tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post1966726225025000098..comments2024-03-06T06:34:42.881-05:00Comments on EconoSpeak: EXPERT DECRIES CUT IN WORK WEEKUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-27039103137131190202015-05-03T11:14:29.715-04:002015-05-03T11:14:29.715-04:00"I have come to the conclusion that your argu..."I have come to the conclusion that your arguments are as hypocritical"<br /><br />Well, then, please stop reading.Sandwichmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159060882083015637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-21218520738520325472015-05-03T10:22:11.679-04:002015-05-03T10:22:11.679-04:00«The real "competition" is between wage ...«The real "competition" is between wage share and profit share»<br /><br />The distribution of "value added" among various claimants.<br /><br />Which brings me to a different take as to your often tiresome arguments against the "lump of labor" fallacy.<br /><br />As I have rather conclusively proven in previous comments it is well true that there is no such thing as a "lump of labor" and that full employment can be always achieved if workers are willing to be paid nothing or to pay employers for letting them work. The market will always find jobs for those who are willing to pay to work :-).<br /><br />But I have come to the conclusion that your arguments are as hypocritical as those of the conservatives because you attack the notion of a "lump of labor" fallacy, when you know full well that the expression to use is "lump of income", as demonstrated by your writing "The real "competition" is between wage share and profit share".<br /><br />The "lump of income" (GNI) aka value added is in the short and medium run pretty much a lump. It is the amount of *work* that is never a lump. Pointless work can always be found for those willing to do it for free or pay for doing it: and governments know that very well, thus encouraging 40-50% of people to spend several years pursuing a degree by borrowing a lot of money to pay for doing that work.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-19366821567578408782015-05-03T10:10:44.782-04:002015-05-03T10:10:44.782-04:00«Like normal people, my well being depends on work...«Like normal people, my well being depends on working with people, not against them.»<br /><br />That's pious and simplistic because:<br /><br />* "working with" and "against" can happen at the same time. A businessman both "works with" and "against" her customers and suppliers, as Adam Smith with his example about the butcher pointed out. Consider also a woman and her provider husband.<br /><br />* The boundaries between "working with" and "against" also depends on group boundaries, because human beings have discovered that "working with" as a group confers significant advantages when working "against" someone. Human beings compete in groups, whether they be the Chamber of Commerce and the Republican party or the trade unions and the democrat wing of the Democratic party.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-30258676414062635612015-05-01T21:28:14.517-04:002015-05-01T21:28:14.517-04:00Sandwichman:
"this will mean an increase in ...Sandwichman:<br /><br />"this will mean an increase in management's labor costs that, in highly competitive industries will require the laying off of workers, increasing productivity and a passing on of costs to consumers."<br /><br />Sigh, even though this is the sixties mentality, it is still a false premise. Labor is not 100% of the cost of manufacturing. It a percentage far less than Overhead and materials. <br /><br />For Papa Johns to offer healthcare insurance would have cost 10 cents more a medium size pie. What a loss!<br /><br />I am with you and the logic pronounce is logic defying.run75441https://www.blogger.com/profile/03790826995006015721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-89065557643089799082015-04-30T15:40:42.804-04:002015-04-30T15:40:42.804-04:00The real "competition" is between wage s...The real "competition" is between wage share and profit share. Management doesn't want to make that point explicit.Sandwichmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159060882083015637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-84673694078652341712015-04-30T15:27:02.001-04:002015-04-30T15:27:02.001-04:00It seems like a lot of work in these arguments is ...It seems like a lot of work in these arguments is done by the "highly competitive environment."<br /><br />What percentage of humans likes such things? Not me. Like normal people, my well being depends on working with people, not against them. <br /><br />Wouldn't it be great if there were an institution that could save businesses from themselves?<br /><br />Of course, there is such a thing. It used to go by the name of "industrial policy". McDonalds can't compete if it pays $15/hour? Well then, make everyone do it. Shorten the workweek and jobs go overseas? Not if our trade agreements are written by humane lawyers. Thornton Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11402495641975262697noreply@blogger.com