Calling all marxists

Page 6 of 13 [ 194 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 13 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,920
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

27 Apr 2012, 9:43 am

Rainy wrote:

Sweetleaf wrote:

Rainy wrote:

If a task can be done by just about anyone with very little training, then it doesn't require a lot of skill.

Maybe this assumption explains why people in painting jobs for instance get pissed off at that 'one guy' on the job who screws up all the work and makes it look terrible and slacks around all because the employer thought 'oh anyone can easily do this job.' It's not as simple as it looks a lot of time.

"Taking a lot of time" and "Being tiring" is not the same as requiring a lot of skill.

who said it was? that was just an example, of how inaccurate the idea just anyone can do the work is. Thing is it does require skill, training and practice its not like anyone can pick up a paintbrush and paint a house, its actually pretty complex and a lot of time even involves math like how much paint or other equipment is needed based on the measurments...It takes skill, especially if the goal is for it to look good. Though that depends on the specific work......I mean I would agree anyone could probably stock cans in a store with minimal training but that is significantly simpler, and typically can stackers might be more part time anyways.

_________________
We won't go back.

GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

27 Apr 2012, 9:47 am

Rainy wrote:

GoonSquad wrote:

Rainy wrote:

Quote:

You need to study some history.

And you need to study some economics.

I have. Ever hear of the multiplier effect? Paying workers higher wages is simply a way to invest in, and sustain one's own market. History PROVES this ECONOMIC principle to be true.

Bleeding your workers might produce profits in the short term, but it's like killing the golden goose.

Ford was in a situation where he could greatly increase productivity by increasing wages. And he was building cars. Most companies won't experience the massive increase in productivity to make up for the increase in wages.

Quote:

You cannot maintain a modern economy based on mass consumption if no one is willing to pay their workers enough to consume anything.

Increase in wages without enough increase in productivity will cause prices of goods to rise and/or unemployment to increase, which doesn't really solve your problem.

As I've already pointed out, American worker productivity has MASSIVELY increased while wages remain stagnant. Meanwhile executive wages and corporate profits are reaching record levels.

No, the problem here is greed, pure and simple.

And as for Ford, it was implementation of the assembly line that increased efficiency, not increasing wages... No, increasing wages just expanded his market via the multiplier effect.

Quote:

multiplier effect definition

An effect in economics in which an increase in spending produces an increase in national income and consumption greater than the initial amount spent. For example, if a corporation builds a factory, it will employ construction workers and their suppliers as well as those who work in the factory. Indirectly, the new factory will stimulate employment in laundries, restaurants, and service industries in the factory's vicinity.

You must pay a decent wage to grow an economy. Or you can starve your workers if you simply want to strip-mine one... :roll:

_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus

Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,920
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

27 Apr 2012, 10:53 am

GoonSquad wrote:

Rainy wrote:

Sweetleaf wrote:

Well I suppose the issue would be with the government aid, however there is that view some have that we should not have such government aid.....so I wonder what those people think should be done about the fact sometimes the wages offered are not enough to get by on.

Yes, well, that's those people, and it's usually a response to people abusing the system.

something you might have missed in economics class....

Government aid is not free. It's actually a drag on the economy and in this case it's really a subsidy for businesses who aren't paying adequate wages. In this case, it's the capitalists who are abusing the system.

So because a few people abuse the system we should not have a safety net in place? keep in mind though government officials and huge corporations abuse the system as well.

_________________
We won't go back.

Rainy
Snowy Owl

Joined: 23 Apr 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 174

27 Apr 2012, 11:01 am

GoonSquad wrote:

Yeah, turns out you don't need to increase wages to increase your profit.

Although I suppose it would work if CEO wages somehow got lowered.

Quote:

And as for Ford, it was implementation of the assembly line that increased efficiency, not increasing wages... No, increasing wages just expanded his market via the multiplier effect.

Ford increased wages because he wanted to decrease the turnover rate. The expanding market was a secondary effect that he didn't really intend, and it won't happen for everyone either, especially in this time period where many of your consumers are international.

Quote:

You must pay a decent wage to grow an economy. Or you can starve your workers if you simply want to strip-mine one... :roll:

Increasing wages too much increases prices, screwing over your economy anyways.

Last edited by Rainy on 27 Apr 2012, 12:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

27 Apr 2012, 11:57 am

Sweetleaf wrote:

GoonSquad wrote:

Rainy wrote:

Sweetleaf wrote:

Yes, well, that's those people, and it's usually a response to people abusing the system.

So because a few people abuse the system we should not have a safety net in place? keep in mind though government officials and huge corporations abuse the system as well.

That's my point (I'm on your side here). Many corporations get away with paying low wages because their workers get food stamps and medicaid. In effect the government and taxpayers are helping to make their payroll.

I'd like to see companies that do this get taxed to offset the public costs. This would encourage these companies to pay a fair, living wage.

_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus

TM
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

27 Apr 2012, 12:05 pm

AstroGeek wrote:

Um, the title of this thread was inviting Marxists and other lefties to the discussion. Why exactly are ruveyn and TM taking part? They seem to have thrown off the whole point, which I interpreted to be a philosophical debate among socialists rather than a debate over whether socialism is a good or bad ideology.

If you look at what I posted, I wasn't the one who contrasted capitalism with socialism. I merely pointed out that the policy which some people in the thread advocated of low skilled jobs with plentiful labor supply being given unsustainable pay raises is economically unsound regardless of what system is run.

Furthermore, I also posted that there is an obsession with the "should" not the "IS" in the discussion, which creates problems and has historically created problems in countries that attempted to establish a communist state. Now, if one is having a philosophical discussion about socialism, Marxism and communism, it is natural to bring up the problematic aspects of the philosophy. More specifically, large problems with efficient use of resources and an over focus on the ends based in how things "should be" rather than what reality is.

Any capitalism vs communism discussion was not of my making, it was other people who brought that up.

I was discussing communism and its inherent implications. Now, is the fact that I'm an advocate of responsible capitalism who favors a medium-size sustainable government model, a disqualifies from discussing communism? I realize that what it appears the OP wanted was a drum-circle filled with "communism rocks" posts, but what is the point of a philosophical discussion if nobody cares to point out the flaws in the ideology that is being discussed?

CoMF
Deinonychus

Joined: 7 Feb 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 328

27 Apr 2012, 12:07 pm

I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member.

Bun
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,356

27 Apr 2012, 12:12 pm

CoMF wrote:

I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member.

Heh.

_________________
Double X and proud of it / male pronouns : he, him, his

GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

27 Apr 2012, 12:17 pm

Rainy wrote:

GoonSquad wrote:

Yeah, turns out you don't need to increase wages to increase your profit.

Umm... employing children and paying them half-wages (because they're half size) is good for increasing profits too.

When were we ever talking about what increases profits? We are discussing what's good for society, and capitalism, as it is currently practiced, is not. (and those record profits won't last because they are destroying their market)

Here's what bleeding your workers will get you: 6.2% unemployment and an 18% poverty rate. That's what we have currently where I live. Frankly, its obscene and Americans should be ashamed that they have allowed their country to come to this...

Quote:

And as for Ford, it was implementation of the assembly line that increased efficiency, not increasing wages... No, increasing wages just expanded his market via the multiplier effect.

That's nonsense. Ford wasn't a bleeding heart to be sure, but he did want to turn his workers into customers and increasing wages was a way to do that. Like I said, it was an investment in his market...

And even if it was not intentional, it still demonstrated the economy expanding effects of high wages in a consumer driven economy!

I'll say it again, CONSUMERS MUST HAVE MONEY TO SPEND.

_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus

Rainy
Snowy Owl

Joined: 23 Apr 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 174

27 Apr 2012, 1:04 pm

Quote:

Hint: People don't have to, and usually aren't going to screw themselves over just for you.

Quote:

Intentional or not, Ford's situation isn't the same as the situation today. Doing something that worked decades ago won't necessarily work today.

Raising wages means taking something out from somewhere else, either by raising unemployment, increasing prices, or reducing company profits. I suppose the last one is more acceptable, but that really doesn't give them much incentive to do it.

GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

27 Apr 2012, 1:18 pm

Rainy wrote:

Quote:

Hint: People don't have to, and usually aren't going to screw themselves over just for you.

Quote:

Intentional or not, Ford's situation isn't the same as the situation today. Doing something that worked decades ago won't necessarily work today.

Raising wages means taking something out from somewhere else, either by raising unemployment, increasing prices, or reducing company profits. I suppose the last one is more acceptable, but that really doesn't give them much incentive to do it.

That last bit is the key.

This is why capitalism MUST be regulated--because modern capitalists are so short sighted and self-destructive. Because, while they are destroying the American market, they really aren't creating another one... Sure, the marketers are getting a hard-on dreaming of emerging markets in Latin America and Asia, but those markets will never reach the heights of the U.S. market, because their business practices won't allow for the formation of another truly robust consumer class.

What are the capitalists gonna do when they've raped the whole world?

_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus

Rainy
Snowy Owl

Joined: 23 Apr 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 174

27 Apr 2012, 1:54 pm

So what was the point of referencing how Henry Ford increased his profits by raising wages if you're just going to say companies should reduce their profits?

GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

27 Apr 2012, 2:07 pm

Rainy wrote:

So what was the point of referencing how Henry Ford increased his profits by raising wages if you're just going to say companies should reduce their profits?

That was not my point at all.

My point was that America became an economic superpower because of Fordist economic policy.

Fordism (i.e. doubling wages etc.) allowed for the formation of the greatest, most prosperous middle class in the history of the world. That middle class, in turn, drove the greatest, most productive economy in the world.

This has nothing to do with short term corporate profits. It has everything to do with how to create a great, just, and prosperous SOCIETY--something modern capitalists have little interest in.

LET ME SAY IT ONE LAST TIME: CONSUMERS MUST HAVE MONEY TO SPEND.

To break it down even more:

If capitalist won't pay a living wage were are consumers supposed to get their spending money from?

Companies are already abandoning China because those uppity, ungrateful slackers want $.50/hr!

The Chinese middle class will be stillborn... What are the capitalist jackals gonna do when everyone has been bled dry?

_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus

Last edited by GoonSquad on 27 Apr 2012, 2:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Rainy
Snowy Owl

Joined: 23 Apr 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 174

27 Apr 2012, 2:22 pm

You do realize that rich people get taxed heavily, and are also huge consumers, right? They wouldn't even be making their huge profits if there wasn't a massive amount of consumers spending money.

The problem isn't with capitalists being capitalists. It's the current global economic crisis that's causing your unemployment and poverty issues.

GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

27 Apr 2012, 2:29 pm

Rainy wrote:

Capitalist CAUSED this crisis and rich people are giving me my 6.5% unemployment/18% poverty rate economy!

I don't like it. Sue me.

_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus

Rainy
Snowy Owl

Joined: 23 Apr 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 174

27 Apr 2012, 2:45 pm

It wasn't caused by wage rates.

Page 6 of 13 [ 194 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 13 Next

Jump to:

Calling all marxists Post Reply New Topic

Calling all marxists