In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On May 11 2015 02:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] Yes, they simplify but they're also useful tools for learning. I'm reminded of our trade discussion in the EU thread. I scanned a page from a book that showed empirical data on contract manufacturing in China. You stuck to your simplistic ideas, no citations to be found.
I don't think I said Marx was complete garbage, only that Marx is an intellectual dead end (true) and that the commie talk IgnE was pushing is crazy talk (also true).
Lol. You're funny, like I'm the one with the simplistic ideas. Coming from someone who can't do anything aside from insulting everytime he is wrong (and it happen everytime we argued together). Your argument on china was irrelevant, and it only shows that you can't read whatever you have in the hand. It's pretty obvious that firms that localize part of their production in china do it because the labor costs are low. And I don't need you misunderstanding words to know I'm right on that. Your irrelevant argument had only one goal and it is to suggar coat this reality (it's not social dumping but efficient international division of labor lol). And I'm sure you'll respond to this post with another irrelevant and completly off topic comment, like you always do.
Which was never in dispute. You thought production happened in China because cheaper labor costs increased margins by a small fraction, full stop. I argued that it moved because it actually made a large difference in costs, due to the labor intensity of electronics production. You disputed my position, even in light of empirical data.
It's also not off topic to respond to an accusation that I don't read books by citing a time where I demonstrated that I do read books.
Some people like to work on their homes and make improvements, but IgnE will tell you that's false, because he knows how those people feel better than they do. That's nuts!
Lol you're nuts. Do you even know anything about Marx ? To Marx labor is a fundamental aspect of human life, not something negative...
I do know that, actually. Marx also complained that the capitalist mode of production robbed workers of the joy of labor. A sentiment that IgnE echoed in his post.
And is supported by actually talking to workers. Your position here is laughable.
A full 24% are what Gallup calls “actively disengaged,” meaning they pretty much hate their jobs. They act out and undermine what their coworkers accomplish.
Add the last two categories and you get 87% of workers worldwide who, as Gallup puts it, “are emotionally disconnected from their workplaces and less likely to be productive.” In other words, work is more often a source of frustration than one of fulfillment for nearly 90% of the world’s workers. That means that most workplaces are less productive and less safe than they could be and employers are less likely to create new jobs.
People are overwhelmingly dissatisfied with their work, the capitalist system (as realized) has a LOT to do with that. It's about as obvious as things get.
Work is work. It's not easy to keep people engaged and happy doing something for full time. Doesn't matter if you're in a capitalist system or not.
US ranks high in that survey, and we're considered very capitalistic.
The US practices state-directed capitalism and has for the last century. Your feelings about how "capitalistic" the US is are completely irrelevant to the data.
The fact that a larger minority of the population find satisfaction in their work in the US is not unexpected, given the fact that the US is at the apex of a globalized capitalist economy. More workers in the US economy are part of the petit bourgeoisie than in probably any other economy, except maybe parts of the EU, and those kinds of workers have historically been just as pro-capitalist as the capitalists themselves. The skill, respect, and autonomy in a lot of the professional level jobs in the US all provide a certain satisfaction that compensates for the level of labor exploitation going on. An accountant at PWC or a lawyer at a firm also has the potential, however slim, to actually become a partner and gain ownership stake in their workplace. Small business owners might also be expected to take more pride in their work. Not to mention that the top quartile or quintile of the US population has investments of its own, perhaps their 401k or the like.
None of this discounts 1) that a growing majority of Americans are disaffected workers are becoming more and more conscious of their exploitation and 2) the world economy as a whole is what has to be considered. These Rah Rah America! arguments are completely beside the point.
Honestly, what percent of employees at any level actually think economically, politically, or socially in terms of class consciousness and labor exploitation?
And it's pretty interesting to declare Americans are feeling exploited when the unions spend every trade negotiation wringing their hands about the hollowing out of manufacturing in the United States and every investor meeting worrying about being replaced by automation. What is factory labor if not THE exploitation of labor?
I would also note our politics of economic news is dominated by the unemployment rate and labor participation. We want MORE people to apparently work and be exploited and we worry when people can't find jobs.
We're far more likely in to think in Darwinian terms about economics, where growth is life and stagnation is decay, than we are to think in Marxist terms.
Factory labor is great when you compare it to the new economy of callcenters, retailers, and marketeers eating your soul up while producing nothing tangible of value. A person working at a car manufacturing plant will usually have a high satisfaction with his job, as he produces something lasting to be proud of, but what does a walmart greeter or bag-packer get?
They get shit on by high-minded liberals who think they're better.
Why would i think i am better? You totally misunderstand my issue: people are only worth to live if they get valued marginally enough by a capitalist. Not i am doing the value judgement on them but the capitalist value system, values them least amongst men.
Nobody wants to work those jobs, they are only done because people are forced to sustain themselfs. Currently jobs that have huge value to society (healthcare, elderly care, maintenance, cleaning and upkeep of our settlements) are paid like shit, because they have low barrier of entry and people have no other choice than to take up work. A basic income guarantee would drastically trim down bullshit low entry jobs (like callcenters etc) raise the wages in important fields (care/upkeep) and it would even free up peoples minds and time to pursue higher callings for themselfs than the basic necessities of the daily struggle to continue existing.
I am poor and unemployed, so in the discussed frame of reference i am the most worthless of all humans and deserve to die (by the standards of millitron wegandi and clutz). I do not think i am better than someone who works to survive.
How many scrooge caricatures do you conjure in your head and believe they're real life embodiments lmao? First of all, for me, most of the poverty and misery that exists in our society IS the result of economic exploitation, but we see the exploited being the people robbed by the monetary system (legal tender laws, federal reserve, et. al), the folks under the heel of political power via taxation, regulation, and the like (the political vs the economic means), etc. Libertarian class analysis was around before Marx and Engels, which they ended up appropriating for themselves and bastardizing from Comte and Dunoyer.
You see, for people like yourself, you awake thinking that 'we' (libertarians, lockeans, whatever label you want to give us, etc.), believe that our current society is just and the approximation of our ideological triumphant. It's really comical all the times when we're blamed for blights of current society when we have 0% policy influence. Anyways, perhaps you should bone up on working ways to help the less fortunate instead of acting haughty and defending the state administrative bureaucracies which enrich themselves and the poors expense just like most of the charities around today (go read up on how little actually ends up in the hands of the needy). No, local institutions like Mutual Aid societies and P2P direct giving is shunned and derided. Between individuals coming together amongst themselves and having different value systems for those amongst them (can't really mooch forever when you're part of a MA society - that it's there to help you get back to where you can support yourself, etc.), and society being much better off materially so there are less poor makes for a wonderfully better world than where everyone are a mere blip of the borg. But go ahead, if it makes you feel morally and emotionally superior to think our motives are nefarious and cold. I'm sure, I'd be one of the first killed by the mass mob for uncouth borgeiousie ideals of freedom, liberty, justice, and Lockeanism.
President Barack Obama The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20500
Dear President Obama:
You have taken a strong across-the-board position favoring the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) nearing completion and scheduled for a fast track clearance vote in the Congress. Indeed, you have descended admirably from your presidential perch to take on the most informed critics of this agreement with Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam.
You have accused critics of spreading misinformation, including Senator Elizabeth Warren and Lori Wallach, the director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, who is known for her meticulous research and who was at Harvard Law School during your time there.
With the barrage of commentary on an agreement, labelled singularly as trade promotion by unknowing newspaper columnists and reporters, and the less reported rebuttals that the TPP is far more than a trade agreement (aka treaty) and places serious environmental, health, consumer and labor conditions within its grip, isn’t it time for you to engage with concerned citizens and their representatives rather than assert unilaterally that “Elizabeth Warren is wrong on the facts”? It is time to clarify the issues before a skeptical public and others who are downright confused. Why not debate Senator Elizabeth Warren before a national TV audience?
There are many reasons for you to use this format to engage the American people. They will be the ones paying the price in many dire ways if the mega-corporate promoters of TPP turn out to be as wrong as they have been with prior trade deals, most recently the Korean Trade Agreement (2012) which you espoused and which has worsened the trade deficit with South Korea and caused job loss in the United States. 1.Vice President Albert Gore debated NAFTA on nationwide television with Ross Perot. 2.You and Senator Warren have been teachers of the law and share a common law school background—Harvard. A debate would be deliberative and, assuming you and she have read the 29 chapters of the TPP (only a handful of chapters dealing with trade), would be revelatory far beyond the narrow prisms reflected in the mass media. 3.Like NAFTA and the World Trade Organization, the TPP is a transnational system of autocratic governance that subordinates and bypasses our access to our own judiciary in favor of secret tribunals whose procedures contravene our country’s system of due process, openness and independent appeals. These agreements, as you know, have enforceable provisions regarding the rights and privileges of corporations. The rhetorical assurances regarding labor, environment and consumer rights have no such enforcement mechanisms. 4.Notwithstanding all the win-win claims of promoters of past trade agreements, our country’s trade deficit has continued to grow over the past 35 years. Enormous trade deficits mean job exports. Given this evidence, the public would be interested in listening to your explanation of this adverse experience to U.S. workers and our economy. 5.You believe Elizabeth Warren is wrong on the facts relating to the “Investor-State Dispute Settlement” provision of the TPP, which allows foreign companies to challenge our health, safety and other regulations, not in our courts but before an international panel of arbitrators. A perfect point/counterpoint for a debate process, no? 6.Over the years, it has been abundantly clear that very few lawmakers or presidents have actually read the text of these trade agreements involving excessive surrender of local, state and federal sovereignties. They have relied on memoranda prepared by the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) and corporate lobbies. Given the mass of fine print with portentous consequences for every American, a worthy debate topic is whether to put off submitting this trade pact so that copies can be made accessible to the American people to discuss and consider before going to Congress under very limited debate for an up or down vote without any amendments being permitted. Why the rush when the ink isn’t even dry on the page?
Some may wonder why you don’t call this agreement a “treaty”, like other countries. Could it be that an agreement only requires a 51 percent vote, rather than a two-thirds vote in the Congress for treaty ratification?
You are quoted in the Washington Post decrying “misinformation” circulating on the TPP and pledging that you are “going to be pushing back very hard if I keep on hearing that.” Fine. Push back before tens of millions of people with Senator Elizabeth Warren as your debating counterpart. If you agree, be sure that interested Americans have a copy of the TPP deal first so that they can be an informed audience.
On May 11 2015 03:53 WhiteDog wrote: [quote] Lol. You're funny, like I'm the one with the simplistic ideas. Coming from someone who can't do anything aside from insulting everytime he is wrong (and it happen everytime we argued together). Your argument on china was irrelevant, and it only shows that you can't read whatever you have in the hand. It's pretty obvious that firms that localize part of their production in china do it because the labor costs are low. And I don't need you misunderstanding words to know I'm right on that. Your irrelevant argument had only one goal and it is to suggar coat this reality (it's not social dumping but efficient international division of labor lol). And I'm sure you'll respond to this post with another irrelevant and completly off topic comment, like you always do.
Which was never in dispute. You thought production happened in China because cheaper labor costs increased margins by a small fraction, full stop. I argued that it moved because it actually made a large difference in costs, due to the labor intensity of electronics production. You disputed my position, even in light of empirical data.
It's also not off topic to respond to an accusation that I don't read books by citing a time where I demonstrated that I do read books.
[quote] Lol you're nuts. Do you even know anything about Marx ? To Marx labor is a fundamental aspect of human life, not something negative...
I do know that, actually. Marx also complained that the capitalist mode of production robbed workers of the joy of labor. A sentiment that IgnE echoed in his post.
And is supported by actually talking to workers. Your position here is laughable.
A full 24% are what Gallup calls “actively disengaged,” meaning they pretty much hate their jobs. They act out and undermine what their coworkers accomplish.
Add the last two categories and you get 87% of workers worldwide who, as Gallup puts it, “are emotionally disconnected from their workplaces and less likely to be productive.” In other words, work is more often a source of frustration than one of fulfillment for nearly 90% of the world’s workers. That means that most workplaces are less productive and less safe than they could be and employers are less likely to create new jobs.
People are overwhelmingly dissatisfied with their work, the capitalist system (as realized) has a LOT to do with that. It's about as obvious as things get.
Work is work. It's not easy to keep people engaged and happy doing something for full time. Doesn't matter if you're in a capitalist system or not.
US ranks high in that survey, and we're considered very capitalistic.
The US practices state-directed capitalism and has for the last century. Your feelings about how "capitalistic" the US is are completely irrelevant to the data.
The fact that a larger minority of the population find satisfaction in their work in the US is not unexpected, given the fact that the US is at the apex of a globalized capitalist economy. More workers in the US economy are part of the petit bourgeoisie than in probably any other economy, except maybe parts of the EU, and those kinds of workers have historically been just as pro-capitalist as the capitalists themselves. The skill, respect, and autonomy in a lot of the professional level jobs in the US all provide a certain satisfaction that compensates for the level of labor exploitation going on. An accountant at PWC or a lawyer at a firm also has the potential, however slim, to actually become a partner and gain ownership stake in their workplace. Small business owners might also be expected to take more pride in their work. Not to mention that the top quartile or quintile of the US population has investments of its own, perhaps their 401k or the like.
None of this discounts 1) that a growing majority of Americans are disaffected workers are becoming more and more conscious of their exploitation and 2) the world economy as a whole is what has to be considered. These Rah Rah America! arguments are completely beside the point.
Honestly, what percent of employees at any level actually think economically, politically, or socially in terms of class consciousness and labor exploitation?
And it's pretty interesting to declare Americans are feeling exploited when the unions spend every trade negotiation wringing their hands about the hollowing out of manufacturing in the United States and every investor meeting worrying about being replaced by automation. What is factory labor if not THE exploitation of labor?
I would also note our politics of economic news is dominated by the unemployment rate and labor participation. We want MORE people to apparently work and be exploited and we worry when people can't find jobs.
We're far more likely in to think in Darwinian terms about economics, where growth is life and stagnation is decay, than we are to think in Marxist terms.
Factory labor is great when you compare it to the new economy of callcenters, retailers, and marketeers eating your soul up while producing nothing tangible of value. A person working at a car manufacturing plant will usually have a high satisfaction with his job, as he produces something lasting to be proud of, but what does a walmart greeter or bag-packer get?
They get shit on by high-minded liberals who think they're better.
Why would i think i am better? You totally misunderstand my issue: people are only worth to live if they get valued marginally enough by a capitalist. Not i am doing the value judgement on them but the capitalist value system, values them least amongst men.
Nobody wants to work those jobs, they are only done because people are forced to sustain themselfs. Currently jobs that have huge value to society (healthcare, elderly care, maintenance, cleaning and upkeep of our settlements) are paid like shit, because they have low barrier of entry and people have no other choice than to take up work. A basic income guarantee would drastically trim down bullshit low entry jobs (like callcenters etc) raise the wages in important fields (care/upkeep) and it would even free up peoples minds and time to pursue higher callings for themselfs than the basic necessities of the daily struggle to continue existing.
I am poor and unemployed, so in the discussed frame of reference i am the most worthless of all humans and deserve to die (by the standards of millitron wegandi and clutz). I do not think i am better than someone who works to survive.
I think you're mixing what some radical, and extremely rare, libertarians think rather than what a typical capitalist would think. If you send some time at a business or econ school or with managers / investors or the like, you won't find them echoing that sentiment. If you do, you'll find them to be very rare.
You actually take up his farcical scree as factoid? No one that I know, read, or otherwise have an acquaintance with believes such drivel, especially when it comes to us market anarchists of either stripe. He's simply parroting some Randian bularky that libertarians are anti-charity. There's a reason someone like Vermin Supreme is real cozy with us. Puerk has zero idea about what he is talking about lmao.
Nike announced Friday that it plans to create 10,000 jobs if the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) is approved.
The statement came shortly before President Obama’s visit to the Nike campus in Beaverton to discuss the trade agreement. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said on OPB’s Morning Edition that the economic benefit is likely to be much larger.
“If you consider their suppliers and other small businesses that benefit from Nike’s presence in Oregon, that we are probably looking at broader benefit of forty thousand American jobs,” Earnest said.
Earnest also said the TPP will differ from other trade agreements because it will have enforceable labor and environmental standards written into it.
“What that means is that it balances the playing field a little bit and that means that American companies are going to grow and are going to start to expand here in the United States,” Earnest said.
Sen. Ron Wyden is a proponent of the agreement, but not all Democrats in Oregon agree. Rep. Peter Defazio is concerned that corporate interests are manipulating the TPP.
I'm in support of TPP with a lot of reservations, but I think selling it with this kind of crazy jobs math is stupid. I find it surprising that anyone would believe the administration's backwards argument that companies will go back to hiring Americans because wages and costs will increase in less developed competitor nations by imposing higher standards of labor and environmental regulations.
It's very curious to me that they're not emphasizing the reductions of costs and potential for expansion by knocking down trade barriers, especially in untapped markets like Vietnam or large markets with high barriers like Japan. Although to be fair, I could see the administration being stung by all the criticisms that TPP is exploitative and protects corporate interests above those of workers, both in Asia and the US.
EDIT: In reply to Nader's letter, I think the White House would say this isn't different from other trade agreements and that Congress is getting an up or down vote on it, albeit with a minimal time to read and debate the details. But Obama's remaining time as president is short and he definitely wants to put a signature on this if he can.
On May 11 2015 04:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] Which was never in dispute. You thought production happened in China because cheaper labor costs increased margins by a small fraction, full stop. I argued that it moved because it actually made a large difference in costs, due to the labor intensity of electronics production. You disputed my position, even in light of empirical data.
It's also not off topic to respond to an accusation that I don't read books by citing a time where I demonstrated that I do read books.
[quote] I do know that, actually. Marx also complained that the capitalist mode of production robbed workers of the joy of labor. A sentiment that IgnE echoed in his post.
And is supported by actually talking to workers. Your position here is laughable.
A full 24% are what Gallup calls “actively disengaged,” meaning they pretty much hate their jobs. They act out and undermine what their coworkers accomplish.
Add the last two categories and you get 87% of workers worldwide who, as Gallup puts it, “are emotionally disconnected from their workplaces and less likely to be productive.” In other words, work is more often a source of frustration than one of fulfillment for nearly 90% of the world’s workers. That means that most workplaces are less productive and less safe than they could be and employers are less likely to create new jobs.
People are overwhelmingly dissatisfied with their work, the capitalist system (as realized) has a LOT to do with that. It's about as obvious as things get.
Work is work. It's not easy to keep people engaged and happy doing something for full time. Doesn't matter if you're in a capitalist system or not.
US ranks high in that survey, and we're considered very capitalistic.
The US practices state-directed capitalism and has for the last century. Your feelings about how "capitalistic" the US is are completely irrelevant to the data.
The fact that a larger minority of the population find satisfaction in their work in the US is not unexpected, given the fact that the US is at the apex of a globalized capitalist economy. More workers in the US economy are part of the petit bourgeoisie than in probably any other economy, except maybe parts of the EU, and those kinds of workers have historically been just as pro-capitalist as the capitalists themselves. The skill, respect, and autonomy in a lot of the professional level jobs in the US all provide a certain satisfaction that compensates for the level of labor exploitation going on. An accountant at PWC or a lawyer at a firm also has the potential, however slim, to actually become a partner and gain ownership stake in their workplace. Small business owners might also be expected to take more pride in their work. Not to mention that the top quartile or quintile of the US population has investments of its own, perhaps their 401k or the like.
None of this discounts 1) that a growing majority of Americans are disaffected workers are becoming more and more conscious of their exploitation and 2) the world economy as a whole is what has to be considered. These Rah Rah America! arguments are completely beside the point.
Honestly, what percent of employees at any level actually think economically, politically, or socially in terms of class consciousness and labor exploitation?
And it's pretty interesting to declare Americans are feeling exploited when the unions spend every trade negotiation wringing their hands about the hollowing out of manufacturing in the United States and every investor meeting worrying about being replaced by automation. What is factory labor if not THE exploitation of labor?
I would also note our politics of economic news is dominated by the unemployment rate and labor participation. We want MORE people to apparently work and be exploited and we worry when people can't find jobs.
We're far more likely in to think in Darwinian terms about economics, where growth is life and stagnation is decay, than we are to think in Marxist terms.
Factory labor is great when you compare it to the new economy of callcenters, retailers, and marketeers eating your soul up while producing nothing tangible of value. A person working at a car manufacturing plant will usually have a high satisfaction with his job, as he produces something lasting to be proud of, but what does a walmart greeter or bag-packer get?
They get shit on by high-minded liberals who think they're better.
Why would i think i am better? You totally misunderstand my issue: people are only worth to live if they get valued marginally enough by a capitalist. Not i am doing the value judgement on them but the capitalist value system, values them least amongst men.
Nobody wants to work those jobs, they are only done because people are forced to sustain themselfs. Currently jobs that have huge value to society (healthcare, elderly care, maintenance, cleaning and upkeep of our settlements) are paid like shit, because they have low barrier of entry and people have no other choice than to take up work. A basic income guarantee would drastically trim down bullshit low entry jobs (like callcenters etc) raise the wages in important fields (care/upkeep) and it would even free up peoples minds and time to pursue higher callings for themselfs than the basic necessities of the daily struggle to continue existing.
I am poor and unemployed, so in the discussed frame of reference i am the most worthless of all humans and deserve to die (by the standards of millitron wegandi and clutz). I do not think i am better than someone who works to survive.
I think you're mixing what some radical, and extremely rare, libertarians think rather than what a typical capitalist would think. If you send some time at a business or econ school or with managers / investors or the like, you won't find them echoing that sentiment. If you do, you'll find them to be very rare.
You actually take up his farcical scree as factoid? No one that I know, read, or otherwise have an acquaintance with believes such drivel, especially when it comes to us market anarchists of either stripe. He's simply parroting some Randian bularky that libertarians are anti-charity. There's a reason someone like Vermin Supreme is real cozy with us. Puerk has zero idea about what he is talking about lmao.
You guys do remember people cheering the idea of people dying in the streets because they made poor healthcare decisions right?
Sometimes I feel like conservatives really do live in a parallel universe.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said Sunday that part of a nuclear power plant remains offline after a transformer fire that has created another problem: thousands of gallons of oil leaking into the Hudson River.
At an afternoon briefing, Cuomo said emergency crews were out on the water near Buchanan, New York, trying to contain and clean up the transformer fluid that leaked from the Indian Point 3 plant.
"There's no doubt that oil was discharged into the Hudson River," Cuomo said. "Exactly how much, we don't know."
Cuomo revealed Sunday that even after the blaze on the non-nuclear side of the plant was quickly doused, the heat reignited the fire, but it was again extinguished.
Oil in the transformer seeped into a holding tank that did not have the capacity to contain all the fluid, which then entered river waters through a discharge drain.
Joseph Martens, commissioner of the state Department of Environmental Protection, said measures were taken to keep the oil from spreading, including setting up booms over an area about 300 feet in diameter in the water.
People are overwhelmingly dissatisfied with their work, the capitalist system (as realized) has a LOT to do with that. It's about as obvious as things get.
Work is work. It's not easy to keep people engaged and happy doing something for full time. Doesn't matter if you're in a capitalist system or not.
US ranks high in that survey, and we're considered very capitalistic.
The US practices state-directed capitalism and has for the last century. Your feelings about how "capitalistic" the US is are completely irrelevant to the data.
The fact that a larger minority of the population find satisfaction in their work in the US is not unexpected, given the fact that the US is at the apex of a globalized capitalist economy. More workers in the US economy are part of the petit bourgeoisie than in probably any other economy, except maybe parts of the EU, and those kinds of workers have historically been just as pro-capitalist as the capitalists themselves. The skill, respect, and autonomy in a lot of the professional level jobs in the US all provide a certain satisfaction that compensates for the level of labor exploitation going on. An accountant at PWC or a lawyer at a firm also has the potential, however slim, to actually become a partner and gain ownership stake in their workplace. Small business owners might also be expected to take more pride in their work. Not to mention that the top quartile or quintile of the US population has investments of its own, perhaps their 401k or the like.
None of this discounts 1) that a growing majority of Americans are disaffected workers are becoming more and more conscious of their exploitation and 2) the world economy as a whole is what has to be considered. These Rah Rah America! arguments are completely beside the point.
Honestly, what percent of employees at any level actually think economically, politically, or socially in terms of class consciousness and labor exploitation?
And it's pretty interesting to declare Americans are feeling exploited when the unions spend every trade negotiation wringing their hands about the hollowing out of manufacturing in the United States and every investor meeting worrying about being replaced by automation. What is factory labor if not THE exploitation of labor?
I would also note our politics of economic news is dominated by the unemployment rate and labor participation. We want MORE people to apparently work and be exploited and we worry when people can't find jobs.
We're far more likely in to think in Darwinian terms about economics, where growth is life and stagnation is decay, than we are to think in Marxist terms.
Factory labor is great when you compare it to the new economy of callcenters, retailers, and marketeers eating your soul up while producing nothing tangible of value. A person working at a car manufacturing plant will usually have a high satisfaction with his job, as he produces something lasting to be proud of, but what does a walmart greeter or bag-packer get?
They get shit on by high-minded liberals who think they're better.
Why would i think i am better? You totally misunderstand my issue: people are only worth to live if they get valued marginally enough by a capitalist. Not i am doing the value judgement on them but the capitalist value system, values them least amongst men.
Nobody wants to work those jobs, they are only done because people are forced to sustain themselfs. Currently jobs that have huge value to society (healthcare, elderly care, maintenance, cleaning and upkeep of our settlements) are paid like shit, because they have low barrier of entry and people have no other choice than to take up work. A basic income guarantee would drastically trim down bullshit low entry jobs (like callcenters etc) raise the wages in important fields (care/upkeep) and it would even free up peoples minds and time to pursue higher callings for themselfs than the basic necessities of the daily struggle to continue existing.
I am poor and unemployed, so in the discussed frame of reference i am the most worthless of all humans and deserve to die (by the standards of millitron wegandi and clutz). I do not think i am better than someone who works to survive.
I think you're mixing what some radical, and extremely rare, libertarians think rather than what a typical capitalist would think. If you send some time at a business or econ school or with managers / investors or the like, you won't find them echoing that sentiment. If you do, you'll find them to be very rare.
You actually take up his farcical scree as factoid? No one that I know, read, or otherwise have an acquaintance with believes such drivel, especially when it comes to us market anarchists of either stripe. He's simply parroting some Randian bularky that libertarians are anti-charity. There's a reason someone like Vermin Supreme is real cozy with us. Puerk has zero idea about what he is talking about lmao.
You guys do remember people cheering the idea of people dying in the streets because they made poor healthcare decisions right?
Sometimes I feel like conservatives really do live in a parallel universe.
The US practices state-directed capitalism and has for the last century. Your feelings about how "capitalistic" the US is are completely irrelevant to the data.
The fact that a larger minority of the population find satisfaction in their work in the US is not unexpected, given the fact that the US is at the apex of a globalized capitalist economy. More workers in the US economy are part of the petit bourgeoisie than in probably any other economy, except maybe parts of the EU, and those kinds of workers have historically been just as pro-capitalist as the capitalists themselves. The skill, respect, and autonomy in a lot of the professional level jobs in the US all provide a certain satisfaction that compensates for the level of labor exploitation going on. An accountant at PWC or a lawyer at a firm also has the potential, however slim, to actually become a partner and gain ownership stake in their workplace. Small business owners might also be expected to take more pride in their work. Not to mention that the top quartile or quintile of the US population has investments of its own, perhaps their 401k or the like.
None of this discounts 1) that a growing majority of Americans are disaffected workers are becoming more and more conscious of their exploitation and 2) the world economy as a whole is what has to be considered. These Rah Rah America! arguments are completely beside the point.
Honestly, what percent of employees at any level actually think economically, politically, or socially in terms of class consciousness and labor exploitation?
And it's pretty interesting to declare Americans are feeling exploited when the unions spend every trade negotiation wringing their hands about the hollowing out of manufacturing in the United States and every investor meeting worrying about being replaced by automation. What is factory labor if not THE exploitation of labor?
I would also note our politics of economic news is dominated by the unemployment rate and labor participation. We want MORE people to apparently work and be exploited and we worry when people can't find jobs.
We're far more likely in to think in Darwinian terms about economics, where growth is life and stagnation is decay, than we are to think in Marxist terms.
Factory labor is great when you compare it to the new economy of callcenters, retailers, and marketeers eating your soul up while producing nothing tangible of value. A person working at a car manufacturing plant will usually have a high satisfaction with his job, as he produces something lasting to be proud of, but what does a walmart greeter or bag-packer get?
They get shit on by high-minded liberals who think they're better.
Why would i think i am better? You totally misunderstand my issue: people are only worth to live if they get valued marginally enough by a capitalist. Not i am doing the value judgement on them but the capitalist value system, values them least amongst men.
Nobody wants to work those jobs, they are only done because people are forced to sustain themselfs. Currently jobs that have huge value to society (healthcare, elderly care, maintenance, cleaning and upkeep of our settlements) are paid like shit, because they have low barrier of entry and people have no other choice than to take up work. A basic income guarantee would drastically trim down bullshit low entry jobs (like callcenters etc) raise the wages in important fields (care/upkeep) and it would even free up peoples minds and time to pursue higher callings for themselfs than the basic necessities of the daily struggle to continue existing.
I am poor and unemployed, so in the discussed frame of reference i am the most worthless of all humans and deserve to die (by the standards of millitron wegandi and clutz). I do not think i am better than someone who works to survive.
I think you're mixing what some radical, and extremely rare, libertarians think rather than what a typical capitalist would think. If you send some time at a business or econ school or with managers / investors or the like, you won't find them echoing that sentiment. If you do, you'll find them to be very rare.
You actually take up his farcical scree as factoid? No one that I know, read, or otherwise have an acquaintance with believes such drivel, especially when it comes to us market anarchists of either stripe. He's simply parroting some Randian bularky that libertarians are anti-charity. There's a reason someone like Vermin Supreme is real cozy with us. Puerk has zero idea about what he is talking about lmao.
You guys do remember people cheering the idea of people dying in the streets because they made poor healthcare decisions right?
Sometimes I feel like conservatives really do live in a parallel universe.
What? One guy yelled 'yeah!' and now all conservatives want the people dying in the street?
Can't wait for you to again wonder why conservatives don't like you and support you when you have mutual interests. You reap what you sow shitlord.
I'm not saying all conservatives, but it was a lot more than one guy. The several you're talking about were the ones directly cheering the literal statement "you think we should just let him die", the whole room cheered to the PC "personal responsibility" version right before it. Which meant the exact same thing.
lol @ shitlord. What are you 12?
EDIT: Also if some political jabs (or reality reminders, as I like to call them) are too much for conservatives, they simply don't have what it takes for basic political productivity. You have said I hate white people, called me several names, insulted my intelligence and education, etc... But if you ever said something less than dumpster fire dumb and I agreed with it I wouldn't let that prevent me from acknowledging you were right.
The US practices state-directed capitalism and has for the last century. Your feelings about how "capitalistic" the US is are completely irrelevant to the data.
The fact that a larger minority of the population find satisfaction in their work in the US is not unexpected, given the fact that the US is at the apex of a globalized capitalist economy. More workers in the US economy are part of the petit bourgeoisie than in probably any other economy, except maybe parts of the EU, and those kinds of workers have historically been just as pro-capitalist as the capitalists themselves. The skill, respect, and autonomy in a lot of the professional level jobs in the US all provide a certain satisfaction that compensates for the level of labor exploitation going on. An accountant at PWC or a lawyer at a firm also has the potential, however slim, to actually become a partner and gain ownership stake in their workplace. Small business owners might also be expected to take more pride in their work. Not to mention that the top quartile or quintile of the US population has investments of its own, perhaps their 401k or the like.
None of this discounts 1) that a growing majority of Americans are disaffected workers are becoming more and more conscious of their exploitation and 2) the world economy as a whole is what has to be considered. These Rah Rah America! arguments are completely beside the point.
Honestly, what percent of employees at any level actually think economically, politically, or socially in terms of class consciousness and labor exploitation?
And it's pretty interesting to declare Americans are feeling exploited when the unions spend every trade negotiation wringing their hands about the hollowing out of manufacturing in the United States and every investor meeting worrying about being replaced by automation. What is factory labor if not THE exploitation of labor?
I would also note our politics of economic news is dominated by the unemployment rate and labor participation. We want MORE people to apparently work and be exploited and we worry when people can't find jobs.
We're far more likely in to think in Darwinian terms about economics, where growth is life and stagnation is decay, than we are to think in Marxist terms.
Factory labor is great when you compare it to the new economy of callcenters, retailers, and marketeers eating your soul up while producing nothing tangible of value. A person working at a car manufacturing plant will usually have a high satisfaction with his job, as he produces something lasting to be proud of, but what does a walmart greeter or bag-packer get?
They get shit on by high-minded liberals who think they're better.
Why would i think i am better? You totally misunderstand my issue: people are only worth to live if they get valued marginally enough by a capitalist. Not i am doing the value judgement on them but the capitalist value system, values them least amongst men.
Nobody wants to work those jobs, they are only done because people are forced to sustain themselfs. Currently jobs that have huge value to society (healthcare, elderly care, maintenance, cleaning and upkeep of our settlements) are paid like shit, because they have low barrier of entry and people have no other choice than to take up work. A basic income guarantee would drastically trim down bullshit low entry jobs (like callcenters etc) raise the wages in important fields (care/upkeep) and it would even free up peoples minds and time to pursue higher callings for themselfs than the basic necessities of the daily struggle to continue existing.
I am poor and unemployed, so in the discussed frame of reference i am the most worthless of all humans and deserve to die (by the standards of millitron wegandi and clutz). I do not think i am better than someone who works to survive.
I think you're mixing what some radical, and extremely rare, libertarians think rather than what a typical capitalist would think. If you send some time at a business or econ school or with managers / investors or the like, you won't find them echoing that sentiment. If you do, you'll find them to be very rare.
You actually take up his farcical scree as factoid? No one that I know, read, or otherwise have an acquaintance with believes such drivel, especially when it comes to us market anarchists of either stripe. He's simply parroting some Randian bularky that libertarians are anti-charity. There's a reason someone like Vermin Supreme is real cozy with us. Puerk has zero idea about what he is talking about lmao.
You guys do remember people cheering the idea of people dying in the streets because they made poor healthcare decisions right?
Sometimes I feel like conservatives really do live in a parallel universe.
What? One guy yelled 'yeah!' and now all conservatives want the people dying in the street?
Can't wait for you to again wonder why conservatives don't like you and support you when you have mutual interests. You reap what you sow shitlord.
I'm not saying all conservatives, but it was a lot more than one guy. The several you're talking about were the ones directly cheering the literal statement "you think we should just let him die", the whole room cheered to the PC "personal responsibility" version right before it. Which meant the exact same thing.
Transcript:
BLITZER: But Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?
PAUL: No. I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid, in the early 1960s, when I got out of medical school. I practiced at Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio, and the churches took care of them. We never turned anybody away from the hospitals.
(APPLAUSE)
Funny that your vid ended before that. It's almost like TPM is a shit source.
On May 11 2015 03:53 WhiteDog wrote: [quote] Lol. You're funny, like I'm the one with the simplistic ideas. Coming from someone who can't do anything aside from insulting everytime he is wrong (and it happen everytime we argued together). Your argument on china was irrelevant, and it only shows that you can't read whatever you have in the hand. It's pretty obvious that firms that localize part of their production in china do it because the labor costs are low. And I don't need you misunderstanding words to know I'm right on that. Your irrelevant argument had only one goal and it is to suggar coat this reality (it's not social dumping but efficient international division of labor lol). And I'm sure you'll respond to this post with another irrelevant and completly off topic comment, like you always do.
Which was never in dispute. You thought production happened in China because cheaper labor costs increased margins by a small fraction, full stop. I argued that it moved because it actually made a large difference in costs, due to the labor intensity of electronics production. You disputed my position, even in light of empirical data.
It's also not off topic to respond to an accusation that I don't read books by citing a time where I demonstrated that I do read books.
[quote] Lol you're nuts. Do you even know anything about Marx ? To Marx labor is a fundamental aspect of human life, not something negative...
I do know that, actually. Marx also complained that the capitalist mode of production robbed workers of the joy of labor. A sentiment that IgnE echoed in his post.
And is supported by actually talking to workers. Your position here is laughable.
A full 24% are what Gallup calls “actively disengaged,” meaning they pretty much hate their jobs. They act out and undermine what their coworkers accomplish.
Add the last two categories and you get 87% of workers worldwide who, as Gallup puts it, “are emotionally disconnected from their workplaces and less likely to be productive.” In other words, work is more often a source of frustration than one of fulfillment for nearly 90% of the world’s workers. That means that most workplaces are less productive and less safe than they could be and employers are less likely to create new jobs.
People are overwhelmingly dissatisfied with their work, the capitalist system (as realized) has a LOT to do with that. It's about as obvious as things get.
Work is work. It's not easy to keep people engaged and happy doing something for full time. Doesn't matter if you're in a capitalist system or not.
US ranks high in that survey, and we're considered very capitalistic.
The US practices state-directed capitalism and has for the last century. Your feelings about how "capitalistic" the US is are completely irrelevant to the data.
The fact that a larger minority of the population find satisfaction in their work in the US is not unexpected, given the fact that the US is at the apex of a globalized capitalist economy. More workers in the US economy are part of the petit bourgeoisie than in probably any other economy, except maybe parts of the EU, and those kinds of workers have historically been just as pro-capitalist as the capitalists themselves. The skill, respect, and autonomy in a lot of the professional level jobs in the US all provide a certain satisfaction that compensates for the level of labor exploitation going on. An accountant at PWC or a lawyer at a firm also has the potential, however slim, to actually become a partner and gain ownership stake in their workplace. Small business owners might also be expected to take more pride in their work. Not to mention that the top quartile or quintile of the US population has investments of its own, perhaps their 401k or the like.
None of this discounts 1) that a growing majority of Americans are disaffected workers are becoming more and more conscious of their exploitation and 2) the world economy as a whole is what has to be considered. These Rah Rah America! arguments are completely beside the point.
Honestly, what percent of employees at any level actually think economically, politically, or socially in terms of class consciousness and labor exploitation?
And it's pretty interesting to declare Americans are feeling exploited when the unions spend every trade negotiation wringing their hands about the hollowing out of manufacturing in the United States and every investor meeting worrying about being replaced by automation. What is factory labor if not THE exploitation of labor?
I would also note our politics of economic news is dominated by the unemployment rate and labor participation. We want MORE people to apparently work and be exploited and we worry when people can't find jobs.
We're far more likely in to think in Darwinian terms about economics, where growth is life and stagnation is decay, than we are to think in Marxist terms.
Factory labor is great when you compare it to the new economy of callcenters, retailers, and marketeers eating your soul up while producing nothing tangible of value. A person working at a car manufacturing plant will usually have a high satisfaction with his job, as he produces something lasting to be proud of, but what does a walmart greeter or bag-packer get?
They get shit on by high-minded liberals who think they're better.
Why would i think i am better? You totally misunderstand my issue: people are only worth to live if they get valued marginally enough by a capitalist. Not i am doing the value judgement on them but the capitalist value system, values them least amongst men.
Nobody wants to work those jobs, they are only done because people are forced to sustain themselfs. Currently jobs that have huge value to society (healthcare, elderly care, maintenance, cleaning and upkeep of our settlements) are paid like shit, because they have low barrier of entry and people have no other choice than to take up work. A basic income guarantee would drastically trim down bullshit low entry jobs (like callcenters etc) raise the wages in important fields (care/upkeep) and it would even free up peoples minds and time to pursue higher callings for themselfs than the basic necessities of the daily struggle to continue existing.
I am poor and unemployed, so in the discussed frame of reference i am the most worthless of all humans and deserve to die (by the standards of millitron wegandi and clutz). I do not think i am better than someone who works to survive.
I think you're mixing what some radical, and extremely rare, libertarians think rather than what a typical capitalist would think. If you send some time at a business or econ school or with managers / investors or the like, you won't find them echoing that sentiment. If you do, you'll find them to be very rare.
Yes there are several distinct things going on: - capitalists engaging in their rational self interest from a priviledged position of acquired wealth... who can blame those poor souls doing what does them good, perpetuating a system of exploitation? - the radical types who see the state holding those back and wanting a tribal no rules society where the strongest can crush the losers of the competition even more: there are two types here, those that want this to happen, and those that are blue eyed like communists about the actual human nature, where suddenly when the state is gone everyone plays fair and is helpful to each other.....
You are most likely right that focussing on the second group is not worth it, but their ideas have political influence, even if highly deluted: welfare gets cut all over the world, ending social security is on the table, austerity politics ruin economies left right and center... It all comes from a "they do not deserve it"-attitude. Everything gets turned around on the weak individum instead of looking at total societal welfare/wellbeing.
People are overwhelmingly dissatisfied with their work, the capitalist system (as realized) has a LOT to do with that. It's about as obvious as things get.
Work is work. It's not easy to keep people engaged and happy doing something for full time. Doesn't matter if you're in a capitalist system or not.
US ranks high in that survey, and we're considered very capitalistic.
The US practices state-directed capitalism and has for the last century. Your feelings about how "capitalistic" the US is are completely irrelevant to the data.
The fact that a larger minority of the population find satisfaction in their work in the US is not unexpected, given the fact that the US is at the apex of a globalized capitalist economy. More workers in the US economy are part of the petit bourgeoisie than in probably any other economy, except maybe parts of the EU, and those kinds of workers have historically been just as pro-capitalist as the capitalists themselves. The skill, respect, and autonomy in a lot of the professional level jobs in the US all provide a certain satisfaction that compensates for the level of labor exploitation going on. An accountant at PWC or a lawyer at a firm also has the potential, however slim, to actually become a partner and gain ownership stake in their workplace. Small business owners might also be expected to take more pride in their work. Not to mention that the top quartile or quintile of the US population has investments of its own, perhaps their 401k or the like.
None of this discounts 1) that a growing majority of Americans are disaffected workers are becoming more and more conscious of their exploitation and 2) the world economy as a whole is what has to be considered. These Rah Rah America! arguments are completely beside the point.
Honestly, what percent of employees at any level actually think economically, politically, or socially in terms of class consciousness and labor exploitation?
And it's pretty interesting to declare Americans are feeling exploited when the unions spend every trade negotiation wringing their hands about the hollowing out of manufacturing in the United States and every investor meeting worrying about being replaced by automation. What is factory labor if not THE exploitation of labor?
I would also note our politics of economic news is dominated by the unemployment rate and labor participation. We want MORE people to apparently work and be exploited and we worry when people can't find jobs.
We're far more likely in to think in Darwinian terms about economics, where growth is life and stagnation is decay, than we are to think in Marxist terms.
Factory labor is great when you compare it to the new economy of callcenters, retailers, and marketeers eating your soul up while producing nothing tangible of value. A person working at a car manufacturing plant will usually have a high satisfaction with his job, as he produces something lasting to be proud of, but what does a walmart greeter or bag-packer get?
They get shit on by high-minded liberals who think they're better.
Why would i think i am better? You totally misunderstand my issue: people are only worth to live if they get valued marginally enough by a capitalist. Not i am doing the value judgement on them but the capitalist value system, values them least amongst men.
Nobody wants to work those jobs, they are only done because people are forced to sustain themselfs. Currently jobs that have huge value to society (healthcare, elderly care, maintenance, cleaning and upkeep of our settlements) are paid like shit, because they have low barrier of entry and people have no other choice than to take up work. A basic income guarantee would drastically trim down bullshit low entry jobs (like callcenters etc) raise the wages in important fields (care/upkeep) and it would even free up peoples minds and time to pursue higher callings for themselfs than the basic necessities of the daily struggle to continue existing.
I am poor and unemployed, so in the discussed frame of reference i am the most worthless of all humans and deserve to die (by the standards of millitron wegandi and clutz). I do not think i am better than someone who works to survive.
I think you're mixing what some radical, and extremely rare, libertarians think rather than what a typical capitalist would think. If you send some time at a business or econ school or with managers / investors or the like, you won't find them echoing that sentiment. If you do, you'll find them to be very rare.
You actually take up his farcical scree as factoid? No one that I know, read, or otherwise have an acquaintance with believes such drivel, especially when it comes to us market anarchists of either stripe. He's simply parroting some Randian bularky that libertarians are anti-charity. There's a reason someone like Vermin Supreme is real cozy with us. Puerk has zero idea about what he is talking about lmao.
You guys do remember people cheering the idea of people dying in the streets because they made poor healthcare decisions right?
Sometimes I feel like conservatives really do live in a parallel universe.
OK? You're talking about conservatives, puerk is talking about me (a market anarchist) and as you saw yourself Ron said no, lmao. Grasp at the straws, grasp grasp! Here on that dirty bourgeoisie site of Reason this gem (what on ever propelled them to give exposure to such miscreants!):
You still don't get it... i am not saying that you as an individual are not cheritable, i am saying that going to a society where the only hope is to get charity will not work because of the drawback of nonreliabilty.
To correct for this possible problem, they recalculated the numbers for households containing only persons under age 60, getting Figure 2. The US remains the most unequal nation (after taxes and transfers), but now a main driver of that inequality is market inequality. In this figure, the US (along with Ireland and the UK) has market income inequality substantially higher than the rest of the countries. In other words, it is the distribution of wages and income from capital, independent of the fiscal system, that makes the US comparatively unequal. Indeed, America also does less redistribution than several other rich countries, European countries in particular, so that’s still part of the story, but it’s not the whole story or even most of it.
Over the last 15 years, the Social Security Administration’s Office of the Chief Actuary has consistently underestimated retirees’ life expectancy and made other errors that make the finances of the retirement system look significantly better than they are , a new study by two Harvard and one Dartmouth academics concludes. The report, being published today by the Journal of Economic Perspectives, is the first, the authors say, to compare the government agency’s past demographic and financial forecasts with actual results.
In a second paper appearing today in Political Analysis, the three researchers offer their theory of why the Actuary Office’s predictions have apparently grown less reliable since 2000: the civil servants who run it have responded to increased political polarization surrounding Social Security “by hunkering down” and resisting outside pressures—not only from the politicians, but also from outside technical experts. “While they’re insulating themselves from the politics, they also insulate themselves from the data and this big change in the world –people started living longer lives,’’ coauthor Gary King, a leading political scientist and director of Harvard’s Institute for Quantitative Social Science, said in an interview Thursday. “They need to take that into account and change the forecast as a result of that.”
To correct for this possible problem, they recalculated the numbers for households containing only persons under age 60, getting Figure 2. The US remains the most unequal nation (after taxes and transfers), but now a main driver of that inequality is market inequality. In this figure, the US (along with Ireland and the UK) has market income inequality substantially higher than the rest of the countries. In other words, it is the distribution of wages and income from capital, independent of the fiscal system, that makes the US comparatively unequal. Indeed, America also does less redistribution than several other rich countries, European countries in particular, so that’s still part of the story, but it’s not the whole story or even most of it.
I don't think that adds anything that I didn't already bring up, but charts are always nice, so thanks.
On May 11 2015 03:53 WhiteDog wrote: [quote] Lol. You're funny, like I'm the one with the simplistic ideas. Coming from someone who can't do anything aside from insulting everytime he is wrong (and it happen everytime we argued together). Your argument on china was irrelevant, and it only shows that you can't read whatever you have in the hand. It's pretty obvious that firms that localize part of their production in china do it because the labor costs are low. And I don't need you misunderstanding words to know I'm right on that. Your irrelevant argument had only one goal and it is to suggar coat this reality (it's not social dumping but efficient international division of labor lol). And I'm sure you'll respond to this post with another irrelevant and completly off topic comment, like you always do.
Which was never in dispute. You thought production happened in China because cheaper labor costs increased margins by a small fraction, full stop. I argued that it moved because it actually made a large difference in costs, due to the labor intensity of electronics production. You disputed my position, even in light of empirical data.
It's also not off topic to respond to an accusation that I don't read books by citing a time where I demonstrated that I do read books.
[quote] Lol you're nuts. Do you even know anything about Marx ? To Marx labor is a fundamental aspect of human life, not something negative...
I do know that, actually. Marx also complained that the capitalist mode of production robbed workers of the joy of labor. A sentiment that IgnE echoed in his post.
And is supported by actually talking to workers. Your position here is laughable.
A full 24% are what Gallup calls “actively disengaged,” meaning they pretty much hate their jobs. They act out and undermine what their coworkers accomplish.
Add the last two categories and you get 87% of workers worldwide who, as Gallup puts it, “are emotionally disconnected from their workplaces and less likely to be productive.” In other words, work is more often a source of frustration than one of fulfillment for nearly 90% of the world’s workers. That means that most workplaces are less productive and less safe than they could be and employers are less likely to create new jobs.
People are overwhelmingly dissatisfied with their work, the capitalist system (as realized) has a LOT to do with that. It's about as obvious as things get.
Work is work. It's not easy to keep people engaged and happy doing something for full time. Doesn't matter if you're in a capitalist system or not.
US ranks high in that survey, and we're considered very capitalistic.
The US practices state-directed capitalism and has for the last century. Your feelings about how "capitalistic" the US is are completely irrelevant to the data.
The fact that a larger minority of the population find satisfaction in their work in the US is not unexpected, given the fact that the US is at the apex of a globalized capitalist economy. More workers in the US economy are part of the petit bourgeoisie than in probably any other economy, except maybe parts of the EU, and those kinds of workers have historically been just as pro-capitalist as the capitalists themselves. The skill, respect, and autonomy in a lot of the professional level jobs in the US all provide a certain satisfaction that compensates for the level of labor exploitation going on. An accountant at PWC or a lawyer at a firm also has the potential, however slim, to actually become a partner and gain ownership stake in their workplace. Small business owners might also be expected to take more pride in their work. Not to mention that the top quartile or quintile of the US population has investments of its own, perhaps their 401k or the like.
None of this discounts 1) that a growing majority of Americans are disaffected workers are becoming more and more conscious of their exploitation and 2) the world economy as a whole is what has to be considered. These Rah Rah America! arguments are completely beside the point.
Honestly, what percent of employees at any level actually think economically, politically, or socially in terms of class consciousness and labor exploitation?
And it's pretty interesting to declare Americans are feeling exploited when the unions spend every trade negotiation wringing their hands about the hollowing out of manufacturing in the United States and every investor meeting worrying about being replaced by automation. What is factory labor if not THE exploitation of labor?
I would also note our politics of economic news is dominated by the unemployment rate and labor participation. We want MORE people to apparently work and be exploited and we worry when people can't find jobs.
We're far more likely in to think in Darwinian terms about economics, where growth is life and stagnation is decay, than we are to think in Marxist terms.
Factory labor is great when you compare it to the new economy of callcenters, retailers, and marketeers eating your soul up while producing nothing tangible of value. A person working at a car manufacturing plant will usually have a high satisfaction with his job, as he produces something lasting to be proud of, but what does a walmart greeter or bag-packer get?
They get shit on by high-minded liberals who think they're better.
Why would i think i am better? You totally misunderstand my issue: people are only worth to live if they get valued marginally enough by a capitalist. Not i am doing the value judgement on them but the capitalist value system, values them least amongst men.
Nobody wants to work those jobs, they are only done because people are forced to sustain themselfs. Currently jobs that have huge value to society (healthcare, elderly care, maintenance, cleaning and upkeep of our settlements) are paid like shit, because they have low barrier of entry and people have no other choice than to take up work. A basic income guarantee would drastically trim down bullshit low entry jobs (like callcenters etc) raise the wages in important fields (care/upkeep) and it would even free up peoples minds and time to pursue higher callings for themselfs than the basic necessities of the daily struggle to continue existing.
I am poor and unemployed, so in the discussed frame of reference i am the most worthless of all humans and deserve to die (by the standards of millitron wegandi and clutz). I do not think i am better than someone who works to survive.
How many scrooge caricatures do you conjure in your head and believe they're real life embodiments lmao? First of all, for me, most of the poverty and misery that exists in our society IS the result of economic exploitation, but we see the exploited being the people robbed by the monetary system (legal tender laws, federal reserve, et. al), the folks under the heel of political power via taxation, regulation, and the like (the political vs the economic means), etc. Libertarian class analysis was around before Marx and Engels, which they ended up appropriating for themselves and bastardizing from Comte and Dunoyer.
You see, for people like yourself, you awake thinking that 'we' (libertarians, lockeans, whatever label you want to give us, etc.), believe that our current society is just and the approximation of our ideological triumphant. It's really comical all the times when we're blamed for blights of current society when we have 0% policy influence. Anyways, perhaps you should bone up on working ways to help the less fortunate instead of acting haughty and defending the state administrative bureaucracies which enrich themselves and the poors expense just like most of the charities around today (go read up on how little actually ends up in the hands of the needy). No, local institutions like Mutual Aid societies and P2P direct giving is shunned and derided. Between individuals coming together amongst themselves and having different value systems for those amongst them (can't really mooch forever when you're part of a MA society - that it's there to help you get back to where you can support yourself, etc.), and society being much better off materially so there are less poor makes for a wonderfully better world than where everyone are a mere blip of the borg. But go ahead, if it makes you feel morally and emotionally superior to think our motives are nefarious and cold. I'm sure, I'd be one of the first killed by the mass mob for uncouth borgeiousie ideals of freedom, liberty, justice, and Lockeanism.
Love the bolded, real conservatives are waiting for a better iteration. I will defend what we have currently because its awesome, but certainly will implement best practices that other jurisdictions try out with positive data. Keep fighting the good fight liberals we need more people thinking outside the box and we will try to poke holes in your ideas.
To correct for this possible problem, they recalculated the numbers for households containing only persons under age 60, getting Figure 2. The US remains the most unequal nation (after taxes and transfers), but now a main driver of that inequality is market inequality. In this figure, the US (along with Ireland and the UK) has market income inequality substantially higher than the rest of the countries. In other words, it is the distribution of wages and income from capital, independent of the fiscal system, that makes the US comparatively unequal. Indeed, America also does less redistribution than several other rich countries, European countries in particular, so that’s still part of the story, but it’s not the whole story or even most of it.
I don't think that adds anything that I didn't already bring up, but charts are always nice, so thanks.
it introduces a new variable that changes the picture: working age. Your graphs and data were along the lines of the classical picture of figure 1, figure 2 draws a different picture, and brings genuine new value to the discussion.
On May 11 2015 04:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] Which was never in dispute. You thought production happened in China because cheaper labor costs increased margins by a small fraction, full stop. I argued that it moved because it actually made a large difference in costs, due to the labor intensity of electronics production. You disputed my position, even in light of empirical data.
It's also not off topic to respond to an accusation that I don't read books by citing a time where I demonstrated that I do read books.
[quote] I do know that, actually. Marx also complained that the capitalist mode of production robbed workers of the joy of labor. A sentiment that IgnE echoed in his post.
And is supported by actually talking to workers. Your position here is laughable.
A full 24% are what Gallup calls “actively disengaged,” meaning they pretty much hate their jobs. They act out and undermine what their coworkers accomplish.
Add the last two categories and you get 87% of workers worldwide who, as Gallup puts it, “are emotionally disconnected from their workplaces and less likely to be productive.” In other words, work is more often a source of frustration than one of fulfillment for nearly 90% of the world’s workers. That means that most workplaces are less productive and less safe than they could be and employers are less likely to create new jobs.
People are overwhelmingly dissatisfied with their work, the capitalist system (as realized) has a LOT to do with that. It's about as obvious as things get.
Work is work. It's not easy to keep people engaged and happy doing something for full time. Doesn't matter if you're in a capitalist system or not.
US ranks high in that survey, and we're considered very capitalistic.
The US practices state-directed capitalism and has for the last century. Your feelings about how "capitalistic" the US is are completely irrelevant to the data.
The fact that a larger minority of the population find satisfaction in their work in the US is not unexpected, given the fact that the US is at the apex of a globalized capitalist economy. More workers in the US economy are part of the petit bourgeoisie than in probably any other economy, except maybe parts of the EU, and those kinds of workers have historically been just as pro-capitalist as the capitalists themselves. The skill, respect, and autonomy in a lot of the professional level jobs in the US all provide a certain satisfaction that compensates for the level of labor exploitation going on. An accountant at PWC or a lawyer at a firm also has the potential, however slim, to actually become a partner and gain ownership stake in their workplace. Small business owners might also be expected to take more pride in their work. Not to mention that the top quartile or quintile of the US population has investments of its own, perhaps their 401k or the like.
None of this discounts 1) that a growing majority of Americans are disaffected workers are becoming more and more conscious of their exploitation and 2) the world economy as a whole is what has to be considered. These Rah Rah America! arguments are completely beside the point.
Honestly, what percent of employees at any level actually think economically, politically, or socially in terms of class consciousness and labor exploitation?
And it's pretty interesting to declare Americans are feeling exploited when the unions spend every trade negotiation wringing their hands about the hollowing out of manufacturing in the United States and every investor meeting worrying about being replaced by automation. What is factory labor if not THE exploitation of labor?
I would also note our politics of economic news is dominated by the unemployment rate and labor participation. We want MORE people to apparently work and be exploited and we worry when people can't find jobs.
We're far more likely in to think in Darwinian terms about economics, where growth is life and stagnation is decay, than we are to think in Marxist terms.
Factory labor is great when you compare it to the new economy of callcenters, retailers, and marketeers eating your soul up while producing nothing tangible of value. A person working at a car manufacturing plant will usually have a high satisfaction with his job, as he produces something lasting to be proud of, but what does a walmart greeter or bag-packer get?
They get shit on by high-minded liberals who think they're better.
Why would i think i am better? You totally misunderstand my issue: people are only worth to live if they get valued marginally enough by a capitalist. Not i am doing the value judgement on them but the capitalist value system, values them least amongst men.
Nobody wants to work those jobs, they are only done because people are forced to sustain themselfs. Currently jobs that have huge value to society (healthcare, elderly care, maintenance, cleaning and upkeep of our settlements) are paid like shit, because they have low barrier of entry and people have no other choice than to take up work. A basic income guarantee would drastically trim down bullshit low entry jobs (like callcenters etc) raise the wages in important fields (care/upkeep) and it would even free up peoples minds and time to pursue higher callings for themselfs than the basic necessities of the daily struggle to continue existing.
I am poor and unemployed, so in the discussed frame of reference i am the most worthless of all humans and deserve to die (by the standards of millitron wegandi and clutz). I do not think i am better than someone who works to survive.
How many scrooge caricatures do you conjure in your head and believe they're real life embodiments lmao? First of all, for me, most of the poverty and misery that exists in our society IS the result of economic exploitation, but we see the exploited being the people robbed by the monetary system (legal tender laws, federal reserve, et. al), the folks under the heel of political power via taxation, regulation, and the like (the political vs the economic means), etc. Libertarian class analysis was around before Marx and Engels, which they ended up appropriating for themselves and bastardizing from Comte and Dunoyer.
You see, for people like yourself, you awake thinking that 'we' (libertarians, lockeans, whatever label you want to give us, etc.), believe that our current society is just and the approximation of our ideological triumphant. It's really comical all the times when we're blamed for blights of current society when we have 0% policy influence. Anyways, perhaps you should bone up on working ways to help the less fortunate instead of acting haughty and defending the state administrative bureaucracies which enrich themselves and the poors expense just like most of the charities around today (go read up on how little actually ends up in the hands of the needy). No, local institutions like Mutual Aid societies and P2P direct giving is shunned and derided. Between individuals coming together amongst themselves and having different value systems for those amongst them (can't really mooch forever when you're part of a MA society - that it's there to help you get back to where you can support yourself, etc.), and society being much better off materially so there are less poor makes for a wonderfully better world than where everyone are a mere blip of the borg. But go ahead, if it makes you feel morally and emotionally superior to think our motives are nefarious and cold. I'm sure, I'd be one of the first killed by the mass mob for uncouth borgeiousie ideals of freedom, liberty, justice, and Lockeanism.
Love the bolded, real conservatives are waiting for a better iteration. I will defend what we have currently because its awesome, but certainly will implement best practices that other jurisdictions try out with positive data. Keep fighting the good fight liberals we need more people thinking outside the box and we will try to poke holes in your ideas.
But it is utterly wrong. I don't believe a slightest bit that Wegandi sees the current US as his utopia. I actually fully believe him in his quest for his own informed and well literate version of minarchism (or what ever is the best fitting description for it). But as he would say himself, wanting to do good and actually doing it are widely different concepts, and as he constantly thinks to remind me: well intentioned ideas can go horribly wrong. I do not disagree with his motives, but with his naiveté about human fairness.
People are overwhelmingly dissatisfied with their work, the capitalist system (as realized) has a LOT to do with that. It's about as obvious as things get.
Work is work. It's not easy to keep people engaged and happy doing something for full time. Doesn't matter if you're in a capitalist system or not.
US ranks high in that survey, and we're considered very capitalistic.
The US practices state-directed capitalism and has for the last century. Your feelings about how "capitalistic" the US is are completely irrelevant to the data.
The fact that a larger minority of the population find satisfaction in their work in the US is not unexpected, given the fact that the US is at the apex of a globalized capitalist economy. More workers in the US economy are part of the petit bourgeoisie than in probably any other economy, except maybe parts of the EU, and those kinds of workers have historically been just as pro-capitalist as the capitalists themselves. The skill, respect, and autonomy in a lot of the professional level jobs in the US all provide a certain satisfaction that compensates for the level of labor exploitation going on. An accountant at PWC or a lawyer at a firm also has the potential, however slim, to actually become a partner and gain ownership stake in their workplace. Small business owners might also be expected to take more pride in their work. Not to mention that the top quartile or quintile of the US population has investments of its own, perhaps their 401k or the like.
None of this discounts 1) that a growing majority of Americans are disaffected workers are becoming more and more conscious of their exploitation and 2) the world economy as a whole is what has to be considered. These Rah Rah America! arguments are completely beside the point.
Honestly, what percent of employees at any level actually think economically, politically, or socially in terms of class consciousness and labor exploitation?
And it's pretty interesting to declare Americans are feeling exploited when the unions spend every trade negotiation wringing their hands about the hollowing out of manufacturing in the United States and every investor meeting worrying about being replaced by automation. What is factory labor if not THE exploitation of labor?
I would also note our politics of economic news is dominated by the unemployment rate and labor participation. We want MORE people to apparently work and be exploited and we worry when people can't find jobs.
We're far more likely in to think in Darwinian terms about economics, where growth is life and stagnation is decay, than we are to think in Marxist terms.
Factory labor is great when you compare it to the new economy of callcenters, retailers, and marketeers eating your soul up while producing nothing tangible of value. A person working at a car manufacturing plant will usually have a high satisfaction with his job, as he produces something lasting to be proud of, but what does a walmart greeter or bag-packer get?
They get shit on by high-minded liberals who think they're better.
Why would i think i am better? You totally misunderstand my issue: people are only worth to live if they get valued marginally enough by a capitalist. Not i am doing the value judgement on them but the capitalist value system, values them least amongst men.
Nobody wants to work those jobs, they are only done because people are forced to sustain themselfs. Currently jobs that have huge value to society (healthcare, elderly care, maintenance, cleaning and upkeep of our settlements) are paid like shit, because they have low barrier of entry and people have no other choice than to take up work. A basic income guarantee would drastically trim down bullshit low entry jobs (like callcenters etc) raise the wages in important fields (care/upkeep) and it would even free up peoples minds and time to pursue higher callings for themselfs than the basic necessities of the daily struggle to continue existing.
I am poor and unemployed, so in the discussed frame of reference i am the most worthless of all humans and deserve to die (by the standards of millitron wegandi and clutz). I do not think i am better than someone who works to survive.
How many scrooge caricatures do you conjure in your head and believe they're real life embodiments lmao? First of all, for me, most of the poverty and misery that exists in our society IS the result of economic exploitation, but we see the exploited being the people robbed by the monetary system (legal tender laws, federal reserve, et. al), the folks under the heel of political power via taxation, regulation, and the like (the political vs the economic means), etc. Libertarian class analysis was around before Marx and Engels, which they ended up appropriating for themselves and bastardizing from Comte and Dunoyer.
You see, for people like yourself, you awake thinking that 'we' (libertarians, lockeans, whatever label you want to give us, etc.), believe that our current society is just and the approximation of our ideological triumphant. It's really comical all the times when we're blamed for blights of current society when we have 0% policy influence. Anyways, perhaps you should bone up on working ways to help the less fortunate instead of acting haughty and defending the state administrative bureaucracies which enrich themselves and the poors expense just like most of the charities around today (go read up on how little actually ends up in the hands of the needy). No, local institutions like Mutual Aid societies and P2P direct giving is shunned and derided. Between individuals coming together amongst themselves and having different value systems for those amongst them (can't really mooch forever when you're part of a MA society - that it's there to help you get back to where you can support yourself, etc.), and society being much better off materially so there are less poor makes for a wonderfully better world than where everyone are a mere blip of the borg. But go ahead, if it makes you feel morally and emotionally superior to think our motives are nefarious and cold. I'm sure, I'd be one of the first killed by the mass mob for uncouth borgeiousie ideals of freedom, liberty, justice, and Lockeanism.
Love the bolded, real conservatives are waiting for a better iteration. I will defend what we have currently because its awesome, but certainly will implement best practices that other jurisdictions try out with positive data. Keep fighting the good fight liberals we need more people thinking outside the box and we will try to poke holes in your ideas.
But it is utterly wrong. I don't believe a slightest bit that Wegandi sees the current US as his utopia. I actually fully believe him in his quest for his own informed and well literate version of minarchism (or what ever is the best fitting description for it). But as he would say himself, wanting to do good and actually doing it are widely different concepts, and as he constantly thinks to remind me: well intentioned ideas can go horribly wrong. I do not disagree with his motives, but with his naiveté about human fairness.
That's why jurisdictions have borders and laws and constitutions can be changed. I will be with you arguing against radical libertarianism just as I will argue against you regarding radical socialist policies like guaranteed basic income. I'm that guy who loves things the way they are but will listen to data from those jurisdictions that opt out of what we currently have.
EPT![[image loading]](http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/rly7fx4r6ucjby0emu9hiw.png)
![[image loading]](http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2015/05/04/opinion/050415krugman3/050415krugman3-tmagArticle.png)
