Debates
20 Nov 12
20 Nov 12
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI have to say that while I don't always like Krugman and while his article is couched in his standard quasi-hysterical digs, his points do make some sense.
Or, how the USA can still avoid ending up a klepto-plutocracy along the lines of Putin's Russia:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/19/opinion/krugman-the-twinkie-manifesto.html
Listen to Krugman, wingnuts.
Still, the economic conditions of the 1950s, which allowed strong worker bargaining power were largely based on our enormous and thriving manufacturing industry and consequent very low unemployment. Between globalization and outsourcing and destruction of enormous parts of our manufacturing industry, it's difficult to see how the workers are going to regain that level of bargaining power.
Unless you're going to start engaging in isolationist extreme protectionist policies, the 1950s are gone. Though better tax policy could certainly cause more efficient wealth distribution while not disincentivizing work.
20 Nov 12
Originally posted by sh76I say that the workers should storm the houses of the CEO"s just like the workers did in Wisconsin when they stormed the state house.
I have to say that while I don't always like Krugman and while his article is couched in his standard quasi-hysterical digs, his points do make some sense.
Still, the economic conditions of the 1950s, which allowed strong worker bargaining power were largely based on our enormous and thriving manufacturing industry and consequent very low unemployment. Betwe ...[text shortened]... icy could certainly cause more efficient wealth distribution while not disincentivizing work.
20 Nov 12
Originally posted by sh76Isolationism would be going in the wrong direction in a world of multinational corporations. The solution is for unions to become global.
Still, the economic conditions of the 1950s, which allowed strong worker bargaining power were largely based on our enormous and thriving manufacturing industry and consequent very low unemployment. Between globalization and outsourcing and destruction of enormous parts of our manufacturing industry, it's difficult to see how the workers are going to regain tha ...[text shortened]... licy could certainly cause more efficient wealth distribution while not disincentivizing work.
Marx had it right all along: "Workers of the world, unite!"
20 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by SoothfastExcept that the Chinese worker who's willing to work for $10 a day is not going to be in the same union as the American worker who needs $15 an hour.
Isolationism would be going in the wrong direction in a world of multinational corporations. The solution is for unions to become global.
Marx had it right all along: "Workers of the world, unite!"
20 Nov 12
Originally posted by SoothfastMarx was a dreamer. Workers are workers, but people at least for the foreseeable future will have strong national identities. Do you really see international labor unions? At a national level, in the US unionism is falling off, and has been for some time.
Isolationism would be going in the wrong direction in a world of multinational corporations. The solution is for unions to become global.
Marx had it right all along: "Workers of the world, unite!"
20 Nov 12
Originally posted by sh76World trade as it gets freer, tends to equalize economic conditions . Some drop off from the most favored workers at the top, and much greater improvements of the worst working conditions at the bottom. Classical economists call this seeking equilibrium, which is never reached but is nonetheless a measuring standard.
Except that the Chinese worker who's willing to work for $10 a day is not going to be in the same union as the American worker who needs $15 an hour.
I do think that labor movements will remain local and national.
21 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI really like Krugman. He knows his stuff. This particular article is well-written and wtih excellent points. The only criticism of this particular article is that he didn't account for the lack of world competition in the 1950s, especially the early 1950s. A devastated Japan. A devastated Germany. Nevertheless, his points are still valid, that's for sure. It is not only possible (and desirable) but also arguably necessary to have tax fairness and worker bargaining power for a successful economy, even with the incredible competition in the world we have today.
Or, how the USA can still avoid ending up a klepto-plutocracy along the lines of Putin's Russia:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/19/opinion/krugman-the-twinkie-manifesto.html
Listen to Krugman, wingnuts.