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.
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!
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.
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 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?
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.
Let me try to clarify a couple of points before ducking out of this tar-baby of a discussion.
Liberal:
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, or his friend, Samuelson. 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:
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?
You see? The revolution is closer than you think, my friend.
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.
?
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:
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!
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:
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:
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.
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.
Yes from the bussiness owner to the employees.
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.
Obfuscatory.
There is a difference between a prohibition on contraband and an imperative to give your money to other people.
:rolleyes:
And when confronted with a highway robber you have the choice of ‘your money or your life’
Pffffffffffffffffffft.
They deserve not to be defrauded or placed in a hostile or threatening workplace.
Beyond that, no.
MW is taking money from owners and giving it to workers. While it’s not marxism, per se, it’s along similar ideology.
Because not all ideology relates to morality?
Pragmatics is its own branch.
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?
I will tell you one thing: I don’t know if this board skews left, but this thread sure as hell doesn’t. Bricker:
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:
Sorry, meester, but zes ees not what I zaid. Or, if it is what I said, at least it’s not what I meant.
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.
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?
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.
Yes, pretty much. Providing I am being compelled to spend my money against my will, and for the benefit of someone else, yes.
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”.
Insofar as it is a loss of control over spending, and done for the benefit of someone else, yes.
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 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 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 -
: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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What libertarian has ever claimed that workers are never coerced?
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.
Well, thats how it read to me. If thats not what you meant then appologies.
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.
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.
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:
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.
Good one.