Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

"Productivity" is defined as getting the most work done with the least labor. Therefore, the individual worker does not have value. S/he is something they want to get out the door as fast as possible, so they can do more with fewer people and get their 'productivity' numbers up. A loss sink, a liability.

And besides, they can always reach into the cage and pull out another rat, or mouse, depending on what level of employee they;re looking for. They have a huge surplus, after all.

This does not, you note, apply to the executive class, each and every member of which is so infinitely valuable they have to offered huge bribes to stay with you and not go to your competitor. Or the unemployment office. Unless, of course, they are over a certain age and get fired.

Aka what Rod Serling forsaw in the Twilight Zone Episode: The Brain Center at Whipple's; although not necessarially in the same manner...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LGSjTKGmrY

~Chas'88

The entirety of the reasoning behind that quote about productivity to begin with is false. It presupposes that employers pay workers what they can. The reality is that employers pay workers what they must. If U.S. workers were ten times more productive than those in third-world countries, and if employers could get away with paying them less than ten times more, they would.

One can also reverse the logic. If workers in foreign countries are paid ten times less than Americans, the only justification for this is that they are ten times less productive. But of course, no such justification has anything to do with why they are paid so much less. Employers pay them so much less because they can. That's all there is to it.

Originally Posted by Rose1992

I think it depends on who you're talking about. I've never seen the Tea Party as a monolith but as a loose coalition of paleoconservatives, libertarians, and fundamentalists held together by a disdain for New Deal social engineering. Out of those groups, libertarians are the only people that seem to romanticize the pre-Progressive era but I would hesitate to say that this means they're for greater inequality.

Not a bad description of the Tea Party as a coalition of groups that agree that the size and scope of government should be reduced even though the philosophical basis behind this view may differ between the various groups. Libertarians do not particularly romanticize the nineteenth century but there is an understanding that individuals did have more freedom.

Libertarians recognize that there will always be inequality and attempts to eliminate it by the use of government are futile at best. What tends to happen is that politically connected industries and companies tend to profit from such efforts at the expense of everyone else. I suggest that you read Hamilton's Curse to understand how this process works.

You might want to look at where funding for the Progressive party of the early twentieth century came from. The answer will be quite a surprise for you when you discover it. It may seem counter-intuitive but businesses, particularly big business, do not want to operate in a free market. Indeed they seek to use government to prevent competition.

Originally Posted by Galen

Libertarians do not particularly romanticize the nineteenth century but there is an understanding that individuals did have more freedom.

That depends on which individuals we're talking about.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

That depends on which individuals we're talking about.

There was a vast difference between the owner of a meat packing plant & one of its Lithuanian Immigrant workers.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

There was a vast difference between the owner of a meat packing plant & one of its Lithuanian Immigrant workers.

~Chas'88

This is what I find interesting about many of those who follow the Libertarian, Ayn Randist viewpoint: that they somehow think they would not be considered one of the parasitic drones by the Taggerts and Galts. What most of us figure out at some point in our maturity is that we're just not that special. Or speshul, as a friend spells it. We are much more likely to be the meat packing plant workers than the Masters of the Universe. In my world, being a meat-packing plant worker does not mean you or I are less valuable, it means we have less money and access to power. We are, however, of less value to the owners of the company or the Masters of the Universe. Or our "value" is related only to how much money we make them.

Originally Posted by annla899

This is what I find interesting about many of those who follow the Libertarian, Ayn Randist viewpoint: that they somehow think they would not be considered one of the parasitic drones by the Taggerts and Galts. What most of us figure out at some point in our maturity is that we're just not that special. Or speshul, as a friend spells it. We are much more likely to be the meat packing plant workers than the Masters of the Universe. In my world, being a meat-packing plant worker does not mean you or I are less valuable, it means we have less money and access to power. We are, however, of less value to the owners of the company or the Masters of the Universe. Or our "value" is related only to how much money we make them.

Very true, hence my point. Hopefully you got the reason for the wink at the end.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

"Productivity" is defined as getting the most work done with the least labor. Therefore, the individual worker does not have value. S/he is something they want to get out the door as fast as possible, so they can do more with fewer people and get their 'productivity' numbers up. A loss sink, a liability.

And besides, they can always reach into the cage and pull out another rat, or mouse, depending on what level of employee they;re looking for. They have a huge surplus, after all.

This does not, you note, apply to the executive class, each and every member of which is so infinitely valuable they have to offered huge bribes to stay with you and not go to your competitor. Or the unemployment office. Unless, of course, they are over a certain age and get fired.

I agree 75%. This does not apply to the top executive class, no; but in addition to shedding as many workers as possible, American corporations in the last 20 years have shed many thousands of mid-level white collar folk, and for the same reason--to enhance productivity.

On a related note; as a grad student, studying Marx, Tocqueville and others, it occurred to me that economic and social changes seem to get the most attention when they are just beginning and their novelty is apparent. By the time they have actually transformed society, every one is used to them. In the 1960s there was a lot of talk about the effects of "automation," but those effects were as yet quite limited. Yet now, here's a partial list of semi-skilled or unskilled jobs that no longer exist, or are certainly endangered species:

Gas station attendants; elevator operators; bank tellers (a fraction of what they used to be); switchboard operators. The retail sales force is also getting smaller every day.

Originally Posted by annla899

This is what I find interesting about many of those who follow the Libertarian, Ayn Randist viewpoint: that they somehow think they would not be considered one of the parasitic drones by the Taggerts and Galts. What most of us figure out at some point in our maturity is that we're just not that special. Or speshul, as a friend spells it. We are much more likely to be the meat packing plant workers than the Masters of the Universe. In my world, being a meat-packing plant worker does not mean you or I are less valuable, it means we have less money and access to power. We are, however, of less value to the owners of the company or the Masters of the Universe. Or our "value" is related only to how much money we make them.

Exactly. In my experience many of these Libertarian types have a touch of Narcissism about them, they have an air of "I'm so awesome and special, why doesn't anyone appreciate me". Randianism lets them rationalize their narcissism.

Originally Posted by Odin

Exactly. In my experience many of these Libertarian types have a touch of Narcissism about them, they have an air of "I'm so awesome and special, why doesn't anyone appreciate me". Randianism lets them rationalize their narcissism.

It appears that narcissisim is in the air these days. The arrogance of the Republican presidential hopefuls have a goal of distroying most anything that serves the common good. The following article stresses, not only their goal to rip away many safety nets from under the people, but also the danger of Obama attempting to compromise with this type of corporate mentality.

"Republican presidential hopefuls on Monday pressed for the dismantling of government regulations drawn up over 40 years, using a candidates’ debate here to call for the scaling back or elimination of environmental, labor, financial and health-care rules.”

The stakes in the next election couldn’t be more important, and the danger for Obama and the country is that he might continue his practice of compromising instead of courageously challenging entrenched corporate power. If the choice is between him and any one of the Seven Dwarfs, it will be no contest as to who is the lesser evil. If Mitt Romney, the current front-runner by a wide margin for the GOP nomination, represents the best chance the Republicans have of putting up a sensible leader, Obama will be under no stress to improve his performance. Romney won’t even defend the very minor health care reforms that the Republicans deride as “Obamacare,” even though those reforms are based on a state program Romney championed when he was governor of Massachusetts.

The only candidate who has had the temerity to concede that the Republican vision of health care is “right-wing social engineering” was Newt Gingrich, and he has been backing away from that assertion ever since he made it in May. At Monday’s debate, Gingrich felt the need to balance that earlier bit of reason with an absurd call for abolishing the National Labor Relations Board, as if it is the unbridled power of trade unions rather the mammoth corporations that is responsible for the downsizing and outsourcing of once well-paid American jobs.

The smug arrogance of these Republican candidates, preening with their concern for the masses of Americans oppressed by the chains of Social Security, minimal rights to health care, and environmental protection, leaves Obama as the only serious adult in the room. These folks even want to reverse the Sarbanes-Oxley law, designed to prevent the accounting fraud associated with the collapses of Enron and WorldCom that cost so many their jobs and savings.

With the president facing opponents such as these, the danger is that our national politics will once again be traumatized by a lesser-evilism, in which Obama will be given a free ride relieved of the pressure to perform better in dealing with an economy that is in deep trouble. It would be all too easy for him to make the case that he inherited rather than created the economic debacle, and that his palliatives, including the stimulus and mild regulation, may have not solved the problem but it would be a lot worse if the do-nothingness—that traditional bane of the GOP—had been the order of the day

More: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/...arfs_20110615/

The musical theme of the last 3Ting:

Pet Shop Boys - Opportunities - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=di60NYGu03Y

Some of the pertinent lyrics IMO:

I've got the brains, you've got the looks
Let's make lots of money

...

Oh, there's a lot of opportunities
If you know when to take them, you know?
There's a lot of opportunities
If there aren't, you can make them
Make or break them

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I agree 75%. This does not apply to the top executive class, no; but in addition to shedding as many workers as possible, American corporations in the last 20 years have shed many thousands of mid-level white collar folk, and for the same reason--to enhance productivity.

Increasing productivity is not an option. It is a necessity. We are in the fight of our lives with the rest of the world's economies. They are not going to let us coast into the future.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

Increasing productivity is not an option. It is a necessity. We are in the fight of our lives with the rest of the world's economies. They are not going to us coast into the future.

James50

I can't agree with this, since "the fight of our lives" is a contrived contest at best. We are already the most productive economy on earth, but we carry the dual burdens of being the world's cop and having an over-valued currency. Europe isn't under these constraints, and is doing well ... especially the core nations. Slash and burn is a social and political decision, not an economic one.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I can't agree with this, since "the fight of our lives" is a contrived contest at best. We are already the most productive economy on earth, but we carry the dual burdens of being the world's cop and having an over-valued currency. Europe isn't under these constraints, and is doing well ... especially the core nations. Slash and burn is a social and political decision, not an economic one.

What is contrived? Consumers will buy the cheapest thing they can find at whatever quality level they wish to operate at. And what is "slash and burn"? I call it build and sell. The world owes us nothing.

James50

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

On a related note; as a grad student, studying Marx, Tocqueville and others, it occurred to me that economic and social changes seem to get the most attention when they are just beginning and their novelty is apparent. By the time they have actually transformed society, every one is used to them. In the 1960s there was a lot of talk about the effects of "automation," but those effects were as yet quite limited. Yet now, here's a partial list of semi-skilled or unskilled jobs that no longer exist, or are certainly endangered species:

Gas station attendants; elevator operators; bank tellers (a fraction of what they used to be); switchboard operators. The retail sales force is also getting smaller every day.

Yep. And it's nowhere near finished, either. Computer technology continues to progress and to replace service jobs. Even most lawyers are replaceable, the only exceptions being the ones that actually put on performances in court. We're only in the shallows of this sea still. But here's the nub. If most jobs are eliminated, who will buy the products that are being produced so efficiently? Will the owner class accept a permanent depression and a population on miserly public support, in order to maintain their privileges? Will the people stand for that?

I've started a novella series about that very idea. In it, I introduced a science-fiction plot device: automated soldiers and police. Absent something like that, this development is asking for revolution.

Originally Posted by James50

Increasing productivity is not an option. It is a necessity. We are in the fight of our lives with the rest of the world's economies. They are not going to let us coast into the future.

We have set things up that way, James. The free-trade agreements we have with foreign countries, the one-sided behavior of our government that encourages trade gaps, the incentives in the tax code for outsourcing, these are the reasons things are the way they are. Changed government policies would mean changed circumstances for businesses like yours and for American workers alike -- at the expense of those at the top now gaming the system.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

We have set things up that way, James. The free-trade agreements we have with foreign countries, the one-sided behavior of our government that encourages trade gaps, the incentives in the tax code for outsourcing, these are the reasons things are the way they are. Changed government policies would mean changed circumstances for businesses like yours and for American workers alike -- at the expense of those at the top now gaming the system.

Protected economies always end up poorer. Its just the way of things. Our problems cannot be solved just by changing laws. We must build, innovate, and compete. Your remedies might create some short term boost, but in the end, would fail. And in the meantime, you will create another class of supplicants to government asking for protection. Haven't we got enough of that already?

James50

Originally Posted by James50

Protected economies always end up poorer.

The foreign countries you're talking about HAVE protected economies. They are using many of the policies we are eschewing. You need to take a closer look at what's actually happening and not be misled by the rhetoric.

Originally Posted by Odin

Exactly. In my experience many of these Libertarian types have a touch of Narcissism about them, they have an air of "I'm so awesome and special, why doesn't anyone appreciate me". Randianism lets them rationalize their narcissism.

This may come as a surprise to you but I have never been a a big fan of Ayn Rand, she was rather bitter after her own personal experience with Communism. I like Murray Rothbard, Harry Brown and Ron Paul much better. It is the Objectivists that worship at the alter of Ayn Rand but since they share the goal of of reducing the size and scope of government the Libertarians to don't object to their presence. The majority of Libertarians are not Objectivists and you would do well to remember this.

Well, it seems to me that the difference between the Objectivists and the libertarians is that libertarians are romantic idealists who sincerely believe that reducing government will increase liberty except for the rich and powerful, while Objectivists know very well it won't but since the rich and powerful are the only ones they care about, that's fine with them. This makes me like libertarians better personally, on the average, but doesn't make their ideas any better.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Well, it seems to me that the difference between the Objectivists and the libertarians is that libertarians are romantic idealists who sincerely believe that reducing government will increase liberty except for the rich and powerful, while Objectivists know very well it won't but since the rich and powerful are the only ones they care about, that's fine with them. This makes me like libertarians better personally, on the average, but doesn't make their ideas any better.

It is easy to build an effigy based on negative stereotypes. It just doesn't negate the value/utility of an opinion.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The foreign countries you're talking about HAVE protected economies. They are using many of the policies we are eschewing. You need to take a closer look at what's actually happening and not be misled by the rhetoric.

But its all temporary. eg when Brazil protects its economy as heavily as it does, its as if the Brazilian government has decided to make their people poor.

James50

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

It is easy to build an effigy based on negative stereotypes. It just doesn't negate the value/utility of an opinion.

Let me express things more clearly, then.

The fallacy of libertarianism is to suppose that government is the enemy of liberty. Not that government can be the enemy of liberty (that much is obviously true), but that it always and necessarily is. And yet even libertarians acknowledge that certain functions of government are necessary to protect essential liberties -- the point where government grows beyond this is arbitrarily set, creating a contradiction within the belief-system. Among political minarchists, only anarchists avoid this contradiction.

Liberty is defined by libertarians as the absence of government. In reality and in common-sense, liberty is the absence of a boss, or, failing that, the ability to effectively assert one's rights against the boss. Who the boss is doesn't matter. To the extent that it is government (that is, to the extent that government potentially impinges my own freedom of action), liberty is my ability to effectively assert my rights and restrain the state from impacting me negatively. To the extent that it is something other than the government, liberty is my ability to effectively assert my rights and restrain that non-governmental entity from impacting me negatively -- and one of the better tools for doing this is government. To eliminate those tools -- to get the government off the case of those who would be my boss -- does not increase my liberty. It increases only the liberty of those who would be my boss to boss me. Why should I approve?

The fact that libertarians actually seem to believe what they say, no matter how nonsensical it is, is why I call them romantic idealists.

Originally Posted by James50

But its all temporary. eg when Brazil protects its economy as heavily as it does, its as if the Brazilian government has decided to make their people poor.

What makes you think that's temporary? Making their people poor is part of how they attract foreign investment.

James, in reality what you said is not correct. You are thinking in blocks, thinking without nuance, thinking crudely. In your thinking, an economy is either absolutely free-trade or ham-handedly protectionist. There are many options other than these. We could, for example:

1) Close the loopholes in the tax code that encourage outsourcing -- perhaps replacing them with deterrents.
2) Regard free trade as a privilege, and set up free trade agreements only with other advanced economies with well-paid labor forces, e.g. Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia, etc. As developing countries succeed in industrializing, we can add them to the free trade corpus.
3) Impose tariffs based on the relative incomes of workers in foreign countries.

But what we cannot do is go on as we are. The more the American middle class is hollowed out, the more the economy will remain depressed, and the more restive the people will become. At the end of the last Crisis, we achieved a tacit social compact that left capitalism in place in exchange for opportunities for most people -- not just a privileged few -- to have a decent share in the wealth produced by it. The owner class' end of the agreement is being broken. If that is not reversed, there is no particular reason any more for the people to keep their end of the deal. If we go on this way, we risk revolution. Is that what you want?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

You are thinking in blocks, thinking without nuance, thinking crudely. In your thinking, an economy is either absolutely free-trade or ham-handedly protectionist. There are many options other than these.

You are right. I sound more absolutist than I really feel. While there are some things that are protectionist that might make some sense, I would put a high bar of proof before enacting them and be very aware of the special interests that push for this kind of stuff. As an example, the high US sugar tariffs help no one but the growers in LA.

James50