fucking crazy unions - Page 3

jczeroman · 12-07-2003, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Meursault

the "buy back the product" (or what Marx would've called the "Crisis of Overproduction") argument is in there, but im actually just following Marx pretty closely. if you look through my posts you can see i've lifted his definition of exploitation, and the idea of surplus value and price of labour vs. value of labour

Again, I'll have to get back to you because my note on that specific principle are at home.

I will say though, I could never trust a man who formed International workers groups to gain wealth, presige and power.

Meursault · 12-07-2003, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jczeroman

I agree totally. But any wages that are paid above market value come at the cost of the market, be they CEOs or shoemakers. Everybody is hurt, when even one person makes more then they should.

if the wages are paid above the market value then the CEO will deservedly take a hit, and watch his company crumble as it proceeds to work itself out of business. but that's a temporary glitch, and i honestly dont think it's ever happened. i cant think of a single case where workers were paid at a level that was above the value of what they produced.

the closest thing i can think of is the outsourcing of labour to other, cheaper markets, but then that isnt a defect of union greed, thats a defect of corporate greed

Meursault · 12-07-2003, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jczeroman

I will say though, I could never trust a man who formed International workers groups to gain wealth, presige and power.

i thoroughly dislike Marx as well. i think three-quarters of what he wrote is complete bullshit, made to sound intelligent by making it complicated, but the quarter that he got right was his analysis of capitalist society and just the description of how things work. where he fell apart was when he started trying to describe how to fix it. but up to that point? he was pretty much bang on. i've only got it all in my head right now because i've been doing my reading for my exam on Wed.

jczeroman · 12-07-2003, 09:40 PM

But that 1/3 was not of true capitalism. The capitalism we see today is not real capitalism. A real capitalist, when in achieving wealth, would not try to brign in governemtn to force anti-competitive measures on his oponents. True fairness comes when everyone is given equal chance, and then merit determines who gets what in life.

Anyways, I think you know your stuff. And I'll have to get back to you on the other bit later tonight. If you liek this kind fo stuff, you should consider reading that book I recomended to gurr8.

Mariner · 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Meursault

i thoroughly dislike Marx as well. i think three-quarters of what he wrote is complete bullshit, made to sound intelligent by making it complicated, but the quarter that he got right was his analysis of capitalist society and just the description of how things work. where he fell apart was when he started trying to describe how to fix it. but up to that point? he was pretty much bang on. i've only got it all in my head right now because i've been doing my reading for my exam on Wed.

You're missing a component to the picture, in my opinion. In an ideal situation, those at the 'top' of a company should be there because they possess and exhibit exceptional skills with respect to running the company and improving and innovating the product or service which it offers to society. Money isn't unfairly being 'funneled' to the top; quite the contrary, without the "top-dog's" intellect and drive, the company's workers would have no product to produce or no leader to, well, lead them (and although democracy is important in a business to some extent, leadership is essential as well.)

Were it not for Henry Ford (just an example, and if it's a bad one let me know), hundreds of thousands of people would not have had the opportunity to work for him and make money. He provided many people without his exceptional ' human survival' skills (i.e. exceptional drive and intellect) a chance to be a part of his enterprise and make some money. He was doing them a service just as much as they were doing him.

Now, I understand that in today's 'business' world such situations are few and far between. Most people at the 'heads' of their companies are not essential to the operation for their leadership or innovative capacities, and do not deserve huge salaries. I think such things would be minimized if the government released itself from the duty of trying to so thoroughly and directly control the economy. A true free-market system (glimpses of which existed about a hundred years ago, but not really since, especially since the 1930s) would minimize such unfair occurences and empower those who 'deserve' it to rise to the top and their employees to receive truly fair wages. It would encourage people to strive to fully realize their intellectual and physical potential, because such endeavors would almost always be rewarded with higher pay and therefore more control over one's life. In the case of unfair treatment, the worker would be free to bring his services somewhere they would be appreciated and fairly compensated for. Without government support an intervention on behalf of unhealthy, unjust business practices that do not deserve to be sustained, unfairness in the business world would be minimized.

Fattening Ass · 12-08-2003, 02:05 AM

http://mta.net/riding_metro/fare_inf...change_eng.pdf

oh yeah and the metro monthly pass increased from 40 to 52 dollars.

i hope my car is ready by january 1st.

Nimrod's Son · 12-08-2003, 11:32 AM

The only good and neccesary unions are skilled labor unions: the kind that employ people with a marketable skill and usually don't show up for work at the same place every day. Good examples of this would be laborers who need to go to a "union hall" to get jobs, such as ironworkers, electricians, construction workers, etc (although here in SD it seems that everyone gets their construction crews at the 7-11 where the illegals gather in the morning for cash wages).

There is no reason to have a union in what is essentially a retail position with no marketable skill. I'm not even so sure busdriving is a skill, since pretty much anyone can do it with little to no training. Maybe if people like the Vons employees didn't have to pay their union dues every month, they could afford to pay part of their own healthcare costs like almost everyone else in the country.

jczeroman · 12-08-2003, 06:03 PM

While I couldn't do justice to Hazlitt's argument, I have found several links that explain it better than I could (but not as good as him).

http://www.libertarian.to/NewsDta/te...php?art=art213

here is the listing for it in the NY Times, when it was first published as a column in 1945:

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nytimes/...CS+AND+FINANCE

I ran a search and the book seems to be in almost any and all of the libraries in America. I would highly recomend that anyone check it out.

12-08-2003, 11:32 AM	#67
Nimrod's Son Master of Karate and Friendship Location: in your butt Posts: 72,943	The only good and neccesary unions are skilled labor unions: the kind that employ people with a marketable skill and usually don't show up for work at the same place every day. Good examples of this would be laborers who need to go to a "union hall" to get jobs, such as ironworkers, electricians, construction workers, etc (although here in SD it seems that everyone gets their construction crews at the 7-11 where the illegals gather in the morning for cash wages). There is no reason to have a union in what is essentially a retail position with no marketable skill. I'm not even so sure busdriving is a skill, since pretty much anyone can do it with little to no training. Maybe if people like the Vons employees didn't have to pay their union dues every month, they could afford to pay part of their own healthcare costs like almost everyone else in the country. __________________ - Nimrod's Son: Problem Solver!

12-07-2003, 09:40 PM	#64
jczeroman Socialphobic Location: In my house. Posts: 14,465	But that 1/3 was not of true capitalism. The capitalism we see today is not real capitalism. A real capitalist, when in achieving wealth, would not try to brign in governemtn to force anti-competitive measures on his oponents. True fairness comes when everyone is given equal chance, and then merit determines who gets what in life. Anyways, I think you know your stuff. And I'll have to get back to you on the other bit later tonight. If you liek this kind fo stuff, you should consider reading that book I recomended to gurr8.

12-08-2003, 02:05 AM	#66
Fattening Ass Just Hook it to My Veins! Location: Planet Nintendu 64 Posts: 30,825	http://mta.net/riding_metro/fare_inf...change_eng.pdf oh yeah and the metro monthly pass increased from 40 to 52 dollars. i hope my car is ready by january 1st.

12-08-2003, 06:03 PM	#68
jczeroman Socialphobic Location: In my house. Posts: 14,465	While I couldn't do justice to Hazlitt's argument, I have found several links that explain it better than I could (but not as good as him). http://www.libertarian.to/NewsDta/te...php?art=art213 here is the listing for it in the NY Times, when it was first published as a column in 1945: http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nytimes/...CS+AND+FINANCE I ran a search and the book seems to be in almost any and all of the libraries in America. I would highly recomend that anyone check it out.