OMG EU stealing money from teh companies again

[KrazyHorse]

Bebro, you're betraying a fundamental misunderstanding of HOW THE LABOUR MARKET IS STRUCTURED.

"Labour" is not some resource that you pour into a factory. The labour market is DIFFERENTIATED. Engineers are not reasonable replacements for garbagemen and vice versa.

Telling me that most labour in Germany is non-unionized (which I already knew) or that the percentage of labour which IS unionized is declining is NOT some sort of demonstration that unions have no effect on the price of labour in sectors which ARE mostly unionized.

Your understanding of this issue is so superficial that I'm literally laughing right now.

[Spiffor]

[Q=Spiffor;5636128]I'm not only worried about the consumers. There's also the infrastructure, and the whole "externality" thing.

Sure, with regulation and taxation, the state can steer the market into creating a good infrastructure, and provide those externalities.[/q]

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means

A positive or negative effect on other actors of the economy, that the price doesn't take into account spontaneously.

However, it usually involves complex rules for which you'll need a bunch of bureaucrats controlling that the companies are doing what they're supposed to, and a nightmare of red tape.

I'd much rather have the state (or whatever layer of government) do the job it intends to do, rather than try having the market do it. I'm pretty sure it's more efficient as a whole.

1) Why?

2) Why do you think the government's incentive structure is any better aligned with efficient operation than the market, in the general case?

1) As a civil servant, I get to see the red tape on a daily basis. With outsourcing or privatization, we thought we'd get much more for our money, as the employees there are easier to exploit than civil servants.
However, what we didn't expect, is the ****ing weight of such a system. We have a bunch of controllers making sure the outsourcers do what they're told. We have a bunch of bureaucrats just writing the Scope Statements (I don't know if it is a common word in English - it's everywhere in the French office microverse) to the outsourcers. Heck, we even ask outsourcers to write our scope statements to our other outsourcers.

At the same time, our outsourcers have a horde of bureaucrats just keeping up with the red tape, or trying to bull**** us in the cracks.

This is fairly bd already with outsourcers, i.e people we pay to do stuff. But that's even worse with companies we want to steer with regulation alone. In this case, the distrust is so high that you increase the amount of red tape on both sides. I'm witnessing it right now at my work with the electricity company, or with cable companies.

This kind of bull**** makes the "regulated market" considerably more expensive than the miracle cure it's touted as.

2) I think the government and the markets have different aims. The market aims at maximizing wealth, and doesn't care about its repartition.
I tend to be against infinite growth (we're still stuck on this sorry, finite rock), and I consider wealth-repartition to be as important as wealth production. As such, I the market is not really efficient toward doing what I consider good for society.

[Asher]

The government's aim is to provide life-long employment to the people who fit various minority quotas. At least, that's how it is in Canada.

The market's aim is to provide services people want at levels people find acceptable.

One of these is more functional than the other.

If you find the regulated market to be so bothersome, the obvious solution is to deregulate it. Red tape is gone. I realize this concept has never occurred to you as a communist, but it is viable.

[Kuciwalker]

1) As a civil servant, I get to see the red tape on a daily basis. With outsourcing or privatization, we thought we'd get much more for our money, as the employees there are easier to exploit than civil servants.
However, what we didn't expect, is the ****ing weight of such a system. We have a bunch of controllers making sure the outsourcers do what they're told. We have a bunch of bureaucrats just writing the Scope Statements (I don't know if it is a common word in English - it's everywhere in the French office microverse) to the outsourcers. Heck, we even ask outsourcers to write our scope statements to our other outsourcers.

At the same time, our outsourcers have a horde of bureaucrats just keeping up with the red tape, or trying to bull**** us in the cracks.

This is fairly bd already with outsourcers, i.e people we pay to do stuff. But that's even worse with companies we want to steer with regulation alone. In this case, the distrust is so high that you increase the amount of red tape on both sides. I'm witnessing it right now at my work with the electricity company, or with cable companies.

This kind of bull**** makes the "regulated market" considerably more expensive than the miracle cure it's touted as.

Are you talking about government agencies outsourcing some of their functions to the private sector, or private companies outsourcing some of their functions overseas?

2) I think the government and the markets have different aims. The market aims at maximizing wealth, and doesn't care about its repartition.

Yes, but what are the aims of the government? More precisely, what kind of incentive structure does it provide for the people in charge of state-owned industries?

[Spiffor]

If you find the regulated market to be so bothersome, the obvious solution is to deregulate it. Red tape is gone. I realize this concept has never occurred to you as a communist, but it is viable.

Obviously it occured to me, as this idea has been scourging the west for more than 30 years (after having scourged the west during the entire 19th century).

This concept just happens to be pure crap

[Spiffor]

Are you talking about government agencies outsourcing some of their functions to the private sector, or private companies outsourcing some of their functions overseas?

I'm talking about the public sector outsourcing its functions to the private sector.
However, the same kind of bull**** can be seen when a private companies outsource some of its functions to another company : I've personally witnessed it in construction, and without even any foreign company involved.

2) I think the government and the markets have different aims. The market aims at maximizing wealth, and doesn't care about its repartition.

Yes, but what are the aims of the government? More precisely, what kind of incentive structure does it provide for the people in charge of state-owned industries?

The aims of the governments vary on quite a few things, depending on who's in charge and what's the program. The good thing with democracy is that people can alter who's in charge, and influence him while in office. That's very different to the market, whose logics is hardwired into the system.

The incentive provided to state-owned industry is that the govt chooses who's in charge there. And that's employment at-will. So, the govt will put in charge people who share its aims.

[Solomwi]

The good thing with democracy is that people can alter who's in charge, and influence him while in office. That's very different to the market, whose logics is hardwired into the system.

Huh? Are you saying people (by which I assume you mean the general public at large) don't get to choose winners and losers in the market?

[Kuciwalker]

I'm talking about the public sector outsourcing its functions to the private sector.
However, the same kind of bull**** can be seen when a private companies outsource some of its functions to another company : I've personally witnessed it in construction, and without even any foreign company involved.

Again, your meaning isn't clear. Do you mean a government agency contracting with private industry, or are you talking about the government ceasing to provide some service and letting it be provided by the private sector? (The latter isn't really what outsourcing means, but is a reasonable interpretation given your politics )

And 'outsourcing in general' is what got us from 4000BC subsistence agriculture to modern industrial economies; it's just division of labor applied on an organizational level. It can be done incorrectly, but for most sectors the market will appropriately punish any company that does so.

The aims of the governments vary on quite a few things, depending on who's in charge and what's the program. The good thing with democracy is that people can alter who's in charge, and influence him while in office. That's very different to the market, whose logics is hardwired into the system.

The incentive provided to state-owned industry is that the govt chooses who's in charge there. And that's employment at-will. So, the govt will put in charge people who share its aims.

So the incentive structure for the executives is "keep my boss in power"?

Even if the incentive structure really is "make the electorate happy" [more likely content], how is that better than the profit motive at efficiently providing goods and services?

[Kuciwalker]

Individual citizens are not particularly qualified to judge whether a state industry is being run efficiently, especially in the absence of competition. They are exceptionally qualified to judge whether they are willing to pay a given price for a given product.

[Spiffor]

Again, your meaning isn't clear. Do you mean a government agency contracting with private industry, or are you talking about the government ceasing to provide some service and letting it be provided by the private sector? (The latter isn't really what outsourcing means, but is a reasonable interpretation given your politics )

I'm meaning the former. A government agency contracting with sector.
And are less bad than pure regulation when it comes to red tape. In this regard, it's better for the state to pay the private sector to do stuff, than to try to force the private to do what the state wants.
In both cases, I consider the red tape to be excessive. If the state (or whatever layer of government) wants to do something right, it ought to do it itself.

When the state ceases to provide a service, and trusts the arket to do so with its own logics, I consider it to be pure ****, but at least the state is being brutally honest, in a Thatcher kind of way. In France, we tend to weasel around it much more, and both our right and our center left manipulate the people into believing that public service can be done more efficiently by outsourcing, or by trusting the whole serive fully to a regulated market.

And 'outsourcing in general' is what got us from 4000BC subsistence agriculture to modern industrial economies; it's just division of labor applied on an organizational level. It can be done incorrectly, but for most sectors the market will appropriately punish any company that does so.

I'm not sure of that. Division of labour sure is what provided us with the wealth we middle-class westerners enjoy in the current post-industrial societies. However, I'm not sure the division of labour, on an organization level, has followed the path of modern outsourcing. Indeed, whereas organizational specialization provded goods and services that could be fairly easily compared to the competition (rifles, cannons, cars etc.), modern putsourcing is about very complex goods and services. Before choosing who'll do the stuff, you can only have a glimpse on what will be done, and how.

So the incentive structure for the executives is "keep my boss in power"?

More accurately "keep myself in power".
That's basic, but it works pretty well.

Even if the incentive structure really is "make the electorate happy" [more likely content], how is that better than the profit motive at efficiently providing goods and services?

Well. Market-supporters believe that the market can provide more wealth overall. And I won't dispute it in this thread. (Though you'd be well inspired to read capitalist literature about externalities, and how unregulated market can suck about them).

However, wealth-repartition is a pretty tricky business. For example, providing mass transit in places that aren't densely populated cannot be done at a profit. If there are to few buses or trains, people won't use the unwieldy system. If there are enough buses or trains so that the system is convenient, it will be too costly for the company to operate it for the few customers.
If you want pople to have access to mass transit even if they live in some suburbia (thus reducing car use, pollution, fuel dependancy etc), you need some layer of community intervening. You have it in the US with school buses. But the market won't do it without the state, because it simply isn't cost-efficient. That's because production cost and market price don't take into account all questions that we, as a society, should be thinking about.

[Kuciwalker]

I'm meaning the former. A government agency contracting with sector.
And are less bad than pure regulation when it comes to red tape. In this regard, it's better for the state to pay the private sector to do stuff, than to try to force the private to do what the state wants.
In both cases, I consider the red tape to be excessive. If the state (or whatever layer of government) wants to do something right, it ought to do it itself.

It's harder to, for example, have the FDA regulate food safety than to nationalize the entire agricultural sector?

I'm not sure of that. Division of labour sure is what provided us with the wealth we middle-class westerners enjoy in the current post-industrial societies. However, I'm not sure the division of labour, on an organization level, has followed the path of modern outsourcing. Indeed, whereas organizational specialization provded goods and services that could be fairly easily compared to the competition (rifles, cannons, cars etc.), modern putsourcing is about very complex goods and services. Before choosing who'll do the stuff, you can only have a glimpse on what will be done, and how.

So you're saying that companies today are trying to outsource parts of their business that cannot be efficiently outsourced? Why wouldn't the market then punish these companies appropriately? Why would the government be better than these companies at deciding which functions can be efficiently outsourced?

More accurately "keep myself in power".
That's basic, but it works pretty well.

So basically the CEO of State Industry, Inc., has the sole motivation "convince the voters they shouldn't remove me from my post".

Why does this incentive result in a more efficient business than "maximize the difference between expenses and income"?

However, wealth-repartition is a pretty tricky business. For example, providing mass transit in places that aren't densely populated cannot be done at a profit. If there are to few buses or trains, people won't use the unwieldy system. If there are enough buses or trains so that the system is convenient, it will be too costly for the company to operate it for the few customers.
If you want pople to have access to mass transit even if they live in some suburbia (thus reducing car use, pollution, fuel dependancy etc), you need some layer of community intervening. You have it in the US with school buses. But the market won't do it without the state, because it simply isn't cost-efficient. That's because production cost and market price don't take into account all questions that we, as a society, should be thinking about.

There are two possibilities: first, perhaps mass transit shouldn't be provided in low-density areas. It's plausible that the total costs outweigh the total benefits. Second, mass transit could provide a positive externality. In that case, why not just provide a subsidy to private mass transit equal to the value of the externality?

[molly bloom]

It's not mind-boggling to me. .

That's an inherent problem for owners of tiny closed minds.

Government mandates.

And so on... Oh geez, Asher, I'd like to expand your (apparently limited) historical database with lots of lovely references to books, significant events and important people in the history of the trade union movement, but you're not worth my time.

That's what the police are for.

Hahahaha!!

Could you cite any particular instances of harassment and discrimination in the workplace where the police were used to resolve the dispute ?

There are government organizations that do exactly this

Unfortunately those civil servants aren't actually situated in each and every workplace, doofus. That's why trade unions have health and safety representatives. You're also seemingly assuming that employers can automatically be entrusted to abide by government legislation- well big shock! They can't!

That's the responsibility of the company, and it's in their best interest also.

I'm talking about the real world, not this capitalist/corporatist fantasy land you're conjuring up.

I already know you're a bunch of hot air

Not bad, coming from the person who produced that bunch of stale farts.

but it is good to see you back at what you do best.

Yes, I was thinking the very same of your post. Opinions masquerading as facts. You and Ben have more in common than just Canada, obviously...

[molly bloom]

So nothing to do with gaining the right to strike,

That's only a means to an end -

Don't talk uninformed crap.

It's an important right in and of itself- gaining a legal right to strike -along with other legal rights such as forming a union, holding a union meeting and so on- were all important steps for workers and unions.

Falls under salary, as it's a form of compensation.

Sick pay and holiday pay are forms of COMPENSATION ? Are you under medication ?

Means to the end.

Oh, so nothing to do with gaining equal rights, equality of opportunity, ensuring laws are complied with. You really don't have a clue, do you ?

At the origin of unions,

I'd say it's fairly clear what you know and what you don't know about the origin of unions, their purpose and their history. Come back when you have a few facts to back up the opinions.

[molly bloom]

What I love about it is that I'm the only person in the thread to cite historical information in some kind of argument (as opposed to just name-dropping it),

The reason you couldn't 'name-drop' either the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire or the Matchgirls' Strike is, I suspect, you certainly won't have heard of the latter, and even if you have heard of the former, you seem unable to understand (given your previous posts) the importance of it to the history of the unions in the United States.

I'm simply acting on the (not unreasonable assumption) that anyone who can post this airy pseudo-authoritative opinion as fact:

THAT IS THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF A UNION. TO FIX PRICES

would have the requisite depth and breadth of knowledge of the union movement (not just in the U.S., either) to back it up.

I'm the only person in the thread to cite historical information

No, you're just making assertions, not backed up by reference to either trades' disputes or legislation regarding unions, or historical events.

[molly bloom]

The caring world of the corporation:

During those years, the U.S. Radium Corporation’s primary activity was extraction and purification of radium from ore to produce luminous paints primarily for watch and instrument dial faces but also for other commercial and medical purposes.

Beginning in 1920, some dial painters, all young women, began reporting health problems associated with radium exposure. The health problems inherent in handling radioactive materials were not publicly recognized at the time. The practice of pointing paint brushes in their mouths became the most notorious symbol of the dial painters’ unknowing exposure but the presence throughout the facility of radioactive dust was equally dangerous. By 1922, women workers at the plant began to die of radium poisoning. While radium exposure was not positively identified as the cause until years later, it is now clear that the earliest deaths were from necrosis, infection, and anemia with fatal bone and other cancers appearing by the late 1920’s.


These women, and others who survived, became the first known victims of industrial radium poisoning.

Their tragedy played a major role in establishing industrial health standards in New Jersey. State agencies investigated the Orange plant soon after the first serious illnesses were reported but declined to pursue action in the face of uncertainties about radium’s effects and the company’s insistence that no hazards existed. A small group of dial painters, supported by friends, physicians, and individual state health and labor officials, working under the leadership of the Consumers’ League, a women’s reform organization, drew national attention, which brought about the recognition of radium poisoning as a serious industrial health concern beginning in 1925.

http://www.nyhumanities.org/speakers/adult_audiences/lecture.php?lecture_id=1262

the company’s insistence that no hazards existed.

The company had commissioned a doctor to investigate the situation, and following the doctor's (unglowing report) on the risks and hazards in the factory, released a version of the medical report to the National Consumers' League which had been altered to present a favourable case to them.

Several chapters of this book report the efforts of individual persons and of groups of affected workers to obtain compensation for their diseases. Although a few paltry settlements were recorded, litigation was largely ineffectual.

The denial of culpability by the radium dial industry presaged the tactics and strategies of the tobacco industry in denying the adverse effects of cigarette smoking.


However, the plight of the radium dial painters did not go totally unheeded. It aroused considerable public outcry and certainly influenced the establishment of standards for industrial exposure to ionizing radiation.

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/155/3/290-a