News Where Do Labor Unions Fit in a Capitalist Society?

[wasteofo2]

What is your opinion on Labor Unions' place in a Capitalist society?

In my opinion, Labor Unions are a very Capitalist thing.

If a group of workers is unionized, the self interest of all the members is generally fulfilled far better than if each worker attempted to get things like raises, shorter working hours and higher benefits on their own. To me, organized labor is simply a highly sucessful way of a certain group of workers all having their self interest fulfilled through power in numbers. If you can't get your self interest fulfilled by bargaining with your employer on your own, but you can get it fulfilled by organizing with your fellow workers, it's just another way to work for your own self interest.

 

[Art]

What is your opinion on Labor Unions' place in a Capitalist society?

In my opinion, Labor Unions are a very Capitalist thing.

If a group of workers is unionized, the self interest of all the members is generally fulfilled far better than if each worker attempted to get things like raises, shorter working hours and higher benefits on their own. To me, organized labor is simply a highly sucessful way of a certain group of workers all having their self interest fulfilled through power in numbers. If you can't get your self interest fulfilled by bargaining with your employer on your own, but you can get it fulfilled by organizing with your fellow workers, it's just another way to work for your own self interest.

Unions had their place in history and can justifiably claim credit for many of the social advancements we enjoy today, employment law, mass-education, general health plans, safety in the work place etc. However as governments in the developed world have now taken all of these under their auspices I am not convinced of the need for unions in the modern workplace. This is reflected in their shrinking membership in many countries. Whereas before collective bargaining was seen as the norm in industrial relations it is now the exception. Ultimately workers have the choice to 'vote with their feet' or to take their case to court if they are unhappy with their employer which exerts the moderating influence which previously unions would have provided. I'm by no means anti-union I just see them as being less relevant and so having a greatly diminished role in most developed countries today.

 

[vanesch]

However as governments in the developed world have now taken all of these under their auspices I am not convinced of the need for unions in the modern workplace. This is reflected in their shrinking membership in many countries.

If you want to see worker's unions at "work", come to France, and have your strike :-) If there's one thing this country has way too much, it's worker's unions!

 

[Art]

If you want to see worker's unions at "work", come to France, and have your strike :-) If there's one thing this country has way too much, it's worker's unions!

And that's the danger today. As all the historic grievances are settled unions become absorbed with ensuring their own existence rather than improving the lot of their members. Strikes are the best way of letting people know they are still around and can wield power. British trade unions behaved exactly the same way as they went through their death throes back in the late 80s.

 

[wasteofo2]

Art, I realize that labor unions aren't nearly as powerful, prominant or necessary as they once were. That's probabally because they succeded in their goals, and as most workers are comfortable, the need for organized labor is dissapating. However, what I was trying to talk about was whether or not Labor Unions were truly Capitalist or Socialist.

 

[vanesch]

And that's the danger today. As all the historic grievances are settled unions become absorbed with ensuring their own existence rather than improving the lot of their members.

Actually, I have the impression here that trade unions became a kind of powerful mafia who are organized about promoting the individual careers of their members (their ACTIVE members) ; here, being local union leader is often the start of a political career. And, as you say, making noise, and showing power is part of that career-making process.

 

[Pengwuino]

Art, I realize that labor unions aren't nearly as powerful, prominant or necessary as they once were. That's probabally because they succeded in their goals, and as most workers are comfortable, the need for organized labor is dissapating. However, what I was trying to talk about was whether or not Labor Unions were truly Capitalist or Socialist.

I think they are immensly capitalist by definition (not versed enough in history to tell if they are in reality)... although i feel how it can be construed as a socialist thing. When i think of capitalism, I think of a company putting out a bad product and the people saying "no" to that copmany by not buying things and that company changing policy/recipe/manufactoring method or whatever. Labor unions in a sense, are a type of consumer and when they don't like what's going on, they can collectively say no and have the same impact as agroup of dissatisfied consumers. Both in effect, change the company to meet the supply and demand of the market and the labor union's demands of a sort of "supply" in the form of wages and what not from the company.

 

[arildno]

Art, I realize that labor unions aren't nearly as powerful, prominant or necessary as they once were. That's probabally because they succeded in their goals, and as most workers are comfortable, the need for organized labor is dissapating. However, what I was trying to talk about was whether or not Labor Unions were truly Capitalist or Socialist.

It is worth remembering that it was forbidden in the Communist regimes to form independent labour unions (i.e, independent of the Communist party).

 

[vanesch]

Labor unions in a sense, are a type of consumer and when they don't like what's going on, they can collectively say no and have the same impact as agroup of dissatisfied consumers.

So workers in a worker's union make deals together to be above their individual market price. That's what a cartel is, no ?

 

[Art]

Art, I realize that labor unions aren't nearly as powerful, prominant or necessary as they once were. That's probabally because they succeded in their goals, and as most workers are comfortable, the need for organized labor is dissapating. However, what I was trying to talk about was whether or not Labor Unions were truly Capitalist or Socialist.

From my experience of trade unions, gained largely in Britain, their ideology would undoubtedly be socialist rather than capitalist even to the point where unions such as the NUM (National Miners' Union) led by Arthur Scargill called strikes by their members with no objective other than to bring down the conservative gov't of the time and to have a socialist labour gov't elected in it's stead. (They succeeded the first time with Ted Heath but failed disastrously when they tried again with Margaret Thatcher). That said, as with all bodies, corruption and self-interest ensured that many senior officials within the trade union movement became very wealthy during their tenure in the best traditions of capitalism. So in conclusion IMHO trade unions are socialist in conception but capitalist by 'human' nature.

 

[wasteofo2]

So workers in a worker's union make deals together to be above their individual market price. That's what a cartel is, no ?

Who wouldn't want a better deal than they really should get though? The Unions are just out to get as good a deal as they can, which is quite a capitalist thing to me.

 

[wasteofo2]

From my experience of trade unions, gained largely in Britain, their ideology would undoubtedly be socialist rather than capitalist even to the point where unions such as the NUM (National Miners' Union) led by Arthur Scargill called strikes by their members with no objective other than to bring down the conservative gov't of the time and to have a socialist labour gov't elected in it's stead. (They succeeded the first time with Ted Heath but failed disastrously when they tried again with Margaret Thatcher). That said, as with all bodies, corruption and self-interest ensured that many senior officials within the trade union movement became very wealthy during their tenure in the best traditions of capitalism. So in conclusion IMHO trade unions are socialist in conception but capitalist by 'human' nature.

This brings up an interesting link between Capitalism and Socialism.

It's plainly obvious that lots of labor unions have/had Socialist ideology. Look at Eugene Debs for instance, labor leader and 5 times socialist party candidate for president.

But if you look closely at the reason why many labor unions have Socialist ideology, it somehow becomes less clearly Socialist.

Let's look at your example of the trade unions in England. They tried to topple conservative governments, governments that were not that sympathetic towards them, in favor of socialist ones, who would be more favorable to them. At first glance, it seems to be a plainly socialist effort.

However, to me, it's just a tricky way of being good capitalists. If you detach yourself from the meaning of the word Conservative and Socialist, it becomes a bit clearer. Let's call a conservative government X and a Socialist government Y.

The labor unions don't want X, becuase X doesn't support their interests. The labor unions wanted Y, because Y supported their interest.

It seems to be a case of expression of rational self interest. A Socialist government will work with labor towards their goals, and a Conservative government will not work with labor towards their goals. The wants of the union are based firmly in capitalist ideology - the desire to have your self interest fulfilled, it just so happens that a group calling themselves Socialist was particularly sympathetic towards the labor unions needs.

 

[arildno]

So workers in a worker's union make deals together to be above their individual market price. That's what a cartel is, no ?

And, what's wrong with that?
There will emerge power structures in any society, and those on top of these structure will, in general, benefit more than those below.

What ought to be the issue, is which power structures do we want to flourish, and which not.

As long as I'm on top, everything is OK, I guess..

 

[Art]

Who wouldn't want a better deal than they really should get though? The Unions are just out to get as good a deal as they can, which is quite a capitalist thing to me.

If unions only operated at company level this would be true but certainly in Britain they did not. They operated at a national level with national goals and agendas. You could be the best employer in the world and still have your workers called out on strike by their national union leadership as part of an action arising from issues which had absolutely nothing to do with your company and you could be picketted by workers from other unions who didn't work for you, not even indirectly. There were also several general strikes where every union member in the country was forced to participate. I say forced because Britain operated what was called the 'closed shop' whereby you had to be a member of a particular union to work in a particular company. Disobeying a strike order meant expulsion from the union and therefore dismissal from your job.

 

[Pengwuino]

So workers in a worker's union make deals together to be above their individual market price. That's what a cartel is, no ?

theory, no

france, yes

lol jk, i don't know, like i said. I am thinken about how it works in theory and noted that i don't know how its worked through history.

 

[vanesch]

The Unions are just out to get as good a deal as they can, which is quite a capitalist thing to me.

Ok, this is a theoretical (and half jokingly) argument of course, but "individual economic agents negociating market prices together in order to sell their good (their labor) at a higher price (salary...) than what the market would allow them for if they competed individually, is, in my book, forming a cartel.
What's the difference between this and, say, all bakeries of the town making a deal to sell bread at 10 times higher prices now ?

 

[BobG]

While the idea of selling a team of workers might be capitalist, the labor unions in the US have historically been based on socialist ideas.

It's not the title or the goals that define whether unions are capitalist or socialist, it's the approach and techniques. Labor unions focused only on how the money a company might have at any given moment was distributed. A more capitalistic approach would have been equally concerned about increasing the amount of money that there was to distribute and might have dispelled the notion that unskilled labor was a necessary, but disposable annoyance. Necessary in that you were stuck with the current workforce as long as your investment in the buildings and equipment lasted - disposable in that you could always find a new labor force when it came time to replace your old buildings and equipment.

 

[Art]

This brings up an interesting link between Capitalism and Socialism.

It's plainly obvious that lots of labor unions have/had Socialist ideology. Look at Eugene Debs for instance, labor leader and 5 times socialist party candidate for president.

But if you look closely at the reason why many labor unions have Socialist ideology, it somehow becomes less clearly Socialist.

Let's look at your example of the trade unions in England. They tried to topple conservative governments, governments that were not that sympathetic towards them, in favor of socialist ones, who would be more favorable to them. At first glance, it seems to be a plainly socialist effort.

However, to me, it's just a tricky way of being good capitalists. If you detach yourself from the meaning of the word Conservative and Socialist, it becomes a bit clearer. Let's call a conservative government X and a Socialist government Y.

The labor unions don't want X, becuase X doesn't support their interests. The labor unions wanted Y, because Y supported their interest.

It seems to be a case of expression of rational self interest. A Socialist government will work with labor towards their goals, and a Conservative government will not work with labor towards their goals. The wants of the union are based firmly in capitalist ideology - the desire to have your self interest fulfilled, it just so happens that a group calling themselves Socialist was particularly sympathetic towards the labor unions needs.

It is important to bear in mind the point I made about trade unions becoming self-serving. Their activities at national level had little to do with the interests of their members and everything to do with the personal political idealism and ambitions of the leadership of some unions such as the NUM. The militant trade unions had infiltrated the Labour party to a huge degree and by use of their massive block votes at the Labour Party's annual conference ensured the party lurched to the left towards full blown marxism. In the event the British public recognised this and Labour became unelectable. During the Thatcher years the Conservative party took on the unions and with general public support defeated them comprehensively, introducing new legislation tremendously curtailing their powers. Meanwhile the moderates within the Labour party under Neil Kinnock and then George Brown began to fight back against the extreme left wing even to the point of expelling a sizable bloc of it's members who termed themselves 'Militant Tendancy', a group who believed in force if necessary to impose a Marxist style government. So certainly in Britain anyway the tactics of the unions to force a change of government had little or nothing to do with better pay and conditions for union members, they were simply using the trade union movement as a vehicle for ideological purposes.

 

[vanesch]

And, what's wrong with that?
There will emerge power structures in any society, and those on top of these structure will, in general, benefit more than those below.

No, I just thought it funny to identify workers unions with cartels. When you know the socialist ideology that usually reigns within these structures, I found it somehow humorous to compare them to capitalist abuses such as cartels of multinationals

 

[vanesch]

The wants of the union are based firmly in capitalist ideology - the desire to have your self interest fulfilled.

I didn't know that that was "capitalist ideology" :-) I thought it was called "human nature"

 

[SOS2008]

It is worth remembering that it was forbidden in the Communist regimes to form independent labour unions (i.e, independent of the Communist party).

It's also discouraged in the U.S., particularly where I live--otherwise known as a "right to work" state (i.e., anti-union). The companies work very hard to prevent workers from uniting.

The only thing along this line is the Minutemen movement--they are now going after companies that employ illegal labor.

 

[arildno]

It's also discouraged in the U.S., particularly where I live--otherwise known as a "right to work" state (i.e., anti-union). The companies work very hard to prevent workers from uniting.

The only thing along this line is the Minutemen movement--they are now going after companies that employ illegal labor.

I wasn't in the mood of flaming Americans yesterday, I wanted to bash dead and forgotten Communists instead.

 

[alexandra]

What is your opinion on Labor Unions' place in a Capitalist society?

In my opinion, Labor Unions are a very Capitalist thing.

If a group of workers is unionized, the self interest of all the members is generally fulfilled far better than if each worker attempted to get things like raises, shorter working hours and higher benefits on their own. To me, organized labor is simply a highly sucessful way of a certain group of workers all having their self interest fulfilled through power in numbers. If you can't get your self interest fulfilled by bargaining with your employer on your own, but you can get it fulfilled by organizing with your fellow workers, it's just another way to work for your own self interest.

I agree with this evaluation, wasteofo2. Unions pit groups of workers against each other and can be very reactionary - for example, the remains of the unions in the 'developed' countries such as the US, the UK and Australia have a very xenophobic attitude towards workers in other parts of the world and want to save 'US' or 'UK' jobs. Unions work within the confines of the capitalist system and accept its values and institutions. They also make 'deals' with business and are used by business and government to control the workforce. If unions truly pursued the interests of the working class, they would challenge the system of capitalism (ie. private property) itself. They do not, and that's why I agree with your evaluation.

 

[alexandra]

And that's the danger today. As all the historic grievances are settled unions become absorbed with ensuring their own existence rather than improving the lot of their members. Strikes are the best way of letting people know they are still around and can wield power. British trade unions behaved exactly the same way as they went through their death throes back in the late 80s.

Art, in what way are all the historic grievances 'settled'? Do you believe the working class is not facing a crisis at the moment? From my observations, the working class has been thoroughly defeated and has no power whatsoever any more. This is not to say that trade unions would be of any use - just that things are pretty bad for workers right now (at least, for those who still have jobs; many people have lost their jobs - those that have managed to keep them work longer hours under much more stressful conditions, etc).

 

[alexandra]

Actually, I have the impression here that trade unions became a kind of powerful mafia who are organized about promoting the individual careers of their members (their ACTIVE members) ; here, being local union leader is often the start of a political career. And, as you say, making noise, and showing power is part of that career-making process.

Good point, vanesch - the same was true in Australia (unions are just about irrelevant here now).

 

[alexandra]

I think they are immensly capitalist by definition (not versed enough in history to tell if they are in reality)... although i feel how it can be construed as a socialist thing. When i think of capitalism, I think of a company putting out a bad product and the people saying "no" to that copmany by not buying things and that company changing policy/recipe/manufactoring method or whatever. Labor unions in a sense, are a type of consumer and when they don't like what's going on, they can collectively say no and have the same impact as agroup of dissatisfied consumers. Both in effect, change the company to meet the supply and demand of the market and the labor union's demands of a sort of "supply" in the form of wages and what not from the company.

Pengwuino, this is so exciting! For the first time, I totally agree with you on a point you're making

 

[alexandra]

This brings up an interesting link between Capitalism and Socialism.

It's plainly obvious that lots of labor unions have/had Socialist ideology. Look at Eugene Debs for instance, labor leader and 5 times socialist party candidate for president.

But if you look closely at the reason why many labor unions have Socialist ideology, it somehow becomes less clearly Socialist.

Let's look at your example of the trade unions in England. They tried to topple conservative governments, governments that were not that sympathetic towards them, in favor of socialist ones, who would be more favorable to them. At first glance, it seems to be a plainly socialist effort.

However, to me, it's just a tricky way of being good capitalists. If you detach yourself from the meaning of the word Conservative and Socialist, it becomes a bit clearer. Let's call a conservative government X and a Socialist government Y.

The labor unions don't want X, becuase X doesn't support their interests. The labor unions wanted Y, because Y supported their interest.

It seems to be a case of expression of rational self interest. A Socialist government will work with labor towards their goals, and a Conservative government will not work with labor towards their goals. The wants of the union are based firmly in capitalist ideology - the desire to have your self interest fulfilled, it just so happens that a group calling themselves Socialist was particularly sympathetic towards the labor unions needs.

We have a terminology-related confusion here. The so-called 'socialist' political parties in Europe are actually more correctly called 'social democratic', "committed to a gradual and peaceful transition to socialism", and they view capitalism "as the only reliable means of generating wealth" (Andrew Heywood, 'Political Ideologies: An Introduction', 3rd edition, pp.139-140). On the other hand, people who consider themselves to be socialists (as opposed to 'social democrats') do not believe that capitalism can be reformed; they believe it has to undergo fundamental, revolutionary change.

 

[BobG]

I agree with this evaluation, wasteofo2. Unions pit groups of workers against each other and can be very reactionary - for example, the remains of the unions in the 'developed' countries such as the US, the UK and Australia have a very xenophobic attitude towards workers in other parts of the world and want to save 'US' or 'UK' jobs. Unions work within the confines of the capitalist system and accept its values and institutions. They also make 'deals' with business and are used by business and government to control the workforce. If unions truly pursued the interests of the working class, they would challenge the system of capitalism (ie. private property) itself. They do not, and that's why I agree with your evaluation.

Maybe they fall somewhere in between, but definitely towards the socialist side relative to the norm in the US. Most in the US have had a distinct "worker vs. employer" attitude. If they had a few businessmen in their leadership, they might have traded some of their short term gains for a more certain future. Instead of just concentrating on how much the workers were paid, they should have also been interested in how much money the company was investing in their town and in the company's property and equipment. The company owners, investors, and workers all have important stakes riding on how the well the company competes against other companies - not recognizing that a company's health was as important to the worker as the employer has been a fatal flaw for just about every US union.

You make the labor more expensive than relocation and you're cutting labor's throat. I grew up in the tire capital of the world. All of those tire plants are closed now. When it came time to invest in new factories and equipment, it only made sense to make those investments somewhere the labor was cheaper. Instead of getting less pay, those old workers get no pay (or, more realistically, every young person moves out of there as soon as they can, the same way I did).

You make labor so expensive the business can't survive, it gets even worse. Just look at the airline industry. Giants like United Airlines used to dominate - thanks to the unions, United Airlines can't compete with the smaller airlines paying less money to their workers. The result - all those union victories for better retirement benefits go down the tubes when the airline bails out to avoid bankruptcy.

And unions are right to be xenophobic about workers in other parts of the world - it's their means of earning a living that are moving overseas. The problem is that unions only yelled about it - they didn't actually do anything to make it less likely that they'd lose their jobs to other countries.

They served a purpose at one time in the US and did a lot for the workers. The problem is they never developed a more mature relationship with the companies, even after things got better for the workers. They were locked into the idea that rich owners were the enemy of the worker and couldn't be trusted - an idea I'd tend to relate to socialism or communism.

 

[Art]

Art, in what way are all the historic grievances 'settled'? Do you believe the working class is not facing a crisis at the moment? From my observations, the working class has been thoroughly defeated and has no power whatsoever any more. This is not to say that trade unions would be of any use - just that things are pretty bad for workers right now (at least, for those who still have jobs; many people have lost their jobs - those that have managed to keep them work longer hours under much more stressful conditions, etc).

See quote from my earlier post;

Unions had their place in history and can justifiably claim credit for many of the social advancements we enjoy today, employment law, mass-education, general health plans, safety in the work place etc.

As for the working class in the developed world being defeated and in crisis, I think that is nonsense. If you compare conditions today with even 50 years ago there have been huge advancements in living standards for the working classes by whatever yardstick you care to mention.
If you mean by working class the true socialists i.e. the change by revolution lobby, then yes I agree they are in crisis because they no longer have a discontented mass to brew their revolution in. The only major issue socialists (a term I use in the context of your definition) seem to have to complain about these days is that under capitalism some people end up extremely rich; which seems odd to me. I'd have thought these idealists would be above such materialism. Just because someone has a bigger bank balance doesn't make them any happier so why envy them?
I have many criticisms of what I see as the 'unacceptable face' of capitalism but in general it is the best system yet devised and through the efforts of modern socialists will continue to evolve.
Communism is dead and gone and yes you can have your inquest over it's dead body; was it strangled at birth, was it murdered later, was it a doppleganger or was it simply a useless system. None of this changes the fact it's dead and the only thing that breathed life into it in the first place was extreme poverty and hardship so without those ingredients you can forget about it being resurrected.
Old style socialists are indeed in crisis and will remain so until they begin to spend their time more gainfully employed working within the system to drive out abuse and to further improve the living standards of the poor rather than continue to 'tilt at windmills'. IMHO

 

[Pengwuino]

I wasn't in the mood of flaming Americans yesterday, I wanted to bash dead and forgotten Communists instead.

I woke up feeling like bashing the chinese today :D

 

[arildno]

I woke up feeling like bashing the chinese today :D

Been there, done that; what about Danes?

 

[alexandra]

I woke up feeling like bashing the chinese today :D

Been there, done that; what about Danes?

Whatever... anyone who's a different nationality to what WE are...

 

[alexandra]

As for the working class in the developed world being defeated and in crisis, I think that is nonsense. If you compare conditions today with even 50 years ago there have been huge advancements in living standards for the working classes by whatever yardstick you care to mention.

Oh, really? Well, here is some research I've done:

Often under-valued and overlooked, employees earning less than $15,000 annually are estimated to
make up nearly one-third (32%) of American workers today, with an additional 20% in the $15,000 –
25,000 earnings category (Carnevale and Rose, 2001). Reference: http://www.bc.edu/centers/cwf/research/publications/meta-elements/pdf/LowWageStudy.pdf

Notice: "nearly one-third (32% of American workers today. And here is an estimate of exactly how poor this is:

How much income do most Americans believe it takes to provide adequately for a family of four?
Most Americans think that it takes about $35,000 annually to adequately house, clothe and feed a family of four.

See http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/qtr1_2003/0107-103.html for more details of public opinion survey. - Reference: http://www.osjspm.org/101_poverty.htm#7

And here are some stats for the UK:

Just under 1 in 4 people in the UK – or nearly 13 million people – live in poverty, according to the latest figures. This includes nearly 1 in 3 children (almost 4 million)...

One recent survey showed that about 6.5 million adults go without essential clothing, such as a warm waterproof coat, because of lack of money.

Over 10.5 million people live in financial insecurity: they can’t afford to save, insure their house contents, or spend even small amounts on themselves. About 9.5 million can’t afford adequate housing – heated, free from damp, and in a decent state of decoration. The crucial factor about these findings is that they are based on a survey of what the general population sees as necessities.

We also know what a dark shadow poverty casts, particularly over children’s lives and their futures. Eighteen per cent of children go without two or more items that the majority of the population says are necessities, such as adequate clothing, toys, or three meals a day.

One in five non-working families on low or moderate incomes reported being unable to afford some basic food items on most days in 2000.

Reference: http://www.oxfamgb.org/ukpp/poverty/thefacts.htm#6

Yes, obviously the working class has won! How can one argue against such victories?

If you mean by working class the true socialists i.e. the change by revolution lobby, then yes I agree they are in crisis because they no longer have a discontented mass to brew their revolution in.

Let's wait and see, shall we?

The only major issue socialists (a term I use in the context of your definition) seem to have to complain about these days is that under capitalism some people end up extremely rich; which seems odd to me. I'd have thought these idealists would be above such materialism. Just because someone has a bigger bank balance doesn't make them any happier so why envy them?

Yes, sure. That's the only major issue... as the facts quoted above attest.

I have many criticisms of what I see as the 'unacceptable face' of capitalism but in general it is the best system yet devised and through the efforts of modern socialists will continue to evolve.
Communism is dead and gone and yes you can have your inquest over it's dead body; was it strangled at birth, was it murdered later, was it a doppleganger or was it simply a useless system. None of this changes the fact it's dead and the only thing that breathed life into it in the first place was extreme poverty and hardship so without those ingredients you can forget about it being resurrected.

Let's wait and see, I say again. People are *momentarily* defeated - your statement sounds like something Orwell's character O'Brien in '1984' (http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/) would say. If we give into the O'Briens of the world, there is truly no hope. If people who say such things are right, there is truly no hope for humanity: it deserves the end its going to come to.

Old style socialists are indeed in crisis and will remain so until they begin to spend their time more gainfully employed working within the system to drive out abuse and to further improve the living standards of the poor rather than continue to 'tilt at windmills'. IMHO

There is nothing 'humble' about your opinion, Art - so there is no need to claim 'humbleness'. You are so sure you're right, there's just no question in your mind. Well, don't pretend a humbleness you don't feel.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Oh, really? Well, here is some research I've done: Notice: "nearly one-third (32% of American workers today. And here is an estimate of exactly how poor this is:

and have you considered how many of those people are teenagers flipping burgers, or people who never graduated from high school?

do they really deserve more than minimum wage, or am i just being "elitist" here? (don't even bother with elitist crap at this point, because I have worked these types of jobs myself when I was younger).

and don't fool yourself: if they removed the gov. enforced minimum wage, they sure as hell would be paid less than $5.75/hr because in reality their work is worth less than that.

and for that matter, is 1/3 really that bad? why don't you start pulling out some statistics from other countries to put things in perspective for us?

 

[alexandra]

The company owners, investors, and workers all have important stakes riding on how the well the company competes against other companies - not recognizing that a company's health was as important to the worker as the employer has been a fatal flaw for just about every US union.

You make the labor more expensive than relocation and you're cutting labor's throat. I grew up in the tire capital of the world. All of those tire plants are closed now. When it came time to invest in new factories and equipment, it only made sense to make those investments somewhere the labor was cheaper. Instead of getting less pay, those old workers get no pay (or, more realistically, every young person moves out of there as soon as they can, the same way I did).

Well, Bob, do you suggest that US workers can live on $12.77 a day? What is that annually - about $4 661.00? Should US workers accept such wages? Would you work for $12.77 a day? And could you raise a family on this wage? Oh, here is the source of my daily wage:

Goodyear to cut 480 jobs in Lincoln by 2003

BY JOHN TAYLOR

WORLD-HERALD BUREAU http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_np=0&u_pg=46&u_sid=538025
LINCOLN - Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. made it official Friday, October 18th, 2002...

The Akron, Ohio-based company will replace $18-an-hour employees at its Lincoln plant with workers at a new facility in Mexico, who probably make no more than $12.77 a day.
Reference: http://www.cyberclass.net/goodyear.htm

...rich owners were the enemy of the worker and couldn't be trusted - an idea I'd tend to relate to socialism or communism.

This is true - owners are the enemy of the worker. The workers just have to gather their courage to do something about it (no doubt, they already know who their enemy is - well, I believe they do, because people aren't as stupid as the powerful think they are).

 

[alexandra]

and have you considered how many of those people are teenagers flipping burgers, or people who never graduated from high school?

do they really deserve more than minimum wage, or am i just being "elitist" here? (don't even bother with elitist crap at this point, because I have worked these types of jobs myself when I was younger).

and don't fool yourself: if they removed the gov. enforced minimum wage, they sure as hell would be paid less than $5.75/hr because in reality their work is worth less than that.

and for that matter, is 1/3 really that bad? why don't you start pulling out some statistics from other countries to put things in perspective for us?

quetzalcoat|9, it is not my job to find statistics to prove your argument. If you want to argue against what I write, find reputable sources of information to back up your own arguments. It is truly offensive to ask me to waste my time to find out how many of those people are teenagers. If you believe in teenage slavery, find your own evidence!

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

quetzalcoat|9, it is not my job to find statistics to prove your argument. If you want to argue against what I write, find reputable sources of information to back up your own arguments. It is truly offensive to ask me to waste my time to find out how many of those people are teenagers. If you believe in teenage slavery, find your own evidence!

suffice it to say, that the vast majority of the world lives in poverty. not only that, making $30k/year is certainly not poverty (considering 2 people living together here, each making $15k/year). even the poorest people here have a car, tv, place to live, etc. and even if they cannot afford a place to live, the gov. will give them one, sweet!

"teenage slavery?" are you talking about kids losing fingers making clothing in honduras or kids here being paid $200/week in relative comfort? because one is slavery, and the other isn't.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Should US workers accept such wages? Would you work for $12.77 a day? And could you raise a family on this wage?

yes, they are called "graduate students" and some of us manage to do it with families.

not only that, certainly our services are worth more than $12/hr, we make the same as the guy down the street picking up your garbage. does that seem fair? if not, burn down all the schools! death to the enemy! long live che guevara! raghhh!

 

[alexandra]

does that seem fair? if not, burn down all the schools! death to the enemy! long live che guevara! raghhh!

- Not quite, quetzalcoatl9. I may come across as totally enraged at the injustices that happen in the world (and I certainly am livid with fury), but I have no illusions that guevara-style guerrilla tactics is the answer. Unfortunately, the solution is much more complex than that and will take a lot of time and effort: it involves very patient, pain-staking education - or rather, the re-education - of people who have been stupified into submission by the mass media and the lies they have swallowed hook, line and s[t]inker... Fortunately, their very lives will confirm the truth to them.

I really don't think people will continually put up with being totally exploited and used up foverever; eventually, they will be backed into a corner from which there is no escape and will be forced to see and recognise reality for what it is. Then things will start changing... My only real worry is that the environment will be beyond the point of our ability to save it before people wake up - but life is an experiment, and if this happens - well, dude, that's the end of humanity. No great loss...

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

(and I certainly am livid with fury), but I have no illusions that guevara-style guerrilla tactics is the answer.

neither do i. as a staunch capitalist, i was just trying to be funny.

but you still haven't addressed my critique of your critique..

 

[Art]

Alexandra I think it is important to point out that bodies such as Oxfam determine people as poor as those with an income of <60% of the median income for the country they are appraising. This means that however wealthy a population becomes, a sizable proportion will always be classified as poor even if they are millionaires unless of course you have a communist gov't whereby wealth is redistributed equally.
Unfortunately this would result in a country where nobody is classified as poor but given communism's economic track record everybody would live in poverty. Or as my good friend Brutus used to say Aegrescit medendo
Therefore IM ever so HO all statistics you quoted based on that ridiculous definition of poverty are equally meaningless.

You'll need to do better than this to rile the oppressed masses.

p.s. Alexandra, as you are evidently a big fan of G. Orwell what do you think of his book Animal Farm wherein he derides communism? If I'm O'Brien doesn't that make you Sqealer?

For those who haven't read Animal Farm here's a good summary of the book;

http://www.gradesaver.com/ClassicNotes/Titles/animalfarm/shortsumm.html

 

[BobG]

Well, Bob, do you suggest that US workers can live on $12.77 a day? What is that annually - about $4 661.00? Should US workers accept such wages? Would you work for $12.77 a day? And could you raise a family on this wage? Oh, here is the source of my daily wage: This is true - owners are the enemy of the worker. The workers just have to gather their courage to do something about it (no doubt, they already know who their enemy is - well, I believe they do, because people aren't as stupid as the powerful think they are).

The articles on poverty in the US and UK are a little exaggerated. Poverty levels in the US and UK are 12 and 17 percent, respectively - surprisingly bad compared to most European countries or a slew of Asian countries, but not as bad as the article portrays.

Competing with labor in other countries is a problem - obviously an American worker can't live on $12.77 a day (I think one poster thought that was $12.77/hr). The poverty level in Mexico is 40%. Of course people in Mexico will work for less - for awhile. That's how countries pull their people out of poverty - a little bit at a time - and why Asian countries that we like to put down for stealing our jobs are beginning to have lower poverty rates than we do.

If the national infrastructure is there to support industry and there are workers willing to work, someone is going to move into that job market and whoever does will have a huge competitive advantage over a company located in a more expensive country. In other words, if Goodyear didn't close their Lincoln plant to replace it with a Mexican plant, they would be closing the Lincoln plant because Michelin or Goodrich or some other company was underselling them.

Edit: And the Lincoln workers were being asked to take a pay cut from $18/hr to $14/hr, not a cut to $12.77/day. Except all the workers would have had to take a pay cut, not just the 480 being replaced by the plant in Mexico. The other workers at the plant not losing their jobs weren't willing to take a 20% pay cut to save their fellow workers jobs.

By the way, I'm not exactly pro company executives, either. I find it a little disturbing when companies are very capitalistic when it comes to the idea that the people taking the financial risks are the ones that should gain the most when the risk pays off, but suddenly become very socialistic and ask for taxpayer bailouts when business turns sour. The question was whether unions were capitalist or socialist and unions inability to recognize all the players in the game that they were competing against was a big problem for them.

 

[loseyourname]

Oh, really? Well, here is some research I've done: Notice: "nearly one-third (32% of American workers today. And here is an estimate of exactly how poor this is:

That study says at the very beginning that it is a study of hourly workers. Hourly workers make up only the bottom rung of companies. If salaried workers were included, the numbers would not look nearly so bad. A lot of these hourly workers are, as quetzalcoatl points out, high school or college students working to go out, see a movie, and maybe buy some drinks. The retail and customer service industries, huge industries in the US, are especially loaded with people like this, people for whom this money is more than enough.

Aside from that, even if 32% of American workers were making less than $15,000/year (they aren't), you still wouldn't have contradicted Art's statement, which was that conditions have improved drastically, not that conditions are currently perfect. You seem to ignore that little detail in almost all of your posts. Capitalism is the devil, but what was the world like before capitalism? Economies were supported by real slaves and serfdom, and probably 95% of the world's wealth was owned by a miniscule noble class. There was little to no technological innovation and absolutely no prospect of class mobility. You can't possibly say capitalism has made the world worse off.

 

[alexandra]

That study says at the very beginning that it is a study of hourly workers. Hourly workers make up only the bottom rung of companies. If salaried workers were included, the numbers would not look nearly so bad. A lot of these hourly workers are, as quetzalcoatl points out, high school or college students working to go out, see a movie, and maybe buy some drinks. The retail and customer service industries, huge industries in the US, are especially loaded with people like this, people for whom this money is more than enough.

I have closely reread the Introduction to that paper – it is impossible to tell from the information it gives whether most (or even a lot) of these hourly workers are high school or college students. We can’t settle this argument with information in that paper – we’ll have to look for evidence elsewhere.

Aside from that, even if 32% of American workers were making less than $15,000/year (they aren't), you still wouldn't have contradicted Art's statement, which was that conditions have improved drastically, not that conditions are currently perfect. You seem to ignore that little detail in almost all of your posts. Capitalism is the devil, but what was the world like before capitalism? Economies were supported by real slaves and serfdom, and probably 95% of the world's wealth was owned by a miniscule noble class. There was little to no technological innovation and absolutely no prospect of class mobility. You can't possibly say capitalism has made the world worse off.

I think I’ve already stated this elsewhere – I understand that capitalism was a necessary phase of development (well, if not necessary, it definitely happened - and one cannot discount history); of course I do not wish to propose that we retreat to a more primitive social formation such as feudalism, and of course capitalism constituted an advance over feudalism. I am simply arguing that capitalism is not ‘the end of history’ – it is not the final transformation, the ‘best of all possible worlds’. It is a system based on exploitation, individualism and greed, and it overwhelmingly favours those who are already wealthy and disadvantages those who are poor. It is therefore not perfect (a better social system can supersede it). Moreover, capitalism and its underlying ideology is dangerous (potentially catastrophically dangerous) because it has inbuilt features that value profit above all else, including above environmental concerns. It is a short-sighted system based on greed and this threatens the viability of our planet’s climate and therefore threatens our existence as a species.

 

[alexandra]

The articles on poverty in the US and UK are a little exaggerated. Poverty levels in the US and UK are 12 and 17 percent, respectively - surprisingly bad compared to most European countries or a slew of Asian countries, but not as bad as the article portrays.

Ok, Bob - but I wouldn't mind knowing where you got your 12 and 17 percent statistics from (I'm always on the look-out for good references).

Competing with labor in other countries is a problem - obviously an American worker can't live on $12.77 a day (I think one poster thought that was $12.77/hr).

Thank you for pointing this out (the misconception) - it saves me having to:-)

In other words, if Goodyear didn't close their Lincoln plant to replace it with a Mexican plant, they would be closing the Lincoln plant because Michelin or Goodrich or some other company was underselling them.

Edit: And the Lincoln workers were being asked to take a pay cut from $18/hr to $14/hr, not a cut to $12.77/day. Except all the workers would have had to take a pay cut, not just the 480 being replaced by the plant in Mexico. The other workers at the plant not losing their jobs weren't willing to take a 20% pay cut to save their fellow workers jobs.

A variation on the point you make below: why is it that ordinary workers have to sacrifice their salaries for their workmates while CEOs are actually given larger (and absolutely obscene) salaries - why does cutting costs not affect upper management? I mean, where's the fairness in a system that works like this?

By the way, I'm not exactly pro company executives, either. I find it a little disturbing when companies are very capitalistic when it comes to the idea that the people taking the financial risks are the ones that should gain the most when the risk pays off, but suddenly become very socialistic and ask for taxpayer bailouts when business turns sour.

Yes - good point. But I seem to feel a lot more indignant about such unfair practices than others do. It is because I clearly see and understand these aspects of capitalism (who the system favours, and at whose cost) that I cannot understand why it should have so many defenders - especially amongst a group of people who are as well-educated and as well-trained in critical thinking skills (when it comes to science at least) as PF members are. Why do scientists stop being scientific when it comes to patriotism, ideology and politics? This truly perplexes me.

 

[alexandra]

Alexandra I think it is important to point out that bodies such as Oxfam determine people as poor as those with an income of <60% of the median income for the country they are appraising.

Yes, but this is an EU-accepted definition. Note, also, that from what is stated in the rest of the paragraph, these figures show only part of the picture – they “don’t mean very much by themselves…” etc:

Poverty is measured here as below 60 per cent of contemporary median net disposable income in 2000/01. This is the ‘poverty line’ which has been accepted recently across the European Union to measure the extent of poverty in member states; it is not the same as a comprehensive definition of poverty, which includes many other dimensions. These figures look at incomes in Great Britain, after housing costs have been paid, and include the self-employed. These figures don’t mean very much by themselves -- they only refer to low incomes relative to the rest of the population in the UK. They don’t tell us much about the many different aspects of poverty and the way people experience it. http://www.oxfamgb.org/ukpp/poverty/thefacts.htm

This means that however wealthy a population becomes, a sizable proportion will always be classified as poor even if they are millionaires unless of course you have a communist gov't whereby wealth is redistributed equally. Unfortunately this would result in a country where nobody is classified as poor but given communism's economic track record everybody would live in poverty. Or as my good friend Brutus used to say Aegrescit medendo

Well, ok – so this is the best of all possible worlds. How sad… I wonder if that’s what the people who are having a hard time of it think (and will forever think)?

Therefore IM ever so HO all statistics you quoted based on that ridiculous definition of poverty are equally meaningless.

Well, Art, obviously you are wasting your time responding to me then - if everything I post is meaningless. Perhaps you just want to irritate me by being ‘humble’? Oh well, go ahead – it’s amusing…

You'll need to do better than this to rile the oppressed masses.

That’s not what I’m trying to do on these discussion boards. I’m trying to have intellectual discussions with people who like discussing ideas. I realize (I’m not as stupid as you think) that there are no “oppressed masses” here – and I also (cleverly) realize why it is that my ideas get slammed and ridiculed so frequently. I analyse the social world in terms of class, so please give me credit for knowing the class that the people I am talking to belong to.

p.s. Alexandra, as you are evidently a big fan of G. Orwell what do you think of his book Animal Farm wherein he derides communism? If I'm O'Brien doesn't that make you Sqealer?

For those who haven't read Animal Farm here's a good summary of the book;

http://www.gradesaver.com/ClassicNotes/Titles/animalfarm/shortsumm.html

Art, Orwell was not deriding communism (though this is what you would have been taught to interpret the classic, Animal Farm, as doing (for obvious, propagandistic reasons); he was deriding Stalinism, which was a barbaric political system and deserved totally to be discredited by all genuine socialists (Orwell was a socialist – you seem to know about him, so you’ll know he fought in the Spanish Civil War on the side of the anarchists. That’s where he learned about the reality of Stalinism). It is really annoying when people deliberately use the terms Stalinism and communism interchangeably – they are not the same thing. Stalin was neither a socialist nor a communist. Stalin was a dictator. Ah yes, the ‘Squealer’ dig – well, if it makes you feel better, go ahead… In my ridiculous fashion, I will continue to analyse the world the way it makes sense to me and draw my own conclusions about what is happening.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Capitalism is the devil, but what was the world like before capitalism? Economies were supported by real slaves and serfdom, and probably 95% of the world's wealth was owned by a miniscule noble class. There was little to no technological innovation and absolutely no prospect of class mobility. You can't possibly say capitalism has made the world worse off.

"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on Earth and need means to deal with one another—their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun."

-Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand

 

[BobG]

Ok, Bob - but I wouldn't mind knowing where you got your 12 and 17 percent statistics from (I'm always on the look-out for good references).

The CIA World Fact Book (quite a few other references use this as their source reference, as well, so the numbers from other sources often match this)

I used to have some UN statistics as well, but I don't think they have the report on their website anymore (it was a little older report, in any event).

 

[alexandra]

The CIA World Fact Book (quite a few other references use this as their source reference, as well, so the numbers from other sources often match this) report on their website anymore (it was a little older report, in any event).

Thanks, Bob. I will have to have a look at it - here's a shameful admission: I just couldn't bring myself to refer that resource (for ideological reasons) But this is incredibly silly of me, and I will have to overcome my aversion because, from what I've read in the Factbook thread, it seems to be a pretty good source of information.

 

[alexandra]

"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on Earth and need means to deal with one another—their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun."

-Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand

Charming! What faith she has in humanity