# So does the board skew left? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 25, 2005, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457 "2005-05-25T17:23:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 25
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/481 "2005-06-08T18:37:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That will never happen. The poor we will always have with us… Is it God’s Will, then? Some Immutable Principle than cannot be changed, and must simply be endured. One should be wary of mixing metaphysics with economics,I think. To paraphrase Chesterton on Christianity: it was not tried and found wanting, it was found difficult and not tried. > [@](#): > > …But you’ll get CLOSER to that goal by permitting the free market to work, enriching ALL to a decent standard of living, even while the most successful under that system are able to go even further. Just so! Who can forget the Golden Age of the free market, with the Goulds, the Vanderbilts, the Rockefellers? How the blessings of the free market were extended serenely to the lowliest of us, and the smallest. How even the children were afforded the opportunity to sell thier little hands, and thus fully participate! How happy they must have been, frolicking to their hearts content in the cotton mills and coal mines! And a future as secure and unalterable as a death sentence. How you must pine for those happy, happy days of the robust free market! ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/482 "2005-06-08T18:41:13Z")
You’re equating robber baron capitalism — a partnership between business tycoons and corrupt government officials — to free market capitalism. That’s like equating the suppression of atheism to freedom of religion. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/483 "2005-06-08T18:43:12Z")
> [@I don't care about your cat](#): > > I wouldn’t call it a tax either. A tax is a fee levied by the government. Not really an accurate description of MW. And I think Mr. S made a very good case for why it’s not re-distribution. I said it was a ‘backdoor tax’. And as for Mr. S’s great explaintion of why MW is not re-distribution, thats all true under a Marxist system. Unfortunately…we don’t yet have a Marxist system in the US. Sorry. > [@I don't care about your cat](#): > > Not really. John’s reasoning was that the net effect is the equivalent of the process, to which I disagree. Liberal’s idea of discourse is to quote my entire post and write one sentence saying that it’s “bullshit”. Bricker said, “When the government forces an employer to pay more than he wishes, that’s the government taking money from the employer and giving it to the employee.” That’s not really an explanation of why it’s wealth redistribution; it’s merely a re-statement that it is. I’d still like to hear your explanation. I suggest you go back and re-read what they said a bit more carefully. They have pretty much laid out their positions very well. Perhaps you could actually try and debate their points instead of constructing strawmen of what they said? Or…maybe you could just throw up your hands and let it go at this point? > [@I don't care about your cat](#): > > Oh, I’m totally with you on that. But I think you’re going WAY overboard if you’re suggesting that a MW is anywhere close to the end of the spectrum where Marxism resides. (I don’t think that’s what you’re saying, is it?) YOu totally missed the point (big surprise). No one is saying MW equates to Marxism…they are saying that Mr. S’s point about MW not being re-distribution under Marxism doesn’t really hold since the US IS NOT A MARXIST COUNTRY. Are you actually reading through what folks are writing? At any rate, I’ll let Shodan answer this if he chooses as it was directed at him. My thanks to Bricker, John Mace, Liberal for the links and Shodan (and even Mr’s S and 'luci). It was an enjoyable last 2 pages and and interesting debate…lots of good info and perspectives. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/484 "2005-06-08T18:47:45Z")
Let me try to clarify a couple of points before ducking out of this tar-baby of a discussion. **Liberal** : > [@](#): > > _Standard? Are you defining standard as Keynesian? […shrug…]_ No, I’m thinking about, say, a given set of standard Economics 101 textbooks, or a given group of run-of-the-mill, standard, orthodox economists. Like, for example, this [guy](http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/homepage.htm), or his friend, [Samuelson](http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/samuelson.htm). If one of these two were to say to me, “Mr. Svinlesha, you ignorant slut! _Of course_ minimum wage is a wealth redistribution program!” Well, then, I’d just have to hush my mouth. (I’ve actually read their textbook, by the way. I don’t remember them classifying minimum wage as a redistribution program there, but it was years and years ago since I last read it. I concede I could be completely wrong.) **Bricker** : > [@](#): > > - Except that from the standpoint of accountability, an individual worker may walk away from a losing company without being liable for any of its debts – and with his wages having been paid. Regardless of the success or failure of the company, his wages get paid. He cannot be held repsonsible for the company’s debts. Theo owner can, and is.\* First off, in the case of privately owned companies, that also reflects the values of the reigning economic order. You aren’t actually suggesting that workers, who in your system are deprived of the right to the profits of their labor, should be liable when the company defaults, are you? Second off, I thought corporations were created specifically to shield owners from personal responsibility regarding company debts. Am I mistaken? > [@](#): > > - Now, perhaps in the future, after the revolution, some scheme will exist to create the responsibility that the workers must pay for the debts of the company – and, in fact, they would then be entitled to the defalut ownership of the company earnings. In fact, we have such a scheme today, in employee-owned companies.\* You see? The revolution is closer than you think, my friend. > [@](#): > > _Even with Enron, layoffs, and bankruptcies, workers got their wages. They lost their future employment, to be sure, but they were paid for the work that they did. In fact, they were in better positions than other creditors, who got little or nothing for their debts._ You originally asked me the following question: _”Indeed, if the company loses money, are the workers out of luck?”_ I pointed out that, in fact, when companies lose money, workers do suffer. They might not suffer immediately, but if the company continues to lose money, they will suffer eventually, and they will suffer quite “catastrophically,” in the sense that they will lose their livelihoods. But I do agree with you that the labor market doesn’t follow the general ebb and flow of other sorts of markets – it tends to be stickier. > [@](#): > > - Except that we are talking about minimum wages in this particular system: the United States, TODAY. As you acknowledge above, that is how the system works now. It’s somewhat disingenuous for you to try to refute my definition by advancing a Marxist view of the system, when you acknowledge that system is not persently implemented. > > I’ll short-circuit the discussion: I agree that under a Marxist system, a minimum wage is not “wealth redistribution.” But under the present legal and conceptual system here in the United States, it is. That’s not so much the “manner” in which I frame the debate – that’s the location and system about which the debate is being held.\* ? I’m not advancing an “unimplemented” view of a Marxist system. I’m applying a standard Marxist analysis of the system that’s currently in place. I’m simply providing a counter-example to a “libertarian” analysis that folks like **Finn** , **John** , and you are applying. My argument is this: if you apply a libertarian analysis to the question of minimum wage, then you can reasonably argue that minimum wage is a program of wealth distribution. That’s because of the way you define the terms you use in your analysis. But there are, in fact, other ways to analyze the issue. For example: if you apply a Marxist analysis, you would probably not classify MW as a redistributive program. **Shodan** : > [@](#): > > - Of course, as **Mr. Svinlesha** points out, it depends on who you think owns the revenues of a given company - those who founded and manage the company, or those who are hired by the company. It seems to me and to most of mankind that if you create something, you own it by default…\* Cool. So that means that all those workers at Volvo, who stand there day after day creating cars, thereby own them by default. **Shodan** , I never knew you were a Marxist! > [@](#): > > - It is possible, and Marxists do, argue that the fruits of my labor belong to everyone, and must be managed by the state for the common good. The economic history of large-scale societies who attempt to implement such a scheme has not, by and large, borne out the lofty predictions of those who suggest it. This seems to be because > A. In a society larger than a certain size (roughly, the point at which most of the members are strangers to each other, especially if their cultures differ), the Marxist ideal loses the motivation of enlightened self-interest that free marketers and other econonic libertarians see as the linchpin of progress. Altruism on behalf of strangers does not seem to be strong enough to overcome the inherent inertia of much or most of the populace. > B. The bureacracy necessary to administer and even to micro-manage the economic activities of a whole society exposes the society as a whole to the temptations of autocracy and authoritarianism. If you can make people give you their money, it is a very short step to telling them what to do with the rest of their lives. This is especially true when you are trying to prevent people from interacting with each other using the free market model that seems to be the default mode of economic interaction among strangers. > C. The attempt to set wages and prices at the level where they “should” be, instead of where they naturally stabilize in an uncoerced free market, loses all the dynamic equilibrium created by the myriad interactions of supply and demand. The market is **information**. The price of something on the open market is the collective decision of everyone who desires that something, arrived at with great rapidity, and continuously self-correcting as the desires and resources of those competing for limited goods change. > - I just want to note that the above is in my opinion a very good critique of Marxism in practice. I disagree, however, that **all** markets are self-correcting or function with great rapidity (although many of them are, and do); labor markets are not, and don’t. I also disagree with this: > [@](#): > > _Minimum wage laws are an example of an attempt to be smarter than the market._ I think minimum wage laws are attempt to make sure that everyone has at least a chance to survive in the market, even with the lowliest of jobs. **John** : > [@](#): > > - Exactly. I didn’t realize that on this board one had to preface a statement about economics with “in a non-Marxist economy…”. For the record, I am always talking about a non-Marxist economy, unless I specify otherwise.\* In response I refer you to my reply to **Bricker** , above. I’m not arguing about the kind of economy we live in; I’m arguing about the type of analysis one uses to understand that economy. If one shifts to a different perspective, one’s terms of reference change. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/485 "2005-06-08T18:47:46Z")
> [@I don't care about your cat](#): > > Bricker said, “When the government forces an employer to pay more than he wishes, that’s the government taking money from the employer and giving it to the employee.” That’s not really an explanation of _why_ it’s wealth redistribution; it’s merely a re-statement that it _is_. Nope. You contract to do a job for an agreed upon wage, not for a share of the profits. All the money your employer makes beyond your sallary is theirs to do with as they will. If you force them to take _their_ money and give it to _you_, it’s redistributing _their_ wealth to _you_. You can claim that’s merely a statement that it is, but it’s clearly a statement of **why** it is. In short, you can call a silk purse a sow’s ear, but it won’t make it so. You’ve been told **exactly** why it’s wealth distribution. Your continued ignorance is your responsibility at this point. > [@I don't care about your cat](#): > > I’m not _assuming_ anything, I’m using the definitions of the words as I understand them. To my mind, “wealth redistribution” means the government taking money away from one person and giving it to another person. Yes from the bussiness owner to the employees. > [@I don't care about your cat](#): > > So are you saying that any time the government affects how I can spend my money, it’s "wealth redistribution? If the government tells you that you must give your money to other people? How is that not wealth redistribution? They’re taking your wealth… and redistributing it. > [@I don't care about your cat](#): > > I’d agree with that. That’s a much better description than “wealth redistribution”. Government regulations affect how we can spend our money _all the time_; there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with that. I’m not allowed to purchase a nuclear bomb, and I’m rather glad that such a regulation exists. Obfuscatory. There is a difference between a prohibition on contraband and an imperative to give your money to other people. > [@I don't care about your cat](#): > > Not exactly. You certainly have the option of not hiring employees. :rolleyes: And when confronted with a highway robber you have the choice of ‘your money or your life’ > [@I don't care about your cat](#): > > Anyway, you own your _company_ but you don’t own the workers. They are free human beings, and as such have a right to be treated with dignity. Pffffffffffffffffffft. They deserve not to be defrauded or placed in a hostile or threatening workplace. Beyond that, no. > [@I don't care about your cat](#): > > Oh, I’m totally with you on that. But I think you’re going WAY overboard if you’re suggesting that a MW is anywhere close to the end of the spectrum where Marxism resides. MW is taking money from owners and giving it to workers. While it’s not marxism, per se, it’s along similar ideology. > [@I don't care about your cat](#): > > If it’s neither good nor bad, then why doggedly insist that we strive for it? Because not all ideology relates to morality? Pragmatics is its own branch. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/486 "2005-06-08T18:52:59Z")
> [@Svinlesha](#): > > No, I’m thinking about, say, a given set of standard Economics 101 textbooks, or a given group of run-of-the-mill, standard, orthodox economists. What was wrong with the economist I gave you? He’s a Keynesian. He’s a Democrat. He writes for PBS. Isn’t Keynesian economics orthodox anymore? What’s orthodox nowadays, Chicagoism? Dare I ask it … Austrianism? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/487 "2005-06-08T19:22:13Z")
**John** : > [@](#): > > - Apparently you didn’t read the post from Mr. Svin in which he argued that Min Wage laws should be considered redistributive because they would not be considered thus in a Marxist society. I agree, they wouldn’t. Hence my post (actually Bricker beat me to it.)\* Huh? I will tell you one thing: I don’t know if this board skews left, but this thread sure as hell doesn’t. **Bricker** : > [@](#): > > - But you’ll get CLOSER to that goal by permitting the free market to work, enriching ALL to a decent standard of living, even while the most successful under that system are able to go even further.\* As far as I can tell, this is nothing more than a statement of faith. If you mean by free market a totally unfettered, unregulated capitalist market, well, sorry, but the historical record just doesn’t support the claim. **xtisme** : > [@](#): > > - I said it was a ‘backdoor tax’. And as for Mr. S’s great explaintion of why MW is not re-distribution, thats all true under a Marxist system. Unfortunately…we don’t yet have a Marxist system in the US. Sorry.\* Sorry, meester, but zes ees not what I zaid. Or, if it is what I said, at least it’s not what I meant. > [@](#): > > - YOu totally missed the point (big surprise). No one is saying MW equates to Marxism…they are saying that Mr. S’s point about MW not being re-distribution under Marxism doesn’t really hold since the US IS NOT A MARXIST COUNTRY. Are you actually reading through what folks are writing?\* I wrote, _”From a Marxist perspective…”_ I did not write, _”In a Marxist economy…”_ Are you actually reading what I’m writing? **Liberal** : There’s nothing wrong with your quote. I just would like to confirm that it isn’t being taking out of context, that the author isn’t expressing himself poorly, etc., before finally conceding the point. As I mentioned to **John** earlier, to me it’s really just a matter of semantics, not a major issue of concern. All of us here know what the minimum wage is, what it does, and how it works, regardless of what we call it. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/488 "2005-06-08T19:35:45Z")
> [@I don't care about your cat](#): > > Bricker said, “When the government forces an employer to pay more than he wishes, that’s the government taking money from the employer and giving it to the employee.” That’s not really an explanation of _why_ it’s wealth redistribution; it’s merely a re-statement that it _is_. I’d still like to hear _your_ explanation. As far as I can tell, I have explained why I think it is at least twice. **Bricker** ’s question was a good one. Would you agree that a government rule that you were obliged to hire one employee out of fifteen to do nothing is a redistribution of wealth? > [@I don't care about your cat](#): > > I’m not _assuming_ anything, I’m using the definitions of the words as I understand them. To my mind, “wealth redistribution” means the government taking money away from one person and giving it to another person. Perhaps we should start with what _your_ definition of “wealth redistribution” is. Well, I’ll have one more crack at it. Minimum wage laws are a redistribution of wealth in the following sense: [ul][li]Ownership of money or anything else consists of the exclusive right to decide how and if to spend that money. [_]Wealth is redistributed whenever it is spent for the benefit of someone else. [_]MW laws are an effort on the part of government to compel employers to spend more on an employee than the employee would be able to obtain by bidding on the open market. [_]That compulsion therefore represents a loss of the right to decide how to spend part of the employer’s money. [_]MW laws are intended to benefit those workers who receive more as a minimum wage than they would otherwise receive.[/ul]Minimum wage laws are therefore a redistribution of wealth. QED.[/li] Not sure I can make it any clearer than that. > [@I don't care about your cat](#): > > So are you saying that any time the government affects how I can spend my money, it’s "wealth redistribution? Yes, pretty much. Providing I am being compelled to spend my money against my will, and for the benefit of someone else, yes. > [@I don't care about your cat](#): > > Not exactly. You certainly have the option of not hiring employees. Well, no offense, but that is a little like the police telling someone whose car has been stolen, “You always have the option of not driving”. > [@I don't care about your cat](#): > > So again, do you contend that _any_ time the government affects how you spend your money, it’s “wealth redistribution”? Insofar as it is a loss of control over spending, and done for the benefit of someone else, yes. > [@I don't care about your cat](#): > > Anyway, you own your _company_ but you don’t own the workers. They are free human beings, and as such have a right to be treated with dignity. Entirely true. But do you remember how above you said that I had the option of not hiring people? Isn’t it also the case that they have the right not to work for me, if they think they can get more somewhere else? Slavery has been dead for some time. > [@I don't care about your cat](#): > > But I think you’re going WAY overboard if you’re suggesting that a MW is anywhere close to the end of the spectrum where Marxism resides. (I don’t think that’s what you’re saying, is it?) I would say they are on the same continuum, and based also at least partially on the notion “From each according to his abilities; from each according to his needs”. I would call it a partial implementation of the same principle. The presumption is that mimimum wage workers need at least $5.15 an hour, no matter what their circumstances, and that employers can always afford to pay at least that much. Those who cannot afford to pay that much are SOL, unless they relocate to the Third World or something. Equally SOL, interestingly, are the workers whose labor is worth _less_ than $5.15 per hour. They simply don’t get hired. So they haven’t really benefited from MW laws, unless you count having no job as better than having a job that doesn’t pay very much. Very few workers in the US work for mimimum wage, nonetheless. About 3%, IIRC. (I can dig you up a cite if you like.) > [@I don't care about your cat](#): > > Gonna stop you right there, because I submit there is NO SUCH THING as an uncoerced free market, and as I said before, that is the failing of Libertarian theory. In the real world, we don’t have unlimited choices and opportunities, and the strong DO prey on the weak. I don’t think libertarians are arguing that a free market guarantees unlimited choices and opportunities. What they are suggesting is a market where all the choices are uncoerced by non-intrinsic agencies. That is to say, widgets in Libertopia cost $1.98 because $1.98 represents the average cost resulting from the uncoerced agreeement of suppliers, employers, and workers on how much each is willing to take. Not because the government has decided that widget-makers _ought_ to get more than they do, and therefore has legislated that they should get a 50% raise. I’ll see if I can cover the rest of your post later. Regards, Shodan on preview - > [@Mr.Svinlesha](#): > > So that means that all those workers at Volvo, who stand there day after day creating cars, thereby own them by default. Shodan, I never knew you were a Marxist! _:snerk;_ 🙂 Good one. I would counter by pointing out that it is the company as a whole who is producing the cars. And therefore the fruits of that company belong to those who created the company. If the Volvo workers think they can build a car alone, by all means let them give a whirl, and keep everything they make. - S ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/489 "2005-06-08T19:39:29Z")
> [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > **John** :In response I refer you to my reply to **Bricker** , above. > > I’m not arguing about the kind of economy we live in; I’m arguing about the type of analysis one uses to understand that economy. If one shifts to a different perspective, one’s terms of reference change. Actually you were arguing both (my emphasis): > [@Mr. S](#): > > The idea that the money earned automatically belongs to the owners of the company is not a law of nature. It reflects a value judgement, one which forms the basis of a capitalistic society. One could just as easily claim, by default, that all the earnings belong to the workers, who then must pay for supplies, taxes, leases, etc. Such a view would reflect the basis of communist or socialist society. but that’s a nitpick. Of course you come to a different conclusion if you start with different assumptions. Marxism doesn’t recognize private property in the way that capitalism does. But one needn’t take a Libertarian viewpoint to conclude that Min Wage laws redistribute wealth. In all the western nations, none of which are Libertarian, the Min Wage laws are simply part of the social safety net. Take them away, and low skilled workers will have less money in every non-Communist country in the world. Increase the Min Wage, and low skilled workers will have MORE money (assuming they still have a job). It’s that simple. So, unless you are postulating some supernatural source for the extra money to pay those workers, you have redistributed it from where it was before. Now, unless you want to claim that Marxist analysis is correct, citing it is completely besides the point. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/490 "2005-06-08T19:57:19Z")
> [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > [ **Liberal** : > > There’s nothing wrong with your quote. I just would like to confirm that it isn’t being taking out of context, that the author isn’t expressing himself poorly, etc., before finally conceding the point. No problem. You can just click the link I provided. But there isn’t much context to it. He certainly favors a minimum wage, but he is unequivocally calling it a redistribution of wealth — because that’s what it is: X - M = R. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/491 "2005-06-08T19:59:47Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I don’t think libertarians are arguing that a free market guarantees unlimited choices and opportunities. What they are suggesting is a market where all the choices are uncoerced by non-intrinsic agencies. That is to say, widgets in Libertopia cost $1.98 because $1.98 represents the average cost resulting from the uncoerced agreeement of suppliers, employers, and workers on how much each is willing to take. Not because the government has decided that widget-makers ought to get more than they do, and therefore has legislated that they should get a 50% raise. That’s correct. In fact, libertarians would argue that voluntary collective bargaining is an excellent economic tactic for raising wages. It amounts to reducing the supply of labor and therefore increasing the demand, making labor more valuable. ---
**Author:** ![I\_don\_t\_care\_about\_your\_cat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/f08c70/32.png) [@I\_don\_t\_care\_about\_your\_cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_don_t_care_about_your_cat)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/492 "2005-06-08T20:00:35Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Well, no offense, but that is a little like the police telling someone whose car has been stolen, “You always have the option of not driving”. More later, but I wanted to address this one point. First, it’s not really analagous to having something _stolen_. However, I take your point that it’s an unsatisfying argument, and I chose it for exactly that reason. I chose that argument because a very similar argument is often made by Libertarians when claiming that workers are never coerced. I’ve heard many, many times: “If you don’t want to work for low wages, you don’t have to work for that employer.” Yes, it is an unsatisfying argument, yet it is used by Libertarians constantly. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/493 "2005-06-08T20:05:10Z")
Would that individuals were rational economic actors with anything near perfect information… ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/494 "2005-06-08T20:09:52Z")
> [@Cat](#): > > I chose that argument because a very similar argument is often made by Libertarians when claiming that workers are never coerced. What libertarian has _ever_ claimed that workers are never coerced? > [@](#): > > I’ve heard many, many times: “If you don’t want to work for low wages, you don’t have to work for that employer.” That might be how you’ve interpreted the argument, but that’s not how it goes. It sounds to me like you’ve simplified a complex issue into a slogan that you like to attack. There are many, many solutions to achieving higher wages. Libertarians are no more in favor of low wages than you are. We eat too. Our difference is not in how much we care about workers; our difference is in how we would go about aleviating their plight. Whereas you favor the imposition of artificial wage levels (which must, of necessity, be coupled with artificial subsidy of corporate profits — corporate welfare), we favor the imposition of a noncoercive economy, so that entrepreneurs are free to compete for labor. We believe that entrepreneurship is better for an economy than magistration. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/495 "2005-06-08T20:11:54Z")
> [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > Sorry, meester, but zes ees not what I zaid. Or, if it is what I said, at least it’s not what I meant. Well, thats how it read to me. If thats not what you meant then appologies. > [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > I wrote, ”From a Marxist perspective…” I did not write, ”In a Marxist economy…” > > Are you actually reading what I’m writing? Seems like a pretty thin nitpick to base your accusation that I didn’t read what you wrote. However, I concede you wrote ‘From a Marxist perspective’ instead of in a Marxist economy. -XT ---
**Author:** ![The\_Black\_Hand\_Gang](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/aeb1de/32.png) [@The\_Black\_Hand\_Gang](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Black_Hand_Gang)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/496 "2005-06-08T20:13:36Z")
Wealth inequality in the US is already in the top 3 in the world, and increasing. The deficit is growing ever more unimaginably large. An extremely small fraction of society is accumulating most of the money, while the nation as a whole sinks into the Marianas Trench of debt. While I would love to be able to have an ideal like “no wealth redistribution”, the practical concern of taking us off the road to disaster has to come first. The comparison to the Robber Barons is apt. It is naive to think that the only reason that happened was because government officials were exceptionally corrupt back then, and now we have nothing to worry about. I’d like to believe that. But again, the practical and logical concerns of doing what is best for the country have to outweigh the idealistic and naive belief in the purity and infallibility of our market and government. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/497 "2005-06-08T20:15:39Z")
> [@The Black Hand Gang](#): > > . An extremely small fraction of society is accumulating most of the money, while the nation as a whole sinks into the Marianas Trench of debt. Yes, but it’ll only be once. For twenty minutes. ---
**Author:** ![I\_don\_t\_care\_about\_your\_cat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/f08c70/32.png) [@I\_don\_t\_care\_about\_your\_cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_don_t_care_about_your_cat)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/498 "2005-06-08T20:24:55Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > What libertarian has _ever_ claimed that workers are never coerced? Uh, most of them? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/499 "2005-06-08T20:25:51Z")
> [@I don't care about your cat](#): > > Uh, most of them? No, I’m afraid not. Your cornfield needs a new scarecrow. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/500 "2005-06-08T20:26:52Z")
**John** : I can see how you got the impression, I guess, but that was definitely not my meaning. Perhaps that particular paragraph was poorly worded. I just want to respond to this: > [@](#): > > _Now, unless you want to claim that Marxist analysis is correct, citing it is completely besides the point._ Well, I do think there is a lot of value in Marxist/Neo-Marxist social analysis, but of course it has its weaknesses as well. In general I’m fond of classical Grand Theory and prefer its elegance to post-modern anti-theory, deconstruction, etc. I guess I’m old-fashioned like that. But I’m not arguing that Marxist analysis is necessarily “correct,” any more than, say, neo-Liberal analysis is correct (let’s quit beating around the bush and just call it what it is). I don’t think there is a “correct” analysis. The kind of analysis you prefer is based on your own ethical predilections and probably many other considerations as well. Deciding who the earnings actually belong to, for example, is really a judgement call, based on one’s own personal values. You can no more prove that your interpretation is “correct” than I can prove mine is, at least as far as this issue is concerned. The difference between us, I think, is that I’m not trying to prove the alternative interpretation is correct; I just want to submit it as reasonable and possible. You, on the other hand, seem to want to insist that your interpretation _is_ the only possible correct one. I disagree with that stance. You know, Marxism has this very important concept, “exploitation,” that builds on the idea that, since, by default, the fruits of labor belong to the workers who produce it, any profits transferred to the owners are “in reality” stolen from the workers. Now, there’s a firm ethical basis to that kind of a conviction, despite the fact that the concept of “exploitation” is problematic in practical application and extremely value-laden as well. Still, there are people who would stringently argue that this interpretation was nevertheless the “correct” one. But it isn’t; it’s just a value judgement, based on a certain way of viewing the world (namely, that company earnings “really” belong to the workers). One comes to a point where there is no correct answer, just a judgement, a sense that “X is correct.” One then tries to build up a rationale around that sense, but to my eye, those rationales most often ring false. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457.md?page=24) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457.md?page=26)