Workers wage not in proportion to productivity - Page 7 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15060743
Donna wrote:That isn't what happened though.

Yes it is.
Historically production was heavily dependent on wealthy aristocratic landowners who possessed the wealth to both invest in the productive improvement of the land

GARBAGE. They only possessed the wealth because they had stolen it from tenants. And they didn't invest it in improvements. They spent it on private military forces, luxury consumption, and monument building. That is why economies were stagnant for centuries.
as well as finance government debt through large bond purchases.

Ahistorical nonsense. Why did governments go into debt? That's easy: they were providing such extravagant subsidies to landowners!
This is also implicit in Ricardo's and Smith's ideas as well.

More garbage lacking any basis in fact.
The Law of Rent basically describes a dynamic created by landowning monopolies,

That is baldly false. As Smith pointed out, land is always a monopoly; and the Law of Rent describes a relationship that is the same whether land is all held by one owner or is minutely subdivided.
which have been disappearing or declining for quite some time now, gradually forcing landlords into the parasitic and non-productive situation they find themselves in today

GARBAGE. The landowner qua landowner is, has always been, and by definition always will be, a parasite.
(ie because their profits became marginal with the rise of industrial capitalism,

Land rents increased exponentially with industrial capitalism. Landowners who understood that, like the Duke of Westminster's family, became rich beyond the dreams of avarice by pocketing land rent. See, "Progress and Poverty."
so did their propagation as a social class). It just seems you are ignoring this when you compare Ricardo's theory to the Pythagorean Theorem.

I'm ignoring it because it is ahistorical nonsense.
#15060746
Potemkin wrote:The fundamental problem seems to be that Truth to Power has no sense of history, of how things actually happened.

No, I am the one who understands how things actually happened.
Instead, he has only an abstract, one-sided view of economic production, which he seems to regard as a branch of pure mathematics.

Unrelated to anything I have said.
However, any theory of economic production must also be a theory of history and also a theory of politics, as Marx understood.

Marx didn't understand anything whatever about economics or history. He was a pre-Darwinian, and consequently had nothing correct or interesting to say on the subject.
Georgism flows from the same well of historical ignorance as libertarianism.

No, feudal "libertarianism" flows from the same well of economic ignorance as Marxism: willful ignorance of the fact that while the factory owner can only provide workers with access to opportunity they would not otherwise have, the landowner can only DEPRIVE workers of access to economic opportunity they WOULD otherwise have.
#15061059
Truth To Power wrote:No, the reason increased productivity can drive down wages is that it tends to push the margin outward onto worse land. This implication of the Law of Rent was thoroughly and conclusively demonstrated by Henry George over 140 years ago in "Progress and Poverty."

I am an enthusiast of Henry George theory, but am not quite sure I understand what you're saying.

Could you explain just a little bit that line of logic?
#15061204
Puffer Fish wrote:I am an enthusiast of Henry George theory, but am not quite sure I understand what you're saying.

Could you explain just a little bit that line of logic?

My pleasure. Increased productivity can happen a number of ways, but take the example of machinery. It will almost always increase production much more on advantageous land than marginal land. But machinery can make it profitable to exploit opportunities on sub-marginal land that was formerly too disadvantageous to use (pushes the margin outward). As the new marginal land (the worst land in use) typically can't justify the investment in machinery to make it more productive, the workers who are relegated to the new margin can't make as much as they did at the old margin, and their wages set the wage for all workers, as any production above that amount has to be paid to landowners in rent.
#15061216
late wrote:Wholly crap.

You cannot refute one word of it.
That looks like someone is trying to kill the income tax, IOW, escape to the 1800s...

The income tax is a way that rich, greedy, privileged parasites shifted the burden of taxation off themselves and onto workers. Your claim that any revenue system better than income tax is "an escape to the 1800s" is an absurd and disingenuous smear with no basis in fact. You can't offer any facts or logic to support your views or refute mine, so you take the intellectual coward's way out and just make $#!+ up.
#15061222
Truth To Power wrote:
You cannot refute one word of it.

The income tax is a way that rich, greedy, privileged parasites shifted the burden of taxation off themselves and onto workers. Your claim that any revenue system better than income tax is "an escape to the 1800s" is an absurd and disingenuous smear with no basis in fact. You can't offer any facts or logic to support your views or refute mine, so you take the intellectual coward's way out and just make $#!+ up.



I'm also not going to refute Flat Earth nonsense.

Btw, I didn't "make up" modern economics.
#15071280
Truth To Power wrote:My pleasure. Increased productivity can happen a number of ways, but take the example of machinery. It will almost always increase production much more on advantageous land than marginal land. But machinery can make it profitable to exploit opportunities on sub-marginal land that was formerly too disadvantageous to use (pushes the margin outward). As the new marginal land (the worst land in use) typically can't justify the investment in machinery to make it more productive, the workers who are relegated to the new margin can't make as much as they did at the old margin, and their wages set the wage for all workers, as any production above that amount has to be paid to landowners in rent.

That's a very fascinating and intelligent analysis.

(And I don't often give compliments like that in these discussions)

Yes, so the further out, and the more marginal and worse the inherent land is, the more capital is required to bring that land productivity up to par, and the more worker inequality there will be.

computer freezing up now, can't type anything else
#15071396
late wrote:I'm also not going to refute Flat Earth nonsense.

Another contentless smear. The following is from an open letter to Mikhail Gorbachev signed by dozens of eminent Western economists, including four (count 'em, FOUR) Nobel laureates:

"While the governments of developed nations with market economies collect some of the rent of land in taxes, they do not collect nearly as much as they could, and they therefore make unnecessarily great use of taxes that impede their economies--taxes on such things as incomes, sales and the value of capital."

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Open_let ... chev_(1990)
Btw, I didn't "make up" modern economics.

Where does "modern economics" state that taxing land or eliminating income tax would be an "escape to the 1800s"?
Last edited by Truth To Power on 02 Mar 2020 20:14, edited 1 time in total.
#15071404
Truth To Power wrote:
Another contentless smear. The following is from an open letter to Mikhail Gorbachev signed by dozens of eminent Western economists, including four (count 'em, FOUR) Nobel laureates:

"While the governments of developed nations with market economies collect some of the rent of land in taxes, they do not collect nearly as much as they could, and they therefore make unnecessarily great use of taxes that impede their economies--taxes on such things as incomes, sales and the value of capital."

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Open_let ... chev_(1990)

Where does "modern economics" state that taxing land or eliminating income tax would be an "escape to the 1800s"?



First, your link is broken.

Second, we discussed your Georgism before, and it ended with me having a lot more questions than answers. Which is why I started harboring suspicions that there was something else going on.

Third, "Economists’ main objections to Georgism are merely that (a) it is difficult to implement in practice, and (b) politically impossible."

Fourth, there may be other problems: "My co-author Zachary Gochenour and I have a new working paper arguing that the Single Tax suffers from a much more fundamental flaw. Namely: A tax on the unimproved value of land distorts the incentive to search for new land and better uses of existing land. If we actually imposed a 100% tax on the unimproved value of land, any incentive to search would disappear."

It's not a magic wand...

https://www.econlib.org/archives/2012/02/a_search-theore.html
#15071431
late wrote:First, your link is broken.

For some reason the right parenthesis is dropped off the url when you click on it. I don't know how to fix that bug. Just copy and paste the url into your browser's address bar.
Second, we discussed your Georgism before, and it ended with me having a lot more questions than answers.

I will do my best to answer honest questions.
Third, "Economists’ main objections to Georgism are merely that (a) it is difficult to implement in practice,

Nonsense. Land taxation is so easy to implement in practice, it was even used in ancient societies where hardly anyone could read.
and (b) politically impossible."

That's a matter of opinion. Certainly justice will always be opposed by those who profit from injustice; the political problem is that so many people who are harmed by the injustice of the current system mistakenly believe that they profit from it. To claim that justice is politically impossible is to claim that voters are either too stupid to understand simple economics, too lazy to try, or too dishonest to want justice.
Fourth, there may be other problems: "My co-author Zachary Gochenour and I have a new working paper arguing that the Single Tax suffers from a much more fundamental flaw. Namely: A tax on the unimproved value of land distorts the incentive to search for new land and better uses of existing land.

False. It just gives the community land administration that recovers the rent the incentive, rather than greedy private parasites.
If we actually imposed a 100% tax on the unimproved value of land, any incentive to search would disappear."

Refuted above. The community that recovers land rent for the purposes and benefit of the public that creates it would still have the full financial incentive to search. That is very much the point. Location subsidy repayment (LSR) aligns the government's own financial incentives with the public interest in efficient provision of desirable public services and infrastructure and optimum productive private use of land.
https://www.econlib.org/archives/2012/02/a_search-theore.html

Gochenour's absurd, fallacious and dishonest garbage has already been comprehensively and conclusively demolished here:

https://takenomics.wordpress.com/2011/1 ... er-taking/
#15071435
Truth To Power wrote:
Land taxation is so easy to implement..



I am getting the feeling this is another one of those religions..

It used to be Federal taxes got updated once a generation. Because once they finally got through it, they flat refused to ever do it again.

Changing tax structures is a nightmare. You're going to have problems crisscrossing across governmental boundaries, and a lot of the time, you won't have an easy way to deal with them.

To me, it's like sticking lit dynamite into one of your holes. It will makes things a lot simpler, that much is guaranteed.

I am particularly concerned about unintended consequences with this one.
#15071691
late wrote:I am getting the feeling this is another one of those religions..

No you aren't. You are aware that it is nothing but the logical implications of the indisputable facts of objective physical reality, and that you cannot answer it.
It used to be Federal taxes got updated once a generation. Because once they finally got through it, they flat refused to ever do it again.

Unjust taxes have to be complicated to be tolerable, and then frequently updated in order to stop evasion based on their complexity. Just taxes can be simple and permanent.
Changing tax structures is a nightmare.

Change is always frightening to those who prefer an unjust status quo to a just reform.
You're going to have problems crisscrossing across governmental boundaries

:lol: :lol: No. I am not, because unlike income, wealth, capital gains, sales, etc., etc., LAND CAN'T MOVE to a lower-tax jurisdiction. Hello??
and a lot of the time, you won't have an easy way to deal with them.

I will always have a trivially easy way to deal with unfounded objections to justice: not heeding false, absurd and disingenuous bull$#!+ objections.
To me, it's like sticking lit dynamite into one of your holes. It will makes things a lot simpler, that much is guaranteed.

Why do you hate liberty, justice and truth so much?
I am particularly concerned about unintended consequences with this one.

No, you are not. You have one specific objection to the intended consequence: justice.
#15071699
Truth To Power wrote:
No you aren't. You are aware that it is nothing but the logical implications of the indisputable facts of objective physical reality, and that you cannot answer it.

Unjust taxes have to be complicated to be tolerable, and then frequently updated in order to stop evasion based on their complexity. Just taxes can be simple and permanent.

Change is always frightening to those who prefer an unjust status quo to a just reform.

:lol: :lol: No. I am not, because unlike income, wealth, capital gains, sales, etc., etc., LAND CAN'T MOVE to a lower-tax jurisdiction. Hello??

I will always have a trivially easy way to deal with unfounded objections to justice: not heeding false, absurd and disingenuous bull$#!+ objections.

Why do you hate liberty, justice and truth so much?

No, you are not. You have one specific objection to the intended consequence: justice.




Now it looks even more like your religion.

Pretending the mountain of problems you need to climb is just a molehill or two doesn't help one little bit.
#15071870
late wrote:Now it looks even more like your religion.

Nonsense.
Pretending the mountain of problems you need to climb is just a molehill or two doesn't help one little bit.

I am aware of the mountain of problems, and have been working to solve them. They are just quite different from the ones you think they are.
#15071900
Soulflytribe wrote:Because we shouldn't foster social inequality among the working class, so they all should receive more or less the same wage in spite of how much they produce. I don't know why a comrade would want to destroy the brotherhood and friendship among workers by stimulating greediness and jealousy.


Yes we should. Everyone making about the same wage would be a nightmare and take away a lot of the incentive for working harder and achieving more. If you are more productive you should be rewarded, and if you're not very productive you should not be. Lawyers making roughly the same as their secretaries is ridiculous and not fair to anyone.
#15071903
Decky wrote:This. Why should I get paid less than other people just because I spend as much of my working day as possible sitting on my arse?


You just answered your own question.

Managers do nothing all day and earn loads. Why should be any different for me?


Many managers have more responsibility and many times also more experience than most of their workers under them. A lot of people don't want to be managers because they don't want the extra responsibility.
#15102683
Soulflytribe wrote:Because we shouldn't foster social inequality among the working class, so they all should receive more or less the same wage in spite of how much they produce. I don't know why a comrade would want to destroy the brotherhood and friendship among workers by stimulating greediness and jealousy.


Then what is the point or incentive for working hard?

If your friend works 5x more productive as you and makes more money because of it, only a petty, bitter, resentful person would be jealous. A much better attitude is to be inspired by this friend to be more productive yourself, or simply be content with your own more average output and wage. Imagine being proud and admiring of your friend's achievements and success, what a concept!
#15102684
Average Voter wrote:I have noticed that workers who produce ten times the product of their peers only make three to four times as much as their peers. Is this expected in capitalism? Why does this happen?


Sounds like they either aren't good at negotiating their wages or they don't have enough leverage in negotiations.
#15102835
Truth To Power wrote:
Land taxation is so easy to implement..



I discussed *at length* with TTP, and his position is basically that of a government-administrated *franchising* of all / government land, to leasees, on a sliding scale, with all *improvements* to the land either having to be removed, or else *forfeited*, at the end of the lease. Everything else -- meaning equity capital -- would be conventionally capitalist, and would be ruling-class and *hegemonic* over the working class.

This is basically a radical-reformist *nationalization* of land, but TTP won't use that term.



After some reflection I think your proposal better-resembles that of a *franchise*, than anything else.



viewtopic.php?p=15087396#p15087396



---


Soulflytribe wrote:
Because we shouldn't foster social inequality among the working class, so they all should receive more or less the same wage in spite of how much they produce. I don't know why a comrade would want to destroy the brotherhood and friendship among workers by stimulating greediness and jealousy.



Unthinking Majority wrote:
Yes we should. Everyone making about the same wage would be a nightmare and take away a lot of the incentive for working harder and achieving more. If you are more productive you should be rewarded, and if you're not very productive you should not be. Lawyers making roughly the same as their secretaries is ridiculous and not fair to anyone.



Unthinking Majority wrote:
Then what is the point or incentive for working hard?

If your friend works 5x more productive as you and makes more money because of it, only a petty, bitter, resentful person would be jealous. A much better attitude is to be inspired by this friend to be more productive yourself, or simply be content with your own more average output and wage. Imagine being proud and admiring of your friend's achievements and success, what a concept!



One *implication* of what SFT is *saying*, though, is that *productivity* is *not* the same as *worker's productivity*.

I think status-quo types *miss* this, because the mainstream conveniently *omits* the fact that modern machinery (factories) is *very* labor-leveraging, to the point where typical mechanical processes are *very* automated, and the 'labor' for such is nowadays much more like 'administration' over machinery, meaning knowing and executing processes *by computer*, with the resulting material productivity being entirely *mechanical*, and *not* human-labor-intensive at all.

The now-cliched 'working hard' moralistic political power-play is almost *meaningless*, because either there are technicians / engineers to initiate mechanical processes, or else there *aren't*.

In other words the societal-productive aspect of *distribution* ('consumption') is increasingly overshadowing all other aspects of contemporary social production, due to mechanization / industrialization, and now *automation*.

SFT is just noting that we happen to lack *economic* egalitarianism, meaning some kind of guaranteed *income*, or *consumption*, from what society is *automatically* producing anyway. The slumping demand due to COVID-19 is throwing this reality into stark relief since it's easier and cheaper for dairy farmers to *dump* their excess milk instead of trying to *distribute* it to food banks, for people's actual consumption *needs*, because there's no economic incentive for such under the system of capitalism.


Why American farmers are throwing out tons of milk




Components of Social Production

Spoiler: show
Image



---


Decky wrote:
This. Why should I get paid less than other people just because I spend as much of my working day as possible sitting on my arse?



Unthinking Majority wrote:
You just answered your own question.



Snide.

This, too, is an indication that human labor is less and less needed, empirically, when more of society's actual production is done *mechanically*.

Yet people have everyday *expenses* that need to be funded somehow, and it's *not* coming from wages, because of fewer jobs and fewer *good* jobs, meaning living-wages.


Decky wrote:
Managers do nothing all day and earn loads. Why should be any different for me?



Unthinking Majority wrote:
Many managers have more responsibility and many times also more experience than most of their workers under them. A lot of people don't want to be managers because they don't want the extra responsibility.



This is sheer *bombast*, because of mechanization / industrialization. Your moralism is showing here, too, in your use of the terms 'responsibility' and 'experience'. Either workers get jobs to run the machines, or else they're laid off and *managers* are favored by ownership for doing the same, over greater expanses of machinery, through increasingly *automated* processes, meaning computerized controls of such.

The working class won't *get* to experience any kind of wage / consumption equality while *capitalism* still exists, because the market mechanism ensures economic *hierarchy* based on private ownership of capital, and low wages for workers -- the working class *interest* is to *overthrow* private ownership, everywhere, so that workers can collectively control productivity themselves, and to distribute the goods as they see fit.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
Election 2020

:roll: Asking for evidence of what YOU claim, is[…]

@ralfy Sivad is an anti-Vaxxer. :knife: H[…]

https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/C[…]

So it comes to this.

The degree of vituperation in our political comme[…]