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 April 09 2014 12:43 IgnE wrote: It's not an option. If you've read any of my posts I don't think Germany's export-oriented "balance" is sustainable. Once the artificial demand from the US collapses in the next crisis, Germany and China are going to hit prolonged economic trouble, followed by countries like Brazil and Chile that are supplying raw resources to the manufacturing centers of Germany and China. It's not as if growth in Germany weren't already slowing. You are barely able to stay above water right now, and have dipped below 0% growth for a quarter or two recently.
And if you think there's no such thing as ideology you are sorely deluded.
You're right, obviously permanent trade imbalances are unsustainable. You're just mistaken if you think the reason for these unbalances lies within the fact that German workers are driven into slavery, when in fact there's little factual evidence supporting this.
All workers are driven into wage-slavery. Germany isn't special in this regard. It's just special in that it's wages are depressed, relatively speaking, to those throughout Europe, even if it's workers are doing "well" because there is at least work for them to do, so they can continue paying rent to their landlords.
@ jonny
I'm sure there are others ways of interpreting his data. If he wants to argue for worker ownership and communal allocation of surplus capital, such as in a worker coop, then I am all for it.
Try re-reading the article without the Marxist BS. You may just learn something
You are the one who posts it without comment. If you have a point to make it, then make it. My analysis isn't wrong. It just isn't apropos anything, since no one here has attempted to make policy claims based on the article's findings. I was preemptively responding to a Forbes editorial on it that would use it as evidence that inequality isn't a bad thing.
I love how I'm getting a bunch of flak for posting an article without comment. Like no one else does that ({CC}StealthBlue).
More to the point, I don't think your analysis is correct at all. Even going with your odd obsession with ownership and control, the article cites atypical ways in which workers and renters do exert control (workers elect board members as I've already cited). You seem to be either ignoring or misinterpreting points like that because they don't fall into your artificial 'worker' and 'capitalist' constructs.
On April 09 2014 12:43 IgnE wrote: It's not an option. If you've read any of my posts I don't think Germany's export-oriented "balance" is sustainable. Once the artificial demand from the US collapses in the next crisis, Germany and China are going to hit prolonged economic trouble, followed by countries like Brazil and Chile that are supplying raw resources to the manufacturing centers of Germany and China. It's not as if growth in Germany weren't already slowing. You are barely able to stay above water right now, and have dipped below 0% growth for a quarter or two recently.
And if you think there's no such thing as ideology you are sorely deluded.
You're right, obviously permanent trade imbalances are unsustainable. You're just mistaken if you think the reason for these unbalances lies within the fact that German workers are driven into slavery, when in fact there's little factual evidence supporting this.
All workers are driven into wage-slavery. Germany isn't special in this regard. It's just special in that it's wages are depressed, relatively speaking, to those throughout Europe, even if it's workers are doing "well" because there is at least work for them to do, so they can continue paying rent to their landlords.
@ jonny
I'm sure there are others ways of interpreting his data. If he wants to argue for worker ownership and communal allocation of surplus capital, such as in a worker coop, then I am all for it.
Try re-reading the article without the Marxist BS. You may just learn something
Does this mean the mild-mannered economist gloves have come off?
Hey Danglars Please Jonny enlighten us lay folk with the relevant takeaways from the article that one's 'Marxist' myopia may interfere with?
Stealth's articles are usually pretty self evident as to what they demonstrate or portend. Yours was not.
On April 09 2014 12:43 IgnE wrote: It's not an option. If you've read any of my posts I don't think Germany's export-oriented "balance" is sustainable. Once the artificial demand from the US collapses in the next crisis, Germany and China are going to hit prolonged economic trouble, followed by countries like Brazil and Chile that are supplying raw resources to the manufacturing centers of Germany and China. It's not as if growth in Germany weren't already slowing. You are barely able to stay above water right now, and have dipped below 0% growth for a quarter or two recently.
And if you think there's no such thing as ideology you are sorely deluded.
You're right, obviously permanent trade imbalances are unsustainable. You're just mistaken if you think the reason for these unbalances lies within the fact that German workers are driven into slavery, when in fact there's little factual evidence supporting this.
All workers are driven into wage-slavery. Germany isn't special in this regard. It's just special in that it's wages are depressed, relatively speaking, to those throughout Europe, even if it's workers are doing "well" because there is at least work for them to do, so they can continue paying rent to their landlords.
@ jonny
I'm sure there are others ways of interpreting his data. If he wants to argue for worker ownership and communal allocation of surplus capital, such as in a worker coop, then I am all for it.
Try re-reading the article without the Marxist BS. You may just learn something
You are the one who posts it without comment. If you have a point to make it, then make it. My analysis isn't wrong. It just isn't apropos anything, since no one here has attempted to make policy claims based on the article's findings. I was preemptively responding to a Forbes editorial on it that would use it as evidence that inequality isn't a bad thing.
I love how I'm getting a bunch of flak for posting an article without comment. Like no one else does that ({CC}StealthBlue).
More to the point, I don't think your analysis is correct at all. Even going with your odd obsession with ownership and control, the article cites atypical ways in which workers and renters do exert control (workers elect board members as I've already cited). You seem to be either ignoring or misinterpreting points like that because they don't fall into your artificial 'worker' and 'capitalist' constructs.
Hardly. Rent controls are a form of welfare. A welfare state practices state capitalism. The mode of production remains the same. It's just the owner who changes.
The article does cite worker voting rights in some German corporations. If you want to argue that Germany is doing so well because the workers have more control over the surplus capital and that we should give even more control to them, such that everyone has a say in how surplus capital is redistributed, then let's hear it.
If, as I think you might, you would rather say that state-directed capitalism is more efficient than this gross misappropriation of wealth to the indigent and debt-ridden that we see in "ownership societies" like the United States, then my analysis stands. I do not think that some nominal voting rights on a workers' council change the fundamental features of the worker-employer relationship. It's not a controlling interest. Workers' councils function more as labor unions than majority shares. You are overstating the difference between the atypical ways that workers and renters have control over their wages. Everyone knows that Germany and Northern Europe have stronger welfare states than other first world countries. I've said before that countries are facing a crisis in which they have to choose between welfare statism and revolution. There's nothing artificial about "worker" and "capitalist" constructs. They are simply a description of reality. Don't make the mistake of assuming that German welfare changes the capitalist mode of production in any significant way.
On April 09 2014 13:23 IgnE wrote: All workers are driven into wage-slavery. Germany isn't special in this regard. It's just special in that it's wages are depressed, relatively speaking, to those throughout Europe, even if it's workers are doing "well" because there is at least work for them to do, so they can continue paying rent to their landlords.
Although I'll probably open a big can of worms here: In this utopia in which people aren't pitiful 'wage slaves' and every cent of profit is evenly divided among all the workers, where is innovation coming from and how will people be able to create new companies?
Human creativity. Democracy on how to allocate profits.
Yeah the Republican Spokesperson was out saying that they agree there is a wage gap, they just don't want to do anything about it.
Wonder if the Republicans here got the memo that the party actually believes the wage gap is real (even when adjusted for hours,risk,etc)...?
There really isn't a whole lot the Federal government can do about the wage gap. Sex discrimination is already illegal and no one is even sure why a wage gap remains. "Sexism" is a popular assumption, but the Federal government itself and even Obama's white house staff experiences a wage gap.
Big difference between nothing and 'not a whole lot'
Not really. Unless you include things like party image.
Yeah there really is. I mean if it were up to Republicans, they would of left things as they were before the Fair Pay Act. Which was by any account just plain ignorant.
Not surprisingly there are still issues that should be discussed/addressed. Not surprisingly Republicans are right there to stand in the way of not just action but the conversation itself.
And the White House (presuming this wage gap can't be explained away like Republicans have attempted elsewhere) is a great example of how discrimination may happen without knowledge or with the opposite intention. That's one of several reasons why the information is important to gather and analyze in the first place.
Side note: They used the same 'flawed' method to determine that $0.88 : $1.00 gap as the $0.77 : $1.00 So by that measure they are doing better than average! Coincidentally, the difference (~$0.11) between the two is approximately the wage gap presumed to be a result of discrimination.
When it's not you being discriminated against it might not seem like a big deal and just a political "image" adjustment (given for some it might be). But for those women and the people who care about them raising families, planning for retirement, assessing employers, etc. it's a pretty big deal, and doing nothing is not a sensible option.
Not sure what you are referencing about gathering data. Data is already gathered an analyzed.
Also, with the way that the wage gap is calculated most employers will do better than average and I've typically heard the adjusted gap as considerably less than 11%.
You seem to be assuming discrimination, preferring action and discounting unintended consequences. I feel the opposite, so this isn't something we're going to agree on.
The discussion over how wealth statistics are calculated and the value of non capitalized rights.
"Directs the Secretary to conduct studies and provide information to employers, labor organizations, and the general public regarding the means available to eliminate pay disparities between men and women."
"Amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to require the EEOC to collect from employers pay information data regarding the sex, race, and national origin of employees for use in the enforcement of federal laws prohibiting pay discrimination."
"Directs: (1) the Commissioner of Labor Statistics to continue to collect data on woman workers in the Current Employment Statistics survey, (2) the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs to use specified types of methods in investigating compensation discrimination and in enforcing pay equity, and (3) the Secretary to make accurate information on compensation discrimination readily available to the public"
(Helps when you read it instead of dismissing it on it's face)
We already do a lot of data collection and dissemination. I guess this is a more pro-active stance? Is that what it does?
On the gap:
If you look at the gap over time (based on methodologies that Republicans say aren't relevant when used against them) in the Obama administration, it is clearly shrinking (a trend that would be wisely followed by the rest of employers). And if the 'discrimination' gap is smaller than 11%, you are essentially saying the Obama admin is probably paying females more on parity with men..
The pay gap has been diminishing over time. Any given employer, Obama Admin. included, does't think that they are discriminating. They figure that their pay practices are justified and if there is a disparate impact they are prepared to defend their practices in court and the courts impose tough standards on those defenses.
On Discrimination:
Assume, presume, in modern English are pretty interchangeable but there is a slight inferred difference so I would quarrel there (but I don't think it's that important here).
You think what happened to Lilly isn't worthy of preventative legislation/legitimate debate, I and millions of other Americans disagree.
No, I didn't say that.
"The problem is that rather than discuss what actually would or wouldn't be effective and compromising on something that does something to help but not too much to hurt, Republicans would rather just start yelling, shove their fingers in their ears, and vote to repeal the ACA for the umpteenth time. That's not government, it's just pathetic.
You don't like Republicans. Got it.
What unintended consequences are so concerning that you would let women like Lilly get treated as a second class citizen in order to prevent?
I didn't comment specifically on Lilly. The law designed to remedy her situation was already passed in 2009.
In the case of the Lilly Ledbetter act there was something specific Congress wanted to address - the statute of limitations on discrimination suits. That's different than addressing the pay gap in general when we don't even know what's causing it.
On the Wealth article:
So did you draw any interesting conclusions or have any ideas significantly altered or substantiated as a result? Or was it just information you found interesting but not worthy of any significant note (beyond the generic sense of how wealth statistics are generally calculated)?
I just read it. I haven't drawn many conclusions / ideas from it yet. It's hard to post first impressions here since the ideologs will come out and piss all over them and whatnot.
The pay gap has been diminishing over time. Any given employer, Obama Admin. included, does't think that they are discriminating. They figure that their pay practices are justified and if there is a disparate impact they are prepared to defend their practices in court and the courts impose tough standards on those defenses.
Not sure what time frame you're referring to, how about a source? You do realize you don't have to think you are discriminating in order to discriminate right? There's an important difference between 'figuring' and being. Defending a case in court doesn't only consist of protecting potentially discriminant practices.
A lot of discrimination is disparate impact, meaning that you set a rule that you is appropriate for the work but unintentionally favors one or more protected class. But a disparate impact doesn't mean that the rule is unfair. For example, you can require firefighters to be strong enough to carry victims out of a fire. If women aren't typically strong enough, too bad - we need good firefighters.
"What unintended consequences are so concerning that you would let women like Lilly get treated as a second class citizen in order to prevent?"
No, I didn't say that.
You really haven't said much at all. But you have insinuated such. If you would/do support the legislation that would/does prevent such situations, it would fly in the face of reasonable interpretations of your comments. But if I'm wrong and you do support that legislation feel free to say so.
I don't have a problem with the Lilly pay act. The problem here is that you think I'm a far right conservative and so you're filling in the blanks with whatever you think someone like that would say.
The problem is that rather than discuss what actually would or wouldn't be effective and compromising on something that does something to help but not too much to hurt, Republicans would rather just start yelling, shove their fingers in their ears, and vote to repeal the ACA for the umpteenth time. That's not government, it's just pathetic." You don't like Republicans. Got it.
I don't like a lot of the ideas, but the people I try to evaluate individually. But you agree with the description of the current political situation?
Sort of? Reps are doing the usual dismissal that a new whiz bang thing isn't needed and Dems are doing the usual thing of insisting that the new whiz bang thing is needed. Both sides are shitting on each other's position. What's new?
I didn't comment specifically on Lilly. The law designed to remedy her situation was already passed in 2009.
In the case of the Lilly Ledbetter act there was something specific Congress wanted to address - the statute of limitations on discrimination suits. That's different than addressing the pay gap in general when we don't even know what's causing it
So you, in opposition to most right leaners, supported and continue to support that act, or at least that provision?
The statute of limitations was an issue that was altered in the 2009 law. It by no means 'resolved' the multiple issues surrounding cases specifically like Lilly's let alone ones that can vary significantly in circumstances. We can agree more research needs to be done, which is one of several things legislated in the bill you earlier dismissed without reading/comprehending.
There's been a lot of research already done / being done on the pay gap. You don't need a new bill for that.
I just read it. I haven't drawn many conclusions / ideas from it yet. It's hard to post first impressions here since the ideologs will come out and piss all over them and whatnot.
How did you come across this article? And did you read it before you posted it or after?
The article was linked through one of FTAlphaville's 'Further Reading' sections. And yes I read it before I posted it, I wouldn't have said that I found it interesting otherwise.
On April 09 2014 12:43 IgnE wrote: It's not an option. If you've read any of my posts I don't think Germany's export-oriented "balance" is sustainable. Once the artificial demand from the US collapses in the next crisis, Germany and China are going to hit prolonged economic trouble, followed by countries like Brazil and Chile that are supplying raw resources to the manufacturing centers of Germany and China. It's not as if growth in Germany weren't already slowing. You are barely able to stay above water right now, and have dipped below 0% growth for a quarter or two recently.
And if you think there's no such thing as ideology you are sorely deluded.
You're right, obviously permanent trade imbalances are unsustainable. You're just mistaken if you think the reason for these unbalances lies within the fact that German workers are driven into slavery, when in fact there's little factual evidence supporting this.
All workers are driven into wage-slavery. Germany isn't special in this regard. It's just special in that it's wages are depressed, relatively speaking, to those throughout Europe, even if it's workers are doing "well" because there is at least work for them to do, so they can continue paying rent to their landlords.
@ jonny
I'm sure there are others ways of interpreting his data. If he wants to argue for worker ownership and communal allocation of surplus capital, such as in a worker coop, then I am all for it.
Try re-reading the article without the Marxist BS. You may just learn something
You are the one who posts it without comment. If you have a point to make it, then make it. My analysis isn't wrong. It just isn't apropos anything, since no one here has attempted to make policy claims based on the article's findings. I was preemptively responding to a Forbes editorial on it that would use it as evidence that inequality isn't a bad thing.
I love how I'm getting a bunch of flak for posting an article without comment. Like no one else does that ({CC}StealthBlue).
More to the point, I don't think your analysis is correct at all. Even going with your odd obsession with ownership and control, the article cites atypical ways in which workers and renters do exert control (workers elect board members as I've already cited). You seem to be either ignoring or misinterpreting points like that because they don't fall into your artificial 'worker' and 'capitalist' constructs.
Hardly. Rent controls are a form of welfare. A welfare state practices state capitalism. The mode of production remains the same. It's just the owner who changes.
The article does cite worker voting rights in some German corporations. If you want to argue that Germany is doing so well because the workers have more control over the surplus capital and that we should give even more control to them, such that everyone has a say in how surplus capital is redistributed, then let's hear it.
If, as I think you might, you would rather say that state-directed capitalism is more efficient than this gross misappropriation of wealth to the indigent and debt-ridden that we see in "ownership societies" like the United States, then my analysis stands. I do not think that some nominal voting rights on a workers' council change the fundamental features of the worker-employer relationship. It's not a controlling interest. Workers' councils function more as labor unions than majority shares. You are overstating the difference between the atypical ways that workers and renters have control over their wages. Everyone knows that Germany and Northern Europe have stronger welfare states than other first world countries. I've said before that countries are facing a crisis in which they have to choose between welfare statism and revolution. There's nothing artificial about "worker" and "capitalist" constructs. They are simply a description of reality. Don't make the mistake of assuming that German welfare changes the capitalist mode of production in any significant way.
I wasn't assuming that German welfare changes the 'capitalist mode of production' (i.e. the mode of production).
And yes, 'worker' and 'capitalist' constructs are artificial. They're simplifications that gloss over large parts of reality. It's no less artificial than a modern economist simplifying people as 'rational'. It's true to a point, but only that far.
On April 09 2014 14:25 IgnE wrote: Don't make the mistake of assuming that German welfare changes the capitalist mode of production in any significant way.
Let's not take Germany but Norway as an example, as Scandinavian countries are often looked up to as being governed really well. It's an welfare state that essentially works under a 'capitalist mode', but I hope you won't disagree that the way Norway functions is very different from how the USA works. Although the underlying system is still the same the Scandinavian model differs significantly from the how Anglo-Saxon inspired countries work.
Welfare state doesn't equal state capitalism. Let's take Russia as an example for the latter. Are you telling me Norway doesn't significantly differ from Russia?
Human creativity. Democracy on how to allocate profits.
That sounds like a nice way of not saying 'planned economy'.
On April 09 2014 12:43 IgnE wrote: It's not an option. If you've read any of my posts I don't think Germany's export-oriented "balance" is sustainable. Once the artificial demand from the US collapses in the next crisis, Germany and China are going to hit prolonged economic trouble, followed by countries like Brazil and Chile that are supplying raw resources to the manufacturing centers of Germany and China. It's not as if growth in Germany weren't already slowing. You are barely able to stay above water right now, and have dipped below 0% growth for a quarter or two recently.
And if you think there's no such thing as ideology you are sorely deluded.
You're right, obviously permanent trade imbalances are unsustainable. You're just mistaken if you think the reason for these unbalances lies within the fact that German workers are driven into slavery, when in fact there's little factual evidence supporting this.
All workers are driven into wage-slavery. Germany isn't special in this regard. It's just special in that it's wages are depressed, relatively speaking, to those throughout Europe, even if it's workers are doing "well" because there is at least work for them to do, so they can continue paying rent to their landlords.
@ jonny
I'm sure there are others ways of interpreting his data. If he wants to argue for worker ownership and communal allocation of surplus capital, such as in a worker coop, then I am all for it.
Try re-reading the article without the Marxist BS. You may just learn something
You are the one who posts it without comment. If you have a point to make it, then make it. My analysis isn't wrong. It just isn't apropos anything, since no one here has attempted to make policy claims based on the article's findings. I was preemptively responding to a Forbes editorial on it that would use it as evidence that inequality isn't a bad thing.
I love how I'm getting a bunch of flak for posting an article without comment. Like no one else does that ({CC}StealthBlue).
More to the point, I don't think your analysis is correct at all. Even going with your odd obsession with ownership and control, the article cites atypical ways in which workers and renters do exert control (workers elect board members as I've already cited). You seem to be either ignoring or misinterpreting points like that because they don't fall into your artificial 'worker' and 'capitalist' constructs.
Hardly. Rent controls are a form of welfare. A welfare state practices state capitalism. The mode of production remains the same. It's just the owner who changes.
The article does cite worker voting rights in some German corporations. If you want to argue that Germany is doing so well because the workers have more control over the surplus capital and that we should give even more control to them, such that everyone has a say in how surplus capital is redistributed, then let's hear it.
If, as I think you might, you would rather say that state-directed capitalism is more efficient than this gross misappropriation of wealth to the indigent and debt-ridden that we see in "ownership societies" like the United States, then my analysis stands. I do not think that some nominal voting rights on a workers' council change the fundamental features of the worker-employer relationship. It's not a controlling interest. Workers' councils function more as labor unions than majority shares. You are overstating the difference between the atypical ways that workers and renters have control over their wages. Everyone knows that Germany and Northern Europe have stronger welfare states than other first world countries. I've said before that countries are facing a crisis in which they have to choose between welfare statism and revolution. There's nothing artificial about "worker" and "capitalist" constructs. They are simply a description of reality. Don't make the mistake of assuming that German welfare changes the capitalist mode of production in any significant way.
I wasn't assuming that German welfare changes the 'capitalist mode of production' (i.e. the mode of production).
And yes, 'worker' and 'capitalist' constructs are artificial. They're simplifications that gloss over large parts of reality. It's no less artificial than a modern economist simplifying people as 'rational'. It's true to a point, but only that far.
No, jonny, that's a terrible analogy. It's always true that a capitalist appropriates surplus value from the labor of a worker. It's not always true that people act rationally. You are conflating an alternate, but true, description with a half-truth. To call a true description "artificial" is either a tautology, in that every description of reality is artificial, or stupid.
On April 09 2014 14:25 IgnE wrote: Don't make the mistake of assuming that German welfare changes the capitalist mode of production in any significant way.
Let's not take Germany but Norway as an example, as Scandinavian countries are often looked up to as being governed really well. It's an welfare state that essentially works under a 'capitalist mode', but I hope you won't disagree that the way Norway functions is very different from how the USA works. Although the underlying system is still the same the Scandinavian model differs significantly from the how Anglo-Saxon inspired countries work.
Welfare state doesn't equal state capitalism. Let's take Russia as an example for the latter. Are you telling me Norway doesn't significantly differ from Russia?
On April 09 2014 14:57 IgnE wrote: If you think that I'm referring to a Stalinist or Maoist "planned economy" then you have deliberately misread what I said or have no imagination.
As we're living a real world where concrete political decisions need to be made I'm afraid 'my imagination', or 'human creativity' won't cut it. If you want to convince me of a systematic change you'll need to get a little more concrete than that.
Also I think there's more than a 'little difference' between living in a laissez-faire state that doesn't give a crap or a country like Norway that's actually really well run and provides full healthcare,education and pension.
On April 09 2014 12:43 IgnE wrote: It's not an option. If you've read any of my posts I don't think Germany's export-oriented "balance" is sustainable. Once the artificial demand from the US collapses in the next crisis, Germany and China are going to hit prolonged economic trouble, followed by countries like Brazil and Chile that are supplying raw resources to the manufacturing centers of Germany and China. It's not as if growth in Germany weren't already slowing. You are barely able to stay above water right now, and have dipped below 0% growth for a quarter or two recently.
And if you think there's no such thing as ideology you are sorely deluded.
You're right, obviously permanent trade imbalances are unsustainable. You're just mistaken if you think the reason for these unbalances lies within the fact that German workers are driven into slavery, when in fact there's little factual evidence supporting this.
All workers are driven into wage-slavery. Germany isn't special in this regard. It's just special in that it's wages are depressed, relatively speaking, to those throughout Europe, even if it's workers are doing "well" because there is at least work for them to do, so they can continue paying rent to their landlords.
@ jonny
I'm sure there are others ways of interpreting his data. If he wants to argue for worker ownership and communal allocation of surplus capital, such as in a worker coop, then I am all for it.
Try re-reading the article without the Marxist BS. You may just learn something
You are the one who posts it without comment. If you have a point to make it, then make it. My analysis isn't wrong. It just isn't apropos anything, since no one here has attempted to make policy claims based on the article's findings. I was preemptively responding to a Forbes editorial on it that would use it as evidence that inequality isn't a bad thing.
I love how I'm getting a bunch of flak for posting an article without comment. Like no one else does that ({CC}StealthBlue).
More to the point, I don't think your analysis is correct at all. Even going with your odd obsession with ownership and control, the article cites atypical ways in which workers and renters do exert control (workers elect board members as I've already cited). You seem to be either ignoring or misinterpreting points like that because they don't fall into your artificial 'worker' and 'capitalist' constructs.
Hardly. Rent controls are a form of welfare. A welfare state practices state capitalism. The mode of production remains the same. It's just the owner who changes.
The article does cite worker voting rights in some German corporations. If you want to argue that Germany is doing so well because the workers have more control over the surplus capital and that we should give even more control to them, such that everyone has a say in how surplus capital is redistributed, then let's hear it.
If, as I think you might, you would rather say that state-directed capitalism is more efficient than this gross misappropriation of wealth to the indigent and debt-ridden that we see in "ownership societies" like the United States, then my analysis stands. I do not think that some nominal voting rights on a workers' council change the fundamental features of the worker-employer relationship. It's not a controlling interest. Workers' councils function more as labor unions than majority shares. You are overstating the difference between the atypical ways that workers and renters have control over their wages. Everyone knows that Germany and Northern Europe have stronger welfare states than other first world countries. I've said before that countries are facing a crisis in which they have to choose between welfare statism and revolution. There's nothing artificial about "worker" and "capitalist" constructs. They are simply a description of reality. Don't make the mistake of assuming that German welfare changes the capitalist mode of production in any significant way.
I wasn't assuming that German welfare changes the 'capitalist mode of production' (i.e. the mode of production).
And yes, 'worker' and 'capitalist' constructs are artificial. They're simplifications that gloss over large parts of reality. It's no less artificial than a modern economist simplifying people as 'rational'. It's true to a point, but only that far.
No, jonny, that's a terrible analogy. It's always true that a capitalist appropriates surplus value from the labor of a worker. It's not always true that people act rationally. You are conflating an alternate, but true, description with a half-truth. To call a true description "artificial" is either a tautology, in that every description of reality is artificial, or stupid.
The division of worker and capitalist is an abstraction as people are usually both. So yes, it's an artificial separation that gets blurred in the real world.
Igne, whatever you're saying; it isn't and hasn't been coming across clearly to my eye. Not sure if it's a result of using different definitions for words, or what.
On April 09 2014 12:43 IgnE wrote: It's not an option. If you've read any of my posts I don't think Germany's export-oriented "balance" is sustainable. Once the artificial demand from the US collapses in the next crisis, Germany and China are going to hit prolonged economic trouble, followed by countries like Brazil and Chile that are supplying raw resources to the manufacturing centers of Germany and China. It's not as if growth in Germany weren't already slowing. You are barely able to stay above water right now, and have dipped below 0% growth for a quarter or two recently.
And if you think there's no such thing as ideology you are sorely deluded.
You're right, obviously permanent trade imbalances are unsustainable. You're just mistaken if you think the reason for these unbalances lies within the fact that German workers are driven into slavery, when in fact there's little factual evidence supporting this.
All workers are driven into wage-slavery. Germany isn't special in this regard. It's just special in that it's wages are depressed, relatively speaking, to those throughout Europe, even if it's workers are doing "well" because there is at least work for them to do, so they can continue paying rent to their landlords.
@ jonny
I'm sure there are others ways of interpreting his data. If he wants to argue for worker ownership and communal allocation of surplus capital, such as in a worker coop, then I am all for it.
Try re-reading the article without the Marxist BS. You may just learn something
You are the one who posts it without comment. If you have a point to make it, then make it. My analysis isn't wrong. It just isn't apropos anything, since no one here has attempted to make policy claims based on the article's findings. I was preemptively responding to a Forbes editorial on it that would use it as evidence that inequality isn't a bad thing.
I love how I'm getting a bunch of flak for posting an article without comment. Like no one else does that ({CC}StealthBlue).
More to the point, I don't think your analysis is correct at all. Even going with your odd obsession with ownership and control, the article cites atypical ways in which workers and renters do exert control (workers elect board members as I've already cited). You seem to be either ignoring or misinterpreting points like that because they don't fall into your artificial 'worker' and 'capitalist' constructs.
Hardly. Rent controls are a form of welfare. A welfare state practices state capitalism. The mode of production remains the same. It's just the owner who changes.
The article does cite worker voting rights in some German corporations. If you want to argue that Germany is doing so well because the workers have more control over the surplus capital and that we should give even more control to them, such that everyone has a say in how surplus capital is redistributed, then let's hear it.
If, as I think you might, you would rather say that state-directed capitalism is more efficient than this gross misappropriation of wealth to the indigent and debt-ridden that we see in "ownership societies" like the United States, then my analysis stands. I do not think that some nominal voting rights on a workers' council change the fundamental features of the worker-employer relationship. It's not a controlling interest. Workers' councils function more as labor unions than majority shares. You are overstating the difference between the atypical ways that workers and renters have control over their wages. Everyone knows that Germany and Northern Europe have stronger welfare states than other first world countries. I've said before that countries are facing a crisis in which they have to choose between welfare statism and revolution. There's nothing artificial about "worker" and "capitalist" constructs. They are simply a description of reality. Don't make the mistake of assuming that German welfare changes the capitalist mode of production in any significant way.
I wasn't assuming that German welfare changes the 'capitalist mode of production' (i.e. the mode of production).
And yes, 'worker' and 'capitalist' constructs are artificial. They're simplifications that gloss over large parts of reality. It's no less artificial than a modern economist simplifying people as 'rational'. It's true to a point, but only that far.
No, jonny, that's a terrible analogy. It's always true that a capitalist appropriates surplus value from the labor of a worker. It's not always true that people act rationally. You are conflating an alternate, but true, description with a half-truth. To call a true description "artificial" is either a tautology, in that every description of reality is artificial, or stupid.
The division of worker and capitalist is an abstraction as people are usually both. So yes, it's an artificial separation that gets blurred in the real world.
Edit: Don't pretend like some small-time middle class career manager who owns a stock portfolio means anything. The vast majority of people receive a wage-only income (supplemented with government redistribution). Saying that people are usually both is an obfuscatory truth that misses the forest for the trees.
Luckily for you, I don't really care to classify every individual as capitalist or prole, to pass judgment, and then to sentence them to some fate. I care more about capital and the organization of the mode of production, both of which are very real.
On April 09 2014 15:06 zlefin wrote: Igne, whatever you're saying; it isn't and hasn't been coming across clearly to my eye. Not sure if it's a result of using different definitions for words, or what.
On April 09 2014 04:57 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
Yeah the Republican Spokesperson was out saying that they agree there is a wage gap, they just don't want to do anything about it.
Wonder if the Republicans here got the memo that the party actually believes the wage gap is real (even when adjusted for hours,risk,etc)...?
There really isn't a whole lot the Federal government can do about the wage gap. Sex discrimination is already illegal and no one is even sure why a wage gap remains. "Sexism" is a popular assumption, but the Federal government itself and even Obama's white house staff experiences a wage gap.
Big difference between nothing and 'not a whole lot'
Not really. Unless you include things like party image.
Yeah there really is. I mean if it were up to Republicans, they would of left things as they were before the Fair Pay Act. Which was by any account just plain ignorant.
Not surprisingly there are still issues that should be discussed/addressed. Not surprisingly Republicans are right there to stand in the way of not just action but the conversation itself.
And the White House (presuming this wage gap can't be explained away like Republicans have attempted elsewhere) is a great example of how discrimination may happen without knowledge or with the opposite intention. That's one of several reasons why the information is important to gather and analyze in the first place.
Side note: They used the same 'flawed' method to determine that $0.88 : $1.00 gap as the $0.77 : $1.00 So by that measure they are doing better than average! Coincidentally, the difference (~$0.11) between the two is approximately the wage gap presumed to be a result of discrimination.
When it's not you being discriminated against it might not seem like a big deal and just a political "image" adjustment (given for some it might be). But for those women and the people who care about them raising families, planning for retirement, assessing employers, etc. it's a pretty big deal, and doing nothing is not a sensible option.
Not sure what you are referencing about gathering data. Data is already gathered an analyzed.
Also, with the way that the wage gap is calculated most employers will do better than average and I've typically heard the adjusted gap as considerably less than 11%.
You seem to be assuming discrimination, preferring action and discounting unintended consequences. I feel the opposite, so this isn't something we're going to agree on.
The discussion over how wealth statistics are calculated and the value of non capitalized rights.
"Directs the Secretary to conduct studies and provide information to employers, labor organizations, and the general public regarding the means available to eliminate pay disparities between men and women."
"Amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to require the EEOC to collect from employers pay information data regarding the sex, race, and national origin of employees for use in the enforcement of federal laws prohibiting pay discrimination."
"Directs: (1) the Commissioner of Labor Statistics to continue to collect data on woman workers in the Current Employment Statistics survey, (2) the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs to use specified types of methods in investigating compensation discrimination and in enforcing pay equity, and (3) the Secretary to make accurate information on compensation discrimination readily available to the public"
(Helps when you read it instead of dismissing it on it's face)
We already do a lot of data collection and dissemination. I guess this is a more pro-active stance? Is that what it does?
On the gap:
If you look at the gap over time (based on methodologies that Republicans say aren't relevant when used against them) in the Obama administration, it is clearly shrinking (a trend that would be wisely followed by the rest of employers). And if the 'discrimination' gap is smaller than 11%, you are essentially saying the Obama admin is probably paying females more on parity with men..
The pay gap has been diminishing over time. Any given employer, Obama Admin. included, does't think that they are discriminating. They figure that their pay practices are justified and if there is a disparate impact they are prepared to defend their practices in court and the courts impose tough standards on those defenses.
On Discrimination:
Assume, presume, in modern English are pretty interchangeable but there is a slight inferred difference so I would quarrel there (but I don't think it's that important here).
You think what happened to Lilly isn't worthy of preventative legislation/legitimate debate, I and millions of other Americans disagree.
No, I didn't say that.
"The problem is that rather than discuss what actually would or wouldn't be effective and compromising on something that does something to help but not too much to hurt, Republicans would rather just start yelling, shove their fingers in their ears, and vote to repeal the ACA for the umpteenth time. That's not government, it's just pathetic.
You don't like Republicans. Got it.
What unintended consequences are so concerning that you would let women like Lilly get treated as a second class citizen in order to prevent?
I didn't comment specifically on Lilly. The law designed to remedy her situation was already passed in 2009.
In the case of the Lilly Ledbetter act there was something specific Congress wanted to address - the statute of limitations on discrimination suits. That's different than addressing the pay gap in general when we don't even know what's causing it.
On the Wealth article:
So did you draw any interesting conclusions or have any ideas significantly altered or substantiated as a result? Or was it just information you found interesting but not worthy of any significant note (beyond the generic sense of how wealth statistics are generally calculated)?
I just read it. I haven't drawn many conclusions / ideas from it yet. It's hard to post first impressions here since the ideologs will come out and piss all over them and whatnot.
We already do a lot of data collection and dissemination. I guess this is a more pro-active stance? Is that what it does?
So you're opposed to more? Or support this measure? Or do you need to know more, before you know where you stand?
I'm in favor of more IF you can prove that it's useful. I'm not in favor of throwing more spaghetti at the wall in hopes that some sticks
The pay gap has been diminishing over time. Any given employer, Obama Admin. included, does't think that they are discriminating. They figure that their pay practices are justified and if there is a disparate impact they are prepared to defend their practices in court and the courts impose tough standards on those defenses.
Not sure what time frame you're referring to, how about a source? You do realize you don't have to think you are discriminating in order to discriminate right? There's an important difference between 'figuring' and being. Defending a case in court doesn't only consist of protecting potentially discriminant practices.
A lot of discrimination is disparate impact, meaning that you set a rule that you is appropriate for the work but unintentionally favors one or more protected class. But a disparate impact doesn't mean that the rule is unfair. For example, you can require firefighters to be strong enough to carry victims out of a fire. If women aren't typically strong enough, too bad - we need good firefighters.
"What unintended consequences are so concerning that you would let women like Lilly get treated as a second class citizen in order to prevent?"
No, I didn't say that.
You really haven't said much at all. But you have insinuated such. If you would/do support the legislation that would/does prevent such situations, it would fly in the face of reasonable interpretations of your comments. But if I'm wrong and you do support that legislation feel free to say so.
I don't have a problem with the Lilly pay act. The problem here is that you think I'm a far right conservative and so you're filling in the blanks with whatever you think someone like that would say.
The problem is that rather than discuss what actually would or wouldn't be effective and compromising on something that does something to help but not too much to hurt, Republicans would rather just start yelling, shove their fingers in their ears, and vote to repeal the ACA for the umpteenth time. That's not government, it's just pathetic." You don't like Republicans. Got it.
I don't like a lot of the ideas, but the people I try to evaluate individually. But you agree with the description of the current political situation?
Sort of? Reps are doing the usual dismissal that a new whiz bang thing isn't needed and Dems are doing the usual thing of insisting that the new whiz bang thing is needed. Both sides are shitting on each other's position. What's new?
I didn't comment specifically on Lilly. The law designed to remedy her situation was already passed in 2009.
In the case of the Lilly Ledbetter act there was something specific Congress wanted to address - the statute of limitations on discrimination suits. That's different than addressing the pay gap in general when we don't even know what's causing it
So you, in opposition to most right leaners, supported and continue to support that act, or at least that provision?
The statute of limitations was an issue that was altered in the 2009 law. It by no means 'resolved' the multiple issues surrounding cases specifically like Lilly's let alone ones that can vary significantly in circumstances. We can agree more research needs to be done, which is one of several things legislated in the bill you earlier dismissed without reading/comprehending.
There's been a lot of research already done / being done on the pay gap. You don't need a new bill for that.
I just read it. I haven't drawn many conclusions / ideas from it yet. It's hard to post first impressions here since the ideologs will come out and piss all over them and whatnot.
How did you come across this article? And did you read it before you posted it or after?
The article was linked through one of FTAlphaville's 'Further Reading' sections. And yes I read it before I posted it, I wouldn't have said that I found it interesting otherwise.
I'm not arguing for spaghetti I'm suggesting there are reasonable things we can do to help/protect Americans from criminals. And the costs (I am unaware of any substantiated and significant ones) don't outweigh the benefit of taking action. You seem to be arguing that they do.
It's not the usual thing. whats different is that republicans have largely abandoned any sensible approach to legislation and compromise. Even if 'it is as it was' (which I disagree with), Republicans should step up or step out.
I wish Republicans were even half as reasonable as you are seeming to be.
I think Lilly does a pretty good job of explaining why your just flat wrong about the Ledbetter act. (the relevant part starts about 7:00
Argue that you don't think the benefit of the information doesn't outweigh the cost (which you haven't evidenced makes any sense as a reason not to do it) not dismissing the whole bill. Or whatever you're trying to suggest by saying we already do it. (people wouldn't presume so much if you made a clear stance, instead of what you tend to do)
I'm starting to think you just posted the article for the sake of doing it? It doesn't seem like you had any point so far?
Just wanted to point out something. Nobody ever said workers in the german industry were treated like slave : in fact they are highly paid, because the industry has a lot of fixed capital which permit those wages. Plus, german's car, unlike french or italians, vastly use labor from countries such as china to build the pieces.
But, in the service, the situation is closer to china than any developped countries (no minimum wage, really ? even in the US there is one).
I`m face palming soooooooo hard right now .... Seriously this Global Warming trend in politics and medias is frightening. Let`s change all trees around the world, alter them to have NO leeves or a synthetic ones, lets kill all life in the oceans, lets clog all volcanos .........
Seriously .... I`m lost of words, go attach gas tanks to cow MUAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
On April 09 2014 09:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] There really isn't a whole lot the Federal government can do about the wage gap. Sex discrimination is already illegal and no one is even sure why a wage gap remains. "Sexism" is a popular assumption, but the Federal government itself and even Obama's white house staff experiences a wage gap.
Big difference between nothing and 'not a whole lot'
Not really. Unless you include things like party image.
Yeah there really is. I mean if it were up to Republicans, they would of left things as they were before the Fair Pay Act. Which was by any account just plain ignorant.
Not surprisingly there are still issues that should be discussed/addressed. Not surprisingly Republicans are right there to stand in the way of not just action but the conversation itself.
And the White House (presuming this wage gap can't be explained away like Republicans have attempted elsewhere) is a great example of how discrimination may happen without knowledge or with the opposite intention. That's one of several reasons why the information is important to gather and analyze in the first place.
Side note: They used the same 'flawed' method to determine that $0.88 : $1.00 gap as the $0.77 : $1.00 So by that measure they are doing better than average! Coincidentally, the difference (~$0.11) between the two is approximately the wage gap presumed to be a result of discrimination.
When it's not you being discriminated against it might not seem like a big deal and just a political "image" adjustment (given for some it might be). But for those women and the people who care about them raising families, planning for retirement, assessing employers, etc. it's a pretty big deal, and doing nothing is not a sensible option.
Not sure what you are referencing about gathering data. Data is already gathered an analyzed.
Also, with the way that the wage gap is calculated most employers will do better than average and I've typically heard the adjusted gap as considerably less than 11%.
You seem to be assuming discrimination, preferring action and discounting unintended consequences. I feel the opposite, so this isn't something we're going to agree on.
The discussion over how wealth statistics are calculated and the value of non capitalized rights.
"Directs the Secretary to conduct studies and provide information to employers, labor organizations, and the general public regarding the means available to eliminate pay disparities between men and women."
"Amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to require the EEOC to collect from employers pay information data regarding the sex, race, and national origin of employees for use in the enforcement of federal laws prohibiting pay discrimination."
"Directs: (1) the Commissioner of Labor Statistics to continue to collect data on woman workers in the Current Employment Statistics survey, (2) the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs to use specified types of methods in investigating compensation discrimination and in enforcing pay equity, and (3) the Secretary to make accurate information on compensation discrimination readily available to the public"
(Helps when you read it instead of dismissing it on it's face)
We already do a lot of data collection and dissemination. I guess this is a more pro-active stance? Is that what it does?
On the gap:
If you look at the gap over time (based on methodologies that Republicans say aren't relevant when used against them) in the Obama administration, it is clearly shrinking (a trend that would be wisely followed by the rest of employers). And if the 'discrimination' gap is smaller than 11%, you are essentially saying the Obama admin is probably paying females more on parity with men..
The pay gap has been diminishing over time. Any given employer, Obama Admin. included, does't think that they are discriminating. They figure that their pay practices are justified and if there is a disparate impact they are prepared to defend their practices in court and the courts impose tough standards on those defenses.
On Discrimination:
Assume, presume, in modern English are pretty interchangeable but there is a slight inferred difference so I would quarrel there (but I don't think it's that important here).
You think what happened to Lilly isn't worthy of preventative legislation/legitimate debate, I and millions of other Americans disagree.
No, I didn't say that.
"The problem is that rather than discuss what actually would or wouldn't be effective and compromising on something that does something to help but not too much to hurt, Republicans would rather just start yelling, shove their fingers in their ears, and vote to repeal the ACA for the umpteenth time. That's not government, it's just pathetic.
You don't like Republicans. Got it.
What unintended consequences are so concerning that you would let women like Lilly get treated as a second class citizen in order to prevent?
I didn't comment specifically on Lilly. The law designed to remedy her situation was already passed in 2009.
In the case of the Lilly Ledbetter act there was something specific Congress wanted to address - the statute of limitations on discrimination suits. That's different than addressing the pay gap in general when we don't even know what's causing it.
On the Wealth article:
So did you draw any interesting conclusions or have any ideas significantly altered or substantiated as a result? Or was it just information you found interesting but not worthy of any significant note (beyond the generic sense of how wealth statistics are generally calculated)?
I just read it. I haven't drawn many conclusions / ideas from it yet. It's hard to post first impressions here since the ideologs will come out and piss all over them and whatnot.
We already do a lot of data collection and dissemination. I guess this is a more pro-active stance? Is that what it does?
So you're opposed to more? Or support this measure? Or do you need to know more, before you know where you stand?
I'm in favor of more IF you can prove that it's useful. I'm not in favor of throwing more spaghetti at the wall in hopes that some sticks
The pay gap has been diminishing over time. Any given employer, Obama Admin. included, does't think that they are discriminating. They figure that their pay practices are justified and if there is a disparate impact they are prepared to defend their practices in court and the courts impose tough standards on those defenses.
Not sure what time frame you're referring to, how about a source? You do realize you don't have to think you are discriminating in order to discriminate right? There's an important difference between 'figuring' and being. Defending a case in court doesn't only consist of protecting potentially discriminant practices.
A lot of discrimination is disparate impact, meaning that you set a rule that you is appropriate for the work but unintentionally favors one or more protected class. But a disparate impact doesn't mean that the rule is unfair. For example, you can require firefighters to be strong enough to carry victims out of a fire. If women aren't typically strong enough, too bad - we need good firefighters.
"What unintended consequences are so concerning that you would let women like Lilly get treated as a second class citizen in order to prevent?"
No, I didn't say that.
You really haven't said much at all. But you have insinuated such. If you would/do support the legislation that would/does prevent such situations, it would fly in the face of reasonable interpretations of your comments. But if I'm wrong and you do support that legislation feel free to say so.
I don't have a problem with the Lilly pay act. The problem here is that you think I'm a far right conservative and so you're filling in the blanks with whatever you think someone like that would say.
The problem is that rather than discuss what actually would or wouldn't be effective and compromising on something that does something to help but not too much to hurt, Republicans would rather just start yelling, shove their fingers in their ears, and vote to repeal the ACA for the umpteenth time. That's not government, it's just pathetic." You don't like Republicans. Got it.
I don't like a lot of the ideas, but the people I try to evaluate individually. But you agree with the description of the current political situation?
Sort of? Reps are doing the usual dismissal that a new whiz bang thing isn't needed and Dems are doing the usual thing of insisting that the new whiz bang thing is needed. Both sides are shitting on each other's position. What's new?
I didn't comment specifically on Lilly. The law designed to remedy her situation was already passed in 2009.
In the case of the Lilly Ledbetter act there was something specific Congress wanted to address - the statute of limitations on discrimination suits. That's different than addressing the pay gap in general when we don't even know what's causing it
So you, in opposition to most right leaners, supported and continue to support that act, or at least that provision?
The statute of limitations was an issue that was altered in the 2009 law. It by no means 'resolved' the multiple issues surrounding cases specifically like Lilly's let alone ones that can vary significantly in circumstances. We can agree more research needs to be done, which is one of several things legislated in the bill you earlier dismissed without reading/comprehending.
There's been a lot of research already done / being done on the pay gap. You don't need a new bill for that.
I just read it. I haven't drawn many conclusions / ideas from it yet. It's hard to post first impressions here since the ideologs will come out and piss all over them and whatnot.
How did you come across this article? And did you read it before you posted it or after?
The article was linked through one of FTAlphaville's 'Further Reading' sections. And yes I read it before I posted it, I wouldn't have said that I found it interesting otherwise.
I'm not arguing for spaghetti I'm suggesting there are reasonable things we can do to help/protect Americans from criminals. And the costs (I am unaware of any substantiated and significant ones) don't outweigh the benefit of taking action. You seem to be arguing that they do.
It's not the usual thing. whats different is that republicans have largely abandoned any sensible approach to legislation and compromise. Even if 'it is as it was' (which I disagree with), Republicans should step up or step out.
I wish Republicans were even half as reasonable as you are seeming to be.
I think Lilly does a pretty good job of explaining why your just flat wrong about the Ledbetter act. (the relevant part starts about 7:00
Argue that you don't think the benefit of the information doesn't outweigh the cost (which you haven't evidenced makes any sense as a reason not to do it) not dismissing the whole bill. Or whatever you're trying to suggest by saying we already do it. (people wouldn't presume so much if you made a clear stance, instead of what you tend to do)
I'm starting to think you just posted the article for the sake of doing it? It doesn't seem like you had any point so far?
What would you like me to do for a 'clear stance'? Just water my opinion down to a support R or support D? My stance from the start has been that we need to know what's causing the remaining gap before we try to remedy it. Pretty simple kiddo.
Is the new bill the Dems are pushing really going to fix the gap or is it mainly there to fire up the base?
Edit: oh, and there's no conspiracy behind why I posted the article link. I thought it was interesting and relevant and I said as much. I'm not sure what you're deal is here.
On April 09 2014 13:09 Nyxisto wrote: [quote] You're right, obviously permanent trade imbalances are unsustainable. You're just mistaken if you think the reason for these unbalances lies within the fact that German workers are driven into slavery, when in fact there's little factual evidence supporting this.
All workers are driven into wage-slavery. Germany isn't special in this regard. It's just special in that it's wages are depressed, relatively speaking, to those throughout Europe, even if it's workers are doing "well" because there is at least work for them to do, so they can continue paying rent to their landlords.
@ jonny
I'm sure there are others ways of interpreting his data. If he wants to argue for worker ownership and communal allocation of surplus capital, such as in a worker coop, then I am all for it.
Try re-reading the article without the Marxist BS. You may just learn something
You are the one who posts it without comment. If you have a point to make it, then make it. My analysis isn't wrong. It just isn't apropos anything, since no one here has attempted to make policy claims based on the article's findings. I was preemptively responding to a Forbes editorial on it that would use it as evidence that inequality isn't a bad thing.
I love how I'm getting a bunch of flak for posting an article without comment. Like no one else does that ({CC}StealthBlue).
More to the point, I don't think your analysis is correct at all. Even going with your odd obsession with ownership and control, the article cites atypical ways in which workers and renters do exert control (workers elect board members as I've already cited). You seem to be either ignoring or misinterpreting points like that because they don't fall into your artificial 'worker' and 'capitalist' constructs.
Hardly. Rent controls are a form of welfare. A welfare state practices state capitalism. The mode of production remains the same. It's just the owner who changes.
The article does cite worker voting rights in some German corporations. If you want to argue that Germany is doing so well because the workers have more control over the surplus capital and that we should give even more control to them, such that everyone has a say in how surplus capital is redistributed, then let's hear it.
If, as I think you might, you would rather say that state-directed capitalism is more efficient than this gross misappropriation of wealth to the indigent and debt-ridden that we see in "ownership societies" like the United States, then my analysis stands. I do not think that some nominal voting rights on a workers' council change the fundamental features of the worker-employer relationship. It's not a controlling interest. Workers' councils function more as labor unions than majority shares. You are overstating the difference between the atypical ways that workers and renters have control over their wages. Everyone knows that Germany and Northern Europe have stronger welfare states than other first world countries. I've said before that countries are facing a crisis in which they have to choose between welfare statism and revolution. There's nothing artificial about "worker" and "capitalist" constructs. They are simply a description of reality. Don't make the mistake of assuming that German welfare changes the capitalist mode of production in any significant way.
I wasn't assuming that German welfare changes the 'capitalist mode of production' (i.e. the mode of production).
And yes, 'worker' and 'capitalist' constructs are artificial. They're simplifications that gloss over large parts of reality. It's no less artificial than a modern economist simplifying people as 'rational'. It's true to a point, but only that far.
No, jonny, that's a terrible analogy. It's always true that a capitalist appropriates surplus value from the labor of a worker. It's not always true that people act rationally. You are conflating an alternate, but true, description with a half-truth. To call a true description "artificial" is either a tautology, in that every description of reality is artificial, or stupid.
The division of worker and capitalist is an abstraction as people are usually both. So yes, it's an artificial separation that gets blurred in the real world.
Edit: Don't pretend like some small-time middle class career manager who owns a stock portfolio means anything. The vast majority of people receive a wage-only income (supplemented with government redistribution). Saying that people are usually both is an obfuscatory truth that misses the forest for the trees.
Luckily for you, I don't really care to classify every individual as capitalist or prole, to pass judgment, and then to sentence them to some fate. I care more about capital and the organization of the mode of production, both of which are very real.
On April 09 2014 15:06 zlefin wrote: Igne, whatever you're saying; it isn't and hasn't been coming across clearly to my eye. Not sure if it's a result of using different definitions for words, or what.
Yes, probably.
According to the Kaiser Foundation 48% of people (in 2012) with health insurance in the US get it from their employer. So no, the vast majority of people do not receive a wage-only income. If you consider a salary to be different from a wage income (pre-set amount of money you make in a certain amount of time, not X dollars per hour times Y hours worked), then it is probably the case is just the opposite: that the vast majority of people do not receive a wage-only income.
On April 09 2014 13:09 Nyxisto wrote: [quote] You're right, obviously permanent trade imbalances are unsustainable. You're just mistaken if you think the reason for these unbalances lies within the fact that German workers are driven into slavery, when in fact there's little factual evidence supporting this.
All workers are driven into wage-slavery. Germany isn't special in this regard. It's just special in that it's wages are depressed, relatively speaking, to those throughout Europe, even if it's workers are doing "well" because there is at least work for them to do, so they can continue paying rent to their landlords.
@ jonny
I'm sure there are others ways of interpreting his data. If he wants to argue for worker ownership and communal allocation of surplus capital, such as in a worker coop, then I am all for it.
Try re-reading the article without the Marxist BS. You may just learn something
You are the one who posts it without comment. If you have a point to make it, then make it. My analysis isn't wrong. It just isn't apropos anything, since no one here has attempted to make policy claims based on the article's findings. I was preemptively responding to a Forbes editorial on it that would use it as evidence that inequality isn't a bad thing.
I love how I'm getting a bunch of flak for posting an article without comment. Like no one else does that ({CC}StealthBlue).
More to the point, I don't think your analysis is correct at all. Even going with your odd obsession with ownership and control, the article cites atypical ways in which workers and renters do exert control (workers elect board members as I've already cited). You seem to be either ignoring or misinterpreting points like that because they don't fall into your artificial 'worker' and 'capitalist' constructs.
Hardly. Rent controls are a form of welfare. A welfare state practices state capitalism. The mode of production remains the same. It's just the owner who changes.
The article does cite worker voting rights in some German corporations. If you want to argue that Germany is doing so well because the workers have more control over the surplus capital and that we should give even more control to them, such that everyone has a say in how surplus capital is redistributed, then let's hear it.
If, as I think you might, you would rather say that state-directed capitalism is more efficient than this gross misappropriation of wealth to the indigent and debt-ridden that we see in "ownership societies" like the United States, then my analysis stands. I do not think that some nominal voting rights on a workers' council change the fundamental features of the worker-employer relationship. It's not a controlling interest. Workers' councils function more as labor unions than majority shares. You are overstating the difference between the atypical ways that workers and renters have control over their wages. Everyone knows that Germany and Northern Europe have stronger welfare states than other first world countries. I've said before that countries are facing a crisis in which they have to choose between welfare statism and revolution. There's nothing artificial about "worker" and "capitalist" constructs. They are simply a description of reality. Don't make the mistake of assuming that German welfare changes the capitalist mode of production in any significant way.
I wasn't assuming that German welfare changes the 'capitalist mode of production' (i.e. the mode of production).
And yes, 'worker' and 'capitalist' constructs are artificial. They're simplifications that gloss over large parts of reality. It's no less artificial than a modern economist simplifying people as 'rational'. It's true to a point, but only that far.
No, jonny, that's a terrible analogy. It's always true that a capitalist appropriates surplus value from the labor of a worker. It's not always true that people act rationally. You are conflating an alternate, but true, description with a half-truth. To call a true description "artificial" is either a tautology, in that every description of reality is artificial, or stupid.
The division of worker and capitalist is an abstraction as people are usually both. So yes, it's an artificial separation that gets blurred in the real world.
Edit: Don't pretend like some small-time middle class career manager who owns a stock portfolio means anything. The vast majority of people receive a wage-only income (supplemented with government redistribution). Saying that people are usually both is an obfuscatory truth that misses the forest for the trees.
Luckily for you, I don't really care to classify every individual as capitalist or prole, to pass judgment, and then to sentence them to some fate. I care more about capital and the organization of the mode of production, both of which are very real.
I wouldn't discount how much capital normal people have. GM's pension fund assets are worth more than GM's stock.
It's true that capital and the mode of production are real. So real you can't escape them outside of fantasy.
According to the Kaiser Foundation 48% of people (in 2012) with health insurance in the US get it from their employer. So no, the vast majority of people do not receive a wage-only income. If you consider a salary to be different from a wage income (pre-set amount of money you make in a certain amount of time, not X dollars per hour times Y hours worked), then it is probably the case is just the opposite: that the vast majority of people do not receive a wage-only income.
Healthcare is income that is cheaper for employers to give because premiums are tax deductible business expenses. I don't really get the point you are making. Both examples you cited don't refute his point, they just show that there are worse forms of reimbursement then per hour wage for employees.
EPT
Please Jonny enlighten us lay folk with the relevant takeaways from the article that one's 'Marxist' myopia may interfere with?
![[image loading]](http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/re/2011/d/images/MedianEarnings.png)
