Unions, Taxes, and Class Warfare

[Lokrian]

Originally posted by Gromgor
$166 a month is not that hard to part with if you make plans to do so from the beginning. Let me put it this way. There are people who play this game who are not wealthy who contribute $166+ a month on average. People choose to spend their money on things. Short term enjoyment instead of long term wealth.

That is really the key difference between Upper Class, Middle Class and Lower Class. Planning, commitment, effort.

If I wanted to make more money I could easily go find a second job. I see it every fucking day. Some idiot sits on a bar stool bitching about how bad he has it in life. He works 40 Hrs. a week and then someone comes and takes it away. They're dumbasses. People spend more on beer each week than they do in taxes. Think 40 hrs. a week is "Doing a mans duty". People CHOOSE not to better their lives. The poorer you are the easier it is to lift yourself up. I am reminded of a quote that Bill Gates asked his company when it was founded, "Are you willing to do what you have to do to get what you want?".

Well, are they?

I have repeatedly separated myself from people who want to give away money to those who will not work. It has nothing to do with unions in my view, except inasmuch as any organization sometimes collects leaches. Obviously diligence should be observed to try to weed out the leaches or encourage them agressively to carry their weight.

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by Lokrian
I have repeatedly separated myself from people who want to give away money to those who will not work. It has nothing to do with unions in my view, except inasmuch as any organization sometimes collects leaches. Obviously diligence should be observed to try to weed out the leaches or encourage them agressively to carry their weight.

1) You don't get to just magically "separate" from this argument people who don't work hard, waste their money on booze, drugs, or cigarettes, or any other 90000 reasons people fail to get ahead in life.

It is a FACT of our society that if you want to get ahead, you can.

If you think someone else owes you a duty to help you get ahead, you are mistaken. If you think the government has a duty to guarantee you better wages than you can earn on your own merits, you are not only delusional, but doomed to fail.

2) This thread is about more than unions.

3) None of the above "you"s referring to you, Lokrian.

[Malacasta]

This discussion would be hilarious if it weren't about vilifying billions of ordinary people exposed to working conditions that are degrading, illegal and lethal.

The bottom line is that workers in first world nations are STILL doing work that does not pay a living wage. There are workers in first world nations who would be fired if they did not accept being illegally underpaid unless they could collectively organize (re: oops, damn, I was sacked when I fought against being illegally underpaid, but at least the company was ordered to back pay the workers still employed). There a workers in first world nations who are confronted by military scabs and attack dogs when they picket illegal sackings (re: Patrick’s dispute). There are workplaces in first world nations such as abattoirs where workers are subjected to life threatening working conditions for pittance wages. This is the first world.

On the other hand, there are people who play this game who have worked with Indonesian and Vietnamese union organizers who have been murdered, or gang raped, or dismembered because they tried to raise workers wages to a level which would allow their union members to earn enough to pay to cross an Australian owned toll bridge. I worked with these people who are now dead. I know second hand about what it's like to be an organizer in a third world nation. The third world working conditions are as bad as, or worse, than those that English, American or Australian workers were subjected to at an equivalent stage of economic development. Some of the companies that are exposing workers to these disgusting conditions have first world head offices. Just because first world workers once suffered outrageous conditions does not mean that it’s okay that we subject developing nation’s people to those same conditions, especially when they’re confronted by first world guns in response to resistance.

I wish that I lived in whatever fantasy world it was that allowed me to dismiss as unimportant the conditions of textile sweatshops in New York and California, or the Coca Cola factories from Turkey to Mexico that sacked or murdered union workers. I wish I could tell myself that it was okay that people were being paid 28% of a living wage for 70 hours weekly work in a multinational sweatshop because that was more than what beggars on the street earn, or that there are so many Chinese people that a few hundred suffocating in a coal mine in any given month is neither here nor there. I wish I felt so secure in my own job that I could shrug my shoulders at industrial relations reforms which would see me lose my half of my paid leave, or that I did not give a damn about wage earners who lost their penalty or overtime rates. I wish I didn't give a damn about these things because then I wouldn't be so goddamn angry when I listen to the whining of millionaires about how wages are not declining enough against productivity increases for their liking and that if they could only get rid of unions, then their lives would be complete.

Frankly, unless you have had your livelihood threatened by a boss who doesn't give a shit about whether your family life is starved, or you that can't afford health care or child care or live a minimal life while in their employ (thus CREATING the profit that allows them to buy their 3rd BMW) I don't give a damn what you think about unions. Thankfully, neither do the vast majority of workers worldwide. Your arguments are irrelevant to people whose lives are actually made more bearable, or saved, by collectively organizing.

This thread is ultimately irrelevant because there are real people fighting today in countries across the world who will continue to fight and die for a decent life and a living wage regardless of whether the pro or anti union people on this thread win the day.

More power to them.

[Aristotle]

And there are unions officials who have used rape, murder, and dismemberment systemically to get their way. Even more damning, unions in the USA have been intimately connected to organized crime from their beginning.

That does not mean unions did not serve a very important and valuable role in the past. I happen to think in the USA, their time is past. I believe they are now just an impediment and a drain on the worker. In order to preserve their usefulness (and their paychecks), they have a financial incentive to foment chaos and disrupt the businesses where their members work. After all, without strikes, ever increasing demands, and dramatically contentious conflicts, workers might think they don't need them any more.

I am very distrustful of any entity that is created to solve a problem without explicitly defining in advance what they consider a solution. Otherwise, pure self interest will compel them to perpetuate the problem they were created to solve.

The union role can be easily and adequately performed by the media, the internet, and improvements in communication and transportation without sucking away a percentage of the worker's wage (and without stealing a percentage of the worker's wage to donate to political causes those workers do not even believe in).

I am willing to admit that I do NOT consider it an absolute fact that unions no longer serve a valuable role in our society. But if I am wrong, and they do still have a role, they are certainly in need of massive reform. Their ability to donate to political causes and candidates needs to stop. Their ability to bully non-union competitors into going union needs to stop. Their ability to block people from crossing a picket line because they want to work while other people are striking needs to stop. They should be required to have more transparency that shows exactly where every penny of dues they draw is spent.

These stories also do not change economic realities like the fact that there is no such thing as an artificially created "living wage." The very concept is anaethema to a capitalism based economy and is a total fantasy and fallacy. I'll explain further in a reply to Lokrian.

Malacasta, I know you are a communist, so I understand where you are coming from. I can respect the fact that you believe in command economies. History shows they don't work, but you still believe in them which is certainly your option.

On the matter of unions, you think they are great, I think they are horribly flawed to the point that they have probably outlived their usefulness.

On the matter of class warfare and the way wages and taxes work in the USA, I think we would need a new thread about market economies vs. command economies to address the issue in a way that would properly include your viewpoint.

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by Lokrian
I have yet to meet anyone so good that I honestly thought they were doing a job even so much as 10 times more valuable than an average, resposible worker

Frankly, it doesn't matter what you, or I, or anyone else thinks. The market sets prices, not you and not me.

What you are asking for is a pure command economy where prices and wages are set according to external decisions (e.g. a "living" wage or some other bogus human construct).

Command economies DO NOT WORK. History has proven this repeatedly.

Originally posted by Lokrian
The exact line? Heck I don't know.

You're right. You don't know. That is why in a capitalist society, market forces determine prices (including the price of labor). The role of government is to preserve the ability of the market to effectively and efficiently set prices. That includes preventing monopolies (side note: When the government does idiotic things like letting Exxon and Mobil merge, it is failing in this duty).

Even you have to admit you have no idea where to draw the line. The fact is, no single person or group of people would ever be able to do that. That is why it must be left to market forces to determine the value of someone's work, product, service, etc.

When you fix prices, the result is always shortages. That is why in the USSR, there were hour long lines to get into grocery stores with virtually empty shelves. That is why you could hardly buy toilet paper there.

The reality is that most people work exactly as hard and exactly as much as they have to in order to get the things they want. This is DEFINITELY true on a macroeconomic scale.

If you raise wages higher than they would be according to neutral, unbiased market forces, people don't want to work as much. They can make all the money they want by working less hours. Result? Labor shortage.

On a macro scale, someone getting paid 10 times as much as someone else is worth EXACTLY 10 times as much to the economy. If you do not believe this, then you do not believe in market economics, and you are espousing socialism or communism. There are individual exceptions of course, but on a macro scale, this is absolutely true. If you are ready to admit you are a socialist or communist, that is fine. That changes the discussion significantly, but at least then we know where you stand.

I rarely engage in market economy vs. command economy discussions because they are relatively pointless, nobody changes their opinion, and frankly, history has already resolved this question.

Originally posted by Lokrian
Another thing you neglect to take into acount is that realistically, large numbers always outgun small ones, no matter how clever they may be, so the mass of humanity that the top percentage attempts to leave behind will simply not let them get away with demanding too many resources. Ultimately, everything comes from the land and work, and the land belongs to the strong and work is done by the masses. You just can't dismiss that reality the way it seems to me that you do.

I am trying very hard to sort through this paragraph, but with all due respect, it is very convoluted. Either you are rushing or you are just getting confused.

If you are saying we are on the verge of some kind of peasant uprising, all I can really do is laugh. No lower or middle class has ever had it as good as they do in the United States. The amazing income mobility of the United States ensures that anyone who wants to get ahead CAN get ahead. There is no oppressed lower class and there is nobody saying "let them eat cake."

Anyone who truly wants to can manage to save $166 a month over 41 years. For every temporary hardship or setback you mention, the person could easily make up for it during times of good fortune or extra work. All you offered in response are weak excuses. Any able-bodied (or minded) person who wants to get ahead in the USA can. It is up to them.

There are countries you can live in where the government coddles its populace and inefficiently seeks to redistribute resources by artificial means. Anyone interested in that kind of system is free to move there. It is not a coincidence that these countries don't do as well as ours economically. But don't screw up one of the only countries where resources are distributed by merit and by unbiased, neutral market forces.

Originally posted by Lokrian
No, it's just that I know you can't get taxes out of people who don't have it to give. They have no money because their wages are too low.

Their wages are not too low. In a free market economy (especially one with an active media) their wages are EXACTLY what their work is worth. If their work was worth more, they would get paid more. If they want higher wages their options include: work harder, learn new skills, start their own business, stay with the same company long enough to move up, etc. Externally demanding higher wages is not an option, and even if they got their wish it would change nothing.

People commonly think they deserve higher pay. Successful people do what it takes to earn it.

Here's a hint: If you externally raise wages 20%, prices will also go up 20% eventually, and the net effect is zero. Understand? The laws of economics make everything you are arguing for utterly impossible.

As an added bonus, in the short run, a lot of businesses will just pack up and leave so they do not have to wait for prices to catch up.

Great plan.

This is one of the many reasons command economies do not work.

[Jidoe]

Originally posted by Lokrian
You specifically said "unless they are paid more than can be afforded", and not, "will not do physical labor at all." If you had said the latter, I would have called you on it too because I happen to have been to Israel as well. It's not so terribly different from the U.S. that there are no people willing to do manual labor. It is actually just as you described. People will not do manual labor for less than what it takes to live a decent life.

The problem with your statement, and perhaps I didn't point it out in my previous posts, is that construction workers earn a pretty damn good salary (much much much more than minimum wage) and if one could possibly work in this field for a very long time (which is almost impossible because it completely wears your body up) you could live a very nice life with every luxury you want or need.

And that's where being spoiled comes into... people aren't willing to do hard, physical jobs nowadays, even when they have great income and I'm going to join Ari here, if you want to work hard, you will eventually make more money. The problem nowadays is that almost everyone is looking for easy solutions and easy ways to make money (lotteries are the best example) but it rarely ever works this way and eventually, it is up to the person to decide what he wants in his life.

[Malacasta]

Malacasta, I know you are a communist, so I understand where you are coming from. I can respect the fact that you believe in command economies. History shows they don't work, but you still believe in them which is certainly your option.

No. I am a communist therefore I don’t believe in command economies. Perhaps you are confusing communism with Stalinism or transitional governments. Stalinism is something I deride far more than you could even begin to understand. To you Stalinism was a mere enemy. To me it was an ultimate betrayal, which also involved the despicable torture and death of millions of people and the obscfucation of an idea to the point that the word communism had absolutely nothing to do with the position that Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg, Liebknecht, Lukash, Gramscii or any other respectable communist theorist who had anything whatsoever to do with workers rights and class society took with respect to end of capital.

On the matter of unions, you think they are great, I think they are horribly flawed to the point that they have probably outlived their usefulness.

On the matter of unions we oppose them from entirely different directions. For me, unions capitulate too readily to capital’s demands; they take their worker and their organizers for granted; they engage in Machiavellian reformist politics with a glee that is unseemly; they are far too often interested in nationalist demands in opposition to global worker’s interests. I’ve been in negotiating rooms where I’ve blocked the demands of the most powerful unions in Australia, and won, so I don’t need you telling me how to deal with unions or that they don’t serve the interests of the working class. I know they don’t. Your opposition to them however, is not something that is at all useful to me, or the interests I serve.

Unions are a necessary part of reformist capitalism for what that’s worth. They have fought and won (at the cost of innumerable lives) for workers rights for 150 years. They were the driving force behind the eight-hour day, women’s right to vote, black’s right to vote, equal wages for equal work, and innumerable other conditions that many young workers (and those who believe in the rationality and benevolence of capital) today take for granted. Unfortunately the many is not the most, and my discontent with the union movement has far more to do with their capitulation at the cost of the vast majority of workers to their own interests, than it does with their supposed stranglehold (which is laughably incorrect) on workplace regulations.

As for your diversion about the irrelevancy of a living wage and what not, Capitalism is not some divinely decreed state of being. It is nothing more than the current economic state, which is relatively new in terms of human history. That capitalism necessarily results in the poverty of huge sections of the world population is ITS failing, not some divine decree from on high about the state of man. Failures of the Soviet economy say nothing about a classless society because the Soviet system was obviously not classless (go on, point to a respectable historian who says it was). The failure of the Stalinist model says nothing about communism. Stalinism, Fidelism, Maoism, etc are anathemas to Marxists. Do not continue to draw upon these straw men, or I shall be forced to quote extensive amounts of Trotsky’s (and innumerable other Marxist’s ) writings. My objection is not trivial it is fundamental.

Actually I wont answer any arguments about Stalinism being communist because any such argument is ridiculous by any theoretical standard. Furthermore, to argue against Capitalism is an exercise in masochism since I seriously don’t give a damn about your defense of a system which sees the vast majority of humanity subjugated to an economy which demands that labor be provided to create profit for a select few.

[Lokrian]

Originally posted by Aristotle
I am trying very hard to sort through this paragraph, but with all due respect, it is very convoluted. Either you are rushing or you are just getting confused.

If you are saying we are on the verge of some kind of peasant uprising, all I can really do is laugh. No lower or middle class has ever had it as good as they do in the United States. The amazing income mobility of the United States ensures that anyone who wants to get ahead CAN get ahead. There is no oppressed lower class and there is nobody saying "let them eat cake."

That's pretty much exactly what I am talking about, except without the overheated rhetoric of there even being a need to get violent or have some uprising. It's obvious that the vast middle ground in America belongs to people who believe in a regulated capitalist economy and not a pure capitalist one.

They are even less interested in having an economy owned and run by a few who are working hard to do away with anything that might help put labor on an equal footing with coroporate power.

I don't know what to do with this thread at this point. It seems I am taking it from the left and the right at this point and I don't want to get between you two!

[Aristotle]

Malacasta, are you interested in a discussion or are you just interested in browbeating and denigrating people from your very first post? Comments like the following make a discussion with you pointless before it even begins:

"I don't give a damn what you think about unions."

"This thread is ultimately irrelevant because there are real people fighting today in countries across the world who will continue to fight and die for a decent life and a living wage regardless of whether the pro or anti union people on this thread win the day."

"Your opposition to them however, is not something that is at all useful to me, or the interests I serve."

"Furthermore, to argue against Capitalism is an exercise in masochism since I seriously don’t give a damn about your defense."

Honestly, all of that looks like nothing but pure trolling. It really sounds like you take this too personally to have a rational discussion.

I am compelled to golf clap your predictible use of the overwrought bleat of the defensive communist: "No no no, all historical attempts at communism don't count! They didn't do it right!" It sure is easy to trot out that canard. But I guess it is the best possible tactic when the overpowering weight of human history is against you.

I have a sinking suspicion you killed this thread. Perhaps that was your intent. It is a shame for the participants who were actually being respectful of other people's opinions and not disregarding them dismissively.

[Lokrian]

Well, I thought I was going to be able to get away with lazily watching the two of you tear each other up and picking both of your brains for what you think without subjecting myself to the stress of having to defend my own beliefs.

I think the question at the top of my mind for Ari would be whether or not he feels that our economy is affected externally by large corporations at all, or whether he feels those institutions are part and parcel of the free market?

For Mal I would say I am familiar enough with the arguments you gave to know where they come from and how comminism as put forward by its inventers differs markedly from how it has actually found its expression around the world. However, the tone that Marx et al seem to take, specifically that there is no hope for a resolution other than violent overthrow, seems to be the reason why this failure keeps popping up. Is there some sort of neo-communist movement to counter the neo-conservative? A sort of kinder, gentler version so to speak? I guess I am wondering about your general outlook, as I don't know you all that well.

I hate to let a spirited discussion die!