Socialism

A labor contract, being agreed to by both the employer and the employee is voluntary and not coercive.

I am unfamiliar with the term "hold-up" in business, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

Yes they are. If the employer underpays an employee that is fraud. If they agree to a wage, then the employer is legally bound to pay the correct amount for hours paid. If he doesn't, the employee can certainly get the police involved.

 

You're again being utopian. The existence of underpayment and involuntary unemployment proves that's not the case. A contract based purely on exchange would result in wages reflecting supply & demand criteria.

Look it up! Its not integral to the thread.

In your utopian world perhaps. Back here in reality we know that its the norm. Its easily verified empirically

 

Okay, what does underpayment even mean, if it doesn't mean failure to deliver the agreed upon pay?

And it would seem to me that, barring any government restrictions, it would be impossible for a person to be "involuntarily" unemployed. If a person chooses not be work, that's voluntary, not involuntary.

 

I object. I object to a wealth tax to redistribute wealth. I object to prohibitions against the voluntary exchange of ones labor for an agreed to wage.

 

Compensation below that which would be delivered through freedom of exchange: i.e. the distinction between actual wages and wages consistent with productivity and compensation differentials criteria.

Involuntary unemployment is the norm in capitalism. We don't see market clearing, nor can we explain unemployment by controlling for extra-market interference (be it minimum wages or unions). Such a result is predicted in orthodox economics, with similar tone to the older Marxist analysis, with unemployment a key means to ensure worker compliance (i.e. the profit motive in capitalism will naturally deliver it)

 

So it's the difference between actual pay and utopian pay. I get it.

Hey, I think I'm being underpaid.

Market clearing means zero unemployment. How do you know that everyone wishes to be employed at the rate they can command? How do you know that there are not some voluntarily unemployed people?

 

Difference between what should be paid according to supply/demand and what is actually paid. Bit obvious really.

Its very easy to test for voluntary unemployment, from the use of labour force surveys to analysis into trends and the impact of changes in wages and 'external sources of income' (i.e. application of the neoclassical labour supply model based on exchanging leisure for consumption).

 

Compensation below that which your silly theories predict they would be paid in a theoretical world where your theories apply

 

You think supply and demand is a silly theory? Golly, you're such a revolutionary

 

As with any ideology, it has an appeal. The appeal is that everyone shares equally.

Now let's apply this ideology to the real world. How will this get done? Will everyone just decide to share equally? No.

What then follows is a slide towards fascism, for socialism, in its purest form, demands a radical egalitarianism best described as an absolute equality of soicial conditions and an exactness of burdens and benefits. The entire society must then be brought down to its lowest level. Individual sovereignty must be wrung from the human character, everyone becomes a slave to the state and there is no escape for anyone. Usually the more radical the socialism the more likely it becomes a police state, that is because abosulte equality is not only undesirable, but it is unattainable, and its pursuits are merciless and relentless.

As an ideology, it can be done on paper, but with most ideologies it is not often practicle nor desirable considering human nature. If the state were continuously benevolent, then all that would occur are protests of individual sovereignty being violated in terms of economic freedom. For you see, freedom is sacrificed for the benefit of the collective good. Unfortunately, this perpetual benevolence is a mere fantasy, as those that rule tend to do things only to benefit their own whims instead of for the collective good. So what is to be done then in protest to a manevolent regime once economic freedom has already been surrendered to this egalitarian beast? At best, you can do at that point is to grab a pitch fork and charge the gates.

 

What nonsense. Supply/demand are but just two of a multitude of factors that determine the wage paid. I suspect what you mean is the difference between what the actual pay is and what it would be in a theoretical world where wages are determined by only supply and demand.

 

But they don't. Worker ownership and control of the means of production would most likely lead to a distribution in compensation. You've started with a falsehood, but a useful one! Anti-socialists will typically go for the "and its against human nature" as they confuse socialism with complete equality. If anything we're only referring to the removal of inefficient inequities, realising that efficiency and equity are not necessarily in conflict

 

You've made me laugh. Good on you! Its great to see the revolutionaries come out of the wood work

 

If the call is not for complete equality, then who then decides how unequal society beomces? It seems to me that the best method for deciding this is individual ability, not a mastermind.

People are free to live in communes and have a "worker ownership", so why don't they do it? Why must freedom be taken from me in order for your system to work? Why is freedom such a dangerous thing?

 

The workers. A firm, for example, would naturally consider compensation to reflect division of labour criteria.

 

Nothing revolutionary about anything I've said. Got anything relevant to what you've chosen to respond to?

 

Capitalism goes hand in hand with coercion. Freedom isn't your friend! Socialism, in contrast, offers greater equality of opportunity. Genuine choice is provided.

But useful again! The 'freedom' angle is indeed a common abuse when it comes to anti-socialist remark. I'd twin this with the usual pollution of the economic spectrum, where right wingers will typically refer to government as an attack on individualism (despite the crucial importance of government in capitalism)

 

I'm still laughing, sorry!

 

If your theory says that someone should be paid X but they are in reality paid Y, does it ever occur to you that your theory might be wrong?

I'm a layman, and I don't understand your jargon. Explain using English please.

 

My theory? Its based on the result of mutually beneficial exchange. Golly, how fickle are you lot? One day you believe in exchange, the next you don't...

And that's the problem. You're making comment about the labour market without knowing anything about that market. Voluntary unemployment is easily controlled for in economic analysis. You've raised a non-issue as you scramble in the dark

 

Maybe a falsehood in regards to your obscure strain of socialism, a truth in regards to most others.

 

That would be a fib! Let's have some entertainment from you. Could you list these factors that impact on wages that are independent of supply/demand criteria? One more smile for the night!

 

So essentially you conceed that for your system to work, it must be mandated on all. So does that apply to the state, the nation, or to the world? Additionally, if only to the nation, why does it work on only a national level with capitalism continuing such coercion internationally but it does not on a smaller scale like on an individual basis? It seems to me what you are really calling for is some sort of world order.

 

Yes, your theory. You said that according to your theory, a person ought to be paid X and when they are paid Y you call that underpayment. Perhaps they are being paid exactly what they can get, and your theory is wrong.

So is involuntary unemployment like being involuntarily single?

 

'My system' (strange vocab!) only requires two aspects: a means to ensure a level of equality of opportunity and the protection of labour's property rights.