>Perhaps you don't know the history of labor unions especially in the US. If >employers are allowed absolute power they will abuse it, absolutely.
It is impossible for government to "allow" absolute power.
Abuse of power has never been commonplace without the force of government ENFORCING that power.
Today, the force of government is used to ENFORCE the power of labor unions over both employers and employees.
It is true that at one time, the force of government was used to ENFORCE the power of employers over labor unions. (But not, at that time, over employees who chose not to act as part of labor unions.)
The government using force to dictate the existence, nonexistence, or terms of a contract, or to improve the bargaining position of one party against others, was wrong then, and it's wrong today.
>>> If you >>> eliminate collective bargaining you eliminate the effectiveness of labor >>> unions as a counter balance to employer abuses.
>>Wrong. Funny how you _automatically_assume_ that unless government >>_forces_ employers to bargain only with unions, collective bargaining >>will somehow be "eliminated." What would stop employers who wanted to >>bargain collectively from doing so?
>There is no incentive to do so. The firm can hire replacement workers and >ignore the union entirely and refuse to re-hire any union workers.
Really. Let's see how fast any company recovers when a big chunk of its skilled workforce prefers to stand outside the doors with picket signs, rather than working.
-------------------------------------------------------------- Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, ß227, any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500 US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
> >When United Autoworkers Union extorts higher wages, it means that > >poor workers must pay lifetime savings for that fucken car. > This only shows that they should Unionize,so they can afford the "Fucking" > car....The UAW doesn't extort unreasonable wages from the Big 3....If they > did, why are the "big 3" making record breaking priffits every year? Why > haven't they priced themselves out of existance?
Many unionized industries already priced themselves out of existence. Dead American industries... they all were unionized.
Now tell me, if all low wage workers unionize, and their wages will increase from $6/hr to $15/hr - will older unions demand higher wages for themselves or they will work for the same wages?
> >Our standard of living depends on how much we produce. > Union workers are paid 29% more on average than their non union > counterparts.They are 26% more productive on average,however.... > Your begrudging someone 3%?
Very stupid statement. There is a nonunionized night-time doorman, working from temp-agency, making $6/hr. And there is unionized day time doorman, making twice more. Can you, son of a unionized bitch, demonstrate that productivity of unionized doorman is twice higher than that of nonunionised doorman? I'll wait for more of your bitchy explanations.
> According to DOL, the unionized workforce is 13.75%, down from > 35% in the late 50's/early 60's. Why does corporate America fear us so?
Because we want you dead.
> >If there were a free labor market, then a burger flipper would go to > >the auto plant and get a job for lower-than-union wages. > Why?
To make twice more money than flipping burgers.
> >But that fucken union does not let poor workers to enter their turf. > How is that...Sorry, I had to laugh at that one. > Who does the hiring?
If I go to any unionized auto plant and say: "Fire all these sons of the bitches, I'll bring nonunion workforce", can the CEO fire you and hire nonunion workers? Can he? If not, why not? Who does the hiring? Why should CEO not be allowed to fire those mother fuckers?
One day we, people, will line you against the wall. We will teach you both wages and productivity, bloodsuckers.
> You forget the other factors of production other than labor. If > distribution to labor is less than its marginal product (marginal product of > the last worker hired) then the employer is in a monopsony position with > respect to labor and can set the wage below the marginal product of labor.
Let me ask a couple of questions.
Suppose, I started a small business. A bakery. I hired a worker to bake bread. Every day I buy a bag of flour for $100. I sell bread for $300.
What is marginal product of the worker? How much should I pay him? What is a fair price of his labor, both from economic and moral points of view?
> > Let's name increase in prices Inflation, and > > decrease in prices Deflation. > Not quite correct. Continually increasing (or decreasing) prices are > inflation (or deflation). One time price changes don't count.
I agree.
> > 2. Loose credit. > No. It's not the credit that matters, it's SPENDING. The money supply > is loosely the amount of currency times the rate at which the currency > flows through the economy. If money is spent faster, the money supply > has increased. Credit isn't actually money.
I agree. Increased spending caused by increased credit by the banking system. So, we have Money M Prices = ---------- or P = --- Goods G
M is being increased by higher wages ( W ) and spending ( S ). Again, directly proportional relationship.
M = W * S
This equation shows only relationship between variables. The higher Wages and higher Spending, the higher amount of Money, chasing those goods.
Amount of goods is increased by production. Production of G is determined by number of workers ( N ) and productivity ( P ) of each worker. Again, directly proportional relationship.
G = N * P M M = W * S Now replace Money and Goods in P = --- where G G = N * P We have W * S P = --------- N * P
What this equation says? The same old S: Want low prices? Have low wages and high GDP, because N * P = GDP. GDP reaches maximum when both N and P reach maximum. The higher N and P the higher GDP. GDP is adversely proportional to Prices.
This equation says, like: it's better to be rich and healthy than to be poor and sick. It does not really say how to get rich, except to increase GDP.
Shawn, check what you don't like here, and after that we may discuss how much unemployment is optimal. I understand that there will always be people in transition from one job to another. But there are other problems also.
Michael Vilkin wrote in message <3647BBFA.6...@hotmail.com>... >CeeJay wrote: > (...) >> >When United Autoworkers Union extorts higher wages, it means that >> >poor workers must pay lifetime savings for that fucken car.
>> This only shows that they should Unionize,so they can afford the "Fucking" >> car....The UAW doesn't extort unreasonable wages from the Big 3....If they >> did, why are the "big 3" making record breaking priffits every year? Why >> haven't they priced themselves out of existance?
>Many unionized industries already priced themselves out of >existence. Dead American industries... they all were unionized.
That doesn''t explain why those Unionized companies are making record breaking proffits year after year...
>Now tell me, if all low wage workers unionize, and their wages >will increase from $6/hr to $15/hr - will older unions demand higher >wages for themselves or they will work for the same wages?
Not for me to speculate....
>> >Our standard of living depends on how much we produce. >> Union workers are paid 29% more on average than their non union >> counterparts.They are 26% more productive on average,however.... >> Your begrudging someone 3%?
>Very stupid statement. >There is a nonunionized night-time doorman, working from temp-agency, >making $6/hr. And there is unionized day time doorman, making >twice more. Can you, son of a unionized bitch,
Despite your statement,my mother wasn't Unionized for 35 years. But your growing frustration at the inabillity to reply in an honest, logical manner is noted....
demonstrate that
>productivity of unionized doorman is twice higher than that >of nonunionised doorman? I'll wait for more of your bitchy >explanations.
If your public school had taken you past big birds big book of big words, and taught you reading comprehension, you'd notice the word "average" in the sentence " they are 26% more poductive on AVERAGE...... This would lead the rational among us to imply that this is not representative of all the workforce, a piece of logic that seems to slip from your feeble grasp.
>> According to DOL, the unionized workforce is 13.75%, down from >> 35% in the late 50's/early 60's. Why does corporate America fear us so?
>Because we want you dead.
Ahhhh! the frustration with the inabillity to reply logically builds yet further!
>> >If there were a free labor market, then a burger flipper would go to >> >the auto plant and get a job for lower-than-union wages.
>> Why?
>To make twice more money than flipping burgers.
If they went to work at a plant for less than Union wages, whats to say they wouldn't be paid the same as flipping burgers?
>> >But that fucken union does not let poor workers to enter their turf.
>> How is that...Sorry, I had to laugh at that one. >> Who does the hiring?
>If I go to any unionized auto plant and say: "Fire all these sons >of the bitches, I'll bring nonunion workforce", can the CEO fire >you and hire nonunion workers?
He could.but wouldn't,You have nothing to offer, and The CEO has a trained and skilled workforce to lose.
Can he? If not, why not?
>Who does the hiring?
The company,not the "CEO". The comany, for those too stupid to figure out, consists of the Board of directors,and stockholders. In a Union company they abide by the contract they agreed to and signed. in a non union company they make up hiring practices based on their needs and the applicable labor laws of that state and country.
>Why should CEO not be allowed to fire those mother fuckers?
Corporations hold the power to terminat the employment of any employee "at will".This usually implies a layoff rather than "firing" as you'd have.But this is not the sole property of the CEO as stated previously.
>One day we, people, will line you against the wall. >We will teach you both wages and productivity, bloodsuckers.
I think Labor should teach you productivity and common sense... Nah! We do the difficult, not the impossible.I'll leave the impossible to the SEABEES!
>>Perhaps you don't know the history of labor unions especially in the US. If >>employers are allowed absolute power they will abuse it, absolutely.
>It is impossible for government to "allow" absolute power.
>Abuse of power has never been commonplace without the force of >government ENFORCING that power.
>Today, the force of government is used to ENFORCE the power of labor >unions over both employers and employees.
How? By making both sides abide by a set of rules or contracts they sign?
>It is true that at one time, the force of government was used to >ENFORCE the power of employers over labor unions. (But not, at that >time, over employees who chose not to act as part of labor unions.)
Again, we come to the old " if I didn't vote for "bozo the clown" why should I abide by the rules of the government he was voted to, to include paying taxes..." I should have the same right to refuse the democratically elected representation of the government of my country as the "objectionists" have to refuse the democratically elected representation of the workforce, shouldn't I?
>The government using force to dictate the existence, nonexistence, or >terms of a contract, or to improve the bargaining position of one >party against others, was wrong then, and it's wrong today.
But you support it?
>>>> If you >>>> eliminate collective bargaining you eliminate the effectiveness of labor >>>> unions as a counter balance to employer abuses.
>>>Wrong. Funny how you _automatically_assume_ that unless government >>>_forces_ employers to bargain only with unions, collective bargaining >>>will somehow be "eliminated." What would stop employers who wanted to >>>bargain collectively from doing so?
What employer ( or how many) voluntarily want to bargain collectively?
>>There is no incentive to do so. The firm can hire replacement workers and >>ignore the union entirely and refuse to re-hire any union workers.
>Really. Let's see how fast any company recovers when a big chunk of >its skilled workforce prefers to stand outside the doors with picket >signs, rather than working.
Precisely why we have Unions,and regulations regarding this....
>-------------------------------------------------------------- >Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, ß227, >any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address >is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500 >US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
>Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin wrote in message ><3647433a.39467...@news.blarg.net>... >>Steven wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>>>Perhaps you don't know the history of labor unions especially in the US. >If >>>employers are allowed absolute power they will abuse it, absolutely.
>>It is impossible for government to "allow" absolute power.
>>Abuse of power has never been commonplace without the force of >>government ENFORCING that power.
>>Today, the force of government is used to ENFORCE the power of labor >>unions over both employers and employees.
>How? By making both sides abide by a set of rules or contracts they sign?
By dictating that, if the workers choose to negotiate jointly in a union, the company is not permitted to simply discontinue negotations with those workers and take up negotations with another group of workers instead.
As has been repeatedly pointed out in this thread by myself and others. -------------------------------------------------------------- Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, ß227, any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500 US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
>> You forget the other factors of production other than labor. If >> distribution to labor is less than its marginal product (marginal product of >> the last worker hired) then the employer is in a monopsony position with >> respect to labor and can set the wage below the marginal product of labor.
>Let me ask a couple of questions.
>Suppose, I started a small business. A bakery. >I hired a worker to bake bread. >Every day I buy a bag of flour for $100. >I sell bread for $300.
>What is marginal product of the worker?
Unclear. You have a fixed cost of $100 p/day for flour leaving $200 of revenue to pay the factors of production. When you purchased the capital equipment for the bakery you made an investment and expected a certain return over time from that investment. Capital's share of income will be based upon this expected return which is not arbitrary but is a function of what your alternative investment opportunities were at the time you made your investment in the bakery. Labor's share is the remaining income. If labor's share is less than the market wage for bakers then capital will earn less of a return than forecast. If the market wage is lower than labor's share capital will earn a higher return than expected. This scenario is based upon the assumption that your bakery is not a wage setter.
>How much should I pay him?
If you own the sole bakery the wage paid will be what the baker is willing to accept based on his next best employment opportunity. If your bakery is one of many then your firm will be subject to the market wage for bakers.
>What is a fair price of his labor, both from >economic and moral points of view?
> > No. It's not the credit that matters, it's SPENDING. The money supply > > is loosely the amount of currency times the rate at which the currency > > flows through the economy. If money is spent faster, the money supply > > has increased. Credit isn't actually money.
> I agree. Increased spending caused by increased credit by the banking > system.
No, NO, NO!!!! Credit isn't money, credit is just a way of moving money through time. Having a greater ability to move money through time doesn't increase the amount of money you have.
>>Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin wrote in message >><3647433a.39467...@news.blarg.net>... >>>Steven wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>>>>Perhaps you don't know the history of labor unions especially in the US. >>If >>>>employers are allowed absolute power they will abuse it, absolutely.
>>>It is impossible for government to "allow" absolute power.
>>>Abuse of power has never been commonplace without the force of >>>government ENFORCING that power.
>>>Today, the force of government is used to ENFORCE the power of labor >>>unions over both employers and employees.
>>How? By making both sides abide by a set of rules or contracts they sign?
>By dictating that, if the workers choose to negotiate jointly in a >union, the company is not permitted to simply discontinue negotations >with those workers and take up negotations with another group of >workers instead.
Ok since you like sniping....
If Some libertarian scumbag gets elected and I didn't vote for him, I guess that means I can have the republicans come in his place and make laws for me only,not to mention I'd pay taxes to them only....
>As has been repeatedly pointed out in this thread by myself and >others. >-------------------------------------------------------------- >Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, ß227, >any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address >is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500 >US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
> > ... demonstrate that > >productivity of unionized doorman is twice higher than that > >of nonunionised doorman? I'll wait for more of your bitchy > >explanations. > If your public school had taken you past big birds big book > of big words, and taught you reading comprehension, you'd > notice the word "average" in the sentence " they are 26% > more poductive on AVERAGE...... > This would lead the rational among us to imply that this is > not representative of all the workforce, a piece of logic that > seems to slip from your feeble grasp.
Now I see. If some unionized workers somewhere are on average 26% more productive, it means that an unionized day-time doorman, whose union contract prohibits night-time work, is intitled to twice higher wages than night-time nonunionized doorman. Plus benefits. And we all are supposed to pay for it. You are nothing but bloodsucker bugs.
> > What is a fair price of his labor, both from > > economic and moral points of view? > There is no "fair" price only market prices.
Then what is the point to calculate marginal bullshit? Workers - unionized or otherwise - should get market prices for labor, regardless of anything else.
I still believe Marx was right on a few points. Theory of class struggle is correct.
We have two classes of workers in the U.S. There is the unionized aristocracy of the working class, and there is nonunionized plebs.
In Germany labor elite was suddenly displaced from it's elitist position.
Lowly workers, unite! It's time to displace elite!
> The point (since you refuse you use your brain to look > at anything and actually think about it) is that > experts are NOT in policy-making positions. Those who > make policy are for the most part those who were born > in the right bed, and have inherited tons of money, > through no merit of their own. Their ancestors, who > left them the money, were the same type of rabber baron > as exemplified by Bill Gates today. They were experts > in nothing other than manipulating money and people to > get what they want: in other words, con men. > Would you say that the policies on crime should be set > by criminals? That is the same thing as saying that the > policies on money should be set by the rich.
OK, capitalism is bad. Is socialism better? What would you do if allowed unlimited power of a dictator of a socialist country? Say, we already did the Revolution in the U.S. You are now the head of Politburo. Tell us how you would create a worker's paradize.
>> > What is a fair price of his labor, both from >> > economic and moral points of view?
>> There is no "fair" price only market prices.
>Then what is the point to calculate marginal bullshit? >Workers - unionized or otherwise - should get >market prices for labor, regardless of anything else.
The point is that the market wage in a perfectly competitive market is equal to the marginal product of labor. However, this is just too good to be true in the real world for most labor is subject to monopsony power or that employers have the power to pay labor less than its marginal product. Which is the reason that unions exist in the first place.
>>> > What is a fair price of his labor, both from >>> > economic and moral points of view?
>>> There is no "fair" price only market prices.
>>Then what is the point to calculate marginal bullshit? >>Workers - unionized or otherwise - should get >>market prices for labor, regardless of anything else.
>The point is that the market wage in a perfectly competitive market is equal >to the marginal product of labor. However, this is just too good to be true >in the real world for most labor is subject to monopsony power or that >employers have the power to pay labor less than its marginal product. Which >is the reason that unions exist in the first place.
Your argument with "mikey" is similar to the old adage about' a silk purse and a sows ear"..... I don't think he has the abillity to grasp the concepts you propose.He seems to have been rejected for employment oce upon a time, and thinks the blame should lie at the feet of the workers, rather than management.
Michael Vilkin wrote in message <36490B68.3...@hotmail.com>... >kenfran wrote: > (...) >> The point (since you refuse you use your brain to look >> at anything and actually think about it) is that >> experts are NOT in policy-making positions. Those who >> make policy are for the most part those who were born >> in the right bed, and have inherited tons of money, >> through no merit of their own. Their ancestors, who >> left them the money, were the same type of rabber baron >> as exemplified by Bill Gates today. They were experts >> in nothing other than manipulating money and people to >> get what they want: in other words, con men. >> Would you say that the policies on crime should be set >> by criminals? That is the same thing as saying that the >> policies on money should be set by the rich.
>OK, capitalism is bad. Is socialism better?
I'm sorry to interject here, but where does the last poster imply a desire for socialism?
>What would you do if allowed unlimited power >of a dictator of a socialist country? >Say, we already did the Revolution in the U.S.
>I'm sorry to interject here, but where does the last poster imply a desire >for socialism?
>>What would you do if allowed unlimited power >>of a dictator of a socialist country? >>Say, we already did the Revolution in the U.S.
>You think the regime of George III was socialist?
>>You are now the head of Politburo. >>Tell us how you would create a worker's >>paradize.
>>-- Michael Vilkin.
I think you don't know the difference between socialism and dictatorship but don't ask me to tell you. Have a look in a dictionary. Moreover, capitalism defines the economic structure of a country not it's political structure (although there are links between them). You should realise that there are not just two extremes out there. A lot of countries (particularly in Europe) manage very well with a mixture of socialism and a market economy.
>>I'm sorry to interject here, but where does the last poster imply a desire >>for socialism?
>>>What would you do if allowed unlimited power >>>of a dictator of a socialist country? >>>Say, we already did the Revolution in the U.S.
>>You think the regime of George III was socialist?
>>>You are now the head of Politburo. >>>Tell us how you would create a worker's >>>paradize.
>>>-- Michael Vilkin.
>I think you don't know the difference between socialism and dictatorship but >don't ask me to tell you. Have a look in a dictionary. >Moreover, capitalism defines the economic structure of a country not it's >political structure (although there are links between them). You should >realise that there are not just two extremes out there. A lot of countries >(particularly in Europe) manage very well with a mixture of socialism and a >market economy.
For future refference,reply to the ORIGINAL author of the article. not to those who reply.......
Shawn A. Wilson wrote in message <364815C9.94177...@uic.edu>... >Michael Vilkin wrote:
>> > > 2. Loose credit.
>> > No. It's not the credit that matters, it's SPENDING. The money supply >> > is loosely the amount of currency times the rate at which the currency >> > flows through the economy. If money is spent faster, the money supply >> > has increased. Credit isn't actually money.
>> I agree. Increased spending caused by increased credit by the banking >> system.
>No, NO, NO!!!! Credit isn't money, credit is just a way of moving money >through time. Having a greater ability to move money through time >doesn't increase the amount of money you have.
But it does let you focus it into a narrow time slot, giving the appearance of more money.
> I think you don't know the difference between socialism and dictatorship but > don't ask me to tell you. Have a look in a dictionary.
I've, probably, forgatten more about socialism than you will ever know. I was born in USSR, studied economics and Marxism in USSR. I don't need no dictionary, you silly...
> Moreover, capitalism defines the economic structure of a country not it's > political structure (although there are links between them).
And what may be variations of political structures built on capitalist economic basis? Maybe, some kind of socialism?
> You should > realise that there are not just two extremes out there. A lot of countries > (particularly in Europe) manage very well with a mixture of socialism and a > market economy.
Very stupid statement. Socialism and market economy... get this. Socialism is _government_ ownership of means of production, Capitalism is _private_ ownership of means of production.
Market economy is economy where prices and wages are determined by supply and demand. Centralized economy is economy where prices and wages are controlled by government.
Market economy may be both socialist and capitalist. Centralized economy may be both socialist and capitalist.
President Nixon implemented price and wage control. Control did not convert capitalist economy into socialist. Economy which was out of control because of labor unions, was put back under control.
Europian countries have a mixture of socialism and capitalism. They have also a mixture of market economy and centralized economy.
The question stands: "What would you do to create worker's paradize?" Imagine, you have unlimited power. Before or after the Revolution.
You, bloodsuckers, can not do anything good for workers. High class of unionized labor aristocracy is sucking money and blood out of lowly nonunionized workers?
Did you ever see a unionized worker to demand to increase minimum wages, but leave union wages the same? Do words "equality" and "solidarity" mean anything to those bloodsuckers?
What happens when both minimum wages and union wages go up in step? Nothing, really. Just more paper for the same shit. A lowly worker has to pay his lifetime savings to buy that fucken car. And bloodsuckers bugs continue to suck. Until you are popped between nails.
> >> > What is a fair price of his labor, both from > >> > economic and moral points of view? > >> There is no "fair" price only market prices. > >Then what is the point to calculate marginal bullshit? > >Workers - unionized or otherwise - should get > >market prices for labor, regardless of anything else. > The point is that the market wage in a perfectly competitive market is equal > to the marginal product of labor. However, this is just too good to be true > in the real world for most labor is subject to monopsony power or that > employers have the power to pay labor less than its marginal product. Which > is the reason that unions exist in the first place.
"... employers have the power to pay labor less than its marginal product. Which is the reason that unions exist in the first place."
OK. Tell me how workers may calculate that marginal product. Do they? Is the way to calculate marginal product the same for both classes of workers - unionized elite and nonunionized plebs?
Gary Forbis wrote: > Shawn A. Wilson wrote in message <364815C9.94177...@uic.edu>... > >No, NO, NO!!!! Credit isn't money, credit is just a way of moving money > >through time. Having a greater ability to move money through time > >doesn't increase the amount of money you have. > But it does let you focus it into a narrow time slot, giving the appearance > of more money.
Hell, my newsreader missed Shawn's post. Shawn, post once again, please, in alt.politics.economics.
Michael Vilkin wrote in message <364A51DA.5...@hotmail.com>...
...
>I've, probably, forgatten more about socialism than you will ever know. >I was born in USSR, studied economics and Marxism in USSR. >I don't need no dictionary, you silly... >Very stupid statement. Socialism and market economy... get this. > Socialism is _government_ ownership of means of production, >Capitalism is _private_ ownership of means of production.
No matter how many times you say it, you are wrong when you say "Socialism is _government_ ownership of means of production." Government ownership is but one form of socialism. Some forms of socialism allow private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production by investors who command a portion of the production by virtue of their ownership. There can be capitalism without free markets just as there can be socialism with free markets.
