Why is FAIR TRADE better than FREE TRADE?

[Loren Pechtel]

It's not extortion.

Right, as long as there's no threat of violence against the employer. If the one making demands threatens violence to the other, then the free choice is curtailed = extortion, no matter which one is threatening the other. But merely refusing to deal because the terms are not satisfactory is not extortion.

(In labor disputes where the strikers threaten property damage or violence to replacement workers, etc., then it is extortion.)

Disagree--the harm need not be physical. A strike is about harming the business by taking away it's workforce.

Note that simply quitting isn't extortion, there's no threat involved.

 

[laughing dog]

Labor actions are 100% pure extortion. If it weren't for the protections built into the law every striker would be in jail.

P Going on strike simply means not going to work and perhaps protesting outside. Not going to work is not against the law. Protesting outside is not necessarily against the law.
So your response is pure ideological nonsense. You really have no clue what you are posting about.

 

[laughing dog]

No, you're the one being ignorant. It doesn't matter that it's owned by owners, it's not available to spend.

I realize this is difficult for you. Owners choose to buy capital equipment - it was available to spend at one time. Furthermore, capital equipment is a physical asset - it is part of the owners' wealth.

The fact that they chose to spend it has nothing to do with the economics of the situation.

Their choices are based on the economics of the situation. So, your claim is absolute nonsense. You really have no clue what you are posting about.

[
And while it's part of the owner's wealth it's money that has been permanently converted to capital and thus can't be shared with the worker.

More absolute economic nonsense. Physical capital not permanent and usually can be converted into financial capital. You have no clue what you are posting about.

 

[DBT]

It's not extortion.

Right, as long as there's no threat of violence against the employer. If the one making demands threatens violence to the other, then the free choice is curtailed = extortion, no matter which one is threatening the other. But merely refusing to deal because the terms are not satisfactory is not extortion.

(In labor disputes where the strikers threaten property damage or violence to replacement workers, etc., then it is extortion.)

Disagree--the harm need not be physical. A strike is about harming the business by taking away it's workforce.

Note that simply quitting isn't extortion, there's no threat involved.

A strike represents a breakdown in negotiations, a last resort. Workers, not wanting to lose pay, commitments to meet, etc, generally don't want to go on strike unless it's forced upon them. Workers are also harmed if the strike goes on too long.

 

[DBT]

Average wage is not the issue here. The issue is the growing divide between the highest paid and the rest of the workforce. The issue has been described numerous times.

If average wage doesn't matter why do you keep bringing it up?

Besides, this isn't a sporting competition, people are paid based on what they bring the company.

You miss the point. Average wage does matter, but average wage varies between countries and regions.

Average wage is relative to region, cost of living, etc....which is secondary to the fact that workers have been losing their market share of the wealth they help to produce. Meantime, the rich profit and get ever richer. That being the point.

 

[DBT]

Right, as long as there's no threat of violence against the employer. If the one making demands threatens violence to the other, then the free choice is curtailed = extortion, no matter which one is threatening the other. But merely refusing to deal because the terms are not satisfactory is not extortion.

There is no 'free choice' in the pay and conditions that presented to applicants who lack leverage.

It's often a case of here is the contract, this is what we pay, these are the hours and conditions.

The applicants choice is merely to take it or leave it.

If they need to work, the latter is not an option, hence no choice but to accept what is being presented to them.

Which is why unions were formed in the first place, bringing a degree of balance to the relationship between workers and management.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Some form of redistributing wealth may be legitimate.

but not from ALL EMPLOYERS (scapegoats) to ALL WAGE-EARNERS (poor victim class needing to be pitied)

Just because it's popular to beat up on a minority class and give freebies to a majority class does not mean the whole society benefits from it.

We need both labor and capital. What the left fails to understand is that an increasing percentage of the pie is going to the tooling that makes workers more productive.

No, the evidence shows that an increasing percentage of the pie is going into the pockets of the already wealthy.

Relying on the flawed model of assuming the pie is being divided into two. In the real world there are three portions!

I never said anything about only two portions. You're deflecting from the fact that the wealthy are taking a larger portion of the pie and it's coming from the worker's portion.

What is the third "portion"?

I'm interpreting Pechtel's third "portion" to mean the consumers, the customers, or ultimately the whole economy since EVERYONE is a consumer, and this is actually the most important interest group to consider, even though it's the most neglected, because these are a too-large group which cannot focus its strength into a lobbying effort to clamor for its interest. I.e., no one consumer individually has enough at stake to drive him/her to undertake the lobbying effort for this huge class.

The third "portion" could also mean the state/government, but this is very similar, supposedly representing the whole society rather than any special segment.

You're deflecting from the fact that the wealthy are taking a larger portion of the pie and it's coming from the worker's portion.

Which workers? Some workers in fact are getting their appropriate larger portion. So "worker's portion" here refers only to some of the workers, not all of them.

So this "worker's portion" is declining (or stagnating) because of the decreasing value of many (not all) wage-earners. Maybe this is causing something wrong. This might be a WINDFALL for many of the wealthy, who are reaping profit ("taking a larger portion") from the improved production. Is something wrong with this? Is the greater society at large deserving some of the benefit from this which it is not getting, while "the wealthy" are getting more than their share based on what they contribute?

Maybe. We could even use the term "surplus wealth" for this. It's the part which some wealthy elites are gaining but which they did not earn.

Correct Solution: So some form of higher taxation on those elites would be appropriate, in order to spread this "surplus" wealth more in proportion to all those creating it, who are a collective rather than only certain identifiable individuals/parties -- certainly not to select wage-earners, or to all wage-earners as a class, some of whom are already being rewarded appropriately by the market, while the others are declining in value and so should not be targeted for some gain they did not earn.

What is not needed then is to redistribute the "surplus" wealth to targeted wage-earner classes out of pity for them, beyond what would be in return for their respective contribution to the production, which the market already assures to them. They are automatically rewarded for their work within the free market supply-and-demand conditions which gives those ones higher value who are in shorter supply or in greater demand.

So the phrase "the wealthy are taking a larger portion of the pie and it's coming from the worker's portion" is incorrect, because this "larger portion" is NOT coming from the worker's portion, but from the overall society or economy, or the whole population, which should receive a larger share.

So again, we need to stop obsessing on uncompetitive workers to feel sorry for and instead redistribute the wealth to the whole society, or to all consumers, or all taxpayers, to everyone. This could mean greater investment in infrastructure and reduced public debt and also reduced taxes generally to lower-income taxpayers.

So the idea that "the wealthy are taking a larger portion of the pie" (larger than they earned) might be legitimate, but that it's being stolen from "the workers" ("it's coming from the worker's portion") is incorrect, because the only workers losing out are those who have become less competitive, or more replaceable, or less valuable, and so their incomes have stagnated, which is appropriate because of their declining value.

So the diagnosis of the problem may have validity, as the "wealthy" class (or some of it) is taking too much. The solution to this, probably, is to increase some taxation on this class, or on those in it who are taking too much. So those wanting to fix the problem need to do a little more work, i.e., identify exactly who is taking too much, and determine how to get more from them to be redistributed to the whole society. And stop with the scapegoating of all employers as a class, who are not the problem.

Simply scapegoating this entire class and trying to redistribute wealth to all wage-earners, as a victim class to feel sorry for, will only do damage to the whole economy, by penalizing production generally, causing less total production and higher prices and higher cost of living.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Workers are automatically paid their "fair share" already, with no need to prop the wage level higher.

It's not extortion. It's a balance of power. As it stands, it is the employer who has the power to set wages and the employee who has no choice but to either accept or have no income. That is extortion.

The two aren't incompatible.

"Give us money or we wreck your business" is extortion. Whether it's done by outsiders or employees doesn't change that.

Who, besides you, is saying "give us money or we wreck your business?"

Wrecking the business that employs them is not in the interest of workers.

The point is workers sharing in wealth that they help generate....a share based on true market value based on productivity.

But the workers are already getting that share they generate. It's only the competitive market ("based on productivity" of those workers) which pays them a declining share (in some cases) because of the declining value of those workers, because of their DECLINING contribution to the increasing wealth, which is created mostly by more specialized producers, professionals, higher-level specialized workers who are in fact paid much more -- i.e., because of the improved technology they individually created, and not because of workers generally performing any better.

It's only improved performance by certain workers/producers which has to be rewarded for generating the increased wealth, not all the workers as a class.

Again you fail to understand that the average worker is not the one who GENERATES the improved production when this is due to the improved technology, to the better machines the worker operates. The worker DID NOT CREATE THAT BETTER TECHNOLOGY and so is not the one generating the better production. Again, your logic is that of

Crybaby Economics only, which says the workers must "share" in the greater wealth produced only because they are attached to the company, rather than being the ones who produce the greater wealth.

By this logic, the janitor also has to be paid higher, or anyone else employed by the company producing greater wealth. This is PITY pay only, not something earned by those workers from their improved performance. It's only improved performance which deserves credit for producing better results.

Everybody still benefits, everyone does well, . . .

The improved production benefits "everyone" (the society), but that benefit is reduced if you attach extra unnecessary cost to it.

Who caused the improved production and thus needs to be paid more? Not the workers operating the machines.

If the wage level to them is artificially increased, even though they did nothing to earn it, then it increases the production cost and thus the prices which consumers pay = everyone does worse, not better. So that redistribution of wealth away from the employer to undeserving workers ends up doing damage to the whole society, by reducing the net production from what it would be at the lower labor cost. ALL unnecessary higher cost does net damage to the production and thus net damage to the society.

. . . everyone does well, the workers, management, the business and the economy.

But the economy, everyone, does best if there is no unnecessary higher cost added artificially to the production. Which is what happens if anyone is paid higher than their market value, such as higher wage to workers whose performance did not improve and did not contribute to the higher value being produced, such as when the improved production is due to better technology, as it usually is.

Minimum cost of production is always in the interest of the whole society, whereas paying anyone higher than their market value (supply-and-demand value or their replaceability value), is always detrimental to the whole society, by driving up prices everyone must pay, in return for which the workers receiving this artificial benefit made no contribution to earn it, being already automatically rewarded for their real contribution by the market mechanism of supply-and-demand, without any need to pay them higher than this market value in order to get the needed work done by them.

You cannot give any reason why workers, just because they are wage-earners, must be paid higher than the minimum needed to get the work done, or higher than what is paid to them already by the company based only on its need for them (and reduced need when they can more easily be replaced = reduced value). Why should they be paid any higher than this instead of just being paid the minimum the company needs to pay them in order to get the work done (by them or someone else who could do it cheaper)?

This minimum-cost principle should be followed for ALL costs of production in order for the company to best serve consumers. Driving any cost up higher than this level is always bad for the whole society. While keeping every cost down -- via supply-and-demand and competition -- to the lowest level necessary in order to produce the same output, is always the right cost, for the total net benefit, or optimum benefit, to everyone.

 

[ZiprHead]

but not from ALL EMPLOYERS (scapegoats) to ALL WAGE-EARNERS (poor victim class needing to be pitied)

Just because it's popular to beat up on a minority class and give freebies to a majority class does not mean the whole society benefits from it.

No, the evidence shows that an increasing percentage of the pie is going into the pockets of the already wealthy.

Relying on the flawed model of assuming the pie is being divided into two. In the real world there are three portions!

I never said anything about only two portions. You're deflecting from the fact that the wealthy are taking a larger portion of the pie and it's coming from the worker's portion.

What is the third "portion"?

I'm interpreting Pechtel's third "portion" to mean the consumers, the customers, or ultimately the whole economy since EVERYONE is a consumer, and this is actually the most important interest group to consider, even though it's the most neglected, because these are a too-large group which cannot focus its strength into a lobbying effort to clamor for its interest. I.e., no one consumer individually has enough at stake to drive him/her to undertake the lobbying effort for this huge class.

You are wrong. Loren's third portion is the capital investment.

Too bad you wasted your time on another overly wordy straw man.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Labor actions are 100% pure extortion. If it weren't for the protections built into the law every striker would be in jail.

P Going on strike simply means not going to work and perhaps protesting outside. Not going to work is not against the law. Protesting outside is not necessarily against the law.
So your response is pure ideological nonsense. You really have no clue what you are posting about.

The organized nature of the action is inherently designed to disrupt the business.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The fact that they chose to spend it has nothing to do with the economics of the situation.

Their choices are based on the economics of the situation. So, your claim is absolute nonsense. You really have no clue what you are posting about.

[
And while it's part of the owner's wealth it's money that has been permanently converted to capital and thus can't be shared with the worker.

More absolute economic nonsense. Physical capital not permanent and usually can be converted into financial capital. You have no clue what you are posting about.

The business can be sold but that just moves it around, it doesn't convert it into a form the worker can use.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Disagree--the harm need not be physical. A strike is about harming the business by taking away it's workforce.

Note that simply quitting isn't extortion, there's no threat involved.

A strike represents a breakdown in negotiations, a last resort. Workers, not wanting to lose pay, commitments to meet, etc, generally don't want to go on strike unless it's forced upon them. Workers are also harmed if the strike goes on too long.

Which is absolutely irrelevant to the situation. The negotiations are based on the threat of force, they're extortion.

 

[ZiprHead]

Labor actions are 100% pure extortion. If it weren't for the protections built into the law every striker would be in jail.

P Going on strike simply means not going to work and perhaps protesting outside. Not going to work is not against the law. Protesting outside is not necessarily against the law.
So your response is pure ideological nonsense. You really have no clue what you are posting about.

The organized nature of the action is inherently designed to disrupt the business.

Did you figure that out all by yourself.

 

[laughing dog]

Their choices are based on the economics of the situation. So, your claim is absolute nonsense. You really have no clue what you are posting about.
More absolute economic nonsense. Physical capital not permanent and usually can be converted into financial capital. You have no clue what you are posting about.

The business can be sold but that just moves it around, it doesn't convert it into a form the worker can use.

Are you saying that workers cannot use money, because that is ridiculous.

 

[laughing dog]

Labor actions are 100% pure extortion. If it weren't for the protections built into the law every striker would be in jail.

P Going on strike simply means not going to work and perhaps protesting outside. Not going to work is not against the law. Protesting outside is not necessarily against the law.
So your response is pure ideological nonsense. You really have no clue what you are posting about.

The organized nature of the action is inherently designed to disrupt the business.

Legal protests are designed to disrupt activity and they are not against the law. Please link to any federal, state or local laws that make disrupting business illegal.

 

[DBT]

Disagree--the harm need not be physical. A strike is about harming the business by taking away it's workforce.

Note that simply quitting isn't extortion, there's no threat involved.

A strike represents a breakdown in negotiations, a last resort. Workers, not wanting to lose pay, commitments to meet, etc, generally don't want to go on strike unless it's forced upon them. Workers are also harmed if the strike goes on too long.

Which is absolutely irrelevant to the situation. The negotiations are based on the threat of force, they're extortion.

Not really. A strike is a protest against the pay and conditions being forced upon workers who have no other means with which to improve their pay and conditions. It is a balancing of power. You should know why unions were formed. You should know the condition of workers during industrialization.

 

[DBT]

Labor actions are 100% pure extortion. If it weren't for the protections built into the law every striker would be in jail.

P Going on strike simply means not going to work and perhaps protesting outside. Not going to work is not against the law. Protesting outside is not necessarily against the law.
So your response is pure ideological nonsense. You really have no clue what you are posting about.

The organized nature of the action is inherently designed to disrupt the business.

Now just figure out why workers would want to go to the trouble of disrupting business.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

collective bargaining = cartel -> less produced and higher prices -> net loss to society

Nothing to do with leftist ideology. You must be aware of the horrendous hours, pay and conditions set at the beginning of the industrial revolution, which was the reason why unions were formed. What are workers to do? Struggle financially, work long hours for a pittance while watching others, management, CEO's, etc, getting ever more wealthy? Is that the kind of society you argue for?

I believe the unions are mostly taking credit for things that would have happened anyway. The horrendous working conditions were a result of a surplus of workers and a lack of capital. Furthermore, the law has done away with most of the worst abuses.

Pay and conditions have been eroding away for decades....so no, it would not have happened without collective bargaining.

What's the "it" which would not have happened?

The only benefit from collective bargaining is some direct gain the striking workers can extract, in a given dispute, where the employer submits to demands. There is no general social gain, but only to a limited group of workers, who succeeded in using their cartel power, putting limits to competition, through united action instead of the workers individually competing with each other.

It's the same kind of benefit as to a group of companies which engage in price-fixing rather than competing with each other. It's an overall net loss to society because of the higher prices and/or reduced production -> higher prices to consumers generally.

Even if the members of the cartel are small operators, independent contractors, perhaps poor street vendors, or shoe shiners or janitors working independently. Even for these low-income producers it is better for society if they compete rather than join together in a cartel.

It's always best for any operators to compete with others, on both price and quality, trying individually to increase their gain by outperforming the other operators rather than uniting with them to agree on price or restricting their production. Labor union cartels do similar net damage to society as capitalist cartels or independent contractor cartels. The possible benefit from it is not to society generally but only to the members of the cartel, with maybe a small amount of spillover benefit to some other operators also, but with an overall net loss to the society generally. This is why price-fixing is made illegal, and sometimes the law is enforced, even if most times it is not.

So the "it" produced by collective bargaining is a net loss for the society overall, and a benefit to a narrow interest group only. And long-term it's a loss to everyone as total production is curtailed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The organized nature of the action is inherently designed to disrupt the business.

Did you figure that out all by yourself.

Once again, not addressing the facts.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Their choices are based on the economics of the situation. So, your claim is absolute nonsense. You really have no clue what you are posting about.
More absolute economic nonsense. Physical capital not permanent and usually can be converted into financial capital. You have no clue what you are posting about.

The business can be sold but that just moves it around, it doesn't convert it into a form the worker can use.

Are you saying that workers cannot use money, because that is ridiculous.

Try to understand what I'm saying rather than twisting it.

Owner A invests in building a business. That money has been converted into the business equipment and structure, it can't be converted back.

It's possible for A to sell his business to B, thus freeing up those dollars but using up the same number of dollars elsewhere. Playing musical chairs with the money doesn't convert it back to consumer spending.