Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hroðgar, Ic ne sægd þæt þær bið "cynnisc todal", Ic sægd se ongean, soþlice. Ond, hwi sprichst þu Frencisc? Ic spreche hit to for þe…My comment in fact was pointed at the fact that there is no category boundary, and human populations bleed one into the other.
To take a concrete look at something I've just been flicking through: the history of the Boulton-Watt Steam engine and the introduction of the separate condenser.Although Engineers recognised that the Newcomen Steam Engine was inefficient, Watt got lucky because he was working with a scale model miniature engine, which exacerbated the inefficiencies, and he was able to diagnose the problem. He had to rely for over ten years on substantial backing from industrialists to build his working prototypes, and even then was only really able to advance because of cannon boring improvements at the Wilkinson foundry in Birmingham. Boulton oversaw the development of the newly bored cylinders, but also hired teams of craftsmen, who would have helped build the first functional full scale engines.Now, this was all about a hundred years before the full development of the science of thermodynamics, but also illustrates how technological advance is interlocked and contingent, also distributed (with the named 'Great men' standing at the head of an army of skilled technical staff who are just as much responsible for the realisation of the technology.Another interesting part of the Boulton-Watt story is how their patent nearly held back its introduction: they wanted to charge the full value of the savings in coal use as their price for the machine, which, of course, would have meant no savings for the purchaser, and thus no incentive to use the damn things.
Hwæt! Hrothgar, hit þencest þu þæt se walesh ne bide landas Angelfolc? Hit me þinceth þæt þæt bith unrihtnes. Angelfolc bith walesh to se walesh.As a supposedly so-called "White person" I can categorically state that I do have black skin. 'sTrue. If you are "White" then there's a strong chance you have too. They are known in common parlance as freckles, but what they are are patches of melanin in the skin. All it means is that "White" people simply have less melanin pigmentation than so-called "black" people. Indeed, I'd propose a terminological re-definition. "Black" people should be known as "Melanin Rich" and "White" as "Melanin poor" (or melanin deficient, even?). This does tell us something, that skin colour is just a question of degree, not quality.
I think that migration can aid workers, in looking for work. in some cases emigration aids the ruling class as much as immigration. The point is neither are the cause of our enslavement, and the enemy is the wages system, not migratory workers.What you are essentially calling for is organised scabbing. The answer is for workers to organise themselves, not to enforce their masters' borders.I note for the fourth time of asking that you have not refuted my model.
Clegg wrote:Mr Clegg, who will close the Commons debate opened by the Prime Minister in a show of coalition unity, added: "I personally do not want to be part of a generation of political leaders, who, when for the first time in close to a century, we witnessed the ever more frequent use of chemical weapons which have been successfully prohibited for decades and decades, that this generation of politicians basically decided to walk on the other side of the street.Now, did I miss something, but what about Halabja? What about Iraq using gas in the Iran-Iraq war? The Syria situation is not unprecedented. I don't mind hypocrisy, but this sounds like pure ignorance on Clegg's part.
wiscalatus wrote:Let the pixies make mops from the trees and sew their own clothes.Then, any other pixies out of work, can be made to do non-jobs such as holding doors open for the masters and ladies – this is what happens in the real world.The masters will always empower themselves by forcing subservience on their underlings whether for a valid function or not.This is why a vast army of suplus labour is so glorious for the elite and their lackeys!Why are you so keen to feed the master?A concierge to hold open doors costs capital (uniforms, discipline, administration), so even such non-jobs are subject to the limit of capital.The pixies do not own the trees, they belong to the humans.And, whoever heard of a pixie wearing clothes. Such nonsense.Now, as to wage growth:http://www.tuc.org.uk/extras/unfairtomiddling.pdfThis shows wages growing, even for the poorest decile, but not as fast as other segments of the workforce, and as part of a declining share of national income as wages fall from 65% (see page 11).
wiscalatus wrote:More nonsense here, because we can clearly see that over the last decade or 2, wages for the lower classes have actually gone DOWN, and unemployment has gone up, mainly due to the increase in workers.Actually in the UK real wages grew until quite recently, but not as fast as productivity. However, it is true that real wages were static for the last thirty years in the US. However, that is largely down to the low profitability of capital due to unbalanced investment.Evidence:
Quote:In the seven years to 2009, UK employees’ median hourly earnings grew by 3.7% a year on average in nominal (current price) terms. With relatively low inflation, median real earnings (in 2012 constant prices) grew by 1.6% a year on average.wiscalatus, It is a valid scientific method, zeroing out one variable to isolate the effects of others. Yes, if wages were zero, the workers would be unable to pay for any goods and services (indeed, it simply could not happen, because those workers would starve:zero means zero, not even slave rations). As a thought experiment, though, it does illustrate the limiting factor of capital: to have employment at all requires some capital expenditure.If it helps to clarify, the world I am discussing contains a handful of humans, who own all the wealth, and some magickal pixies who will work, but never need to eat, sleep or rest. Being magickal, they cannot use someone else's property without permission. That is why wages are zero. Even in this impossible land, there would be unemployment, because the limit of the use of pixie labour would be the consumable resources. Even cleaners need mops, cleaning agents, clothes, etc. There are capital costs for cleaning.
Wiscalculatus,First off, this host nation stuff is nonsense. I don't know about you, but the only country I've ever lived in seems to be called Tresspassers Will Be Prosecuted. I don't own a square inch of any country, I just live here. I am economic migrant myself.Now, you didn't bold the key phrase "when rates of investment are high", that is, when lots of capital is being thrown onto the market. When lots of capital is competing against other capitals to attract labour, wages rise, so wages will rise even with a growing population. i note, for the third time of asking, you have not provided any refutation to my zero wage example.Some other factors to consider. A lot of migrant labour actually arises out of currency differentials, in that the migrants work in one country to support a family in another, where the high value of the currency in the country where they work can mean a significant increase in the use values their wage can buy.Also, there is a demographc factor. Many migrant workers are young men without families, the most mobile type of labour. These qualitative aspects of economic migrancy are also more important than raw numbers.
Quote:YMS's argument of population numbers not effecting wages smells very fishy tro me. It's like saying that the amount of money in circulation does not effect inflation.This actually would be the case if we still had a gold standard, the number of notes in circulation was irrelevent, as the price of gold determined inflation rates. Look at it this way, in some countries surplus population does exist, and as the slums rise, the wages simply cannot go any lower, people aren't priced into the market. Imagine a world in which the supply of potatoes was unlimited, would you have an unlimited supply of chips? No, that would depend entirely on how many friers there were, both in value terms, and in technical terms.
I'm afraid you haven't refuted my proposition. If, as I suggest, wages could drop to zero and there still would be unemployment, that means it is the rate of investment that determines employment. Yes, if wages fall, then certain production models that require lots of labour become options, and labour can be priced into the market, but there are limits to this. Lets look at this from the other angle, if the rate of investment rises, i.e. profits are high, then labour becomes scarce, and employers will offer higher wages to encourage workers to work for them. Both scenarios happen independent of population numbers.
Quote:Ergo, if we can employ one Briish worker for £10/hr or 2 Polish at £5/hr – what's it going to be?That depends entirely on what the form of labour is. Some jobs can't be split, and you might need to invest in more consumables/facilities if you want to take on the extra worker, it may be cheaper to employ one at £10 than two. Again, it is the structure of capital that drives the labour market, not the population around it (which is only epiphenomenal, i.e. it only changes the surface of the deep structures).Now, to maintain your position, you need to refute the model I've outlined above, you cannot continue to just assert that migration affects wages.
I didn't know you were there: I went along to see a mate's band. Obviously, didn't look at enough stalls…
Quote:Now, why would UK taxpayers be so willing to support these people if they are out of work, and why would a native working class local be so prepared to fight for the newcomer's rights, when they do not share a common history or culture?Because, they are human beings: that is the common heritage. I have as much in common with a worker in Peru as I do with a worker from Liverpool. That is, the worker in Liverpool is someone I have not met, will never meet, is not related to me, is not related to anyone I know. I have more in common with a Peruvian worker than I ever will with a British capitalist: they are a worker, someone who has nothing but their ability to work in order to live.Unemployment is caused by employers. Put another way, levelsof employment are a dependent variable, based on the amount of capital invested, and nothing to do with the numbers of workers available.We can see this clearly. Imagine if people were willing to work for zero wages, would all available labour be employed? The answer is no: all employments require at least some consumable capital invested. The owners of capital will not invest unless they are going to make a profit from their investment. So, even working for free, people would go unhired.Immigration is a non-issue, capitalists cause unemployment.
Juan Cole has some interesting points to make:http://www.juancole.com/2013/08/bombing-unlikely-effective.htmlNoticeably, without the weak tu quoque or cod-anti-Imperialist positions from the STW types. Tellingly:
Quote:Given the logistical and tactical difficulties of intervening from the air, and given the lack of a UNSC resolution authorizing the use of force, Obama … encouraging the [ opposition] to create a long-term civil resistance instead of going the militarization route. Some struggles have to be fought over a couple of decades, and those typically only succeed if non-violent. [Tunisia's use of nonviolence and its elites' resort to bargaining and compromise are the success story, not the more violent struggles in the region.]It's hard to play the pragmatic/practical card when professional politicians are getting emotive over chemical weapons (which are, of course, abominable).
wiscalatus wrote:Well, isn't this just the same thing though?Employers set low wages and poor conditions BECAUSE the mass immigration allows them to do so.Restrict immigration to reasonable levels and wages will be forced up, due to the under-supply of workers.Surely that would be a good thing?Well, if you use immigration controls to raise wages in one area, the number of available workers doesn't change, so you'll just be condemning workers in 'the other country' to poverty. the point is that solidarity against the employers is in the inetrest of workers as workers, and the fault lies with the employers fair and square so we should have no truck with punishing or excluding our fellows.
