Why is FAIR TRADE better than FREE TRADE?

[Bomb#20]

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.
... 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.

What's your point? Are you suggesting that society should do something to stop people acting in their own interest against the interest of society?

The only benefit from not going to work is some direct gain the absent employee can extract, by getting some leisure time to have fun and do what he feels likes, where the employer submits to his demand to not do his job. It's always best for any worker to go to work, to increase total production rather than restricting it. The possible benefit from not working is not to society generally but only to the non-worker, but with an overall net loss to the society generally. People not going to work is a loss to everyone as total production is curtailed.

Does any of that qualify as a good reason for vacations to be made illegal?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

FREE TRADE = requires more thought, sometimes complex, utilitarian -- greatest good etc. Broader view.

FAIR TRADE = relies on simplistic slogans, often snappy, mindless but effective, shallow, minimum thought required, instant appeal to the idiot masses.

Ziprhead says that the more succinct statement is the truth, while "Walls of Text" have to be wrong. So "fair trade" wins, because the "FREE TRADE" argument is too long:

I said no such thing.

But I will say this. Hiding your incorrect conclusions in walls of text doesn't make them correct.

lower cost of production = lower price (for the same production) -> consumers / everyone made better off

I guess "everyone" in your utopia doesn't include the workers whom in . . .

It includes ALL CONSUMERS. So if they're consumers it obviously includes those workers no matter who they are. How can you think only some consumers benefit from lower prices and other do not? When consumers shop and pay prices they are not divided into separate groups which pay different prices according to what their employment is or what their wage level is or any other category they're in.

For you to be making any sense you must imagine that all shoppers, when they approach the checkout, are divided into different categories somehow, perhaps assigned to different checkout lines, according to what their employment is or their wage level, and then are charged differently, according to their respective category. Why do you think something like that? What planet, what galaxy are you from where they do anything like that? This is planet Earth where you go into a store and there are prices for all the items -- same prices for all those shoppers -- or you order on line, etc., and all the shoppers pay the same price regardless of their employment status or any job classification or income- or wage-level categorizing of the shoppers.

So how could any particular workers not be included among the consumers who benefit from the lower prices?

. . . "everyone" in your utopia doesn't include the workers whom in your view don't deserve a suitable wage.

There are no such workers, but even if there were, or even if your gibberish referred to some actual workers, whoever, they ALL benefit from lower prices. It's impossible for the term "all consumers" or "everyone" to not include all possible workers (as long as they're consumers), no matter how incompetent you are at describing them with your misuse of language and your misinterpretation and misunderstanding of what you're trying (but failing) to give a coherent response to.

Everyone, including every worker, is better off today because of cost savings going back for generations and even centuries. Bringing down the cost is always good for everyone in the future and also for 99.9% of everyone right then at the moment of the savings (if you want to exclude that individual replaced worker who is made worse off at that moment), as it means maximum cost-efficient production takes place to the benefit of ALL buyers/consumers from that moment forward.

Even a worker replaced by a machine, and thus made worse off at that moment, nevertheless benefits overall, in the long term, because of the millions of cost-saving measures going on or having gone on previously, in an economy where cost-savings is passed on to all consumers who benefit from the lower prices.

. . . workers whom in your view don't deserve a suitable wage.

I destroyed . . .

No, it's YOUR view that they don't deserve a "suitable wage," but rather that they deserve HIGHER than what is "suitable." A "suitable wage" is whatever price is agreed to by both the employer and worker, with no outside interference. No one has given any reason why this price is not "suitable" and not the best price, for the benefit of everyone.

If you make the "suitable wage" higher than necessary to get the work done and higher than the employer is willing to pay, then you are imposing something which curtails the work from being done at all, by discouraging the employer, which makes everyone worse off, because it's best if the work gets done by someone who chooses freely to do it (sometimes at a low wage level out of desperation) and which someone else wants done and is willing to pay for.

Your imposed "suitable wage" is not really "suitable" when the result of it is to prevent the work from ever getting done.

I destroyed your main conjecture in 19 words.

You sound like Trump boasting that he must be right because he gets larger turnouts to his rallies.

But it's true that you and Trump are good at pandering to a mob of idiots with short unintelligent cheap shots at employers who are an easy target for scapegoating sermons to destroy thoughtful conjecture (on the economic benefits of competition) and replace it with Crybaby Economics which the mindless masses accept more spontaneously with thunderous applause -- On this point you and Trump and Bernie Sanders are right and are good at destroying something and doing it in short easy-to-understand slogans catered to the idiot masses.

But such demagoguery and sloganism doesn't change the fact that your imposed "suitable wage" dogma means less production taking place, or work prevented from getting done (if your dogma prevails). And preventing needed work from getting done is a net loss to everyone, to society, or reduced standard of living for all. That's all your 19 words are good for. Do you imagine the harm your dogma would inflict is somehow mitigated by the reduced number of words you need in order to preach it, and the spontaneous appeal to mindless masses, like a bell gets a spontaneous response from a Pavlovian dog?

Do you see how that works?

You mean how Trump's larger crowds proves he's right, and how your dog-whistle language, and his, are more effective at winning applause?

Maybe you do "see" it better than I do. Somehow I missed that good training (at Trump University or wherever) and got caught up in arguments which prove the economic benefits of competition and individual free choice in the market, and utilitarianism, and other unpopular theories which put large audiences to sleep and are appreciated only by those thoughtful enough to critically differentiate fact from fiction.

So maybe you're correct in claiming that your dog-whistle language works more effectively. And so you win that argument, and a Nobel Prize for your superior preaching and demagoguery talent.

 

[RVonse]

The point is it's being done with the specific purpose of disrupting the business, as opposed to people simply quitting which would cause harm but doesn't have the intent of causing that harm.

Collective bargaining is the only way for free market capitalism to flourish and function. Otherwise the management side becomes a monopoly.

"If capitalism is fair then unionism must be. If men have a right to capitalize their ideas and resources of their country, then that implies the right of men to capitalize their labor" - Frank Lloyd Wright

Amazing how many of you can't comprehend blasphemy and just react by preaching.

Do you not believe in free market capitalism? If so, you should be the first to defend that neither labor nor management possesses a monopoly. The free market can only be the free market if both sides have the right to capitalize on what they bring to the table.

As for myself, I am very pro free market capitalism. Therefore I believe labor has every right to bargain collectively just has management has every right to sell to any market they may choose. I even believe that management has every right to acquire or purchase a competitor as long as that does not cause a monopoly. Hence the word "free" in free market capitalism. Meaning no government interference on how labor may conduct itself with management up to and including collective bargaining.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[ZiprHead]

FAIR TRADE = relies on simplistic slogans, often snappy, mindless but effective, shallow, minimum thought required, instant appeal to the idiot masses.

lower cost of production = lower price (for the same production) -> consumers / everyone made better off

I guess "everyone" in your utopia doesn't include the workers whom in . . .

It includes ALL CONSUMERS. So if they're consumers it obviously includes those workers no matter who they are. How can you think only some consumers benefit from lower prices and other do not? When consumers shop and pay prices they are not divided into separate groups which pay different prices according to what their employment is or what their wage level is or any other category they're in.

For you to be making any sense you must imagine that all shoppers, when they approach the checkout, are divided into different categories somehow, perhaps assigned to different checkout lines, according to what their employment is or their wage level, and then are charged differently, according to their respective category. Why do you think something like that? What planet, what galaxy are you from where they do anything like that? This is planet Earth where you go into a store and there are prices for all the items -- same prices for all those shoppers -- or you order on line, etc., and all the shoppers pay the same price regardless of their employment status or any job classification or income- or wage-level categorizing of the shoppers.

So how could any particular workers not be included among the consumers who benefit from the lower prices?

. . . "everyone" in your utopia doesn't include the workers whom in your view don't deserve a suitable wage.

There are no such workers, but even if there were, or even if your gibberish referred to some actual workers, whoever, they ALL benefit from lower prices. It's impossible for the term "all consumers" or "everyone" to not include all possible workers (as long as they're consumers), no matter how incompetent you are at describing them with your misuse of language and your misinterpretation and misunderstanding of what you're trying (but failing) to give a coherent response to.

Everyone, including every worker, is better off today because of cost savings going back for generations and even centuries. Bringing down the cost is always good for everyone in the future and also for 99.9% of everyone right then at the moment of the savings (if you want to exclude that individual replaced worker who is made worse off at that moment), as it means maximum cost-efficient production takes place to the benefit of ALL buyers/consumers from that moment forward.

Even a worker replaced by a machine, and thus made worse off at that moment, nevertheless benefits overall, in the long term, because of the millions of cost-saving measures going on or having gone on previously, in an economy where cost-savings is passed on to all consumers who benefit from the lower prices.

. . . workers whom in your view don't deserve a suitable wage.

I destroyed . . .

No, it's YOUR view that they don't deserve a "suitable wage," but rather that they deserve HIGHER than what is "suitable." A "suitable wage" is whatever price is agreed to by both the employer and worker, with no outside interference. No one has given any reason why this price is not "suitable" and not the best price, for the benefit of everyone.

If you make the "suitable wage" higher than necessary to get the work done and higher than the employer is willing to pay, then you are imposing something which curtails the work from being done at all, by discouraging the employer, which makes everyone worse off, because it's best if the work gets done by someone who chooses freely to do it (sometimes at a low wage level out of desperation) and which someone else wants done and is willing to pay for.

Your imposed "suitable wage" is not really "suitable" when the result of it is to prevent the work from ever getting done.

I destroyed your main conjecture in 19 words.

You sound like Trump boasting that he must be right because he gets larger turnouts to his rallies.

But it's true that you and Trump are good at pandering to a mob of idiots with short unintelligent cheap shots at employers who are an easy target for scapegoating sermons to destroy thoughtful conjecture (on the economic benefits of competition) and replace it with Crybaby Economics which the mindless masses accept more spontaneously with thunderous applause -- On this point you and Trump and Bernie Sanders are right and are good at destroying something and doing it in short easy-to-understand slogans catered to the idiot masses.

But such demagoguery and sloganism doesn't change the fact that your imposed "suitable wage" dogma means less production taking place, or work prevented from getting done (if your dogma prevails). And preventing needed work from getting done is a net loss to everyone, to society, or reduced standard of living for all. That's all your 19 words are good for. Do you imagine the harm your dogma would inflict is somehow mitigated by the reduced number of words you need in order to preach it, and the spontaneous appeal to mindless masses, like a bell gets a spontaneous response from a Pavlovian dog?

Do you see how that works?

You mean how Trump's larger crowds proves he's right, and how your dog-whistle language, and his, are more effective at winning applause?

Maybe you do "see" it better than I do. Somehow I missed that good training (at Trump University or wherever) and got caught up in arguments which prove the economic benefits of competition and individual free choice in the market, and utilitarianism, and other unpopular theories which put large audiences to sleep and are appreciated only by those thoughtful enough to critically differentiate fact from fiction.

So maybe you're correct in claiming that your dog-whistle language works more effectively. And so you win that argument, and a Nobel Prize for your superior preaching and demagoguery talent.

I've decided to stop talking to walls. They don't listen so it's unproductive.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Amazing how many of you can't comprehend blasphemy and just react by preaching.

I think you just set the record for destroying irony meters with one sentence.

Nobody is actually addressing the issues.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The objective is to threaten the business in order to get more money.



Ok, so you're fine with a mugger sticking you up at gunpoint because he needs money?

Or are felonies only ok when you don't like the victim?

Your analogy fails. You ignore all explanations and respond on emotive terms. A strike is a last resort. It is a defense against the power of business and its interest to keep wage costs down.

You're not rebutting it at all. Mugging you is probably his last resort to get his next fix.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Ok, so you're fine with a mugger sticking you up at gunpoint because he needs money?

Or are felonies only ok when you don't like the victim?

How about wage theft by employers?
Quote:
''Australia’s Fairwork Commission has so far this year examined more than a dozen cases of wage theft. Those cases involve hundreds of workers and millions of dollars in underpayments.

And it’s just the tip of the iceberg.

A significant report on the exploitation of migrant workers in Australia has been published this month. After a two-year inquiry by the federal Migrant Workers’ Taskforce, the report concludes that wage theft is widespread. Possibly as many as half of all temporary migrant workers are being underpaid.''

It recommends that the effectiveness of the small claims process under the Fair Work Act be reviewed.

''It also recommends increasing penalties under the Fair Work Act. These include giving courts the power to impose an adverse publicity order, requiring an offending business to notify the public it has cheated workers; and for the most serious cases of exploitation, of course, it has suggested criminal sanctions.

For four high-risk industries – horticulture, meat processing; cleaning and security – the report recommends a National Labour Hire Registration Scheme. Companies failing to comply with workplace laws would face potential deregistration.''

Sure, prosecute such cases. That has nothing to do with the validity of your arguments about strikes and actually is an argument against them, if your ideas worked these cases wouldn't exist.

 

[laughing dog]

Amazing how many of you can't comprehend blasphemy and just react by preaching.

I think you just set the record for destroying irony meters with one sentence.

Nobody is actually addressing the issues.

You already set the record for destroying irony meters with one sentence - no need to try to break it so soon.

Still waiting for you to provide a link to federal, state or local law that makes disrupting a business illegal.

 

[SimpleDon]

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.

Once again, you ignore the role of profits in this discussion of the income distribution in the economy. Lower wages don't result in lower costs for goods and services in the economy; they result in higher profits. Profits are what is left over after the bills are paid for all of the costs of production.

In essence, you argue that the producer doesn't have any control over the prices paid for his products because the price is set by supply and demand, except in the case of higher wages, then somehow supply and demand setting prices is suspended and he can raise his prices to keep his profits the same.

Even if your belief in how prices are set was more realistic, for example, that the producer sets his price to generate a sales volume to guarantee a return to investment, you have the problem of a disconnect between what he uses to set his price and how he ignores it to increase his prices if wages go up. If he increases his prices his sales volume will decrease. He would probably be better off accepting a lower profit per unit but a higher overall profit if he maintains his sales volume.

You are also ignoring the damage to society and the economy by the high profits that produce the Gilded Age level of income inequality. It produces social pressures for change as workers realize that they are getting screwed but they don't know who is responsible and they do stupid things like to elect an unqualified, pseudo-fascist to the presidency of the US. Many of them die as a result.

You are also ignoring the benefits of higher wages to the economy. The more money the workers have the more that they buy, stimulating the economy. The more money the already rich have from higher profits, the more money they save and take out of the economy.

For what you say about the economy, all of the following would have to be true,

• the economy is lead by supply, that is it is starved for investment, and absent that investment the economy doesn't grow
• the labor market sets wages based on the supply and the demand for labor and the wages that result reflect the value that the labor adds to the product produced
• trade is based on comparative advantage where every country of 220 countries in the world has a comparative advantage producing at least one of the tens of thousands of products produced in the world
• that our change in political economics, the economics that determines our government's economic policies, in about 1980, either didn't happen or did happened but didn't change the economy in any measurable way, the economy just spontaneously changed itself to produce the Glided Age II of high-income inequality

None of these are true.

• the industrial economy is demand lead, no investment is made unless a business believes that the demand exists for the product that will be produced by the investment
• wages are based on the relative negotiating strength of employer and employee, absent a union or other collective scheme like industrial sector wage setting the employees have little negotiating strength against the massive corporations of today, especially if you allow corporations to move to low wage countries, these means that there are two choices, tolerate the unions or return to the times of small locally based companies by breaking up the large multinational corporations
• there is no comparative advantage, low wage countries are always going to have an absolute advantage over high wage countries
• the current income inequality that we are experiencing is the direct result of our change to a neoliberal political economics set of government policies that eliminated the support for the unions, reducing workers negotiating strength at the same time that neoliberalism allowed free movement of financial capital, money, between countries, letting corporations move factories to low wage countries, the main result of this has not been lower prices for the consumer but higher profits for the corporations

It finally comes down to who do you think is more important to the health of a nation's society, the people or the corporations? You come down clearly, whether you realize it or not, on the side of the corporations. In spite of being "rather comfortable" myself, having earned enough the last decade that I worked, to stay in the 1% where I certainly profited from the policies that you are championing here, I come down firmly on the side of the people.

Corporations have provided us with many benefits, returns to scale, self-financed investments, and robust research and development. But they are not a spontaneous development of a "natural" economy, but one totally dependent on the government to define them and to police them to prevent bad behavior in their operation. They are artifices meant to improve the operation of the economy, nothing more. We don't owe them anything, including higher profits, reduced regulations, lower taxes, etc.

Profits are important to the operation of the economy. Profits provide the incentives to invest and they provide the financial capital needed to invest. Historically, corporate profits have been twice the amount of corporate investment, the difference was distributed to the shareholders as dividends, their payments to justify their risk-taking by using their savings to own stock in the corporations.

But today profits have been six to seven times the amount of corporate investment in the US. This level of profits only enriches the already rich, it doesn't provide any benefit to the economy, as this high level of profits has been produced by lower wages they have hurt the economy.

 

[DBT]

Amazing how many of you can't comprehend blasphemy and just react by preaching.

I think you just set the record for destroying irony meters with one sentence.

Nobody is actually addressing the issues.

The issue has been explained, stats and examples given....only to be ignored and the same objections trotted forward as if nothing was ever said.

 

[DBT]

Ok, so you're fine with a mugger sticking you up at gunpoint because he needs money?

Or are felonies only ok when you don't like the victim?

How about wage theft by employers?
Quote:
''Australia’s Fairwork Commission has so far this year examined more than a dozen cases of wage theft. Those cases involve hundreds of workers and millions of dollars in underpayments.

And it’s just the tip of the iceberg.

A significant report on the exploitation of migrant workers in Australia has been published this month. After a two-year inquiry by the federal Migrant Workers’ Taskforce, the report concludes that wage theft is widespread. Possibly as many as half of all temporary migrant workers are being underpaid.''

It recommends that the effectiveness of the small claims process under the Fair Work Act be reviewed.

''It also recommends increasing penalties under the Fair Work Act. These include giving courts the power to impose an adverse publicity order, requiring an offending business to notify the public it has cheated workers; and for the most serious cases of exploitation, of course, it has suggested criminal sanctions.

For four high-risk industries – horticulture, meat processing; cleaning and security – the report recommends a National Labour Hire Registration Scheme. Companies failing to comply with workplace laws would face potential deregistration.''

Sure, prosecute such cases. That has nothing to do with the validity of your arguments about strikes and actually is an argument against them, if your ideas worked these cases wouldn't exist.

Have you understood the nature and reason for strikes? Based on your objections, I would say not. To repeat, a strike is a last resort, therefore the only option left workers to improve their pay and conditions.

Most of the time the issue is resolved. Without collective bargaining, the resolution falls in favour of the management; this is the contract, take it or leave it.

With collective bargaining the balance of power moves toward being somewhat equalized.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Once again, you ignore the role of profits in this discussion of the income distribution in the economy. Lower wages don't result in lower costs for goods and services in the economy; they result in higher profits. Profits are what is left over after the bills are paid for all of the costs of production.

If one company cuts wages it raises profits. If everyone copies that competition drives prices down so the profit level is where it was before.

In essence, you argue that the producer doesn't have any control over the prices paid for his products because the price is set by supply and demand, except in the case of higher wages, then somehow supply and demand setting prices is suspended and he can raise his prices to keep his profits the same.

You are ignoring the fact that it applies to your competition also.

Any change that applies only to your company doesn't get passed on. Any change that applies to the whole industry simply gets passed on.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Nobody is actually addressing the issues.

The issue has been explained, stats and examples given....only to be ignored and the same objections trotted forward as if nothing was ever said.

Nothing that is actually on target has been presented.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Sure, prosecute such cases. That has nothing to do with the validity of your arguments about strikes and actually is an argument against them, if your ideas worked these cases wouldn't exist.

Have you understood the nature and reason for strikes? Based on your objections, I would say not. To repeat, a strike is a last resort, therefore the only option left workers to improve their pay and conditions.

Most of the time the issue is resolved. Without collective bargaining, the resolution falls in favour of the management; this is the contract, take it or leave it.

With collective bargaining the balance of power moves toward being somewhat equalized.

As I said, preaching. You're acting as if this is in some way a rebuttal to a strike being extortion.

 

[DBT]

Sure, prosecute such cases. That has nothing to do with the validity of your arguments about strikes and actually is an argument against them, if your ideas worked these cases wouldn't exist.

Have you understood the nature and reason for strikes? Based on your objections, I would say not. To repeat, a strike is a last resort, therefore the only option left workers to improve their pay and conditions.

Most of the time the issue is resolved. Without collective bargaining, the resolution falls in favour of the management; this is the contract, take it or leave it.

With collective bargaining the balance of power moves toward being somewhat equalized.

As I said, preaching. You're acting as if this is in some way a rebuttal to a strike being extortion.

What you say is neither an argument or a rebuttal. Your opinion holds no weight.

Consider the conditions for workers at the beginning of the industrial revolution;

''Poor workers were often housed in cramped, grossly inadequate quarters. Working conditions were difficult and exposed employees to many risks and dangers, including cramped work areas with poor ventilation, trauma from machinery, toxic exposures to heavy metals, dust, and solvents. Consequently, progress brought a whole new set of health problems that were widespread in Europe and in America.''

''In the late 1800s, workers organized unions to solve their problems. Their problems were low wages and unsafe working conditions. First, workers formed local unions in single factories. These unions used strikes to try to force employers to increase wages or make working conditions safer.''

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why is it necessary to police all employers? but not other buyers? What problem does it solve?

Why not just leave all individual buyers and sellers alone to set their own terms freely?

. . .

But the judgment that some workers are underpaid is not ever explained. It's just a crybaby demand without anyone ever explaining what justifies any workers being paid above what the market says is their value.

Why should we just start with this religious premise that wages are too low? It makes no sense really, because the truth is that many workers are paid high wages, because they are more valuable. Just because there might be a general trend toward low or stagnant wages does not change the fact that workers who are more competitive are paid very high, because their higher value is rewarded.

So before whining that wages are too low, you first have to identify WHICH ones, or which workers are underpaid, and then explain how you know they're underpaid. How do you know it's not just that their value is lower, or is stagnating? If their value has stagnated, or even decreased, then shouldn't their wage level also stagnate, or decrease?


Is something wrong in the economy, causing some wage stagnation?

Maybe something has gone wrong with the U.S. economy, or the global economy, such that the living standard has not increased for everyone as it should, and that only a tiny minority elitist class has benefited recently.

It's a legitimate theory that there is something wrong somewhere. But it doesn't seem to have anything to do with wage-earners per se as being the victims. Rather, you could say there's an inequality gap which is too large, and it's not only wage-earners, but also independent contractors who are suffering some bad result from it.

Also, there are a few "workers" who are well-paid who are in the elitist class which benefits.

If so, then let's stop the obsession on wage-earners, and the scapegoating of employers (many of whom are middle-class and poor), and instead figure out if something is wrong with the economy. The above Forbes article by Josh Bersin doesn't sound like anything other than just a crybaby-pandering appeal to feel sorry for wage-earners, because they're a majority of the producers, and it's always popular to say whatever the idiot masses want to hear, regardless whether it makes any sense. He doesn't name any problem in the economy, but just seems to want to scapegoat employers, because this wins applause from the mass of wage-earner crybabies out there.

You want an explanation for what's wrong with the economy? Alright, here's a theory which makes sense, and fits the facts:

The problem is caused by the
extreme debt addiction, beginning in the 1930s in the U.S., and in most other countries also in the 20th century.

This extreme debt did not exist prior to the 1930s, and the extent of it has gradually increased, with some ups and downs along the way, ever since it began almost 100 years ago. These high debts, way out of line from anything ever thought reasonable prior to 1930, can be causing constant ANTIstimulus shocks to the economy, regularly happening, because that debt has to be paid back, and is paid back, with perhaps a small percent of increase in the unpaid balance, but still there is no default (or virtually none), so that it's all paid back regularly, on schedule, and every repayment of debt (principle and interest) is just another ANTIstimulus to the economy every time it happens, which is just about all the time.

Why shouldn't this be doing constant damage to the economy? Not only to the U.S., but to most other countries also? especially the ones which have the higher chronic debt level?

Doesn't the STIMULUS benefit the economy short-term, causing new jobs and businesses to expand? That stimulus happens when the debt money is increased, so that taxes are lower and there's more spending to GOOSE the economy. Now, that being the case, doesn't it make sense that the OPPOSITE, a payback of the debt, paying off the bond-holders regularly, has the OPPOSITE effect on the economy, causing an ANTIstimulus equal to the stimulus caused earlier when the money was borrowed?

And with these constant ANTIstimulus shocks, just as strong as the earlier stimulus benefits, it's likely that the jobs and businesses will be negatively impacted, so that constantly, regularly, every year, along with the new federal deficit for that year, there is also the ANTIstimulus, usually just as strong as the stimulus that year from the current deficit.

So maybe that's what's wrong with the economy. It's not that there's something wrong with wages per se, but there's something more general going wrong, hitting everyone except the top 1%, and dragging down everyone's living standard, or making everyone's income stagnate.

It makes no sense to say there is something wrong with the wage level that's causing whatever is wrong. No theory about that makes any sense, and there's no empirical evidence connecting low wages causally to whatever it is that's wrong.

But we know that an ANTIstimulus has to hurt the economy and do damage to most people. And these ANTIstimuluses are happening regularly, and have gotten steadily worse since they began 80 or 90 years ago. Which is the period during which we have seen this increasing stagnation of the economy, where it seems only the top 1 - 10 % benefit significantly, while most of the population has to struggle to survive.

This makes much more sense to explain what's wrong than the popular impulse to scapegoat employers.

Your translation is false, employers, being human, are no better or worse than anyone else.

Then why do you scapegoat them? When you single out one sector of the economy and impose terms onto them forcing them to pay a price higher than the market price set by supply-and-demand, and you don't force that onto any other buyers, you are scapegoating that sector and assaulting them because you hate that one class. You can't give any reason why employers as a class must be assaulted like this. It can only be class hatred against them because of your prejudice against this class. Some of them are marginal and cannot afford to pay the high labor cost you impose onto them.

Explain why you insist on punishing this particular class, and demanding pity for another, the wager-earner class. What problem do you think you're solving by this erratic lashing out at one class while giving unconditional reward to another?

You keep emphasizing the income inequality and the stagnant wages (of some) in recent times, as if this is the problem, and then your employer-bashing crusade is the solution. But why do you think this problem is basically about employers or about the wage level? rather than a general income-inequality phenomenon mostly unrelated to employers or wage levels? I.e., there are plenty of NON-employers who are in this top elite 1%, or .1%, and yet your crackdown on all employers leaves these non-employers totally unaffected. They are part of the inequality problem you're citing, and yet you're letting them totally off the hook. And your solution would still leave millions of poor people untouched, even make them worse off, because they are not wage-earners who would gain the higher wages you're demanding.

The increasing income inequality may be a legitimate flaw in the economy somewhere which needs correcting. But your solution leaves it totally unresolved. Your solution would leave the lowest-income level, or the bottom, mostly still at the bottom with no improvement whatever, because your solution helps only some union workers and other wage-earners -- NOT ALL, but only some -- who might gain an instant income increase, while at the same time eliminating jobs for others, and also totally ignoring millions of independent contractors who are struggling to survive and will be made worse by your plan, because your program would increase costs -> higher prices -> higher cost of living, but give them nothing more to spend (because they're not among those workers who'd get the higher wage you impose).

Why can't you see that there may be something else causing the economic problem -- the growing inequality -- which is not simply that all employers are villains who have to punished? which is all your plan offers?

In my above Wall of Text I tried to offer an explanation of what is really wrong and needs fixing, and this could be what's causing the problem you're claiming to solve with your employer-bashing solution, which does not address what is really wrong.

We, being human, tend to look after our own interests first and foremost.

Employers, being human, look after their own interests, keeping costs down, maximizing profits.

But that's what EVERYONE does. Yet it's only this one class you impose this punishment onto. Wage-earners also try to keep down their costs and maximize "profits." And many multimillionaires who are not employers look after their own interests and maximize their profits. So, why are you obsessing on employers as being the cause of evil and needing to be crushed? Name something they are guilty of, or some harm they do, requiring us to crack down on them by forcing them to pay higher than the market wage set by supply-and-demand.

. . . maximizing profits, which puts their interests in conflict with workers, who also want what is best for themselves.

Yes, they're the same as employers basically. They also hire people, like gardeners or babysitters or plumbers or cab drivers, etc., and they try to minimize all these costs and maximize their profits. And some workers actually get rich and reach the top 1% and become part of that unequal elite. Many workers also hire labor, and they pay for stuff -- which is the same as hiring someone -- and they shop for lower prices = lower income to someone (who produced the stuff), even lower wages to someone.

Why is it only "employers" you want to assault with demands that they pay higher than the market value for the labor they hire? When you're served at a restaurant or market or repair shop etc. you're not forced to pay higher than the market price because you're always free to shop for a lower price. So why shouldn't "employers" also be free to shop for a lower price? i.e., for someone who will do the same job for less? Haven't you ever shopped for a lower-cost plumber or carpenter or car repair shop or barber or street vendor or gardener? Why does shopping for a better deal suddenly become a sin when it's the "employer" who does it?

Tell us what is special about employers that in their case -- and ONLY in their case! -- it is a sin to shop for a better deal.

If there was a fair balance in power between the two, both parties could do well as a partnership working together to build wealth for both.

How can a poor independent contractor offering a service ever achieve equal power with a multimillionaire offering to pay a low price for it? In what kind of imaginary utopia could there ever be a "fair balance" between all parties engaging in business?

What is wrong with the two doing business on any terms they both freely agree to, regardless of the power imbalance between them? Why do you insist on suppressing them from doing business, when it's what they both choose to do? If you can't agree on terms with someone, you're free to reject the deal. What more do you want? Why can't you leave others alone to make their free choice, to accept or reject the deal on whatever terms they freely choose? Why are you obsessed with interfering with others doing business based on your perception of some power imbalance between them? As long as that poor wretch is not being threatened with violence by the other, why does it matter that they're unequal and yet come to agreement on the terms? Why is that not OK?

In 99% of cases where an extremely poor person does a deal of some kind with a multimillionaire, the end result is probably better for both of them. Probably 99.9%. With no need for the state or anyone else to interfere. Any such interference probably makes the poor worse off, not better. You can't name a case where interfering makes them better off.

Sadly, for the given reasons, this is not the case.

What "reasons"?

No, you have not given any reasons why that poor person and that multimillionaire should not be allowed to engage in their transaction, whatever it is, and on whatever terms they agree to. As long as neither threatened the other with violence in order to get their terms imposed onto the other.

Give one example. You've never given any. Give one case where a transaction between a rich and a poor person was bad for either of them, or for anyone, regardless of the power imbalance. Stop pretending you've explained why such transactions cannot be allowed. Answer why the terms must be transacted or approved by anyone other than those two.

 

[laughing dog]

Sure, prosecute such cases. That has nothing to do with the validity of your arguments about strikes and actually is an argument against them, if your ideas worked these cases wouldn't exist.

Have you understood the nature and reason for strikes? Based on your objections, I would say not. To repeat, a strike is a last resort, therefore the only option left workers to improve their pay and conditions.

Most of the time the issue is resolved. Without collective bargaining, the resolution falls in favour of the management; this is the contract, take it or leave it.

With collective bargaining the balance of power moves toward being somewhat equalized.

As I said, preaching. You're acting as if this is in some way a rebuttal to a strike being extortion.

To be fair, you have not made a reality-based argument that a strike is extortion.

Your entire argument appears to be based on a flawed premise:
1) that workers who do not show up to work intend to harm their employer, and
2) that it is illegal to "disrupt a business:.

The first has no basis in logic, reason or reality. Strikers are are saying "We will not work for the pay you are offering". You have not offered any sane rebuttal to statement of reality.

While you have had some time to offer links to federal, state or local laws to substantiate your claim that it is illegal to "disrupt" a business, you have failed to provide a single link. Which strongly suggests your premise is bunkum.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As I said, preaching. You're acting as if this is in some way a rebuttal to a strike being extortion.

What you say is neither an argument or a rebuttal. Your opinion holds no weight.

Consider the conditions for workers at the beginning of the industrial revolution;

''Poor workers were often housed in cramped, grossly inadequate quarters. Working conditions were difficult and exposed employees to many risks and dangers, including cramped work areas with poor ventilation, trauma from machinery, toxic exposures to heavy metals, dust, and solvents. Consequently, progress brought a whole new set of health problems that were widespread in Europe and in America.''

''In the late 1800s, workers organized unions to solve their problems. Their problems were low wages and unsafe working conditions. First, workers formed local unions in single factories. These unions used strikes to try to force employers to increase wages or make working conditions safer.''

You continue to explain why they did it, you aren't addressing why it's not extortion.

I've explained why the mugger does it. If why they do it is enough then the mugger is just as good as the strike.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As I said, preaching. You're acting as if this is in some way a rebuttal to a strike being extortion.

To be fair, you have not made a reality-based argument that a strike is extortion.

Your entire argument appears to be based on a flawed premise:
1) that workers who do not show up to work intend to harm their employer, and
2) that it is illegal to "disrupt a business:.

The first has no basis in logic, reason or reality. Strikers are are saying "We will not work for the pay you are offering". You have not offered any sane rebuttal to statement of reality.

While you have had some time to offer links to federal, state or local laws to substantiate your claim that it is illegal to "disrupt" a business, you have failed to provide a single link. Which strongly suggests your premise is bunkum.

If it really were just about not working for the pay offered it should be treated as quitting. The company hires others and the ones that left don't get unemployment.