Why is FAIR TRADE better than FREE TRADE?

[DBT]

When the point is to explain why someone is not worth what they're demanding, it's appropriate to give a full explanation, rather than short snappy slogans.

A waste of time because it remains true that workers have been losing market share of the wealth their labour generates for decades.

Again, they are not losing anything that they earned. Their "share" which they generated has been decreasing for decades, and so they take less, or a smaller percent of what is produced, because what they produce has become less, as they have become more replaceable and expendable and less needed and thus less valuable. All you're doing is demanding pity pay for them, not giving any reason why they should be paid more than they're getting.

Nothing has changed.

Your claims were wrong from the start.

What's wrong is your insistence that all workers are automatically entitled to be paid more only because the company found ways to increase the wealth produced, while those workers did nothing new to cause that increase in wealth produced -- but were only given a better machine to operate.

You forget that 'better machines' are more often than not designed by workers, built by workers, operated and maintained by workers using parts designed and produced by still other workers....which is what management hires people to do because the CEO and board of directors cannot actually do any of this themselves.

How do you calculate value, oh, defender of greed and avarice?

 

[Bomb#20]

Once again, no one can explain how "fair trade" is better than "free trade"...

You have yet to address the issue I brought up--cases where the relationship between the producer and distributor is far from free trade. It's common in third world areas--the individual producer has few choices in who to sell to and at a rigged price.

There's also the issue of not buying from the company that is destructive in it's operation. For an example of the problems of free trade, consider dolphin-safe tuna. Note how you can't find it anymore--that's because the WTO ruled it was an attempt to improperly protect domestic producers. No--it was an added value to ecologically-minded consumers, stamped out in the name of free trade.

Are you under the impression that the phrase "free trade" means "commanded by WTO bureaucrats"? Free trade is to the censorship of "dolphin-safe" as truth is to the Ministry of Truth.

 

[Bomb#20]

A waste of time because it remains true that workers have been losing market share of the wealth their labour generates for decades.

Again, they are not losing anything that they earned. Their "share" which they generated has been decreasing for decades, and so they take less, or a smaller percent of what is produced, because what they produce has become less, as they have become more replaceable and expendable and less needed and thus less valuable. All you're doing is demanding pity pay for them, not giving any reason why they should be paid more than they're getting.
...
What's wrong is your insistence that all workers are automatically entitled to be paid more only because the company found ways to increase the wealth produced, while those workers did nothing new to cause that increase in wealth produced -- but were only given a better machine to operate.

You forget that 'better machines' are more often than not designed by workers, built by workers, operated and maintained by workers using parts designed and produced by still other workers....which is what management hires people to do because the CEO and board of directors cannot actually do any of this themselves.

Yes; and the workers designed and built those machines because management and CEOs and boards of directors gave them a reason to, because the workers could not actually do this themselves. Production is a synergistic process in which the services of all the participants contribute to creating a whole that's greater than the sum of its parts.

How do you calculate value, oh, defender of greed and avarice?

Oh look, a Muslim and a Hindu are accusing each other of being superstitious.

 

[Jarhyn]

You forget that 'better machines' are more often than not designed by workers, built by workers, operated and maintained by workers using parts designed and produced by still other workers....which is what management hires people to do because the CEO and board of directors cannot actually do any of this themselves.

Yes; and the workers designed and built those machines because management and CEOs and boards of directors gave them a reason to, because the workers could not actually do this themselves. Production is a synergistic process in which the services of all the participants contribute to creating a whole that's greater than the sum of its parts.

How do you calculate value, oh, defender of greed and avarice?

Oh look, a Muslim and a Hindu are accusing each other of being superstitious.

And WHY couldn't the workers do this themselves? Who stood in front of them and said "you want to do this thing but cannot have the stuff to do so without first giving us ownership of the result before the fact."

CEOs and boards never gave me a "reason" to do anything. Rather, they gatekept the resources to do ANY thing of note and said "if you want to do any thing, we will not give access to the means unless you do the thing we want for us, and you get no access at all for your own ends."

That's not a reason, that's an exploitation.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Stop lying -- your poor downtrodden victims don't need it.

What's wrong is your insistence that all workers are automatically entitled to be paid more only because the company found ways to increase the wealth produced, while those workers did nothing new to cause that increase in wealth produced -- but were only given a better machine to operate.

You forget that 'better machines' are more often than not designed by workers, built by workers, operated and maintained by workers using parts designed and produced by still other workers....which is what management hires people to do because the CEO and board of directors cannot actually do any of this themselves.

Why do you keep lumping ALL "WORKERS" into the same category? Yes, a few of them, specialists, scientists and engineers etc., produce the better technology. But not the common low-level workers, the traditional factory workers you're pandering to.

Until you distinguish the COMPETITIVE workers from the UNcompetitive -- the few better performers, superior ones who create the new technology from the non-specialist common traditional factory workers who are a dime a dozen -- you are just pandering to the uncompetitive ones, patronizing them, pitying them, and reinforcing their inferiority, with your Crybaby Economics logic.

You are insulting those workers, not defending them, by falsely telling them that they created the better technology and deserve a reward for something they did not produce. Stop lying to them and tell them the truth, if you really believe they are not inferior scum.

(And it's a LIE to put all the workers into the same category -- "designed by workers, built by workers, operated and maintained by workers using parts designed and produced by still other workers" -- This refusal to distinguish the higher-level specialists from the common factory workers is a lie. You know it's only the higher-level specialists who produced the improved technology. You are lying as long as you continue to put them all together in the same category as you're doing here.)

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Again, employer-bashing and -scapegoating seems to be the "fair trade" bottom line.

The following post seems mostly off topic. But not entirely, so --


step 1: Defining "free trade" and "fair trade"

Until someone else says otherwise, here are the working definitions of "free trade" and "fair trade":

FREE TRADE: All buyers and sellers everywhere (including employers and wage-earners), from or to anywhere, are left free to set their prices based on whatever price both the individual buyer and seller agrees to in any particular transaction, with no 3rd party interfering to drive the price up or down from that agreed level. (Qualifier: "Free trade" is also defined as the elimination/reduction of barriers to trade across boundary lines. Though different, these definitions harmonize and are not contradictory, .)

FAIR TRADE: Free trade (as defined above) is OK except that in many/most/all cases the wage-earners in a transaction must be paid higher than that agreed to by the employer and wage-earner if left alone to decide the wage level -- So a 3rd party (e.g. the state) should interfere and set the wage level (or compensation) higher, and this higher level should be enforced by law or should be imposed by social pressure onto the employer who is guilty of a crime or social injustice to seek the lowest wage level, or the lowest price for labor. (Qualifer: "Fair trade" can also refer to compliance with environmental standards which are followed by some producers but not others, and those violating the standards ("unfair" trade) need to be corrected and brought into compliance. In this case "fair trade" is probably better than "free trade" and there is little need for a debate.)



income inequality -- overpaid CEOs

[DrZoidberg]:Aha, yes. Sorry. Yeah, it's funny that anybody who ever climbed the corporate ladder realizes that no, CEO's aren't overpaid. They are paid what they are pulling into the company. They're extremely dependable people. They're paid for the fact that they are willing to sacrifice everything and anything for the job. A job they are also good at. That costs money. Most people are not willing to sacrifice what it takes.

I climbed the corporate ladder to the executive board of directors in a German engineering and contractor ~1 billion euros in sales a year corporation. From what I saw in the board that I was on, the board that was responsible for the operation of the company, this is not anywhere close to being true.

As underpaid as I was as a hardworking engineer, project manager, and head of branch offices in Canada and the PRC, I was grossly overpaid as a board director in charge of R&D and long range planning.

Have you ever heard of the Peter Principle? I suggest that you do a search on it. In short, it says that in any organization, people tend to advance in the organization until they reach the first job that they are totally incompetent at doing. Most of the corporate executives are people in their Peter Principle jobs and always afraid that they will be found out and fired.

All that needs to be said here is that if it's true that CEOs (or certain other high-level personnel) are overpaid, the remedy to this is not to artificially increase the wages of lower-level workers. This would only increase the inefficiency of overpaying people and doing even more damage to society, which is entitled to have producers keep their costs low and direct the high profits more toward the benefit of consumers rather than to excessive salaries or other high costs.

There may be remedies to excessive salaries/compensation, but increasing wages above the market level (set by supply-and-demand) is not one of them.

Or to put it another way. If you are willing to sacrifice what it takes, you to can make that money. If you really want it. BTW, it's not worth it.

Aha. Yes. Since the wheels of the economy are spinning so efficiently, yes. Most people are unnecessary. Just wait until the robot revolution kicks off in earnest and most service jobs disappear. That's just around the corner now.

We know what has to be done to adapt to mechanization and automation because we have been doing it for the entire period of the industrial revolution. This is a welcome and a desirable feature of capitalism and the industrialization of it. We should do what we have always done in the past. We should . . .

Here's something we did in the past:

Jobs Created by ELIMINATING Wind Power *
Last year a wind-powered sawmill was built near the Strand, London. (The Strand is a major road following the Thames River.) Apparently it has been such a successful business that a lot of sawyers are out of work. (A sawyer is man who saws wood by hand.) King Charles the 1st of England is fighting an economic slump so he demolishes the sawmill in order to quell a possible riot and puts the sawyers back to work. [1] [2] [3] [4]
http://tspwiki.com/index.php?title=1634#Jobs_Created_by_ELIMINATING_Wind_Power_.2A

And there are probably some other examples of the same. There is a makework mentality still practiced today. What was the purpose of "bringing back the factories" from China, which not only Trump did (or tried to do) but also is promised by Biden and Bernie Sanders and other Left-wing demagogues. What purpose was served by that other than the same purpose served by King Charles I who destroyed the sawmill? What does the U.S. gain by forcing steel companies to pay Americans much higher wages to do the same job that was done in China at much lower cost?

You know the answer -- all together now:

"Jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs!"

What's the difference between Trump's "jobs! jobs! jobs!" from China and King Charles I's "jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs!" for those sawmill workers? Setting aside left-right disagreements, everyone agrees -- Trump and Biden and Bernie, Reds and Blues alike, Left and Right -- all agree on the need for "jobs! jobs! jobs!" = babysitting slots for uncompetitive crybabies.

We should do what we have always done in the past. We should shorten the workweek. Many companies have . . .

But we should also lay off workers, which also has been done in the past. Many of those workers were simply not needed any longer by that company and so were terminated, not necessarily kept and given a shorter workweek. In some cases a shorter workweek also means reduced total pay, because the same hourly pay is retained. There's nothing which says the hourly rate has to increase just because the company has adopted new technology which does the same job better than before. To demand that all the workers must be retained and paid the same rate as before is to impose an unnecessary high cost onto the company, reducing its profit and its incentive to expand production to serve consumers better. Serving consumers has to take priority over babysitting the employees in their "jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs!" where Charles I and Trump put them to keep them out of mischief.

. . . Many companies have already reduced the workweek from 40 to 36 hours a week with no loss in productivity.

How do you know there was "no loss"? You have no evidence to show that the productivity is the same as it would be if the workweek was 40 rather than 36 hours. Why are you insulting the workers by implying that that extra 4 hours of work by them would not be productive? Why wouldn't those 4 hours of work produce anything? Are those workers worthless after 36 hours? You think all workers suddenly become worthless when they reach their 36th hour of work for the week? You think all workers who toiled for 80 or 100 hours a week were all worthless after they passed their 36th hour? All the rest of their work that week was worthless? Who are you to condemn them as worthless?

We should lower the retirement age from 66 and whatever to 62.

Why not 52?

We should lengthen the time that people are in school and encourage national service to delay the age that people look to settle down and look for a job.

It is a mistake to believe that the market is efficient and always produces the best result.

The best rule is: The market is innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the accuser who says the market is wrong. If you can prove in a particular case that the market is wrong, then maybe in that one case it was wrong. Otherwise we should always assume the market produces the best result -- i.e., individual buyers and sellers making their free choice how much to pay or to charge for work done.

It is a mistake to believe that we have a perfect labor factor market that pays wages reflecting the contribution of a worker to the company.

Yes, it might be OVERpaying the worker, paying him/her not based on their contribution to the company and to society, but based on PITY toward them, because they need the income to pay for their family, to meet their private needs rather than the need of the company or society for them to do the work. It might be paying them like King Charles paid those sawmill workers, not for the work needed, but according to the need of those workers to have "jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs!" to keep them out of mischief. Like Donald Trump brought steelworker jobs from China to U.S. workers, to give them something to do to keep them out of mischief.

So yes, in that sense the wages paid may not really reflect the contribution of a worker.

These ideas don't reflect our reality. They are part of a fantasy of what the economy would be if we could have a self-regulating free market, which has . . .

We do have that, but there is no perfect free market or perfect anything.

. . . free market, which has never happened in the history of man's civilizations.

There has never been perfect democracy or justice or peace or liberty or human rights or anything else desirable. If you want a perfect system, you need to find a different galaxy to live in. As we get closer and closer to a self-regulating free market we become more prosperous and closer to the best possible outcome.

. . .

In the US the conservative line is that you have to be responsible for yourself and your family and by the way, we are going to suppress your wages so that the already rich can have . . .

Not conservatives like Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham and Anne Coulter etc., who want to PROP UP WAGE LEVELS by suppressing immigrant labor. They are always pandering to wage-earners about the need to prevent the immigrants from invading and stealing their jobs and suppressing their wage level. They condemn the Chamber of Commerce for being greedy and seeking cheap labor in the form of more immigrant work visas. So these conservatives are right there alongside you in your crusade to prop up the wage level at the expense of consumers who have to pay the resulting higher prices, and your crusade to scapegoat the greedy capitalist pig employers. Since Trump, the Right-Wingers have been flocking to join your employer-bashing crusade.

. . . so the already rich can have more income in the form of profits distributed as capital gains on stocks so that the already rich can pay less tax on them.

What? Who?

Why don't you make yourself useful for a change and get behind Bernie Sanders' proposal for a tax on Wall Street (every broken clock is right twice a day), which would be much simpler than trying to keep track of everyone's capital gains? Just have a tax on every stock sale, which is easily assessed and paid without any fanfare. So those who still rake in huge profits in stocks will end up paying a large price for it, being taxed on every transaction. And those already-rich do lots of stock transactions, having skilled day-traders gaming the system, knowing how to play it to accumulate large profits.

We will continue to push the falsehood that tax cuts for the rich is the best way to stimulate the economy, even though . . .

But what does "stimulate the economy" mean? Mainly it means "jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs!" -- which is crybaby nonsense. All we have to do to stop the "economic stimulus" babble is to do away with the "jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs!" babble. Once we stop encouraging companies to create "jobs! jobs! jobs! job!" mindlessly, there will be no more need for the "economic stimulus" and thus no need for the tax cuts, at which point we can then increase taxes as necessary to pay for needed infrastructure, and stop increasing public debt endlessly.

. . . to stimulate the economy, even though it never has, we will keep trying in the hope that some day it will.

No, we can stop hoping for "jobs! jobs! jobs!" and "economic stimulus" nuttiness and instead just increase taxes as necessary to pay for infrastructure. It's not just the conservatives who are preaching Nutcase Economics, but also the liberals/progressives who can't tear themselves away from the "jobs! jobs! jobs!" Crybaby Economics and "fair trade" demagoguery and who can't instead allow free trade to produce the wealth, taking advantage of the natural competition which occurs if the demagogues just get out of the way and let the market work, taking advantage of cheap labor and everything else to reduce costs.

The liberal line is that we can't be bothered with learning any economics, economics is so boring, so we are stuck with believing the fantasy that the labor market is a truly free market that reflects workers value to the company.

It's free if the employers and workers are left alone to make their individual choice. The "value" of the workers or anything else is determined by supply-and-demand: Oversupply of workers -> less worker value.

Instead, we will create a bunch of government programs to subsidize the companies who pay substandard wages that no one can live on.

The existence of parasitic corporate welfare is no excuse for them to overpay workers or anyone. The only proper response to corporate welfare is to end it, not to impose wasteful high costs onto them. Those corporate welfare programs are not necessary, and Left-wingers need to join free market crusaders to put an end to them, instead of pandering to crybaby wage-earners and unions.

In addition, we will believe in the fantasy that free trade is beneficial even to the workers whose jobs are lost to the low labor cost countries because it lowers the cost of a tv set and ignore the . . .

It's NOT beneficial to them? -- and to everyone -- that there are lower prices = lower cost of living? Why isn't it beneficial to them that we have lower prices as a result of more competition? A more competitive economy is NOT good for all of us? Higher cost is better?

"even to the workers whose jobs are lost" -- Again, what about those sawmill workers whose jobs were eliminated by the automated sawmill? I'd like someone to respond to this example, so I'll repeat it.:

Jobs Created by ELIMINATING Wind Power *
Last year a wind-powered sawmill was built near the Strand, London. (The Strand is a major road following the Thames River.) Apparently it has been such a successful business that a lot of sawyers are out of work. (A sawyer is man who saws wood by hand.) King Charles the 1st of England is fighting an economic slump so he demolishes the sawmill in order to quell a possible riot and puts the sawyers back to work. [1] [2] [3] [4]
http://tspwiki.com/index.php?title=1634#Jobs_Created_by_ELIMINATING_Wind_Power_.2A

Isn't it a fact that workers like these, and millions more, ALL consumers, benefit from lower prices as a result of automated factories which replace manual workers? That's the whole point of replacing the higher-paid workers with whatever or whoever can do it for less. Even the replaced workers themselves benefit overall from a better economy which produces the same output at lower cost.

If you don't think so, then you think it was right for King Charles I to destroy that automated sawmill to protect those "jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs!"? You and Trump and Pat Buchanan and RVonse.

"Fair trade" crusaders must respond to this and other examples of makework programs to create "jobs! jobs! jobs!" to provide income to victims rather than to get needed work done. Do you agree with King Charles protecting the jobs of those workers? Can't you recognize that this did more net damage to society? If you can't admit this, face this instead of pretending to support the worker-victims, you are a fraud and part of what is wrong. You are just as much to blame for what's wrong as any overpaid CEO or Trump demagogue, or communist or Right-wing fanatic, unless you stop the phony "jobs! jobs! jobs!" slogans and recognize the need for more free trade and competition -> reward those who perform better and let the less competitive suffer their lower pay status.

. . . because it lowers the cost of a tv set and ignore the easily proven fact that increasing the incomes of the already rich increases housing costs because the already rich save their money in real estate, driving the costs of real estate up along with rent.

This is a good argument for higher property tax, especially for a PROGRESSIVE PROPERTY TAX, but not an argument to prop up the wages of uncompetitive workers. Forcing all employers to pay higher wages, above the market price, does nothing to prevent the rich from investing in real estate and driving up housing costs. Why don't you really go after these "already rich" and their windfall profits, instead of scapegoating employers, many of whom are not the super-rich?

And that in the desire to maximize the incomes of the already rich we lowered the support for education, by lowering state and local taxes, increasing the costs of education, especially college tuition, wiping out the savings on that television and other consumer goods many times over.

And you think employer-bashing is the solution to that? and driving up labor cost in order to preserve uncompetitive "jobs" of crybabies like steelworkers and autoworkers who are in oversupply? How will that pay for education and other public needs? No, the solution is to increase some taxes on the rich, especially property taxes, especially with a progressive property tax which need not affect middle-income home ownership.

But scapegoating all employers just because they're in a minority class doesn't fix anything, but only lets you spew your hate for this class, which again and again is the only rationale for "fair trade" which anyone is offering here.

In addition, we will block out the fact that in 1980 we changed the political economics that determines the economic policies of the government because it would force us to think that possibly this was the reason why so many things changed in the economy like the increase in the income inequality instead of automation or the economy rewarding the better-educated workers even though the main beneficiaries of the income inequality are the people selling securities to the already rich, which doesn't require a high level of education.

Who? Where? What?

Whatever the above is saying, the truth about it can be summed up simply:

• Reaganomics was a mixed bag having both good and evil in it, and increased trade is always good;

• There's no reason ever to prop up wage levels higher than the market price for labor, which is based on the lowest wage an individual worker will accept;

• If too much income is going to the top elite, the solution is to tax that segment higher (maybe tax their "securities"), not penalize ALL employers as a class;

• Let employers choose and pay as needed the better workers, better-educated, rewarding them as an incentive to attract more -> better performance, in order to improve the production for ALL society, but not drive up ALL wages even to the less competitive;

• Always replace anyone or anything which costs more by whatever or whoever can produce the same at lower cost.

That's what "free trade" is based on. Whereas "fair trade" is based on pity for crybaby wage-earners no matter how uncompetitive and worthless they are.

 

[ZiprHead]

What's wrong is your insistence that all workers are automatically entitled to be paid more only because the company found ways to increase the wealth produced, while those workers did nothing new to cause that increase in wealth produced -- but were only given a better machine to operate.

You forget that 'better machines' are more often than not designed by workers, built by workers, operated and maintained by workers using parts designed and produced by still other workers....which is what management hires people to do because the CEO and board of directors cannot actually do any of this themselves.

Why do you keep lumping ALL "WORKERS" into the same category? Yes, a few of them, specialists, scientists and engineers etc., produce the better technology. But not the common low-level workers, the traditional factory workers you're pandering to.

Until you distinguish the COMPETITIVE workers from the UNcompetitive -- the few better performers, superior ones who create the new technology from the non-specialist common traditional factory workers who are a dime a dozen -- you are just pandering to the uncompetitive ones, patronizing them, pitying them, and reinforcing their inferiority, with your Crybaby Economics logic.

You are insulting those workers, not defending them, by falsely telling them that they created the better technology and deserve a reward for something they did not produce. Stop lying to them and tell them the truth, if you really believe they are not inferior scum.

(And it's a LIE to put all the workers into the same category -- "designed by workers, built by workers, operated and maintained by workers using parts designed and produced by still other workers" -- This refusal to distinguish the higher-level specialists from the common factory workers is a lie. You know it's only the higher-level specialists who produced the improved technology. You are lying as long as you continue to put them all together in the same category as you're doing here.)

 

[laughing dog]

.

That's what "free trade" is based on. Whereas "fair trade" is based on pity for crybaby wage-earners no matter how uncompetitive and worthless they are.

Your wall of text indicates a complete lack of knowledge about free trade. Free trade is mutual exchange where all parties are satisfied with the terms and conditions of the trade. For example, when one considers whether or not to buy an apple, one looks that type, the quality, the asking price, and perhaps the conditions under which the apple was grown and harvested. If one is satisfied that the apple and the seller meets all of one's criteria, then one engages in free trade to buy the apple. If one of the criteria to be met is that the apple pickers must be paid a fair wage (i.e. an example of what you seem to consider a condition of "fair trade") is satisfied, then there is free trade.

So it seems to me you are rants are misplaced. Fair trade is an example of free trade. It appears it is an example of free trade with which you disagree. People are free to choose to pay more for a product or service that meets their criteria for use/consumption. It is the antithesis of the notion of free trade to demand that people use your criterion to judge how to best satisfy their well-being.

 

[DBT]

You forget that 'better machines' are more often than not designed by workers, built by workers, operated and maintained by workers using parts designed and produced by still other workers....which is what management hires people to do because the CEO and board of directors cannot actually do any of this themselves.

Yes; and the workers designed and built those machines because management and CEOs and boards of directors gave them a reason to, because the workers could not actually do this themselves. Production is a synergistic process in which the services of all the participants contribute to creating a whole that's greater than the sum of its parts.

How do you calculate value, oh, defender of greed and avarice?

Oh look, a Muslim and a Hindu are accusing each other of being superstitious.

I have pointed out that both are necessary, that it's a partnership between owners/managers and workers.....the problem being - I hope you guessed it - a power imbalance between the two parties whenever employers have a pool of unemployed to draw from at will.

Which is why unions were formed in the first place, enabling collective bargaining, improving pay and conditions for workers.

 

[DBT]

What's wrong is your insistence that all workers are automatically entitled to be paid more only because the company found ways to increase the wealth produced, while those workers did nothing new to cause that increase in wealth produced -- but were only given a better machine to operate.

You forget that 'better machines' are more often than not designed by workers, built by workers, operated and maintained by workers using parts designed and produced by still other workers....which is what management hires people to do because the CEO and board of directors cannot actually do any of this themselves.

Why do you keep lumping ALL "WORKERS" into the same category? Yes, a few of them, specialists, scientists and engineers etc., produce the better technology. But not the common low-level workers, the traditional factory workers you're pandering to.

Until you distinguish the COMPETITIVE workers from the UNcompetitive -- the few better performers, superior ones who create the new technology from the non-specialist common traditional factory workers who are a dime a dozen -- you are just pandering to the uncompetitive ones, patronizing them, pitying them, and reinforcing their inferiority, with your Crybaby Economics logic.

You are insulting those workers, not defending them, by falsely telling them that they created the better technology and deserve a reward for something they did not produce. Stop lying to them and tell them the truth, if you really believe they are not inferior scum.

(And it's a LIE to put all the workers into the same category -- "designed by workers, built by workers, operated and maintained by workers using parts designed and produced by still other workers" -- This refusal to distinguish the higher-level specialists from the common factory workers is a lie. You know it's only the higher-level specialists who produced the improved technology. You are lying as long as you continue to put them all together in the same category as you're doing here.)

The exception being workers who have highly sought after skills, where employers compete in order to attract applicants.....which does not mean the rest of the workforce should be content to eke out a living while the rich get ever fatter on their labour.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You forget that 'better machines' are more often than not designed by workers, built by workers, operated and maintained by workers using parts designed and produced by still other workers....which is what management hires people to do because the CEO and board of directors cannot actually do any of this themselves.

How do you calculate value, oh, defender of greed and avarice?

And a lot of "missing" money ends up in the hands of those workers that build the better machines. It doesn't just go to the workers making the final product like it used to.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes; and the workers designed and built those machines because management and CEOs and boards of directors gave them a reason to, because the workers could not actually do this themselves. Production is a synergistic process in which the services of all the participants contribute to creating a whole that's greater than the sum of its parts.


Oh look, a Muslim and a Hindu are accusing each other of being superstitious.

And WHY couldn't the workers do this themselves? Who stood in front of them and said "you want to do this thing but cannot have the stuff to do so without first giving us ownership of the result before the fact."

CEOs and boards never gave me a "reason" to do anything. Rather, they gatekept the resources to do ANY thing of note and said "if you want to do any thing, we will not give access to the means unless you do the thing we want for us, and you get no access at all for your own ends."

That's not a reason, that's an exploitation.

Build the better machines themselves? Who is going to provide the materials and the time to do so even if they had the skill (and they almost certainly don't.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

View attachment 30310

Except that's not what happens. Those low jobs more and more end up being performed by a machine.

 

[DBT]

You forget that 'better machines' are more often than not designed by workers, built by workers, operated and maintained by workers using parts designed and produced by still other workers....which is what management hires people to do because the CEO and board of directors cannot actually do any of this themselves.

How do you calculate value, oh, defender of greed and avarice?

And a lot of "missing" money ends up in the hands of those workers that build the better machines. It doesn't just go to the workers making the final product like it used to.

Workers improved their lot through collective bargaining, as is their right, but for a number of reasons workers have been losing their share of the wealth they help to create, even while the rich have increased their own share.

Mechanization is increasingly becoming a factor, which creates another set of problems for workers, the economy and society in general.

 

[DBT]

View attachment 30310

Except that's not what happens. Those low jobs more and more end up being performed by a machine.

Which may not be sustainable if a significant percentage of the population don't have a job or an income.

 

[Jarhyn]

View attachment 30310

Except that's not what happens. Those low jobs more and more end up being performed by a machine.

Then make the fucking machine, or pay the goddamn worker.

 

[Bomb#20]

You forget that 'better machines' are more often than not designed by workers, built by workers, operated and maintained by workers using parts designed and produced by still other workers....which is what management hires people to do because the CEO and board of directors cannot actually do any of this themselves.

Yes; and the workers designed and built those machines because management and CEOs and boards of directors gave them a reason to, because the workers could not actually do this themselves. Production is a synergistic process in which the services of all the participants contribute to creating a whole that's greater than the sum of its parts.


Oh look, a Muslim and a Hindu are accusing each other of being superstitious.

I have pointed out that both are necessary, that it's a partnership between owners/managers and workers.....the problem being - I hope you guessed it - a power imbalance between the two parties whenever employers have a pool of unemployed to draw from at will.

Which is why unions were formed in the first place, enabling collective bargaining, improving pay and conditions for workers.

And that's all perfectly sensible, and a good reason for workers to unionize, and a good reason for large-scale production to generally use the shareholder/board/CEO/union/workers model so commonplace in the free world; but it's at odds with what you said earlier. Don't tell me that both are necessary; tell this guy:

And WHY couldn't the workers do this themselves? Who stood in front of them and said "you want to do this thing but cannot have the stuff to do so without first giving us ownership of the result before the fact."

CEOs and boards never gave me a "reason" to do anything. Rather, they gatekept the resources to do ANY thing of note and said "if you want to do any thing, we will not give access to the means unless you do the thing we want for us, and you get no access at all for your own ends."

That's not a reason, that's an exploitation.

Elsewhere I said you appeared to take the Labor Theory of Value on faith. You denied it at the time. And yet here you are, once again implying that the CEOs and the owners' representatives are unnecessary, that they're just obstacles, and that only labor contributes to production.

As to your question: why couldn't the workers do this themselves? A number of reasons. Most obviously, because they lack the skill set. The worker who knows how to design the better machine doesn't know how to find a worker who knows how to build it, or how to motivate him to follow her specifications. More subtly, but more importantly, neither worker has the ability to carry out a crucial step in the production process: to "gatekeep the resources to do ANY thing of note".

You talk of gatekeeping resources as though it's a negative, something that prevents production. But let's imagine nobody was gatekeeping the resources workers need for production. The designer and builder identify the resources they need to create the machine; they collect some, say, sheet metal; they start implementing her idea; and when it's half-built some third worker, not involved in building the machine, comes over and walks off with the remaining sheet metal to build his own project with. And then a fourth and fifth worker come over and walk off with the money the designer promised the builder to get him to follow her directions, because they haven't been paid for whatever they're making. And then a dozen more workers come over, toss the half-built machine into the street, and start converting the workshop into a shirt factory. And if somehow, against all odds, the designer and builder complete their machine, which they've kept ownership of since they never promised it to resource gatekeepers before the fact, well, it's nice that they own it, much joy may that give them; but some more workers come over and walk off with the machine itself, to operate it and maintain it and access it for their own ends. Because now the machine itself is... wait for it... a resource. That means if the designer and builder who own it tried to stop the other workers from stealing it, that would make the designer and builder resource gatekeepers, and we assumed there aren't any of those. All those people interfering with our protagonists are workers; they all have a plan for what they want to make; and nobody's gate-keeping the resources they need for it. So how are the machine designer and the machine builder going to stop all that from happening, one fist-fight after another? They'll lose. So if nobody is standing in front of them gate-keeping the resources until a deal is struck, then how on god's green earth do you figure the machine designer and the machine builder will have a reason to build half a machine they likely won't finish and certainly won't profit from, and probably get beaten up for their troubles?

Gatekeeping is essential for accomplishing anything in a world where resources are not infinite. You say CEOs and boards never gave you a reason to do anything. Well, if you ever worked in a company with a CEO and a board, then yes, they bloody well did. If you believe otherwise you're a faith-based initiative.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

"Business is business!" produces better results than --

-- "C'mon, have a heart, you dirty fucking greedy capitalist pig!"

View attachment 30310

Except that's not what happens. Those low jobs more and more end up being performed by a machine.

Then make the fucking machine, or pay the . . .

No, don't make the machine unless the machine can do the job at lower cost, which it cannot (yet).

. . . or pay the goddam worker.

They do pay the worker what the market (supply-and-demand) says the work is worth, i.e., what the employer is willing to pay and what the worker has agreed to as the minimum sufficient.

The alternative to this is to just eliminate the job, because it's not worth enough to pay anymore than the current wage. Why should the worker be paid anymore than the work is worth, as dictated by market supply-and-demand?

Or, what is the benefit of eliminating the job altogether and denying the worker this choice? How will that bring the worker up out of poverty?

The employer did not cause the worker's condition of poverty, so how is it the employer's responsibility to end this condition? What if the employer is also poor?


Also the original "If you want a living wage" quote is incorrect. The proper translation of the spin is not

"I acknowledge that your current job needs to be done, but I think whoever does that job deserves to live in poverty."

Rather, it's
"I acknowledge that your current job needs to be done, but the need is so marginal that it's not worth more than $1/day ($1/hour etc.)."

So, "get a better job" means "get a job which is more needed," or "get a job for which the current available workers are not in such oversupply."

And what about volunteer work ? ? ?

I.e., work done at ZERO wage? How are you not excluding all VOLUNTEER WORK with the above moralistic judgmentalism? No one yet has answered this, though it has been asked several times now.

If you're against cheap labor and exploitation, then why are you not condemning all VOLUNTEER work? the cheapest lowest-paid labor there can be? The reason no one is answering this is simply that cheap labor is good for the economy, despite all the moralistic foaming-at-the-mouth preaching of Vivian@Suchnerve and other "fair trade" hypocrites.

 

[Jarhyn]

-- "C'mon, have a heart, you dirty fucking greedy capitalist pig!"

Then make the fucking machine, or pay the . . .

No, don't make the machine unless the machine can do the job at lower cost, which it cannot (yet).

. . . or pay the goddam worker.

They do pay the worker what the market (supply-and-demand) says the work is worth, i.e., what the employer is willing to pay and what the worker has agreed to as the minimum sufficient.

The alternative to this is to just eliminate the job, because it's not worth enough to pay anymore than the current wage. Why should the worker be paid anymore than the work is worth, as dictated by market supply-and-demand?

Or, what is the benefit of eliminating the job altogether and denying the worker this choice? How will that bring the worker up out of poverty?

The employer did not cause the worker's condition of poverty, so how is it the employer's responsibility to end this condition? What if the employer is also poor?


Also the original "If you want a living wage" quote is incorrect. The proper translation of the spin is not

"I acknowledge that your current job needs to be done, but I think whoever does that job deserves to live in poverty."

Rather, it's
"I acknowledge that your current job needs to be done, but the need is so marginal that it's not worth more than $1/day ($1/hour etc.)."

So, "get a better job" means "get a job which is more needed," or "get a job for which the current available workers are not in such oversupply."

And what about volunteer work ? ? ?

I.e., work done at ZERO wage? How are you not excluding all VOLUNTEER WORK with the above moralistic judgmentalism? No one yet has answered this, though it has been asked several times now.

If you're against cheap labor and exploitation, then why are you not condemning all VOLUNTEER work? the cheapest lowest-paid labor there can be? The reason no one is answering this is simply that cheap labor is good for the economy, despite all the moralistic foaming-at-the-mouth preaching of Vivian@Suchnerve and other "fair trade" hypocrites.

So, more screed to try and justify the statement that creates the corollary that you want so badly to walk away from:

If your job requires a human, you are responsible for the human, or you are responsible for using the humans of society like disposable objects and machines. You are literally responsible for the decay of society. Good job!

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Can we have a real answer -- Why don't you also PROHIBIT VOLUNTEER WORK?

If low-paid labor is wrong, then why isn't volunteer work also wrong?

They do pay the worker what the market (supply-and-demand) says the work is worth, i.e., what the employer is willing to pay and what the worker has agreed to as the minimum sufficient.

The alternative to this is to just eliminate the job, because it's not worth enough to pay anymore than the current wage. Why should the worker be paid anymore than the work is worth, as dictated by market supply-and-demand?

Or, what is the benefit of eliminating the job altogether and denying the worker this choice? How will that bring the worker up out of poverty?

The employer did not cause the worker's condition of poverty, so how is it the employer's responsibility to end this condition? What if the employer is also poor?


Also the original "If you want a living wage" quote is incorrect. The proper translation of the spin is not

"I acknowledge that your current job needs to be done, but I think whoever does that job deserves to live in poverty."

Rather, it's
"I acknowledge that your current job needs to be done, but the need is so marginal that it's not worth more than $1/day ($1/hour etc.)."

So, "get a better job" means "get a job which is more needed," or "get a job for which the current available workers are not in such oversupply."

And what about volunteer work ? ? ?

I.e., work done at ZERO wage? How are you not excluding all VOLUNTEER WORK with the above moralistic judgmentalism? No one yet has answered this, though it has been asked several times now.

If you're against cheap labor and exploitation, then why are you not condemning all VOLUNTEER work? the cheapest lowest-paid labor there can be? The reason no one is answering this is simply that cheap labor is good for the economy, despite all the moralistic foaming-at-the-mouth preaching of Vivian@Suchnerve and other "fair trade" hypocrites.

So, more screed to try and justify the statement that creates the corollary that you want so badly to walk away from:

If your job requires a human, you are responsible for the human, . . .

No you're not -- that's just your religion. All that's required is that there's no fraud -- you don't lie to the human about the job, and you fulfill the obligation to pay what was agreed to -- and you don't force the human but allow him/her to refuse if they choose.

. . . or you are responsible for using the humans of society like disposable objects and machines.

Yes, all employers do that, including the government and volunteer organizations, with the difference that disposable objects and machines don't have any choice to refuse. Whereas humans have the choice to refuse, or to quit the job when it no longer suits them.

You are literally responsible for the decay of society.

All employers, no matter who or how much they pay their workers, are responsible for whatever they produce, good or ill. Saving on labor cost does not result in any decay. Society is improved by the production regardless how much or little the workers are paid. The workers are better off than if they did no job at all, which is why they make the choice. Your alternative of making the job illegal leaves those workers and society worse off.

Good job!

No, you get an "F" -- bad job! -- for failure to answer the question you pretend to be responding to. You're asked why your rule does not require making all volunteer work illegal, since that is the lowest-paying job there can be.

Again, if low-paid work is bad for society, why don't you make

all volunteer work illegal?

Got it? "VOLUNTEER" !!! = ZERO pay. nada $$$.

What's wrong that you cannot include the word "volunteer" in your answer? Does your keyboard choke up on that word? You at least have to include the word "volunteer" in your answer (or equivalent word) in order to presume to be answering the question.

(Many volunteer workers have to put up with shit and get pissed off at their supervisors. Some work very hard and are even driven to danger and injury and death.)