• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

The New Socialists

Here’s a question that maybe you have an answer for. In a situation like McDonalds you have workers making very little and obviously an unlivable wage. Current policy has it where the government is essentially subsidizing McDonalds by making up the rest through what we consider welfare etc... Now the idea would be to push McDonalds and other corporations towards providing livable wage or taxes for not providing a livable wage that go back into the programs that then support their workers. Though I have no idea if this is a socialist platform.

The question then becomes how does one go about requiring this from corporations and is the idea that corporations will be willing to give up a certain percentage of profit and remain in business because any profit is better than 0. Seems what would likely happen is an increase in automation for jobs that require minimal skill and therefore increasing the demise of unskilled workers.

This is more or less an explicit goal of the Rehn-Meidner model and I think the idea of forcing certain inefficient production models out has a long-ish history in other contexts (eg Free soilers, Russian "westernizers" in the 1800s)
 
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/08/sweden-social-democracy-meidner-plan-capital

Meidner summed up the principles behind this policy in 1993:

First, equal work should be equally paid, regardless of the profitability of the firm, the size or location of the workplace. What matters is the kind and nature of work, and the skills which are needed to perform it. The second aim of the policy is the equalizing of wage differentials, but not their total elimination. Different wages should be paid for different kinds of work.

The solidarity in wages policy had a number of beneficial impacts. First, by making wage demands the subject of central bargaining, it enabled unions to secure rising living standards without creating an inflationary spiral.

Secondly, it ensured that unproductive firms would not be able to stay afloat by underpaying their workers. This would lead to workers being made redundant, but this was considered a feature of the model — low productivity enterprises would be replaced by new jobs in more productive firms and industries through massive investments, active labor market policies, and an extensive welfare state to ensure nobody suffered significant hardship in the intervening period.

It became clear that there was a side effect which threatened the solidarity upon which this economic model was built. Wage restraint in profitable firms kept inflationary pressures down, but it did so by creating huge excess profits for business owners. Exposés by C. H. Hermansson in the 1960s showed that a vast proportion of capital in the Swedish economy was controlled by a mere fifteen families.

A government-commissioned inquiry confirmed Hermansson’s findings, and Meidner summed up the public mood: “Solidarity in the politics of wages had led to a lack of solidarity in the politics of profits.” Profits created by wage restraint and state investment were being concentrated in the hands of a tiny minority. Under these circumstances, workers found themselves asking why they weren’t sharing the benefits. And so it was determined by the LO that a way to redistribute such excess profits had to be found.

The “Meidner Group,” an expert commission whose members also included Gunnar Fond and Anna Hedborg, was appointed in 1973 to create a proposal to achieve three aims: to shore up the solidarity wage policy by ensuring wage restraint didn’t enrich the owners of profitable firms; to counteract the concentration of private capital; and to give employees more control over the workplace.

The result, published two years later and adopted by the LO congress in 1976, was one of the most ambitious democratic socialist policy proposals ever seriously considered in a developed economy. It would confront not only the question of who reaps the benefits of excess profits, but also the question of who owns, controls, and manages the workplace.

If fully implemented, a number of “wage-earner funds” would have been set up, financed through profit-related payments from firms in the form of voting shares, and administered through union-dominated boards. In this way, as firms produced profits for their shareholders, the wage-earner funds would gain larger and larger stakes in the company until they became the majority owners.

Excess profits would no longer benefit only the rich and powerful, and the benefits of holding capital would be shared across society....
 
"First, equal work should be equally paid, regardless of the profitability of the firm, the size or location of the workplace. What matters is the kind and nature of work, and the skills which are needed to perform it. "

This is totally absurd on every level. This would screw workers in metropolitan areas and in remote areas. How can an ad agency with six employees. five clients and a million dollars in revenue possibly be expected to pay a copywriter the same as a company with 500 hundred employees and a billion in revenue? There are tons of other such examples.
 
it only works if everyone changes their definition of value away from size of compensation to quality of output
 
It doesn’t work and is probably impossibly complex to reasonably and justly administer.
 
"First, equal work should be equally paid, regardless of the profitability of the firm, the size or location of the workplace. What matters is the kind and nature of work, and the skills which are needed to perform it. "

This is totally absurd on every level.

Actually sectoral bargaining is, like, totally reasonable and happens in a number of advanced economies. Thanks for commenting!
 
Actually sectoral bargaining is, like, totally reasonable and happens in a number of advanced economies. Thanks for commenting!

It's dishonest to edit someone's post to fit your needs.

I showed legitimate examples of why it can't work on a nationwide basis. You didn't dispute the examples.

It might be able to work in some businesses, especially regional ones, but there are inherent flaws in it. If a companies pay their janitors in NYC the same as in a small town in Wyoming, one may not have a custodian and others may not be able to find employees because people can't afford to work for so little.
 
Tuffalo knows a lot more shit than I do. I appreciate his posts. It takes all kinds. Some people can get in the weeds with all the theory. Some people can be like the old ladies Fred Hampton talked about that didn't care about whether the Free Breakfast Program was communist or socialist. They just cared that it fed their kids.
 
Q: Might higher min wages destroy certain kinds of employment?

A: Quite probably, some socialists (and others) have historically seen this as desirable

RJ: OMG this would destroy small inefficient firms!1!!! Absurd!!1!!1111!
 
It might be able to work in some businesses, especially regional ones, but there are inherent flaws in it. If a companies pay their janitors in NYC the same as in a small town in Wyoming, one may not have a custodian and others may not be able to find employees because people can't afford to work for so little.

But aren't you just describing an socio-economic effect of capitalism?
 
Q: Might higher min wages destroy certain kinds of employment?

A: Quite probably, some socialists (and others) have historically seen this as desirable

RJ: OMG this would destroy small inefficient firms!1!!! Absurd!!1!!1111!

I would never say that and have the exact opposite dozens of times. I am steadfastly for higher minimum wages.
 
It's dishonest to edit someone's post to fit your needs.

I showed legitimate examples of why it can't work on a nationwide basis. You didn't dispute the examples.

It might be able to work in some businesses, especially regional ones, but there are inherent flaws in it. If a companies pay their janitors in NYC the same as in a small town in Wyoming, one may not have a custodian and others may not be able to find employees because people can't afford to work for so little.

This effect is literally one of the goals of the Rehn-Meidner model and (theoretically - since some asshole shot Palme and they didn't Go All The Way) one of the ways to replace the economic dynamism the profit motive creates!!!!
 
I would have look into in. But there are industries that are specific to certain geographic areas.
 
This effect is literally one of the goals of the Rehn-Meidner model and (theoretically - since some asshole shot Palme and they didn't Go All The Way) one of the ways to replace the economic dynamism the profit motive creates!!!!

Please explain...
 
which sectors in the US employ sectoral bargaining

None. It's an overseas thing. The 1933 national industrial recovery act included it, but, ya know, Lochner era. stripped out of 1935 NLRA in favor of enterprise bargaining. proposals for it came back in (i think) the 60s
 
The "demise of unskilled workers" is a strawman, because these unemployed workers would be provided for, through public works programs, socialized programs, and a UBI. Human dignity extends beyond labor capability.

I think it also hinges on the idea that it's unfair and inefficient for the government to subsidize the labor costs of some private businesses and not others - that subsidy drives down the value of labor across the board.
 
the cultural grasp of the protestant work ethic is strong

working kinda blows, tbh

wouldn't you rather have the robots do it?
 
Back
Top