|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Robert BunnRobert Bunn Date: Oct 22, 2006 00:45
"Nospam" example.com> wrote in message
news:1670372.0J3oZhDdRk@example.com...> Robert Bunn wrote:
>
>> This is precisely the assertion that was tested: that the supply of
>> labor was sufficiently greater than the demand to give employers the
>> power to *act* as a monopsony even though they are technically not.
>
> No, no no. It is not a monopsony. It is JUST the natural outcome of
> every
> single unbalanced trade.
If a trade is unbalanced, then either the buyer or the seller has more
power in the market. If either the buyer or the seller has more power in
the market, the market is not perfectly competitive. If the buyer has
more power in the market, the tendency is toward monopsony. If the
seller has more power in the market, the tendency is toward monopoly.
Saying, then that there is unbalanced trade in the labor market, in
favor of the employers (the buyers of labor) is *exactly the same thing*
as saying there is a tendency toward monopsony in the labor market.
|
| Show full article (9.23Kb) |
|
| | 3 Comments |
|
|
Author: Peter Bjørn PerlsøPeter Bjørn Perlsø Date: Oct 22, 2006 05:45
The Trucker verizon.net> wrote:
>>>> But that claim has been falsified empirically.
>>>
>>> Evidence?
>>
>> None. This is one of the areas where Roy is talking out of his ass.
>> Expecting that employers will hire people and operate at a loss is
>> crazy.
>
> I would not trust any "statistics" that you would conjure up anyway. Let
> us do it logically or not at all. Please make a coherent case.
Get a grip, Trucker. You're embarrasing all Geoists by behaving such as
you are.
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: NospamNospam Date: Oct 22, 2006 07:53
Robert Bunn wrote:
> Yes. This is because they use capital (i.e., machines and equipment) to
> assist their production. Not all of the value of goods is due to the
> labor of the workers. Workers who have better equipment produce better
> goods, or more goods, or both.
Correct. The problem is that most of the workers do not have the equipment
required to do on their own because of the system itself.
Not having enough capital they are forced (economically coerced) to accept
a job offer that pays way below what they could do. As a result the skilled
individual is prevented to accumulate enough capital to start on his own
while the capital owner accumulate more capital.
That is. The system it is designed in such a way that the capital owner
keep itself in business regardless of his skills or abilities, by
economically coercing skilled people to be dependent on him.
The businessmen are not successfully by doing something usefull, but by
preventing others to do it for themselves. The reason this is possible is
because the capital is more scarce than labor. And the capital is scarce
because we allow unlimited accumulation of it without any penalty for
economically coercing others.
|
| Show full article (10.09Kb) |
| 2 Comments |
|
|
Author: Bob KolkerBob Kolker Date: Oct 22, 2006 08:04
Nospam wrote:
>
> The next stem will be migration toward a post capitalist society, where the
> companies are labor owned.
> Possibly not yet the 100%% labor owned system, we may be to far away of it
> due to historical reasons, but an equal share of it.
> That is. The management team have to be 50%% appointed by labor and 50%%
> by capital owners and the resulting proffits to be shared.
If the past is any guide to the future criminal racketeers will control
labor. The major labor unions have a very close relationship to
organized crime.
Bob Kolker
>
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Jeffrey TurnerJeffrey Turner Date: Oct 22, 2006 09:12
Robert Bunn wrote:
> "The Trucker" verizon.net> wrote:>>"Les Cargill" cfl.rr.com> wrote:>>>retrogrouch@ comcast.net wrote:
>>>
>>>How many minimum wage hikes have you lived through? Next time,
>>>watch beer prices. They go up exactly by the proportion that
>>>minimum wage goes up. >>
>>If all wages rise and all prices rise then there has most certainly
>>been
>>a change and it has made a difference. i.e. that money stuffed in
>>your mattress or held in the form of fixed rate government bonds
>>will have lost some of its purchasing power.
>
> Yes, exactly. That is the total extent of the change to be expected, in
> the long run.
|
| Show full article (1.21Kb) |
| 130 Comments |
|
|
Author: Jeffrey TurnerJeffrey Turner Date: Oct 22, 2006 09:15
Nospam wrote:
>
>
> I find at least strange that the so called" right wing economists" always
> look at keeping the wages low the measure to combat inflation and never
> look at the other side.
How many of them go out of their way to keep their own wages low?
That's how you know you can't trust them, they break their own rules.
--Jeff
--
Not ignorance, but ignorance of ignorance,
is the death of knowledge.
-Alfred North Whitehead
|
| |
| 6 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Robert BunnRobert Bunn Date: Oct 22, 2006 17:13
"Nospam" example.com> wrote in message
news:1340373.UlLggOQbRh@example.com...> Robert Bunn wrote:
>
>> Yes. This is because they use capital (i.e., machines and equipment)
>> to
>> assist their production. Not all of the value of goods is due to the
>> labor of the workers. Workers who have better equipment produce
>> better
>> goods, or more goods, or both.
>
> Correct. The problem is that most of the workers do not have the
> equipment
> required to do on their own because of the system itself.
>
You're right. The answer is for every auto worker to own his own
factory, obviously.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Robert BunnRobert Bunn Date: Oct 22, 2006 17:15
"Jeffrey Turner" localnet.com> wrote in message
news:12jn69sil1ifqc3@corp.supernews.com...> Nospam wrote:
>>
>>
>> I find at least strange that the so called" right wing economists"
>> always
>> look at keeping the wages low the measure to combat inflation and
>> never
>> look at the other side.
>
> How many of them go out of their way to keep their own wages low?
> That's how you know you can't trust them, they break their own rules.
>
Ad hominem is ... ah, you probably know and don't care. Try a little
intellectual honesty sometime. Pay attention to the arguments
themselves.
|
| |
| 5 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Robert BunnRobert Bunn Date: Oct 22, 2006 17:16
"Jeffrey Turner" localnet.com> wrote in message
news:12jn6438fjqbs8c@corp.supernews.com...> Robert Bunn wrote:
>> "The Trucker" verizon.net> wrote:>>>"Les Cargill" cfl.rr.com> wrote:>>>>retrogrouch@ comcast.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>How many minimum wage hikes have you lived through? Next time,
>>>>watch beer prices. They go up exactly by the proportion that
>>>>minimum wage goes up. >>>
>>>If all wages rise and all prices rise then there has most certainly
>>>been
>>>a change and it has made a difference. i.e. that money stuffed in
>>>your mattress or held in the form of fixed rate government bonds
>>>will have lost some of its purchasing power.
>>
>> Yes, exactly. That is the total extent of the change to be expected,
>> in the long run.
> ...
|
| Show full article (1.37Kb) |
| 128 Comments |
|
|
|
|
