8 ms·

Fewer downvotes if oscilloscope can explain why "capitalism" (or specifically let's say the US implementation) raised median wages for a period and then, didn't

Fewer downvotes if oscilloscope can explain why "capitalism" (or specifically let's say the US implementation) raised median wages for a period and then, didn't. I haven't read Marx, but if you two have, then maybe you can explain what feature of the Immiseration thesis is acting here, what changed when in the economic or political landscape, etc., in order to correspond with the evidence. On the broad whole, over multiple generations, "capitalism" seems to have been good for workers: http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzdx1tJidd1qc38e9o2_500.png http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzdx1tJidd1qc38e9o2_500.pn... (via @delong) --------- As far as the crisis theory goes: is it true that workers' wealth was destroyed more than let's say upper-middle-class to upper class wealth? Stock prices declined a lot more than home prices in 2009. (Important because the medium and lower quantiles' wealth is mostly the house—but higher quantiles own liquid assets like stock shares. Some of the lower quantiles also have pensions coming to them; pension funds invest in equities and bonds and CDO's and other things. I don't know if pension funds experienced a greater hit than, let's say, hedge funds (which only take top-quantile money).) So in order to justify that "the workers" lost more wealth than "the rich" (who, obviously, have more to lose)—I'd want to see some numbers on decline in home values versus other assets, as a start.

steveklabnik 14y ago
> I haven't read Marx, If you haven't read Marx, then I'm not interested in having this discussion with you, sorry. It'd take far too long to even get basic terminology straight. Here is a copy of the "Grundrisse der Kritik der Politischen Ökonomie" which introduced this theory: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ Or maybe Capital I, which develops it (and the rest of Marx's ideas and provides his critique of capitalism) here: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ David Harvey's lectures are a great guide if you decide to give it a read: http://davidharvey.org/reading-capital/ http://davidharvey.org/reading-capital/ Plenty of online forums are more than happy to provide you with a basic outline of Marx's theories, including /r/communism101 and /r/debatecommunism. > is it true that workers' wealth was destroyed more than let's say upper-middle-class to upper class wealth? I will point this out though: this question does not make sense in a Marxist analysis. There is no 'middle class' or even 'upper class,' these are vulgar economists' terms.
- crasshopper 14y ago
  if you haven't read… Surely you can answer my question why the wages went up and then down. oscilloscope posted a part of Marx's theory that's hopefully topical and has some insight to share with those of us who haven't yet set aside the time to read something long. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to want to discuss that. harvey Thanks for the references, I will keep them in mind. I love video lectures. There is no 'middle class' or even 'upper class,' these are vulgar economists' terms. OK, all I intended was rough percentiles. Let's say the 30th–60th percentiles are "all house", 60th–99th are "house and equities", and >99th may be invested in a hedge fund. Speaking of the USA. I don't mean to imply some unified psychology to a social class, or anything like that.
  - steveklabnik 14y ago
    > Surely you can answer my question why the wages went up and then down. You wouldn't even understand an answer I'd give you, because it'd be in Marxist terminology. Maybe Oscilliscope will be willing to explain their comment, I don't care to at this time. > Thanks for the references, I will keep them in mind for the future. No problem. Glad to be of help. I think that understanding Marx is really important, but I don't think that he has correct answers for today, exactly. > all I intended was rough percentiles. Right, this is fundamentally wrong. The only thing that matters is your relationship to the means of production: 'middle class' people are proletariat just like 'lower class' people are. It has absolutely nothing to do with your positioning in the table of income. This is an example of the terminology issue. It's common to most philosophers.
    - crasshopper 14y ago
      The only thing that matters is your relationship to the means of production: 'middle class' people are proletariat just like 'lower class' people are. It has absolutely nothing to do with your positioning in the table of income. I understand what you mean. I can see how that relationship might be important to the theory. But what I said about "classes" (bad word: s/classes/quantiles/) is actually true. So if we're going to discuss whether, in fact, workers lost more wealth than capitalists (or, s/capitalists/correct terminology/), those empirical issues should still be addressed. For example, I may be a "worker bee" consultant at IBM, but holding stock factually altered my exposure to wealth shocks. You wouldn't even understand an answer I'd give you, because it'd be in Marxist terminology. Maybe Oscilliscope will be willing to explain their comment, I don't care to at this time. Fair enough.
oscilloscope 14y ago
In the period 1947-1970 where wages were increasing, I don't know. Perhaps it had to do with legislation like the G.I. Bill, which increased human capital during that period and could have helped trend wages upward: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gi_bill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gi_bill America is not a pure capitalist society. We have free public education, for instance. Capitalism also has obviously good effects, such as increased productivity and relatively efficient distribution of goods and services without central control. Profits from these effects can be distributed in the form of wages, if that's what employers choose to do. In terms of the crisis, again I'm not sure. You'd have to consider not only the losses of the crisis, but the gains of the boom. Who benefited from the boom, and did those gains survive the bust? 19th century Marxist theory doesn't have the answer, but it frames these issues in an important way. Rather than crises and falling wages as abberations from normal steady growth, they are considered part of the capitalist system. For a more modern perspective in the Marxist tradition, check out Max Weber or Georg Simmel. There are even radical, almost psychadelic strains of Marxism like Foucault, Deleuze and Guattari.
- steveklabnik 14y ago
  > America is not a pure capitalist society. We have free public education, for instance. Surely Marx would still say that, because the means of production are privately owned, resource allocation is provided through a market, and wage labor is dominiant, that the states would be still absolutely captialist, no? "Free public education" doesn't really matter. > Capitalism also has obviously good effects, Certainly, and I think this is something that we should keep repeating to people who don't know Marx. > There are even radical, almost psychadelic strains of Marxism like Foucault, Deleuze and Guattari. <3
  - oscilloscope 14y ago
    Are the means of production privately owned? It seems to me that one of the most important means of production in the 21st century is computing. Computational power is cheaply available and open-source software is free (as in freedom). With the internet, anyone can acquire knowledge, distribute a good, or work remotely.

steveklabnik 14y ago

> I haven't read Marx, If you haven't read Marx, then I'm not interested in having this discussion with you, sorry. It'd take far too long to even get basic terminology straight. Here is a copy of the "Grundrisse der Kritik der Politischen Ökonomie" which introduced this theory: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ Or maybe Capital I, which develops it (and the rest of Marx's ideas and provides his critique of capitalism) here: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ David Harvey's lectures are a great guide if you decide to give it a read: http://davidharvey.org/reading-capital/ http://davidharvey.org/reading-capital/ Plenty of online forums are more than happy to provide you with a basic outline of Marx's theories, including /r/communism101 and /r/debatecommunism. > is it true that workers' wealth was destroyed more than let's say upper-middle-class to upper class wealth? I will point this out though: this question does not make sense in a Marxist analysis. There is no 'middle class' or even 'upper class,' these are vulgar economists' terms.

crasshopper 14y ago
if you haven't read… Surely you can answer my question why the wages went up and then down. oscilloscope posted a part of Marx's theory that's hopefully topical and has some insight to share with those of us who haven't yet set aside the time to read something long. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to want to discuss that. harvey Thanks for the references, I will keep them in mind. I love video lectures. There is no 'middle class' or even 'upper class,' these are vulgar economists' terms. OK, all I intended was rough percentiles. Let's say the 30th–60th percentiles are "all house", 60th–99th are "house and equities", and >99th may be invested in a hedge fund. Speaking of the USA. I don't mean to imply some unified psychology to a social class, or anything like that.
- steveklabnik 14y ago
  > Surely you can answer my question why the wages went up and then down. You wouldn't even understand an answer I'd give you, because it'd be in Marxist terminology. Maybe Oscilliscope will be willing to explain their comment, I don't care to at this time. > Thanks for the references, I will keep them in mind for the future. No problem. Glad to be of help. I think that understanding Marx is really important, but I don't think that he has correct answers for today, exactly. > all I intended was rough percentiles. Right, this is fundamentally wrong. The only thing that matters is your relationship to the means of production: 'middle class' people are proletariat just like 'lower class' people are. It has absolutely nothing to do with your positioning in the table of income. This is an example of the terminology issue. It's common to most philosophers.
  - crasshopper 14y ago
    The only thing that matters is your relationship to the means of production: 'middle class' people are proletariat just like 'lower class' people are. It has absolutely nothing to do with your positioning in the table of income. I understand what you mean. I can see how that relationship might be important to the theory. But what I said about "classes" (bad word: s/classes/quantiles/) is actually true. So if we're going to discuss whether, in fact, workers lost more wealth than capitalists (or, s/capitalists/correct terminology/), those empirical issues should still be addressed. For example, I may be a "worker bee" consultant at IBM, but holding stock factually altered my exposure to wealth shocks. You wouldn't even understand an answer I'd give you, because it'd be in Marxist terminology. Maybe Oscilliscope will be willing to explain their comment, I don't care to at this time. Fair enough.

oscilloscope 14y ago

In the period 1947-1970 where wages were increasing, I don't know. Perhaps it had to do with legislation like the G.I. Bill, which increased human capital during that period and could have helped trend wages upward: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gi_bill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gi_bill America is not a pure capitalist society. We have free public education, for instance. Capitalism also has obviously good effects, such as increased productivity and relatively efficient distribution of goods and services without central control. Profits from these effects can be distributed in the form of wages, if that's what employers choose to do. In terms of the crisis, again I'm not sure. You'd have to consider not only the losses of the crisis, but the gains of the boom. Who benefited from the boom, and did those gains survive the bust? 19th century Marxist theory doesn't have the answer, but it frames these issues in an important way. Rather than crises and falling wages as abberations from normal steady growth, they are considered part of the capitalist system. For a more modern perspective in the Marxist tradition, check out Max Weber or Georg Simmel. There are even radical, almost psychadelic strains of Marxism like Foucault, Deleuze and Guattari.

steveklabnik 14y ago
> America is not a pure capitalist society. We have free public education, for instance. Surely Marx would still say that, because the means of production are privately owned, resource allocation is provided through a market, and wage labor is dominiant, that the states would be still absolutely captialist, no? "Free public education" doesn't really matter. > Capitalism also has obviously good effects, Certainly, and I think this is something that we should keep repeating to people who don't know Marx. > There are even radical, almost psychadelic strains of Marxism like Foucault, Deleuze and Guattari. <3
- oscilloscope 14y ago
  Are the means of production privately owned? It seems to me that one of the most important means of production in the 21st century is computing. Computational power is cheaply available and open-source software is free (as in freedom). With the internet, anyone can acquire knowledge, distribute a good, or work remotely.