 |
| |
|
|
Kidicious
|
 |
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
If you divide up the same task over a larger number of workers, with more shifts due to shorter work weeks, you have a loss of production. Most jobs involve some non-productive individual transition time at beginning and end of shift - say coal miners who clock in at the mine head, then ride down the elevators and walk out to the current production areas. Or machinery operators who have to shut down at end of shift, secure the whatever it is so it doesn't fall on the next guy, then secure their safety gear before they clock out. Meanwhile, the next guy clocks in, puts on his safety gear, goes over some paperwork, does a safety inspection on his machine (left by the last guy some time before), and then starts being productive. Most construction jobs are the same, if you're not digging a ditch with a shovel - plumbing, piping, electrical, concrete work - there's a beginning of shift and end of shift transition.
Intellectual work such as engineering, software design, etc. not only has those issues, but additional time needed for communication, division of assignments, dealing with all the workers involved in a particular subset of your project - those things all go up in proportion to the number of people involved, so there is in fact a decline in productivity.
|
Oh boy.
Sorry. Let me be more clear.
Instead of employing workers at unproductive jobs just employ them in productive jobs and cut back the work week. You still have the same amount of man hours working productivily, and you still have the same output. As shortages are identified you move the work to where it is needed and increase the week apropriately.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
No economic/philosophic system "provides jobs." Communism sure doesn't. You still have some form of business enterprises which produce things, and the only difference is how owners and managers are associated with those enterprises, and the motivations of the owners and managers.
|
Get off of the Microeconomics. This is Macro.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
It's not letting the government "off the hook." You're assuming government has this all-intrusive role of running people's lives and determining what constitute their well-being. I'm assuming that government governs best which stays out of range. 
|
I'm talking about responsible govt. That's what we need to solve our problems. They aren't solved by any invisible hand or anything. Admittedly capitalist govts are not responsible. Communist is.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Your argument is specious - you don't need instant or complete knowledge of others' decisions because those decisions don't result in instantaneous effects in the market. I can go look up data on wages for different types of IT professionals in different areas of the country, and know that that data is not going to sharply change next week or next month. And I can pay attention to industry articles and publication, particularly on the end user side, and get a fair idea of whether a particular new and shiny technology seems to be sticking in the marketplace. You can make intelligent judgments. And most "bad decisions" are recoverable unless you decide to knock off a liquor store and a cop pulls in 30 seconds behind you.  |
Oh Nonsense.
Last edited by Kidicious on 24-10-2003 at 01:41
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
Oh boy.
Sorry. Let me be more clear.
Instead of employing workers at unproductive jobs just employ them in productive jobs and cut back the work week. You still have the same amount of man hours working productivily, and you still have the same output. As shortages are identified you move the work to where it is needed and increase the week apropriately.
|
And your clarification changes nothing - you're increasing the number of bodies to do the same work, which has a real world (i.e. that place that isn't described in books and modeled in spreadsheets ) impact on productivity. You're also grabbing bodies (the presently unemployed) with a particular set of skills that may or may not be relevant to the filler jobs you give them and assuming they'll be as productive as the bodies whose hours of work you'll be replacing. If you stop working from book theory and try running any form of large scale project or enterprise in the real world, you'll start to see how much of a disconnect some of your ideas have from reality.
quote:
Get off of the Microeconomics. This is Macro.
|
Micro and Macro are just convenient theories for dealing with abstracted issues. Have you ever heard that saying that "Among economists, the real world is most often a special case."  I'm talking real enterprises and real operations in the real world, and when I'm running something, I don't give a flying **** what labels the comrade academicians use to describe whatever theories they have.
quote:
I'm talking about responsible govt. That's what we need to solve our problems.
|
And so we should all just trust in the party, and whatever the party does will be responsible. And if we question this, we're obviously counterrevolutionaries who need to be "reeducated," right?
quote:
Admittedly capitalist govts are not responsible. Communist is.
|
Name one.
Such an eloquent rebuttal. So I guess I should really go back to those scab laborer jobs because I couldn't have gotten any of the subsequent jobs I've gotten without knowing exactly what the employment and training plans of everyone I was potentially competing against were.
And I guess I never should have made a decision or taken a risk back when I was poor, because I couldn't have afforded a wrong decision.
Sorry, but your posts sound more and more like rationalizations and excuses for underperformance.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:31
|
|
quote:
You know what it means, and we aren't going to get into another "the land was stolen" debate. We've gone through that one before and you know my position. |
And you know mine. Regardless of the "land is stolen debate" which isn't directly relevant, I'm just making a comment on the concept of ownership. If the state owns all property, it has every right to taxes from "tenants." Just as if corporations own the means of production, they have every right to total influence over what happens to profits.
quote:
Isn't that what communism comes down to (in theory, not in practice)? |
Not really. In theory, the state dissolves in a communist society. In practice, of course it doesn't work out that well.
quote:
How can we all be squatters when the state is run by people? |
The state is only superficially run by the people. And it'd be pretty easy, depending on the specifics of ownership. Suppose you've got stock in a land corporation. Does that mean you're not a squatter if you occupy part of it without the consent of the corporation?
quote:
Doesn't that mean one group of people own the land and another "squats"? |
Nope.
quote:
Provide a specific because it's not only not easy, it's non-existent. |
Any non-worker owned business. By definition, wages aren't included in profits.
quote:
Huh? Introducing a strawman in response to a strawman I didn't bring up? We're debating communism in this thread, not anarchism. |
Where did I defend communism? As far as I can tell, I have only criticized capitalism.
quote:
But would you really allow capitalists to co-exist with anarchism? Or would you find a reason to accuse the capitalist who doesn't want to sell out to the workers of stealing property and then just seize their assets? |
No doubt you would murder strikers whenever you evil libertarians sieze power.
quote:
Then tell Kid because he refuses to understand that both parties "profit". Now, does capitalism prohibit a group of workers from buying out the investments of the owner and owning their own business? Nope... That too is capitalism... |
I define capitalism to exclude worker-control of the means of production. So yes, it does.
quote:
How will a business expand if all the profit goes back to stockholders? |
Well yes, I wasn't taking into account re-investment of profits (a decision to be taken by the workers of the business).
quote:
Most workers are self-absorbed morons with little or no concept of the overall business picture, and most really don't give a **** to know, as long as they get paid and you go through the motions of treating them decently.
That's why most "employee owned" companies hire real management to run things. |
And yet economic democracy, in places like Italy and the Mondragon Cooperatives of the Spanish Basque country, is quite successful, despite the workers supposedly being morons.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:31
|
|
Worker controlled businesses are totally in line with capitalism. I know of several small scale businesses where workers gathered resources to own a small piece of a larger business . .. Many people were both worker and capitalist at the same time
Some of these succeeded . . . and some failed, just like any other business.
I live in Canada ands while there are many things I dislike about our variation of a welfare state, I do like that there ismore than a basic attempt to meet the needs of the citizens.
However, The Communist model has failed spectacularly everywhere it is tried ( even Cuba allows a large number of capitalists to invest in and run their industries. Capitalism has its flaws and thats the reason that unrestricted capitalism is NOT permitted without some government controls
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
If you are going to tell people that they keep repeating what they are saying the least you can do is know what they are saying. You have not even read my posts in this thread. That is appearant. You have no idea what I'm saying so you have no idea if I'm repeating myself. |
Well I DID read what you had to say and my conclusions were the same as a number of other readers/posters.
Lets clarify with a two very simple questions
In your system would it be permissible/accepted that some jobs such as doctor or CEO or airline pilot would be remunerated at a higher rate than others working other jobs such as dishwasher, janitorial and if so who would determine.
In your system could a worker earn additional income by choosing to work additional hours or by performing better and thereby earn performance bonuses or salary increases
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
Instead of employing workers at unproductive jobs just employ them in productive jobs and cut back the work week. You still have the same amount of man hours working productivily, and you still have the same output. As shortages are identified you move the work to where it is needed and increase the week apropriately.
|
This one was interesting. MTG has identified many productivity problems but even if that could be eliminated, there are still a number of problems.
Many of the unemployed don't have the skill sets to perform more difficult jobs so they could be " given" more basic work. Your choices are
1. pay them the same to work less with the result that the product or service costs more and is uncompetitive
2. Proportionally decrease salaries in line with the reduction in hours worked-- This would hurt their incomes.
THis suggestion only works if you have sufficient people that want to job-share and it does not hurt productivity too much. But the same concept works equally well in a capitalist system if there is both a supply and demand for part time workers.
You seem to think that workers are interchangeable and can go wherever needed, or that the state can figure that out. Interesting that even a resource rich state like the former Soviet UNion could never figure things out and avoid shortages of basic goods let alone of skilled personnell
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-10-2003 11:21
and all lovey-dovey granola-esque, so you do your democrating thing there, but it's hardly much impact on the economy.
|