How is that $15/hour minimum wage working out Seattle?

[IMT]

Dear CFM:

First, you tell me what you call social inequality.

Wait a minute -- are you seriously suggesting that even apart from native skills/abilities, Capitalism creates no create social inequality?

IMT

[PostmodernProphet]

And I bet your Internet penis is two feet long.

he keeps it in a jar.....

[CFM]

Dear CFM:



Wait a minute -- are you seriously suggesting that even apart from native skills/abilities, Capitalism creates no create social inequality?

IMT

I asked for you to tell me what you call social inequality. Apparently, you're too stupid to do that.

[IMT]

Dear CFM:

What you're asking departs from Prof. Gordon's work, around which my points were referenced. My intent was to discuss G-Force' contention of a permanent stage of expanded social inequality, poverty, etc. My interest is not with those issues so much as the much greater question that this is a permanent stage from which there is no exit, a fact which can only more and more disconnect civic discourse [i.e. politics] from social life.

But if you simply must shift the focus of discussion, we could start with property as a means of asserting public power.

IMT

[IMT]

Dear CFM:

I intended no offense in post 40. My premise/conclusion question was an attempt to get at the way you think about this.

When I speak about social inequality, I'm referring the Capitalist system by which private ownership and social production stand in contradiction of each other. The capitalist owns the means of production and distribution and therefore controls all the decisions about when, how, where, in what way, by whom and on what terms they are used. Workers who use raw materials and actually produce goods have no control over any of these things. The social inequality of private ownership and social production is the very basis of the Capitalist mode of production. That's why I was taken back by your request for a definition of social inequality. I assumed that would be understood because that is what the capitalist system is.

IMT

[/MSG/]

Dear CFM:



That's very forthright!

Of course as competing companies reduce laborers' pay to $2/day, it becomes necessary to slash wages yet again just to remain competitive. Two dollars an hour today, one dollar an hour tomorrow, then one dollar a day, and so forth.

How does one build a first world economy on that basis? You don't! Northwestern University economist Robert Gordon rightly notes that the US has entered a stage of permanent economic stagnation, expanding social inequality and poverty.

Moreover, there is absolutely nothing Paul Krugman can do to stop it!

Marxists have long said that workers cannot be paid a living wage under Capitalism; but it isn't every day you meet Capitalist exponents who cede Marx' point. Again, thank-you for your forthrightness.

IMT

Why doesn't Google do that? Or Aldi? Costco?

[IMT]

Dear Dear Vepr 12:

Why doesn't Google do that? Or Aldi? Costco?

Great question! I would say that market conditions have not required it ... yet. Mind, the auto industry has seen draconian wage-cuts. This is where Prof. Gordon's work matters. If as he says the US has entered a new stage of permanent economic stagnation plus expanding social inequality and poverty under Capitalism, then the question is not 'whether' but 'when' equally brutal wage cuts will be seen across the spectrum.

Capitalism can allow some concessions [wage increases, work-place safety, additional benefits] so long as the economy is expanding at a rate which [in addition to those concessions] also affords an acceptable level of profit. But when the economy is contracting, market conditions [i.e., turning a profit] necessitates the removal of those concessions. Hence, the social antagonism of labor negotiations. Workers recoil at contract offers, and corporations reply that they have no choice but to make cuts in order to remain profitable. This is doubly so when other companies produce an equivalent product of equal value. I find it deeply ironic and mildly humorous/amusing that these conditions under market Capitalism can be discussed only by employing good, orthodox, Marxian analysis.

IMT

[/MSG/]

Dear Dear Vepr 12:



Great question! I would say that market conditions have not required it ... yet. Mind, the auto industry has seen draconian wage-cuts. This is where Prof. Gordon's work matters. If as he says the US has entered a new stage of permanent economic stagnation plus expanding social inequality and poverty under Capitalism, then the question is not 'whether' but 'when' equally brutal wage cuts will be seen across the spectrum.

Capitalism can allow some concessions [wage increases, work-place safety, additional benefits] so long as the economy is expanding at a rate which [in addition to those concessions] also affords an acceptable level of profit. But when the economy is contracting, market conditions [i.e., turning a profit] necessitates the removal of those concessions. Hence, the social antagonism of labor negotiations. Workers recoil at contract offers, and corporations reply that they have no choice but to make cuts in order to remain profitable. This is doubly so when other companies produce an equivalent product of equal value. I find it deeply ironic and mildly humorous/amusing that these conditions under market Capitalism can be discussed only by employing good, orthodox, Marxian analysis.

IMT

No it hasn't. Auto workers have seen job loss due to automation, but those who remain employed enjoy a very healthy salary/hourly wage and some of the best benefits of any industry.

[CFM]

Dear CFM:

I intended no offense in post 40. My premise/conclusion question was an attempt to get at the way you think about this.

When I speak about social inequality, I'm referring the Capitalist system by which private ownership and social production stand in contradiction of each other. The capitalist owns the means of production and distribution and therefore controls all the decisions about when, how, where, in what way, by whom and on what terms they are used. Workers who use raw materials and actually produce goods have no control over any of these things. The social inequality of private ownership and social production is the very basis of the Capitalist mode of production. That's why I was taken back by your request for a definition of social inequality. I assumed that would be understood because that is what the capitalist system is.

IMT

I have no problem with the capitalists owning the means of production and controlling the decisions. Those that own the means of production should get to decide those things. Are you saying that the workers who provide nothing but labor for which they are compensated should make the decisions about how the money invested by the owners gets spent? The workers use those raw materials and produce things for which their labor is paid by the owner. If they don't think it's enough, they have the opportunity in a capitalist society to offer competition and do the same thing.

[The Dude]

I am by no means anti capitalis!
And to say changing our system to make it better is communist is juvenile.
Thomas Piketty is right, the return on capital is greater than economic growth.
I.e. The rich get richer, and inequality is only going to get worse.
The rich don't spend nearly the percent of their income as the middle class thus creating an ever increasing demand problem.