bloodyminded Posted June 19, 2011 Report Posted June 19, 2011 You just made my point. What the market will pay, what they are being offered, is the market value. What is "fair" is just the opinion of each of us. My opinion is that the market value is the fair value. What you here term "market value"--some sort of force free of direct human agency--I view as conscious choices made by a tiny minority of wealthy human beings. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
RNG Posted June 19, 2011 Report Posted June 19, 2011 What you here term "market value"--some sort of force free of direct human agency--I view as conscious choices made by a tiny minority of wealthy human beings. I disagree. Rona in each jurisdiction decides on a salary scale. If that wage attracts enough acceptable employees, that is fair market value. But if it doesn't, and I have seen this happen, they raise the offer till they can achieve the desired number and quality of employees. That too then is market value. It was more decided by the workers than Rona. Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
bloodyminded Posted June 19, 2011 Report Posted June 19, 2011 I disagree. Rona in each jurisdiction decides on a salary scale. If that wage attracts enough acceptable employees, that is fair market value. But if it doesn't, and I have seen this happen, they raise the offer till they can achieve the desired number and quality of employees. That too then is market value. It was more decided by the workers than Rona. In that case, union pay and benefits are "Fair market value." That's by your definition. You can't have it both ways. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
RNG Posted June 19, 2011 Report Posted June 19, 2011 In that case, union pay and benefits are "Fair market value." That's by your definition. You can't have it both ways. Again, I disagree. It's like the difference between democracy and a dictatorship. Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
Evening Star Posted June 19, 2011 Report Posted June 19, 2011 Unions are democratic institutions. Quote
bloodyminded Posted June 19, 2011 Report Posted June 19, 2011 Again, I disagree. It's like the difference between democracy and a dictatorship. Please. Economic decisions made by a tiny little minority of unelected, wealthy individuals--whose "standards" should be used for the public sector as well, according to some people here--constitute "democracy," while unions constitute "dictatorship"? Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
RNG Posted June 19, 2011 Report Posted June 19, 2011 Please. Economic decisions made by a tiny little minority of unelected, wealthy individuals--whose "standards" should be used for the public sector as well, according to some people here--constitute "democracy," while unions constitute "dictatorship"? The part of your argument I do not at all understand or accept is that there is some "tiny little minority of unelected, wealthy individuals" who determine all that. Name some, describe some, explain this claim. Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
bloodyminded Posted June 19, 2011 Report Posted June 19, 2011 (edited) The part of your argument I do not at all understand or accept is that there is some "tiny little minority of unelected, wealthy individuals" who determine all that. Name some, describe some, explain this claim. The "hand of the market" does not determine wages; human beings make the choice to pay certain wages. Very few human beings. If I apply at WalMart, there is no "negotiation" as the sycophantic wags like to have it. I"m paid slightly over minimum wage, as per corporate policy. If minimum wage were far less, I would be paid slightly over that minimum wage. Are you really going to tell me that no one makes a decision about this? that it's the hand of God? And also, you haven't answered the question: how is the profound power differntial, the absolute choice of one party and the zero choice of the other, "democracy"???? Edited June 19, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
RNG Posted June 19, 2011 Report Posted June 19, 2011 The "hand of the market" does not determine wages; human beings make the choice to pay certain wages. Very few human beings. If I apply at WalMart, there is no "negotiation" as the sycophantic wags like to have it. I"m paid slightly over minimum wage, as per corporate policy. If minimum wage were far less, I would be paid slightly over that minimum wage. Are you really going to tell me that no one makes a decision about this? that it's the hand of God? And also, you haven't answered the question: how is the profound power differntial, the absolute choice of one party and the zero choice of the other, "democracy"???? If you show up at WalMart and they offer you a wage, you have a choice. You can accept it, or not. If you don't, then you don't work. If there is something better out there, go for it. If there isn't, that's the way of the world. You aren't worth more. Deal with it. Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
scribblet Posted June 20, 2011 Report Posted June 20, 2011 (edited) It didn't pass, it was held off, partly I think because of the Trotskyist Barry Weisleder Tricky tricky, if they want to expand their base and attract liberals then they have to be open to a wider group of people who don't subscribe to the preamble that says: social, economic and political progress is possible "only by the application of socialist principles" such as state control over the production and distribution of goods and services. so, if the NDP wants to appeal to a larger segment of Canadians they will have to move away from this IMO, even Pat Martin, the NDP attack dog wanted to remove it. Edited June 20, 2011 by scribblet Quote Hey Ho - Ontario Liberals Have to Go - Fight Wynne - save our province
Jack Weber Posted June 20, 2011 Report Posted June 20, 2011 (edited) The part of your argument I do not at all understand or accept is that there is some "tiny little minority of unelected, wealthy individuals" who determine all that. Name some, describe some, explain this claim. How 'bout the National Association of Manufacturers in the US??? They are the historical driving COLLECTIVE force behind RTW... Intersting how that capitalist individualists require collectivism to legislate their divide and conquer version of workplace individualism??? How 'bout the "Merit Shop" movement in this country? Only represented by employers... How 'bout CLAC??? A Yellow Dog union if there ever was one... Edited June 20, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Bonam Posted June 20, 2011 Report Posted June 20, 2011 Wrong (and Jack Weber is probbaly right). If people need work, and need a paycheque so matter what it is, they aren't going to refuse low wages because of some magical "hidden hand" dictating what is "fair." If someone needs a job, and an employer is willing to provide them that job, and the prospective employee agrees to the offered wage, how is that not "fair"? Quote
Bonam Posted June 20, 2011 Report Posted June 20, 2011 (edited) What you here term "market value"--some sort of force free of direct human agency--I view as conscious choices made by a tiny minority of wealthy human beings. It's not really a "choice" as it is an economic reality driven by supply and demand. When there is a surplus of workers available to work retail and few retail jobs, the price for that labour will be at or just above minimum wage. If on the other hand the economy is growing and there are more jobs than workers, the cost of labour will increase. There have been plenty of instances of retail workers making much more. If a company doesn't lower the wages it offers when there is a surplus of workers, its competitors, who did lower wages, will be able to offer lower prices on their products/services, driving the generous company out of business. If a company doesn't raise its wages when there is a shortage of workers, it won't be able to hire any employees, since they will all go to the better paying competitors. That's how commoditized labour works. If someone wants to insulate themselves from that, they need to acquire unique skills and/or knowledge that is valued by their employer and not easily replaceable. If you want to talk in terms of "fairness": where is the fairness in a unionized worker earning, for example, $20 per hour when there are 10 people out there desperate for a job and willing and able to do it for $10? The company could employ two of them for the same price as the one they have, feed two families instead of one, and get twice as much work done. And yet, they aren't allowed to do so because they are probably restricted from doing so by a union contract. Again, where is the "fairness"? Edited June 20, 2011 by Bonam Quote
M.Dancer Posted June 20, 2011 Report Posted June 20, 2011 Unions are democratic institutions. Indeed. The USSR was a democratic too.... When they make secret voting 100% across the board, they will have passed the USSR Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
cybercoma Posted June 21, 2011 Report Posted June 21, 2011 If someone needs a job, and an employer is willing to provide them that job, and the prospective employee agrees to the offered wage, how is that not "fair"? Why do we always say that employers are providing employees with a job? It's the employees that provide the employers with labour. It's the thing that cannot be produced, so it must be purchased. The employee could use their labour for their own ends. They don't have to provide it to an employer. Quote
RNG Posted June 21, 2011 Report Posted June 21, 2011 Why do we always say that employers are providing employees with a job? It's the employees that provide the employers with labour. It's the thing that cannot be produced, so it must be purchased. The employee could use their labour for their own ends. They don't have to provide it to an employer. What a load of crap! You are stupid. It takes someone to risk his own money, put his life and family in jeopardy to try and start a business. You chichen-shit bastard. Did you ever do this? Who have you ever made a job for? So STFU. Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
Jack Weber Posted June 21, 2011 Report Posted June 21, 2011 What a load of crap! You are stupid. It takes someone to risk his own money, put his life and family in jeopardy to try and start a business. You chichen-shit bastard. Did you ever do this? Who have you ever made a job for? So STFU. Give it a rest you goofy oil pumping pissant!! Without the labour that's provided,your heros only have a good idea... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
RNG Posted June 21, 2011 Report Posted June 21, 2011 Give it a rest you goofy oil pumping pissant!! Without the labour that's provided,your heros only have a good idea... Labour without an employer? What a joke. Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
Jack Weber Posted June 21, 2011 Report Posted June 21, 2011 Labour without an employer? What a joke. Try fabricating anything made of steel without skilled labour...Without those tradesmen,the engineering firms that plan these things have alot of paper lying around. I'd call you utterly clueless but it would an insult to the utterly clueless.. Now go pump us some oil ...or gas...Or whatever it is you do that makes feel so indespensable... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
RNG Posted June 21, 2011 Report Posted June 21, 2011 Try fabricating anything made of steel without skilled labour...Without those tradesmen,the engineering firms that plan these things have alot of paper lying around. I'd call you utterly clueless but it would an insult to the utterly clueless.. Now go pump us some oil ...or gas...Or whatever it is you do that makes feel so indespensable... Can you think at all? Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
cybercoma Posted June 21, 2011 Report Posted June 21, 2011 I must have struck a nerve. RNG seems to be forgetting that the Industrial Revolution and Great Enclosure were complete only a couple centuries ago. He also seems to have no clue whatsoever about the division of labour that has taken place in society or the place of craftsmen before modern industry. Quote
Keepitsimple Posted June 21, 2011 Report Posted June 21, 2011 (edited) To have a proper debate, it's always good to define terms. There are some nuances attached to each term but in general: 1) Communism - everything is owned and run by the state with the proceeds divided equally among its citizens. 2) Socialism - everything is owned and run by the state with people treated "equitably" as opposed to equally. There's a recognition of sorts that some jobs are worth more and some people work harder. 3) Democratic Socialist - the noun is "Socialist" so that is the core belief and the principles of Socialism still apply - but within the framework of a democratic society. There is a tendency to allow private enterprise but subject to regulation. Major industries are nationalized. Capitalism is still a bad word. 4) Social Democrat - the noun is "Democrat" so that is the core belief. Social democrats believe (to various degrees) in free enterprise - but the excesses of capitalism must be curbed by government. Important industries such as energy and banking would likely be subject to nationalization or at a minimum, inordinate regulation. "Social Justice" is an important pillar - pensions, healthcare, looking after the less fortunate. One could look at Democratic Socialism as a movement away from Socialism towards capitalism....and Social Democracy as a movement away from Capitalism towards Socialism. Having said all that, one could easily see that Canada is NOT a land of unfettered Capitalism but more in line with Social Democracy. We have many of the components of social justice in our CPP, Medicare, Education, EI, Welfare and many other Federal, Provincial and Municipal support systems. We have, among others, strong Banking and telecommunications regulations. So....if we are already a Social Democracy.......what is the NDP trying to be? Do they believe in nationalizing industries? Do they believe in further regulating business? Do they believe in growing the Nanny state? Do they want to be Democratic Socialists or do they want to be Social Democrats? There's no doubt they would move Canada Left.....but how far Left...and based on what principles? Putting aside all the political platitudes - what exactly, would the "new" Canada look like? Edited June 21, 2011 by Keepitsimple Quote Back to Basics
eyeball Posted June 21, 2011 Report Posted June 21, 2011 So....if we are already a Social Democracy.......what is the NDP trying to be? Do they believe in nationalizing industries? Do they believe in further regulating business? Do they believe in growing the Nanny state? Do they want to be Democratic Socialists or do they want to be Social Democrats? There's no doubt they would move Canada Left.....but how far Left...based on what principles. I'd rather see the left start shaking things up on the other political axis myself - move south and away from the authoritarian end of things by regulating government more instead of business. This and more emphasis on civil liberties would put the lie to the notion the left is the real Nannyist at large these days. I'm betting that regulating government with stronger institutions of real transparency and accountability not to mention a few electoral and democratic reforms would make the business of regulating business far more effective. So effective I think that we could probably look forward to the day when we could ease up on a few business regulations. Right now though I think this idea that it's the left that is poised to climb all over the backs of ordinary Canadians needs to be challenged. It's not the left after all that's poised to broaden the criminal code, hire thousands of new prison guards and lock up as many Canadians as they can. As I see it the Conservative party is not herding Canada towards the right so much as frog-marching us towards the north end of the axis. Why the sudden need to transform Nanny into such a dominating bitch? As for social justice... you can almost hear the sneer spreading across Nanny's face. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Oleg Bach Posted June 21, 2011 Report Posted June 21, 2011 I thought the NDP were more in line with "Social Democracy" that straight socialism? They are Trotskyites at heart and think in a global manner. Those who have an agenda to make the whole planet socialist will not make good nationalists! Quote
Wild Bill Posted June 21, 2011 Report Posted June 21, 2011 Give it a rest you goofy oil pumping pissant!! Without the labour that's provided,your heros only have a good idea... There IS a grain of truth in there, Jack. I worked at a lot of different jobs in my life. Seemed I was really good at picking those companies that couldn't handle the changing times and downsized or outright died. Now I'm self-employed and from time to time I get a phone call or a letter from some government type wanting to know if I would be willing to take on an employee. Now I'm in a pretty specialized profession. I build and repair guitar amplifiers and music equipment. Most of it is still vacuum tube based, for reasons of sound quality. Since its an old technology, electronic schools haven't taught about vacuum tubes since about 1962. Except for my niche, they are considered obsolete. Since there is so little competition I've become a middlin' sized frog in a small pond. There are times when I get a bit backlogged but adding help is just not practical. I would have to use up my own time training someone for at least a year before he was useful. Meanwhile I would also lose income by paying him. I have had people offer to work for free just to learn how but again, I can't spare the time. Besides, essentially I might be training my own competitor! Lots of people offer me their labour but so far none of them has had labour to offer that's worth it to me! So I always politely tell these government types no, that there's just not enough work at the present time. However, that's not the real reason. I just don't want the hassle of all that paperwork! If I add an employee I have to keep books for him and pay his CPP,EI, take off the taxes and all that crap! Screw it! At this stage of my life I just want to earn my own (meager) living with the least amount of fuss and hassle. Why should I provide a job for someone else? There is a cost to it and unless the cost is worth it for my own personal goals and needs then why on earth should I bother? Why should any employer bother? Most do it because they want to expand their company into a larger one. I think more should ask themselves if its really worth it. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.