Why is FAIR TRADE better than FREE TRADE?

[DBT]

There are no factories without miners extracting raw materials. There are no factories without construction crews or people to work in the factories when they are built.....those with capital cannot eat their banknotes, their banknotes didn't physically/magically provide the rich/those with capital with houses, cars, clothes or put food on their plates, that requires workers. Workers who are not getting their market share of the wealth they help to create.

You're just bible-thumping here, not addressing the issue.

Ahem...I suggest a look in the mirror. You haven't addressed a thing I've said, only complained about it. Please address what I said....who does the work of mining? Who does the work of construction, building infrastructure, vehicles, repair maintenance, service industry, etc, etc?

Workers, that's who.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You keep saying this and I keep explaining. What about my explanation do you have a problem with? You just ignore it and keep repeating yourself. With increased roboticisation we should see a relative falling of workers wages. They are, relatively, contributing less of the overall wealth generation. Which is why this is happening.

I don't see where you have given an adequate explanation. And I repeat the point that wages have been stagnating for decades while the top end of town has enjoyed increased income and wealth because that is the current situation and it has not been addressed. It is brushed aside. The situation is indefensible.

I don't think I've brushed it aside.

But given the last decades technological development we would expect to see management incomes rise. If wealth is increasingly automatically generated (ie capital makes money by itself) having a good vs bad CEO (and management team) is more important. So we'd expect capitalists to "invest" more in management, relatively. Since it's a competitive market capitalists are competing for competent leadership which pushes up their wages.

The capitalists/shareholders can defend CEO wages as long as they pull in cash that is greater than what they cost. Which is all that matters in a capitalist system.

In a capitalist system nobody is paying for anything more than they have to. If there's a player in the market with an inflated salary there's always a well justified reason for it.

Do you still think I'm brushing it aside?

As for wages having stagnated. That too is something we'd expect to see in an economy where capital (ie computers) increasingly does all the work itself. Do you think I've brushed that aside as well?

 

[DrZoidberg]

The run-up in the stock market is mostly a phantom. The issue is the interest rate. The thing is the interest rate is closely related to the rate that future value is discounted. Low interest = low discounting = the net present value of a company goes up.



Once again, hourly wages. Most good jobs aren't hourly.

You know that hourly rate just refers to pay rate? Many businesses advertise or offer an hourly rate regardless of whether the job is permanent or casual. You are scraping the bottom of your barrel of rationales.

Right wing free market people often claim that a free market is the best for everyone in the long term. But it's just an article of faith. And even if true, it can still be catastrophic in the short term. Which it often is. We're now in the middle of a technological revolution. Historically, that hasn't been great for people in general, in the midst of the revolution.

The idea that wages, in general, should just keep increasing isn't based on anything. It's just a hope. In the 1880'ies when the industrial revolution had come into full swing and only just destroyed the old world, life in general was horrendous. All the old social rules had collapsed. That's still the direction we're heading towards for the IT revolution. We're nowhere near peak IT. Word and Excell has pretty much wiped out the secretary/administrator market. A computer used to a be job title, you know? That's why it has that name. It's named after the job it replaced. The logistics sector has today been replaced by data analysts, ie automated analytical tools.

The transport sector is rapidly heading towards being fully automated. What do you think will happen when all those jobs disappear? That's like a fifth of the entire economy.

It's cute that you are miffed about wages not keeping up with economic development. As if that should be expected. Why do you expect that they should be keeping up with economic development? What do you think all these investements into IT was about? Do you think the point of them was to give their workers higher wages? If that was the plan the investements were wasted.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Wages must keep up with the CPI at least, or get eroded by inflation

They do keep up, for workers whose value remains the same.

But the value of labor decreases, as the supply of it increases and the demand for it decreases. And this can happen for labor generally, as the overall need for wage-earners decreases, as they are replaced more and more by machines, and also as the supply of labor increases.

It should be no surprise that the value of labor generally decreases, so that wages do not keep up with inflation.

It's not legitimate to impose a fixed wage level, or any other fixed price level, below which it cannot sink. The level has to be allowed to fluctuate up or down according to its fluctuating value, or according to supply-and-demand.

There are other forms of work than wage-earning. As long as everyone thinks they must be a wage-earner and yet the need for wage-earning work is decreasing, it's reasonable that the general wage level declines. To disregard the supply-and-demand and try to prop up wages artificially can only end up making everyone worse off, because one way or another that distorts the market and the production so that less total value is produced.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

A better-paid worker is not automatically more productive.

A more productive worker is automatically more valuable. But a higher-paid worker is not necessarily more valuable or more productive (nor becomes more productive by being paid higher).

Annually increasing wage base by one percent more than inflation rate will put more money in hands of shoppers which will turn over many more times than the amount of money lost by businesses increasing wages. It will . . .

And the inflation rate runs wild until the politicians who vote for this abomination get voted out of office.

Well here comes another one who doesn't take into account incentive. Better paid workers are more productive.

They are if paying them better is made conditional upon their improved performance. There's no "incentive" to be more productive if the increased wage is made automatic regardless of their performance. So paying them better has to be done individually, increasing the wage only to those who improve their performance. Or, perhaps, increasing it to a group which performs better collectively. But the improved performance has to be measured and then the pay increased only according to the better performance.

And better performance does not mean increased "worker productivity," because this is not due to better performance by workers, usually, but from the better machines they operate. The point of rewarding better performance has to mean that the better performance is what causes the increased value produced, without which the value would not have increased. When a worker is given a better machine to operate and then puts out a better product, it's obvious that it was not the worker which produced that improvement, but rather the machine, or the small number of specialists, scientists, engineers who produced the machine, without which the production would not have improved.

Full stop. Inflation evaporates and interest rates stay low like they are now. Oh my. In an open market where competition rises as products become desirable prices go down or remain steady as competing products enter the market.

This can happen as a result of producers/workers being rewarded for better performance, but not as a result of automatic wage increases paid regardless whether there is better performance. The wage increase has to be caused by supply-and-demand, rewarding only the more valuable workers if and when they demonstrate higher value, not by a formula such as "Annually increasing wage base by one percent more than inflation rate" across-the-board to all the workers regardless of their demonstrated higher value or higher performance. I.e., not by making the annually increasing wage an automatic entitlement the workers know is coming regardless whether their value increases or their performance improves.

An automatic annual entitlement to a higher paycheck is no "incentive" to being more productive or competitive.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Labor union Crybaby Economics has made society worse off overall, not better.

It was the union movement that improved wages and conditions for workers.

And also caused higher prices, and less production as the cost of producing everything got higher as a result. There's no evidence that the union movement improved society generally.

Atrocious conditions for workers being the very reason for the union movement in the first place..

The conditions always improved gradually anyway, before any union movement.

What the union movement changed was the cost of improving the conditions, making some changes happen faster, but also driving way up the cost of production, so that society generally is made worse off, because of the higher prices to pay the much higher production cost.

The unions could have taken responsibility to make the improvements, at their expense, while also letting supply-and-demand put some upward pressure on wages, so that some improvements would happen more cost-effectively rather than inefficiently by having the employer babysit the workers and take on huge cost increases.

A responsible labor union movement would have taken full responsibility for workplace safety and health, making all the decisions while also absorbing the cost for the changes. Also allowing individual free choice to workers to decide their wage level and other terms, in order to preserve competition between workers, as more competition is always good for the company and for consumers.

But instead the labor union movement chose the course of Crybaby Economics, scapegoating employers, and driving up the cost of production way beyond what was necessary, resulting in an overall poorer economy than we would have had without the unions.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

There are good reasons for a state imposed minimum wage.

But the overall result is bad for society, because it eliminates jobs and prevents some production from taking place.

More production (driven by supply-and-demand) = more prosperity. But MW means less production, because the cost is driven up. Higher cost > less produced.

And jobs are eliminated for some workers, i.e., unemployment for some job-seekers who cannot get hired at the higher wage level. These are more desperate job-seekers who want to work but have difficulty getting hired and so are willing to take a lower-paying job rather than have no job at all. It would be good for them to have that low-paying job rather than no job at all. But MW denies them that choice = they are worse off and society is worse off as less work gets done.

 

[DrZoidberg]

There are good reasons for a state imposed minimum wage.

But the overall result is bad for society, because it eliminates jobs and prevents some production from taking place.

More production (driven by supply-and-demand) = more prosperity. But MW means less production, because the cost is driven up. Higher cost > less produced.

And jobs are eliminated for some workers, i.e., unemployment for some job-seekers who cannot get hired at the higher wage level. These are more desperate job-seekers who want to work but have difficulty getting hired and so are willing to take a lower-paying job rather than have no job at all. It would be good for them to have that low-paying job rather than no job at all. But MW denies them that choice = they are worse off and society is worse off as less work gets done.

I agree. It's better to just give the poorest money directly rather than to mess with the market forces.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

"FAIR" vs. "FREE" trade is mostly about the wage level.

"FREE" trade: Any wage level is permitted, no matter how low. Even if it's ZERO wage, like volunteer workers. As long as the worker does it by choice, no matter what the reason.

"FAIR" trade: Wages below a certain level are not permitted because it's "unfair" to the worker, even though it's their choice.

I.e., we're all made better off if the more competitive (human or machine) replaces the less competitive.

You still haven't addressed my point that "free" trade often isn't free trade at the level of the producer. . . . .

. . . the problem with "free" trade is that while it might be free at the macro level it often is not at the micro level.

macro = millions/billions of micros

No, the trade is "free" for all of them, because they have free choice. But it's true that some workers replaced (by machines or by cheap labor) might be made worse off at first, as a result of free trade / competitive economy. These are a minority, and most of them will be better off later as a result of the better competition overall.

No--what I'm saying is that in many cases the trades are not free on the micro level. The world markets are free trade but in many third world areas the local producers do not have direct access to the world markets, just one or a few local companies that rake in most of the profit.

Free trade benefits everyone, just as automation benefits everyone. But it's true that a few may get screwed in the competition.

So long as you protect against externalities. The company that fishes in protected waters will be cheaper than the one that follows the rules.

"Free trade" does not mean free to commit crimes. Dumping toxic waste into a river is criminal. Destroying habitat or hunting wildlife to extinction etc. is criminal. Also, murder-for-hire etc. is criminal. But paying workers low wages is not criminal, as long as the worker is making a free choice.

"Fair trade" is not usually about making all companies follow the laws agreed upon, or penalizing those gaining an advantage by breaking the laws which others are following. In those rare cases where this is what it's about, you might make a case for "fair" trade.

But "fair trade" is usually about forcing employers, or pressuring them, to increase the wage level above the free-market level set by supply-and-demand, because this market level is judged to be too low and thus "unfair" to the workers, even if it's their choice to work at that wage level.

And it's about making consumers feel guilty for buying products from companies which disregard this and take advantage of cheap labor. But consumers are not guilty for taking advantage of those lower-price products, regardless how low the wage level is, as long as the workers make a free choice, or are free to quit without suffering retaliation or punishment from the company trying to force them against their will. It is not wrong to buy cheap imports produced by cheap labor. Rather, it's wrong to deprive anyone of a free choice to buy or sell at any price they agree to, including buying or selling labor.

It's called "free trade" because every buyer and seller is free to choose their own terms. Whereas "fair trade" is to deny choice, usually the choice to pay or be paid a low wage, because the low wage is "unfair" to the worker even though it's their choice.

Of course the more official meaning of "free trade" is allowing complete commerce across borders, as opposed to protectionism. But most of the judgmentalism against imports is the objection to the wage level being too low, or the objection to wage competition from imports. The issue is not usually about companies committing crimes against the environment.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There are no factories without miners extracting raw materials. There are no factories without construction crews or people to work in the factories when they are built.....those with capital cannot eat their banknotes, their banknotes didn't physically/magically provide the rich/those with capital with houses, cars, clothes or put food on their plates, that requires workers. Workers who are not getting their market share of the wealth they help to create.

You're just bible-thumping here, not addressing the issue.

Seems it's you that is doing so. You are religiously defending the ceo class with mindless and unverified fantasies. You're the Ken Ham of business/economic discussions.

I'm not defending them, I'm saying your evidence against them is seriously flawed. There are two basic errors that keep being repeated:

1) Ignoring the third piece of pie. It should be obvious it must exist, therefore an analysis that ignores it isn't worth much.

2) Ignoring the fact that CEO compensation is highly correlated with company size. Merger mania will "raise" CEO compensation because of this even if your average CEO sees no change.

 

[DBT]

You keep saying this and I keep explaining. What about my explanation do you have a problem with? You just ignore it and keep repeating yourself. With increased roboticisation we should see a relative falling of workers wages. They are, relatively, contributing less of the overall wealth generation. Which is why this is happening.

I don't see where you have given an adequate explanation. And I repeat the point that wages have been stagnating for decades while the top end of town has enjoyed increased income and wealth because that is the current situation and it has not been addressed. It is brushed aside. The situation is indefensible.

I don't think I've brushed it aside.

But given the last decades technological development we would expect to see management incomes rise. If wealth is increasingly automatically generated (ie capital makes money by itself) having a good vs bad CEO (and management team) is more important. So we'd expect capitalists to "invest" more in management, relatively. Since it's a competitive market capitalists are competing for competent leadership which pushes up their wages.

The capitalists/shareholders can defend CEO wages as long as they pull in cash that is greater than what they cost. Which is all that matters in a capitalist system.

In a capitalist system nobody is paying for anything more than they have to. If there's a player in the market with an inflated salary there's always a well justified reason for it.

Do you still think I'm brushing it aside?

As for wages having stagnated. That too is something we'd expect to see in an economy where capital (ie computers) increasingly does all the work itself. Do you think I've brushed that aside as well?

Yes, you are brushing the issue aside by downplaying the problem of growing inequity and income between ordinary workers and those with wealth and power (who bend the rules in their own favour, tax breaks, etc).

Nothing you have said actually justifies the situation. For example, to say ''So we'd expect capitalists to "invest" more in management, relatively. Since it's a competitive market capitalists are competing for competent leadership which pushes up their wages.'' ''As for wages having stagnated. That too is something we'd expect to see in an economy where capital (ie computers) increasingly does all the work itself'' - is brushing aside the problem of growing inequity as something inevitable. Not only inevitable but with tones of desirability, That this is the way the world is going, suck it up.

 

[DBT]

There are good reasons for a state imposed minimum wage.

But the overall result is bad for society, because it eliminates jobs and prevents some production from taking place.

More production (driven by supply-and-demand) = more prosperity. But MW means less production, because the cost is driven up. Higher cost > less produced.

And jobs are eliminated for some workers, i.e., unemployment for some job-seekers who cannot get hired at the higher wage level. These are more desperate job-seekers who want to work but have difficulty getting hired and so are willing to take a lower-paying job rather than have no job at all. It would be good for them to have that low-paying job rather than no job at all. But MW denies them that choice = they are worse off and society is worse off as less work gets done.

The situation has not always been as it is now. The gap between the highest paid CEO and the average worker,not that long ago, was not as great as it is now, yet unemployment was not necessarily higher than now.


The point is, to repeat, that the divide between the rich and the average worker has grown ever wider in last few decades, with no sign of improvement. The situation is not sustainable in the long term. It is the stuff of revolution.


Plus you need to consider nations where the gap is not so great, yet the system delivers, that this wage, salary divide can be improved with without negative effect. Positive in fact, a good thing for society;

''STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - Highly paid executives in the United States and Britain take note - your Swedish counterparts are paid much less, yet still deliver strong corporate results.

While investors around the world are rising up against excessive executive pay in a movement dubbed “the shareholder spring”, there has been barely a peep in Sweden - with good reason.

In a country famed for restraint and long social democratic traditions, Sweden’s executives are generally rewarded far less than rivals in the rest of Europe and the United States and appear to perform just as well, or better, for shareholders.

“Abroad, things have really spun out of control in many cases ... especially in the United States and Britain,” said Carl Johan Hogbom, acting head of Aktiespararna, the Swedish Shareholders’ Association, referring to executive pay rises.

 

[laughing dog]

Basic finance--there isn't always a market.

For equity? Where did you learn your basic finance?

Besides, I was talking about the underlying value. The shares could be traded, the value they represent can't be converted to cash without major losses. Note that trading the shares simply moves cash around, it doesn't produce spendable cash.

Shift those goalposts much?

Liquidate that $10T and we are probably a third world nation.

Shift those goalposts much?

 

[DBT]

Seems it's you that is doing so. You are religiously defending the ceo class with mindless and unverified fantasies. You're the Ken Ham of business/economic discussions.

I'm not defending them, I'm saying your evidence against them is seriously flawed. There are two basic errors that keep being repeated:

1) Ignoring the third piece of pie. It should be obvious it must exist, therefore an analysis that ignores it isn't worth much.

2) Ignoring the fact that CEO compensation is highly correlated with company size. Merger mania will "raise" CEO compensation because of this even if your average CEO sees no change.

You are trying to defend the indefensible. You do that by invoking things like a 'third piece of the pie' as if there is a completely seperate component to the economy. You state it without explanation or evidence to support your claim.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

How does the rich capitalist pig make you worse off by offering you a low-wage job?

FAIR TRADE to whining worker: Oh you poor victim! Let's guilt-trip your employer into raising your wage = higher cost of production = higher prices consumers have to pay = higher cost of living for all.

Workers without bargaining power have very little choice: 'that's our rate, take it or leave it.'

They have more bargaining power than the unemployed who are offered nothing, i.e., not even a "take it or leave it" because fair trade says they can't have that choice to take a low-paying job instead of having no job at all.

That's blatant exploitation of the unemployed.

Call it what you want, they're better off having that choice. Making people better off is more important than snorting out angry words like "exploitation" and other hate language. Scapegoating employers does nothing to benefit those unemployed, whereas a job offer at low wages offers something to those who prefer that option to nothing at all.

A race to the bottom, incomes for vulnerable workers becoming too low to support a decent living standard, while . . .

It's better than anything you're proposing. Having them work, even at a low income, improves the world a little, in contrast to your meaningless slogans which offer nothing. Being a little productive, and being paid accordingly, means something improves, as the production increases for all consumers = slightly higher living standard for all, which is better than remaining lower. How does a lower living standard do anything to stop the "race to the bottom"? The lower-wage job vs. no job at all means actually a SLOWER "race to the bottom" than your program of scapegoating and name-calling and shouting hate slogans against employers, including the small employers struggling to survive. Any "race to the bottom" is only made worse by denying them that choice as your "fair trade" dogmatism does.

. . . while corporate profit remains high and the rich get richer.

There you go again -- nothing but employer-bashing. And you continue to ignore the fact that many of the employers you snarl at are SMALL and struggling to survive. Why do you keep bashing them as though ALL employers are rich dirty capitalist pigs. They're not! some of them are even POOR dirty capitalist pigs. Don't you know that a large percent of business ventures fail? Don't you know that many of them end up so poor that they actually have NEGATIVE wealth because they went into debt and lost their shirt?

It's the stuff of revolution....those in positions of power saying ''let them eat cake'' until the point they find their heads on a chopping block.

No, there were more like you who got their heads chopped off. No employers got beheaded for paying low wages, but an advocate for equal distribution of wealth and for rights of the poor, François-Noël "Gracchus" Babeuf, was beheaded by the French revolutionary Directorate for distributing placards proclaiming "Nature has given to every man the right to the enjoyment of an equal share in all property" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/François-Noël_Babeuf -- so maybe it's your gang of Leftist dissidents whose heads will roll when the next People's Revolution takes over.

And those workers who are more valuable do have more bargaining power. If they are more difficult to replace, or the need for them is greater, they have more bargaining power. So, instead of whining that they have no bargaining power, workers need to make themselves more valuable, or more irreplaceable, so that their bargaining power increases. That makes everyone better off, because as people/workers become more valuable = more productive and improved in their performance, it benefits all consumers = everyone = the whole nation improves, as opposed to "fair trade" which gives pity to the less competitive and rewards them even if they don't improve their performance.

It's not about whining. It's an issue of power imbalance.

Again, and again -- why don't you answer this? -- there is nothing wrong with the poor doing transactions with the extreme most rich and powerful top .01%. The "imbalance" does no harm to the poor, as you keep imagining. Those who want the terms and choose that job are better off having that choice, as long as they're free to refuse rather than being forced by that .01% elite offering it to them.

You've shown no reason why it's wrong for the rich and the poor to do transactions of any kind. That "imbalance" does not prevent the poor from choosing what is in their interest and refusing the offer if it doesn't make them better off.

It is in the interest of workers to join unions and engage with management through collective bargaining, . . .

Perhaps, but even if not that, it's also in their interest to engage with management individually, to take the job or refuse it if the terms are not agreeable to them. Denying them that choice makes them worse off, not better off.

. . . through collective bargaining, which goes some way in addressing the gross imbalance of power between management and individual workers.

But that also eliminates some jobs for those who would work at lower compensation, thus eliminating them from any job at all and making them worse off. Why do your solutions have to be ones which inevitably make some job-seekers worse off in order to enrich others? Why do you have to stomp down on those desperate job-seekers who are unable to get hired at the terms you would impose onto them and who would otherwise get hired at lower compensation level which the employer offers them? Why is it OK to screw those poor job-seekers who are struggling to survive?

 

[DrZoidberg]

I don't think I've brushed it aside.

But given the last decades technological development we would expect to see management incomes rise. If wealth is increasingly automatically generated (ie capital makes money by itself) having a good vs bad CEO (and management team) is more important. So we'd expect capitalists to "invest" more in management, relatively. Since it's a competitive market capitalists are competing for competent leadership which pushes up their wages.

The capitalists/shareholders can defend CEO wages as long as they pull in cash that is greater than what they cost. Which is all that matters in a capitalist system.

In a capitalist system nobody is paying for anything more than they have to. If there's a player in the market with an inflated salary there's always a well justified reason for it.

Do you still think I'm brushing it aside?

As for wages having stagnated. That too is something we'd expect to see in an economy where capital (ie computers) increasingly does all the work itself. Do you think I've brushed that aside as well?

Yes, you are brushing the issue aside by downplaying the problem of growing inequity and income between ordinary workers and those with wealth and power (who bend the rules in their own favour, tax breaks, etc).

Yes, USA has a nightmarishingly complicated tax system only rivalled by that of now defunct USSR. But this development is global. Not just USA. So it's not that. Clearly. The problem is automation and robotisation. The problem is a fundamental shift in the realities of the labour market on a scale we haven't seen since the Spinning Jenny was introduced.

Nothing you have said actually justifies the situation. For example, to say ''So we'd expect capitalists to "invest" more in management, relatively. Since it's a competitive market capitalists are competing for competent leadership which pushes up their wages.'' ''As for wages having stagnated. That too is something we'd expect to see in an economy where capital (ie computers) increasingly does all the work itself'' - is brushing aside the problem of growing inequity as something inevitable. Not only inevitable but with tones of desirability, That this is the way the world is going, suck it up.

I do not desire this. I see any inequality as undesirable in the jobs market.

What I desire is to be accurate about the causes of wages dropping. There's a danger in missapplying blame. Donald Trump blames Mexican immigrants and the Chinese. This risks causing pointless diplomatic friction and pushing us towards WW3. It's good to be accurate about stuff.

Unless we accept the new reality of robotisation displacing unqualified workers from the jobs market at an increasing scale, we will continue to fix the wrong problem. So far I have not seen any politician talk about this new situation in the jobs market. It's just brushed aside. Just like you are doing.

 

[DBT]

Again, and again -- why don't you answer this? -- there is nothing wrong with the poor doing transactions with the extreme most rich and powerful top .01%. The "imbalance" does no harm to the poor, as you keep imagining. Those who want the terms and choose that job are better off having that choice, as long as they're free to refuse rather than being forced by that .01% elite offering it to them.

I have answered again and again, only to have the points brushed aside. If you think that there is nothing wrong with working full time yet struggling to meet the basic needs of life, you have no idea. You are unable to mentally put yourself in that situation or understand it.

Perhaps you have no empathy?

Your attitude appear to embody the principle of "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche"

Plus the reasons why a gross imbalance in power and wealth between a small percentage of the population and the rest has been described enough times, yet ignored each and every time.

Again;

The Disadvantages of Economic Inequality

 

[DBT]

Yes, USA has a nightmarishingly complicated tax system only rivalled by that of now defunct USSR. But this development is global. Not just USA. So it's not that. Clearly. The problem is automation and robotisation. The problem is a fundamental shift in the realities of the labour market on a scale we haven't seen since the Spinning Jenny was introduced.

Nothing you have said actually justifies the situation. For example, to say ''So we'd expect capitalists to "invest" more in management, relatively. Since it's a competitive market capitalists are competing for competent leadership which pushes up their wages.'' ''As for wages having stagnated. That too is something we'd expect to see in an economy where capital (ie computers) increasingly does all the work itself'' - is brushing aside the problem of growing inequity as something inevitable. Not only inevitable but with tones of desirability, That this is the way the world is going, suck it up.

I do not desire this. I see any inequality as undesirable in the jobs market.

What I desire is to be accurate about the causes of wages dropping. There's a danger in missapplying blame. Donald Trump blames Mexican immigrants and the Chinese. This risks causing pointless diplomatic friction and pushing us towards WW3. It's good to be accurate about stuff.

Unless we accept the new reality of robotisation displacing unqualified workers from the jobs market at an increasing scale, we will continue to fix the wrong problem. So far I have not seen any politician talk about this new situation in the jobs market. It's just brushed aside. Just like you are doing.

I'm not brushing anything aside. I am pointing to a problem in society; an ever growing inequality in wealth and power. Wealth accumulating into the hands of a small percentage of the population while the rest are left floundering. The reasons for this situation are many, and can be explored.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

For equity? Where did you learn your basic finance?

I've seen very illiquid equity. My current boss got royally screwed due to illiquid shares.

Shift those goalposts much?

Liquidate that $10T and we are probably a third world nation.

Shift those goalposts much?

How about addressing the point?

You're after another manifestation of eat the rich. No matter how much you try to polish that turd it's still a turd--you get a short term bump but suffer a long term loss because of it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Seems it's you that is doing so. You are religiously defending the ceo class with mindless and unverified fantasies. You're the Ken Ham of business/economic discussions.

I'm not defending them, I'm saying your evidence against them is seriously flawed. There are two basic errors that keep being repeated:

1) Ignoring the third piece of pie. It should be obvious it must exist, therefore an analysis that ignores it isn't worth much.

2) Ignoring the fact that CEO compensation is highly correlated with company size. Merger mania will "raise" CEO compensation because of this even if your average CEO sees no change.

You are trying to defend the indefensible. You do that by invoking things like a 'third piece of the pie' as if there is a completely seperate component to the economy. You state it without explanation or evidence to support your claim.

I have explained what I'm talking about repeatedly--the money that goes into building the factories etc.