I see you did not answer the question.


"exploiting my labor". This is just another attempt to villainize. It asserts that trying to get a product or service for the cheapest possible price is unethical, immoral.

When you hire a plumber, and you shop around for who has the best rates, are you "exploiting" when you hire the plumber who charges the least amount?

As far as you attacking a source, you laughed at the law of demand, which shows you might not be the most credible of voices when critiquing economist.

Establishment Dem's paying off their donors just as Republicans do.

This is why voters turn off to both sides.

Sherrod Brown and unions are part of the establishment in your view?

Establishment Dems cater to corporate and union and other specialist interest donors.

It is how they raise their money to campaign and who they look to payback by multiples using taxpayer dollars when opportunity presents.

Good money if you can get it. Over $3MM from the AFL PAC alone.



cite

So you don't view establishment Democrats as just caring about corporate interests, but also the interests of labor and workers. I agree with that.

Pretty amazing how the Dems pulled to an inside straight to get this stimulus. First Ossoff barely qualified for the runoff against Purdue. Then the moron President does everything possible to make sure the GOP loses GA, and they win the exact 2 seats they need to win to get the barest of majorities. Then the stimulus passes with zero GOP votes in either house. Pretty crazy.

The 'division of labor' is the primary driver of income inequality, not capitalism. Suppose everyone had the capability to do any job and we needed to fill all the jobs. If that were the case then the most grueling, least rewarding and low paying jobs that people really don't want to do would pay the most and the more cushy, enjoyable and rewarding jobs that people prefer to do would pay the least.

Exactly.

And that's why neither party will ever stop illegal immigration.

Capitalism requires a large underclass to function.

Welcome home comrade.

I laughed at your childish understanding of the law of demand. Just as now I'm laughing at your childish appeal to authority argument.

Anyway, what question ?

When I hire a tradesman I don't shop around for the lowest rates.
There's another law. Buy cheap, buy often.

Soylent Green.

Too old to work for you food, you become food.

Neoliberalism at work.

In the context of the discussion we have, this is a loaded question, as it implies the minimum wage "builds" the middle class.

A $15/hour comes to $31, 200. Why do you think Democrats are not demanding $23.xx minimum wage (~ $48K/year)?

If you take a step back, you will see $15 was an arbitrary number folks came up with, then they try to build economic models around that number. It's low enough where the impact can be obscured by other variables, it's almost always phased in as well, for the same reasons. That's backwards. If a minimum wage has the positive impact proponents suggest, why not use economics to determine what the best minimum wage is. I suspect that does not happen because the economics says price controls don't work very well.


To answer your question, I do think providing support for the Middle class is good.

Good for whom ?

Can you not also blame the Drug war on illegal immigration? Reason Mexico and Latin America are in so much trouble and everyone leaves is Drugs coming north and guns going south.

That's likely a factor.

But if anyone really cared about illegal immigration there would be much less of it.

Gotta flood that labor market.

The problem with this argument is that capitalism already has worked for the masses. 100 years ago, plenty of poor people in the US grew up in houses without electricity or running water. That's basically against the law now. That there will always be people in the lowest quartile is trivial. But if you compare that lifestyle throughout the history of the US it's never gotten worse over a human lifespan. So any sort of changes you want to make need to be sure to recreate the smashing successes that capitalism critics from the past would not have believed possible.

No. I was trying to split that question out from any specific situations. I was not applying it to any position on MW, or this current discussion.

You speak to the general principle of 'wages increasing decreasing demand for labor' which is true 'basically' as a principle but is not necessarily true in every situation.

For instance if you have a situation where labor costs maybe artificially restrained via crony capitalism, would you agree, allowing for some balancing of that back towards a more normalized wage would be good?


BTW I am not asking to agree that wages are restrained via crony capitalism, and just saying if in this assumption scenario I present that is the case, then a rebalances would be beneficial. Right?

I think $15 was chosen as an interim step that should have been palatable. Many pundits have stated that it probably should be in the $20+ range if you look at inflation and normal growth of the MW as compared to the economy growth, prior to Republicans really taking the position that any and all MW wage growth was to be fought and stopped back in 1980.

IHIV why do you think the Republicans took the position that any MW upward growth, even a penny, had to be fought and blocked in 1980 until now?

Do you not think that gov't position has not impacted the market?

Good.

But what does that mean? Are you saying "words of encouragement", 'attaboys' as "providing support" or actual policy? And if so, in what areas?

One of the reasons CHina is going to sprint past the US is massive investments in the middleclass by gov't taking money from the wealthy (wealth generated) and redeploying it to middle class initiatives such as providing infrastructure, etc.

Russia started with the tact with Gorbachev and started to see real GDP growth kicking in around 2000 but Putin reversed it and has been pushing al the money to the top (Oligarchs) at the expense of the MC and its taking its toll as Russia's GDP which has been stalled and in slow decline ever since.

I honestly think Russia could be rivalling China as the true emerging Eur/Asian power if they stayed on Gorbachev's path. Instead they have or will fall behind the GDP of the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg (countries with a fraction the population and/or resources) if this trajectory continues.

As I look at the US now, they are far more on the gutting the MC wealth and polarizing everything towards a US Oligarchy and underclass, with an ever weakening MC, which will hurt the US GDP and overall wealth, even if the US emerging Oligarch class does very well.

Using two basic commodities controlled by the government to prove capitalism works for the masses is actually kind of cute.

Oh I meant to address this but it got cut off. I think we're largely left discussing things at the margins like MW, which I agree is not that important, because of the historical failure of every system that didn't have free enterprise and markets. So we're left with minor arguments about what kind of regulations and tax/spending schemes we place on top. Like there are a ton of good theoretical arguments in physics for why gravity shouldn't exist, but they are ultimately unconvincing for obvious reasons.

Socialist economies exploit their workers as well since continual exploitation is a necessary condition for continual economic growth and prosperity. It's just that since the state owns all the capital goods in a socialist economy and the people technically own the state, we don't see the ever increasing wealth gap between what the people actually have and the ever increasing wealth of the state. But it's there or was or will be anyway.

Sure in terms of total GDP. But in terms of GDP per capita they have a long way to go and a short time to get there. There being a trajectory to come anywhere near rivaling the US in that regard.


https://asiasociety.org/new-york/chi...le-income-trap

Exploitation is necessary for prosperity ?

Zero sum game. Yes. The weak and old must die cheaply and efficiently.


For their own good.


Actually, the wealth gap has more to do with the majority of citizens not being represented. Socialism doesn't breed morally superior human beings. The same con men slither to the top of the heap. Then they vote to give themselves everyone else's stuff. Easy game.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/exploitation/
A portion of the full value a worker produces needs to go to r&d, producing more efficient means of production, etc. to generate future growth/prosperity, irrespective of whether were talking socialism or capitalism.

Yeah, but the labor theory of value is wrong, so you should reject Marx's claim that capitalist profit is exploitation.

Very interesting read. Thanks for that for some counterpoint thinking.

That said I think within that article is the biggest argument as to why it might be wrong...

"...The “middle-income trap” is a theory of economic development in which wages in a country rise to the point that growth potential in export-driven low-skill manufacturing is exhausted before it attains the innovative capability needed to boost productivity and compete with developed countries in higher value-chain industries. Thus, there are few avenues for further growth — and wages stagnate...."


I would argue China has been addressing the bolded very aggressively and is now competing in almost all areas of "high value chain industries" and not only can compete, but is rapidly showing they can out compete nations and thus why many nations are looking more to 'isolationist, non-trade, non-competition' policies to counter the threat.

I would further that point by asking anyone to name an area of "high value chain" currently that China is not already a major competitor in, or not on a growth path to be so? I could not come up with any off the top of my head so that is why I am asking.