Capital freedom of movement

[ksen]

You are absolutely correct. But it seems that life is a series of trade offs. If someone wants to remain in their home town close to friends and family then they are limited in their choice of work (and pay) to what is available in that area.

There are always trade offs with both labor and capital.

I think what ksen is advocating here is not removal of practical tradeoffs but of the artificial constraints that prevent labor and/or capital flowing when there is a mutually agreeable arrangement possible.

Yes.

For example, if Person A wants to hire someone for $6 per hour and Person B want to take that job for $6 per hour, there shouldn't be some law that says that labor can't flow.

Ummm . . .

- - - Updated - - -

I think what ksen is advocating here is not removal of practical tradeoffs but of the artificial constraints that prevent labor and/or capital flowing when there is a mutually agreeable arrangement possible.

That sounds out of character -- mutually agreeable arrangement rarely seems to carry much weight with him. Perhaps what he's advocating here is instead the imposition of additional artificial constraints on the movement of capital.

Would also consider.

 

[ksen]

It is labor unions that object and pushed for legislation to stop those "fucking foreigners from coming in and stealing our jobs".

That was the case until about 60 years ago. Today organized labor is one of the biggest supporters of immigration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_policies_of_American_labor_unions
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...ation-how-unions-got-board-immigration-reform

 

[laughing dog]

You really think there would tens or hundreds of millions of immigrants trying to enter the US if we had completely open borders? Where would all these people come from?

Mexico, China, Guatemala, Indonesia, Rhodesia, Nicaragua, etc. etc.
Hell, there are millions just in Mexico who would love to get here. Chinese are so anxious to get here that they die in cargo crates trying to slip past our emigration authorities.

I've often wondered how hard it must be to be a conservative and to be burdened with so many irrational fears and ideas.

 

[untermensche]

In what world is labor "free" to move where it wants?

There are a lot of Mexicans ans South Americans trying to get into the US to work who are clearly not free to do so.

And a human cannot just go wherever they choose. There are costs and needs to consider.

Labor is extremely immobile and always will be. Because labor is people with needs in a world of costs.

You really need to work on your reading comprehension skills - or better, develop some.

Another response from you devoid of any content. You probably don't even comprehend you're doing it.

These Mexicans ARE needed. There is plenty of work for them. Capital can most definitely use them.

I know you like to live in your little imaginary world but in the real one there are huge risks and costs for labor to move anywhere.

While capital flows extremely freely. The system is set up for it. It is one way labor costs are kept low.

 

[coloradoatheist]

You really need to work on your reading comprehension skills - or better, develop some.

Another response from you devoid of any content. You probably don't even comprehend you're doing it.

These Mexicans ARE needed. There is plenty of work for them. Capital can most definitely use them.

I know you like to live in your little imaginary world but in the real one there are huge risks and costs for labor to move anywhere.

While capital flows extremely freely. The system is set up for it. It is one way labor costs are kept low.

Except the issue is that the workers who are on the receiving end of the labor movement are richer. Hence why extreme poverty has dropped something like half in the last 20 years.

 

[untermensche]

Another response from you devoid of any content. You probably don't even comprehend you're doing it.

These Mexicans ARE needed. There is plenty of work for them. Capital can most definitely use them.

I know you like to live in your little imaginary world but in the real one there are huge risks and costs for labor to move anywhere.

While capital flows extremely freely. The system is set up for it. It is one way labor costs are kept low.

Except the issue is that the workers who are on the receiving end of the labor movement are richer. Hence why extreme poverty has dropped something like half in the last 20 years.

Have wages increased at the same rate pay to top executives has increased?

 

[coloradoatheist]

Except the issue is that the workers who are on the receiving end of the labor movement are richer. Hence why extreme poverty has dropped something like half in the last 20 years.

Have wages increased at the same rate pay to top executives has increased?

How about wage increases for the ordinary workers who are top performers?

 

[untermensche]

Have wages increased at the same rate pay to top executives has increased?

How about wage increases for the ordinary workers who are top performers?

Who defines "top performer"?

How many are permitted to even try at being "top performers"?

How many are necessary to support so-called "top performers"?

 

[bilby]

There are always trade offs with both labor and capital.

I think what ksen is advocating here is not removal of practical tradeoffs but of the artificial constraints that prevent labor and/or capital flowing when there is a mutually agreeable arrangement possible.

For example, if Person A wants to hire someone for $6 per hour and Person B want to take that job for $6 per hour, there shouldn't be some law that says that labor can't flow.

Actually I am all for open boarders but the other things that ksen wants makes it impractical.

Unless 'ksen' is the screen name of President Obama, what he wants has little influence on whether or not open borders are practical.

Labor unions which ksen is crazy about were the primary supporters of legislation to stop migrant workers from coming in and "taking our jobs".

That's a problem for ksen (if true), and for the unions who take such a position; but it does not render open borders impractical unless the labor unions are far more powerful than they appear.

The liberal welfare programs to assist the poor would collapse under the weight of tens or hundreds of millions that would flood in if our boarders were opened.

Not necessarily; there is nothing in the idea of freedom of movement across a border to seek work that requires it to also include rights to welfare payments. Many nations already have visa classes for non-citizens that allow them to work (and pay taxes), but not to access unemployment benefits, or to vote (amongst other things). If such visas were given free of charge to any applicant (or to the vast majority of applicants), then people could go wherevever they like, but could only vote and/or claim welfare benefits if they become citizens.

The existing distinction between citizenship and residency is sufficient to eliminate this supposed 'problem'

Ksen seems to be an idealist that doesn't understand the concept of trade offs.

Perhaps; but that has no bearing whatever on the value or practicality of open border policies for people seeking work.

But still, if someone develops a skill that is needed and can't be filled by the local population then those limitations are dropped and the worker is welcomed in with open arms, in my case they payed me and paid my expenses to come for an interview then paid the expenses of my moving there.

Good for you.

 

[coloradoatheist]

How about wage increases for the ordinary workers who are top performers?

Who defines "top performer"?

How many are permitted to even try at being "top performers"?

How many are necessary to support so-called "top performers"?

The business would define top performers, so what percentage of workers worked their way up? And CEOs of most major corporations are just workers too.

 

[DBT]

So only 'top performers' have notable value in the corporate scheme of things. The rest go on substandard pay rates and there they stay until they improve their performance....but if enough of them actually happen to improve their performance to a significant degree, the performance bar is just raised higher. No prizes for guessing who benefits the most from this pressure cooker environment.

 

[untermensche]

Who defines "top performer"?

How many are permitted to even try at being "top performers"?

How many are necessary to support so-called "top performers"?

The business would define top performers, so what percentage of workers worked their way up? And CEOs of most major corporations are just workers too.

The "business" defines?

How does it do that?

How does the "business" decide who in the business is a top performer?

Are all employees given the same opportunity to perform?

Or do some dictate and others follow orders?

 

[coloradoatheist]

The business would define top performers, so what percentage of workers worked their way up? And CEOs of most major corporations are just workers too.

The "business" defines?

How does it do that?

How does the "business" decide who in the business is a top performer?

Are all employees given the same opportunity to perform?

Or do some dictate and others follow orders?

Not all will be given the same opportunity, but as a worker you also have the burden to show it too. If businesses never decided who was a good employee, they would never promote anyone.

But how would you define a good worker?

 

[ksen]

And CEOs of most major corporations are just workers too.

uh huh

 

[untermensche]

The "business" defines?

How does it do that?

How does the "business" decide who in the business is a top performer?

Are all employees given the same opportunity to perform?

Or do some dictate and others follow orders?

Not all will be given the same opportunity, but as a worker you also have the burden to show it too. If businesses never decided who was a good employee, they would never promote anyone.

But how would you define a good worker?

I would start with an honest decent person.

Exactly who you will most likely NOT find at the top of dictatorial top-down organizations where one gets to the top through politics, not performance. Thus we see all these top executives paid fortunes as they drive companies into the ground.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Not all will be given the same opportunity, but as a worker you also have the burden to show it too. If businesses never decided who was a good employee, they would never promote anyone.

But how would you define a good worker?

I would start with an honest decent person.

Exactly who you will most likely NOT find at the top of dictatorial top-down organizations where one gets to the top through politics, not performance. Thus we see all these top executives paid fortunes as they drive companies into the ground.

So you put a lie detector on every top leader of every company out there to make sure they are honest? You do know that we only hear about the companies that don't work?

 

[untermensche]

I would start with an honest decent person.

Exactly who you will most likely NOT find at the top of dictatorial top-down organizations where one gets to the top through politics, not performance. Thus we see all these top executives paid fortunes as they drive companies into the ground.

So you put a lie detector on every top leader of every company out there to make sure they are honest? You do know that we only hear about the companies that don't work?

NO.

I don't envision companies as petty dictatorships.

I want to move from this primitive ape notion of "top leader".

A company should be a communal endeavor, not a top-down tyranny.

We certainly understand this in terms of government, but when money is involved human apes behave strangely and will find ways to justify their petty greeds.

 

[coloradoatheist]

So you put a lie detector on every top leader of every company out there to make sure they are honest? You do know that we only hear about the companies that don't work?

NO.

I don't envision companies as petty dictatorships.

I want to move from this primitive ape notion of "top leader".

A company should be a communal endeavor, not a top-down tyranny.

We certainly understand this in terms of government, but when money is involved human apes behave strangely and will find ways to justify their petty greeds.

And we've gone over this multiple times, the structure that is currently used is the most efficient for what it needs to do.

 

[untermensche]

NO.

I don't envision companies as petty dictatorships.

I want to move from this primitive ape notion of "top leader".

A company should be a communal endeavor, not a top-down tyranny.

We certainly understand this in terms of government, but when money is involved human apes behave strangely and will find ways to justify their petty greeds.

And we've gone over this multiple times, the structure that is currently used is the most efficient for what it needs to do.

So say the masters, not history or science.

 

[coloradoatheist]

And we've gone over this multiple times, the structure that is currently used is the most efficient for what it needs to do.

So say the masters, not history or science.

Nope, just simple logistics.