Kane's being exploited

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Because of my legal status as an independent contractor, as opposed to a company employee, I am often asked if I feel that it is fair that I do not receive employer-provided benefits like health insurance and a retirement program. Why is it that I should be responsible for securing those services myself and not my employer? Gasp, don’t I feel as if I’m being exploited?!

Isn’t it ironic that even after history has proven his theories wrong, dangerous, and potentially suicidal, Karl Marx still influences so much of contemporary economic thought?

Help, Help, I’m Being Exploited!! by Glenn Jacobs

 

[loosecannon]

Isn’t it ironic that even after history has proven his theories wrong, dangerous, and potentially suicidal, Karl Marx still influences so much of contemporary economic thought?

Even the Federal Reserve's own web site still lists him among the great economic contributors of all time:

Introduction

And his econ theories still prove themselves relevant today, as in his prediction that mechanization would dilute the value of labor and even goods to the point of driving boom and bust cycles.

Does that sound familiar?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Isn’t it ironic that even after history has proven his theories wrong, dangerous, and potentially suicidal, Karl Marx still influences so much of contemporary economic thought?

Even the Federal Reserve's own web site still lists him among the great economic contributors of all time:

Introduction

And his econ theories still prove themselves relevant today, as in his prediction that mechanization would dilute the value of labor and even goods to the point of driving boom and bust cycles.

Does that sound familiar?

Except that he was wrong. Mechanization doesn't "dilute" the value of labor, it frees labor up to do other things. As for driving the boom and bust cycle, well you linked to the institution responsible for the boom and bust cycle: The Federal Reserve.

 

[loosecannon]

Except that he was wrong.

history proved him right.

Mechanization doesn't "dilute" the value of labor, it frees labor up to do other things.

Like enjoying unemployment and poverty.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Except that he was wrong.

history proved him right.

Mechanization doesn't "dilute" the value of labor, it frees labor up to do other things.

Like enjoying unemployment and poverty.

If we suddenly developed a drug that, taken once, cured us forever of all illnesses this would be horrible for the economy, because all doctors would now be out of work. That is, if we follow Marx's idea to its logical conclusion. In reality, this would be wonderful.

 

[loosecannon]

wrong. Marx didn't lament the power of mechanization. He simply and accurately predicted a century in advance of our time that it would lead to the disempowerment of labor, the declining value of goods produced, declining profits of capitalists and inevitable boom and bust cycles.

He was a prophet. And nearly everybody in the know recognizes it, despite their harsh disdain for his political ideas.

 

[Oddball]

Mechanization doesn't "dilute" the value of labor, it frees labor up to do other things.

Like enjoying unemployment and poverty.

No...Like designing, building and maintaining more machines, you bitter, dour little twit.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

wrong. Marx didn't lament the power of mechanization. He simply and accurately predicted a century in advance of our time that it would lead to the disempowerment of labor, the declining value of goods produced, declining profits of capitalists and inevitable boom and bust cycles.

He was a prophet. And nearly everybody in the know recognizes it, despite their harsh disdain for his political ideas.

What is the "disempowerment" of labor?

Value is subjective, which is another area where Marx was wrong with his labor-theory of value, so how is the value of goods declining?

Declining profits? Where?

Again, the boom and bust cycle is brought about by the manipulation of credit by governments and central banks.

 

[loosecannon]

What is the "disempowerment" of labor?

Labor has no more bargaining power. It is fungible, can be replaced for cheap overseas.

Value is subjective, which is another area where Marx was wrong with his labor-theory of value, so how is the value of goods declining?

cell phones and personal computers, even autos cost a fraction of what they did in decades past in inflation adjusted dollars. Duh.

Declining profits? Where?

manufacturing is practically devoid of profits anymore. All the profits are in distribution and sales.

Again, the boom and bust cycle is brought about by the manipulation of credit by governments and central banks.

that's a theory.

 

[loosecannon]

Mechanization doesn't "dilute" the value of labor, it frees labor up to do other things.

Like enjoying unemployment and poverty.

No...Like designing, building and maintaining more machines, you bitter, dour little twit.

which employs a small number and unemploys billions more you dour, bitter little asshat.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What is the "disempowerment" of labor?

Labor has no more bargaining power. It is fungible, can be replaced for cheap overseas.

Value is subjective, which is another area where Marx was wrong with his labor-theory of value, so how is the value of goods declining?

cell phones and personal computers, even autos cost a fraction of what they did in decades past in inflation adjusted dollars. Duh.

Declining profits? Where?

manufacturing is practically devoid of profits anymore. All the profits are in distribution and sales.

Again, the boom and bust cycle is brought about by the manipulation of credit by governments and central banks.

that's a theory.

You mean labor unions are becoming increasingly irrelevant, not that labor itself is becoming irrelevant.

The market, when left to its own devices, leads to lower prices. That doesn't mean that these items are less valuable. Cell phones and computers are among the most valued items out there, that's why there's such a vibrant and competitive market for them.

And yet profits as a whole?

As is yours and Marx's.

 

[Oddball]

Like enjoying unemployment and poverty.

No...Like designing, building and maintaining more machines, you bitter, dour little twit.

which employs a small number and unemploys billions more you dour, bitter little asshat.

That was the argument of the Luddites....They were wrong and so are you.

BTW, the more technologically advanced societies trend toward lower birth rates, thereby further benefiting from even more mechanization.

Fool.

 

[Ravi]

Because of my legal status as an independent contractor, as opposed to a company employee, I am often asked if I feel that it is fair that I do not receive employer-provided benefits like health insurance and a retirement program. Why is it that I should be responsible for securing those services myself and not my employer? Gasp, don’t I feel as if I’m being exploited?!

Isn’t it ironic that even after history has proven his theories wrong, dangerous, and potentially suicidal, Karl Marx still influences so much of contemporary economic thought?

Help, Help, I’m Being Exploited!! by Glenn Jacobs

The Senate passed a bill this week that will allow self employed people to write of their health care insurance.



And he is welcome to have his own retirement fund...

 

[loosecannon]

You mean labor unions are becoming increasingly irrelevant, not that labor itself is becoming irrelevant.

NO! I mean labor is increasingly incapable of wielding any bargaining power whatsoever. What were once middle class American jobs with bennies are increasingly becoming sweat shop jobs in Asia.

And profits as a whole have shifted from manufacturing toward distribution and retail.

 

[loosecannon]

No...Like designing, building and maintaining more machines, you bitter, dour little twit.

which employs a small number and unemploys billions more you dour, bitter little asshat.

That was the argument of the Luddites....They were wrong and so are you.

BTW, the more technologically advanced societies trend toward lower birth rates, thereby further benefiting from even more mechanization.

Fool.

speaking of fools^^^^^, the the more technologically advanced societies are the ones dependent on a growing workforce to finance their entitlements and debts! While their middle classes are becoming extinct!

 

[loosecannon]

That was the argument of the Luddites....They were wrong and so are you.

.

The Luddites were 100% correct and the lowest tier in sweat shop labor today is in textiles.

I mean, what could they have possibly said that would have proven more true?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You mean labor unions are becoming increasingly irrelevant, not that labor itself is becoming irrelevant.

NO! I mean labor is increasingly incapable of wielding any bargaining power whatsoever. What were once middle class American jobs with bennies are increasingly becoming sweat shop jobs in Asia.

And profits as a whole have shifted from manufacturing toward distribution and retail.

Jobs moving overseas can be traced back to government policies. If the government makes it unproductive to manufacture in the U.S. then of course companies are going to move somewhere more business friendly. Marx, however, would have us believe it's class warfare or some such nonsense.

 

[loosecannon]

You mean labor unions are becoming increasingly irrelevant, not that labor itself is becoming irrelevant.

NO! I mean labor is increasingly incapable of wielding any bargaining power whatsoever. What were once middle class American jobs with bennies are increasingly becoming sweat shop jobs in Asia.

And profits as a whole have shifted from manufacturing toward distribution and retail.

Jobs moving overseas can be traced back to government policies. If the government makes it unproductive to manufacture in the U.S. then of course companies are going to move somewhere more business friendly. Marx, however, would have us believe it's class warfare or some such nonsense.

No, dummy, I linked it for you!

Marx would have us believe it was a natural outgrowth of mechanization. Which IS the chief cause of labor's decline, not government policy.

Besides productivity here has been quite high:

" If the government makes it unproductive to manufacture in the U.S. then of cou...."

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

NO! I mean labor is increasingly incapable of wielding any bargaining power whatsoever. What were once middle class American jobs with bennies are increasingly becoming sweat shop jobs in Asia.

And profits as a whole have shifted from manufacturing toward distribution and retail.

Jobs moving overseas can be traced back to government policies. If the government makes it unproductive to manufacture in the U.S. then of course companies are going to move somewhere more business friendly. Marx, however, would have us believe it's class warfare or some such nonsense.

No, dummy, I linked it for you!

Marx would have us believe it was a natural outgrowth of mechanization. Which IS the chief cause of labor's decline, not government policy.

Besides productivity here has been quite high:

" If the government makes it unproductive to manufacture in the U.S. then of cou...."

Yes, and Marx was, of course, wrong. Mechanization is a positive thing.

I wasn't referring to productivity, but as to whether it is productive to own a business in the U.S. with all of the regulations.

 

[Oddball]

That was the argument of the Luddites....They were wrong and so are you.

.

The Luddites were 100% correct and the lowest tier in sweat shop labor today is in textiles.

I mean, what could they have possibly said that would have proven more true?

No, they weren't right at all.

Mechanization has improved the lives of people --even textile workers-- as it has increased their general level of wealth through higher productivity. Moreover, it created specialized --meaning higher paying-- work in the fields of designing, manufacturing, installing and maintaining machines.

But technophobes like you are still free to go live with the Amish, if you like.