Why is it communist/leftist to try and fight for better wages? Wanting more capital is leftist??

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by antonia

 

Don't you get tired of putting words in others mouths?

Spare me all the reasons why you can't succeed.

Oh? Well, SyphonX has is right. We are drones and you are right, we do it to ourselves. As for me, it's way too late. Having the kid sealed my fate. I'm not going anywhere and my life is pretty much working too long for too little. If it wasn't for the kid i'd have done myself in ages ago and I mean that.
So in closing people-If you want to get ahead don't have kids and major in a science or technology field.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by antonia

 

Don't you get tired of putting words in others mouths?

Spare me all the reasons why you can't succeed.

This isnt the topic of the thread. Why dont you tell me, if I person X is unhappy working for minimum wage at Burger King although through his hard work and long shifts the company regularly posts better results than the competition, which also pays minimum wage, why shouldnt he fight for better wages, when he is unhappy with working for minimum wage and sees the company prosper through his hard work.

Essentially he tells the company pay me more you can afford it, do it or wont keep working, just like the company told him take it or leave it when the company was hiering. He just tries to get more colleagues of his to do the same, so the company is under pressure, because one worker quitting is not pressure to a company.

Iam wondering what is communist / lefitst about this unhappy worker trying to get the other workers to negotiate better wages along with him, from a company they worked to prosperity?

reply to post by Cassius666


Because as the conservatives around here will tell you-that's what he is worth. That's that, if you work at Burger King you aren't worth much, if you want more money you need to acquire better skill sets to get it and find somewhere else to work.

reply to post by Cassius666


I tend to side with Rothbard where he wrote, "mimum wage law is compulsory unemployment." ("Making Economic Sense").

"All demand curves are falling, and the demand for hiring labor is no exception. Hence, laws that prohibit employment at any wage that is relevant to the market (a minimum wage of 10 cents an hour would have little or no impact) must result in outlawing employment and hence causing unemployment."

Minimum wage law is, in my opinion, an outgrowth of political expediency. It has a ring of social goodness or justice about it, but there's a subtlety about it that is easily overlooked as well. My guess is that's why "fighting for better wages" is labeled leftist. There's a clearer distinction though: increase in wages by mandate versus increase in wages based on merit. And I think it's important to recognize that life isn't always fair. Sometimes fools make the big bucks while others with far more talent and leadership capability remain at the bottom. To me that's more or less "the truth before our eyes" that violates political correctness, so etatist-like commisars instituted a veneer of equality. Whatever. It was just a form of social engineering that does not aggregately benefit the economy & worst of all delimits the self-evident (i.e. axiomatic) value of property.

Originally posted by Cassius666
Assume you work for Burger King. In the news you realize that Burger King consistently has far better earnings than say, Taco Bell. However you wouldnt know, the working conditions are at both franchises the same and at both you get the same minimum wage.

The workers decide they want some of that action and organize a union and then go on strike to see how much the company is willing to increase their cost in wages, when faced with the alternative of remaining inoperable indefenitly and as a consequence going out of buisness.

Some people would decry that as leftist and what not. How is that leftist? If the company can give you the option to take minimum wage or go live under a bridge, shouldnt workers organize themselves and push for higher wages, by confronting the company with the possibility of bankruptcy?

I think it is all about the worth of the work. I once made close to minimum wage and I complain to my dad, and he asked me that with the skills needed for the job what is it worth... I said about minimum wage...

That is the point, what should a person be paid to allow a business to continue to be competitive. Now since the vast majority of workers work for a small business the "evil empire" of corporations is not the issue here. One thing back at you, what is too much? Our auto industry is a good example of that, so if I take a person with little skills and train them for a task that anyone within reason can be trained to do, how much should I now pay them to do it?

reply to post by Kovenov


You say any measure to increase the wages/conditions of workers, cost jobs. So workers should accept whatever the market offer. How would things work out, if the employer would be forced to do the opposite, hire and retain everybody, no matter how overpayed he is and how badly he works? No company would make it to prosperity. Same for individuals. By having a job for the sake of having a job Millions are employed yes, but half of America is below the poverty line and not going to prosperity anytime soon, because they accepted work at any condition.

reply to post by Xtrozero



How do companies get people to work for as low a wage as possible? They try to push the wage offered as low as possible banking on the fact that most people will want to eat at some point.

How do you find out, if your job at the company x might be worth more to the company X than minimum job? Fight for a higher wage. If Buger King turns a huge profit on a regular basis and all of the Burger Flippers go on strike, eventually they might find out their job at Burger King is worth more than minimum wage to Burger King, because the company would rather accept an increase in wages and a decrease in profit, rather than no profit because nobdoy is working. Its all about pressure and the breaking point. If pressure only works one way, then one side is free to maximize its results while the other side has to make a choice between eating and not eating basically. If however pressure works both ways, then one side eventually becomes more willing to put more of the earnings on the negotiation table and the other side can make demands that exceed food in the belly.

So how is it leftist to try and find a way to excert pressure by say a strike for example, granted that Burger King is free to fire all the thousands of their employers and rehire, if they want to take the gamble that there is a big enough supply of workers to refill the spots in an acceptable timeframe.

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by Kovenov

 

You say any measure to increase the wages/conditions of workers, cost jobs. So workers should accept whatever the market offer. How would things work out, if the employer would be forced to do the opposite, hire and retain everybody, no matter how overpayed he is and how badly he works? No company would make it to prosperity. Same for individuals. By having a job for the sake of having a job Millions are employed yes, but half of America is below the poverty line and not going to prosperity anytime soon, because they accepted work at any condition.

A big part is not what you make, but what you spend. Our poverty line is upper middle class in many parts of the world. Should a loaf of bread cost 4 bucks, and why does it cost 4 bucks? Last summer at Costco, ribeye was 5.50 a pound, it is now 10 buck a pound there now. A friend of mine who raises his own beef sells it all for 3 bucks a pound, packaged. Somewhere in all this I feel it is cost that is out of control, and not wages, but I'm not sure why it is.

Originally posted by Cassius666
This isnt the topic of the thread. Why dont you tell me, if I person X is unhappy working for minimum wage at Burger King although through his hard work and long shifts the company regularly posts better results than the competition, which also pays minimum wage, why shouldnt he fight for better wages, when he is unhappy with working for minimum wage and sees the company prosper through his hard work.

Essentially he tells the company pay me more you can afford it, do it or wont keep working, just like the company told him take it or leave it when the company was hiering. He just tries to get more colleagues of his to do the same, so the company is under pressure, because one worker quitting is not pressure to a company.

Organizing and going on strike is fine with me. The problem is that unions often threaten and intimidate "scabs" that want to fill their positions. Or even worse there are "sit-down" strikes where the union seizes control of the factory until they get what they want. That's how it turns into communism.

The government needs to enforce competition among unions so the unions and businesses are equal. Right now unions have monopolies plus they have support from Democrats who depend on unions for money and organization in their campaigns. Look at the GM bail-out. That was all about bailing out the UAW.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by Kovenov

 

You say any measure to increase the wages/conditions of workers, cost jobs. So workers should accept whatever the market offer. How would things work out, if the employer would be forced to do the opposite, hire and retain everybody, no matter how overpayed he is and how badly he works? No company would make it to prosperity. Same for individuals. By having a job for the sake of having a job Millions are employed yes, but half of America is below the poverty line and not going to prosperity anytime soon, because they accepted work at any condition.

A big part is not what you make, but what you spend. Our poverty line is upper middle class in many parts of the world. Should a loaf of bread cost 4 bucks, and why does it cost 4 bucks? Last summer at Costco, ribeye was 5.50 a pound, it is now 10 buck a pound there now. A friend of mine who raises his own beef sells it all for 3 bucks a pound, packaged. Somewhere in all this I feel it is cost that is out of control, and not wages, but I'm not sure why it is.

edit on 15-1-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)

Its called inflation. As more money enters the system inflation goes up. If more money enters the system because it is in the form of profits, profits that only a small percentage of the population partake in, while the rest are on a fixed income, then the bar of the fixed income raises. Today its 20.000 Dollar a year, down the line the poverty line 25.000 Dollar a year.

Because you have a small ammount of people, who experience the positive cause of inflation, a vast increase in their monetary wealth and the negative, a small decrease of their monetary wealth due to inflation and a large ammount of people who only experience the negative cause of inflation, an increase in money due to the profits they made with their work for somebody else, while their own salary stayed unchanged along with their saving rate, more and more people can not keep track with inflation and slip below the poverty line. An inflation they help create by turning a profit with their work, but they do not partecipate in it because they get their fixed salary not any profit they generated for the company.

Of course they could parteciapte in the profits of a company by buying stock and many do, but for those who can not afford it, it is not an option and year after year for more and more people are affected as you need more money to stay above the poverty line.

And that in long, is the answer to your question.

Originally posted by cloudyday

Originally posted by Cassius666

Organizing and going on strike is fine with me. The problem is that unions often threaten and intimidate "scabs" that want to fill their positions. Or even worse there are "sit-down" strikes where the union seizes control of the factory until they get what they want. That's how it turns into communism.

That has nothing to do with communism. In the communist ideal money does not even exist. You will have to try and find some other words for it, like illegal or criminal, assuming they are on the company property illegally if they do not work.

Originally posted by Cassius666

How do companies get people to work for as low a wage as possible? They try to push the wage offered as low as possible banking on the fact that most people will want to eat at some point.

How do you find out, if your job at the company x might be worth more to the company X than minimum job? Fight for a higher wage. If Buger King turns a huge profit on a regular basis and all of the Burger Flippers go on strike, eventually they might find out their job at Burger King is worth more than minimum wage to Burger King, because the company would rather accept an increase in wages and a decrease in profit, rather than no profit because nobdoy is working.

edit on 15-1-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

There is a fine line I agree, but it does go back to what the work is worth. Take Burger King as example. Their lowest job pays about 50 to 1 buck above minimum wage. The demographic of that person doing that job is someone very young and unskilled. Is that too little of pay, and if they gave them all 5 dollar raise per hour what would be the cost of a burger? If we gave that unskilled worker a 5 dollar raise should we not give all unskilled labor 5 dollars per hour too? How would 12 to 14 dollars per hour for all unskilled jobs affect us? I think below about 15 bucks an hour is the poverty level by our standards, AND is that a bad place to be if you are unskilled?

Originally posted by Cassius666

Of course they could parteciapte in the profits of a company by buying stock and many do, but for those who can not afford it, it is not an option and year after year for more and more people are affected as you need more money to stay above the poverty line.

And that in long, is the answer to your question.

Yes inflation, but at such an extreme rate....SO is it Obama's 5 trillion debt added that is affecting the minimum wage earner or the company paying the wage? Where should we focus our attention to fix it?

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Cassius666

How do companies get people to work for as low a wage as possible? They try to push the wage offered as low as possible banking on the fact that most people will want to eat at some point.

How do you find out, if your job at the company x might be worth more to the company X than minimum job? Fight for a higher wage. If Buger King turns a huge profit on a regular basis and all of the Burger Flippers go on strike, eventually they might find out their job at Burger King is worth more than minimum wage to Burger King, because the company would rather accept an increase in wages and a decrease in profit, rather than no profit because nobdoy is working.

edit on 15-1-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

There is a fine line I agree, but it does go back to what the work is worth. Take Burger King as example. Their lowest job pays about 50 to 1 buck above minimum wage. The demographic of that person doing that job is someone very young and unskilled. Is that too little of pay, and if they gave them all 5 dollar raise per hour what would be the cost of a burger? If we gave that unskilled worker a 5 dollar raise should we not give all unskilled labor 5 dollars per hour too? How would 12 to 14 dollars per hour for all unskilled jobs affect us? I think below about 15 bucks an hour is the poverty level by our standards, AND is that a bad place to be if you are unskilled?

edit on 15-1-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)

You confuse monetary worth and social worth. Its an unskilled job yes. It takes a lot of skill and determination to become a doctor and many feel a doctor who saves lifes is of high social value. Many would put the social value of a doctor above that of an NBA star. Yet most doctors, while making good money, are not millionairs. Many people who fulfill a position, of which I could convince people that it is of lower social value than that of a doctor make more money than a doctor, vastly more money.

Now to return what you said. Why not give all the other people working at other companies more than minimum wage too? Again you are trying to assess a salary based on social worth. But thats not how it works. Like I said, its all about pressure and counterpressure. If only one side excerts pressure they make you work for as little as legally possible, minimum wage, if they can export a job, they basically just keep their workers in working conditions as cheaply as possible.

Now to answer your question, it isnt about what a job is worth to you, or what social worth you attatch to a job. Why shouldnt taco bell match the salary of Burger King if Burger King pays more after a successfull strike? Taco Bell might not turn the profit Burger King does and therefore not be able to afford an increase in salary, a point they can make and show in negotiations. It is about what the job is worth to Burger King. Why shouldnt somebody fight for a higher wage if they are employed with a company who can afford it? Suppose Burger King turns huge profits year after year and pays as much as a company which turns vastly inferior profits year after year. Why shouldnt the workers go on strike and find out how much their job at Burger King is really worth? How much their job is worth to Burger King. Burger King has no qualms in finding out how low they can go, why shouldnt the burger flipper find out how high Burger King is willing to go? Whats so damn leftists or communist about it? Only reason there were strikes in the soviet union is BECAUSE people were SICK of communism.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Cassius666

Of course they could parteciapte in the profits of a company by buying stock and many do, but for those who can not afford it, it is not an option and year after year for more and more people are affected as you need more money to stay above the poverty line.

And that in long, is the answer to your question.

Yes inflation, but at such an extreme rate....SO is it Obama's 5 trillion debt added that is affecting the minimum wage earner or the company paying the wage? Where should we focus our attention to fix it?

There would be several solutions which I did not all explore fully, or any. A salary that increases or decreases with inflation at least for certain salary groups would be a good start.

Instead of decrying the fact, that jobs go to china and India, not because the people there are working for palrty wages, but because we all feel the jobs should stay in America and people in China and India should eat cake and die, we should find ways to improve the situation of workers in China or India or help them improve their situation. If they fight the same battles non-capitalholders in Europe and America fought and win them, then their situation will improve and at the same time, the incentive to export jobs to those countries declines as it becomes uneconomical for more and more buisness models. But that is okay, because the local markets in those countries will prosper and they will be able to create jobs and consume goods and services themselves. That puts workers in Europe and America in a better position to negotiate better wages, a position, which right now is paltry. There was a time when the tables were turned, it was in the aftermath of the black death, the plague in Europe. The rise of the middle class is attributed to the aftermath of the black death, which cause an undersupply of workers and therefore put them in a better bargaining position.

OC the limiting factor would be the earths resources, of which I must admit I dont have an inventory.

reply to post by Cassius666

I don't say it, no. Rothbard & a sizable chunk of economists across timelines of varying philosophies said it & I support their conclusion.

Ultimately one's skill, cleverness--call it what you like, determines his or her worth. Not in all instances, but in general this is true. If working at BK is all someone has to offer then this skill reflects the minimum of what people are willing to pay & perhaps represents an increase in costs due to mandated wages. Such increases are like a hidden tax, chipping away at the pocketbook of everyone who eats regularly at BK where "market value" of a BK Broiler might otherwise be $1.50 cheaper.

As I wrote previously it's my view that this represents a form of social engineering that does not do any favors for property or growth in the economy. In effect it seems as if we can take one of two paths: 1) confer increased costs on everyone to maintain some sort of minimum (e.g. minimum wage requirements); 2) allow a free market to dictate prices. I'm not suggesting that it would be inappropriate to have a sit-down with the boss and discuss a raise, but a minimum wage by mandate is an artificial pricing mechanism.

To be fair I don't believe there's a simple, quick fix solution to declining incomes. We're in a fix and will probably remain so for years to come. It sucks, but in my worldview (call it my new American dream) we can do it better. Doing it better in my worldview reduces to, above all other things, respecting property first and foremost.

reply to post by Kovenov


First you decry social engineering then defend it? So a burger flipper should be measured by his skillset, his societal worth when it works out for you. Why should the Burger Flipper care about your opinion what an unskilled worker should earn? It is about what the job is worth to Burger King. If they made huge profits with the work of their workers, they are going to want to make huge profits in the future. When confronted with a strike, they might be willing to accept decreased but still good profits and pay more money. Now the Burger Flipper gets payed what Burger King thinks the job is worth. Worth to Burger King, not worth to you. I suppose you are going to say, if he wants more money he should have studied more and gotten a better job. Who is the one advocating social engineering here?

And you do not need to worry about paying more for your Burger either. Burger King is going to raise prices only if they turn a profit by doing so. If too many people stay away and the make a loss despite the price hike, they will take measures, one of them could be lowering prices.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by mastahunta

 

Fast foods were never intended to be a paragon of organic food source, and now the health food faddists are claiming to be poisoned. Go to a health food store then if you are that concerned. It is not like there are no alternatives. If you want to take up a real cause of poisoning, then protest the flourides in drinking water, as that is far more pernicious than some fats in Burger King.


Nanny Staters always want to dictate what others eat, drink, say, do and think.

edit on 15-1-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-1-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

Did I ever say eliminate fast food???

I did not, because I point out something does not mean I want to eliminate it or ban it, that might be
how YOU think, not me.

You confuse monetary worth and social worth. Its an unskilled job yes. It takes a lot of skill and determination to become a doctor and many feel a doctor who saves lifes is of high social value. Many would put the social value of a doctor above that of an NBA star. Yet most doctors, while making good money, are not millionairs. Many people who fulfill a position, of which I could convince people that it is of lower social value than that of a doctor make more money than a doctor, vastly more money.

You confuse working hard for talent...what ever that talent would be. I would bet that an NBA star puts more effort in their "job" than a doctor, AND I would bet the most talented doctors make a lot too. I would also bet there are more doctors in the world than NBA players i.e. that talent thing again.

Originally posted by mastahunta
This premise is based upon the idea that the entire wage floor wouldn't drop if employers could
pay their employees much less than the current minimum wage.

It's also based on the idea that some employers keep their wages low (at the minimum allowable), because they know the guy down the street will also. It's also based on the idea that an employer would like to pay his more productive employees more, but can't because he has to pay others more than they are worth. That's what is the most unfortunate about the government imposed minimum wage.

Originally posted by Cassius666

Organizing and going on strike is fine with me. The problem is that unions often threaten and intimidate "scabs" that want to fill their positions. Or even worse there are "sit-down" strikes where the union seizes control of the factory until they get what they want. That's how it turns into communism.

That has nothing to do with communism. In the communist ideal money does not even exist. You will have to try and find some other words for it, like illegal or criminal, assuming they are on the company property illegally if they do not work.

edit on 15-1-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

Unions encourage workers to believe that they are enemies of the owners. Communists do exactly the same thing. That is what I find scary about unions - tyranny of the masses.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

You confuse monetary worth and social worth. Its an unskilled job yes. It takes a lot of skill and determination to become a doctor and many feel a doctor who saves lifes is of high social value. Many would put the social value of a doctor above that of an NBA star. Yet most doctors, while making good money, are not millionairs. Many people who fulfill a position, of which I could convince people that it is of lower social value than that of a doctor make more money than a doctor, vastly more money.

You confuse working hard for talent...what ever that talent would be. I would bet that an NBA star puts more effort in their "job" than a doctor, AND I would bet the most talented doctors make a lot too. I would also bet there are more doctors in the world than NBA players i.e. that talent thing again.

I dont exactly get what point you are trying to make. That a salary should/is payd according to talent? It reads more like you are trying to avoid a confrontation. You seem to stand by what you said, that people should be payd according to their skillset and payd what you think they are worth.



reply to post by cloudyday



You dont know the first thing about communism. Unions encourage workers to put themselves in a position where they can negotiate on a level playing field. How is that tyranny of the masses? Sounds like a bashing of democracy. If a great deal of workers are unhappy with their salary and they organise themselves to vouche their demand and put down their work all at the same time, thats tyranny of the masses?

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Cassius666

 

If the communists and leftists were truly for the worker, then they'd fight for less taxes taken from the worker.

But they aren't. They could give a damn. They want power. They want larger government.

What 'lefties' and communists are you talking about, those in power, or those of us who are not? Those in power as you correctly say, want more power. They want bigger government, thus they are not 'lefties' at all.

Those in power who claim to be lefties, communists etc., or who are labeled as such, really are not either.
The true meaning of left wing is to desire government reform, i.e. smaller government, or even no government (anarchism is a left wing system, the stateless version of socialism).

The original political meanings of ‘left’ and ‘right’ have changed since their origin in the French estates general in 1789. There the people sitting on the left could be viewed as more or less anti-statists with those on the right being state-interventionists of one kind or another. In this interpretation of the pristine sense, libertarianism was clearly at the extreme left-wing.

www.la-articles.org.uk...

Anarchism is stateless socialism, Mikhail Bakunin

The true lefties are those working people, who want a better system where more of the 'profit', that their labour creates, goes to the worker. Money, as in wages, is not capital.

Capital, as socialists define it, according to the 'Encyclopedic Dictionary of Marxism, Socialism, and Communism by Jozef Wilczynski, is the sum of VALUE, or stored-up labour owned by Capitalists enabling them to appropriate SURPLUS VALUE through the exploitation of labour.

Capital is the source of the capitalist's power, and the foundation of capitalism. It is the property owned by capitalists, that allows them to exploit labour for their own wealth accumulation, and control of the economy.

In reality workers do not strike because someone else in another work place is getting more. Workers strike because they rightly believe they deserve a larger share of the profits created by their labour (a naturally logical desire in a capitalist economy when the economic power of the working class is continually dropping).