Capitalism, Marxism and Related Matters

D84

Well-known member
I just hope what you guys are not saying is that the lower paid (I have trouble with this concept of "low skilled" - I've had middle-class managers who could have been classified as "hardly skilled") don't make much money because they don't work hard, when in fact they work the hardest of anybody in the economy - as you would know very well from working in a factory, building site, what have you...

Here's an article I looked at yesterday - "Working Harder to Fall Behind: the American Dream is dead" - which neatly summarises the facts of life for a large proportion of the population.

Some quotes:

Even before the current economic crisis took hold, workers were working harder for less and carrying big debts to compensate for falling income. Record numbers of workers endured long and fruitless searches for employment, while those who had jobs are plagued with insecurity over their employment, health care and retirement.

Employers routinely violate labor laws, combining 21st century surveillance technology that monitor workers' every movement with 19th century management practices like locking in workers on the night shift at Wal-Mart, and forcing them to work off the clock.

...

Together, the books portray a society in which class lines are more rigid than the nations of Western Europe, once dominated by a wealthy aristocracy. Some 26.4 percent of U.S. workers receive poverty wages, and in the economic expansion just ended workers' productivity grew by 11 percent, while real wage gains (after inflation is taken into account) amounted to nothing.

At the other end of the spectrum, the richest 1 percent has seen its share of annual earnings almost double from 7.3 percent in 1979 to 13.6 percent in 2006, the most recent year for which figures are available. And the top 0.1 percent did far better -- its annual earnings increased 324 percent from 1979 to 2006, to more than $2.2 million.

The liberal writer Thomas Frank wrote about this trend earlier this year: "The landmark political fact of our time is the replacement of our middle-class republic by a plutocracy."

...

The lack of jobs -- particularly good-paying ones -- has contributed to a rise in poverty compared to the 1990s. According to U.S. government statistics, 12.3 percent of the population, or 36 million people, were under the poverty line in 2006. But the State of Working America, relying on a more realistic measure, says that the real poverty rate was actually 17.7 percent -- another 16 million persons.

Being poor doesn't necessarily mean being unemployed, as Greenhouse points out in The Big Squeeze, "The annual pay for Wal-Mart's full-time hourly employees averaged $19,100 in 2007 -- some $1,500 below the poverty line for a family of four."
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Not everyone who makes lots of money has been handed everything on a plate, though; I doubt whether the average self-made millionaire could be accurately described as a 'slacker'. Though it seems that a willingness to take calculated risks is perhaps even more important than hard work if you want to make a lot of money.

That said, there are clearly also people who have been handed everything on a plate (generally by inheriting either a large estate/fortune or a senior position in a corporation) and equally clearly a lot of people who get paid a pittance for doing a very important job.
 

swears

preppy-kei
You don't get paid according to how hard you work, you get paid for how rare/valuable your skills are.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
"You don't get paid according to how hard you work, you get paid for how rare/valuable your skills are."
That's the theory but I think that we would all agree that there are lots of people who have got into positions where they are able to make money without displaying any particular skills. Maybe getting there took some skill (not always) but it's far too simplistic to say that the people with the rarest and most desirable skills are always making the most money.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
You don't get paid according to how hard you work, you get paid for how rare/valuable your skills are.

That's not true if you get paid per hour, or even if you receive a basic salary that can be supplemented by doing overtime. Or even if you compare part-time and full-time positions of the same job description.

It's also probably untrue if you're self-employed.
 

sadmanbarty

Well-known member
poor vim. i thought he was vague and non-committal, but here he's making proper concrete statements. his vagueness is out of fatigue with being harangued and a healthy, well deserved contempt for everyone on the forum.
 

luka

Well-known member
The coyness was never to do with economics. He's studied economics and always felt confident discussing it. Idle Rich likewise is able to be idle and Rich because he made milions before the age of 30 as a trader so he is happy with numbers too. Intelligent lads. But Inteligence is never general, it's local, and intelligence in one area is always compensated for by stupidity in another. It's frustrating for all of us because there are places we can't enter, forbidden.
 

luka

Well-known member
For a long time I protected my ego by deciding that everything I couldnt understand was stupid and pointless, and I still do to some degree, but it gets harder and harder to keep this up as you get older.
 

luka

Well-known member
Even if you think, as I often think, that you are brilliant in some way or other, it becomes depressingly apparent that you are a subnormal idiot in all sorts of other ways.
 

luka

Well-known member
So specifically with Vim and others like him,there's a kicking out at the tyranny, the intolerance of liberalism, with liberalism as the stifling, all pervasive dominant ideology, impossible to escape from. And it's kept quite abstract usually, quite vague and suggestive but you do have to ask yourself what freedoms, specifically, do these people want to claim for themselves? What personal desires are being thwarted? Because more often than not its something grubby and tawdry like the 'right' to be a racist or whatever. The abstraction is grounded in something, always.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Has Vim ever actually said anything racist here, or do you just sort of get the impression that he thinks that way because he's keen on free speech, is contemptuous of liberalism (in common with nearly everyone else here) and isn't explicitly on 'the left', whatever you take that to mean?
 

luka

Well-known member
Hi other-life I'm cut off from society I live in a sealed box and I have never heard of this person but I will look it up on the internet right now.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
where exactly did I say he was racist please

You didn't, in so many words, but it sounded like you were certainly hinting in that direction.

And I didn't mean "you obviously think vim is racist, prove it" - I was just wondering if there were certain particular things he'd said here that had made you think that. If you haven't, then good.
 

luka

Well-known member
Cyril Smith MBE DL was a British Liberal Member of Parliament for Rochdale. After his death, numerous allegations of child sexual abuse by Smith emerged, leading the police to believe that Smith was a serial sex offender. W
 

luka

Well-known member
You didn't, in so many words, but it sounded like you were certainly hinting in that direction.

And I didn't mean "you obviously think vim is racist, prove it" - I was just wondering if there were certain particular things he'd said here that had made you think that. If you haven't, then good.

If I thought he was a dyed in the wool racist I wouldn't humour him tbh
 
Top