Re: The Brilliance of Moving US Manufacturing Jobs to China

With no regard for personal safety or the comfort of others, the Great
"Pies de Arcilla" <dearcilla@xxxxxxxxx> blathered:

>
>Dr Zen wrote:
>> With no regard for personal safety or the comfort of others, the Great
>> "Pies de Arcilla" <dearcilla@xxxxxxxxx> blathered:
>>
>> >
>> >Dr Zen wrote:
>> >> With no regard for personal safety or the comfort of others, the Great
>> >> "Pies de Arcilla" <dearcilla@xxxxxxxxx> blathered:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Dr Zen wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Rephrasing: maximum wage bad, yes? For Chinese or Americans.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Undervaluing labour is not a bad thing if you have capital.
>> >> >
>> >> >Sure it is. Undervaluing labour screws _different_ capitalists and
>> >> >workers than overvaluing labor does, but that's just a detail.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> That's bull***. It doesn't hurt the person doing the undervaluing and
>> >> that's what counts.
>> >
>> >A wage cap drastically reduces the productivity of high-wage workers.
>>
>> Prove it.
>
>> High-wage workers don't actually do any producing, dude. What planet
>> are you living on?
>
>High means higher than a cap.

What cap?

> It does not necessarily mean management.
>If you think management is unproductive, we don't need to argue that;
>set them aside.
>

What do they produce? Apart from reports and generalised chaos?

>>
>> >A minimum wage drastically reduces the productivity of low-wage
>> >workers.
>>
>> Productivity per dollar?
>>
>> If that's what you're saying, we should maybe consider not paying the
>> slaves at all?
>
>That would be a wage _cap_, set to zero; not a minimum.

It would be both.

> It would
>therefore make _everybody_ into a "high-wage" worker.

Not if anybody was being paid. And "high-wage" does not actually mean
"higher than some arbitrary cap". It means "relatively highly paid".
What "relatively" means is something to be determined.


>
>>
>> >Either way, the effect on capitalists is just like bombing their widget
>> >supplier. It certainly does hurt them when they have invested assuming
>> >they will be able to get the inputs they need for their business.
>>
>> A cap on high wages would not affect capitalists. It would affect
>> people who are paid obscene amounts of money for doing not much of
>> consequence.
>
>There are many people who are paid obscene amounts of money for doing
>not much of
>consequence.

Yes, indeed.

> Some of them are paid obscenely _low_ amounts

Not many. Most people on low wages do things of great consequence.

> and some
>obscenely _high_ amounts. Some probably even obscenely _middling_
>amounts.
>

You and I quite possibly have different notions of "consequence" in
mind.

>Controls on wages would affect people who _are_ doing things of
>consequence.

How? You keep saying so but without actually saying how.

How would a wage cap affect people, regardless of the value of their
work?

> Who can be found among both high and low wage people. And
>in turn such controls affect the capital suited more to one type of
>worker than the other.
>

Bull***.

I had a discussion with Josh, I think it was, some time ago about
lawyers. A cap on lawyers' fees would do what, do you think? Look up
the discussion if you want a clue.

>>
>> You seem to be complaining that the minimum wage lessens exploitation.
>> I don't sympathise. I just say tough ***, Gradgrind.
>
>The minimum wage _causes_ employers to be assholes.

Explain how. You think they try to squeeze more productivity per
dollar out of the workers? You think that that is ameliorated by
permitting them to pay even lower wages, so that they achieve the same
productivity per dollar with fewer workers? How does that benefit the
workers exactly?

Don't just say it does. Explain how.

> I have firsthand
>experience of that. Mandatory overtime and such is more of the same.
>

We're not discusisng "mandatory overtime", which should also be
outlawed. Make the cunts take on more workers and achieve less profit.
If you can't make a buck with some slack in the workforce, you're
running it too close to the bone.

>No, I'm saying that the minimum wage is class warfare on the poor

Bullfucking***. Show how.


>while a wage cap would be class warfare on the rich.

The rich are thieves. War is exactly what they deserve.

> Both seem unjust.

Depending on whether you are poor or rich or somewhere in between.

>Maybe I'm just feeling libertarian tonight.

Libertarians are cocksuckers. They want a "level playing field" to be
built on the side of a mountain. Cunts. Level the mountain first, then
talk about how fair your plan is.

>
>> >good -> Higher wages are better than lower wages.
>>
>> Good for whom?

Good for whom?

>>
>> It's not good for me if my boss earns twice what he did last week.
>>
>
>If I'm doing well, I feel generous towards those around me.

Me too, whether I'm doing well or not. It's what motivates me to urge
war on the rich, who don't need generosity, having already stolen more
than their share.

>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >A minimum wage is bad because being employed is good.
>> >>
>> >> That doesn't even begin to follow. Being employed at less than a
>> >> certain wage is not good.
>> >
>> >good -> Being employed is better than not being employed.
>>
>> Tell it to Kunta Kinte, idiot.
>
>You can take it as read that I am not talking about slavery or, in the
>modern U.S., prison labor, when I speak of employment.

Employment is employment, dude. Labour is labour. You can take that as
read when I say you're full of ***.


Dr Zen
"But let me tell you that I never planned
to let go of the hand that has been
clinging by its thick country skin
to my yellow country teeth" -- Ounsworth
http://gollyg.blogspot.com
.

Loading