Why did Trump tear-gas migrants at the border?

[DBT]

The presence of an ever growing class of people in society who feel marginalized, underpaid, struggling to make ends meet, feeling unable to ever satisfy their own needs and wants, are a threat to the cohesion of that society.

 

[PyramidHead]

Economics is not a science and there are theories of value other than supply and demand. There are also ethical theories that do not reduce humans to terms of exchange in a market. Not coincidentally, there is a degree of overlap between these two non-scientific conceptions of human activity.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

People are buying cars--just not GM cars. The quality isn't there.

I agree - partly. People ARE buying GM cars, just not the Chevy Cruz. They shouldn't have named it after Lyin' Ted!
OTOH, I also agree with Henry Ford, who observed that if he paid his own workers enough, they could buy his product.
I think manufacturers have turned a blind eye to that principle, because none of them alone has the effect on total national wage rates that the auto industry did at its inception.

This is a lasting lie by the left.

Ford paid his workers more because his plants were harder and more dangerous work, if he didn't pay more he wouldn't get workers. Saying it was so they could buy his product is simply spin.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

More immigrant workers, and thus lower costs, are best for everyone, rich and poor.

There is a need for these job-seekers today especially. There could be a quick orderly process to take most of them in and allow them to contribute to the U.S. economy. But because of Left-wingers like Bernie Sanders and Thom Hartmann, who preach against cheap labor, and Right-wingers like Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham who pander to nativists, especially to labor union nativists, and preach the Marxist slogans against cheap labor, these jobs go unfilled, and government raids are conducted against 7-11 and other employers of migrant (sometimes undocumented) workers.

Not sure how that follows.

How WHAT follows? You apparently never listen to right-wing talk shows (but only to your pro-union pro-Marxist crusaders). If you did, you'd notice that they agree with your ranting against cheap labor. They are taking up the Marxist slogans preaching that cheap labor is bad for the economy, and this is why we must not allow the "undocumented" immigrants in to steal "our" jobs and drive down the wage level.

That this throws a wrench into your pro-labor pro-Marxist rhetoric and worldview does not change the fact that they do preach these same Marxist slogans which you are caught up in. They hate those same employers you hate, and demand that they be punished for it. How does it feel to have right-wing crusaders joining with you in a common cause of employer-bashing?

(Thom Hartmann also joins in on this employer- and cheap-labor-bashing. Left and Right coming together in a common cause to force consumers, including the poor, to pay higher prices.)

Talking about the stagnation of wages for workers as the earnings and benefits of those at the top skyrocket is not preaching against cheap labor.

Calling it "stagnation" doesn't change the fact that the low wages simply reflect the LOW VALUE of the workers, or of their labor, which should not be paid higher than its value, i.e., market value determined by supply-and-demand and by competition.

It is preaching against human greed and stupidity.

Preaching that any producers should be paid more than their market value is stupid.

By keeping all increases for themselves instead of putting that wealth into the hands of people that will immediately spend it on goods the economy is less dynamic.

Everyone keeps all their "increases" for themselves. Whether they save it or invest it or spend it, it is all "for themselves" and not to make the economy more "dynamic" or whatever. The poor, as well as the rich, always keep their "increases" for themselves. No one takes their money and says, "How can I best use this wealth of mine to make the economy more "dynamic?" No, they say, "How can I best use my money to make me better off?"

Why should they do anything with their wealth except whatever makes them better off? regardless whether it makes the economy "less dynamic" or more dynamic?

It is very stupid policy unless all you are governed by is greed and have no rational mind.

You might be stumbling into something semi-intelligent here: Perhaps the "policy" should be to tax the rich at a higher rate. Let the poor continue to be paid what they're worth, in the market, without artificially increasing what employers have to pay them. But also increase taxes on the rich, or some of them, to provide more needed revenue for infrastructure and other public needs.

Employer-bashing doesn't make any sense. But some forms of higher taxes probably do make sense. So you need to change your "policy" away from simplistically demanding that all employers be punished and forced to pay workers higher than the value of their labor, and instead toward a policy of getting more revenue, which might come mostly from higher-income brackets.

And meanwhile, we all benefit and profit from the cheap labor, such as from immigrant labor, which reduces production cost and puts downward pressure on prices paid by 300+ million U.S. consumers, including the poor.

 

[DBT]

The workers who are a part of that pool of 'cheap labour' don't get to profit.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Both rich and poor benefit from lower labor cost and lower prices.

Cheap labour is good for business owners and shareholders, those on the top of the heap we call society.

It's good for ALL consumers, because it puts downward pressure on prices we all pay. Including those at the bottom of the heap.

For workers in that situation, too many workers competing for jobs, it may mean a race to the bottom, whoever is willing to work for less pay gets the job.

Yes, ALL competition among producers is a problem for the producers, rich and poor, because the ones who charge too much lose out in the competition. But 300+ million consumers are the winners. Competition between producers is a "race to the top" for consumers, but the uncompetitive crybaby producers who lose out in the competition call it a "race to the bottom."

This situation makes it necessary to set a minimum wage rate in Law.

No, not any more than to set minimum prices onto products and services. The minimum wage laws are caused by Crybaby Economics, not by anything necessary for the economy.

Forcing the poor to pay higher prices is not "necessary."

 

[DBT]

It's good for ALL consumers, because it puts downward pressure on prices we all pay. Including those at the bottom of the heap.

Those at the bottom of the heap sacrificing a part of their own lives, struggling to make ends meet, so that those who are better off, those at the top of the heap, get to pay lower prices for their goods and services, their Latte's and Smashed Avocado Toast?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The function of workers is to get the work done, not to serve as buyers of the stuff they produce.

Right. Cheap labor is good for everyone. Except the cheap laborer.

No, it's good for them too (or 99% of them). ALL consumers benefit from cheap labor, including all the wage-earners, who pay lower prices as a result of cheap labor.

And some of the low-paid workers also benefit from having a job, which would they would not have if the wage level had to be higher. I.e., because they are marginal for getting hired.

But that's okay because . . .

WHAT's okay? The low-paid workers do benefit from cheap labor. We all do. And it's "okay" that we benefit from it. Lower cost benefits everyone.

. . . because we only need n many of them. Next decade, we need 2n of them... and eventually so many of them that, . . .

No, what we need is the lowest possible cost for the maximum possible quality of production or work performed. We sometimes need to increase wages in order to get the needed work done, but the right wage level is always the lowest possible which is still high enough to insure that the needed work gets done. So the increased wage is always still the lowest possible while still high enough to achieve the goal, which is not to provide incomes to workers and their families out of pity for them, but to get the needed work done, i.e., to best serve the consumers, whatever it costs, i.e., minimally, but no more than this minimum cost.

. . . and eventually so many of them that, well:

View attachment 19172

It doesn't matter whether we "pay people a living wage" so they can buy things. It's up to each person to worry about how much they can buy. That's not society's problem. There is no social need to CREATE BUYERS for stuff. The need is to create stuff that people want, and get it created at the lowest possible cost, so people can afford it. Making any of the stuff artificially more expensive than necessary, out of pity for the producers of the stuff, serves no social purpose.

If you want to be paid more than the value you currently produce, then you have to produce more value -- not force buyers to pay higher than necessary because they're supposed to feel sorry for you or your family.

The buyers all have their needs, such as a family to support, etc., and it makes no sense to force them to pay higher in order to subsidize a certain uncompetitive producer we're all supposed to feel sorry for because their factory closed, or whatever. If a producer's value goes down, the solution is for that producer to increase his/her value by some kind of change, not to be pitied and be paid higher than their value and thus inflict unnecessary costs onto others who would have to pay for it.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The presence of an ever growing class of people in society who feel marginalized, underpaid, struggling to make ends meet, feeling unable to ever satisfy their own needs and wants, are a threat to the cohesion of that society.

Right, so let's not impose unnecessarily-high costs onto them by driving up the cost of production, e.g., the labor cost, and thus increasing the cost of living to those struggling to survive.

Instead, let's take advantage of opportunities to hire cheap labor, e.g., immigrant labor, and other ways to keep down the production costs.

 

[DBT]

The presence of an ever growing class of people in society who feel marginalized, underpaid, struggling to make ends meet, feeling unable to ever satisfy their own needs and wants, are a threat to the cohesion of that society.

Right, so let's not impose unnecessarily-high costs onto them by driving up the cost of production, e.g., the labor cost, and thus increasing the cost of living to those struggling to survive.

Instead, let's take advantage of opportunities to hire cheap labor, e.g., immigrant labor, and other ways to keep down the production costs.

So it doesn't matter that it is possible to lift the standard of living for MW workers without a huge rise in the cost of goods and services, these still being quite affordable for the well off with the aim of making life easier for those on the bottom, and in the process putting more money into circulation and helping lift the overall economy of the Nation?

 

[Underseer]

Republican politicians constantly talk about immigration because white supremacists constantly talk about it. This is just how they let the white supremacists know that they are with them.

Gassing children is meant to send an even stronger message to white supremacists about how closely aligned the Republican party is with them.

 

[ZiprHead]

No, it's good for them too (or 99% of them). ALL consumers benefit from cheap labor, including all the wage-earners, who pay lower prices as a result of cheap labor.

Can you really be called a consumer when all you can barely afford is food and shelter?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Some principles of "economics" are empirically verifiable (refutable) and observable and measurable, similar to a "science."

Economics is not a science and . . .

You could say that history or sociology or psychology etc. are not "science" because of the difficulty of describing human behavior. But there are truth-statements from these disciplines which can be measured or verified or evaluated for accuracy, regardless of the difficulty in making the statements precise. The difference from math and physics etc. is the greater difficulty of precisely describing the objects or data being observed.

It's different than math and physics, but it's not in the same category as religion or poetry. E.g., the law of supply-and-demand is a fact of life, in the observable world, and is similar to the law of gravity, though it's more difficult to identify and measure precisely.

. . . and there are theories of value other than supply and demand.

There are many schools: Moonbeam Economics, Bonehead Economics, Voodoo Economics, Snake-oil Economics -- many theories which pretend to eliminate supply-and-demand from economics, in order to promote their particular demagoguery of pandering to select interest groups (e.g., labor union crusader fanatics) and telling the mob of idiots what they want to hear.

Yes there such theories. The Luddites were such a school, pandering to workers who were religiously attached to their "job" rather than the overall social good.

There are also ethical theories that do not reduce humans to terms of exchange in a market.

They only pretend to not do this. In reality, they do reduce humans to such terms just as any other theory does, and just as ALL objects of value in the world are reduced to terms of exchange in a market. ALL objects, including all animals, including humans, have to be reduced to such terms, or "economics" could not make any sense as something to describe human society or behavior in a way which is objective and verifiable and observable and measurable.

Not coincidentally, there is a degree of overlap between these two non-scientific conceptions of human activity.

The overlap is that they both pander to their audience of True Believers, telling them anything they want to hear, and thus increase their market share and gain more consumers for their snake oil, to increase their sales and profit, which is their bottom line.

Such conceptions of human activity, or schools, have no merit other than their success in winning applause from the herd of cattle/idiots they pander to. Nothing which can be evaluated or measured or verified for objective accuracy.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Higher wages > higher approval rating and sympathy from the mindless masses.

I also agree with Henry Ford, who observed that if he paid his own workers enough, they could buy his product.

I think manufacturers have turned a blind eye to that principle, because none of them alone has the effect on total national wage rates that the auto industry did at its inception.

This is a lasting lie by the left.

Ford paid his workers more because his plants were harder and more dangerous work, if he didn't pay more he wouldn't get workers. Saying it was so they could buy his product is simply spin.

There's another factor:

The wage increase was a publicity stunt which brought more sales and profit. Perhaps the extra business was worth the higher labor cost. The additional sales were produced by new public sympathy for the workers and for the Company, as a result of the sensationalism of the wage increase.

Ford ran ads which appealed to consumers to buy the product based on pity for the workers and their families, explaining how much a worker's family benefits from each purchase of a Ford car -- in effect an appeal for charity purchases of the product, out of pity for the needy workers.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

All consumers rich and poor benefit from cheap labor.

The workers who are a part of that pool of 'cheap labour' don't get to profit.

Good example of a falsehood, contradicted by verifiable objective facts, making "economics" in effect scientific, subject to verification and falsifiability.

It's obvious that those workers are consumers who also benefit from the lower prices. They can be observed as consumers in the market paying the same prices as everyone else, which prices are subject to the downward pressure from the lower production costs.

 

[DBT]

The workers who are a part of that pool of 'cheap labour' don't get to profit.

Good example of a falsehood, contradicted by verifiable objective facts, making "economics" in effect scientific, subject to verification and falsifiability.

It's obvious that those workers are consumers who also benefit from the lower prices. They can be observed as consumers in the market paying the same prices as everyone else, which prices are subject to the downward pressure from the lower production costs.

That there are workers in one of the richest nations on earth who are paid barely having enough to survive week to week, sometime not even that, depending on government subsidies, is not a falsehood, so their spending power as consumers is also minimal

And the gap has grown over the course of decades;

''Figure 1 displays the changes in the inflation-adjusted earnings of workers at different points along the national income distribution scale since 1961. In earlier times, when the nation was prosperous, the rising tide lifted all boats; wages for workers at all levels grew at roughly the same rate, a trend that continued into the 1960s. But beginning in the 1970s and accelerating through the ’80s and early ’90s, the fortunes of working Americans at the opposite ends of the income ladder have panned out very differently. By 1994, full-time male workers in the bottom 10 percent of the national income scale were earning no more than their counterparts of nearly 35 years before. Workers with incomes in the top 10 percent, meanwhile, were doing far better than the same group did in decades past. The strong economy of the last few years has sparked some rebound in the wages of bottom-tier working men, but a substantial gap remains between their incomes and those of male workers whose earnings are closer to the national average.''

 

[lpetrich]

It's obvious that those workers are consumers who also benefit from the lower prices.

But they don't benefit from having less money to spend.

Lumpenproletariat, you give me the impression that you believe that consumers are some privileged class which deserves to get everything for next to nothing. You also fail to address the question of where consumers' money comes from. Lumpenproletariat, it's almost as if you believe that they pick it off of money trees.

 

[ZiprHead]

It's obvious that those workers are consumers who also benefit from the lower prices.

But they don't benefit from having less money to spend.

Lumpenproletariat, you give me the impression that you believe that consumers are some privileged class which deserves to get everything for next to nothing. You also fail to address the question of where consumers' money comes from. Lumpenproletariat, it's almost as if you believe that they pick it off of money trees.

That's something he has continually failed to address in all the years he has been posting his bullshit. All he's doing is talking to himself.

 

[PyramidHead]

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Bashing the rich does not automatically benefit the poor.

Cheap labour is good for business owners and shareholders, those on the top of the heap we call society.

It's good for ALL consumers, because it puts downward pressure on prices we all pay. Including those at the bottom of the heap.

Those at the bottom of the heap sacrificing a part of their own lives, struggling to make ends meet, so that those who are . . .

Yes, those at the "bottom" sacrificing etc. are made better off by cheap labor. Forcing the labor cost to go up artificially, against market supply-and-demand, makes those at the "bottom" worse off. It forces up the price level, forcing all those at the bottom to pay higher prices, thus making them poorer.

Also, some of the poor are made better off as workers by the lower wage level, because they cannot get hired at the higher wage level, because of their marginal value to employers.

So, ALL workers, including at the "bottom," are made better off as consumers by the lower wage level (if it's due to market supply-and-demand), and in addition some workers as workers are made better off by the low wage level because this enables them to get hired when they would otherwise be unemployed. And meanwhile ALL consumers higher up are also made better off by the cheap labor. So cheap labor benefits virtually all the society, with only a few workers possibly made worse off because of their lower income.

. . . so that those who are better off, those at the top of the heap, get to pay lower prices for their goods and services, their . . .

There's nothing wrong with those at the top getting benefit from the economic system. If they gain this by stomping down on "the poor," then something needs to change. But "the poor" are also better off from the cheap labor. Forcing employers to pay higher than the market value does not make the poor overall better off. Employers are not stomping on anyone by paying the market wage based on supply-and-demand. Rather, more of us are stomped on, including more of the poor, when the wage level is forced up artificially high, because of the higher cost of living it imposes onto everyone.

Making everyone worse off, including the poor, only in order to lash out at the rich because you hate them, does not make society or the world better off. Instead, you need to find a way to get more out of the rich without also inflicting net damage onto everyone else in the process. Driving wages up higher than the market value (based on supply-and-demand) inflicts net damage onto everyone, not only onto the rich.

. . . those at the top . . . get to pay lower prices for their goods and services, their Latte's and Smashed Avocado Toast?

No, only the unsmashed. For the smashed avocado toast it's only fair that they pay the higher price.