[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 85 KB, 600x941, marxism-600.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16896235 No.16896235 [Reply] [Original]

Richard Wolff is bad. like cartoonishly bad. his concern (which for him is a structural one) over who gets the surplus, rather than paying any attention to social form, leads him to a really incoherent theory.

>> No.16896310

>>16896235
Why aren’t contemporary marxists as concerned with the commodity-form it seems like the main concern for Marx, or am is it that I’m just paying attention to lefty online grifters?

>> No.16896338

>>16896310
the latter

>> No.16896423

>>16896235
Elaborate.

>> No.16896446

The reason he has to waste his life finding the surplus is that he had it written into his tenure contract at umass that he would be a "Marxist" economics professor in case the school tried to pressure him to teach more relevant and current stuff in the future, but unlike being a Marxist English professor where you can just read whatever you want and them make up stuff to complain about, economics at least pretends to be rigorous, so all he can do is search for the surplus because that's really all Marxist "economics" is which is why no economists are Marxists anymore because it is stupid.

>> No.16896456

The "surplus" was compensation for risk. The end. There is no free lunch.

>> No.16896460

>>16896235

> Dick Wolff

No one with a name that based can be as wrong as you make him out to be.

>> No.16896556

>>16896456
Yeah, except they're typically not risking anything serious. Their livelihood isn't at risk. Their lifestyle isn't even at risk. All they're risking is a portion of their wealth. America was at its best economically when the surplus was distributed more broadly.

>> No.16896651

>>16896235
Isnt he more Althusserian?

>> No.16896739

>>16896556
The surplus was only distributed broadly for one brief period when immigration was at an all time low after WW2. You're not against immigration are you? Are you some kind of Trump supporter?

>> No.16896755

>>16896556
>they're
who's this "they"? If I take my whole retirement account and risk on some brand new startup IPO I am most definitely risking something serious. Another big fallacy of Marxist thinking is that capitalist "class" is some clearly demarcated thing with "us" and "them" like in traditional European class society. We are all free to work and invest as much as we like depending on our risk tolerance. Risk being very low risk as the reward is paid near instantly in current dollars, while investments face a variety of risk and may range from as little as months to decades.

>> No.16896764

>>16896739
>You're not against immigration are you?
Not completely, but I don't want immigration in large numbers.

>> No.16896780

>>16896755
>Risk being very low risk as the reward is paid near instantly in current dollars, while investments face a variety of risk and may range from as little as months to decades.

I meant "wages" being the lowest risk, as you get paid almost instantly, and if the business fails, you just go to a new employer.

>> No.16896781

>>16896764
Spoken like a true Nazi who wants to genocide the planet. Shaking my baka.

>> No.16896785

>>16896764
Racist.

>> No.16896833

>>16896556
>they're
who's this "they"? If I take my whole retirement account and risk on some brand new startup IPO I am most definitely risking something serious. Another big fallacy of Marxist thinking is that capitalist "class" is some clearly demarcated thing with "us" and "them" like in traditional European class society. We are all free to work and invest as much as we like depending on our risk tolerance. Wages being very low risk as the reward is paid near instantly in current dollars, while investments face a variety of risk and may range in time from as little as months to decades.

>> No.16896850

>>16896833
Tried to fix the other one but got hit by that gay ass "you cannot delete posts this often" shit. 4chan should be updated to have disappearing posts like "fleets" or whatever the fuck that shit they added to twitter is, also, why can we embed youtube but not tweets? granted embedding tweets would be toxic as shit, but i mean if we let ppl shill one why not the other?

>> No.16896851

>>16896755
No need to play dumb. I'm a small business owner myself and I actually had to risk everything to get where I am today. I'm not talking about people like us. I'm referring to the people who despite already having millions of dollars, despite being immune to any serious risk, get to make hundreds of times more than the average employee at their company. I'm not opposed to hierarchies and incentives, but no one should be making that much more than the average employee when so many people are struggling to pay rent. When productivity goes up wages should go up with it, but that stopped happening long ago. Inequality is a good thing but too much of it is bad for society. Big businesses in the US can afford to pay their employees MUCH MUCH more but since they have no legal obligation to they don't.

>> No.16897203

>>16896446
quality post

>> No.16897436

>>16896755
The worker takes a risk everytime he clocks in at his shitty job where he is not compensated adequately in relation to his time and labor sacrifice. He could get another job but his old shittt job would still exist. He would also likely have to accept a similarly shitty position.

I do feel like Marxism needs to better address small and fair business owners. We should create a business environment where owners can afford to treat their workers fairly without losing to a more cutthroat competitor. I'm positive something within the Marxist canon explains and offers a solution to these problems, though I'm currently not aware of it.

>> No.16897476

>>16897436
How much value do you actually think you create per hour? If you work at Target in the checkout line, do you think everytime you are adding more than 12 dollars of value to Target? What about those slow hours were you're just standing around wiping the conveyor belt with disinfectant to look busy? Profit margins on things like retail are absolutely miniscule.

>> No.16897543

>>16897476
If Target can't exist with fairer wages(they can) then Target should not exist at all. Targets board of directors shareholders and CEOs make a shitload of money anon. It comes from the collective labor of their employees as well as obvious other sources, none of which work without the laborer.

>> No.16897568

>>16897436
Small Business owners are a negligibly small part of most economies and are only relevant due to being the subject of various ideological fetishes.

>> No.16897592

>>16897543
Do you suppose the CEO of Target invested a bit more time in education and also has take on a slight bit more responsibility than the guy ring up toilet paper for hoarders?

>> No.16897599

Leftism doesn't work.

You are all fucking retarded.

>> No.16897660

>>16896235
he's a bad marxist but a decent socialist. yeah whatever "populizers" are bad i basically agree and to someone who's aware of better marxists and is confident enough reading marx there's no reason to pay much attention to him, but he's earnest and a good speaker and talks to people at their level. he talks about things in a way that can appeal to people that might otherwise be persuaded by muh economics 101 instead of just moralizing about how "capitalism is mean and wrong and youre either evil or dumb if you have specific questions about why." even if contemporary marxists like postone etc are much better theorists, they dont engage with dialogue outside of pretty insular self-referential marxist circuits and their immediate periphery. wolff is good for taking part in more public arguments in a charismatic way that remains in the boundaries of good faith discussion instead of becoming a grifter

>> No.16897666

>>16897592
Have you ever shit in a toilet and not had toilet paper? To answer truthfully though, I don't believe he deserves the level of compensation he receives. I also believe the janitor deserves some say, some agency, some control over his work life. CEOs board pf directors have likely never worked in his position or any position like it. Hell, they probably don't even shop at Target, how can they lay claim to the totality of the decision making process when they have less to lose than the workers. I'm not saying less as a dollar value, but less as in their life will be largely the same, they're likely large owners in multitude more companies.

Are they more important than teachers? Hell even stay at home mothers? Whose job is really more important? I think we need to reflect on what exactly it is we value as a society. I'm not some dogmatic ideologue, but it's clear that what we have now is having some serious negative impacts on society as a whole. It's obviously an extremely tenous and complex issue, but when things arent working for the whole, we should examine them. Or should all of humanity work for extremely low wages just to fund a utopia for the very few allowed to own and create?

>> No.16897686

>>16897568
Would be great if they were all we had. Less alienating, greater sense of connection and community. Large businesses are a vacuum. They're soulless and subversive, and they have entirely too much polotical power. Over the last 40 years 90% of law that was actually passed was lobbied for by rich multinational corporations(who are granted the status of human being)for who's benefit? Not the majority, not their workers, but only for them.

>> No.16897763

>>16896851
Wage competition exists for a reason because it is highly beneficial to pay attractive wages for skilled works a you want the best people. You on the other hand are questioning why low skilled workers should get paid more when this doesn't present good value to do so. If a company dramatically increases its wealth it's never of a direct result of the low skilled worker, usually it's due to the skill and strategy of the higher ups who earn their wages.

Oh if company's don't pay good wages for high skilled work, they get shit employees and the business suffers. So the market does provide for this.

>> No.16897812

>>16897666
The best solution is to just replace all those oppressed Target workers with robots. That's why I always use the self-checkout lanes.

>> No.16897818

>>16896446
lol unironically this. My political theory professor is a scholar of 19th century political philosophy and political economy, that is Hegel, Marx and Nietzsche. His take on Marxism is that obviously Marx was right about a lot of things in terms of the cultural impact of commodification, but that economic Marxism is very outdated, I mean, Marx was writing in a time when GDP didn't even count the financial sector. And I don't think speculation was even foramlly considered in GDP until the 70s.

>> No.16897821

>>16897666
Why are you criticising societies placement of value in monetary terms to CEOs but then doing the same to teachers, mothers and charity workers? You realise there are other types of satisfaction in life, people value different things and thus not everything has to be brought back to financial compensation. I would go so a far as to say you would ruin the positions of teachers and charity workers if you did pay them very high wages because then there would be people who just get into it for money and not for helping others.

>> No.16897822

>>16897666
>Are they more important than teachers? Hell even stay at home mothers? Whose job is really more important? I think we need to reflect on what exactly it is we value as a society.
>value
Brother you’re not even using the same dictionary as the user you’re arguing with. Everyone feels smart when they say teachers should make NFL qbs’ salaries but that’s not why we pay someone more than someone else. Your salary isn’t determined by how “hard” your job is, but by how hard it would be to replace you.

>> No.16897834

>>16897660
Ok but ol' Dicky's socialism just boils down to, "Give the heckin niggerinos their obamaphones!"

>> No.16897855

>>16897666
>Are they more important than teachers? Hell even stay at home mothers?

I'm not sure how one measures importance. Do you have a scale of importance we can objectively impose and test? Janitor is 3.7389 importance; teacher is 7.5348 importance.

Important in what regard? To whom? How? Are you considering all important matters at the same level? Why? Etc. etc.

I don't find that line of questioning as having any sense since it's far too contextual and the nebulousness of "importance" can go any direction and it's not empirical. What's more important: the clouds or the fire hydrant? The fly or the orange? That, to me, is what you're asking.

>> No.16897866

>>16896556
>>16896851
>>16897543

This guy is correct.

>> No.16897871

>>16896235
Commies like ol' dicky are "intellectuals" who failed to internalize Nietzsche. 99.9% of the human population are slaves who earnestly desire a great leader. The problem with modern society is that it's allowed some of the slaves to rise above their station, ie, Bill Gates, Bezos, etc. and become masters in name only. Of course Dicky doesn't understand this so he grows resentful that he himself is not also a master and sits around finding the surplus value.

>> No.16897893

>>16897866
Sure, but he doesn't ask why target doesn't raise wages, cause it's not just "muh capitalism," or "muh profit motive," It's because of moral decline and degradation.

>> No.16897916

People on the internet actually think that the reason cashiers don't make much money is some kind of conspiracy.

>> No.16897918

>>16897866
You're all mad at the wrong people. The reason low-skilled wages are still depressed is because they know if natives won't do it they can import a new wave of cheap hard-working immigrants to replace them. If you stopped the follow of cheap Labour then they'd have to provide more competitive wages to attract the better side of low skilled workers.

>> No.16897950

>>16897666
>>16897822
Labor does not, not, not determine a good’s value—value is only what people are willing to pay for it. Why do leftists have to read a hundred books to finally come to this conclusion? Believe me: digging ditches is the most labor-intensive job there ever was but wouldn’t it be a funny world if some jackhole with a shovel out earned the city planner drawing the blueprints because he sits at a desk?

When someone says “labor determines value,” they mean it determines THEIR valuation of a good. Everybody has their own criterion for assessing what’s valuable to him.

>> No.16897952

>>16897918
Racist.

>> No.16897959

The workers create the profits.
The owners take the profits.
This is theft and theft is wrong.
Not a hard position to arrive at at all. Don’t need any academic wankery about “reading theory”, “late stage capitalism” or “social form”, whatever that means. Fact is me and my coworkers are being stolen from, and if we take control of the means of production we will take back what is rightfully ours. That’s it.

>> No.16897964

>>16897952
Nationalist not racist moron. After a generational or two, immigrants in the west feel as entitled as natives for higher wages. Only people keeping it depressed are new comers.

>> No.16897983

>>16897950
>value is only what people are willing to pay for it.
No shit nigger. The debate is on what determines the price people are willing to pay. It’s like asking what makes a good sports team and you respond “they score more goals than the other teams” — yeah, but what makes them score more goals.

>> No.16897985

>>16897959
Wait until you find out the "surplus" value on your hourly wage is only like 10 cents. Wow, now you have the responsibility of managing the supply chain for a retail "cooperative" and all for a ten cents raise. Would have been easier to skip the revolution and just get a promotion to night manager or something.

>> No.16897993

>>16897959
>Owner buys resources, takes risk and trains worker
>Worker who alone couldn't have accomplished the task feels he's entitled to the whole of the output
Hmmm does sound like theft to me.

>> No.16898007
File: 74 KB, 720x707, 1549587540379.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16898007

>>16897993

>> No.16898009

>>16897959
>this is theft
Property is a legal term. In areas (like much of the developing world) without this legal term, property as we understand it does not exist. Thus, theft, the illegitimate taking of property, is also a legal term. According to the law, this is not theft. Therefore, it is not theft.

>> No.16898026

>>16897959
Time that you and your coworkers start negotiating for higher wages through political means.

>> No.16898032

>>16897959
>Not a hard position to arrive at at all
Not at all when you’re as able to accept unfounded axioms upon which to build your whole worldview as a Muslim or a Jew.

>> No.16898038

>>16897985
If you take the workforce as a collective whole, they create literally all of the surplus for the company. This is theft on a collective scale.
>>16897993
Really, how long does it take before the initial investment is payed off and the operation becomes theft? If owners did not think they would get profit from a company, they would not invest in the first place. It's with this goal of theft that businesspeople invest.

>> No.16898040

>>16897983
Value is intangible because we're not robots. We don't do complex algorithms in our heads and it is not uniform to us all. You may see the value in only paying $20 for a tee shirt whereas another will pay $200, neither are wrong. This is because a tee shirt is not only for warmth, protection, it can provide confidence boosts, help with self-expression, etc. Thus the market provides lots of others for us as we are all individuals with different measures of value.

It would be different if we were on the brink of survivable but in 1st world our animalistic needs were provided for a long time ago.

>> No.16898050

>>16898009
More academic wankery. If I make something and you take it away from me without consulting me you are committing theft. Simple as that.

>> No.16898074

>>16898038
>how long before the initial investment is paid off
You realise there are always products aren't static, they need updating and direction needs to be had. Without Jobs, Apple was at the brink of collapse in 90s because they lost it visionary owner.
>If owners did not think they would get profit from a company, they would not invest in the first place
Ah yes because there has never been a failed business idea before.

>> No.16898076

>>16898050
>More academic wankery.
This is a literature board. What kind of rise are you getting out of posting here?

>> No.16898087

>>16898050
>You take my resources mould it into something and claim it's yours
Can't wait to come your house with a marker pen, draw on your computer and claim theft when you try to take it back.

>> No.16898107

>>16898050
>I made it and you took it away without asking me; that is my definition of theft
What is "made?" If I take your food and then cook it, is that now my food?

>> No.16898123

>>16898007
lol commies btfo

>> No.16898132

>>16898074
>You realise there are always products aren't static, they need updating and direction needs to be had. Without Jobs, Apple was at the brink of collapse in 90s because they lost it visionary owner.
Retarded. The owner structure is not identical to the management structure. Jobs was a good director and he would have been a good director whether he owned the company or not. In fact he would have probably even been a better director under socialism because his primary aim wouldn't be to create profits for shareholders but to advance the company's interests and the interests of its workers.
Any good Jobs did for Apple was done in the role of a worker, ie. a company director. The fact that he was an owner is incidental.

>> No.16898148

>>16897959
it's not theft and Marx doesnt say it is, this is like twitter radlib left-liberalism that somehow spread like a cancer.

wage-theft is real but is something seperate from surplus-value extraction. circuits of exchange do not function without extraction of surplus-value. workers ARE paid at the market value of their labor-power, that is a fundamental component of marxism. the generalization of wage-labor, and the necessity for a business to not only break even but be competitive, means that the time someone spends working is necessarily longer than the time they need to reproduce themselves (with food, shelter, and more abstract historically contingent social and psychological needs). this itself is not necessarily bad for the worker because plenty of people would work longer than the minimum to survive, but the generalization of wage-labor as the only form of sustenance possible means that if you do not own property the only options are 1. sell your labor-power at the market rate 2. acquire property and hire others at the market rate 3. find a loophole like landlordship or getting really good at the stock market where you draw profit from owning part of the circuit of exchange that doesnt need direct, productive labor-power inputs

the boss is not "stealing" from the worker by paying them the market rate for their labor-power. the market rate for labor-power just takes into account that the boss needs to get back more than what they put in, and as all transformation of materials ultimately depends on human labor-power inputs, the only way to ~reliably~ get more than what you put in is to have the worker work for longer than they would otherwise need to at the same rate to reproduce themselves. if you need a minimum of 40 dollars a day to survive, and you work 8 hours a day at $10/hour, the first 4 hours are going to your survival (your ability to reproduce your labor-power). the boss breaks even on that 40 dollars because they wouldnt have a worker otherwise. in those 4 hours you only transfer the cost of reproducing your labor-power into whatever it is youre producing, value is transferred, not created. the next 4 hours are extra. you still get the market rate of your labor-power, you still get 40 bucks. those extra 4 hours arent a direct investment in your continued ability to work -- you are no longer only working to reproduce your own labor-power, you are working because you are required to work an extra 4 hours as part of your employment. but you are still laboring to make something out of something else, you are still doing something necessary for your industry. unlike a tool or a machine, you can provide more value than what is spent on your reproduction. the value provided by your labor-power when you work beyond what is necessary for the reproduction of your labor-power is surplus-value.

>> No.16898160

>>16898148
this is a necessarily reductive example bc it doesnt take into account innovations in efficiency, how those relate to the cost of goods necessary for reproduction of labor-power, the circumstances in which capitalists can in fact buy cheap and sell dear, etc. but if youre following and are interested just read Capital, its obvious no one in here has or at least didnt take much from it

>> No.16898217

>>16898132
That's where you're completely wrong because the best thing Jobs did was see that the status quo was wrong about computers not being for personal use. This is where innovation fails under socialism, it's great when the state/people agree but there's no mechanism to allow for when they are wrong which they were in this case. Going against the status quo is very risky and do so you not only need skills (Jobs/Woz), you need resources. The pure owners who were willing to take that risk then need a mechanism for reward to warrant said risk which leads to the stock market. Otherwise why would someone with resources back such a risky venture over government bonds if the payout is the same.

In hindsight, obviously the status quo was wrong but here's the best example. IBM, the worlds biggest computer manufacturer developed the first mouse and GUI. Imagine rich they'd be if they patented it and licensed it, but instead they gave it to Apple for free because they couldn't see the value.

>> No.16898249

>>16897952
Yes. And?

>> No.16898271

>>16898107
>What is "made?" If I take your food and then cook it, is that now my food?
Bad analogy because it doesn't account for surplus. Imagine this instead:
1. I give you the equipment to run a street food stall and pay you for doing so.
2. Eventually, you make enough profit that my initial investment, along with interest, is paid back to me.
3. But even though this initial investment is paid back, I still continue to take all of the profit that is generated through YOUR hard work at the stall, without consulting you in the least about it.
This is obviously theft. I took some risk at the start and essentially gave you a loan, which you paid back with interest, and yet I still continue to take the money you create. At best you should be paying a service fee for using the equipment I own, but the profits should absolutely belong to you to use however you choose.

>> No.16898283

>>16897918
Thats a very small fraction of the work force and their supposed to be on "temporary visas" when they expire the company is supposed to report them and let them go. They never do though of course.

>> No.16898306

>>16898271
This.

>> No.16898311

>>16898217
You still haven't explained why a company can't take risks under socialism. Why couldn't Jobs do what he did without being an owner?

>> No.16898316

>>16898271
No, no. I'm not trying to make an analogy to profits. I'm trying to analyze your definition of theft. Your previous definition of theft and property allowed for my food example to work. If you can't create a general definition of theft, then you can't say this particular instance is theft.
Define theft. (I'll give you a hint: You can't. It's a purely legal definition)

>> No.16898343

>>16898316
i wouldnt say purely legal but i basically agree, it is totally contingent on general expectations of propriety in a given society so clearly doesnt apply in a society where wage-labor is taken for granted as not only entirely legitemate but inevitable. hence >>16898148

>> No.16898350

>>16898271
You're talking about a business loan which already exists and are easy to get.
The bank operates in that same way.
You pay off their investment plus interests and now the business equipment is yours with access to all the value it generates. You simply have take the risk of taking a large business loan instead of relying on someone else taking a large business loan.

>> No.16898354

>>16898343
Okay, yeah. I think you might have responded to my post without reading the context it was in, and I just assumed you were the guy I was arguing with.

>> No.16898370

>>16898354
oh no you were responding to the right guy, >>16898343 was my first reply to you, shouldve added a "not that anon but"

>> No.16898401

>>16897821
I never said I wanted teachers to be paid what ceos are. I was just waxing philosophical about what we value as a society. Teachers are more important to the health of society and their job is demanding. They deserve better.
>>16897822
You micharacterized my argument, I understand that jobs aren't paid by difficulty or importance to society as a whole. My argument is that they should reflect the value that they provide, education, espescially early education is extremely valuable to all of society in my opinion. Yours may be different. More would probably agree with me that education is instrumental to a young child and societies future.
>>16897855
Lol. You don't believe education is important? To who? To all of us. To the entirety of humanity. To the company, to the customer etc. In regards to teaching. Education creates(hopefully) informed and rational citizens. I would argue that right now it quite nearly does the opposite since Neoliberalism has duped us into believing profit triumphs over all. Empiricism be damned, we don't base our current business practices and economic policies on empirical data. Mostly speculation. And again, you're attacking the more abstract ponderings I offerred and not my response pertaining to what I asked, which is why I so kindly seperated them.
>>16897950
You're in agreement with Marx on everything you just said in accordance to Capital vol. 3 very first chapter. For your example though, a planner would likely be of a seperate company than the ditch digger. The ditch digger should still get his fair share of what the city bid the company they contracted for the planning. The workers would democratically decide what a fair payment would be for each particular role.

>> No.16898422

>>16898311
This is /lit/ you illiterate fuck, learn to read. There are basically two methods of decision making the proposed socialist world without money/capital markets. The first being a body of educated elites making decisions (in my example, the government and all experts in the field were wrong) and the second being direct democracy where everyone votes on all issues (the large majority knew nothing of computers). So he would have never been allocated the resources in the first place because he was so going against the status quo.

A state can't try the infinite possibilities so it has to decide where to allocate investments. If a socialist state is all there is then there's no mechanism for personally taking the risk when they won't which opens them up to foreign exploitation or stunted growth.

>> No.16898423

>>16898401
>they deserve better
Why? The fact that they work at that job proves that they are willing to. There are certain intangibles in employment that makes one job more valuable than another, entirely separate from the pay they get. Computer programming teachers, for instance, could almost all get a better paying job, but they prefer to teach, so they do. Why should we add more pay for teachers if they already get the benefit of those intangibles?

>> No.16898432

>>16897568
Small businesses arent supported by marxist either. They probably all shop at Walmart and eat mcdonalds

>> No.16898439

>>16898401
Better what? Again you're bringing everything back to financial compensation like that is all that matters in life. If the fulfilment of teaching wasn't enough they would have chose a different higher paying job, it's not like they didn't know that was the future.

>> No.16898449

>>16898350
Business loans are easy to get for proven business. Not for risky startups which need large sums of money for very long term outlooks, hence why we have venture capitalists.

>> No.16898453

>>16898401
Teachers get massive pensions that put other public workers to shame. They dont need more and I would argue they get too much already.

>> No.16898467

>>16898271
Okay I'll play your game. How do we determine what a fair interest rate is?

>> No.16898479

>>16898423
I agree, I do my job out of a similar sense. People shouldn't have to struggle to do something rewarding that is also instrumental to overall society. Thank god people want to teach, how long can we sustain that though? It hasnt gotten any better for them for years, while inflation continues to rise, at what point are the intangibles not enough to attract yhebright people. Maybe we would have better teachers if the pay was better.
>>16898439
Then why are they routinely dissatisfied? Why are teacher strikes so prevalent? Why do many quit teaching for more money. What happens when its not enough any more? The only reason the pay is so low is because of the reward you're talking about, should we really be taking advantage of human virtue while rewarding the cutthroat who could care less?
>>16898453
You're a fool if you believe such. Teacher pensions are more expensive than they ever have been, and the majority goes into covering liabilities. Luckily society has very few people like you. Increased pay for teachers is a popular position.

>> No.16898509

>>16898479
Okay, so, there are some arguments here! (Yay!)
>how long will people continue to want to teach
>if the pay was higher, better people would teach
Ironically, these two arguments are an exclusive part of government-owned industries. You are right to say that pay is rigid in public education and that doesn't work with inflation. However, pay is not rigid in any other industry. Normally, if a group of employees are bad or just don't exist, a company can decide (very quickly) to increase wages. It's a bit more difficult on a governmental level. However, a more private system (either a decentralized one that allowed schools to spend how they wished or a partially privatized one that made schools work like a company) would fix your main problem with low salaries for teachers (sticky wages).

>> No.16898527

>>16898479
>why are they so routinely dissatisfied?
Because they've brought into the same financial propaganda that you have (you need a big house, new car, holidays) to be happy. Or they didn't actually care about teaching in the first place.

Let's turn it on its head for a second. Let's imagine teachers were paid comparable to lawyers and doctors, then you'd have a wave of people who were largely motivated by the money. Who would you rather teaching our future, the highly paid teacher mainly there for the money or the lowly paid teacher who accepts it because they get joy out of teaching

>> No.16898582

I don't know why right wingers want me to respect gamblers

>> No.16898593

He’s not even a real Marxist

>> No.16898608

>>16898509
How wise is it to leave education up to an unaccountable private entity who would stand to gain from pro-corporate education? What if people couldn't afford education? Would we deny poor kids education? Wouldn't that further the already huge wage gap or class divide? Despite being fairly low, teachers still make more than Paramedics for private companies. Some construction workers. Private companies have a poor track record too. Also now that I'm looking teachers and state employees salaries have increased more over the years than average American workers as a whole.
>>16898527
I havent bought into financial propaganda you strange boy. I'm one of the few resisting it while around 4/5 ITT are shilling Neoliberal practices. Also, how are you supporting that argument? Baseless conjecture? Sweeping assumption? U dum or summin? Kek.

High pay and love of a job isnt mutually exclusive. It's a dead end argument but if I must. Higher paid workers perform better in nearly every study ever performed on the subject not only in productivity either, but they even report higher engagement.
>>16898582
They want you to worship an invisible god known as the market. It makes many decisions for you. The gamblers are actually prophets.

>> No.16898635

>>16898608
>how wise is it to leave education up to an unaccountable private entity
Luckily, I never said that we should do that. I said we could leave it up to *many* private entities or *many* local public entities with an extremely large amount of autonomy to decide local salaries.
>what if people couldn't afford education
Vouchers or localism. I never said "simple privatization." I said "semi-privatization or localism."
>teachers make more than the average paramedic
Yes, that's because there are enough paramedics. Let's go back to your original assertions
>good/any teachers could refuse to teach
I have figured out a solution to that. I have not figured out a solution to a general "teachers aren't paid much" problem. I don't care about that "problem," in fact, I don't think it's a "problem" at all.
>teachers and state employees increased more as a whole
Yes, but they've been more sticky nevertheless. There are 10-15 year plans for how salaries are going to increase in the public sector. There are quarter-long plans in the private, often with extremely large shifts where it is necessary.

>> No.16898733

>>16898635
>Luckily blah
Privatization seems to end poorly in the US. Are you assuming it would deny all the effects of Neoliberalism and not eventually become very close to a monopoly? Even a monopoly of ideas is bad. 10 schools all working together to supress wages and icrease costs.
>Vouchers or localism.
Starting to sound like it would be more efficient to just ascribe this role to the public or the state anon.
>there are enough paramedics
Not even close. Lmfao what an absurd thing you just said. Also over the last 10 years since AMR has been buying a of the mom and pop services there's been a marked decrease in pay(avg. 35-50k)and participation with many leaving thr field and even less trying to enter. This is undeniably an inportant job look at that good ole privatized pay rate though.How silly you are in your desperation to preach Neoliberalism. How much they pay you? You Friedmans grandkid?
>I have figured out a solution to that
Got no clue what you're on ab now. Sounds like a concession.
>10-15 year plans
Look at the data compared to the average for however longbm you want. The state still has increased more than the provate sector. Which honestly surprised me, probably a thanks Obama deal but I'm not sure. Teacher salaries are still pretty awful, espescially on the low end or compared to other advanced economies.

I don't think you have much anymore. We can just end this with you saying. Neoliberalism is good, and I'll stay on my side along with a large amount of professionals I will assert Neoliberalism has failef and is failing the public while granting the elite more power over society and more wealth than they could spend in 100 lifetimes. You're essentially a zealot IMO.

>> No.16898784

>>16898733
>hypothetical monopoly
Luckily, we could create some kind of anti-monopoly legislation. Or, we could simply have public localism. You still seem to be ignoring that idea, even though it's a much more moderate idea that works just as well.
>just ascribe the role to the state
I explained why these would work better than non-localist state control. Indeed, I haven't even argued against state control in general. I don't know why you can't get this.
>there aren't enough paramedics...
There sure are! If there weren't, there would be more payment for them. Remember, your original statement (there won't be any teachers) was apocalyptic. I'm saying that apocalypse wouldn't exist if we had localism or partial privatization.
>many are trying to leave, few are trying to enter
When that is apocalyptic, then there will be an equal and opposite response, as I described in >>16898509
>got no clue what you're saying
Read >>16898509
I'm starting to think you didn't read the post you're responding to.
>state increased
Yeah, you're really dumb. I'm not saying "we should increase" or "we should decrease." I'm saying, "fluidity is good." Change in wages isn't always upwards.
>neoliberalism stuff
What are you on about? I'm not even arguing in favor of whatever you consider "neoliberalism."
I'm starting to think you either don't read what you're responding to or you're just really stupid.

>> No.16899222

>>16898784
A long post with no substance. No arguments wait
>I explained why these would work better
We've already done this. Debate sequent. Argument-counterargument.
>There sure are!
There aren't. There may be pay increase soon, already is some albwit not enough to keep up with the turnover rate. It has alot to do with private healthcare in general but you would just insist you're still right despite being definitionally wrong.
>partial privatization.
Yeah, it's not working for healthcare particularly paramedicine. I don't knowbwhy you cant get this. Yeah, you're really dumb.
>When that is apocalyptic
It depends on your definition. Response times are higher than ever. More people are dying. Schools are closing their programs.It's not even covid related either, it was a trend from before.
>Read >>16898509
Well, we've done that one. Further people far more knowledgeable than you(I say that with confidence having been reading your trite econ 101 bs)disagree with your privatization pillar.
>fluidity is good." Change in wages isn't always upward
It should be. Inflation has been upward. Productivity has been upward. Wages should follow.
>What are you on about?
The system you're describing follows very congentially to the one we've been on for 50 years. Go outside. Isn't working.

>> No.16899744
File: 678 KB, 613x522, 1584935320258.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16899744

>>16896235
Hearing his jewish whine was enough for me. Like a greasy used car salesman. I'm not anti-semitic by the way. I love the Jewish people and want to fuck all of them in the mouth, men and women because I don't discriminate and am very tolerant.