www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1266643/Microsofts-Chinese-workforce-tired-stay-awake.html#ixzz0lQHRFB8W
So I'm trying to figure this out. Assuming this article is true, why is it the case that the Chinese workers simply cannot just quit the jobs to escape the bad conditions?
Why are the wages not higher? Is it not true that the workers are offering a high marginal value product?
If government intervention is the problem, what exactly is it?
you don't gain from intervening though.
As buying labor becomes harder there will be more unemployment and businesses will be out of workers.
Property is theft!
Theft from whom? This is a logical fallacy. For theft to have any meaning, property rights must first be clearly defined and subsequently violated. Theft is the involuntary transfer of property from one party to another. Exclaiming property "is" theft is circular reasoning.
Orthogonal: Property is theft! Theft from whom? This is a logical fallacy. For theft to have any meaning, property rights must first be clearly defined and subsequently violated. Theft is the involuntary transfer of property from one party to another. Exclaiming property "is" theft is circular reasoning.
It's the ghost of Proudhon.
Self-refuting statements ftl.
I think they mean theft from the 'commons'
Most of the time they define private property as immoral, but to get around the problem define private possession as moral
I think it is interesting:
If I make a stick and give it to you and you use it to shake apples 4 from a tree and give me one in return for my stick, I engage in privatizing means of production and am immoral (even tho now you have 3 apples and I 1, ie both are better off)
If I make a stick and instead of increasing your productivity just sit there and scratch my ass with it, I am not privatizing means of production (since it is only used in private) and thus engage in a moral act.
Doesn't make much sense to me....
"But the workers who are left will get paid more. Assuming there are any left. Is that risk worth it?"
The workers do get paid more but I think that this would be an unjust profit. This is because it was gained through coercion and instilling fear into other workers and businessmen. So ethically, I don't think that this gain is really a gain worth keeping -if .50 cents is enough subjectively, then everything is just and a rise in wages due to violence is unjust, since it ignores the social will of others embodied in prices.
I think they mean theft from the 'commons' Most of the time they define private property as immoral, but to get around the problem define private possession as moral
Yes, I know they make an arbitrary distinction and exception for consumption goods to be "possessed" since they have too. When a Marxist refers to property, they are usually referring to capital goods which makes discussions difficult since so many terms are defined differently. This also ties into anarchism. An Ancap would define Anarchism as a society that is "Stateless" or the absence of a coercive monopoly. Wheras the communists define it as a "Classless" society with the absence of private ownership in capital goods. With so many different terms and definitions, it's no wonder there is never any meaningful discussions between the two groups.
Is anyone else having trouble with the quote button?
@fakename, I tend to agree with you. I don't think the costs are worth the potential benefits.
I know, I am too.
"I know, I am too."
It's an upgrade issue. It is being worked on.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1266643/Microsofts-Chinese-workforce-tired-stay-awake.html#ixzz0lQHRFB8W So I'm trying to figure this out. Assuming this article is true, why is it the case that the Chinese workers simply cannot just quit the jobs to escape the bad conditions? Why are the wages not higher? Is it not true that the workers are offering a high marginal value product? If government intervention is the problem, what exactly is it?
The picture looks like a wet dream for our New World Order overlords.
Clayton -
Of course this distinction between private property and private possession is contradictory since it is ultimately all too true that capital can be possessed -that is, your above mentioned butt scratcher can be an object of possession. So theft would be private possession and thus a contradiction ensues if I'm reading you right.
Uhh I thought all the jobs in china were basically government controlled. With the so-called free market corporations essentially under control of the state. If someone's alternative is starvation, you don't have to pay them very much or treat them very well. Its competition between entrepreneurs that raises the standard of living for employees. I guess its missing.
it just seems to me that the distinction between property and possession would destroy any incentive to save and invest (and create more capital)