Income Inequality.

[Pete in Panama]

...I'd say that people's inability to understand and deal with this is a bad thing.

Where we differ here is that I see this market price/wage thing simply as a reality that we live w/, and you (please correct me if I'm missing something) see it as something wrong that folks are doing. I honestly don't see how wages could be anything other than a market price for labor --something so fundamental that anyone who tried to change it would have to stop being human and revert to some kind of lower animal existence.

 

[Stevicus]

This is neither good nor bad, it's how things work and we need to deal w/ it. I'd say that people's ability to deal w/ difficult situations is a good thing.

Very often, I've noticed that capitalist perceptions about "how things work" is oftentimes very personalized and individualized, rarely taking into consideration the larger picture or the ramifications/consequences of public policies. I've noticed this trend throughout this thread, as those who take a pro-capitalist stance don't really speak in terms of the big picture; they're just taking the social Darwinist position that "I make more money because I am superior, and the losers make less money because they are inferior." It's another way of expressing "only the strong shall survive" and "the weak have to just deal with it." (Think Alec Baldwin's monologue in Glengarry Glen Ross or Gordon Gekko in Wall Street or Henry Hill in Goodfellas, as fictional examples of the mentality which dominates the capitalist mindset of today.)

In the minds of people of that ilk, this is "how things work," and they honestly can't think of or conceive of any other way.

But the real danger is that they honestly can't understand or see the consequences of the social Darwinist mindset which they openly embrace. That's the flaw of capitalist thinking, since it's shown itself to be extremely myopic and oblivious to the consequences of what they do. One thing about "how things work" is that there is also the concept of unintended consequences, where one might hear "it wasn't supposed to work that way."

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You're asking if I can "prove" that hourly compensation (wages) are the market price for the labor? Sure, I could probably show that this is how most economists use the terms but my personal bet is that if you've simply decided that it's not true --w/ absolute certainty-- then any info I tried to pass on wouldn't get any where.

That's fine, I could use the terms in a way that that enables me to communicate w/ a lot of folks, and you could define the terms like you alone want. We could all be happy. Of course this all assumes how you've already decided...

So you don't really have it? Probably because it's not true and there's so much variation there is no correlation between the two.

 

[Heyo]

Where we differ here is that I see this market price/wage thing simply as a reality that we live w/, and you (please correct me if I'm missing something) see it as something wrong that folks are doing.

Yes, you are missing something. I already agreed with you about the facts.
I may have misunderstood what you meant with "I'd say that people's ability to deal w/ difficult situations is a good thing."

As I see it people are not dealing with it, nor do they understand it. "It" being wealth and income inequality. We have let the divide open up more and more without dealing with it. That is the bad thing.

I honestly don't see how wages could be anything other than a market price for labor --something so fundamental that anyone who tried to change it would have to stop being human and revert to some kind of lower animal existence.

We just have to find a way to decouple income from either wage or investment. Otherwise we are preparing for a revolution.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But the real danger is that they honestly can't understand or see the consequences of the social Darwinist mindset which they openly embrace. That's the flaw of capitalist thinking, since it's shown itself to be extremely myopic and oblivious to the consequences of what they do. One thing about "how things work" is that there is also the concept of unintended consequences, where one might hear "it wasn't supposed to work that way."

And history shows us time and time again if it's not put in check the People rise up and heads start rolling.

 

[PureX]

Where we differ here is that I see this market price/wage thing simply as a reality that we live w/, and you (please correct me if I'm missing something) see it as something wrong that folks are doing. I honestly don't see how wages could be anything other than a market price for labor --something so fundamental that anyone who tried to change it would have to stop being human and revert to some kind of lower animal existence.

It's very simple, just put labor at the decider's table, and give them a say. Suddenly the value of labor will increase significantly.

"The market" is not God. It's a bunch of capital investors trying to gain as much profit from their investment capital as they possibly can, and at everyone else's expense. So just give some representation to everyone else involved in and effected by the business enterprise, and watch the profits get spread around.

 

[wellwisher]

View attachment 79088
I don't know about the '30s but this graph shows the problem I'm talking about. Can you accept this as real or do you have contradictory data?

If you look at the graph, the inflection point is at about 1973. If you look back in history, the recession of 1973-1975 in the U.S. came about because of rocketing gas prices caused by OPEC's raising oil prices as well as embargoing oil exports to the U.S.

Other major factors included heavy government spending on the Vietnam War, and a Wall Street stock crash in 1973-74. It was a time of slow economic growth that lingered until about half way through President Reagan's first term as President; 1983.

Like today, tampering with free market oil production and too much government spending; Green energy and the Ukraine War, led to the current recession. The rise of oil prices, due to less domestic supply with the same demand, lowered the value of wages, by adding extra costs to the average person, throughout the economy. All things need to be transported and when that one cost goes up, the price of everything goes up, including other forms of energy.

By the time of President Carter 1976-1980, the Fed had increased the prime lending rate to help slow inflation, to where mortgages rates got as high as 16%. This also caused affective wages to fall; rent and home ownership got more expensive, adding to the poor.

The poor economy added to the need for the welfare state, which did not stay temporary; safety net, but began to grow; safety hammock. The welfare state adds negative productivity, which will cause businesses to have more tax overhead, beyond their productive labor, which stagnates wages. Today business pay more that just wages, due to added regulatory overhead; health care, day care, etc. Those costs increase so wages stay flat.

Studies have been done as to how voters will vote in terms of taxes. Productive workers tend to want lower taxes so they can increase their effective wages with a tax cut. Unproductive workers, such as those who are paid by the government to exist, but not produce, depend on lumps sum payment increases. They tend to vote for people who will raise taxes. This has the affect of lowering the take home pay of those who do work; pay cut.

President Reagan lowered taxes, which has the affect of stimulating the economy and increasing tax revenue. This may seem counter intuitive, but the reason this works is because Government does not get a positive rate of return on the tax revenue we give them. For example, the interest on the national debt alone gives government a minus 12% rate of return, even before taking into account structural inefficiencies; red tape and redundancy.

A tax cut places tax money back into the pockets of the consumer and the free market. Even if you place your tax cut under the mattress, you can break even, which is a 15% increase in value, compared to the having the government squander it, by borrowing even more against the future. This extra growth of revenue; positive rate of return, grows the economy, expanding tax revenues; assumes same tax rates after the rate of return multiplier.

There was also the increase flux of illegal immigration, with most of these jobs starting level wage jobs, such as in the food service and farming industries. They also began to compete in the building trades lowering the wage scale for all labor; supply and demand. This lowered the averaged affective wage per American worker. We can also add this onto government inefficiency; not controlling the border for its productive citizens, but for its own waste model of negative productivity.

 

[Heyo]

If you look at the graph, the inflection point is at about 1973. If you look back in history, the recession of 1973-1975 in the U.S. came about because of rocketing gas prices caused by OPEC's raising oil prices as well as embargoing oil exports to the U.S.

Other major factors included heavy government spending on the Vietnam War, and a Wall Street stock crash in 1973-74. It was a time of slow economic growth that lingered until about half way through President Reagan's first term as President; 1983.

Like today, tampering with free market oil production and too much government spending; Green energy and the Ukraine War, led to the current recession. The rise of oil prices, due to less domestic supply with the same demand, lowered the value of wages, by adding extra costs to the average person, throughout the economy. All things need to be transported and when that one cost goes up, the price of everything goes up, including other forms of energy.

By the time of President Carter 1976-1980, the Fed had increased the prime lending rate to help slow inflation, to where mortgages rates got as high as 16%. This also caused affective wages to fall; rent and home ownership got more expensive, adding to the poor.

The poor economy added to the need for the welfare state, which did not stay temporary; safety net, but began to grow; safety hammock. The welfare state adds negative productivity, which will cause businesses to have more tax overhead, beyond their productive labor, which stagnates wages. Today business pay more that just wages, due to added regulatory overhead; health care, day care, etc. Those costs increase so wages stay flat.

Studies have been done as to how voters will vote in terms of taxes. Productive workers tend to want lower taxes so they can increase their effective wages with a tax cut. Unproductive workers, such as those who are paid by the government to exist, but not produce, depend on lumps sum payment increases. They tend to vote for people who will raise taxes. This has the affect of lowering the take home pay of those who do work; pay cut.

President Reagan lowered taxes, which has the affect of stimulating the economy and increasing tax revenue. This may seem counter intuitive, but the reason this works is because Government does not get a positive rate of return on the tax revenue we give them. For example, the interest on the national debt alone gives government a minus 12% rate of return, even before taking into account structural inefficiencies; red tape and redundancy.

A tax cut places tax money back into the pockets of the consumer and the free market. Even if you place your tax cut under the mattress, you can break even, which is a 15% increase in value, compared to the having the government squander it, by borrowing even more against the future. This extra growth of revenue; positive rate of return, grows the economy, expanding tax revenues; assumes same tax rates after the rate of return multiplier.

There was also the increase flux of illegal immigration, with most of these jobs starting level wage jobs, such as in the food service and farming industries. They also began to compete in the building trades lowering the wage scale for all labor; supply and demand. This lowered the averaged affective wage per American worker. We can also add this onto government inefficiency; not controlling the border for its productive citizens, but for its own waste model of negative productivity.

Do you have evidence for any of those claims?

 

[Pete in Panama]

Very often, I've noticed that capitalist perceptions about "how things work" is oftentimes very personalized and individualized, rarely taking into consideration the larger picture or the ramifications/consequences of public policies. I've noticed this trend throughout this thread, as those who take a pro-capitalist stance don't really speak in terms of the big picture; they're just taking the social Darwinist position that "I make more money because I am superior, and the losers make less money because they are inferior." It's another way of expressing "only the strong shall survive" and "the weak have to just deal with it." (Think Alec Baldwin's monologue in Glengarry Glen Ross or Gordon Gekko in Wall Street or Henry Hill in Goodfellas, as fictional examples of the mentality which dominates the capitalist mindset of today.)

In the minds of people of that ilk, this is "how things work," and they honestly can't think of or conceive of any other way.

But the real danger is that they honestly can't understand or see the consequences of the social Darwinist mindset which they openly embrace. That's the flaw of capitalist thinking, since it's shown itself to be extremely myopic and oblivious to the consequences of what they do. One thing about "how things work" is that there is also the concept of unintended consequences, where one might hear "it wasn't supposed to work that way."

What I'm getting here is that you don't seem to agree that wages/salaries are the market value of labor --correct me if I'm not hearing you right. I'm also getting a lot of hostility from you for something I've said, and please believe me when I say that I have not intention of provoking or antagonizing you. We don't have to discuss this if you find it unpleasant.

 

[Pete in Panama]

So you don't really have it? Probably because it's not true and there's so much variation there is no correlation between the two.

Please forgive as I've somehow missed the train of thought here. Like, I'm not sure what the "it" is. Please understand that I'm not particularly interested in some kind of griefer/dustup here, if you find this convo abrasive we can set it aside.

 

[Audie]

What I'm getting here is that you don't seem to agree that wages/salaries are the market value of labor --correct me if I'm not hearing you right. I'm also getting a lot of hostility from you for something I've said, and please believe me when I say that I have not intention of provoking or antagonizing you. We don't have to discuss this if you find it unpleasant.

Extremist ideologs are always unpleasant.

 

[Pete in Panama]

Yes, you are missing something. I already agreed with you about the facts.
I may have misunderstood what you meant with "I'd say that people's ability to deal w/ difficult situations is a good thing."

As I see it people are not dealing with it, nor do they understand it. "It" being wealth and income inequality. We have let the divide open up more and more without dealing with it. That is the bad thing.

We just have to find a way to decouple income from either wage or investment. Otherwise we are preparing for a revolution.

What I'm looking at are two things, the first beig a massive rejection around the world of Marxism and how the world is turning to free markets. The other is how the overwhelming majority of individuals choose to lives in areas w/ less government intrusion into markets. This we see internationally w/ the massive movement of people from say, Venezuela --going anywhere, as well as people moving from virtually anywhere into the U.S. We can also see this within nations uning numbers like the falling population of California and the rising population of Texas.

 

[Pete in Panama]

It's very simple, just put labor at the decider's table, and give them a say. Suddenly the value of labor will increase significantly.

Where can we see "the decider's table"?

"The market" is not God. It's a bunch of capital investors trying to gain as much profit from their investment capital as they possibly can, and at everyone else's expense. So just give some representation to everyone else involved in and effected by the business enterprise, and watch the profits get spread around.

Our difference here may come from how when I work for people and when I hire people, we set wages near the prevailing wage level for the given kind of labor in our area. Are you personally familiar w/ a real life "bunch of capital investors" in particular? If not, you might consider this to be a fantasy.

 

[Pete in Panama]

Extremist ideologs are always unpleasant.

They can be, yet lets remember that the world is very diverse and there's much we can learn from folks of all kinds of backgrounds. My experience is that the trick is in establishing a rapport first. If it's not possible I step back and wait for the passage of time.

 

[Audie]

They can be, yet lets remember that the world is very diverse and there's much we can learn from folks of all kinds of backgrounds. My experience is that the trick is in establishing a rapport first. If it's not possible I step back and wait for the passage of time.

Never ran across one who wasn't, if faced
with other than agreement.

 

[Stevicus]

What I'm getting here is that you don't seem to agree that wages/salaries are the market value of labor --correct me if I'm not hearing you right. I'm also getting a lot of hostility from you for something I've said, and please believe me when I say that I have not intention of provoking or antagonizing you. We don't have to discuss this if you find it unpleasant.

No hostility from me (at least not towards you personally), except I find myself extremely skeptical when people use terms like "this is how things work" when discussing a social science or the mechanics of human society. It's not so much a matter of wages/salaries being the market value of labor. It's the idea of reducing human beings down to commodities where their labor is bought and sold in the marketplace - but without taking into consideration that these are human beings with rights and needs. Every human being's absolute right to housing, healthcare, education, and other guarantees outlined in the UDHR outweighs any business's right to gain a profit.

This is a concept of human rights. Either people believe in human rights or they don't. If they don't, then all I would ask is that they stop the hypocritical pretense that they care about human rights, liberty, or freedom, when nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[Stevicus]

Extremist ideologs are always unpleasant.

Is that your excuse?

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

You're asking if I can "prove" that hourly compensation (wages) are the market price for the labor? Sure, I could probably show that this is how most economists use the terms but my personal bet is that if you've simply decided that it's not true --w/ absolute certainty-- then any info I tried to pass on wouldn't get any where.

That's fine, I could use the terms in a way that that enables me to communicate w/ a lot of folks, and you could define the terms like you alone want. We could all be happy. Of course this all assumes how you've already decided...

To me, that phrase sounds like "Too many entrepreneurs and profit minded idiots decided that they couldn't/shouldn't increase the amount they spend on payroll rates unless their peers do."

Oh well, Rome burned too. It's the people with property and something to lose that should worry. I feel safe.

 

[Stevicus]

What I'm looking at are two things, the first beig a massive rejection around the world of Marxism and how the world is turning to free markets. The other is how the overwhelming majority of individuals choose to lives in areas w/ less government intrusion into markets. This we see internationally w/ the massive movement of people from say, Venezuela --going anywhere, as well as people moving from virtually anywhere into the U.S. We can also see this within nations uning numbers like the falling population of California and the rising population of Texas.

It was probably more a rejection of a form of Soviet hegemony and that government's interpretations of Marxism. This is commonly viewed as the end of the nearly half-century period known as the Cold War, which itself came about when former Allies fell out and could not agree on what a post-WW2 world should look like. But they did agree on a number of key concepts, such as their shared opposition to fascism, racism, and malignant nationalism which was seen as the primary cause of the most devastating and atrocious conflict in human history.

Of course, among the Western Allies, some countries had to clean up their own act in that department, as the imperial powers of Europe and the segregationist, racist policies in the U.S. were ideologically inconsistent with the principles of freedom and human rights which they claimed to uphold. Plus, Marxism was gaining a foothold in areas which had histories of long-term oppression due to hegemony and colonialism by foreign powers, namely Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. As a result, US policymakers focused on key hot spots around the world where they felt it necessary to contain the spread of communism and to intervene against anything they deemed Marxist or inspired by Marxism. There was no "massive rejection" of Marxism as much as it was a forced rejection of Marxism, using whatever weapons or other means of coercion in their arsenal.

Still, what has happened since the end of the Cold War? What have we seen in the world? The most significant change I've noticed is that attitudes towards nationalism have shifted. Russians have been far more nationalistic than they ever were Marxist. The Ukrainians are also highly nationalistic at this point, and nationalism is increasing in numerous states in Europe and elsewhere around the world. Even in the U.S., the "America Firsters" and so-called "Christian (white) nationalists" also appear to be increasing. As you've pointed out, there are many people moving to other countries - although not necessarily because of how much governments intrude into free markets. Still, a lot of people in those countries don't want them to come there. In the U.S., a lot of people want to secure the border and keep immigrants out. Such attitudes are prevalent in Europe as well.

I've known some people who ostensibly embraced a globalist/free market idea that there should be no tariffs, no border controls, and/or no borders whatsoever - or at least, they believe that it would be more in line with the precepts behind the "global economy," which seemed to be the goal around the time of the end of the Cold War. That was an argument often used to justify reducing trade barriers with China, since the idea was that if we worked closer with that country, integrated them into the global economy, it would promote greater peaceful interaction and eventually turn us into lifelong friends - all in the name of "visualizing world peace." At its core, I see it as a belief rooted in anti-fascism and anti-nationalism, so I don't actually oppose it, but there have been pitfalls and roadblocks to contend with, since it turns out that nations don't really want to give up their own sovereignty or identity, nor do they want to open up their countries so just anybody can come in.

With other issues also in the mix, such as climate change and the growing depletion of natural resources in world where the population has quadrupled in the past century, the tendency towards national entrenchment may rise even higher.

 

[Kfox]

Again. If your employer charges you, IN ANY WAY, for workman's comp. That is illegal.

I'm not suggesting they charge you, I'm saying they just pay you less.

Why does your comment seem to imply that these are bad things?

Probably because you are reading through something that isn't there

If I worked a job that required rigging or tethering, I would likely supply my own safety equipment, honestly. Employers like to cut corners where they can, and not all nylon is produced equal, s you better trust that nylon manufacturer.

I often supply my own equipment. I've even had employers ask if I wanted them to compensate me, and I tell them the reason I trust/prefer this brand or that item over the ones the employer provided. Guess how many have actually taken my advice and spent a little more for better equipment. Guess.

Dat greed.

Where are these places you have worked? Everywhere I've worked where slings and tethering are used, you are not allowed to bring your own stuff to work. The company supplies all safety and rigging gear that is inspected by a professional inspector on a regular basis and stamped signling it has passed his inspection. This idea that you could just bring your own stuff from home, nobody knows the last time it's been inspected, then use it to lift a multi-million piece of equipment, or used in a way lives depend on it's ability to lift, I doubt any credible company would be willing to invite that kind of possible trouble.