NationStates Jolt Archive

By quick I mean I've spent most of my weekend reading introduction's to Marxism and it's vaguely beginning to make sense.

One of the infinite amount of thoughts that came up.

Marx reckons that it is a capitalist state's interest to regulate the length of the working day. Otherwise the short-term greed of the capitalists would have workers working for so long that the physical reproduction of the working class would drastically fall, and as such the capitalist class would eliminate the class it is dependent upon.

Is Marx right?

However, surely you could extend this idea to any regulation concerning working conditions, such as the minimum wage.

As far as I'm aware the US regulates neither the working day or the minimum wage, whereas countries in Europe (such as France, Germany and the UK) regulate both.

As far as I'm aware the US regulates neither the working day or the minimum wage, whereas countries in Europe (such as France, Germany and the UK) regulate both.
I have no idea where you got this impression, but it's not correct. The US sets a minimum wage by law, and regulates the number of hours people can work in several different ways.

I have no idea where you got this impression, but it's not correct. The US sets a minimum wage by law, and regulates the number of hours people can work in several different ways.Maybe I'm a couple of decades or centuries out of date?

OR, maybe I have read about the regulation of the two but it seemed so laughable that it didn't seem regulation at all to me.
...
And I've suddenly realised that Germany can't have a minimum wage law as an MP who was just elected in the recent elections had been unemployed ever since reunification. 15 years to be unemployed, I really can't imagine that at all. She did, however, have a part time job selling postcards which she was paid 1 euro an hour... But yeah she's roling in cash now. From an income of 300 euros a month to something like 7000 euros a month... I think. But it was big step up... maybe she was self employed selling the postcards in which case the min wage wouldn't have affected her. Oh well. Enough rambling.

No, Marx is incorrect. Employers know better than to work their employees to death, and employees have ample choices in determining the amount of hours they work in the week.

No, Marx is incorrect. Employers know better than to work their employees to death, and employees have ample choices in determining the amount of hours they work in the week.
Completely miss the 1900's?

Maybe I'm a couple of decades or centuries out of date?

OR, maybe I have read about the regulation of the two but it seemed so laughable that it didn't seem regulation at all to me.
...
And I've suddenly realised that Germany can't have a minimum wage law as an MP who was just elected in the recent elections had been unemployed ever since reunification. 15 years to be unemployed, I really can't imagine that at all. She did, however, have a part time job selling postcards which she was paid 1 euro an hour... But yeah she's roling in cash now. From an income of 300 euros a month to something like 7000 euros a month... I think. But it was big step up... maybe she was self employed selling the postcards in which case the min wage wouldn't have affected her. Oh well. Enough rambling. If you think that most people in the United States are poor while a few are extremely rich, you are sorely mistaken. I live in the New York area, and I can tell you that most of us Americans have a comfortable lifestyle, with nothing to complain about.

Except Bush's frequent screw-ups, maybe.

Completely miss the 1900's?

I caught the tail end, seems like things turned out pretty nice by then.

I agree that Americans do live a comfortable life. However we are seeing the working class starting to work even more and harder. In fact the United States is almost one big working machine. People don't work nearly as much in other places such as Europe etc. then they do in the US.

Marx is wrong. Both in France Italy and England workers get at least 40 days of paid vacation, while Americans get little over 14 days of paid vacation. In addition French workers can only work a max of 1300 hours per year and Americans work 1800 hours per year. From this French, Italian and English workers are at least 2 times more productive then that of Americans. It seems that Marx is not just wrong about work week and minimum wage, but that accually to make more money, pushing people would not work. Plus all the abuses he may have been angry over ended with Unions, not a total up heaveal of society.

Also Kyleslavia you are wrong
Americans work less per year then Countries like Mexico, Japan, Poland and Korea. Not to mention Japan and Korea are booming economies

Marx is wrong. Both in France Italy and England workers get at least 40 days of paid vacation, while Americans get little over 14 days of paid vacation. In addition French workers can only work a max of 1300 hours per year and Americans work 1800 hours per year. From this French, Italian and English workers are at least 2 times more productive then that of Americans. It seems that Marx is not just wrong about work week and minimum wage, but that accually to make more money, pushing people would not work. Plus all the abuses he may have been angry over ended with Unions, not a total up heaveal of society


Could you provide proof?

Also Kyleslavia you are wrong
Americans work less per year then Countries like Mexico, Japan, Poland and Korea. Not to mention Japan and Korea are booming economies


Is Japan really that strong right now?

I think most of you have missed the point made in the OP, which is that Marx "thought" that if men were worked too long, they wouldn't be able to get it up and keep Pedro going, so no little new workers.

As to this, I think Marx went further off the deep end.

Umm, that 40 day thing is not true for England, not sure about the other countries. I think ours is more like the 14 day rule.

In my opinion, it's up to the company to look at productivity versus weekly hours and employ people correspondingly. The weekly hours vs productivity will vary alot depending on the field of work (lifting crates to office work) so blanketing the whole economy with one rule makes many companies less efficient and hurts the economy.

Marx is wrong. Both in France Italy and England workers get at least 40 days of paid vacation, while Americans get little over 14 days of paid vacation. In addition French workers can only work a max of 1300 hours per year and Americans work 1800 hours per year. From this French, Italian and English workers are at least 2 times more productive then that of Americans. It seems that Marx is not just wrong about work week and minimum wage, but that accually to make more money, pushing people would not work. Plus all the abuses he may have been angry over ended with Unions, not a total up heaveal of society.

Also Kyleslavia you are wrong
Americans work less per year then Countries like Mexico, Japan, Poland and Korea. Not to mention Japan and Korea are booming economies
Actually America works more than almost any other nation in the world.

I caught the tail end, seems like things turned out pretty nice by then.
Only with what would be considered "socalist" agitation through the entire first half.

And we certainly don't need any more of that now, do we? do lefties seriously think if we eliminate those old regulations that people will automatically just let their employers walk all over them? times have changed and employers are just going to have to deal with a populace accustomed to these luxuries. not complying with it would be bad for business, simple as that.

Or, perhaps we should add more socialist bullshit so coroporations can outsource some more to foreign nations and build some more sweatshops.

Your choice, lefties.

Hmmm... clarification for UK law as far as I know it.

Four weeks of mandatory holiday a year, but I'm not sure how the law takes into account part-time of temporary workers. This is basically 20 days of paid holiday, not 28.

Minimum wage is about £4.60/hour. It actually depends on your age. There are 3 bands - 14-16/16-21/21+ <-- the 16 could be 18, I'm not too sure.

The UK has signed up to the EU working time Directive. The directive states that members of EU countries can not work for more than 40 hours a week, but a few countries, including the UK have an opt out (this will only last for a few years so that these countries can adjust their economy to lessen the impact). Workers can voluntarily opt out and the main point of the UK opt out is keep junior doctors working 60+ hour weeks to keep the NHS from falling apart. (However, about 25% of the UK population work more than their contracted hours - this wouldn't be affected by the directive I don't think)

Back to Marx
Marx's argues that the capitalist system forces capitalists to expolit their workers as the system is competitive - if you are not competitive then you lose you and get ousted from your position as the more competitive company takes your market share. That is, the system forces you to try to have a competitive edge over your rivals, which can be done by exploiting your workers more so than your rivals, as evidenced by the stat about UK workers (don't ask for the source as I can't remember precisely where I got it from, but I could have it within a few days).

And we certainly don't need any more of that now, do we? do lefties seriously think if we eliminate those old regulations that people will automatically just let their employers walk all over them? times have changed and employers are just going to have to deal with a populace accustomed to these luxuries. not complying with it would be bad for business, simple as that.

Or, perhaps we should add more socialist bullshit so coroporations can outsource some more to foreign nations and build some more sweatshops.

Your choice, lefties.
Bahaha. Those countries that don't have minimum wages and restricted work days are the ones that sweatshops are located in. Way to shoot yourself in the foot.

We get rid of minimum wage and worker protection laws, we bring back sweatshops. The fact that companies are willing to use them in foreign countries reinforces this fact.

Marx's analysis is quite accurate.

Similar logic underlies the existence of the middle class, the idea being that the creation of more disposable income will aid the profits of the capitalists and entrench the system by creating a "guardian" class.

Considerable government intervention in the economy, to socialize costs (corporate welfare and similar efforts), subsidize areas of high potential growth (high-tech industry's relationship to the military-industrial complex and the space program being a prime example), and to reduce radical inequities (to maintain demand and to protect the health of workers) is in the full interest of the capitalist class, and it, for the most part, understands this.

Perhaps the most important reason that Marx's prediction of capitalism's fall has so far failed to occur is the understanding on the part of the capitalists that unless more moderate policies were taken, exactly that would be the result.

Or, perhaps we should add more socialist bullshit so coroporations can outsource some more to foreign nations and build some more sweatshops.

The preferred policy is what?

Building sweatshops here as well?

Building sweatshops here as well?

It wouldn't happen. Sweatshops only arise when the labor market is too big relative to the number of jobs and there is no competition/diversification in the market. Developed-world workers are too qualified and there is more than enough economic diversite and competition for that to even be a possibility.

Eliminating maximum workdays would increase productivity and create more jobs. Higher productivity results in higher living standards, which would further increase demand and employment.

It wouldn't happen. Sweatshops only arise when the labor market is too big relative to the number of jobs and there is no competition/diversification in the market. Developed-world workers are too qualified and there is more than enough economic diversite and competition for that to even be a possibility.

Eliminating maximum workdays would increase productivity and create more jobs. Higher productivity results in higher living standards, which would further increase demand and employment.
And how would it do this?

And how would it do this?

1.Higher productivity reduces the cost to produce the same amount of items. Lower labor costs per item result in deflationary pressure, which results in higher living standards simply by control of inflation.

2.Higher productivity increases profits, which can either be reinvested resulting in more jobs and more spending on products from other companies. The bolster of stock prices as a result of profit increases net wealth for investors, but this is a side effect and isn't reliable enough to be always true.

3.Higher productivity almost always results in wage increases as a means of further increasing productivity through motivation. This is the primary benefit of removing maximum hours; in a developed economy, the workers would have enough leverage to demand higher wages in return for working more.