wiscalatus
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
well wouldn't you rather have Maduro, than right wing Catholic , US puppet Capriles running the show?
Young Master Smeet wrote:This shows wages growing, even for the poorest decile, but not as fast as other segments of the workforce, and as part of a declining share of national income as wages fall from 65% (see page 11).So you can see from this then that inequality is RISING and those right at the bottom are being progressively disempowerd due to their relative decrease in wages, thanks to the oversupply of workers, amongst other things.And you still think that mass immigration is a great thing for the working class? WTF
Young Master Smeet wrote:Evidence:Quote:In the seven years to 2009, UK employees’ median hourly earnings grew by 3.7% a year on average in nominal (current price) terms. With relatively low inflation, median real earnings (in 2012 constant prices) grew by 1.6% a year on average.ok, and how about the wages for those at the bottom of the chain? They support those higher up – the poor pay for it!
Let the pixies make mops from the trees and sew their own clothes.Then, any other pixies out of work, can be made to do non-jobs such as holding doors open for the masters and ladies – this is what happens in the real world.The masters will always empower themselves by forcing subservience on their underlings whether for a valid function or not.This is why a vast army of suplus labour is so glorious for the elite and their lackeys!Why are you so keen to feed the master?
ALB wrote:Now Labour is jumping on the anti-immgrant bandvan, reviving Gordon Brown's slogan of "British Jobs for British Workers" and targetting "legal" immigrants: Politics in Britain is definitely becoming nastier. It's about appealing for the votes of bigots and xenophobes without appearing to be one yourself.Seems fair enought to me – why should I lose my livelihood because there are not enough jobs in other countries, that are not socialist anyway? would you be keen to lose your job to neo-cons coming over from the US? Nothing to do with bigotry and xenophobia, just trying to protect one's own nation – what is so wrong with that?
Young Master Smeet wrote:Now, you didn't bold the key phrase "when rates of investment are high", that is, when lots of capital is being thrown onto the market. When lots of capital is competing against other capitals to attract labour, wages rise, so wages will rise even with a growing population.More nonsense here, because we can clearly see that over the last decade or 2, wages for the lower classes have actually gone DOWN, and unemployment has gone up, mainly due to the increase in workers.
Young Master Smeet wrote:i note, for the third time of asking, you have not provided any refutation to my zero wage example.It's nonsense basically, because if there is a vast army of people working for nothing (ie: slavery), then these workers will not be able to pay others to do the jobs they don't want to do (cleaning, cooking, etc..) – thus there will always be some people redundant.
Ok, so how will the geographical territory of the UK respond to attack from an outside power, say one region that chose not to go along with the World Socialism idea?
Young Master Smeet wrote:Yes, if wages fall, then certain production models that require lots of labour become options, and labour can be priced into the market, but there are limits to this. Lets look at this from the other angle, if the rate of investment rises, i.e. profits are high, then labour becomes scarce, and employers will offer higher wages to encourage workers to work for them. Both scenarios happen independent of population numbers.How do you figure this one?If profits are high, why should that make labour scarce?No reason for that to be the case, but most certainly if operational costs become LOWER (ie: reduced wages due to oversupply of workers) then investment can easily RISE.Here we can see how the big capitialist can happily increase his profit due to the enlargened workforce.Good for him, but bad for the worker, who now is forced to accept a fraction of the wage or starve.So tell me again, how is this actually good for the working class of the host nation?
jondwhite wrote:Why wouldn't you seek to overthrow the capitalist system if this is the cause? Because its easier to blame immigrants? Because its easier to blame particular employers? Or if you want to divide workers, why stop at nations? Why not the north-south divide? Why not town and country? Why not capital cities from the rest?Nations are needed to support the innate human need for an in-group.People that think, look and act in the same way are more likely to build unity – too much diversification causes distrust and a breakdown of solidarity.
ok, so how about the 'fortress Europe' idea – ie: Europe as a Socialist state. Would you agree with that idea?
Young Master Smeet wrote:Unemployment is caused by employers. Put another way, levels of employment are a dependent variable, based on the amount of capital invested, and nothing to do with the numbers of workers available.The 2 are most definitely related.If wages are lowered, then employment increases.Ergo, if we can employ one Briish worker for £10/hr or 2 Polish at £5/hr – what's it going to be?Hardly rocket science.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Quote:Now, why would UK taxpayers be so willing to support these people if they are out of work, and why would a native working class local be so prepared to fight for the newcomer's rights, when they do not share a common history or culture?Because, they are human beings: that is the common heritage. I have as much in common with a worker in Peru as I do with a worker from Liverpool. That is, the worker in Liverpool is someone I have not met, will never meet, is not related to me, is not related to anyone I know. I have more in common with a Peruvian worker than I ever will with a British capitalist: they are a worker, someone who has nothing but their ability to work in order to live.
And do you really think this works the other way around? I think not. How well do you think you would be recieved in a factory in Nigeria, Peru, Bangladesh or Paraguay – do you think they would all greet you with open arms as ' a working comrade' , or would it be more likely to be, ' rich gringo'?Pretty sure the latter would be more likely.And BTW, have you ever actually lived in a developing country?
DJP wrote:Why are people employed in the first place? Only because someone can make a profit can be made from employing them. When there is a lack of profitable avenues, as is the situation now, workers are laid off since there is no money to be made from employing them.True, but what better way to make even more profit than lowering operation costs, ie: wages.Let's say a firm has attained maximum sales, then of course it can keep it's shareholders and owners even happier by reducing costs, and the more workers available to them, then the easier it is for them to do this.So although we can 'blame the system' of capitalism, what concrete steps can be made to rectify this, bearing in mind you all seem to be keen on increasing the labour supply, and thus giving the employers even more leverage?
