NationStates Jolt Archive

Can developed nations afford the luxury of unions when they are competing against cheap labour from countries such as China and India?

Can developed nations afford the luxury of unions when they are competing against cheap labour from countries such as China and India?Yes, but this also speaks to the necessity of organizing Chinese and Indian workers.

The numbers don't lie--corporate profits are up across the board and real wages are down or stagnant. That's the result of a system where the worker doesn't have the power to effectively demand wage increases.



When I joined the Union my wages doubled and my "rights" increased dramatically.

Do you have a job?

When I joined the Union my wages doubled and my "rights" increased dramatically.

Do you have a job?
I do, and it's a union job--thus, my great support for them. That comment you quoted, I believe, was making that point--that with the weakening of unions in the US, wages for the average worker have stagnated while corporate profits have skyrocketed.

You've found a convenience in unions as free middle-management, good for you. However, that is not really what is at hand. What is at hand are situations such as in the US, in which an employer is forced to deal with unions. You seem to have missed that in my posts.

Were unions in the West as good all around as they seem to be for you, this thread would not be much of a debate, and in the West, where pro-union legislation such as "closed shops" is withdrawn, the union very frequently dies out for lack of willing members.

You're right. I did miss that. What I took from your posts is that you were arguing that unions were categorically bad.

If that wasn't the point, if you were instead arguing "Unions are bad when the state requires membership in them", which is what you seem to be suggesting in your second paragraph, I can not really argue about that, as I don't know of a real world example. I'm unaware of any region that requires you work in a union. Each individual employee can make a choice to whether they choose to work in a union shop or find other employment. If the union is strong enough so that all employment of a certain type in an area is unionized, then the potential employee should learn another skill-set -- or move to another area, just as you argue they should if the wages or other working conditions are not sufficient. However, feel free to enlighten me on exactly where it is you're speaking of that the state has legislated everybody must join a union if they want to work at all.

If the union isn't even strong enough to get a clause in the employment policies stating union workers only, then it makes sense it would die simply because it isn't useful to either the employer or the employees. All the benefits I list of the union here happen because it's a union shop. If it was half union, half freelance, I'd still have all the risk of a non-union shop with the freelancers, as well as the union bear to deal with on wages and benefits come renegotiating time. That's a lose-lose as far as I'm concerned.

That is a false dichotomy. The real dichotomy is between dealing with a unions, and dealing with individual workers.
I'm not sure how you can claim that something that actually happens is a false dichotomy. Employers in Hong Kong were given strong protections against unions and started dealing with individual employees. They failed in that their dealings incited worker riots and violence. This caused state intervention.

I can't find an example of where this didn't happen. Either unions rose in freedom, or unions were quashed and the result was violence leading to state legislation. In some states, that legislation was against the freedoms of the employees to organize and demand certain things, in others it was against the freedoms of employers to do certain things such as lower wages or firing at convenience.

if you were instead arguing "Unions are bad when the state requires membership in them",

I wasn't I was arguing that if an employer wanted to deal with a union fine, he however should not be forced so to do.

Unions have a bad economic effect generally, and closed shop laws don't indicate bad unions, they indicate bad government, pandering to unions.

If the union isn't even strong enough to get a clause in the employment policies stating union workers only, then it makes sense it would die simply because it isn't useful to either the employer or the employees. All the benefits I list of the union here happen because it's a union shop. If it was half union, half freelance, I'd still have all the risk of a non-union shop with the freelancers, as well as the union bear to deal with on wages and benefits come renegotiating time. That's a lose-lose as far as I'm concerned.

In Australia, that hasn't been much of a problem. The decline of the union movement hasn't lead to what you predict. Since unions were marginalised by a more free market in labour, real wages in Australia have been rising for years.

There may well be cultural differences, but the facts are clear.

Either unions rose in freedom, or unions were quashed and the result was violence leading to state legislation. In some states, that legislation was against the freedoms of the employees to organize and demand certain things, in others it was against the freedoms of employers to do certain things such as lower wages or firing at convenience.

In the West, unions tend not to be quashed. They simply die for lack of members. The exception of course is the civil service.

*********************

Considerations made impossible by the collective demand for higher wages.

No, they aren't.

Yes, as I've said, a business will set its prices to maximize its profits.

That is not what you've said, you said businesses would keep margins high.

If anything makes it unprofitable to operate in a particular country, the companies will leave.

You're starting to learn.

The capitalists are the excessively selfish ones. Those workers would go on welfare. The capitalists would eliminate welfare.

Why should they go on welfare after destroying their own jobs?

Unions sell labor at a mutually agreed price.

No, they don't, they don't survive without state protection and intervention in general.

If unemployment is nonexistant, workers will demand higher wages. This will result in one of three things:

The workers will be fired, but snapped up by other companies, where they can continue to demand higher wages.

The companies will go out of business. If this happens too quickly, there will be unemployment. If it happens slowly enough, the workers will go to other companies and demand higher wages.

The companies will give the workers as much as they can, which is all of the profits. Since the owners would then have no profits, they would be superfluous. Perhaps they could be given new jobs within the company, but either way all of the companies would all be owned by the workers. This would no longer be capitalism, it would be market socialism.

Nonetheless, total employment is impossible in capitalism.

Do you seriously think you can make a cogent argument on what would happen in a capitalist system without referring to supply and demand? Or the price system in general.

In capitalism, the price of labour is set by supply and demand. If domestic workers demand a price beyond the market clearing price, companies will simply leave, or bring in immigrants who will not ask as much.

No, they aren't in an environment where they can advance economically, otherwise they would, and would no longer be poor.

Mule fritters. You can't just assume that people would always make the best choices given the opportunity.

No, the definition is moved because it is relative. Someone in poverty in one country would not necessarily be if they were making the same amount in another country. But nonetheless, even if you used an absolute definition of poverty, such as no TV, no air conditioning, no car, and no dwelling, then there are still people in capitalist countries who fit that definition.

An absolute definition is firstly the only type that leads to a solution. Secondly, relative measures lead to trillions being spent, and more poverty, thirdly, you cannot deny that there exists a group of people who benefit from there being as much poverty as possible, namely those paid to "solve" it.

There has been a positive result;, whether or not that result is worth trillions of dollars is up for debate, but nonetheless, private charity would be insufficient.

Private charity does more case by case than the state ever has. If the government simply gave those trillions to private charities, things would have been a lot better. Anyway, you neglect the fact that welfare creates moral hazard, and several trillion dollars of moral hazard is a bad thing no matter how you slice it.

**************************

When I joined the Union my wages doubled

Your wage rates doubled. Real wages, in a heavily unionised labour market tend to fall because of the effect unions have on prices.

******************************

Can developed nations afford the luxury of unions when they are competing against cheap labour from countries such as China and India?

We've all heard of outsourcing. The answer to your question is no.

*****************************

Yes, but this also speaks to the necessity of organizing Chinese and Indian workers.

Of course you want them organised. If they unionise, it will be less profitable to hire them, favouring Westerners.

I wasn't I was arguing that if an employer wanted to deal with a union fine, he however should not be forced so to do.

They arent. They can choose to ignore them. May be bad for them if they dont, but they can choose to ignore them.


That is not what you've said, you said businesses would keep margins high.

Which they will do if the conditions are right. If the way to maximise profits is to keep margins high, they will do that. If it isnt, they wont. They sell at the price that will get them the greatest profit, which changes depending on the conditions. Sometimes it will be best to sell at with low margins, sometimes with high.


No, they don't, they don't survive without state protection and intervention in general.

Erm... but unions first came into existance expressly against the wills of government. People were put into prison for trying to start unions, yet they managed to survive.

And yes they do sell labour at an agreed price, according to your argument about wages and conditions reached by an individual worker dealing with a company. The union set their demands, and then the company chooses to agree to them or not. They have the choice not to accept them, and to ignore them, even if that means they are unable to find workers. Just as according to your argument a worker has the choice to turn down wages they dont think are reasonable, even if there is no better work out there.

The thing is that you want people to give into the demands of business, rather than business give into the demands of people and unions.

In capitalism, the price of labour is set by supply and demand. If domestic workers demand a price beyond the market clearing price, companies will simply leave, or bring in immigrants who will not ask as much.


An absolute definition is firstly the only type that leads to a solution.

But standards of living are all relative. 500 years ago the hight of living was a dark, dirty manor. Many of the richest people in the world thenprobably lived in conditions not much better than what many in poverty live today. You saying we should have the same standards from then? As a nation becomes more properous its standards should become higher.


Secondly, relative measures lead to trillions being spent, and more poverty,

Any proof of that? Well, the first yes... but the second?


thirdly, you cannot deny that there exists a group of people who benefit from there being as much poverty as possible, namely those paid to "solve" it.

Erm... I can understand what you are saying, but your plain wrong. Being able to say poverty has fallen is an achievement anyone would want to claim, so if anything they should be shifting the standards downwards. And even if you decide to go the rather daft route of fixing a stadard which will mean "poerty" for ever from now on, whats it going to be?


Private charity does more case by case than the state ever has.

Bollocks


Anyway, you neglect the fact that welfare creates moral hazard, and several trillion dollars of moral hazard is a bad thing no matter how you slice it.

Moral hazard? What on earth do you mean by that?


Your wage rates doubled. Real wages, in a heavily unionised labour market tend to fall because of the effect unions have on prices.

Yet the period 50s to the early 70s was one of the most sustained growths of real wages in Britain, which matches pretty much with the hight of the unions power in Britain.


We've all heard of outsourcing. The answer to your question is no.

Of course you want them organised. If they unionise, it will be less profitable to hire them, favouring Westerners.

Well, true, there is the selfish motive of wanting to destroy one of the attractions of those poorer labour sources, but there is also the more empathetic and supprtive motive of wanting them to have labour protections and rights.

Why should we all try to fit with the lowest standard, rather than try and bring them up to ours.

They arent. They can choose to ignore them. May be bad for them if they dont, but they can choose to ignore them.

They can now, in some industries.

Which they will do if the conditions are right. If the way to maximise profits is to keep margins high, they will do that. If it isnt, they wont. They sell at the price that will get them the greatest profit, which changes depending on the conditions. Sometimes it will be best to sell at with low margins, sometimes with high.

You've completely ignored the fact that people generally prefer a lower price to a higher price, favouring lower margins.

Erm... but unions first came into existance expressly against the wills of government. People were put into prison for trying to start unions, yet they managed to survive.\

Governments change, and in the 20th century, that meant more pro-union governments.

But standards of living are all relative. 500 years ago the hight of living was a dark, dirty manor. Many of the richest people in the world thenprobably lived in conditions not much better than what many in poverty live today. You saying we should have the same standards from then? As a nation becomes more properous its standards should become higher.

Which means that poverty, in capitalism, eventually comes down to not living in luxury. You've blinkers on if you can't see that most "solutions" for poverty are merely a scam to keep those civil servants and politicians pushing this in business. With only a very few exceptions, everyone has access to the necessities.

Any proof of that? Well, the first yes... but the second?

The second can't be proven, all I have is the statements by those who maintain highly flexible definitions of poverty, but they keep telling us that there is more poverty.

Erm... I can understand what you are saying, but your plain wrong. Being able to say poverty has fallen is an achievement anyone would want to claim, so if anything they should be shifting the standards downwards. And even if you decide to go the rather daft route of fixing a stadard which will mean "poerty" for ever from now on, whats it going to be?

No one would want to solve poverty is he had a stake in providing solutions. "Poverty" is by your own admission, a problem which cannot be objectively defined. This means that certain people can stay in this business for years, earning a very nice living.

Moral hazard? What on earth do you mean by that?

You must be bloody kidding me! You presume to lecture me about the solutions to this and that, and about economics, and you don't know what moral hazard is?!

Moral hazard is either the artifical removal of bad consequences for bad choices, or the artificial institution of good consequences for bad choices.

The state tends to do this through welfare. Paying people not to work for example. Paying unwed women to have several children they cannot support by themselves is another example.

Yet the period 50s to the early 70s was one of the most sustained growths of real wages in Britain, which matches pretty much with the hight of the unions power in Britain.

At that time, most strikes were wildcat strikes. Unions in Britain were at the height of their power throughout the 1970's, productivity fell, as did capital accumulation (which rose during the 1960's), inflation increased, and real wages fell as a result of all of these.

Well, true, there is the selfish motive of wanting to destroy one of the attractions of those poorer labour sources, but there is also the more empathetic and supprtive motive of wanting them to have labour protections and rights.

Either you are ignorant, or you are lying. The "protections" of which you speak have been part of the reason these companies go abroad. The advocacy of the same labour laws globally is nothing more than protectionism in disguise.

Frankly, I'm more inclined to believe selfishness. It is the explaination that fits all of the facts, however, it assumes that unionists, and socialists have a sound knowledge of economics and that assumption is not justified, at least not if the posts on this forum, and the socialist literature I've read is any indication.

They can now, in some industries.

When could they ever not? The only times I have ever heard of government forcing companies to listen to a union was during the Second World War. At other times the power of unions may have made not listening to them a bad idea, but the company still had the choice, just as a worker has the choice to turn down a job which is shit, even if it is the only one he will get. Not much of a choice, yes, but by your own standards a choice.

As I said, it really comes across that you want people to give into businesses demands, but not businesses to give into the demands of people.


You've completely ignored the fact that people generally prefer a lower price to a higher price, favouring lower margins.

Well, of course people prefer a lower price, so where there is decent competition prices will be low, but where there is no or little competition, or they are relying on something other than price, such as a brand loyalty (though obviously that will only go so far to allow an increase in price), margins will be higher.

Why do you think food in stations etc is so expensive? Because it costs anymore to make? Of course not, but because they can charge as much as they do as they pretty much have a captive market. Obviously they cant oversharge too much, as otherwise people will leave the station (if they have the time) and buy something somewhere else, but they can, and will, charge more than normal. It applies even more so actually on the trains etc, where the consumers cant go anywhere else.


Governments change, and in the 20th century, that meant more pro-union governments.

Well, after WW2 it was more pro-union governments. Government was not really pro-union during the General strike.


Which means that poverty, in capitalism, eventually comes down to not living in luxury.

Erm... depends how you measure poverty. If simply by the amount they earn, then in some cases yes, it will just be not living in luxury, but not very many. Many, in both Britain and the States, live in squalor.


You've blinkers on if you can't see that most "solutions" for poverty are merely a scam to keep those civil servants and politicians pushing this in business. With only a very few exceptions, everyone has access to the necessities.

Depends what you define as necessities? Are you meaning only the basic minums for survival? If so, if someone only has those, I would call that poverty.


The second can't be proven,

So it is essentially speculation.


all I have is the statements by those who maintain highly flexible definitions of poverty, but they keep telling us that there is more poverty.

Hmm... yet the governemtn here in Britain claims it has reduced poverty...


"Poverty" is by your own admission, a problem which cannot be objectively defined.

Yes.


This means that certain people can stay in this business for years, earning a very nice living.

People earned a living doing pretty much the same thing before government's bothered themselves with poverty.


You must be bloody kidding me! You presume to lecture me about the solutions to this and that, and about economics, and you don't know what moral hazard is?!

Moral hazard is either the artifical removal of bad consequences for bad choices, or the artificial institution of good consequences for bad choices.

The state tends to do this through welfare. Paying people not to work for example. Paying unwed women to have several children they cannot support by themselves is another example.

Ah, right. Yet even so, most people on welfare want to work to improve their position, because living on welfare is not exactly comfortable for most. Now, yes, there will be a minority who really cant be arsed working at all, but they will find any number of ways to scam the system, even without welfare systems.


The "protections" of which you speak have been part of the reason these companies go abroad.

Of course. Doesnt mean we should get rid of them here though. Why should we lower the standard to the lowest to compete, rather than raising the standard abroad to compete?


The advocacy of the same labour laws globally is nothing more than protectionism in disguise.

As I said, selfish reasons have their role to play, but why can't people care about the fact that some foreign workers are working in dangerous, unfair and exploitative conditions and have little way to fight for improving this?


Frankly, I'm more inclined to believe selfishness.

Well, I dont really have a selfish motive. Some will be more selfish, some less so. Selfishness doesnt motivate everything.


It is the explaination that fits all of the facts, however, it assumes that unionists, and socialists have a sound knowledge of economics and that assumption is not justified, at least not if the posts on this forum, and the socialist literature I've read is any indication.

Well, if that is true, there you have your evidence. It has nothing to do with selfishness, as they dont understand the selfish reasons for doing so.

When could they ever not? The only times I have ever heard of government forcing companies to listen to a union was during the Second World War. At other times the power of unions may have made not listening to them a bad idea, but the company still had the choice, just as a worker has the choice to turn down a job which is shit, even if it is the only one he will get. Not much of a choice, yes, but by your own standards a choice.

As I said, it really comes across that you want people to give into businesses demands, but not businesses to give into the demands of people.

Have you never heard of closed shop laws? Forced union dues?

Why do you think food in stations etc is so expensive?

It is not a captive market. The price increase reflects the convenience of being able to stop off the highway, and have piping hot Chicken Hero and coffee. Not to mention soft-core porn at 4:00AM.

They also buy relatively less than a supermarket chain. The latter can negotiate a volume discount.

Hmm... yet the governemtn here in Britain claims it has reduced poverty...

Meaning they altered the definition of poverty, or fiddled the figures to get more votes from the left.

The scam works both ways.

People earned a living doing pretty much the same thing before government's bothered themselves with poverty.

The people in the "poverty" industry do not do something that exists in the private sector. Anyway, the fact that you cannot distinguish between rent-seeking and earning/creating wealth indicates that you shouldn't post (that and your ignorance of the price system and moral hazard)

Ah, right. Yet even so, most people on welfare want to work to improve their position, because living on welfare is not exactly comfortable for most. Now, yes, there will be a minority who really cant be arsed working at all, but they will find any number of ways to scam the system, even without welfare systems.

Why should they be allowed to? Anyway the evidence is clear, the groups which attract the most welfare are the least employed.

As I said, selfish reasons have their role to play, but why can't people care about the fact that some foreign workers are working in dangerous, unfair and exploitative conditions and have little way to fight for improving this?

Give me a break. All this "workers of the world" stuff goes outside the window as soon an an Indian, or an African produces something that does the same job more cheaply, then you don't see international solidarity, you see flag-waving, and people singing "Waltzing Matilda".

Well, I dont really have a selfish motive. Some will be more selfish, some less so. Selfishness doesnt motivate everything.

"Beware of altruism. It is based on self-deception" Robert A. Heinlein

Well, if that is true, there you have your evidence. It has nothing to do with selfishness, as they dont understand the selfish reasons for doing so.

Selfishness or idiocy. Truely you have summed up unionists!

No, they aren't.Well, in this instance, they were, and yes, this particular instance does happen.

That is not what you've said, you said businesses would keep margins high.Yes, if it is more profitable to do so.

You're starting to learn.I've been learning. Naturally, of course, this fear of businesses leaving creates a problem. On one hand, it encourages the government to do nothing to help the workers of a country, because that would decrease profits. On the other hand, it encourages the governments of those countries to enact programs increasing the profits of business, such as corporate welfare.

Why should they go on welfare after destroying their own jobs?Probably because the pittance they receive on welfare is more than the pittance they would receive from working a non-union job.

No, they don't, they don't survive without state protection and intervention in general.Which, of course, ignores the fact that, at least in the U.S., the bundle of laws which gave the unions state protection weakened them.

Do you seriously think you can make a cogent argument on what would happen in a capitalist system without referring to supply and demand? Or the price system in general.

In capitalism, the price of labour is set by supply and demand. If domestic workers demand a price beyond the market clearing price, companies will simply leave, or bring in immigrants who will not ask as much.All right, if you insist, I will phrase it in supply and demand terms, although it makes no difference.

If the supply of labor is lower than the demand for labor, there will be unemployment.
If the demand for labor is higher than the supply for labor, there will be total employment.
If total employment occurs, then the scenarios I laid out will occur. Otherwise, there will be unemployment.
Therefore, capitalism requires unemployment.
It's irrelevant whether or not the supply of labor is raised through immigration or lowered through emigration.

Mule fritters. You can't just assume that people would always make the best choices given the opportunity.True, but of course, that undermines your arguments much more so than mine. For instance, simply because people have the opportunity to immigrate to a country with better wages, it doesn't mean they will.

An absolute definition is firstly the only type that leads to a solution. Secondly, relative measures lead to trillions being spent, and more poverty, thirdly, you cannot deny that there exists a group of people who benefit from there being as much poverty as possible, namely those paid to "solve" it.There is that group of people, but it really doesn't matter how much poverty there is; even by the absolute standard I laid out there is still poverty in capitalism.

Private charity does more case by case than the state ever has. True, but if the only thing people had to rely on was private charity, there would be more cases.

If the government simply gave those trillions to private charities, things would have been a lot better. Not necessarily, because those private charities would probably gouge the government.

Anyway, you neglect the fact that welfare creates moral hazard, and several trillion dollars of moral hazard is a bad thing no matter how you slice it.The facts do not support the idea of welfare creating moral hazard. People are going to be unemployed regardless of whether or not there is welfare. The U.S. states with the lowest welfare payments per child have the highest rates of unwed women having children they can't support by themselves; if welfare created moral hazard, it would be the reverse.

Of course you want them organised. If they unionise, it will be less profitable to hire them, favouring Westerners.If they unionize, they will likely be better off, just as Western workers are.

Anyway the evidence is clear, the groups which attract the most welfare are the least employed. They attract the most welfare because they are the least employed; they aren't the least employed because they attract the most welfare.

Darn it... accidentally closed the window halfway through answering.

Have you never heard of closed shop laws? Forced union dues?

Well, from what I have seen closed shop rules are those agreed between private companies and unions.

And the problem of forced union dues is one not present in Britain. I dont think someone should be forced to pay for a union. I may think it would be a sensible idea to join one, but no one should be forced to. And I think votes in unions etc should be secret ballots, due to the ease of intimidation in public votes.

I didnt say there were no problems. But businesses have also been involved in intimidation. Neither unions or businesses and intrinsically "good" or "bad".


It is not a captive market. The price increase reflects the convenience of being able to stop off the highway, and have piping hot Chicken Hero and coffee. Not to mention soft-core porn at 4:00AM.

But if there were more shops in those areas there would be greater competition and prices would fall. Yes, you are paying for the convenience, but that is because the competition in the... area of convenience (ok, not very good phrase, but what the hey) is not that great. If there was prices would fall.


They also buy relatively less than a supermarket chain. The latter can negotiate a volume discount.

Well, here in Britain the shops in stations are normally just branches of normal high street shops like WHSmith, Boots etc (in fact the same damn shops in every damn station) and their prices are noticeably higher than in branches of the same chain even just a few hundred metres outside the station. Your not going to try and claim that is due to increased shipping costs are you? And as they are quite large chains in themselves, it cannot be due to volume discount.


Meaning they altered the definition of poverty, or fiddled the figures to get more votes from the left.

Well, not just from the left. Pretty much anyone from the left to the centre right. And it isnt always a scam. Sometimes they have actually changed things.

Though I do admit governments often fiddle figures. Thatcher's government (and those since then have done nothing to correct the problem) moved a whole load of unemployed people onto incapacity benefit, and claimed that unemployment was reduced. Today unemployment figures are less than they really should be. But this fiddling with the figures is not to claim that things are worse than they are, or say they are getting worse, but the opposite. IN fact it is almost always the opposite to what you are saying.


The scam works both ways.

Well, yeah, but it is almost always to say things are better than they are than worse.


The people in the "poverty" industry do not do something that exists in the private sector. Anyway, the fact that you cannot distinguish between rent-seeking and earning/creating wealth indicates that you shouldn't post (that and your ignorance of the price system and moral hazard)

Just because someone doesnt know the term doesnt mean they dont know the idea. When you explained what moral hazard was, I recognised it. I just never heard it referred to as moral hazard.


Why should they be allowed to?

Well, the simple fact is, that if you support such a welfare system (which you obviously dont, but for those that do, like myself) you have to accept a degree of fraud. You can do what you can to reduce it, but there will always be some. The question is whether you regard the consequences of having one is worse than the consequences of not having one. I dont. You do.


Anyway the evidence is clear, the groups which attract the most welfare are the least employed.

Well, duh.

Those that are least employed will get the most welfare. Its obvious. Or are we going to start giving more welfare to those who are working? It is because they are unemployed that they are getting support. What kind of sensible welfare system wouldnt work that way? That does not prove that they cant be bothered getting a job because they are getting welfare. You are putting the cart before the horse mate.


Give me a break. All this "workers of the world" stuff goes outside the window as soon an an Indian, or an African produces something that does the same job more cheaply, then you don't see international solidarity, you see flag-waving, and people singing "Waltzing Matilda".


Yes, it does mostly, I know, something I always feel slightly dissapointed by.


"Beware of altruism. It is based on self-deception" Robert A. Heinlein

And that is meant to do what? A quote from an author? Essentially you just wanted to throw in a catchy quote?


Selfishness or idiocy. Truely you have summed up unionists!

Well, I wouldnt go with the idiocy part. But selfishiness, often yes. But what are workers now allowed to try and get the most forthemselves, when you seem to allow businesses the same?

But if there were more shops in those areas there would be greater competition and prices would fall. Yes, you are paying for the convenience, but that is because the competition in the... area of convenience (ok, not very good phrase, but what the hey) is not that great. If there was prices would fall.

The reason there aren't more is that people don't think the profit to be made is sufficient to justify the cost, and there are extra costs, such as labour and utilities.

Just because someone doesnt know the term doesnt mean they dont know the idea. When you explained what moral hazard was, I recognised it. I just never heard it referred to as moral hazard.

Moral hazard is the standard term.

You are putting the cart before the horse mate.

No, I'm not.

And that is meant to do what? A quote from an author? Essentially you just wanted to throw in a catchy quote?

Since you didn't read it, and place it in the context of this thread, I fail to see why you're commenting on it. Altruism is self-deception, and it is blindingly obvious in this case, when the "altruism" you advocate just happens to put them out of work and protect your own position.

Well, I wouldnt go with the idiocy part. But selfishiness, often yes. But what are workers now allowed to try and get the most forthemselves, when you seem to allow businesses the same?

But you already did.

The way unions in this case persue self-interest is to destroy the opportunities of others. Businesses sometimes do this, and they are rightly condemned for it, when unions do it, they are praised.

*******************

Well, in this instance, they were, and yes, this particular instance does happen.

No. Honestly, if you have to make up hypotheticals so skewed away from reality as to be absurd in order to show some validity in your case, you should just give up.

Their demands for higher wages, in the absence of higher productivity are firstly, not in the interests of the workers, secondly, not in the interests of the people generally, and thirdly without the increased productivity, where is the threat of resignation.

Probably because the pittance they receive on welfare is more than the pittance they would receive from working a non-union job.

Another advocate of moral hazard. Have you a single good idea?

If the demand for labor is higher than the supply for labor, there will be total employment.

Actually, demand exceeding supply is called a shortage, and the solution is increasing supply, which in terms of labour means immigration, or workers changing their skills to more highly valued professions.

It's irrelevant whether or not the supply of labor is raised through immigration or lowered through emigration.

Interesting, so supply is irrelevant in a labour market? What rubbish! How is immigration not relevant? Once you close borders, then what you describe can take place, however, a country with closed borders is not a free market country.

You see how the free market arrives at solutions quickly, more efficiently, and with less problems than government (oh sorry, "society")

True, but of course, that undermines your arguments much more so than mine. For instance, simply because people have the opportunity to immigrate to a country with better wages, it doesn't mean they will.

Not really, that they tend to is pretty clear. You on the other hand assumed that where people didn't advance it was because they weren't given the opportunities.

There is that group of people, but it really doesn't matter how much poverty there is; even by the absolute standard I laid out there is still poverty in capitalism.

That is not a statement you can prove, and since capitalism tends towards more wealth creation, your statement looks like nonsense.

Not necessarily, because those private charities would probably gouge the government.

Rubbish.

Anyway, the government's welfare programs have extorted trillions with very little to show for it.

The facts do not support the idea of welfare creating moral hazard.

Yes they do.

People are going to be unemployed regardless of whether or not there is welfare.

Not necessarily, and welfare creates an incentive to stop looking for work.

If they unionize, they will likely be better off, just as Western workers are.

By destroying their own jobs?

They attract the most welfare because they are the least employed; they aren't the least employed because they attract the most welfare.

That may well have been true at one stage, but with millions of Americans unemployed, and millions of illegal immigrants on the lower end of the job market, it isn't true now.

I'm a member of GMB, the biggest UK trade union.

The reason there aren't more is that people don't think the profit to be made is sufficient to justify the cost, and there are extra costs, such as labour and utilities.

Well, actually, looking at the fact that almost every station in Britain has the same shops, I suspect it is the result of an agreement between the company running the stations and the ones running the shops to give them exlusivity in most stations.


Moral hazard is the standard term.

Ok, but I have heard the argument you used when explaining it several times, but never the term moral hazard. Just because it is the standard term doesnt mean it will always be used.



No, I'm not.

Yes you are. You are claiming that they are the most unemployed because they receive the most welfare, when in reality it is the other way round. They receive the most welfare because they are the least employed.


Since you didn't read it,

Excuse me, I did read it, and tried to find out more about Henlien than I did before, see if there was anything more to him than I thought. And there wasnt terribly. Well, at least anything relevant to this.


and place it in the context of this thread,

I did, just didnt see the point, when you could have made the point yourself. I see little point quoting something when it isnt actually evidence for your arguement. All that quote did was say what you thought in a way that was maybe slightly catchier. It didnt strengthen your argument in any way.


I fail to see why you're commenting on it. Altruism is self-deception,

I wouldnt say it is all the time. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.


and it is blindingly obvious in this case, when the "altruism" you advocate just happens to put them out of work

Not neccessarily.


and protect your own position.

Yes, it could, but I suspect many, if not most, people that advocate it dont realise this. When thinking selfishly they normally think in the terms of overt protectionism.



But you already did.

Well I wasnt talking about unionists in general, more about that specific matter, and anyway all I was doing was using your own argument that they were too stupid to realise the possible gains they could get out of it as evidence that it cannot always be selfish.


Another advocate of moral hazard. Have you a single good idea?

But why are we not criticising the business for giving a shitty wage?


Actually, demand exceeding supply is called a shortage, and the solution is increasing supply, which in terms of labour means immigration, or workers changing their skills to more highly valued professions.

Why must everything be from the point of view of the businesses? It is only a shortage for the businesses. From the point of view of the workers is it is a job abundance. Why is it ok for there to be a shortage of work, but not ok for there to be a shortage of labour? Why must you always attack situations which are economically favourable to workers?


Interesting, so supply is irrelevant in a labour market? What rubbish! How is immigration not relevant? Once you close borders, then what you describe can take place, however, a country with closed borders is not a free market country.

Not what he said. He didnt say that supply is irrelevant to the labour market, but that the actual reason the labour supply was high or low was irrelevant.


and with less problems than government (oh sorry, "society")

Eh? Society and government are seperate thing.


Not really, that they tend to is pretty clear.

Yes, many do. But not everyone.

You on the other hand assumed that where people didn't advance it was because they weren't given the opportunities.

True, some who have the oppotunity to economically advance and will not do so, but some will also not have the oppotunity to economically advance, even if they were willing to try.


That is not a statement you can prove, and since capitalism tends towards more wealth creation, your statement looks like nonsense.

Erm... he cant prove there is poverty in capitalism? Erm... I have to say it is your statement is the one that looks like nonsense.


Rubbish.

Anyway, the government's welfare programs have extorted trillions with very little to show for it.

In your opinion. Unfortunately we cannot watch an alternative dimension where they didnt exist to see whether they made much of a difference or not.


Yes they do.

Yet most people that are on welfare still want to work?


Not necessarily, and welfare creates an incentive to stop looking for work.

People are going to be unemployed regardless of welfare. New jobs are not going to magically appear just because welfare doesnt exists anymore, and as unemployment favours employers they will try to keep it that way.

And oo, it doesnt create an incentive to stop looking for work, as, unless it is really a quite shit job, the pay from most jobs will be better than the welfare payments. Now, it may lower the motivation behind looking for a job, and so mean you will have higher standards, as your unlikely to actually starve due to not having a job, but it doesnt actually give an incentive to stop lookiing for work. And I have to say that I would rather have the minority of people who really cannot be arsed working and fraud than just leaving people to starve.


By destroying their own jobs?

No, because if every nation had similar union strengths etc the employers are not likely to leave there. They still have lower wages than the west, and lower taxes etc. What it will mean is that they will have some sort of protection.


That may well have been true at one stage, but with millions of Americans unemployed, and millions of illegal immigrants on the lower end of the job market, it isn't true now.

Eh? I dont even get the point you are trying to make here. How does there being millions of unemplyed people mean that they are the most unemployed due to being the greatest recievers of welfare?

Well, actually, looking at the fact that almost every station in Britain has the same shops, I suspect it is the result of an agreement between the company running the stations and the ones running the shops to give them exlusivity in most stations.

This seems to be the prevailing view from the left, that economics is a matter if groups conspiring and fighting against each other. It is as unscientific a view as creationism.

Yes you are. You are claiming that they are the most unemployed because they receive the most welfare, when in reality it is the other way round. They receive the most welfare because they are the least employed.

That may well have been true in the beginning, but after all this time and money, it appears to be less and less the case.

Not neccessarily.

When you make it unproifitable to employ people, they tend not to be employed. By removing their comparative advantage (another standard term), the thinking swings back to Westerners because of the superior infrastructure and education.

Yes, it could, but I suspect many, if not most, people that advocate it dont realise this. When thinking selfishly they normally think in the terms of overt protectionism.

You could at least be honest about it.

Why must everything be from the point of view of the businesses? It is only a shortage for the businesses. From the point of view of the workers is it is a job abundance. Why is it ok for there to be a shortage of work, but not ok for there to be a shortage of labour? Why must you always attack situations which are economically favourable to workers?

Again, you view economics from the simplistic point of groups conspiring against each other.

Incidently, shortage is the standard term for demand exceeding supply. It is quite well known.

I never said a shortage was OK, I said the market would deal with it, as it deals with almost every other problem. The market deals with a labour shortage simply, the wages get higher in the occupations in which shortages exist, inducing immigration, and people inside the country changing jobs/skill sets.

The extra people brought in by immigration, as well as citizens moving into the areas in which shortages exist will account for the shortage.

I said all of this before, if you're not going to read it, that's fine, but feel free not to reply to that which you do not read.

He didnt say that supply is irrelevant to the labour market, but that the actual reason the labour supply was high or low was irrelevant

He has the penchant for making incomprehensible, or irrelevant statements.

All that is relevant is that the market, if allowed to, will deal with any shortage or surplus in the manner which we all know (hopefully) more efficiently than anything else.

Eh? Society and government are seperate thing.

He uses them interchangably.

Some hogwash about "direct democracy".

Erm... he cant prove there is poverty in capitalism? Erm... I have to say it is your statement is the one that looks like nonsense.

As I've said, capitalism inherited the poverty of feudalism. In some countries (notably Eastern Europe), it inherited the poverty of socialism. Capitalism has never been allowed to solve these problems through the free market, it has however raised living stands to the point that poor people today have what Kings did not only a few centuries ago.

No, because if every nation had similar union strengths etc the employers are not likely to leave there. They still have lower wages than the west, and lower taxes etc. What it will mean is that they will have some sort of protection.

No, it won't. Firstly, governments change, secondly, when firms will not deal with unions, people will not join unions, the reason is simple, staying out of a union means they can get jobs.

Since you have wrongly accused me of being pro-business (I am pro-market), I will say this, you are anti-business.

Eh? I dont even get the point you are trying to make here. How does there being millions of unemplyed people mean that they are the most unemployed due to being the greatest recievers of welfare?

They are given all they need, why would they bother. Incidently, employers have noticed this inside the US, people from groups which have a historically high dependence on welfare aren't good workers, while illegal immigrants have moved into that low end of the labour market.

This seems to be the prevailing view from the left, that economics is a matter if groups conspiring and fighting against each other. It is as unscientific a view as creationism.

Sometimes groups do conspire and fight economically. Well... those terms are possibly a bit strong. It has its role to play in economics, just as other factors do. I would agree it is not simply a matter of these groups doing these things, which is why I often get exasperated when some of my fellow lefties keep carping on about class warfare etc. Sometimes these ideas have their uses, and other times they are too simplistic. It is simply a fact that sometimes businesses do conspire, to fix prices, to fix wages etc, and the sometimes quite aggressive tactics when two companies compete could be seen as "fighting". But you are right that it is too simplistic to regard economics in such as simplistic view on its own.


That may well have been true in the beginning, but after all this time and money, it appears to be less and less the case.

What evidence do you have for that?


When you make it unproifitable to employ people, they tend not to be employed. By removing their comparative advantage (another standard term),

Well, while I havent heard that one used that way, it is fairly self explanitory.


the thinking swings back to Westerners because of the superior infrastructure and education.

Well, while I can give you infastructure one of the reasons companies have moved abroad is because they can get very educated employees very cheaply. One of the advatages of moving call centres to India, lots of highly educated people who will work for wages far below European norms of even the normally unskilled call centre operators in Britain. Of course in some other fields, industries and countries the educational advatage of the west will be greater.


You could at least be honest about it.

Erm... eh? What I was saying was that I think most people, when thinking selfishly think more in terms of overt protectionism, such as tariffs, regulations within their countries etc, rather than trying to bring other nations more to our level of protection. Now, I have said I realise the protectionist aspects of such an action, but I suspect many do not.


Again, you view economics from the simplistic point of groups conspiring against each other.

Well, as I said, sometimes it is a useful way to look at it. Sometimes it isnt, but sometimes it is.


I said all of this before, if you're not going to read it, that's fine, but feel free not to reply to that which you do not read.

Stop saying I havent read something. If your going to accuse me of anything accuse me of misunderstanding, not of not reading it.


He has the penchant for making incomprehensible, or irrelevant statements.

Pot meet kettle.


All that is relevant is that the market, if allowed to, will deal with any shortage or surplus in the manner which we all know (hopefully) more efficiently than anything else.

Well, what he said was it didnt matter how the shortage or surplus occured, just that they have happened... and you have said pretty much the same thing.


He uses them interchangably.

Some hogwash about "direct democracy".

Ok, if he uses them interchangably, then it makes it slightly relevant.


As I've said, capitalism inherited the poverty of feudalism.

So you are saying that all poverty today is a direct result of feudalism? Erm...
Ok, what about poverty in the US? They never had a feudal system.


In some countries (notably Eastern Europe), it inherited the poverty of socialism. Capitalism has never been allowed to solve these problems through the free market, it has however raised living stands to the point that poor people today have what Kings did not only a few centuries ago.

Erm... it is not capitalism that has done this but technology and social progress.

And from what I have said I am guessing you believe capitalism tends to an equilibrium, yes? If something tips the balance something else will happen to take account of that to account for that balance? Well, heres some news for you, for that to work, there would have to be unemployment, which I think we can all agree leads to poverty. And the only reason poor people today can afford even what are now viewed as poor conditions is because they are given support. Without that they would just likely die on the streets. Are you really trying to say that if capitalism was allowed to run free we would eliminate poverty?

Wait... I guess a lot of poor people might starve to death, so that might get rid of the problem?


No, it won't. Firstly, governments change,

Erm.. eh? Relevance of this? I wasnt talking about governments.


secondly, when firms will not deal with unions,

well, they will deal with unions if they have little choice about it.


Since you have wrongly accused me of being pro-business (I am pro-market), I will say this, you are anti-business.

Well, Yes, I would agree I am slightly anti-business. Though not because I view it as something intrisically wrong with businesses, just history businesses have shown themselves very willing to do illegal, immoral and frankly stupid things.


They are given all they need, why would they bother.[/qote]

Because they want more than what they just need? Whay are most people not willing to doss about on the dole? Because they dont see it as enough? And whats your alternative? Starve them into working? And if there is no available work, or no work that pays them enough? Let them starve to death?

[quote]
Incidently, employers have noticed this inside the US, people from groups which have a historically high dependence on welfare aren't good workers, while illegal immigrants have moved into that low end of the labour market.

Erm... well, first it could be argued that as they are not very good workers, they are employed less, and so they will end up on welfare more often. But this is just like arguing over the chiken and the egg. I really suspect the reason for not being good workers is due to the long term unemployment, not due to welfare. If there has been no work in their area for 20 years let say, then 1) They are not going to have worked for a long time, so obviously are not going to be the most productive workers, and 2) Their children, having grown up in areas of deprivation, and not having seen any advantage in education, training etc as it has not got anyone anywhere as far as they have seen, are of course likely not going to be the best workers either.

One of the problems with pure free marketeers is that they make the unrealistic presumptions that 1) There will always be work for someone somewhere and the only reason people dont have work is because they are essentially lazy fucks. The "Get on your Bike" argument 2) people should and can just retrain and move large distances simply for work. Now, some do that, but to expect everyone to do so is simply unrealistic. They also seem to imagine that if the market was simply allowed to run free all the problems of unemployment etc would simply disssapear, as the market would sort it out, a rather niave belief.

What evidence do you have for that?

Decades in which trillions were spent with nothing to show for it, and millions of illegal immigrants taking jobs in the lower sectors of the job market.

So you are saying that all poverty today is a direct result of feudalism? Erm...
Ok, what about poverty in the US? They never had a feudal system.

No, I'm saying that poverty was the lot of most of mankind before capitalism.

Erm... it is not capitalism that has done this but technology and social progress.

And what allowed any of it? Capitalism!

Well, heres some news for you, for that to work, there would have to be unemployment

No, the only people who take that view are those who view economics solely as inter-group warfare. In fact, saying that an economic system that tends towards equilibrium requires unemployment is a contradiction. The existance of unemployment reveals a lack of equilibrium, because supply of labour exceeds demand.

And the only reason poor people today can afford even what are now viewed as poor conditions is because they are given support. Without that they would just likely die on the streets. Are you really trying to say that if capitalism was allowed to run free we would eliminate poverty?

The money that wold have been spent on welfare would be allowed to remain in the private sector, going into productive enterprises. Each government job, and each welfare payment destroys private sector jobs, because government does not produce, it simply takes.

well, they will deal with unions if they have little choice about it.

They will simply do to places in which they do have choice, or they will go out of business. Making business unprofitable never benefits the workers.

I really suspect the reason for not being good workers is due to the long term unemployment, not due to welfare. If there has been no work in their area for 20 years let say, then 1) They are not going to have worked for a long time, so obviously are not going to be the most productive workers, and 2) Their children, having grown up in areas of deprivation, and not having seen any advantage in education, training etc as it has not got anyone anywhere as far as they have seen, are of course likely not going to be the best workers either.

They're unemployed because they've been unemployed?

I notice you don't get into why there's little work.

As to not seeing the advantages in education and training, one does not have to have worked to see it, it is pretty clear to even the simplest mind. Although, since they're provided all they need, why would they see advantage in getting ahead.

I read that as Onions.

Decades in which trillions were spent with nothing to show for it, and millions of illegal immigrants taking jobs in the lower sectors of the job market.[quote]

Nothing to show for it? How do you know? You cannot know what it would have been like without a welfare system.

[quote]
No, I'm saying that poverty was the lot of most of mankind before capitalism.[quote]

Bollocks. Poverty and wealth are entirely relative. In the past what counted as poverty was different from today. There were wealthy people, and there were poor people, and there were people in the middle. Same as today, just as technology, society and science advanced there were was more which the wealthy and the middle groups could obtain. Lacking a TV, a washing machine etc is not poverty if they havent even ben invented yet, and dying from preventable diseases is not poverty if no one has discovered how to prevent them yet. There were wealthy people and poor people from the beginning of the ewxistance of such ideas.

[quote]
And what allowed any of it? Capitalism!

Nah, human ingenuity and the realisation that we could do more to help the more disadvantaged in our society.


No, the only people who take that view are those who view economics solely as inter-group warfare. In fact, saying that an economic system that tends towards equilibrium requires unemployment is a contradiction. The existance of unemployment reveals a lack of equilibrium, because supply of labour exceeds demand.

Well, according to the economic definition of equilibrium, but I was more thinking the point where the system stabilised, which is likely to include unemployment. To be able to cope with increased demand it would need a pool of free labour to have access to.

And it has nothing to to with intergroup warfare. I wasnt thinking of anything along the line of class warfare etc.

And any way, capitalism seems to prefer a boom bust cyle rather than an equilibrium anyway.


The money that wold have been spent on welfare would be allowed to remain in the private sector, going into productive enterprises. Each government job, and each welfare payment destroys private sector jobs, because government does not produce, it simply takes.

Well, in your opinion, but even saying that, there is no evidence it would eliminate unemployment.


They will simply do to places in which they do have choice, or they will go out of business.

Well, if there is nowhere they have the choice? And even then that doesnt mean it will become unprofitable.


They're unemployed because they've been unemployed?

No, the reason they are not the most productive workers is because they have been unemployed for a long time.


I notice you don't get into why there's little work.

Didnt see a need to. Any number of reasons. Wasnt really applicable to the issue at this point.


As to not seeing the advantages in education and training, one does not have to have worked to see it, it is pretty clear to even the simplest mind.

Hmm.. not neccessarily. If no one you know is able to get work regardless of education then why are you going to see the point. And if you think you ae going to do badly in education even if it would help you why are you going to see the point?


Although, since they're provided all they need, why would they see advantage in getting ahead.

Hm... maybe to have more then hat they need? To improve your position?

I really dont see it being welfare as being a blockade to motivation to look for work in itself. There is a problem if you are better off on welfare than working, but this is a problem either with the jobs available or the structure of the welfare benefits, such as in Britain people losing council tax exemption as soon as you start working. Structuring it so while benefits went down as you earned more, but no matter what happened you would always be better off as you improved you job/wage etc would be better.

Nothing to show for it? How do you know? You cannot know what it would have been like without a welfare system.

Welfare was meant to solve problems. Most of those problems are now worse, and have been joined by a group of new problems.

Bollocks. Poverty and wealth are entirely relative.

Which is quite useful to those who redefine it for their own purposes.

In the past what counted as poverty was different from today. There were wealthy people, and there were poor people, and there were people in the middle. Same as today, just as technology, society and science advanced there were was more which the wealthy and the middle groups could obtain. Lacking a TV, a washing machine etc is not poverty if they havent even ben invented yet, and dying from preventable diseases is not poverty if no one has discovered how to prevent them yet. There were wealthy people and poor people from the beginning of the ewxistance of such ideas.

And just what created that wealth? Capitalism.

Nah, human ingenuity and the realisation that we could do more to help the more disadvantaged in our society.

Human ingenuity cannot work unless in capitalism.

Well, according to the economic definition of equilibrium, but I was more thinking the point where the system stabilised, which is likely to include unemployment. To be able to cope with increased demand it would need a pool of free labour to have access to.

Again, the market, if it is allowed to, deals with that through immigration.

And any way, capitalism seems to prefer a boom bust cyle rather than an equilibrium anyway.

The boom-bust cycle is a direct result of government intervention (central banking), nothing to do with capitalism.

Well, in your opinion, but even saying that, there is no evidence it would eliminate unemployment.

Free markets tend towards equilibrium. In labour markets, that means around full employment.

And even then that doesnt mean it will become unprofitable.

Yet we have outsourcing.

Didnt see a need to. Any number of reasons. Wasnt really applicable to the issue at this point.

Yes it is.

You do not for example, address the opportunity costs associated with the high taxation needed for welfare.

Welfare was meant to solve problems. Most of those problems are now worse, and have been joined by a group of new problems.

Erm... bollocks. Things are better than they were 100 years ago. Now at the moment it may be at a lower point than some other times but looking at a long term view things have improved.


Which is quite useful to those who redefine it for their own purposes.

Well, it has to be redefined as it is relative, but yes, in some cases people will redefine it to their advantage.


And just what created that wealth? Capitalism.

Erm... I wasnt talking about wealth, I was talking about them being able to buy new things as they became available. Those that were wealthy were able to afford those things, and most of them were wealthy not because of capitalism but due to the feudal system. This point is independant of wealth.


Human ingenuity cannot work unless in capitalism.

Oh right, yes. That explains why no one invented, discovered, developed or improved anything until the 16th/17th century. Bollocks. Human ingenuity works in almost any system. You can maybe argue that a capitalist system encourages ingenuity (something I am yet to be convinced of) but you cannot say that capitalism is required for human ingenuity.


Again, the market, if it is allowed to, deals with that through immigration.

There must be unemplyment somewhere if there is available people to immigrate.


The boom-bust cycle is a direct result of government intervention (central banking), nothing to do with capitalism.

Rubbish.


Free markets tend towards equilibrium. In labour markets, that means around full employment.

Do you know this? No, you dont, and if I ask for an example your response wil be "There never has been a free market system" a pretty much catch all argument which proves dick squat.


Yet we have outsourcing.

Hmm... many places of work close down when they are perfectly profitable. They are just less profitable than the other places. And even with the protection of unions it doesnt mean they will suddenly become expensive, and particularly it doesnt mean they will become really comparable to the cost of labour in the developed world.


Yes it is.

No it isnt. You were claiming that welfare was what caused these people to be more unemployed than others in the states and lower performing workers. I was saying that was a load of rubbish. How they actually became unemplyed was largely irrelevant.


You do not for example, address the opportunity costs associated with the high taxation needed for welfare.

What do you define as high taxation exactly?

And do you really beleive that if the market was totally freed up, and welfare abolished everyone would be able to afford the essentials (food, water, housing etc), health care and education of a good standard?

Things are better than they were 100 years ago. Now at the moment it may be at a lower point than some other times but looking at a long term view things have improved.

The free market has been responsible for those improvements in living standards. There is simply no logical case for welfare improving things overall

I wasnt talking about wealth, I was talking about them being able to buy new things as they became available. Those that were wealthy were able to afford those things, and most of them were wealthy not because of capitalism but due to the feudal system. This point is independant of wealth.

The point is not independent of wealth. Everything in a society is a form of wealth, and capitalism tends to create wealth more efficiently than any other system.

Capitalism didn't make much difference to the rich, what good is to to a rich man to have 24-hour convenience stores with hot food constantly? He has his cook. The improvements are evident lower down in the scale.

There must be unemplyment somewhere if there is available people to immigrate.

Not really. If you'd actually study the free market, you would find that the price system tends to means that factors of production will get their highest value. In labour terms, that means changing occupations to a more valued one, or changing locations to a better paying one.

Rubbish.

Read some business-cycle theory. It is central banks, with a loose credit policy that create unsustainable booms. The malinvestment in a loose credit policy eventually fails as prices rise to meet account for all the new money in the market. In response, the central bank tightens credit, the malinvestments cannot meet their obligations, and they go bust. All this extra credit, which starts the unsustainable boom is created out of nothing by the central bank.

No it isnt. You were claiming that welfare was what caused these people to be more unemployed than others in the states and lower performing workers. I was saying that was a load of rubbish. How they actually became unemplyed was largely irrelevant.

It causes both individuals and groups to stay unemployed.

And do you really beleive that if the market was totally freed up, and welfare abolished everyone would be able to afford the essentials (food, water, housing etc), health care and education of a good standard?

The free market has provided the nonessentials far better than the state has the essentials.

The free market has been responsible for those improvements in living standards. There is simply no logical case for welfare improving things overall

Rubbish. Welfare help my mom out.


Capitalism didn't make much difference to the rich, what good is to to a rich man to have 24-hour convenience stores with hot food constantly? He has his cook. The improvements are evident lower down in the scale.

Rubbish. If a capitalistic system was converted to socialism, the wealthy would scream bloody murder. Capitolism favors wealth more.


Not really. If you'd actually study the free market, you would find that the price system tends to means that factors of production will get their highest value. In labour terms, that means changing occupations to a more valued one, or changing locations to a better paying one.

Ahh yes text book time again.

You never said what your job was.....


It causes both individuals and groups to stay unemployed.

Rubbish.

Mom went on welfare and it was a year or two tops.

The free market has been responsible for those improvements in living standards. There is simply no logical case for welfare improving things overall.[quote]

Hmm... nothing like providing free education, both primary, secondary and higher to the disavataged, which makes trying to escaoe the cycle of poverty far easier? Providing health care to those unable to afford to pay for it themselves, free preventative action such as vaccination? All parts of the wlefare state which undeniably have helped people and helped improve our society.

[quote]
Not really. If you'd actually study the free market,

Wait... but all you people say the free market has never existed in a true form? So... then you cant study the free market as iot has never existed.


Read some business-cycle theory.

Wait... but that is a theory. And there is a slight problem with treating economics too much like a science and a predictablke system, which is what you are essentially doing. Economics is a construct of us human beings, and as we are not rational, predictable units, you cannot really make a system that will act rationally and predicatbly. According to your view the free market is a system where if something happens there will always be a certain response to it. But people dont work that way. Put the same input into a different person, society or economy and you get a miriad of different outputs.


It causes both individuals and groups to stay unemployed.

Again you still have not proved this. All you have said is that people wont bother looking for work, which is plain wrong in most cases.


The free market has provided the nonessentials far better than the state has the essentials.

How do we know this? No true free market system has existed so we cannot know this. And there is the simple fact you have still not explained how everyone could afford all those things just because it there is a free market system.

No. Honestly, if you have to make up hypotheticals so skewed away from reality as to be absurd in order to show some validity in your case, you should just give up. Um, it isn't a hypothetical; businesses have given increased wages at times where there wasn't increased worker productivity.

Their demands for higher wages, in the absence of higher productivity are firstly, not in the interests of the workers, Higher wages aren't in the interests of the workers? Be serious.

secondly, not in the interests of the people generally, Kind of amusing how you're bringing up the interests of the people generally.

and thirdly without the increased productivity, where is the threat of resignation.The threat of resignation is that the workforce leaving and subsequent strike is bad for business. Businesses can lose a ton of money this way, many business owners would then feel that it's better to throw a few scraps to the workers than to face the possibility of losing the business.

Even to replace the least productive workforce takes a lot of time.

Another advocate of moral hazard. Have you a single good idea?Yes, all of my ideas are good.

Actually, demand exceeding supply is called a shortage, and the solution is increasing supply, which in terms of labour means immigration, or workers changing their skills to more highly valued professions.In which case it will result in too many immigrants coming to the country, which will result in unemployment.

Interesting, so supply is irrelevant in a labour market? I'm saying the fact that capitalism requires unemployment is irrelevant to the supply of labor, for the reasons I laid out.

What rubbish! How is immigration not relevant? Once you close borders, then what you describe can take place, however, a country with closed borders is not a free market country.What I describe taking place has done so; unemployment exists, and will always do so in capitalism.

Give one scenario where there is no unemployment in a free market system and yet the free market system still maintains itself.

You see how the free market arrives at solutions quickly, more efficiently, and with less problems than government (oh sorry, "society")No, because it doesn't.

Not really, that they tend to is pretty clear. You on the other hand assumed that where people didn't advance it was because they weren't given the opportunities. The reason people usually don't advance is because they aren't given the opportunities.

That is not a statement you can proveThat capitalism tends to homelessness is pretty clear.

and since capitalism tends towards more wealth creation, your statement looks like nonsense.False. Capitalism tends towards more wealth creation for whom? Capitalists. Simply because there is more wealth doesn't mean everyone has access to it.

Rubbish.

Anyway, the government's welfare programs have extorted trillions with very little to show for it.With more to show for it than if private charities were doing it, since there would be less money given to charity, except in the scenario where the government took the tax money and gave it to the charities, which isn't exactly your ideal scenario.

Yes they do.No, they don't.

Not necessarily, and welfare creates an incentive to stop looking for work.Necessarily. Again, name one way the free market can eliminate unemployment and remain a free market.

Whether or not it is true that people have an incentive to stop looking for work, the fact remains that some people will not be working no matter how hard they look.

By destroying their own jobs?Yes, it's better to be unemployed than work in an unsafe environment. If it is less risky to become a criminal than it is to work in a legal profession, something is wrong.

That may well have been true at one stage, but with millions of Americans unemployed, and millions of illegal immigrants on the lower end of the job market, it isn't true now.The illegal immigrants are on the lower end of the job market because the companies can get away with paying them pennies due to the threat of deportation. If immigration were legal, this threat wouldn't exist, and the companies would be forced to pay the immigrants more.

Higher wages aren't in the interests of the workers? Be serious.

You obviously aren't reading my posts. Merely increasing the price of labour will just lead to an increase in consumer prices.

How are higher consumer prices in the interests of workers?

In which case it will result in too many immigrants coming to the country, which will result in unemployment.

That is a non sequitor, even if it were the case, solving it would be simple through visa laws.

That capitalism tends to homelessness is pretty clear.

Mule fritters.

What has happened with regard to homes is simple, and it is the government's fault. The principle driver is rent controls. What rent controls do is remove the profit from offering housing to people with low incomes, this means that these buildings end up in disrepair, or are demolished in favour or better apartments tailored for the higher ends of the housing market.

With more to show for it than if private charities were doing it, since there would be less money given to charity, except in the scenario where the government took the tax money and gave it to the charities, which isn't exactly your ideal scenario.

Countries with lower tax burdens, and less welfare also tend to have higher rates of charitable giving. People don't want others starving, and homeless, and they tend to give. Of course, in states with welfare programs, they feel that they don't need to give, since the government takes for the same purpose, only the government has failed, is failing, and doesn't look like it will ever solve the problems it claimed to be able to solve.

No, they don't.

Mule fritters, we have had, thanks to government policy favouring single mothers, almost a generation of effectively fatherless children. We've even had women having children simply to get more welfare.

Again, name one way the free market can eliminate unemployment and remain a free market.

As I've said, and as anyone with even the slightest knowledge of economics knows, in a free market, everything tends towards equilibrium. In labour this means little, or no unemployment.

The illegal immigrants are on the lower end of the job market because the companies can get away with paying them pennies due to the threat of deportation. If immigration were legal, this threat wouldn't exist, and the companies would be forced to pay the immigrants more.

There is a continuing demand for illegal immigrant workers. They are known to be hard workers, very efficient. Were the borders thoroughly open, it would not lead to a pay rise for the immigrants, it would merely mean an easier passage. There is no reason to believe their wages would rise simply by opening the borders.

*******************************

Wait... but that is a theory.

I find that interesting, since you don't respond to my explaination of how the business cycle works. Events have causes, and they can be determined. Economics can show this.

It way well be a theory, but the theory fits the facts.

How do we know this? No true free market system has existed so we cannot know this. Ad there is the simple fact you have still not explained how everyone could afford all those things just because it there is a free market system.

What is it that has made health and education all the more expensive? Government. Government interference in education and health have seen costs rise so much that it is mind-boggling.

*******************************

Rubbish. If a capitalistic system was converted to socialism, the wealthy would scream bloody murder. Capitolism favors wealth more.

Yet the working man in 2006 can get hot, prepared meals any time he wants, while only the rich in could do so in 1806.

You don't seem interesting in trying to refute me, simply screeching about the "evils" of capitalism.

Ahh yes text book time again.

You never said what your job was.....

I don't fulfill inreasonable requests from unreasonable people. You only started on this line when you ran out of "points".

You obviously aren't reading my posts.
You've said this or some form of it at least a dozen times on this thread, if not more. Have you ever stopped to consider that the people you're "debating" here are indeed reading your posts and think you're wrong? I mean, I know that you believe you know everything about this subject, but the fact is that you've been rehashing the same argument for pages now, no matter what anyone else puts in front of you. You're so damn sure that you're right that you're assuming that the people who disagree with you are just what--simple? uninformed? Do you believe that if you say the same thing enough times you'll eventually "win" the discussion? You won't. You haven't backed up your arguments any better this time than the first time you spouted them six pages ago. And yet you persist.

Let it die, man. Let it go.

I don't fulfill inreasonable requests from unreasonable people. You only started on this line when you ran out of "points".

Hardly. I simply choose to stop riding your merry-go-round argument logic. Simply repeating the same argument doesn't make it right. Especially when several people say you are wrong.

It's not an unreasonable request.

When I can I study primates. When I can't I am a Wan Engineer. Nazz is a teacher.

So what do you do?

How are higher consumer prices in the interests of workers?

Well, yes, if the wage increase they get is greater than the increase in inflation.





What has happened with regard to homes is simple, and it is the government's fault. The principle driver is rent controls.

And whats to say that without rent controls they would be able to afford housing? If you remove them to make housing profitable, whats to stop it getting too expensive for those living there?

And I suspect they probably make a profit, but the problem is that expensive fancy luxery apartments are more profitable, which they always are going to be, regardless of the market.


Countries with lower tax burdens, and less welfare also tend to have higher rates of charitable giving. People don't want others starving, and homeless, and they tend to give.

Do they give enough though? Do they succeed in providing a minimum to everyone? No, they dont. And charity, at least as far as human charities (ie not animal ones etc) are almost always doing things the government should be doing. IT is the government's responsibility to protect the people, including the most vulnerable of society from the worst ravages or poverty.

Is it possible that the free market will not be able to fix the problems it claims to do, just like other economic system seemingly had. Whats so special about a pure free market to make it work any more than any other system?


We've even had women having children simply to get more welfare.

Oh, yes... but are we going to make policy on a single case? Well, ok, maybe more than a single case, but the numbers that actually do this are too small to invalidate the welfare system as a whole.


As I've said, and as anyone with even the slightest knowledge of economics knows, in a free market, everything tends towards equilibrium. In labour this means little, or no unemployment.

In your opinion the equilibrium leads to little or no unemployment. You have no evidence that it will.


There is a continuing demand for illegal immigrant workers. They are known to be hard workers, very efficient. Were the borders thoroughly open, it would not lead to a pay rise for the immigrants, it would merely mean an easier passage. There is no reason to believe their wages would rise simply by opening the borders.

Well seeing as they were legal workers and rcorded they would now have to be paid the minimum wage. And proper safety precautions would have to be taken by businesses employing them.


I find that interesting, since you don't respond to my explaination of how the business cycle works. Events have causes, and they can be determined. Economics can show this.

People dont operate scientifically, so trying to determine causes and effects in a human system is going to be very hard. We are not little black boxes with specific outputs.


It way well be a theory, but the theory fits the facts.

Well, as any theory that is written after the event it is going to fit the facts, theoretically. But has it ever been applied to test it?


What is it that has made health and education all the more expensive? Government. Government interference in education and health have seen costs rise so much that it is mind-boggling.

Erm... yet most European countries, where it is provided largely free on the point of delivery, and funded either directly or indirectly by government, less money is spent overall on health, with what I would regard as better results... well except in Britain in some hospitals, but thats due to 20 years of underinvestment and all the PFI bollocks going around. How come is it cheaper and better in many European nations where it is provided by government if government interference is what causes prices to rise?

And with education, higher education in particularly, even if government intereference has increased prices (again not something I am convinced of), it has made it available to those that could not afford it even on those supposedly cheaper rates from the point where there wasnt government intereference.

You obviously aren't reading my posts. Merely increasing the price of labour will just lead to an increase in consumer prices.

How are higher consumer prices in the interests of workers?You obviously aren't reading my posts. I've already given an example of an increased price of labor not leading to an increase in consumer prices.

That is a non sequitor, even if it were the case, solving it would be simple through visa laws.How does limited immigration factor in with free markets? How do visa laws prevent immigration from being limited?

Mule fritters.

What has happened with regard to homes is simple, and it is the government's fault. The principle driver is rent controls. What rent controls do is remove the profit from offering housing to people with low incomes, this means that these buildings end up in disrepair, or are demolished in favour or better apartments tailored for the higher ends of the housing market.Rent controls don't exist in all or most of the cities in the U.S., and yet most of those cities have homeless people.

Countries with lower tax burdens, and less welfare also tend to have higher rates of charitable giving. People don't want others starving, and homeless, and they tend to give. Of course, in states with welfare programs, they feel that they don't need to give, since the government takes for the same purpose, only the government has failed, is failing, and doesn't look like it will ever solve the problems it claimed to be able to solve.Yes, but you're putting the cart before the horse. Government welfare programs occurred due to a shortage of charitable giving.

Mule fritters, we have had, thanks to government policy favouring single mothers, almost a generation of effectively fatherless children. We've even had women having children simply to get more welfare.How does this factor in to the states with the lowest per-child welfare credit having the highest rates of single mothers? If what you say was the case, wouldn't it be the other way around?

As I've said, and as anyone with even the slightest knowledge of economics knows, in a free market, everything tends towards equilibrium. In labour this means little, or no unemployment.Anyone with the slightest knowledge of economics knows that economics is not a science and does not treat it as such. Furthermore, this answer is vague. The only way it's possible for there to be no unemployment is if the economy is neither growing nor shrinking. How is it possible for the economy to be neither growing nor shrinking?

[QUOTE]There is a continuing demand for illegal immigrant workers. They are known to be hard workers, very efficient. Were the borders thoroughly open, it would not lead to a pay rise for the immigrants, it would merely mean an easier passage. There is no reason to believe their wages would rise simply by opening the borders.[QUOTE]Their wages are low because if they complained about them to the government, they face the threat of deportation. There is no reason to believe that if the threat of deportation was removed, their wages would remain low.

Work in a job where my compensation is based on time in and not skill?
No matter how good I am I'm valued the same as some guy that shows up hammered ever morning and does the bare minimum to not get fired?

Not in a million years.

Work in a job where my compensation is based on time in and not skill?
No matter how good I am I'm valued the same as some guy that shows up hammered ever morning and does the bare minimum to not get fired?

Not in a million years.

Eh...? What you talking about?

Work in a job where my compensation is based on time in and not skill?
No matter how good I am I'm valued the same as some guy that shows up hammered ever morning and does the bare minimum to not get fired?

Not in a million years.

Sure! It's called being an executive. There was one that was hammored so often the company provided a car and driver for him(aerodefense).

Many executives earn their place and work hard. Yet, there are many that don't.

Eh...? What you talking about?

He is saying the union will protect the drunks and slackards and pay them as much as the people who work hard.

Bad unions will do that.

However, some you can't work drunk. If you were in the electrical union you could kill people if you do that.

You obviously aren't reading my posts. I've already given an example of an increased price of labor not leading to an increase in consumer prices.

No you haven't. You gave a vague hypothetical, and I still can't work out why you did, or what it could prove.

Rent controls don't exist in all or most of the cities in the U.S., and yet most of those cities have homeless people.

They had rent controls.

Yes, but you're putting the cart before the horse. Government welfare programs occurred due to a shortage of charitable giving.

Proof?

Their wages are low because if they complained about them to the government, they face the threat of deportation. There is no reason to believe that if the threat of deportation was removed, their wages would remain low.

Yes, there is. They only have those jobs because it is illegal to offer Americans the wages those jobs are worth. The real culprit here is not immigration laws, it is the official minimum wage.

*****************************************

And whats to say that without rent controls they would be able to afford housing? If you remove them to make housing profitable, whats to stop it getting too expensive for those living there?

If you make it unprofitable to offer housing, housing will not be offered. Rent controls do not make housing available to low-income families because they make it unprofitable to offer them housing.

And I suspect they probably make a profit, but the problem is that expensive fancy luxery apartments are more profitable, which they always are going to be, regardless of the market.

Luxury cars are more profitable than normal cars, yet without car price controls, you can still get cheap cars.

Is it possible that the free market will not be able to fix the problems it claims to do, just like other economic system seemingly had. Whats so special about a pure free market to make it work any more than any other system?

It takes advantage of human nature, and individual self-interest. There is profit to be made in fulfilling the needs of society.

In your opinion the equilibrium leads to little or no unemployment. You have no evidence that it will.

Equilibrium, in a labour market does not lead to little, or no employment, it is little or no unemployment.

Well seeing as they were legal workers and rcorded they would now have to be paid the minimum wage. And proper safety precautions would have to be taken by businesses employing them.

In that case, apart from immobile service jobs (things like restaurants, as opposed to call centres), they would simply be outsourced. And in the immobile service sector, consumer prices will rise.

Erm... yet most European countries, where it is provided largely free on the point of delivery, and funded either directly or indirectly by government, less money is spent overall on health, with what I would regard as better results...

Better results?! France lost 15000 or 20000 in a heatwave.

**************************

It's not an unreasonable request.

Yes, it is. It is nothing to do with me, or my arguments, and was only brought up when you couldn't refute my arguments. Not being man enough to admit being wrong does not give you carte blanche to ask irrelevant questions.

Yes, it is. It is nothing to do with me, or my arguments, and was only brought up when you couldn't refute my arguments. Not being man enough to admit being wrong does not give you carte blanche to ask irrelevant questions.

If you were a "man" then you would answer the question.

What are you afraid of? My text book claim being true?

Come on. Don't be a nancy boy. Just tell us what you do for a job. You said you worked. What in?

No you haven't. You gave a vague hypothetical, and I still can't work out why you did, or what it could prove.



They had rent controls.

Yet the free market hasnt sorted that out yet after they got rid of them?


Yes, there is. They only have those jobs because it is illegal to offer Americans the wages those jobs are worth.

Its not a matter of what they are worth, but what they can get away with. They have access to illegal workers, who cannot complain to the authorities, so they can give them low wages, so they do. Businesses will find the cheapest way to do something, and then sell at the highest price they can get away with, no matter how much anything is worth.


The real culprit here is not immigration laws, it is the official minimum wage.

No, if there was no such thing as illegal immigration then those workers would feel free to complain to the government and therefore they would be able to get the minum wage.


If you make it unprofitable to offer housing, housing will not be offered. Rent controls do not make housing available to low-income families because they make it unprofitable to offer them housing.

No proof it does make it unprifitable, rather than less profitable.


Luxury cars are more profitable than normal cars, yet without car price controls, you can still get cheap cars.

Luxery cars dont take up the same spaces cheap cars do. A space can have either luxery housing, or cheap housing, not both at the same time, as they cannot move. And so, it is far more profitable to take the space you have and then build luxery houses on it, rather than cheap ones.


Equilibrium, in a labour market does not lead to little, or no employment, it is little or no unemployment.

Didnt say it lead to little or no employment, but that it did lead to there being noticable unemployment as well. And where is your evidence that it would lead to little or no unemployment.


Better results?! France lost 15000 or 20000 in a heatwave.

I believe the number was more about 14,000. And It was the result of a number of different factors (things like people not being used to such heat, and so not knowing how to properly respond), and was also not predicted. I cannot see how a private health system would have responded any better.

No you haven't. You gave a vague hypothetical, and I still can't work out why you did, or what it could prove.I gave a hypothetical of a something that can happen in the real world. It's entirely possible for a company to give wage increases out of its profits. This would not mean that the wage increases need to lead to increased prices. Therefore, your blanket statement is wrong.

They had rent controls.Every city had rent controls?

Proof?I'm not ignoring this, I have to look it up. I'll get back to this in a couple of days.

Yes, there is. They only have those jobs because it is illegal to offer Americans the wages those jobs are worth. The real culprit here is not immigration laws, it is the official minimum wage.They only have those jobs because they'll work for the cheapest amount. Simply because someone will work for less than the minimum wage doesn't mean it's unprofitable to pay somebody the minimum wage.

I might have been a union member in the early 1900's, but not today. All unions want now is a larger part of the pie, but the pie isn't getting any larger! Plus, in my state they take money from non-members, which is in my opinion robbery. My mother doesn't benefit from their "negotiations." So why ought she to pay dues?

I'm not a big fan.

Get a new Union in place, one that doesn't care about their rules and regulations, but wants to protect the workers/employees.

Eh...? What you talking about?

The question was would I join a workers union. Nope.

Sure! It's called being an executive. There was one that was hammored so often the company provided a car and driver for him(aerodefense).

Many executives earn their place and work hard. Yet, there are many that don't.

No arguements there, though the company I've been working for since 98' (it's very well known) makes that a fireable offense if it happens with any frequency.

I gave a hypothetical of a something that can happen in the real world. It's entirely possible for a company to give wage increases out of its profits. This would not mean that the wage increases need to lead to increased prices. Therefore, your blanket statement is wrong.

As I said, the hypothetical was so vague as to be utterly useless. With almost no information, one cannot find a rationale for what has taken place, or a rationale for the decision making.

All you managed to show was they they could do it for unknown reasons.

They only have those jobs because they'll work for the cheapest amount. Simply because someone will work for less than the minimum wage doesn't mean it's unprofitable to pay somebody the minimum wage.

Were it profitable, why would they bother employing a non-English speaking workforce and risk a raid by the authorities? If they could make a sufficient profit at the minimum wage, they would simply employ Americans at that wage.

***********************************

Yet the free market hasnt sorted that out yet after they got rid of them?

The damage had already been done by the government.

Its not a matter of what they are worth, but what they can get away with.

A statement which entirely ignores supply and demand, which is the fundmental consideration.

They have access to illegal workers, who cannot complain to the authorities, so they can give them low wages, so they do.

In the absence of the minimum wage, they could employ Americans without risking a raid.

They would also have an English-speaking workforce.

No, if there was no such thing as illegal immigration then those workers would feel free to complain to the government and therefore they would be able to get the minum wage.

No, were immigration entirely freed, these jobs, apart from some of the service jobs that can't be moved, will be outsourced. In the immobile sectors, prices will rise for consumers.

No proof it does make it unpr[o]fitable, rather than less profitable.

So, your argument comes down to trusting government to be moderate, and thoughtful of all in its intervention? That is not going to happen.

Luxery cars dont take up the same spaces cheap cars do. A space can have either luxery housing, or cheap housing, not both at the same time, as they cannot move. And so, it is far more profitable to take the space you have and then build luxery houses on it, rather than cheap ones.

Knocking down a building, and building a new one is a costly venture. There can be profit made in providing housing to low-income families, that such housing existed before rent controls is proof of that.

What rent controls do is remove the profit from providing such housing, which directly gives a reason to build luxury housing. Had the profits remained, there is no reason to change to luxury housing.

I believe the number was more about 14,000. And It was the result of a number of different factors (things like people not being used to such heat, and so not knowing how to properly respond), and was also not predicted. I cannot see how a private health system would have responded any better.

The French Government, even though it utterly, and tragically failed to deliver to the consumers what they paid for through taxes, did not go out of business.

Can you seriously tell me that a private company would have stayed in business after killing thousands of patients. They would be in court for years, their name would be synonomous with "death", people would move their business to other providers. A private company could at least recall the health workers.

Now, if the government is a monopoly provider, one can't really seek another without leaving the country, and as to suits, you'd be asking the government's employees to decide a problem created by government.

As the crisis went on, the government, and its employees stayed on Summer holiday, and the only advice they could offer was "go to the movies, they've air conditioning".

Other countries have had to deal with heat, in the place in which I live, summer temperatures are routinely at 45 degrees Celcius, yet we don't have thousands of deaths.

As I said, the hypothetical was so vague as to be utterly useless. With almost no information, one cannot find a rationale for what has taken place, or a rationale for the decision making.

All you managed to show was they they could do it for unknown reasons.

The point was to show that they could do it, not to explain why. You said any rise in wages had to lead to an increase in prices, and he showed a way it didnt have to. It didnt matter why that happened, or even if it ever would, but whether it was possible, as you ruled it out entirely.


Were it profitable, why would they bother employing a non-English speaking workforce and risk a raid by the authorities?

Erm... to make more profit than they would have. Just because they dont so something doesnt mean it is unprofitable, it may just be less profitable than aother option.


If they could make a sufficient profit at the minimum wage, they would simply employ Americans at that wage.

Oh, wait... are we chainging our choice of words now. Before it was unprofitable, now it is not a "sufficient profit". So you admit they could make a profit by employing minimum wage workers, just not a "sufficient" one (whatever that is)?


The damage had already been done by the government.

So to work properly we would have had to start straight away with a non free market system... whoops, that isnt the case anywhere. Lets try systems that dont need a clean slate to start from, as there isnt a clean slate anywhere in the worls.


A statement which entirely ignores supply and demand, which is the fundmental consideration.

No, it doesnt. They want labour as cheap as they can get it, and there is a supply. That is the same as giving what they can get away with.


In the absence of the minimum wage, they could employ Americans without risking a raid.

In similarly exploitative ways as illegal immigrants are. We shouldn't try to take away Americans' (and Britons etc) protections, but extend them to everyone.


So, your argument comes down to trusting government to be moderate, and thoughtful of all in its intervention? That is not going to happen.

Erm... you still havent given any proof the rates of fixed rents where actually unprofitable.


Knocking down a building, and building a new one is a costly venture.

Thats often not what they do even when making luxery housing. Ever heard of Wearhouse convertions? Even houses that used to be rather scaffy lots of rubbish are often now considered the hight of luxery after the money has been put into them to fix them up, but again, they are aimed at the higher end of the market.


that such housing existed before rent controls is proof of that.

Erm... like 2 up 2 down and back to backs? Where the main consideration was to squeeze as many people in as possible in as small as possible space as possible.


What rent controls do is remove the profit from providing such housing,

No evidence of this. It may make it less profitable, but you have yet to present any evidence it actually made them unprofitable.


Had the profits remained, there is no reason to change to luxury housing.

No... what about making more profit by using the same land for luxery housing. Even if it was unprofitable with rent controls (which I do not accept) it will still be more profitable to provide high end housing.


The French Government, even though it utterly, and tragically failed to deliver to the consumers what they paid for through taxes, did not go out of business.

So we want a health service to go out of business halfway through a crisis?


Can you seriously tell me that a private company would have stayed in business after killing thousands of patients. They would be in court for years, their name would be synonomous with "death", people would move their business to other providers.

So... you have no evidence it would have actually dealt with it any better. Just that it would have gone out of business because it would have failed...


A private company could at least recall the health workers.

Well, yes that was something they should have done, but there is no reason a state provider cant do this. It is not something only a private company would have done.


Now, if the government is a monopoly provider, one can't really seek another without leaving the country, and as to suits, you'd be asking the government's employees to decide a problem created by government.

So... the French government caused the heatwave? Thats the newest conspiracy theory I have heard.


As the crisis went on, the government, and its employees stayed on Summer holiday, and the only advice they could offer was "go to the movies, they've air conditioning".

I am not say it couldnt have been dealt with better, But I disagree that it is the inevitable result of a public system.


Other countries have had to deal with heat, in the place in which I live, summer temperatures are routinely at 45 degrees Celcius, yet we don't have thousands of deaths.

Yes, thats the thing, in your area you expect those temperatures, they were not in France (and other European nations). As much as British people think France is hot in summer, it isnt really compared to many places in the world, and both the authorities and the people were not prepared for such an eventuality. Which would have been no different in a private system. A private firm has even less interest in preparing for an event no one thinks is likely, as it will want to keep its spending as low as possible, and so concentrate on preparing for the likely events, and an unexpected and unprecedented heat wave is not one of those.

Were it profitable, why would they bother employing a non-English speaking workforce and risk a raid by the authorities? If they could make a sufficient profit at the minimum wage, they would simply employ Americans at that wage.

Many illegals already earn more than minimum wage. The employers don't want to pay their payroll taxes, injury compensation, or benefits. They don't want to obey OSHA regulations or state labor laws.

Bi-lingual supervisors are easy to find in most areas with large numbers of illegals, and these a-holes would never lower themselves by speaking to the help anyway.

Raids are rare. When they do happen, the employer gets a slap on the wrist.

Finally, if they were to stop using cheap, illegal labor, they'd be constantly underbid by competitors who ignored the law.

If anyone actually gave a damn about protecting American workers from unfair competition, employers would face penalties large enough to make employing illegal workers unprofitable.

The point was to show that they could do it, not to explain why. You said any rise in wages had to lead to an increase in prices, and he showed a way it didnt have to. It didnt matter why that happened, or even if it ever would, but whether it was possible, as you ruled it out entirely.

He failed to explain why they would unilaterally reduce their profits. There is no reason to believe they would.

Erm... to make more profit than they would have. Just because they dont so something doesnt mean it is unprofitable, it may just be less profitable than aother option.

So, why would they put up with a reduction in their profits? Why do you think margins are good enough to enable it without a rise in consumer prices? Why do you think they will not simply pass any increased labour costs on to the consumer?

Oh, wait... are we chainging our choice of words now. Before it was unprofitable, now it is not a "sufficient profit". So you admit they could make a profit by employing minimum wage workers, just not a "sufficient" one (whatever that is)?

They could maintain the full profit by simply raising their prices, of course that would firstly mean that we all get screwed over so they can have a raise, secondly, that the overall level of wealth is reduced, and thirdly, their gains would be wiped out by the "gains" of their brother workers.

Erm... you still havent given any proof the rates of fixed rents where actually unprofitable.

If they were profitable, why would they want to knock them down?

More importantly, why, if it were profitable, were new dwellings not built by them, or others? Clearly, if there were a profit to be made, there would be people trying to make it.

So we want a health service to go out of business halfway through a crisis?

What I want is a health system that works. Clearly, government isn't it. I want a health service that is accountable in every sense. Government isn't it, government health services are virtually unaccountable, and have progresively gotten worse. Blaming "underinvestment" is not justifiable, as spending has increased vastly, and always overruns budget estimates, while more and more money is spent on bureaucracy and less on patients. The private sector has no reason to spend money on bureaucracy at the expense of services. The private sector always works to minimise costs, and maximise services.

So... you have no evidence it would have actually dealt with it any better. Just that it would have gone out of business because it would have failed...

The reasons you advanced for their failure are absurd. We are told to believe that governments can predict the weather over the course of decades (which is supposed to justify more environmental measures), yet we are also to believe that they must fail to anticipate a change.

It is their job to account for conditions as they arise, but governments have no real liability for failure, the private sector does. Governments have no real imperative to serve those who pay for them, but the private sector does.

So... the French government caused the heatwave? Thats the newest conspiracy theory I have heard.

Don't be stupid. You know perfectly well that I was referring to their failure.

They did contribute to the problem through high energy taxation, which has meant that French cities are not as well equipped with air conditioners as cities in more free countries.

Yes, thats the thing, in your area you expect those temperatures, they were not in France (and other European nations).

Governments can predict temperature changes when it suits them so to do (climate change), yet they are unable to when the inability will enable them to abdicate responsibility.

both the authorities and the people were not prepared for such an eventuality. Which would have been no different in a private system. A private firm has even less interest in preparing for an event no one thinks is likely, as it will want to keep its spending as low as possible, and so concentrate on preparing for the likely events, and an unexpected and unprecedented heat wave is not one of those.

That is beside the point. After the crisis began, the government stayed on holiday, offering only the most feeble advice.

Can you tell me that a private health firm that does not recall its employees in such a crisis will stay in business, or out of court?

If anyone actually gave a damn about protecting American workers from unfair competition, employers would face penalties large enough to make employing illegal workers unprofitable.

I think you have explained the entire "protect the workers" farce. If you don't wipe out your own gains, you simply screw others over. If they can do the job cheaper than you, then they should be allowed to. What makes you so special that you have the right to keep people in poverty just to protect your job?

While you're at it, define "unfair competition"?

I think you have explained the entire "protect the workers" farce. If you don't wipe out your own gains, you simply screw others over. If they can do the job cheaper than you, then they should be allowed to. What makes you so special that you have the right to keep people in poverty just to protect your job?

While you're at it, define "unfair competition"?

Protecting the American laborer is not a farce. The minimum wage, the 40-hour week, OSHA, and countless other protections are as much a part of America's greatness as the Bill of Rights.

They should not be allowed to underbid law-abiding American businesses and workers due to the fact that they ignore these and other laws. If employers paid all the taxes, fees, and benefits they are required to pay for legal workers, the money they save on wages would become far less signifigant.

********

As for defining unfair competition...

For unfair, I go with the second definition...Contrary to laws or conventions, especially in commerce; unethical.

..and for competion, i'll go with the third....Rivalry between two or more businesses striving for the same customer or market.


Therefore, unfair competion = Rivalry between two or more businesses striving for the same customer or market, in which one or more uses methods contrary to laws or conventions.

Protecting the American laborer is not a farce. The minimum wage, the 40-hour week, OSHA, and countless other protections are as much a part of America's greatness as the Bill of Rights.

As I've shown, these protections either aren't real, or are obtained at the expense of consumers.

They should not be allowed to underbid law-abiding American businesses and workers due to the fact that they ignore these and other laws. If employers paid all the taxes, fees, and benefits they are required to pay for legal workers, the money they save on wages would become far less signifigant.

So they will simply do it from abroad.

Why should Americans be protected at the expense of the rest of the world?

Therefore, unfair competion = Rivalry between two or more businesses striving for the same customer or market, in which one or more uses methods contrary to laws or conventions.

Nonsense, especially when the "laws and conventions" are designed to give advantages to Americans at the expense of foreigners.

As I've shown, these protections either aren't real, or are obtained at the expense of consumers.


As always you overlook that the consumers are also the workers.


Why should Americans be protected at the expense of the rest of the world?

Why should the rest of the world be protected at the expense of Americans?


Nonsense, especially when the "laws and conventions" are designed to give advantages to Americans at the expense of foreigners.

And Foreign goverments enact the same laws designed to give their people advantages over the Americans.

As I've shown, these protections either aren't real, or are obtained at the expense of consumers.

I can assure you that the 40-hour week, minimum wage, and OSHA are all quite real. As for the expense being passed on to the consumer, I really don't have a problem with that.

So they will simply do it from abroad.

Brick-laying and landscaping from abroad, that'll be a nice trick.

Why should Americans be protected at the expense of the rest of the world?

Why should foreign citizens benefit at the expense of Americans? Who do you think will pay for their healthcare? Where do you think their children will go to school? The American govt. exists to protect American citizens, and the expenses are paid by American citizens. What exactly is the "expense" for the rest of the world? Lack of benefit, yes. Expense, no.

Nonsense, especially when the "laws and conventions" are designed to give advantages to Americans at the expense of foreigners.

What?

The laws I've referred to consistently deal with how employers treat and compensate their workers, regardless of citizenship. They are not "designed to give advantages to Americans at the expense of foreigners." If anyone is gaining an advantage, it is the employer who is able to ignore these laws, because his workers are illegal anyway.

I would never join a union.

The only people who benefit from a union are those who are unable to make it through their own effort. I have no desire to be associated with those scumbag looters. It's shameful.

So instead, the shareholders should get a bigger chunk of the pie? Screw that--they're not doing any of the actual work.

So what? It's THEIR COMPANY. The whole reason a company exists is to MAKE MONEY FOR ITS OWNERS.

So what? It's THEIR COMPANY. The whole reason a company exists is to MAKE MONEY FOR ITS OWNERS.

You don't think that, maybe, the focus should be on providing goods and services to our communities... or simply making the world better, then?

I have never understood the 'profit is Messiah' mentality.

What I want to know is.. what would you be? A union member.. or would you stay non-union?
Why?

I was a union member at age 16 when I started work in the retail sector. Paid my dues like everyone else but can't say I saw any benefit from it.


After uni - having studied law, economics, history (with particular ref to Soviet Union) and British labour relations (post WWII to now) I became anti-communist/socialist. I'm now a journalist and my current pro-capitalist/anti-socialist views get re-affirmed at least every few months.

I visited Malta for a research trip about six months ago. It was a curious time ... the Maltese are (or at least were then) having a 'Maggie Thatcher' moment under the current administration. And the state-run company Sea-Malta had just collapsed during my visit. Why?

Sea-Malta was the national State shipping line. It's fleet consisted of two elderly freight ferries ... the Zebug and the Maltese Falcon. Excuse me if I get any details wrong - I'm doing this from memory. Anywho, the shipping line ran between Italy and Malta and was losing money hand over fist. The two vessels were ancient ... both older than I am! (I'm 30 now). You can imagine for yourself what floating about in corrosive sea water does to steelwork over a 30+ year period.

Anywho, Malta gets this govt which is on a privatisation kick AND it joins the EU which promptly puts pressure on Malta to stop aiding its ailing industries.

So Grimaldi, an Italian shipping company, steps up and says ... 'we will employ everyone, run regular services to Malta and scrap those rotten old death-traps you use. Everyone gets to keep their jobs, Malta gets a much improved shipping service (vital for a tiny island nation) and we get to make stacks of money.' So you think everyone and everything would be sweet, right?

Wrong.

Grimaldi loves the idea, because it gets to grow. Malta govt loves the idea - fits in with their ideology, costs them less money and they stop getting their knuckles rapped by the EU. Maltese public is largely generally in favour - they want to pay less tax by and large. Sea-Malta workers are delighted - they get to keep their jobs ... the takeover was put to a vote and the majority of the 129 or so staff vote in favour. Many of the staff go ahead and sign conditional contracts with Grimaldi.

But ...

The unions aren't happy. They come up with a range of Marxist-style objections. I went to interview the the ummm deputy secretary of the Maritime section of the General Workers Union (GWU). Can't remember his name now ... Micallef? Zammit? Anywho. His general views ... we object to the deal, businessmen can't be trusted, only looking out for profit, not caring about the workers, govt won't have a say in the running of the country if all businesses are privatised etc etc etc.

So, what happens? Well, the GWU calls this massive (for Malta) street demonstration protesting generally against govt policy. And the head of the GWU gets up on his podium and threatens to over-turn the govt through the application of worker power! This does not go down at all well and he is forced to eat humble pie in the nation's media.

But, the GWU, remains obstinate in relation to Sea-Malta. It puts in quibbles and queries and conditions and obstacles until the GWU and Grimaldi and the Govt get the deal all hammered out. But there is a sticking point. The GWU wants the Maltese seafarers to work two weeks on-ship and two-weeks off-ship. Grimaldi refuses, pointing out that Italian seafarers work two months on and two months off and any Maltese seafarers it employs will have to do the same - the company would be acting in a discriminatory way otherwise. The GWU digs its heels in. Do it our way or no deal, it declares. The Govt steps in and declares that if the Grimaldi deal fails then it will not support the basket-case Sea Malta anymore. Liquidation is threatened. The jobs of all 129 workers are in the balance. Remember, most of those workers were in favour of the dea. Grimaldi is losing patience fast. Sign up by X date or the deal's off.

It's the scene from the Good, the Bad and the Ugly. There's a triangle of mean hombres staring at each other. Who will shoot first? I went round Valletta and that place across the harbour (Sliema?) talking to locals in the cafes and bars and could feel the tension building.

X date comes. The deadline gets closer. The pressure on the players must be intense. The deadline arrives ....



... and nobody blinks.



The deal's off! The Govt of Malta, as the single shareholder, promptly instructs the directors of Sea-Malta to put the company into liquidation.

And 129 people lose their jobs - including the many who had already signed up to work for the new company. What a terrible, fucking awful shame.

And why? Because of the intransigence of the union. What a collossally arrogant, useless, self-serving attitude. It is so firmly wedded to socialist/communist ideology it is now incapable of acting in the best interests of its own workers. British unions are the same. A colleague interviewed Bob Crowe of the Rail, Maritime and Transport Union. He's another guy filled with hate and socialist ideology. He's blind, just like his Maltese counterparts, to the best interests of his own members.

And that's why I'll never join a union again.

You don't think that, maybe, the focus should be on providing goods and services to our communities...
Of course not.

As the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand proved, there is no more noble or virtuous end than pursuing one's own rational self-interest--and of all the different ways of pursuing that, the pursuit of private profit is the best of the best.

or simply making the world better, then?
Selfishness is a virtue; therefore, the more selfishness, the better the world.

Of course not.

As the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand proved, there is no more noble or virtuous end than pursuing one's own rational self-interest--and of all the different ways of pursuing that, the pursuit of private profit is the best of the best.


Ayn Rand 'proved' nothing. Anyone can philosophise, it doesn't change the nature of reality.

Personally, I find Rand to be an anachronism. She promulgates mechanisms that MIGHT have been useful to our ancestors, but they are actually destructive to large societal structures.

The time was, hunting or gathering were noble and virtuous, in as much as individual survival was the rate-determining-step for a nascent human species. Now, they are destructive throwbacks.


Selfishness is a virtue; therefore, the more selfishness, the better the world.

Selfishness is a virtue to the individual. It serves no useful function in an individual as a member of a society.

Ayn Rand 'proved' nothing.
Actually she did.

Anyone can philosophise, it doesn't change the nature of reality.
Precisely. The goal of philosophy is to provide an accurate description of reality as it actually is. Rand succeeded at that goal.


Selfishness is a virtue to the individual. It serves no useful function in an individual as a member of a society.
The only kind of virtue is individual virtue. As "society" is not a moral agent, there is no such thing as a "societal virtue".

In truth, there is no such thing as "society" in and of itself; there is only an agglomeration of individuals, who individually may be moral or immoral.

You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.

eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand proved

too funny

Actually she did.


No - she really didn't.

Perhaps you have a different way to define 'proof'?


Precisely. The goal of philosophy is to provide an accurate description of reality as it actually is. Rand succeeded at that goal.


Rand suggested a model.

Thanks, Rand. Join the club.


The only kind of virtue is individual virtue. As "society" is not a moral agent, there is no such thing as a "societal virtue".

In truth, there is no such thing as "society" in and of itself; there is only an agglomeration of individuals, who individually may be moral or immoral.


A society is, indeed, a collection of individuals. And collections of individuals are parts of a gestalt, a synergy. Thus - the individual IN a society has different obligations and accesses to those available to the individual WITHOUT society.

To treat the two states as identical is to IGNORE 'reality', not describe it.


You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.

Because what? You are the first person ever to hear of Rand? Or you, maybe, believe it is impossible to read Rand without accepting the model?

I'm in a union myself. I would have to say that given everything we get in our contracts due to being in that union, what we would get otherwise if that union was not there, that yes I would join again if I left for another job and a union there was an option.

Unions do bad as well...its a double edged sword. They keep us in good salaries, benefits, and the likes. However, they also keep some people in jobs who are wothless piles of shit. Take the good with the bad there I suppose.

Rand suggested a model.
Yes, and then she proved (she didn't merely attempt a proof, but she created an actual valid, consistent, correct proof) that hers was in fact how things actually are.

A society is, indeed, a collection of individuals. And collections of individuals are parts of a gestalt, a synergy.
Incorrect. For that to be true, A would have to equal Not A. That is clearly impossible.

Yes, and then she proved (she didn't merely attempt a proof, but she created an actual valid, consistent, correct proof) that hers was in fact how things actually are.


No - she didn't do as you claim.

"It was enough for me" is not the same as empirical 'proof'.


Incorrect. For that to be true, A would have to equal Not A. That is clearly impossible.

Really? Do you ever watch football? (Soccer, to the Americans among us...)

I would never join a union.

The only people who benefit from a union are those who are unable to make it through their own effort. I have no desire to be associated with those scumbag looters. It's shameful.

Wow. You really don't have a clue about it.

Incorrect. For that to be true, A would have to equal Not A. That is clearly impossible.

What, so our obligations as an individual outside society are the same as if we are inside a society...? Bollocks. if there was no one else around we could do whatever the fuck we want, and there is no problem. Shit pretty much anywhere, randomly place landmines around which we remembered where they were, destroy any random object we come across. Within a society those things are unacceptable, so therefore we operate in different ways, we have to take account of the others around us, their needs, their wishes, and they have to do the same towards us. You cannot say that the way a person should behave outside society and within society are not different.

Well lads. Much as it's been fun; I try to avoid threads where cyclical arguments are deployed.

Have fun roasting D3/5 and the new Randy.....

As I said, the hypothetical was so vague as to be utterly useless. With almost no information, one cannot find a rationale for what has taken place, or a rationale for the decision making.

All you managed to show was they they could do it for unknown reasons.And unknown reasons are enough to show that your blanket statement is incorrect.

He failed to explain why they would unilaterally reduce their profits. There is no reason to believe they would.There's no reason to believe they wouldn't when faced with the threat of a striking workforce, or even better, a workforce in a union that uses tools other than strikes.

Were it profitable, why would they bother employing a non-English speaking workforce and risk a raid by the authorities? If they could make a sufficient profit at the minimum wage, they would simply employ Americans at that wage.Because it's more profitable to do so. Note, this says more profitable. This isn't the only way it's possible for it to be profitable.

Why should Americans be protected at the expense of the rest of the world?Why shouldn't the rest of the world also be protected?

As always you overlook that the consumers are also the workers.

You don't read too much. I have consistantly accounted for that, I have said on several occasions "the workers will wipe out their own "gains" through the inevitable price increases".

In any case, you have failed to take into account that in spite of all the gibberish about "solidarity", the gains of each union are had at the expense of their "brothers" in other unions who must pay more.

**************************************

And unknown reasons are enough to show that your blanket statement is incorrect.

No, they aren't. To determine whether or not the actions you said they'd take are realistic, and indicative of those that would be taken in the real world, one must have all the facts, then one can work out whether or not there is some real reason for their actions, as opposed to saying "they simply decided it for no reason without taking anything into consideration".

There's no reason to believe they wouldn't when faced with the threat of a striking workforce, or even better, a workforce in a union that uses tools other than strikes.

A striking workforce is a resigning workforce. And you said that capitalism will have persistant unemployment so why can he not replace his workers?

As to using tools other than strikes, same thing. By doing so, they demonstrate their wish to leave.

Because it's more profitable to do so. Note, this says more profitable. This isn't the only way it's possible for it to be profitable.

But the don't believe it is profitable enough to employ Americans, that is the point. If there's less profit in giving Americans jobs, Americans will not be given jobs.

Why shouldn't the rest of the world also be protected?

The only real protection is being profitable enough to be worth keeping on. The rest is either false, or obtained by screwing everyone else over. This isn't protection because a firm that goes bust is hardly good news to its employees.

******************************

I can assure you that the 40-hour week, minimum wage, and OSHA are all quite real. As for the expense being passed on to the consumer, I really don't have a problem with that.

They are not real protections. Real protection is in being profitable enough to survive.

By the way, I won't say I'm not selfish. I want as much as I can get, but I draw the line at screwing people over to get it. You, like most unionists do not.

No, they aren't. To determine whether or not the actions you said they'd take are realistic, and indicative of those that would be taken in the real world,

That wasnt the point. The point was to show it was possible. Which it did. The point was not to show tha company would do so, just that it could raise wages without increasing prices and still remain profitable. The example did that, it did not determine how likely that was to be a course of action taken by a company, but was not meant to.


one must have all the facts, then one can work out whether or not there is some real reason for their actions, as opposed to saying "they simply decided it for no reason without taking anything into consideration".

No, one doesnt have to if all you are demonstrating is that it is possible. If one was to demonstrate how likely it was, then the reasons would have to thought about, but not if one is showing it is possible.



A striking workforce is a resigning workforce.

Not in most people's minds. A strkiking workforce is a workforce campaigning for something they want, or trying to prevent something happening they regard as unfair etc.


And you said that capitalism will have persistant unemployment so why can he not replace his workers?

Well, he may, but retraining and organising a new workforce will take longer, and maybe even cost more than just giving in.


As to using tools other than strikes, same thing. By doing so, they demonstrate their wish to leave.

Bollocks. They dont, and you know that. They demonstrate a wish to leave if they leave, or if they ask to leave, not by striking. Striking or any other tools of industrial action actually show they are not wanting to leave, as if they wanted to leave, they wouldnt fight to preserve their current position, or to add to it. A workforce that wished to leave wouldnt bother striking.


But the don't believe it is profitable enough to employ Americans, that is the point.

And what exactly is "profitable enough".


If there's less profit in giving Americans jobs, Americans will not be given jobs.

And there is the real reason... not that is is unprofitable, or even not "profitable enough", but it is more profitable to employ others.

That wasnt the point. The point was to show it was possible. Which it did. The point was not to show tha company would do so, just that it could raise wages without increasing prices and still remain profitable. The example did that, it did not determine how likely that was to be a course of action taken by a company, but was not meant to.

As I said, such an example is useless. One could say "this building is quite strong", and be countered "maybe, but it is entirely possible that falling meteors could destroy it".

People do things for a reason, for firms, the reasons are generally financial, and there was no reason for what he was suggesting. His "example" was explicitly crafted to exclude consideration of reasons.

And what exactly is "profitable enough".

That is up to those who own, or manage the business.

And there is the real reason... not that is is unprofitable, or even not "profitable enough", but it is more profitable to employ others.

It doesn't change, or undermine my general point. The only real job security is being profitable enough to survive.

As I said, such an example is useless. One could say "this building is quite strong", and be countered "maybe, but it is entirely possible that falling meteors could destroy it".

Well, its not so far fetched and out of the blue as that, but essentially, yes. You said increase in wages had to lead to an increase in prices, and he showed it didnt. Didnt say it was likely or anything. The point was to show that there was a way, not that it was likely.


People do things for a reason, for firms, the reasons are generally financial, and there was no reason for what he was suggesting. His "example" was explicitly crafted to exclude consideration of reasons.

It wasnt meant to address reasons, just the possibilities.


That is up to those who own, or manage the business.

So "enough" is the most they can make? As they are going to want to make the most they can. Doesnt seem a sensible definition of "enough" to me.


It doesn't change, or undermine my general point. The only real job security is being profitable enough to survive.

So, to work harder, better, longer, for less pay and with fewer protections than anyone else?

And when someone goes further than you? Your out of a job, and you have no way to prevent that. That sounds real good to me.

People have to fight if they want to stand a chance. I dont see why we should just be slaves to the market. The market should be made to do something for people, not people made to serve the market.

And why? Because of the intransigence of the union. What a collossally arrogant, useless, self-serving attitude. It is so firmly wedded to socialist/communist ideology it is now incapable of acting in the best interests of its own workers. British unions are the same. A colleague interviewed Bob Crowe of the Rail, Maritime and Transport Union. He's another guy filled with hate and socialist ideology. He's blind, just like his Maltese counterparts, to the best interests of his own members.

And that's why I'll never join a union again.
What a heart-wrenching story.

Now if I tell you one about a non-union firm that went bankrupt and lost several hundred people their jobs because of intransigent, arrogant, and self-serving management, will you vow never to work for a private firm again as well? Because I can guaruntee that I can list a lot more businesses that fail without unions than fail with them. (If only because in order for a union to be useful or needed, the business has to reach a certain size which gives it some buffer from failure)

It seems like that might limit your options some.

What you've described in your story is simple idiocy, and neither private industry, unions, or government is any more immune to it. It comes, as you say, from being intrasigent and unwilling to consider the facts of the individual case.. such as declaring that you'll never work for a union again.

What strikes me as ironic is that, in the very context of giving an example of how following blind ideology is a dumb idea, you do the exact same thing in your last sentence.

That's why anybody who generalizes and says unions are universally a bad idea, or unions are universally a good idea, strikes me as an idiot who simply has closed their mind to the real world.

Yes, and then she proved (she didn't merely attempt a proof, but she created an actual valid, consistent, correct proof) that hers was in fact how things actually are.

I've finished reading Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and The Virtue of Selfishness. I found no such proof. If the proof exists, where may I find it. I haven't found anything she even claimed to be a proof. I read arguments, some very good, but no proofs.


Incorrect. For that to be true, A would have to equal Not A. That is clearly impossible.
You've obviously never worked with SQL. If A is set to null, then A does not equal A.

p.s. Alan Greenspan is definitely a better writer than Ayn Rand.

Selfishness is a virtue; therefore, the more selfishness, the better the world.

Meh... This is actually a valid argument. It's missing a middle, but if you assume the implicit middle:

Selfishness is a virtue;
more virtue is better;
therefore, the more selfishness, the better the world.

This works. It displays a set of axioms and uses them to reach a conclusion.

In the same way:

Murder is a virtue;
more virtue is better;
therefore, the more murder, the better the world.

works, as does any vayiation on:

A is a B;
more B is better;
therefore, the more A, the better the world.

Well, its not so far fetched and out of the blue as that, but essentially, yes. You said increase in wages had to lead to an increase in prices, and he showed it didnt. Didnt say it was likely or anything. The point was to show that there was a way, not that it was likely.

To show that something is possible is not enough. One must show that sane people would do it, that they'd believe it would advance their interests. Idiots acting in a random manner prove nothing we didn't already know (about idiots, that is).

So "enough" is the most they can make? As they are going to want to make the most they can. Doesnt seem a sensible definition of "enough" to me.

Actually no, enough to keep them in business, and/or enough to keep people wanting to invest. While they would like higher margins, that necessitates higher prices, which would leave them open their competition grabbing the market.

The free market induces a disclipline that no other economic system can.

So, to work harder, better, longer, for less pay and with fewer protections than anyone else?

The protections to which you refer are either not really protections, or they are obtained by screwing other people.

What is wrong with working better? Incidently, I don't work harder, or longer, yet I am profitable enough to keep on. I am also a contractor, and therefore have no "protections" (either false, or gained at the expense of everyone else, and I thought capitalists were the selfish ones, at least we don't propose to screw everyone else over to keep the perks).

And when someone goes further than you? Your out of a job, and you have no way to prevent that. That sounds real good to me.

So, he should be deprived of his right to try to advance for your sake?

Why should he be kept down? If someone can do your job better than you, they should be allowed to do it.

Incidently, you have summed up the union case, you can't get ahead on your own merits, so you will hold others back.

People have to fight if they want to stand a chance. I dont see why we should just be slaves to the market. The market should be made to do something for people, not people made to serve the market.

Lets deconstruct this, you say it is a bad thing that one should work to give people what they want, yet socialists talk about working for society!

Unions are only as good or as bad as the people who run them.

Single shop companies aren't to bad to work for. It really gets bad when there are several competing unions in a single company.

Management and employes have to work together to make a company run. When they start treating each other like the enemy, everyone involved loses.

The large, national unions are corrupt all the way thru. They focus too much on buying politicans, and ignore the little guy that they claim to represent.

No, they aren't. To determine whether or not the actions you said they'd take are realistic, and indicative of those that would be taken in the real world, one must have all the facts, then one can work out whether or not there is some real reason for their actions, as opposed to saying "they simply decided it for no reason without taking anything into consideration".Giving in to the threat of a union strike is a realistic action that would be taken in the real world.

A striking workforce is a resigning workforce. And you said that capitalism will have persistant unemployment so why can he not replace his workers?Peveski answered this well; he will be able to replace his workers, but not necessarily at less cost than it would take to give in.

As to using tools other than strikes, same thing. By doing so, they demonstrate their wish to leave.Peveski also answered this well; a strike is a wish to stay, not a wish to leave; if they wished to leave they would simply do so.

But the don't believe it is profitable enough to employ Americans, that is the point. If there's less profit in giving Americans jobs, Americans will not be given jobs. Exactly. It would still be profitable to give Americans jobs even with the horrid minimum wage and assorted protections, but companies don't want to give them willingly.

The only real protection is being profitable enough to be worth keeping on. The rest is either false, or obtained by screwing everyone else over. This isn't protection because a firm that goes bust is hardly good news to its employees.Not especially. To be profitable enough to be worth keeping on, in many cases, means that a worker would have to sacrifice their health and well being. Some protections aren't worth having.

Giving in to the threat of a union strike is a realistic action that would be taken in the real world.

Not really. Anyway, you claim that unemployment will always exist in capitalism, therefore the workers can be replaced. You may gripe about costs, but with new workers, at least they are producing, instead of sitting idle.

Peveski also answered this well; a strike is a wish to stay, not a wish to leave; if they wished to leave they would simply do so

They are rejecting the deal they previously agreed. I'd say that is the equivilant of leaving.

Exactly. It would still be profitable to give Americans jobs even with the horrid minimum wage and assorted protections, but companies don't want to give them willingly.

They simply have to be profitable enough to employ.

Not especially. To be profitable enough to be worth keeping on, in many cases, means that a worker would have to sacrifice their health and well being. Some protections aren't worth having.

Nonsense, and profitability is the only real protection. The only one that lasts, and doesn't screw anyone else over.

To show that something is possible is not enough. One must show that sane people would do it,

No, we dont... and anyway, no reason they wouldnt, if their aims were for something different from simply making the same profit all the time. If their aim was to act with consideration of their workers and their consumers say, they might be willing to raise wages without raising costs. Raising the wages benifits the workers, while raising the prices will harm the consumer, so they dont.

What would be insane would be to raise costs to the point where they no longer make any profit.


that they'd believe it would advance their interests. Idiots acting in a random manner prove nothing we didn't already know (about idiots, that is).

You dont have to be an idiot to think of something other than your own interests.


Actually no, enough to keep them in business,

Erm... they dojnt have to make any profit to stay in business, just break even.


and/or enough to keep people wanting to invest.

Ok, there is a more useful definition.


While they would like higher margins, that necessitates higher prices, which would leave them open their competition grabbing the market.

Thats what I mean by as much as they can, not how much they would like to get. Ie, the point in price where they make the most profit overall, not on a single item. Ie, according to what you said implied as first for a definition "enough" was simply the most a business could make, which is a daft definition of "enough".


So, he should be deprived of his right to try to advance for your sake?

I wouldnt call it advancing himself if he is just working harder, longer etc for less money, all he is doing is trying to get by and to do that he has to keep lowering his standard. And he is also screwing everyone else over, by changing the standard of working so the standard is more work for less pay.


Why should he be kept down?

He isnt being kept down, he is being pushed further down by the demand. to me, working harder for less money is a lowering of standard, not an increase in one.

And I am not saying he should be kept down, rather that he should be allowed to succeed with the same protections I have.


If someone can do your job better than you, they should be allowed to do it.

Well, maybe, if they get paid better for it. If they work harder than me they should be rewarded for it, not just asked to get the same.


Incidently, you have summed up the union case, you can't get ahead on your own merits, so you will hold others back.

No, I am saying that people who work better should be rewarded, but I dont see why people shouldnt have protections, unless they really are just useless or lazy. Someone who does the same job better should be metter rewarded than the other, but unless the other is useless or lazy, I dont see why they should be thrown out, and I dont see why they should compete so as to drive down the standards they will both get.


Lets deconstruct this, you say it is a bad thing that one should work to give people what they want, yet socialists talk about working for society!

Stop deliberatley misunderstanding what I say. What I am saying is that we should not lower our standard to fit the "demands" of the market, and that the "market" should not be an end in itself, and should only be followed as far as it benefits society as a whole, rather than the interests of those to whom the wealth would flow if we completely freed the market, ie the wealthy.

I have no problems with unions, seeing as they are a natural consequence of the worker's right to organise in the capitalist system, but I would not join one. The profession I seek to join doesn't really lend to it.

If collective bargaining would enhance my position, then yes, I would join a union.

IMO, the problem starts when people start demanding a position that they actually don't deserve, if they compare themselves to the majority of the country's workers. I've recently seen a very large (around 90%) part of my country's public workers, who have a huge deal of benefits and the most lousy productivity and competence I've ever seen, strike a load of times because our government decided to freeze raises to all workers that earn over 1000€/month. I also saw ship captains that work a public boat transportation system strike several times during rush hour because they demand a 50€ raise, leaving around 4000 people without transport to and from work every day (a service they pay dearly). :rolleyes:

IMO, the problem starts when people start demanding a position that they actually don't deserve, if they compare themselves to the majority of the country's workers. I've recently seen a very large (around 90%) part of my country's public workers, who have a huge deal of benefits and the most lousy productivity and competence I've ever seen, strike a load of times because our government decided to freeze raises to all workers that earn over 1000€/month. I also saw ship captains that work a public boat transportation system strike several times during rush hour because they demand a 50€ raise, leaving around 4000 people without transport to and from work every day (a service they pay dearly). :rolleyes:
This happens a lot, particularly in countries like yours. Public sector servants abuse their power, and tax-payer money. They are leeches. Their services are often inadequate and below the standard of quality they should be.

My country went from a dictatorship to an extremely socialist system, workers were given a large amount of rights and freedoms without having to work for it and now it'll be almost impossible to create a more fair public service system (where you have to work well to get paid)

My country went from a dictatorship to an extremely socialist system, workers were given a large amount of rights and freedoms without having to work for it and now it'll be almost impossible to create a more fair public service system (where you have to work well to get paid)
I know. I have friends from Portugal who tell me how corrupt your government and its officials have become. Hopefully you'll be able to reform it in the future.

Erm... they dojnt have to make any profit to stay in business, just break even.

Actually no, that is not sufficient. If they were just breaking even, there is no point to the owners staying in business.

I wouldnt call it advancing himself if he is just working harder, longer etc for less money, all he is doing is trying to get by and to do that he has to keep lowering his standard. And he is also screwing everyone else over, by changing the standard of working so the standard is more work for less pay.

He is not screwing others over. It is his time and energy which he is trading, with mutual consent, for the employer's money. He is taking nothing from no one.

Anyway, if you are preventing him from making the trades he wants to make, you are keeping him down, you are depriving him of his rights.

By the way, where did this "more work for less pay" crap enter into this?

If a worker wishes to lower his prices to invite sales, that is his decision. It is no different to a shopkeeper having "specials", or a "sale". By depriving him of it, you are depriving him of his rights.

And I am not saying he should be kept down, rather that he should be allowed to succeed with the same protections I have.

They are not real protections. They are either robbery of the consumers, or they are false protections because they undermine the profitability of your employer.

Well, maybe, if they get paid better for it. If they work harder than me they should be rewarded for it, not just asked to get the same.

Again, you are simply pulling this "more work for less pay" crap, and it has no foundation.

Someone who does the same job better should be metter rewarded than the other, but unless the other is useless or lazy, I dont see why they should be thrown out, and I dont see why they should compete so as to drive down the standards they will both get.

Why should he be kept in a job when there is someone else who can do it better. If he can be transferred elsewhere, nice. If there's nowhere, then he should be sacked.

Stop deliberatley misunderstanding what I say. What I am saying is that we should not lower our standard to fit the "demands" of the market, and that the "market" should not be an end in itself, and should only be followed as far as it benefits society as a whole, rather than the interests of those to whom the wealth would flow if we completely freed the market, ie the wealthy.

Do you know what the "market" is? You write as though it is something imposed on everyone. It is everyone, and all their dealings.

What you really mean by "demands of the market" is simply "voluntary cooperation", i.e. that in a free society, if you want to do things involving other people, and their property, you must have their voluntary, informed consent.

You cannot divorce "market" from "society". The market is society. Everything society does in terms of economic goods and services is the market, and everyone who produces and consumes is part of it.

Not really. Anyway, you claim that unemployment will always exist in capitalism, therefore the workers can be replaced. You may gripe about costs, but with new workers, at least they are producing, instead of sitting idle.With giving into the striking workers, the striking workers will begin to produce again instead of sitting idle.

They are rejecting the deal they previously agreed. I'd say that is the equivilant of leaving.Not necessarily. Not all working conditions are hammered out in a prior deal. Certainly, wages would be, but not all strikes are about wages. If the company hires a new manager who disrespects the workers, that may be a reason to strike. If conditions become unsafe, that may also be a reason to strike. Now, it's true that the employer never promised the worker that he would be treated with respect and work in safe conditions, but it's rare that the employer tells the worker that he will be disrespected and work in unsafe conditions. Therefore, a strike for those reasons would not be rejecting a deal previously agreed to.

They simply have to be profitable enough to employ.And sometimes being profitable enough to employ means making it unprofitable to fire someone.

Nonsense, and profitability is the only real protection. The only one that lasts, and doesn't screw anyone else over.That being the only protection puts the bulk of the power in the employer's hands. Unions are meant to counteract this.

With giving into the striking workers, the striking workers will begin to produce again instead of sitting idle.

Why would they want to when they can get replacement workers who will work at the terms offered?

but it's rare that the employer tells the worker that he will be disrespected and work in unsafe conditions.

I think you've hit upon what really keeps employers in line, the fact that if they go too far, no one will sell labour to them.

Therefore, a strike for those reasons would not be rejecting a deal previously agreed to.

Yes it would be. The deal includes the whole package, wages, conditions, the lot.

And sometimes being profitable enough to employ means making it unprofitable to fire someone.

No. The two are different in the sense you use them.

That being the only protection puts the bulk of the power in the employer's hands. Unions are meant to counteract this.

No, it doesn't, and no, they aren't. Unions are cartels, and like any cartel, they exist to give advantages to their members at the expense of everyone else.

Why would they want to when they can get replacement workers who will work at the terms offered?Because the time it takes to do so could result in a loss of revenue greater than the increased wages they would pay the workers they currently have.

I think you've hit upon what really keeps employers in line, the fact that if they go too far, no one will sell labour to them. Yes, except that in a capitalist system, employers can't go too far. No matter how low your price, someone will always go lower than you.

Yes it would be. The deal includes the whole package, wages, conditions, the lot.Only if those conditions are specified at the start of the deal, and specified that those conditions may change.

No. The two are different in the sense you use them. How so?

No, it doesn't, and no, they aren't. Yes it does, and yes, they are. The supply of labor will always be greater than the demand of labor. Therefore, the power will be in the hands of the people demanding labor.

Unions are cartels, and like any cartel, they exist to give advantages to their members at the expense of everyone else.I find it ironic that you appear to be against cartels. (Not that I agree with your assessment that unions are cartels.)

Because the time it takes to do so could result in a loss of revenue greater than the increased wages they would pay the workers they currently have.

No, the managers simply have to do their math.

No matter how low your price, someone will always go lower than you.

You've obviously not heard of supply and demand. It has some relevance to the setting of prices.

How so?

I suggest a seller, if he wishes to make a sale, meet the requirements of the buyer. You suggest the buyer be forced to accept whatever the seller wants.

You can only sustain the illusion that this is a good thing because you differentiate labour for any other market commodity.

If one suggested that oil companies, as sellers exert the degree of coercion you advocate upon us, the buyers, you would be outraged.

The supply of labor will always be greater than the demand of labor.

Proof by assertion is a logical fallacy.

I find it ironic that you appear to be against cartels. (Not that I agree with your assessment that unions are cartels.)

You find it ironic that a libertarian, who advocates a free market is against cartels.

Are you really this dumb?!

How is it that unions aren't cartels, except in the sense that the word cartel has negative connotations.

A cartel is an alliance of sellers to restrict output and increase prices for the sake of their own profits. This is exactly what a union does in terms of labour.

What a heart-wrenching story.

You're right. It is a terrible heart-wrenching story. Especially if you, like the Sea-Malta workers, thought your job was saved and you could carry on paying the rent or the mortgage and didn't have to cancel the family holiday that year, but your union, which is supposedly there to protect your job, actually destroyed it. I wonder how many workers had nights of sleepless worry?


Now if I tell you one about a non-union firm that went bankrupt and lost several hundred people their jobs because of intransigent, arrogant, and self-serving management, will you vow never to work for a private firm again as well?


No, but then the point is I can choose which private firm to work for. If there is a heavily unionised environment (like in the Sea-Malta case) then I can't choose to go elsewhere. And remember, in the Sea-Malta case the GWU acutally acted against the wishes of its members because it is mentally beholden to a discredited ideology.


Because I can guaruntee that I can list a lot more businesses that fail without unions than fail with them. (If only because in order for a union to be useful or needed, the business has to reach a certain size which gives it some buffer from failure)


I am sure you can, but that's not relevant. The point is not: which fails more - businesses and unions or businesses alone? The point is the unions often - in the vast majority of cases - tend to cause otherwise viable businesses to be less successful than they otherwise would be (causing less employment) or to fail. In the Sea-Malta case, for example, the business could have been rescued ... but the union caused it to fail.


What you've described in your story is simple idiocy


You got that right! :p Regardless of your views - left/right, up/down, you've got to feel angry at the GWU and sad for the Sea-Malta workers.



and neither private industry, unions, or government is any more immune to it.

True - we are all stupid :p


It comes, as you say, from being intrasigent and unwilling to consider the facts of the individual case.. such as declaring that you'll never work for a union again.

Ouch! . Nice touch.



What strikes me as ironic is that, in the very context of giving an example of how following blind ideology is a dumb idea, you do the exact same thing in your last sentence.

True. I do. But then I never said I wasn't a hypocrite :D


That's why anybody who generalizes and says unions are universally a bad idea, or unions are universally a good idea, strikes me as an idiot who simply has closed their mind to the real world.

Ouch (2)!

Nontheless it is point I'd do well to acknowledge.
I started learning about Industrial relations and so on through my reporting of industrial relations and also my studies of labour law and British economic history. If you look at it dispassionately, like I did originally ... actually, no I'll correct that. When I started out as a 16 year-old pup I leaned quite strongly to the left. I orginally looked at the whole subject with red-tinted spectacles. Over time, with study and experience, I reached my conclusion that unions are by-and-large, in the general scheme of things, 'bad'. So I based my views on the study of theory, the study of precedents and real-life experiences. Does that make me an idiot? Hmmm, possibly. If you ask me, I'm bound to say 'no', but then I'm biased.

As far as saying 'universally bad' or 'universally good'. Yeah, OK, I admit it. You were right to pull me up on the phrase: 'I'll never work with a union again'. It was over-the-top. I succumbed to the journalist's temptation to drama! *slaps self on the wrist*

I read your earlier post, Waterkeep, on the benefits to business of a Union. And I must congratulate you. As a scribbler myself, I am always happy to read lucid, well-written, well-thought out text. I think I would likely be happy to work in a system such as you have described. It sounds like the company and the union are both working things out to their mutual advantage - like reasonable, sensible growed-ups.

My response to that, though, is that such behaviour tends to be the exception rather than the rule. The rule is well-exemplified by the actions of the GWU in the Sea-Malta debacle. You can see it wherever and whenever unions are strong, like for example, Britain in the 1960s onwards. An earlier poster said it was sad that the UK miners lost the strike in the 1980s. I agree, it was very sad -communities were torn apart. But it was necessary. The union bosses were trying to rule a democratic country and impose a socialist-esque fiefdom on the UK. But now, owing to the Thatcher legacy, the UK has one of the strongest economies in Europe.

My second response is a question. What if one of your employees doesn't want to deal with you via the Union? Is he is required to? If so, the use of coercion seriously undermines the validity of the system you employ.

Proof by assertion is a logical fallacy.


Well why not disprove him with some numbers?


You find it ironic that a libertarian, who advocates a free market is against cartels.

Ahhhhhhhh that explains the attitude.


Are you really this dumb?!


Yup. A libertarian.

My second response is a question. What if one of your employees doesn't want to deal with you via the Union? Is he is required to? If so, the use of coercion seriously undermines the validity of the system you employ.

They don't get hired in the first place. This is one of the deal-breaker clauses that the union stands for. If we want to go non-union our contractual obligations state that we have to hire them as management (which includes some specific definitions) or as outside consultants for specific, short-term expertise not available within the organization.

If potential employees don't like it, they're free to get a job elsewhere. As far as I know though, we've never had a candidate walk away on that basis.

No, they don’t walk away for the same reason why socialists complain about capitalism (its exploitation!). The worker is forced to choose between not having a job or joining the union.

I once, for a very brief time, belonged to a union because I had to if I wanted the job. I needed money rather badly and in short order, so I had to take whatever came along first – I did not have the luxury of turning down a job. So, despite being against unions on general principle, paid the few dollars it cost to ‘join’ the union – I just factored the dues in as just another business expense.

Had I the option on whether or not to join the union I would never have done it, but since I was not given the option… I think you will find that many ‘union’ workers would rather not be in the union but are forced to if they want work.

No, they don’t walk away for the same reason why socialists complain about capitalism (its exploitation!). The worker is forced to choose between not having a job or joining the union.

I once, for a very brief time, belonged to a union because I had to if I wanted the job. I needed money rather badly and in short order, so I had to take whatever came along first – I did not have the luxury of turning down a job. So, despite being against unions on general principle, paid the few dollars it cost to ‘join’ the union – I just factored the dues in as just another business expense.

Had I the option on whether or not to join the union I would never have done it, but since I was not given the option… I think you will find that many ‘union’ workers would rather not be in the union but are forced to if they want work.

So why is this unacceptable coercion when it involves a union, but acceptable when it involves low wages, which is what many around here seem to be arguing?

And what is your alternative?

No, the managers simply have to do their math.In which case, the math could lead the managers to the decision to negotiate with the employees.

You've obviously not heard of supply and demand. It has some relevance to the setting of prices.You've obviously not heard of the fact that people have to work in order to live. It means they'll go as low as they need to.

I suggest a seller, if he wishes to make a sale, meet the requirements of the buyer. You suggest the buyer be forced to accept whatever the seller wants.No, I suggest that there are ways of making it unpleasant for the buyer of labor to not accept what the seller wants, not that the buyer needs to be forced to.

You can only sustain the illusion that this is a good thing because you differentiate labour for any other market commodity.Labor isn't different than any other market commodity, there are other commodities, such as food, that are similar to labor.

If one suggested that oil companies, as sellers exert the degree of coercion you advocate upon us, the buyers, you would be outraged.They're welcome to make it unpleasant for people to not buy oil if they wish to, I really wish they would because it would encourage more public transportation.

Proof by assertion is a logical fallacy.I've already proven that capitalism requires unemployment.

You find it ironic that a libertarian, who advocates a free market is against cartels.Yes, since they are the inevitable eventual outcome of the application of your philosophy.

Are you really this dumb?!No, dumb would be believing that cartels wouldn't flourish in the eventual application of libertarian philosophy.

How is it that unions aren't cartels, except in the sense that the word cartel has negative connotations.

A cartel is an alliance of sellers to restrict output and increase prices for the sake of their own profits. This is exactly what a union does in terms of labour.Cartels typically use other forms of coercion to get people to buy their products, such as the threat of violence, or by lacing their products with addictive drugs.

Labor unions may be oligopolies, but not cartels.

In which case, the math could lead the managers to the decision to negotiate with the employees.

Only to a point, and the threshold gets lower as the possible supply of alternative labour get higher, and required-skill gets lower.

You've obviously not heard of the fact that people have to work in order to live. It means they'll go as low as they need to.

They will go as high as they can get away with. The price system, and supply and demand will find the point at which they can both agree to make the deal.

No, I suggest that there are ways of making it unpleasant for the buyer of labor to not accept what the seller wants, not that the buyer needs to be forced to.

It comes down to the same thing, unless you are simply talking about negotiating.

Labor isn't different than any other market commodity, there are other commodities, such as food, that are similar to labor.

Yet you hold to the idea that labour is in a race to the bottom, while companies try to charge as much as they can get away with. You have treated them differently.

They're welcome to make it unpleasant for people to not buy oil if they wish to, I really wish they would because it would encourage more public transportation.

This is a change of tune for you, allowing someone to try to set their own terms in the market.

I've already proven that capitalism requires unemployment

No, you haven't. You've made the assertion that a free market cannot resolve supply and demand. That is absurd.

No, dumb would be believing that cartels wouldn't flourish in the eventual application of libertarian philosophy.

How can a cartel survive in a free market. All their price increases and producion restrictions will do is invite other people into the industry, or invite the cartel members to covertly evade the cartel arrangement.

The state, under a libertarian government, will not help the cartel to stay in business, will not block rivals, and potential rivals, and will act against any violence by the cartel.

Cartels typically use other forms of coercion to get people to buy their products, such as the threat of violence, or by lacing their products with addictive drugs.

A picket line is not a threat of violence? Interesting view. Incidently, there is a long history of union violence, and I have seen advocated here such things as sabotage.

Unions also attempt to corrupt the political process by paying politicians off (as in the United States with the Democrats), or forming their own political parties (as in Britain with the Labour Party). This too is a threat of force, albeit legal force.

I am a member of a labour union and very happy for it.

If I wasn't, I would NOT have my dental or medical coverage. I wouldn't have my Long Term Disabitilty or my Pension. I would also probably make at least $10/hr less than I do now. I would have LESS job security. I wouldn't have paid vacation either.

My employer would have the right to fire me for no reason, pay me minimum wage for my work, give only 2 weeks unpaid vacation/yr (if I was lucky), replace me with a totally inexperienced person who would make less money so they could make more money.

A union is not really needed in a work-place if the employee is treated with respect by the employer. I do know of several places where a union has been rejected by the workers because they didn't need one, but that is not an overly common thing to happen.

Unfortunately, the some union executives have grown fat and corrupt on the back of their members. These are the ones who should not be representing their members. But unfortunately, once you get a bit of power, you want more.

Only to a point, and the threshold gets lower as the possible supply of alternative labour get higher, and required-skill gets lower.
Yes, I can agree with this.

They will go as high as they can get away with. The price system, and supply and demand will find the point at which they can both agree to make the deal.Oh, certainly, they won't work for less than they can get, but it is necessary for them to get something from it. People without savings do not have the option of withholding their labor entirely.

It comes down to the same thing, unless you are simply talking about negotiating.Well, that could be one example, yes. "If you don't accept these terms, we'll go on strike and give your company bad publicity by detailing these horrid working conditions."

Yet you hold to the idea that labour is in a race to the bottom, while companies try to charge as much as they can get away with. You have treated them differently. Oh, in that sense, then, they are different, because the supply of labor is greater than the demand for it.

This is a change of tune for you, allowing someone to try to set their own terms in the market.If a society is a market society, there are instances where using the market is better. I would also like to see government funding for alternative fuels; either way, both of these actions are preferable to, say, price caps on gasoline.

No, you haven't. You've made the assertion that a free market cannot resolve supply and demand. That is absurd.The resolution of supply in demand results in the supply being higher than the demand, in much the same way that the supply of dirt is higher than the demand for it.

How can a cartel survive in a free market. All their price increases and producion restrictions will do is invite other people into the industry, or invite the cartel members to covertly evade the cartel arrangement.

The state, under a libertarian government, will not help the cartel to stay in business, will not block rivals, and potential rivals, and will act against any violence by the cartel.Oh, I agree with this, but only because if it did no it would no longer fit the definition of libertarian. I see no reason why the cartel would not petition the government for favors, and I see no reason why the government wouldn't change the laws so it can grant them.

A picket line is not a threat of violence? Interesting view. No, not it and of itself.

Incidently, there is a long history of union violence, and I have seen advocated here such things as sabotage.Yes, unions have been known to use violence, but violence is not inherent to unionism.
Sabotage isn't necessarily violent...I'm not quite certain why the word sabotage is used, but it essentially means anything that interferes with the company's daily business in a negative manner. The aforementioned public airing of working conditions is a form of sabotage.

Unions also attempt to corrupt the political process by paying politicians off (as in the United States with the Democrats), or forming their own political parties (as in Britain with the Labour Party). This too is a threat of force, albeit legal force.True, but companies also do this.

Oh, in that sense, then, they are different, because the supply of labor is greater than the demand for it.

No. There is no necessary reason for that to be the case. The only "proof" you've offered is saying the free market can never reconcile supply and demand in labour.

If a society is a market society, there are instances where using the market is better. I would also like to see government funding for alternative fuels; either way, both of these actions are preferable to, say, price caps on gasoline.

The market is always better.

The resolution of supply in demand results in the supply being higher than the demand, in much the same way that the supply of dirt is higher than the demand for it.

No, the resolution of supply and demand is by definition equilibrium, to say that the meeting of supply and demand is a perpetual surplus is a contradiction in terms because a surplus is a divergence of supply and demand.

Oh, I agree with this, but only because if it did no it would no longer fit the definition of libertarian. I see no reason why the cartel would not petition the government for favors.

This is yet another dodge. A libertarian government cannot by definition be successfully petitioned to grant favours, nor could they grant favours if they wished to.

It is the interventionist government that can grant favours and mete out punishments because that government has the power to interfere in every operation in a society. It is therefore the interventionist government that invites corruption. Why would anyone waste time trying to corrupt a libertarian government? It is not a case of being unwilling to sell favours, it is a case of being unable to sell favours.

A libertarian government is constrained from doing so, it has no favours to grant, no punishments to mete out, except to those who have initiated force.

I see no reason why the government wouldn't change the laws so it can grant them.

We have seen governments stay quite limited, and within constitutional bounds for centuries at a time.

No, not it and of itself.

You do not cross a line of angry people unless you expect to be clobbered, be realistic. They represent an obstruction to freedom of movement by physically obstructing you. It is a threat of force.

True, but companies also do this.

Red herring. You said a union wasn't a cartel because it didn't threaten force. The fact that unions donate to politicial parties in some countries, and make their own political parties in others proves that unions do threaten force.

No. There is no necessary reason for that to be the case. The only "proof" you've offered is saying the free market can never reconcile supply and demand in labour.It can't, because the free market is unsustainable.

The market is always better.Show how the market is always better objectively.

No, the resolution of supply and demand is by definition equilibrium, to say that the meeting of supply and demand is a perpetual surplus is a contradiction in terms because a surplus is a divergence of supply and demand.Ah, fair enough. Well then, the free market cannot find equilibrium in employment.

This is yet another dodge. A libertarian government cannot by definition be successfully petitioned to grant favours, nor could they grant favours if they wished to.Which is what I said, that the libertarian government would no longer be libertarian if it did so.

It is the interventionist government that can grant favours and mete out punishments because that government has the power to interfere in every operation in a society. It is therefore the interventionist government that invites corruption. Why would anyone waste time trying to corrupt a libertarian government? It is not a case of being unwilling to sell favours, it is a case of being unable to sell favours.

A libertarian government is constrained from doing so, it has no favours to grant, no punishments to mete out, except to those who have initiated force.There is nothing stopping a libertarian government from becoming an interventionist government.

We have seen governments stay quite limited, and within constitutional bounds for centuries at a time.Are these governments libertarian governments?

You do not cross a line of angry people unless you expect to be clobbered, be realistic. They represent an obstruction to freedom of movement by physically obstructing you. It is a threat of force.An assumed threat of force is not the same as an explicit threat of force.

Red herring. You said a union wasn't a cartel because it didn't threaten force. The fact that unions donate to politicial parties in some countries, and make their own political parties in others proves that unions do threaten force.Then by this definition any business that donates to political parties is also a cartel.

It can't, because the free market is unsustainable.

Yet no free market has ever collapsed by itself, and economic collapses are always caused by government interventions. There is no reason for a free market to be unsustainable.

Ah, fair enough. Well then, the free market cannot find equilibrium in employment.

Prove it. You haven't, you are merely stating your unproven ideas in a different form.

There is nothing stopping a libertarian government from becoming an interventionist government.

Yes there is, as I showed above.

Are these governments libertarian governments?

Not relevant. There is nothing special about how a libertarian government works, merely what it does.

An assumed threat of force is not the same as an explicit threat of force.

Since when was a line of angry people blocking a passage not an explicit threat of force. Any reasonable person would take a picket line as a threat of force against anyone who dares to cross.

Then by this definition any business that donates to political parties is also a cartel.

A cartel is a group of producers. A business is a single producer. There is a difference between 1 (one), and many (more than one).

Anyway, this is a red herring. You argued that unions are not cartels because they don't threaten to use force. I disproved that.

In any case, a cartel is defined as "A small group of producers of a good or service who agree to regulate supply in an effort to control or manipulate prices"

http://www.google.com.au/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2006-17,GGLG:en&q=define%3Acartel

No definition of cartel here talks about using force, or addictive drugs. Simply what I said above.

There is no possibility whatsoever of a ( free ) market breaking down as a result of:
-drought.
-flooding.
-earthquakes.
-civil unrest.
-anarchy
-civil war.

correct?

Not necessarily after the immediate emergency. During the immeidate emergency certainly, but this is properly understood as an interruption, and the government tends to experience a "greater" interruption in these times.

The free market is simply private property owners exchanging goods and services. It is difficult to see how any of those events would stop that. Anarchy, civil unrest, and civil war would make it more difficult, and increase the demand for security.

The only one that certainly could break the free market is civil war, and then only if socialists win.

I mean, there is absolutely NO chance that people stop trading because stocks are wiped out and that...
( as you will concede, in that kind of situation, all services stop as well.
With the possible exception of... thingie )

And obviously, people don't stop trading if the moving of goods becomes too risky. Brigandage does not happen, does it?

I didn't say the entire economy would survive intact.

I will put it this way, if any of those situations could break the free market, they would also break other economic systems, all of which are weaker than the free market to begin with.

Governments are not only not good at providing relief, they invariably prevent any private sector attempt at so doing, and in disasters, governments always undermine the free market, leading to inevitable shortages and delays.

Yet no free market has ever collapsed by itself, and economic collapses are always caused by government interventions. There is no reason for a free market to be unsustainable.There is no reason to believe that the government wouldn't intervene in the free market at the behest of the rich.

Prove it. You haven't, you are merely stating your unproven ideas in a different form.Er, no. I've proven it; your counterargument was some claptrap about equilibrium, which of course the labor market can't find.

Yes there is, as I showed above.You showed no such thing; the only good argument you had was that it would no longer be a libertarian government, which I agreed with.

Not relevant. There is nothing special about how a libertarian government works, merely what it does.If the government and constitution of a country are already heavily in favor of the rich, there is no reason for a systematic attack on the system by the rich in the same way that there would be if the government was libertarian and not heavily in favor of the rich.

Since when was a line of angry people blocking a passage not an explicit threat of force. Any reasonable person would take a picket line as a threat of force against anyone who dares to cross.Well, presumably the person trying to cross would have to move the picketers out of the way and in doing so use force on the picketers; the picketers would be justified in self-defense.

A cartel is a group of producers. A business is a single producer. There is a difference between 1 (one), and many (more than one).

Anyway, this is a red herring. You argued that unions are not cartels because they don't threaten to use force. I disproved that.

In any case, a cartel is defined as "A small group of producers of a good or service who agree to regulate supply in an effort to control or manipulate prices"

http://www.google.com.au/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2006-17,GGLG:en&q=define%3Acartel

No definition of cartel here talks about using force, or addictive drugs. Simply what I said above.All right, fair enough about the definition, however this only means that a business that merges with other business becomes a cartel. A labor union is the same - independent laborers merging together to create one big block of labor.

There is no reason to believe that the government wouldn't intervene in the free market at the behest of the rich.

Unless it is prevented from doing so.

Er, no. I've proven it; your counterargument was some claptrap about equilibrium, which of course the labor market can't find.

No, you haven't. You have merely stated that a free market cannot find equilibrium as your proof of your arguing that a free market cannot find equilibrium.

If the government and constitution of a country are already heavily in favor of the rich, there is no reason for a systematic attack on the system by the rich in the same way that there would be if the government was libertarian and not heavily in favor of the rich.

Red herring. The point is that there is nothing strange in how a libertarian government works. It can be limited just as any other government.

Well, presumably the person trying to cross would have to move the picketers out of the way and in doing so use force on the picketers; the picketers would be justified in self-defense.

Rubbish. Assuming the person attempting to cross the line has a legitimate right to go to his destination, obstructing him is an initiation of force. If he forces his way through the line, he is defending himself.

If you have a right to enter a place, any attempt to obstruct you is a threat of force against you.

All right, fair enough about the definition, however this only means that a business that merges with other business becomes a cartel. A labor union is the same - independent laborers merging together to create one big block of labor.

Very good. A union is a cartel. And like all cartels, it aims to increase profits by making things harder for everyone else, and it cannot survive in a free market because its price increasing activities merely invite competitors into the market.

Unless it is prevented from doing so.

How? As you have said, there is nothing particularly special about a libertarian government except what it does. So therefore there is nothing special to prevent it from interfering. Governments, when they want to, have always been willing to flaunt their own rules, and there is bothing to prevent a previously Libertarian from doing so. And a democratic government always will, as people want interference in the market. Almost no one wants a completely free market, so they will freely vote for a arty that will interfere in a way they want. IN fact, without government interference whats the point of a democratic system? What would differentiate parties? What differentiates parties is what they are willing to interfere in, and to what extent.


Red herring. The point is that there is nothing strange in how a libertarian government works. It can be limited just as any other government.

Thats the point... other governments have been able to ignore their own rules, so what makes libertarian ones so special that they wont?


Rubbish. Assuming the person attempting to cross the line has a legitimate right to go to his destination, obstructing him is an initiation of force.

So a line of people just standing there, not threatening anyone, with neutral looks on their faces, and not going to hurt anyone, but putting themselves in a place to obstruct entrance to somewhere is an initiation of force? Strange definition of force.

Now, there have been violent picket lines, and certainly intimidating ones, but many of the ones I have seen were about 4 people standing at a door with a petition calling for people to support their strike and asking people not to cross the picket line... no use of force anywhere there.


If you have a right to enter a place, any attempt to obstruct you is a threat of force against you.

Bollocks.



A union is a carteland it cannot survive in a free market because its price increasing activities merely invite competitors into the market.

And a completly free market cannot, and never will, exist. People want interference, for whatever reason. People dont want it, they want safety nets, they want business to do certain things, they want certain things provided by the state, and business dont want it as it interferes with their attempts to control business. As soon as when emerges, people will step in and try and control, or at least influence it.

So therefore there is nothing special to prevent it from interfering.

Governments have been kept within constitutional bounds.

You're not raising anything new, either in the general debate, or in this thread.

And a democratic government always will, as people want interference in the market.

A libertarian government need not necessarily be democratic.

What differentiates parties is what they are willing to interfere in, and to what extent.

How well they provide security.

So a line of people just standing there, not threatening anyone, with neutral looks on their faces, and not going to hurt anyone, but putting themselves in a place to obstruct entrance to somewhere is an initiation of force? Strange definition of force.

Your neutral picket line is a strawman.

Anyway, they've no right to obstruct the freedom of others to move.

Bollocks.

Have you anything substantial to say? How is a line of people obstructing your freedom of movement anything other than a threat of force, or at least a violation of your rights?

People want interference

Rubbish. They get swindled into believing in it.






It is hard to see why you posted, you've raised nothing new in general, and nothing that Jello Biafra hasn't tried to pull (and failed).

Unless it is prevented from doing so.Which isn't possible to do, unless you limit the ability of people to bribe the government into interference.

No, you haven't. You have merely stated that a free market cannot find equilibrium as your proof of your arguing that a free market cannot find equilibrium.A free market cannot find equilibrium in labor because to do so would mean the end of the free market.

Red herring. The point is that there is nothing strange in how a libertarian government works. It can be limited just as any other government.What's strange about a libertarian government is that it isn't heavily in favor of the rich the way that almost all other governments are. It cannot be limited for this reason.

Rubbish. Assuming the person attempting to cross the line has a legitimate right to go to his destination, obstructing him is an initiation of force. If he forces his way through the line, he is defending himself.

If you have a right to enter a place, any attempt to obstruct you is a threat of force against you.Who said anyone had the right to enter a place?

Very good. A union is a cartel. And like all cartels, it aims to increase profits by making things harder for everyone else, and it cannot survive in a free market because its price increasing activities merely invite competitors into the market.You're still repeating the nonsense about price increasing activities even though you've been disproven, and admitted you were disproven?

Which isn't possible to do, unless you limit the ability of people to bribe the government into interference.

No, in fact the strategy you believe necessary can never work. The only way to prevent the corruption of government is to limit government. If governments are allowed by law to intervne in anything they want, they will always become corrupt. Nothing you can do will prevent that. To paraphrase Jeff Goldblum, corruption will find a way.

A free market cannot find equilibrium in labor because to do so would mean the end of the free market.

Absurd, and contradictory.

What's strange about a libertarian government is that it isn't heavily in favor of the rich the way that almost all other governments are. It cannot be limited for this reason.

A libertarian government by definition favours no one over another.

Who said anyone had the right to enter a place?

Anyone the owner of a property allows on his property may go on to that property. Replacement workers, tradesman, etc.

You're still repeating the nonsense about price increasing activities even though you've been disproven, and admitted you were disproven?

I've not been disproven, or even seriously disputed. Unions admit they are in business to make labour more expensive, they brag about it, it is their history!

Now, a company forced to deal with a union must raise shelf prices, or lose its profits (which will drive capital out of the company, eventually forcing it to the wall).

No, in fact the strategy you believe necessary can never work. The only way to prevent the corruption of government is to limit government. If governments are allowed by law to intervne in anything they want, they will always become corrupt. Nothing you can do will prevent that. To paraphrase Jeff Goldblum, corruption will find a way.Governments can't not be limited to interfere in anything they want; if the law doesn't let them, they will change the law, or ignore it.

Absurd, and contradictory.You haven't posited a way for the free market to find equilibrium in labor.

A libertarian government by definition favours no one over another.The free market in practice favors the rich over the poor; a (right-wing) libertarian government favors the free market.

I've not been disproven, or even seriously disputed. Unions admit they are in business to make labour more expensive, they brag about it, it is their history!

Now, a company forced to deal with a union must raise shelf prices, or lose its profits (which will drive capital out of the company, eventually forcing it to the wall).There's no reason to believe that a company making some profit will eventually be forced "to the wall" (and don't think I didn't notice your bit about "losing its profits", you never admitted that was a possibility before); furthermore I'm not sure what you mean by "forced to deal with", since a properly run union does not force a company to deal with it, it is simply the best option for the company to do so.

Governments can't not be limited to interfere in anything they want; if the law doesn't let them, they will change the law, or ignore it.

Yes they can, and have been.

You haven't posited a way for the free market to find equilibrium in labor.

Yes, I have. The same way the free market finds equilibrium in everything else.

The free market in practice favors the rich over the poor; a (right-wing) libertarian government favors the free market.

No it doesn't, and no it doesn't. It favours the individual.

There's no reason to believe that a company making some profit will eventually be forced "to the wall" (and don't think I didn't notice your bit about "losing its profits", you never admitted that was a possibility before);

Yes I have admitted it, I however pointed out that the rational course for such a company is to increase its prices to account for the increase. Of course there is a reason to believe it will go bust. Firstly, margins are tight, secondly, if a company becomes less profitable, its share prices go down

The point is that the risk is entirely unnecessary.

it is simply the best option for the company to do so.

It is the best for a company to increase its costs of business?

Nonsense.

Yes they can, and have been.A government cannot withstand a large group of people telling it to do something else. The only governments that have been able to do so for long periods of time are ones that haven't had large groups of people telling them to do something else.

Yes, I have. The same way the free market finds equilibrium in everything else.That method doesn't apply here; the free market finds equilibrium in other things because the suppliers have the option of lowering their production to compensate for a reduced demand for their products. The vast majority of laborers don't have the option of lowering their supply of labor.

No it doesn't, and no it doesn't. It favours the individual.The rich individual. Libertarianism does not favor the poor.

Yes I have admitted it, I however pointed out that the rational course for such a company is to increase its prices to account for the increase. Of course there is a reason to believe it will go bust. Firstly, margins are tight, secondly, if a company becomes less profitable, its share prices go down

The point is that the risk is entirely unnecessary.Not all companies are traded on the stock market, so share prices aren't something that they have to worry about.

It is the best for a company to increase its costs of business?

Nonsense.Once a company has unionized the company will by definition have its costs of business increased or lose a lot of money, either by:

1) Hiring scab labor to replace the union jobs; this takes time and could cost the company a lot of money in lost sales.
2) Negotiating with the union.
3) Moving its factory overseas. This is time consuming and also costs money.

Therefore, it is in the best interest of the company to do whatever will cost it the least amount of money, in some cases it will be option #2.

A government cannot withstand a large group of people telling it to do something else. The only governments that have been able to do so for long periods of time are ones that haven't had large groups of people telling them to do something else.

Rubbish. In any case, you assuming the government can do something.

That method doesn't apply here; the free market finds equilibrium in other things because the suppliers have the option of lowering their production to compensate for a reduced demand for their products. The vast majority of laborers don't have the option of lowering their supply of labor.

In point of fact, they do by relocating, either within a country, or abroad.

The rich individual. Libertarianism does not favor the poor.

Yes it does. It doesn't patronise them as social democrats do, however it is the only way that provides real prosperity and security.

Not all companies are traded on the stock market, so share prices aren't something that they have to worry about.

Companies too small to be traded on the stock market are even more trouble, because their margins are even lower. Nevertheless, the same basic concept still applies, they must make enough profit to keep the owner/s.

Once a company has unionized the company will by definition have its costs of business increased or lose a lot of money, either by:

Why would a company want to unionise?

As usual, you make end runs around having to prove your arguments.

1) Hiring scab labor to replace the union jobs; this takes time and could cost the company a lot of money in lost sales.

Doubtful, and this only could work to a point.

You're assuming that the skills in the jobs are so scarce as to make transition a real issue. It takes real ignorance to take that perspective without recognising that such people, with their skills being scarce, need not unionise, the scarcity of their type of labour keeps the price high.

Besides, it pays off in the end.

By the way, the term "scab" is slanderous. They have as much right to enter into contracts as unionised workers, and they do it without joining an organisation dedicated to profitting at the expense of everyone else.

2) Negotiating with the union.

Again, assumes a company will be irrational enough to unionise, and the union will act in a reasonable manner.

3) Moving its factory overseas. This is time consuming and also costs money.

But it pays off in the end. It also assumes that the company is idiotic enough to unionise in the first place. Why would they?

Needless to say that negotiation with a union also has bad effects on the consumer because he has to pay more, and society as a whole because the money that could have gone into any number of productive ventures is spent appeasing strikers. It also doesn't benefit the unions because the price increase will hit them too.

Rubbish. In any case, you assuming the government can do something.Of course the government can do something, and if not, then they can change the law to make it to that they can do something.

In point of fact, they do by relocating, either within a country, or abroad.Except of course that that would only work for an individual laborer and not laborers as a whole; they can't all relocate because then there will be too many of them in the new locale.

Yes it does. It doesn't patronise them as social democrats do, however it is the only way that provides real prosperity and security.Libertarianism doesn't provide prosperity and security for the poor.

Companies too small to be traded on the stock market are even more trouble, because their margins are even lower. Nevertheless, the same basic concept still applies, they must make enough profit to keep the owner/s.But nonetheless it is still possible to raise worker wages out of profits, even if it's only a small amount.

Why would a company want to unionise?

As usual, you make end runs around having to prove your arguments.When people talk about a company unionizing, they mean that the workers unionize and the company recognizes them as a union. The company would want to recognize them as a union because it can't negotiate with all of the workers effectively if it doesn't do so. The workers would want to unionize because it will make them more money.

Doubtful, and this only could work to a point.

You're assuming that the skills in the jobs are so scarce as to make transition a real issue. It takes real ignorance to take that perspective without recognising that such people, with their skills being scarce, need not unionise, the scarcity of their type of labour keeps the price high.No, I'm assuming that the company will have enough workers that replacing them all at once with qualified employees will be costly and time-consuming.

By the way, the term "scab" is slanderous. It's the correct term to use.

They have as much right to enter into contracts as unionised workers, and they do it without joining an organisation dedicated to profitting at the expense of everyone else.They do it by working for organizations dedicated to profiting at the expense of everyone else.

Again, assumes a company will be irrational enough to unionise, and the union will act in a reasonable manner.You assume that the workers would be irrational enough not to unionize, and that the union wouldn't act in a reasonable manner.

Needless to say that negotiation with a union also has bad effects on the consumer because he has to pay more, and society as a whole because the money that could have gone into any number of productive ventures is spent appeasing strikers. It also doesn't benefit the unions because the price increase will hit them too.The money spent appeasing strikers would also go into productive ventures after those strikers spend or invest the money that they receive. If the price increase hits the strikers, then the company makes some or all of its money back, then, don't they?

Of course the government can do something, and if not, then they can change the law to make it to that they can do something.

Except that governments have been limited by the law. It is quite simple, in principle, and has worked in practice.

Except of course that that would only work for an individual laborer and not laborers as a whole; they can't all relocate because then there will be too many of them in the new locale.

Not the point. There is no rationale for an entire labour force relocating, only parts of it according to where the prices are highest.

Libertarianism doesn't provide prosperity and security for the poor.

It provides them the chance to do it for themselves.

But nonetheless it is still possible to raise worker wages out of profits, even if it's only a small amount.

It is not a sustainable strategy, nor is it rational.

No, I'm assuming that the company will have enough workers that replacing them all at once with qualified employees will be costly and time-consuming.

Without taking into account the different skills, and the relative scarcities of those skills, your "example" is, like all the others you have posed, useless. Some people are easier to replace than others. The more difficult one is to replace the less likelyhood there is of getting an undesirable deal.

Low supply/high demand=higher prices.

High supply/low demand=lower prices.

The company would want to recognize them as a union because it can't negotiate with all of the workers effectively if it doesn't do so.

Nonsense. They can, do, and have. Private sector union membership is less than 10% these days. I think they've solved the problem.

They do not need to negotiate with all the workers, and don't do so.

It's the correct term to use.

Which is like saying "******" is the correct term for an African. It is not the correct term. They are workers.

They do it by working for organizations dedicated to profiting at the expense of everyone else.

Rubbish. Only a socialist could make such an ignorant statement.

You assume that the workers would be irrational enough not to unionize, and that the union wouldn't act in a reasonable manner.

I've shown there is no rationale for unionising, and unions have have tended towards unreasonable behavior.

The money spent appeasing strikers would also go into productive ventures after those strikers spend or invest the money that they receive.

No, the price increase takes it up. More money chasing the same amount of goods.

If the price increase hits the strikers, then the company makes some or all of its money back, then, don't they?

More money chasing the same amount of goods.

Except that governments have been limited by the law. It is quite simple, in principle, and has worked in practice.Except that the vast majority of governments have not been limited by the law. I don't see why a libertarian government would be the exception to this rather than the rule.

Not the point. There is no rationale for an entire labour force relocating, only parts of it according to where the prices are highest.But nonetheless it will be necessary for people to relocate. I see no reason to believe that there will be a point at which people have to stop relocating. Typically when people relocate, it is to search for a job, and not because they already have one and are relocating to work in it. Therefore, the majority of people relocating will be unemployed, and there will be people always relocating, which means that there will be unemployment, which means that capitalism requires unemployment.

It provides them the chance to do it for themselves.It provides them the theoretical chance to do it for themselves, but not the actual chance to do it for themselves.

It is not a sustainable strategy, nor is it rational.It would work once or twice; anyway, unions organize for reasons other than wage increases.

Without taking into account the different skills, and the relative scarcities of those skills, your "example" is, like all the others you have posed, useless. Some people are easier to replace than others. The more difficult one is to replace the less likelyhood there is of getting an undesirable deal.

Low supply/high demand=higher prices.

High supply/low demand=lower prices.But nonetheless, it will be time consuming to replace a workforce of, say, 100 people even at the lowest skill rate...and in a real world situation, not all 100 of those people will be at the lower skill rate, thus meaning it's even more time consuming.

Nonsense. They can, do, and have. Private sector union membership is less than 10% these days. I think they've solved the problem.

They do not need to negotiate with all the workers, and don't do so.Yes, and with the decrease in union workers, we are also seeing inflation rise higher than wages are.

Which is like saying "******" is the correct term for an African. It is not the correct term. They are workers.I agree, "******" is not the correct term for an African, but "scab" is the correct term for a worker who crosses a picket line.

Rubbish. Only a socialist could make such an ignorant statement.Only a capitalist would believe the facts aren't the facts.

I've shown there is no rationale for unionising, and unions have have tended towards unreasonable behavior.No, you've asserted that there is no rationale for unionizing in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

No, the price increase takes it up. More money chasing the same amount of goods.

More money chasing the same amount of goods.In which case, in this instance it might not be in the union's interest to ask for higher wages, not that it is always against the union's interest to ask for higher wages.