Are governments just protection rackets for the 1%?

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2826
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Are governments just protection rackets for the 1%?

Post by Greta » Fri Oct 06, 2017 9:23 pm

-1- wrote:
Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:33 am
Greta wrote:
Thu Oct 05, 2017 1:13 am
The stagnation and, sometimes, reduction of wages suggests that the ultra wealthy have largely stemmed the flow of the "trickle down". No doubt they feel they need the extra money in these difficult times.
Bah. Reduction of wages is a result of large unemployment; the labour expense is a highly elastic demand-price function. In economic terms. And the large unemployment is the result of a catastrophically large overproduction crisis, yes, a Marxian one.

... If it's between the economy and the environment, the young of today choose to save the environment. After all, we've been blaring that into their brains since their inception into this world. "Be careful what you ask for."

I'll be the last one to bleed my heart for the rich and the super-rich; but the unemployment crisis and the real income falling are not their doing. At least not directly.
I wouldn't dispute the influences you spoke about but the captains of industry have lobbied hard in my country to keep the minimum wage as low as possible. Also, wages are always worse under a conservative government.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Are governments just protection rackets for the 1%?

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:02 pm

-1- wrote:
Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:33 am
Bah. Reduction of wages is a result of large unemployment; the labour expense is a highly elastic demand-price function. In economic terms. And the large unemployment is the result of a catastrophically large overproduction crisis, yes, a Marxian one.
Gibberish.

bobevenson
Posts: 7332
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
Contact:

Re: Are governments just protection rackets for the 1%?

Post by bobevenson » Sat Oct 07, 2017 6:16 pm

Greta wrote:
Fri Oct 06, 2017 9:23 pm
I wouldn't dispute the influences you spoke about but the captains of industry have lobbied hard in my country to keep the minimum wage as low as possible.
The very concept of minimum wage is invalid and hurts the very people it is supposedly designed to help.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2826
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Are governments just protection rackets for the 1%?

Post by Greta » Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:50 pm

bobevenson wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 6:16 pm
Greta wrote:
Fri Oct 06, 2017 9:23 pm
I wouldn't dispute the influences you spoke about but the captains of industry have lobbied hard in my country to keep the minimum wage as low as possible.
The very concept of minimum wage is invalid and hurts the very people it is supposedly designed to help.
That is the impression that those who would benefit from low wages would tell you. If a person earns $2 they cannot take part in society - they cannot rent, they can barely buy food, they will probably need to resort to crime.

Social stability is the very reason why both minimum wages and social security are essential to the wellbeing of any democratic society. Of course, command societies don't need this because social instability is simply controlled by the police and military.

bobevenson
Posts: 7332
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
Contact:

Re: Are governments just protection rackets for the 1%?

Post by bobevenson » Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:24 pm

Sorry, but minimum wage puts people out of work and creates a misallocation of resources toward automation that puts even more people out of work.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2826
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Are governments just protection rackets for the 1%?

Post by Greta » Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:32 pm

bobevenson wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:24 pm
Sorry, but minimum wage puts people out of work and creates a misallocation of resources toward automation that puts even more people out of work.
If you make everyone's wage $2 per day, then we will always have full employment - until the economy collapses through lack of consumption.

Minimum wage has almost nothing whatsoever to do with automation replacing workers. I was earning around $100k p.a. when I retired yet a year after my retirement, AI took over all of my section's work. Yet there's still plenty of jobs available for humans waiting on diners at low wages.

bobevenson
Posts: 7332
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
Contact:

Re: Are governments just protection rackets for the 1%?

Post by bobevenson » Sat Oct 07, 2017 11:09 pm

Greta wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:32 pm
bobevenson wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:24 pm
Sorry, but minimum wage puts people out of work and creates a misallocation of resources toward automation that puts even more people out of work.
Minimum wage has almost nothing whatsoever to do with automation replacing workers.
Any economist will confirm your statement is patently false.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2826
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Are governments just protection rackets for the 1%?

Post by Greta » Sat Oct 07, 2017 11:34 pm

bobevenson wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 11:09 pm
Greta wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:32 pm
bobevenson wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:24 pm
Sorry, but minimum wage puts people out of work and creates a misallocation of resources toward automation that puts even more people out of work.
Minimum wage has almost nothing whatsoever to do with automation replacing workers.
Any economist will confirm your statement is patently false.
What you say may have been the case decades ago but today it is well-paid administrative and technical jobs that are most being replaced by technology - like mine.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Are governments just protection rackets for the 1%?

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Sat Oct 07, 2017 11:45 pm

Greta wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 11:34 pm
bobevenson wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 11:09 pm
Greta wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:32 pm
Minimum wage has almost nothing whatsoever to do with automation replacing workers.
Any economist will confirm your statement is patently false.
What you say may have been the case decades ago but today it is well-paid administrative and technical jobs that are most being replaced by technology - like mine.
It is safe to assume that just about everything Bob says is utter nonsense.
I've followed this Forum for around 10 years, and I have never seen a single comment from him that was not BS.

bobevenson
Posts: 7332
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
Contact:

Re: Are governments just protection rackets for the 1%?

Post by bobevenson » Sun Oct 08, 2017 10:56 pm

Greta wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 11:34 pm
bobevenson wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 11:09 pm
Greta wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:32 pm
Minimum wage has almost nothing whatsoever to do with automation replacing workers.
Any economist will confirm your statement is patently false.
What you say may have been the case decades ago but today it is well-paid administrative and technical jobs that are most being replaced by technology - like mine.
Please, even fast-food places are now automating in the face of minimum wage laws.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2826
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Are governments just protection rackets for the 1%?

Post by Greta » Sun Oct 08, 2017 11:19 pm

bobevenson wrote:
Sun Oct 08, 2017 10:56 pm
Greta wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 11:34 pm
bobevenson wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 11:09 pm
Any economist will confirm your statement is patently false.
What you say may have been the case decades ago but today it is well-paid administrative and technical jobs that are most being replaced by technology - like mine.
Please, even fast-food places are now automating in the face of minimum wage laws.
In other words, it's happening throughout most of the economy. I don't claim to have no answer for any of this. It's just what is happening and it's a global phenomenon and bigger than any of us.

Londoner
Posts: 760
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: Are governments just protection rackets for the 1%?

Post by Londoner » Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:31 am

Greta wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:32 pm

If you make everyone's wage $2 per day, then we will always have full employment - until the economy collapses through lack of consumption.

Minimum wage has almost nothing whatsoever to do with automation replacing workers. I was earning around $100k p.a. when I retired yet a year after my retirement, AI took over all of my section's work. Yet there's still plenty of jobs available for humans waiting on diners at low wages.
I am trying to work this through, just for fun.

Suppose we live in the Garden of Eden, where we can pick all we need from the trees. Why wouldn't a fully automated economy be like that? Nobody would work, but then nobody would need wages (because the machines do not need to be paid). Nor would money be required to ration goods, since the machines could fully meet demands.

Alternatively, if everyone's wage was $2 a day then the important thing would not be that it was only $2 but that everyone was earning the same money. Money represents a share of the goods and services in an economy, so if everyone is getting the same wages then it would be the equivalent of a sort of communism. (If there are 100 people in my country and we all earn the same, then we will each get 1% of the goods and services).

Nor is this entirely theoretical. In real life, we make a step towards this with welfare. Some people are on a low cash wage, but they are supported by various benefits. This is an acknowledgement that their economy is no longer based on labour, they are not being rewarded for productivity but rather being paid out as if they were a shareholder in the machine-owning company.

That might not happen. But whether it does, what share of the economy goes to which workers, is an entirely political question. There is no economic rule that says you must have either inequality or equality, or things won't work.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2826
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Are governments just protection rackets for the 1%?

Post by Greta » Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:03 am

Londoner wrote:
Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:31 am
Greta wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:32 pm
If you make everyone's wage $2 per day, then we will always have full employment - until the economy collapses through lack of consumption.

Minimum wage has almost nothing whatsoever to do with automation replacing workers. I was earning around $100k p.a. when I retired yet a year after my retirement, AI took over all of my section's work. Yet there's still plenty of jobs available for humans waiting on diners at low wages.
I am trying to work this through, just for fun.

Suppose we live in the Garden of Eden, where we can pick all we need from the trees. Why wouldn't a fully automated economy be like that? Nobody would work, but then nobody would need wages (because the machines do not need to be paid). Nor would money be required to ration goods, since the machines could fully meet demands.

Alternatively, if everyone's wage was $2 a day then the important thing would not be that it was only $2 but that everyone was earning the same money. Money represents a share of the goods and services in an economy, so if everyone is getting the same wages then it would be the equivalent of a sort of communism. (If there are 100 people in my country and we all earn the same, then we will each get 1% of the goods and services).
"Everybody" in this context can be taken to mean "many workers". Basically, people need to earn money to consume enough to keep the economy stimulated.

Back in the 70s when factory workers were being replaced by machines, the media reassured the public that this was the short term pain needed before the new utopian work-free age. There was much talk about how people might amuse themselves and retain meaning in their lives without work. Alas, the extra productivity of machines was used by employers to compete more effectively rather than allowing workers to opt out.

It would seem that a basic safety net will not offer much of a lifestyle. People will still want to work to get ahead, but if machines are doing almost all the work, you get a situation not miles unlike many communist states, where the few elite are fabulously wealthy had no middle class between them and the multitudinous poor. I'm just speaking as an observer; I'm not sure there's a realistic answer.
Londoner wrote:
Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:31 am
There is no economic rule that says you must have either inequality or equality, or things won't work.
In the past there capitalists had an interest in keeping workers happy and motivated. If workers are not much needed then that creates a significant class divide - the "haves" and the "unwanted". I can see a bifurcation in societies as foreseen to some extent by Orwell and Huxley. As far as the technologically empowered elite of the future will be concerned, areas where ordinary people live would increasingly be thought of as like Indian reservations and the people as chattel.

User avatar
Seleucus
Posts: 667
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 3:53 am

Re: Are governments just protection rackets for the 1%?

Post by Seleucus » Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:17 am

Greta wrote:
Thu Oct 05, 2017 5:49 am
Seleucus wrote:
Thu Oct 05, 2017 3:14 am
I always get the the impression when this kind of conversation comes up that it is really motivated by jealousy and resentment. Narcissism.
Such implied ad homs mean nothing. It could just as easily be said - and be just as false - that supporting such an unfair system is an example of Stockholm syndrome. Can you do better than that?

It's simply a fact - wealth is concentrating and that leaves those at the bottom end in an especially parlous situation. I think we should be at least able to discuss this dynamic without being shut down by political correctness.
You forgot psychopathy.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests