate developers actually have no say whatsoever in what prices they decide to market their wares. They just sit around and wait to be told by those damn union bosses what price to ask.

supply and demand. housing prices fall and rise by supply and demand. however, you are right to point out that generally below the cost of production there is no supply.
Click to expand...

And what ultimately defines demand? What is the quintessential core determinant of demand? Here's a hint: IT IS NOT SUPPLY!!!

if the demand for money v housing decreases, then the demand for housing increases and so does the price. what you are describing is inflation, where that occurs.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. Try again.

the one you referenced, wherein the price of everything but labor decreases.
Click to expand...

I made no such reference. In fact, no such event has ever happened, not even in the aftermath of the Black Death when demand for labor was at an all-time high.

why must housing be special? we had a bubble, it popped. The government is trying to reinflate the bubble because that's a feel-good policy, and so it continues to suffer. In the meantime, the nominal price of food does indeed increase, along with a smaller increase in the real price due to artificial energy shortages. You are right that inflation is reported lower than it actually is due to the fact that they don't count food and energy, though. What did we think was going to happen when we started to monetize the debt?
Click to expand...

Well, at least we seem to agree that there is something terribly wrong with our socioeconomic system at its most basic foundations. Resting a socioeconomic system on a philosophical illusion and a mathematical fiction is bound to result in failure in the fullness of time.
 
Meathead said:
I have read many of your posts, and it seems to me highly ridiculous that you have come to that conclusion considering the dim bulb of dogma which invariably betrays anything of yours that I have ever read.
Click to expand...

I hope when you wrote that you had some coherent point you were trying to make because it utterly got derailed but the time it ended up on screen.

I have no idea what you are talking about with this dogma reference.

Do you?
 
Sig said:
And what stupid point was that, the fact that those who own the means of production do, in fact, attempt to get as much money for them at market as they can? Do you really deny this phenomenon?
Click to expand...

of course not. I deny that there is some kind of secretive illuminati out there controlling how much you will pay for tomatos.

Actually, they can. It is their product. According to the tenets of free market capitalism, they can charge whatever the hell they want. They might not stay in business very long if they ask too much, but nevertheless, it is their prerogative.
Click to expand...

precisely. the market will ensure that people who attempt to charge than people are willing to pay will be fail and their businesses will die.

and the exact same thing is true of labor..

Actually, they are that. The cost of a loaf of bread does not vary widely from store to store in any given market, nor does the cost of housing per square foot.
Click to expand...

that is correct. market competition forces prices down generally common levels, where production plus transport plus storage plus all other expenses etc. plus acceptable profit margins are generally equivalent.

The point of the matter is that those who own such products and bring them to market invariably sell them with every intention of maximizing profits, either sooner or later. This is the basic business strategy: to maximize profits.
Click to expand...

Precisely. So, who is makes more profits - Wal Mart, or your Mom&Pop?

You wanna cut the crap? Of course the cost of food has decreased significantly over the past 100 years, but this is a function of ever increasing technological efficiency in the areas of food production and distribution in an arena of competitive capitalism.
Click to expand...

bingo. competitive capitalism. Not some secretive cabal of nabobs.

It is certainly not a function of the good will of the capitalists engaged in said production and distribution.
Click to expand...

Indeed. That is the beauty of free trade - it turns our self-interest into others' benefit. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest.

Every one of them has every intention of selling their products for the most money they can possibly get for them, even if they have to sell for less in order to undercut their competition long enough to eliminate them so that they can one day be free to charge whatever they want when they are the only game in town.
Click to expand...

:) except that time and time again when they do that they find... they aren't the only game in town. And, so long as government does not conspire with business to artificially raise the price of entry beyond the ability of start-ups; they never will be.

I want a new socioeconomic system. You won't find me bailing out corporate entities that are too big to fail.
Click to expand...

Indeed, there is no such thing as too big to fail. That's like saying something is too heavy to fall. But you don't need a new socioeconomic system for that - you simply need to remove the parasites and barnacles that have encrusted this one.

Actually, it is the workers who keep the whole damn enterprise in production. Without them, there is no corporation.
Click to expand...

:yawn: actually it's the capital that keeps the whole damn enterprise in production. Without it, there is no corporation in the first place. (see how stupid that game is?)

Labor is an input. It is a portion of the cost of production.

This is why collective bargaining is so effective, at least when it can be practiced without fear of intimidation or reprisal.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Just as, for example, if you had the ability to use force to stop a newspaper from being able to purchase ink. Or if you had the ability to stop a grocer from being able to purchase food. Or if you had the ability to stop a mechanic from using his hands. If you can coercively interfere with the market to keep someone from purchasing an available product or service... yeah, you can reduce their abilities to produce and provide.

Unfortunately, you see what you want to see. You are obviously educated. I refuse to believe that you are totally ignorant of the gross exploitation of labor which occurred during the 19th and early 20th century, exploitation which quite literally forced the hand of labor to unionize. What exactly do you think is wrong with your mind that you can repress your awareness of this history so completely?
Click to expand...

.... I am educated enough to realize that the 21st century economy thus far does not appear made up entirely of 19th century mining camps?

we talk about working conditions in the 19th century through 21st century lenses and are shocked. Apparently they were better than the farms so many people were leaving.

While you're at it, ask your brother what sort of wage he might be earning right now if there was never such a thing as UAW.
Click to expand...

:shrug: it's an interesting thought experiment. If the American auto companies had never unionized, their products probably would have been higher quality and their prices lower, which would mean that the Japanese companies never would have been able to invade and take over so much of their market share. Very likely, he wouldn't be working for Toyota because Toyota never would have had such an excellent opportunity to sell a better product at a lower price to Americans.

But I'm pretty sure he would still be doing fine. Thanks partially to our low quality (unionized) public educational system, there is a shortage of science and technology workers in this country.

Do you mean to say that it is those damn real estate developers who keep raising the cost of housing for union workers who are to blame, or are you suggesting that the union workers pitch a tent instead of asking for an increase in their wage.
Click to expand...

I am saying that the same thing that you said above. The minimum price that real estate developers can sell housing and survive is slightly above the price of production. When you raise the price of production by unionizing the workforce, therefore, you raise that minimum amount that they can sell at and survive. You have increased the costs that the developer has to recoup.

Then who sets them?... Wait, don't tell me, those damn unions! Right?
Click to expand...

Nope. Generally speaking (government interference aside), nobody "sets" prices. Unions simply force them higher than they otherwise would have been.

And what ultimately defines demand? What is the quintessential core determinant of demand? Here's a hint: IT IS NOT SUPPLY!!!
Click to expand...

that is incorrect. Demand as it is economically expressed is a function of Supply. You have to have something before you can trade it for something else.

Not exactly. Try again.
Click to expand...

is this the "nuh-uh!!!" defense, of elementary school yard fame?

I made no such reference.
Click to expand...

indeed you did.

In fact, no such event has ever happened, not even in the aftermath of the Black Death when demand for labor was at an all-time high.
Click to expand...

what a fascinating theory. how do you account for the fact that that is precisely what we have generally seen over the last century? The price of labor has consistently increased, while the portion of labors' income that it must spend on the necessities has decreased.
 

How many times have Union leaders called out against a National Strike? As their power decreases the chance of a National Strike increases. Winter truely is coming! :peace
cpwill said:
I saw you claim that they would because "people would react". I failed to see you lay out a plan for how a public sector union movement came back from it's recent setbacks, losses, and increasing inability to depend upon protection from Democrats in an era where states and localities have no choice but to par back expenses, and they are it.
Click to expand...
 

The fact of the matter is that the Unions were formed in response to the exploytation of workers. On the list of things that they contributed to the working class include pulling kids out of the mines & sweat shops, the 40 hour week with Overtime, Paid Vacation, Safety Regulation & so much more.
The fact that those who would benefit from the support of a Union are opposed to Unions, while it defies all logic, is nothing new. The thugs who beat striking workers with bats & 2x4's were not the robber Barons themselves but riff-raff from the working class.
 
cpwill said:
that is correct. market competition forces prices down generally common levels, where production plus transport plus storage plus all other expenses etc. plus acceptable profit margins are generally equivalent.
Click to expand...
And who decides what that is?

Let's ask Gates or Jobs what their "acceptable profit margins" are and how that applies to the cost of computer software. LOL! How about Phillips66 and QuickTrip on gas prices? We'll most likely hear the same from all of them, "As much as the market will bear!" Same market, same variables, same equation, therefore, the same result at the end. You may as well call it a monopoly for all the variation there is. Oh, sure, you might find a few minor things that actually have some real variations but they're pretty rare.


Seriously, that has got to be one of the craziest things I have ever heard you say. All the "acceptable profit margin" does is set a lower limit on price - what businesses will often label as "cost" (even though it really isn't). How many products sell at cost? Virtually none.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
except that time and time again when they do that they find... they aren't the only game in town. And, so long as government does not conspire with business to artificially raise the price of entry beyond the ability of start-ups; they never will be.
Click to expand...
You should read the history of Standard Oil some time, you seem to have missed it.

No government conspiracy there. Just plain, old fashioned raw capitalism at work creating one of the biggest monopolies in our country's history.


A more recent example of market share abuse was Intel, roughly 2002-2007.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
I am saying that the same thing that you said above. The minimum price that real estate developers can sell housing and survive is slightly above the price of production. When you raise the price of production by unionizing the workforce, therefore, you raise that minimum amount that they can sell at and survive. You have increased the costs that the developer has to recoup.
Click to expand...
But you haven't changed the selling price of the house one bit. The developer will still sell the house for all the market will bear, in the vast majority of cases 30-40% above cost. The increase in cost for using union labor is peanuts compared to the other costs associated with housing developments.
 
cpwill said:
Nope. Generally speaking (government interference aside), nobody "sets" prices. Unions simply force them higher than they otherwise would have been.
Click to expand...
Nope. The selling price is still established by what the market will bear.
 
cpwill said:
:) except that time and time again when they do that they find... they aren't the only game in town. And, so long as government does not conspire with business to artificially raise the price of entry beyond the ability of start-ups; they never will be.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, we are getting further and further away from that prescription.


Indeed, there is no such thing as too big to fail. That's like saying something is too heavy to fall. But you don't need a new socioeconomic system for that - you simply need to remove the parasites and barnacles that have encrusted this one.
Click to expand...

Methinks "Too Big to Fail" is the ultimate goal of every business enterprise, which is why we are where we are now, and why Capitalism, as we presently understand it, is ultimately a doomed socioeconomic paradigm.

:yawn: actually it's the capital that keeps the whole damn enterprise in production. Without it, there is no corporation in the first place. (see how stupid that game is?)
Click to expand...

No, capital is merely the grease that keeps the wheels a spinnin'. Believe it or not, it really is the workers who create the product, not the capital. The capital is just numbers on a ledger. It's a man-made illusion, an abstraction, invented as a tool for organizing the distribution of a society's total human energy capacity.

Labor is an input. It is a portion of the cost of production.
Click to expand...

No, labor is production. Indeed, that is what is taking place: the energy of labor is being transformed into product. Capital has no direct role in the process.


Indeed. Just as, for example, if you had the ability to use force to stop a newspaper from being able to purchase ink. Or if you had the ability to stop a grocer from being able to purchase food. Or if you had the ability to stop a mechanic from using his hands. If you can coercively interfere with the market to keep someone from purchasing an available product or service... yeah, you can reduce their abilities to produce and provide.
Click to expand...

...or if you had the ability to compel people to work for subsistence wages because you owned the factory, and the mayor, and the police.

But we have been through this chapter of human history already, haven't we?


.... I am educated enough to realize that the 21st century economy thus far does not appear made up entirely of 19th century mining camps?
Click to expand...

And why is that?

What happened between 1850 and 1950 that changed all that?

we talk about working conditions in the 19th century through 21st century lenses and are shocked. Apparently they were better than the farms so many people were leaving.
Click to expand...

Do you mean to say that labor was being exploited in both the arenas of industry and agriculture? Now, that is shocking. SHOCKING, I SAY!!


:shrug: it's an interesting thought experiment. If the American auto companies had never unionized, their products probably would have been higher quality and their prices lower, which would mean that the Japanese companies never would have been able to invade and take over so much of their market share. Very likely, he wouldn't be working for Toyota because Toyota never would have had such an excellent opportunity to sell a better product at a lower price to Americans.
Click to expand...

WRONG!!!

If the American auto companies had never unionized there would have never been any such thing as the American Middle Class, nor that milestone achievement in human experience which we call the "consumer based economy." There would not likely have been a Toyota car company, and there would definitely never been a Toyota car company at which you brother is supposedly employed here in America.

Perhaps, the greatest irony in all of human economic history is the fact that is the unions, YES, THE LABOR UNIONS, which were the catalyst for the epic socioeconomic transformations that occurred in the West during the 20th century, and which ultimately defeated communism.

Why?

Because the labor unions kept the capital in circulation. The labor unions empowered the proles with the economic wherewithal to buy stuff, lots of stuff, so much stuff that the upper class nabobs were soon falling over themselves in competition for the emerging middle class market.

Checks and balances. Industrialists and Labor Unions. This is what truly made America great. When we lose that, we lose America.


But I'm pretty sure he would still be doing fine. Thanks partially to our low quality (unionized) public educational system, there is a shortage of science and technology workers in this country.
Click to expand...

Now, you are just being an ass. There is a shortage of sci-tech skills in America because too much of America's cerebral talent has been funneled into business studies. You know this.


I am saying that the same thing that you said above. The minimum price that real estate developers can sell housing and survive is slightly above the price of production. When you raise the price of production by unionizing the workforce, therefore, you raise that minimum amount that they can sell at and survive. You have increased the costs that the developer has to recoup.
Click to expand...

And when you lower the salary base, you lower the purchasing power of the consumer. Don't you get it, man? Capitalism, or any economic system for that matter, does not work in the absence of free will, and that includes the free will to insure a wage that is commensurate with the prevailing economy.

Who can sell product when there is no one who can afford to buy it?


Nope. Generally speaking (government interference aside), nobody "sets" prices. Unions simply force them higher than they otherwise would have been.
Click to expand...

That is nonsense. If I whittle me a widget and decide to sell it on the free market, I, and no one but I, will set a price for the product. If I am wise, I will set a price just low enough (and no more lower) to make my product a realistic buy for my target consumer base. Nevertheless, I set the price. I don't suppose I need to explain to you how many businesses have come and gone based almost entirely upon their acumen for setting prices.


that is incorrect. Demand as it is economically expressed is a function of Supply. You have to have something before you can trade it for something else.
Click to expand...

What did you just say? Did you just say something about "having to have something before you can trade it for something?"

I am sure you would agree, that in a society where money is the primary means of trade, the less money one has, the less one is able to engage in trade. Isn't that right?



is this the "nuh-uh!!!" defense, of elementary school yard fame?
Click to expand...

No, this is the "See above comment and think about it" decree.


indeed you did.
Click to expand...

No, I did not. Next time, come back with some proof. It should not be too difficult to obtain.


what a fascinating theory. how do you account for the fact that that is precisely what we have generally seen over the last century? The price of labor has consistently increased, while the portion of labors' income that it must spend on the necessities has decreased.
Click to expand...

Still won't cut the crap, I see. What has changed; indeed, what has made all the difference between the 20th century and every era in human history which came before it, is gigantic leaps in technological advancement and labor unions.

Unfortunately, due to the intrinsic flaws of the prevailing economic system, inflation has been a constant the entire time. Thus, you are completely full of shate on this point, and you know it. Prices on everything have increased dramatically between 1900 and 2000, and you know it. The only way for labor to keep pace with inflation is by demanding a higher salary. You know this much also, and yet you play the fool; or perhaps, you think I am the fool.

The question that needs to be asked now is: "Are you an honorable man, or just a two-bit "conservative" bullish*tter?"
 
MoSurveyor said:
Nope. The selling price is still established by what the market will bear.
Click to expand...

Not really. See: Price Supports.

When you raise the price of production, you raise the minimum price the product can be sold at for supply to occur.
 
Sig said:
Unfortunately, we are getting further and further away from that prescription.
Click to expand...

True enough.

Methinks "Too Big to Fail" is the ultimate goal of every business enterprise, which is why we are where we are now, and why Capitalism, as we presently understand it, is ultimately a doomed socioeconomic paradigm.
Click to expand...

No, you are confusing "capitalism" with "corporatism". Too Big To Fail isn't a Capitalist dogma, it's a Corporatist one.

No, capital is merely the grease that keeps the wheels a spinnin'. Believe it or not, it really is the workers who create the product, not the capital. The capital is just numbers on a ledger. It's a man-made illusion, an abstraction, invented as a tool for organizing the distribution of a society's total human energy capacity.

No, labor is production. Indeed, that is what is taking place: the energy of labor is being transformed into product. Capital has no direct role in the process.
Click to expand...

the labor theory of value?!? :lamo this would be the one that even Lenin eventually had to abandon as not taking into effect the necessary value added of capital? :lol:

But okay, I'll bite. If a robot builds a car, and an overseer makes sure the Robot doesn't break down, which entity is building the car?

...or if you had the ability to compel people to work for subsistence wages because you owned the factory, and the mayor, and the police.

But we have been through this chapter of human history already, haven't we?
Click to expand...

yup. we called it "feudalism".

And why is that?

What happened between 1850 and 1950 that changed all that?
Click to expand...

the Industrial Revolution.

Do you mean to say that labor was being exploited in both the arenas of industry and agriculture? Now, that is shocking. SHOCKING, I SAY!!
Click to expand...

Fascinating. Are you suggesting that people on the farms were exploiting themselves? Or is it just that you see "labor" and think "exploitation!".

WRONG!
Click to expand...

actually the assumptions in that thought model are pretty basic. the Japanese auto makers were able to enter into and take massive swathes of the American market share because they were producing a superior product which they were able to make for less than their UAW American Competitors.

If the American auto companies had never unionized there would have never been any such thing as the American Middle Class
Click to expand...

:lamo

If the American auto companies hadn't unionized there would have been no American Middle Class.

The rise of the American Middle Class really began with the independent tradesmen and farmers of the 18th century. The rise of the modern industrial-age middle class really began in the 1920's. The UAW was founded in 1935.

nor that milestone achievement in human experience which we call the "consumer based economy."
Click to expand...

started in the 1920's. See above.

There would not likely have been a Toyota car company
Click to expand...

Toyota began making cars in 1934 (before the UAW), and split off to become an independent car company in 1937 (after the UAW). If you can find any evidence suggesting that they only did so because American car companies had unionized, I would be very interested in seeing it.

Perhaps, the greatest irony in all of human economic history is the fact that is the unions, YES, THE LABOR UNIONS, which were the catalyst for the epic socioeconomic transformations that occurred in the West during the 20th century, and which ultimately defeated communism.
Click to expand...

That is unfortunately incorrect. Unions are not responsible for the defeat of Communism; containment was.

Now, you are just being an ass. There is a shortage of sci-tech skills in America because too much of America's cerebral talent has been funneled into business studies.
Click to expand...

Sadly not so much. Thanks to our unionized educational system, costs have skyrocketed while quality has - at best - flatlined.

public+school+cost+per+student+vs+reading+math+science+scores.jpg


Little Johnny can't do math any more, but he get's all A's in Self - Esteem.

And when you lower the salary base, you lower the purchasing power of the consumer. Don't you get it, man? Capitalism, or any economic system for that matter, does not work in the absence of free will, and that includes the free will to insure a wage that is commensurate with the prevailing economy.
Click to expand...

Well hell, let's raise the minimum wage to $1 bn a year, and we can all be rich!

When you artificially increase the price of a product or service, you lower the demand. This works the same for labor as it does with anything else - which means that when you artificially increase the cost of hiring workers, you ensure that fewer workers will be hired. What is the purchasing power of the unemployed?

That is nonsense. If I whittle me a widget and decide to sell it on the free market, I, and no one but I, will set a price for the product. If I am wise, I will set a price just low enough (and no more lower) to make my product a realistic buy for my target consumer base. Nevertheless, I set the price. I don't suppose I need to explain to you how many businesses have come and gone based almost entirely upon their acumen for setting prices.
Click to expand...

fewer than have failed to to insufficient capital '-).

But you are describing precisely what I did. If you try to sell your widget for too much, no one will buy it. If you try to sell it for too little, everyone will buy it, but you will be making a loss on each widget sold (gosh, what does that remind me of?), and you will cease to exist. In either example, the market will be willing to purchase a certain amount of widgets at a certain price. If you had decided (for example) to use a more expensive set of whittling knives, your cost of production would have gone up, what you would have had to charge for widgets would have gone up, demand for your widgets would have gone down.

What did you just say? Did you just say something about "having to have something before you can trade it for something?"

I am sure you would agree, that in a society where money is the primary means of trade, the less money one has, the less one is able to engage in trade. Isn't that right?
Click to expand...

Yup. How much money is someone with no job bringing in? How much income does someone bring in who had a job, but whose union drove the business into the dirt bring in? If the government hadn't stepped in and saved Too-Big-To-Fail GM, and then given it to UAW, how much would the laid-off workers have been making?

No, this is the "See above comment and think about it" decree.
Click to expand...

Ah. well. Rubber. Glue. Bouncing. Etc. :roll:

Still won't cut the crap, I see. What has changed; indeed, what has made all the difference between the 20th century and every era in human history which came before it, is gigantic leaps in technological advancement and labor unions.
Click to expand...

not really. we had guilds for centuries, which performed basically the same functions.

Unfortunately, due to the intrinsic flaws of the prevailing economic system, inflation has been a constant the entire time. Thus, you are completely full of shate on this point, and you know it.
Click to expand...

you're going nominal? whatever - fine. Nominally, increases in compensation have far outstripped increases in the price of consumer goods.

Prices on everything have increased dramatically between 1900 and 2000, and you know it.
Click to expand...

including and especially for labor. In fact, so much so for labor that if you put prices into real terms, the price of consumer goods has gone down while the price of labor has gone up. Your average worker now can buy much more higher quality stuff than his 1908 counterpart.

The question that needs to be asked now is: "Are you an honorable man, or just a two-bit "conservative" bullish*tter?"
Click to expand...

actually I would say the question that needs to be asked now is "Do you have the intellectual honesty to realize that others of good faith can come to conclusions different than your own?".
 
cpwill said:
Not really. See: Price Supports.

When you raise the price of production, you raise the minimum price the product can be sold at for supply to occur.
Click to expand...
Never said otherwise. I referred to this earlier as "cost" and noted that few things are sold at cost. I also noted that this price wasn't really "cost" in the strictest sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom