Members banned from this thread: FUCK THE POLICE, Cancel 2016.11, midcan5, evince, christiefan915, zappasguitar, Phantasmal, Rune, Legion Troll, ZoomZoom, Konono, Leonthecat and Buckly J. Ewer |
Dear CFM:
I don't recall talking about social inequality and poverty other than to to note Robert Gordon's observations.
Sample of his work here:
Of course Capitalism causes social inequality. Social inequality is so integral to Capitalism that an exponent would more likely argue that inequality is the natural order of things. What intelligent, erudite capitalist ever made a case for social equality? In fact, no socialist I [at least] know argues that the professor of medicine and the ditch digger should take home the same pay.
Now we could ask questions about what or who determines the worth of someone's skills. We could ask what objective validity that premise has, and what exactly makes it so. Or on what basis is the decision of the worth of a particular skill set determined. We could ask what 'makes' that so and exactly why are we supposed to believe the answer. But this really isn't the point being made by 'G-Force' [Prof Gordon] or myself. His point is that economic stagnation, expanding social inequality and poverty are now a permanent state of being for the US. This has huge import for the future. But while not unconcerned with that, my interest lies in another direction...
I suggest that the $2 dollar an hour --> $1 a day sliding pay scale IS an inevitable result of Capitalism for the ditch digger AND the professor of medicine. Now understand, CFM, that I'm employing hyperbole here. But the principle [my real concern in all this] is sound enough, as is evidenced by the butchering of pay for US autoworkers who are highly skilled professionals.
The issue is that in a competitive environment, the profit requirement demands downward pressure on wages that is relentless and has no bottom floor. Each concession from workers sets the stage for the next attack on wages. It is THAT reality which competitive capitalism cannot evade. Competitive Capitalism can tolerate NO mechanism to halt the destruction of wages. Ultimately then, it becomes Capitalism itself which necessitates socialism.
IMT
Last edited by IMT; 02-24-2016 at 12:13 PM. Reason: Improve sentence construction.
Social inequality results from differences in skills/abilities. Some people offer high level skills and get paid accordingly. They are the ones that took it upon themselves and did something to better themselves. Some people offer such low level skills the government has to force an employer to pay them a minimum wage despite their skills being worth less than that. They are the ones that have done nothing to improve what they offer and now expect the taxpayers to take care of them and business to be forced to pay them a higher wage than what they offer iOS worth. Over time, those with skills grow in the their wages while those offering little to nothing don't.
Dear CFM:
You stated that 'social inequality results from differences in skills/abilities.'
I merely ask if there are any compelling reasons for which that is to be believed.
Why not give it another crack!
IMT
Minister of Truth (02-25-2016)
Bookmarks