Rage against the Machine - Communism Vs. Capitalism (again!)

[Velociryx]

Couldn't disagree more, Kid. Which choice is clearly superior, and why? Does that not depend on the individual (ie - which choice is better FOR that person?). Of course, I know your views on it, and in your world where the individual doesn't much matter, and where exploitation lurks around every corner, rock and tree, your response comes as no great surprise.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Couldn't disagree more, Kid. Which choice is clearly superior, and why? Does that not depend on the individual (ie - which choice is better FOR that person?). Of course, I know your views on it, and in your world where the individual doesn't much matter, and where exploitation lurks around every corner, rock and tree, your response comes as no great surprise.

-=Vel=-

That's crap. Who want's to be exploited more? Jobs have different levels of exploitation. Only in you fantasy world do people choose to be exploited.

[Velociryx]

Nope....I don't live in a fantasy world (though you are questionable... Fantasy Island, anyone?). Hate to break it to you, Kid, but just because you "think" you're work X dollars an hour, if the rest of the market doesn't agree with you....you're not.

I could arbitrarily "say" I'm worth $300.00 an hour. If I did, obviously any job I took for less than that, I could b*tch and moan that I"m being "exploited." On the other hand, if I AGREE to work for less, while shopping around to get the best salary I can (which is how the job hunt works, in case you're curious), then I have a good feel for how much market value my skills have.

If I'm not happy with that number, then I can acquire some new skills that will be worth more on the open market.

That's the way the game is played, and in no way is it exploitative. Of course, on Fantasy Island, EVERYTHING is exploitation, so there you go....

-=Vel=-

[alva]

I guess my main point is "you can't rape the willing," and in the same vein, if someone negotiates their own salary and is happy with that amount of money, and willing to go to work for that price, then how can it be exploitative?

Not if you put like that, no.
As long as you are not exploiting the fact that that person has no real alternatives.
IE
- no money(or means) to set up his own business.
- Can at least survive (and then some) on what you are paying him/her
- other work (your competition) within a reasonable travel radius.
- no chance of an alternative income (legal)
--
- your are able to pay more and still make a more then decent income. ( you took the risk etc., so you are more then entitled to make more gain)

So, if you are taking advantages of these points, then I think one could argue, you are exploitng that person for your own benefit.

Sure those people will outbid each other, since they have no option. They need to eat too.
You know that too, so again, taking advantage of that situation is exploting them/it. Hmm it's even getting close to blackmail.

Is it shrude business, sure, but not a society I would like to call civilised and certainly not a direction I would like us to go too(worldwide).

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Nope....I don't live in a fantasy world (though you are questionable... Fantasy Island, anyone?). Hate to break it to you, Kid, but just because you "think" you're work X dollars an hour, if the rest of the market doesn't agree with you....you're not.

I could arbitrarily "say" I'm worth $300.00 an hour. If I did, obviously any job I took for less than that, I could b*tch and moan that I"m being "exploited." On the other hand, if I AGREE to work for less, while shopping around to get the best salary I can (which is how the job hunt works, in case you're curious), then I have a good feel for how much market value my skills have.

It works this way. You work all day and your boss treats you like ****. You know damn well that the stock holders of the company are getting a share of what you worked for, but you can't afford to pay your bills. It's got nothing to do with how much you think you should get paid, and everything to do with the fact that you are being exploited.

[Velociryx]

Alva: I largely agree. Again though, companies (like my hypothetical shoe factory) don't just spring up in a vacuum. Obviously, I selected to build my shoe factory in a certain location because there was a town there.

The townspeople were doing stuff before my shoe factory was even a thought. A perfectly valid choice then, would be to keep doing whatever it is that they were doing before I came along offering jobs to make shoes. They don't HAVE TO even bother coming to check it out....unless they want to.

As to the exploitation angle (or potential exploitation under the conditions you mentioned), I look at it like this:

* If I open my shoe place in town, I've obviously done some homework. If the average wages being paid at other places in town is $20.00 an hour, then if I come in offering $10.00, it is highly doubtful that I'll even attract any interest. I'll be hard pressed to get ANYBODY to come to work for me at that price, cos everybody else in town is paying better. I will truly be the last place in town that anybody wants to consider working. So the wages that other places in town are paying will (at least in part) guide my decision. If I want to compete with other places in town, I have to pay comparably.

I would also say that a portion (and perhaps even a large portion) of the responsibility for the well being of the town (and by extension, the well being of the folks IN the town) rests with the governing body of the town--and at the "state" level as well. That is to say, most advanced capitalist societies have a safety net to protect their workers from exploitation. If my plant is ill constructed, such that is a dangerous place to work in, some outside agency (ie - the government) will come in and shut me down. I don't want that, so of course, I'm going to build a safe place to work.

Likewise, if I start doing things like forcing people to work long hours, renigging on my promise to pay a certain wage, not letting people take breaks, etc., then that same outside agency will come in and shut me down for it. Again, I don't want that, so I'm going to play by the established rules.

My job then, as the owner of the factory, is to play by the rules. Obviously, I spent a lot of time and effort (and probably a good bit of my own money, to say nothing of the time and risk involved) to get the shoe factory up and running in the first place. I therefore, have a vested interest in seeing that it a) abides by the rules, and b) is competitive and profitable (after all, I've got a loan to repay, and I need to eat too! None of which will be possible if I don't play fair and get shut down for it). So it is in my best interest to pay as much as I can to remain competitive, wage-wise in town, but as little as folks will accept WITHIN the pre-established framework. And that is the specific mechanism that drives market and wage price.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Kid: It doesn't work that way for everyone. Does it work that way sometimes? Undoubtedly. But remember in the last thread when MtG and I were called on the carpet for using "individual" examples? We were told they were irrelevant to the discussion. Are you changing your mind now? Are individual examples now valid, because you chose to make use of them? If so, I can come back with TONS of individual examples that run counter to the situation you just described. Shall I?

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Kid: It doesn't work that way for everyone. Does it work that way sometimes? Undoubtedly. But remember in the last thread when MtG and I were called on the carpet for using "individual" examples? We were told they were irrelevant to the discussion. Are you changing your mind now? Are individual examples now valid, because you chose to make use of them? If so, I can come back with TONS of individual examples that run counter to the situation you just described. Shall I?

-=Vel=-

You still don't get it about that do you. I'm describing the reality for most Americans. You were describing your own reality.

[Velociryx]

Cite? Show me where you pulled that "reality for most Americans" from.

Can you?

-=Vel=-

EDIT: Off to pack some more boxes ("self exploitation" perhaps? :hmm: Back soon)

[alva]

Yes, but Japan and then the US made productivity improvements. The US did so at the expense of their unions. Japan never had any unions to speak of. In order for Europe to compete now they will have to lower their employment costs, and in the end they will have even higher unemployment. Worse, they will add to a global glut. The US, Japan, and even nations like China will push for more productivity gains hurting workers more. I depression is a very likely possibility.

Well, that's probably where I differ from most people, I don't see this as a competition between nations.

I would like to see more of a global system (with culture differences btw, please let's not turn the world into one big mall), where, yes we pay taxes, but the state takes cares of the rest, such as infrastructure/medical needs etc.and where business is given a chance to reward those that want to better themselves without taking it to extremes.
(damn, I just rewrote the socialist manifest, didn't I

ATM countries are outbidding each other and this can't go one for ever, this will result in either war or going back to some kind of slavery. I mean, be honest, you are not free when you have to work 100 hours a week just to able to feed your kids and to make sure your country is not doing as bad as the one on the other side of the ocean.
That is the problem of capitalism anyway, it NEEDS poverty and misery to sustain itself. Where the misery is to be found, doesn't really matter but there will never be a world with high(ish) standard of living ruled by capitalism.
Is communism the answer, I hope to God it isn't .
Do I have an alternative, well, not yet but I'm working on it .

To paraphase someone:
"We must find new answers instead of a way."

PS: I know this is utopian thinking but this is a theoretical/hypothetical anyway isn't.Well, we wouldn't be taking 'bout communism if it weren't .
I'm fully aware of the real world and it's problems

Check OECD. Europe may be close when you include quality of life measurements, but pure income per capita, they are not too close.

Here again, what does 'quality' mean? To me that doesn't mean having 4 cars, 3 houses and a boat.
To me it means: decent medical for all/ the possibility of free school/ etc.
Having enough free time to enjoy the things I have aquired
(marriage not included )

Do you a good link for this? I would to check out a couple of numbers.

Well if they cut spending instead of raising taxes that's going to hurt the people of Europe.

Not yet, they think that by taking these measures to stimulate the economy enough so they won't have to 'hurt' people.
So far it looks like we will have 0.3% budget deficit at the end of the year. The first time it happens in 5 or 6 years.
We are not an world economy, we can't act, only react.
(so please leave NATO where it is )

[alva]

That's the way the game is played, and in no way is it exploitative. Of course, on Fantasy Island, EVERYTHING is exploitation, so there you go....

Hmmm, not really and I think this is my main problem with capitalism.
It's a game set-up by (big)business and not the individual.
We (the little guy) just has to play along whether he wan't to or not. We don't even know, let alone undestand the rules, and they are changed whenever the balance is going the 'right' way.

Before you say anything about possible alternatives,
I know, but I just don't like living in a self-made hut in a forest either

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Cite? Show me where you pulled that "reality for most Americans" from.

Can you?

-=Vel=-

EDIT: Off to pack some more boxes ("self exploitation" perhaps? :hmm: Back soon)

You think a significant number of people have experiences like you do. I leave it up to you to show that to be true. But I will say this. Look at African Americans. They started out on the bottom and they overwhelmingly stay at the bottom. Do you agree?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by alva

Yes, but Japan and then the US made productivity improvements. The US did so at the expense of their unions. Japan never had any unions to speak of. In order for Europe to compete now they will have to lower their employment costs, and in the end they will have even higher unemployment. Worse, they will add to a global glut. The US, Japan, and even nations like China will push for more productivity gains hurting workers more. I depression is a very likely possibility.

Well, that's probably where I differ from most people, I don't see this as a competition between nations.

I'm with you on that, but unfortunately it is a competition. It's a competition to get each nations workers to accept terms for work that are less favorable than the terms that the workers in other countries accept. That way they can get MNCs to do business in their nation. The right and the middle, that's all we get to choose from here in the US, argue that that's the best way.

Originally posted by alva
To paraphase someone:
"We must find new answers instead of a way."

If there is a better third way so be it. Personally I believe that Communism just needs to be improved.

Originally posted by alva

Check OECD. Europe may be close when you include quality of life measurements, but pure income per capita, they are not too close.

Here again, what does 'quality' mean? To me that doesn't mean having 4 cars, 3 houses and a boat.
To me it means: decent medical for all/ the possibility of free school/ etc.
Having enough free time to enjoy the things I have aquired
(marriage not included )

Unfortunately, per capita income seems to be a better measure of global competitiveness. I'm not against quality of life at all though.

Originally posted by alva
Do you a good link for this? I would to check out a couple of numbers.

No, but I think someone else might.

[alva]

* If I open my shoe place in town, I've obviously done some homework.

Havn't quoted the whole post, but sure I have no problem with a mechanism.
The problem is that, and I think we can all agree on the fact that man is greedy, why would we exclude business from being so.
If business plays by the book, sure make the market as free as possible, but well, we all know that aint happening.

Let's say you start off by paying more then all the other businesses in your neigborghood which will see them loose their workforce and will be forced to close the shops.
Now, you will have made that same town depend on you, and therefore shift the balance too much.
From this point, all you have to do (to make it being accepted) is shout crisis and demand pay-cuts.
Car manufactioring towns anyone.
Ok, the above example is a very short version, (which makes me sound like a drugdealer ). just to state that control is needed and some common sence. That's probably where all breaks down though

[alva]

The right and the middle, that's all we get to choose from here in the US, argue that that's the best way.

You see, Europe is better

If there is a better third way so be it. Personally I believe that Communism just needs to be improved.

I do think the individual and individual choice comes first, so no communism for me, having said that I don't believe in one person having more then a gazillion others put together, no matter how brilliant he/she is.
All within reason works fine by me.

-=Vel=-

EDIT: Off to pack some more boxes ("self exploitation" perhaps? :hmm: Back soon)

Nope, however, you should have exploited your shoefactory workers more
Hell, just call one of them to drop by, saying you are thinking about giving him promotion, I'll bet you he'll take that box anywhere you want.