Now you've lost me. Central management is a way to coordinate a large network where people simply cannot all come to sit down on a table and have a coffee and decide what everybody is going to do. Large cooperatives also have central management, so what is your point? — ssu

I'm just pointing out the similarities between how central management is handled within a company or regulation imposes it to be handled in a certain way.

What's wrong with letting the shareholders with the largest stake to deal with profits and maintaining their positions from making decisions from within the company?

At no point does the government have to intervene or make decisions for individuals from within the company...

What's wrong with letting the shareholders with the largest stake to deal with profits and maintaining their positions from making decisions from within the company?

At no point does the government have to intervene or make decisions for individuals from within the company... — Shawn

Oh it does! Bernie has a long list on what he plans to meddle in the decisions of corporations.

Just listen to Bernie:

In order to strengthen America’s middle class, a Bernie Sanders administration will make it a priority to restore workers’ rights to bargain for better wages, benefits, and working conditions. That is what the Workplace Democracy plan is all about.

And now feel the Bern:

Bernie’s pro-union plan would:

Provide unions the ability to organize through a majority sign up process, allowing the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to certify a union if it receives the consent of the majority of eligible workers. Under Bernie’s plan, when a majority of workers in a bargaining unit sign valid authorization cards to join a union, they will have a union. If employers refuse to negotiate in good faith, we will impose strong penalties on those companies.

Enact “first contract” provisions to ensure companies cannot prevent a union from forming by denying a first contract. Employers would be required to begin negotiating within 10 days of receiving a request from a new union. If no agreement is reached after 90 days of negotiation, the parties can request to enter a compulsory mediation process. If no first contract is reached after 30 more days of mediation, the parties would have a contract settlement through binding arbitration.

Eliminate the “Right to Work for Less.” Bernie’s plan would repeal Section 14(b) of the Taft Hartley Act, which has allowed 28 states to pass legislation that eliminates the ability of unions to collect dues from those who benefit from union contracts and activities, undermining the unions’ representation of workers.

Under Bernie’s plan, companies will no longer be able to ruthlessly exploit workers by misclassifying them as independent contractors or deny them overtime by falsely calling them a “supervisor.” When Bernie is president, his administration will end the ability of corporations to misclassify workers as “independent contractors” or label them as a “supervisor.”

Make sure that employers can no longer use franchisee or contractor arrangements to avoid responsibility and liability for workers by codifying the Browning-Ferris joint-employer standard into law. When Bernie is president, his administration will make clear that a worker can have more than one employer. If a company can decide who to hire and who to fire and how much to pay an employee at a franchise, that company will be considered a joint employer along with the owner of a particular franchise — and both employers must engage in collective bargaining over the terms and conditions of employment.

Give federal workers the right to strike. In December, Trump shutdown the federal government for 35 days — the longest in history — depriving over 800,000 workers of their paychecks. Adding insult to injury, hundreds of thousands of TSA agents, air traffic controllers, IRS employees, members of the Coast Guard, and other federal government employees were forced to work without pay and without recourse. Under current law, federal employees are not guaranteed the same labor rights as workers in the private sector. While they have the ability to unionize, they are prohibited from going on strike. Under this plan, federal workers would have the right to strike.

Make sure every public sector union in America has the freedom to negotiate. When Bernie is president he will sign the Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act of 2019 to guarantee the right of public employees to organize and bargain collectively for better wages, benefits and working conditions in states like Iowa that currently do not offer these fundamental protections.

Require companies that merge to honor existing union contracts. In February, Wabtec completed a merger with General Electric Transportation in Pennsylvania. Instead of honoring the existing union contract with its workforce, Wabtec tried to impose substantial cuts to benefits employees have earned, while rewarding executives with over $120 million in bonuses. Under this plan, companies would no longer be able to abrogate union contracts through mergers.

Deny federal contracts to employers that pay poverty wages, outsource jobs overseas, engage in union busting, deny good benefits and pay CEOs outrageous compensation packages. When Bernie is president he will issue an executive order to prevent companies from receiving federal contracts that outsource jobs overseas, pay workers less than $15 an hour without benefits, refuse to remain neutral in union organizing efforts, pay executives over 150 times more than average workers, hire workers to replace striking workers, or close businesses after workers vote to unionize.

Ban the permanent replacement of striking workers. This plan will outlaw, once and for all, the permanent replacement of workers who go on strike.

Protect the pensions of workers. As President, Bernie will protect and expand pension benefits of employees in both the public and the private sector. Because of a 2014 change in law instituted in the dead of night and against the strong opposition of Senator Sanders, it is now legal to cut the earned pension benefits of more than 1.5 million workers and retirees in multi-employer pension plans. As president, Bernie will sign an executive order to impose a moratorium on future pension cuts and would reverse the cuts to retirement benefits that have already been made.

In addition, President Sanders will fight to implement the Keep Our Pension Promises Act he first introduced in 2015 to prevent the pensions of up to 10 million Americans from being cut. Instead of asking retirees to take a massive cut in their pension benefits, Bernie will make multi-employer plans solvent by closing egregious loopholes that allow the wealthiest Americans in this country to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. If Congress could provide a multi-trillion bailout to Wall Street and foreign banks in 2008, we can and we must protect the pensions that were promised to millions of Americans.

Stops corporations from forcing workers to attend mandatory anti-union meetings as a condition of continued employment. Under this plan, companies would be barred from requiring workers to attend anti-union meetings as a condition of employment.

Establish federal protections against the firing of workers for any reason other than “just cause.” When Bernie is president he will fight to make sure workers cannot be fired “at will” and will sign a “just cause” law to protect workers and their constitutional right to speak out and organize in their workplaces.

Create a sectoral collective bargaining system with wage boards to set minimum standards across industries. When Bernie is president he will work with the trade union movement to establish a sectoral collective bargaining system that will work to set wages, benefits and hours across entire industries, not just employer-by-employer. In addition, under this plan all cities, counties, and other local jurisdictions would have the freedom to establish their own minimum wage laws and guarantee other minimum standards for workers.

Guarantee the right to unionize for all workers. Bernie will ensure farm workers and domestic workers, historically excluded from labor protections, are afforded the same standards as all workers, including the right to overtime pay and to join a union. He will enact a Domestic Workers Bill of Rights to secure safe working conditions, collective bargaining, and a living wage for domestic workers.

Allow for secondary boycotts. This plan reinstates a union’s freedom of speech to take action to pressure clients and suppliers of companies opposing unions.

Allow states and cities to pass even stronger labor standards than the expanded National Labor Relations Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. We will establish the expanded NLRA and ERISA as the floor for labor rights in this country, not the ceiling. We will not allow the federal government to preempt state and local laws that expand workers’ rights. Period.

Expand and update the persuader rule. This plan would require companies to disclose anti-union information they disseminate to workers and provide for equal time for organizing agents. This would include the funding of third party anti-union campaigns. This plan will also ensure that whatever contact information (email, phone, mailing addresses) the employer uses is disseminated to the organizing agent. Monetary penalties would be enacted for failures to disclose.

A fair transition to Medicare for All: Bernie will require that resulting healthcare savings from union-negotiated plans result in wage increases and additional benefits for workers during the transition to Medicare for All. When Medicare for All is signed into law, companies with union negotiated health care plans would be required to enter into new contract negotiations overseen by the National Labor Relations Board. Under this plan, all company savings that result from reduced health care contributions from Medicare for All will accrue equitably to workers in the form of increased wages or other benefits. Furthermore, the plan will ensure that union-sponsored clinics and other providers are integrated within the Medicare for All system, and kept available for members. Unions will still be able to negotiate for and provide wrap-around services and other coverage not duplicative of the benefits established under Medicare for All.

You got that, Shawn? It's all about unions.

And we haven't come to Corporate Accountability and Democracy part yet.

That's even more of the true unadulterated Bernie.

You got that, Shawn? — ssu

What's wrong with fairness all of a sudden?

Nothing, but didn't you say yourself:

What's wrong with letting the shareholders with the largest stake to deal with profits and maintaining their positions from making decisions from within the company? — Shawn

With the Bernie option, workers getting a salary (and either choosing the job or not) isn't enough.

I don't have a problem with labor unions. I assume you do need them. But also there is a point in having free markets too.

And of course strengthening the labour unions IS quite universal in the DNC.

Just look what Joe Biden says on his website:

Strong unions built the great American middle class. Everything that defines what it means to live a good life and know you can take care of your family – the 40 hour work week, paid leave, health care protections, a voice in your workplace – is because of workers who organized unions and fought for worker protections. Because of organizing and collective bargaining, there used to be a basic bargain between workers and their employers in this country that when you work hard, you share in the prosperity your work created.

Today, however, there’s a war on organizing, collective bargaining, unions, and workers. It’s been raging for decades, and it’s getting worse with Donald Trump in the White House. Republican governors and state legislatures across the country have advanced anti-worker legislation to undercut the labor movement and collective bargaining. States have decimated the rights of public sector workers who, unlike private sector workers, do not have federal protections ensuring their freedom to organize and collectively bargain. In the private sector, corporations are using profits to buy back their own shares and increase CEOs’ compensation instead of investing in their workers and creating more good-quality jobs. The results have been predictable: rising income inequality, stagnant real wages, the loss of pensions, exploitation of workers, and a weakening of workers’ voices in our society.

You really ought to get your priorities straight. Talk about GPD or debt or stocks or anything else is completely useless if we're heading towards disaster. If you don't believe me, take a look at how something like the coronavirus is effecting the markets. That's peanuts compared to the upcoming wildfires, floods, sea rise, mass migrations, and food and water shortages.
— Xtrix
What effects? You think that market going down is a source of trouble? Perhaps you should read what you write yourself. — ssu

What effects? The Dow just had it's worst day since 2008. Yes, the market going down is a source of trouble. Remember -- we share the burden when things fail. We do not, however, share in the profits. This isn't hard to see or understand.

Climate change? How wouldn't the climate change discussion be something else than talking about the economy, if it's fossil fuel you want to replace? — ssu

We're talking priorities. Economic growth, as you highlighted, should be very low on the list, in any rational world, when facing an existential threat. How much is too much when you're heading for disaster?

The economic question has been answered. The Green New Deal will create many jobs, and will also cost a lot of money. Trillions of dollars. It will also save us money in the long run. The details can be hammered out, but let's at least first admit something MAJOR must be done, and quickly. If you can't admit that, there's no sense talking to you. If you can, and you simply don't agree with the proposal, then by all means come up with something better.

So the real issue would be how to get there. That's where you have to do something with the economy. — ssu

OK. And your suggestions are what? If you believe in them, fight for them. Otherwise you're simply dead wood -- an obstacle, and I would recommend simply getting out of the way. Perhaps get together with others who believe nothing can or should be done.

You got that, Shawn? — ssu

Wallows seems a bit too young to fully grasp how important the right to organize is in the states. No offense meant... at all Wallows.

:smile:

So...

That looks like a great plan to empower the everyday worker... a bit of freedom and liberty for working Americans. A reversal of so many policies that have resulted in so many Americans no longer being able to find a good place to work for their entire lives...

Oh, I know... what a horrible idea huh? Dependable workers who care about their job, because it's a good one to have. Used to be a lot of those... not now.

Pension, health benefits, and all that? Who needs it huh? I mean, why not continue to allow huge corporations to breach the contract of those who have already kept their end of the deal. Fuck 'em huh? They're old anyway... they don't need the pension plan that they worked their entire lives for...

No... to quite the contrary, we should keep letting corporations cut pension benefits in order to put the savings from those cuts into the hands of the shareholders...

Take money from those who will reinvest it by virtue of buying things and give it to those who do not.

What a great fucking idea. A robust economy requires having lots of people spend lots of money on everyday goods and services. Regular working class people spend money. Shareholders do not. Investors do not. Corporations do not.

:roll:


That's a perfect list of things to do.

Remember -- we share the burden when things fail. We do not, however, share in the profits. This isn't hard to see or understand. — Xtrix

Ding ding ding ding...

We have a winner!

:smile:

Do you know who Robert Reich is?

But also there is a point in having free markets too. — ssu

Free markets?

What the fuck is that? The markets are manipulated to the extreme by all sorts of people in all sorts of ways. There is no such thing as a free market. The primary focus switching to shareholder profits is the primary reason that corporations exploit common workers in the US and across the globe.

Profits for shareholders(most of whom are already fairly well off)... the welfare line for workers... no healthcare benefits... corporate welfare. Socialism for corporations. The government and tax revenue affords the workers some semblance of healthcare, while the corporation rakes in record level profits as a result of exploiting workers.

When profit alone is the sole motive, it comes at the direct expense of everything else.

What the fuck is that? The markets are manipulated to the extreme by all sorts of people in all sorts of ways. There is no such thing as a free market. — creativesoul

Ding ding ding. Winner!

It's an abstraction, an ideal that people refuse to let go of. Usually used to justify the neoliberal agenda (i.e., giving everything away to private power, thus into the hands of a very small ruling class).

Again I point to Chomsky's "Free Market fantasies" lecture.

https://chomsky.info/19960413/

And the principle of really existing free market theory is: free markets are fine for you, but not for me. That’s, again, near a universal. So you — whoever you may be — you have to learn responsibility, and be subjected to market discipline, it’s good for your character, it’s tough love, and so on, and so forth. But me, I need the nanny State, to protect me from market discipline, so that I’ll be able to rant and rave about the marvels of the free market, while I’m getting properly subsidized and defended by everyone else, through the nanny State. And also, this has to be risk-free. So I’m perfectly willing to make profits, but I don’t want to take risks. If anything goes wrong, you bail me out.

(Chomsky)

That looks like a great plan to empower the everyday worker... a bit of freedom and liberty for working Americans. A reversal of so many policies that have resulted in so many Americans no longer being able to find a good place to work for their entire lives...

Oh, I know... what a horrible idea huh? — creativesoul

No.

But you should, just for a while before assuming anything, just look at what for example Biden is saying on the same issues. And try to spot the difference.

Do you know who Robert Reich is? — creativesoul

Yes.

Have you seen American Factory? Listening or reading Reich's comments/books is one thing, looking at how the Chinese are horrified of the idea of labor unions (when mentioned by a politician at the opening ceremony) and how union involvement is put down is even more telling about the situation of the US worker.

I get that. But I also get that there's a fine line between Biden's and Sanders' proposals. Would you spot the difference or just go with your gut feeling?

Free markets?

What the fuck is that? — creativesoul

A thing that even Sweden has it's economy based upon. A free market is one where voluntary exchange and the laws of supply and demand provide the sole basis for the economic system. Yet for that to work, there have to be institutions and rules that are enforced by a legal system, a government. And with that comes the fact that some issues aren't so well taken care of by free markets. Things aren't a juxtaposition between free market capitalism and non-capitalist socialism, but this simplistic position is how things are portrayed.

To quote Robert Reich: "Contrary to Karl Marx, there is nothing about capitalism that leads inexorably to mounting economic insecurity and widening inequality."

Lol Reich is an idiot.

A thing that even Sweden has it's economy based upon. A free market is one where voluntary exchange and the laws of supply and demand provide the sole basis for the economic system. Yet for that to work, there have to be institutions and rules that are enforced by a legal system, a government. And with that comes the fact that some issues aren't so well taken care of by free markets. Things aren't a juxtaposition between free market capitalism and non-capitalist socialism, but this simplistic position is how things are portrayed. — ssu

There are no free markets. Not in Sweden either. And you're not seeing it because you've grown up with a certain mode of production for quite some time now. But prior to more or less 1860 (and some exemptions of course, such as the East India Company!):

1. Corporate status is natural to the state. Hence, any government institution, whether central, regional, or local, should automatically be incorporated from inception.
2. State permission is required for the incorporation of private institutions.
3. The incorporation of private nonprofit organizations is awarded when parliament (we assume a democracy) judges their goals to be serving some area of public interest.
4. The incorporation of private business firms is awarded when parliament judges them to be pursuing the public interest within a certain limited public domain.
5. The charter explicitly states the area of public interest for which incorporation is approved, from which private corporations deviate on penalty of having their corporate status revoked.
6. Incorporated institutions are obliged to have an open door and open book policy so that the public (in particular, private journalists and state officials) can check whether their activities conform with the public interest to which their charter restricts them. Thus, some degree of privacy needs to be given up in order to acquire the public characteristic of incorporation, which is again just a matter of not granting rights without accompanying obligations. The fact that modern business corporations are also obliged to issue publicly accessible financial statements is partly a legacy of this principle.
7. Incorporation is conceded for a limited period only and the merits of each case are to be reviewed periodically.

The corrolary to this was also that a profit motive was not a "public interest" and therefore not admissable.

So no, a free market would've been the unincorporated world of partnerships. Even then, judges and governments have caused structural effects in markets due to limited liability, duty of care, EH&S, minimum wage etc.

Seems like you read the first sentence and then started with your definitions.

Sorry, but we do use the definition and the word "free market" / "free market system" to describe a present system.

But prior to more or less 1860 (and some exemptions of course, such as the East India Company!): — Benkei

?

And Before 1860 it was according to you more "free market"? That gives it quite a short time as I remember Adam Smith being against mercantilism and the last vestiges of feudalism in his country. And the East India Company was chartered by the English Monarch to have monopoly in trade, so bit confused just what your idea of "free markets" is?

The point being that corporations are a structural effect on markets, just like monetary policy and what not. There isn't "just" demand and supply so talking about "free markets" is just an ideological term with no real content.

Things aren't a juxtaposition between free market capitalism and non-capitalist socialism, but this simplistic position is how things are portrayed. — ssu

Agreed.

...there's a fine line between Biden's and Sanders' proposals. — ssu

I don't think so. Biden's aren't Biden's. Bernie's are Bernie's.

Have you seen American Factory? — ssu

I personally know people who worked at Delphi. That was the GM plant that closed in Dayton Oh. Yes, I've seen the show, and I've also been aware of the differences between work cultures for much longer than that.

What's the point of the mention?

Adam Smith being against mercantilism and the last vestiges of feudalism in his country — ssu

Against patents as well... but no one strictly adheres to Smith. He's more of an imaginary God for those who peddle capitalism. The founding fathers were against capitalists. They've no loyalty to country or countryman. That's proven true.

Good employers do not have nor need unions. Bad ones do. That's the whole point of them. They emerged for very good reason, and those reasons are now actual again.

Sorry, but we do use the definition and the word "free market" / "free market system" to describe a present system. — ssu

And people use "Communist" to describe Sanders. Does not make it either true, nor sensible. Makes it propaganda.

The point being that corporations are a structural effect on markets, just like monetary policy and what not. There isn't "just" demand and supply so talking about "free markets" is just an ideological term with no real content. — Benkei

Let's try to agree on the definitions.

Free market system is an economic system in which prices are determined by competition between businesses, supply and demand in the market. Prices are determined using the market mechanism. Do not confuse this with the theoretical term in economics of a perfect market. This also doesn't say anything about the role of the government, only that it doesn't interfere so much that there wouldn't be the market mechanism at all defining the prices, but the government (or another entity) just fixing the prices itself. Governments and public sector can have either a large or a little role, but that's beside the point to the definition. Or just how efficient and well working the markets are.

If you are thinking of the effects of actual large companies, well, that is then Oligopolistic competition, which in reality is the way global markets usually now tend to be formed. Yet even if oligopolies rule the World, they do it using the free market system.

That's not what I'm getting at. I'm very clearly talking about the effects government interference has on the operation of markets, not the oligopolistic competition, which is still a situation where the action of competitors matter.

In terms you're using I would say every economy in the world is a mixture of elements from free markets and command economies. To say the Netherlands or Finland are (unqualified) free market economies is simply incorrect.

I don't think so. Biden's aren't Biden's. Bernie's are Bernie's. — creativesoul

Campaign promises are indeed one thing. But one should notice what even Biden says about labor unions in his campaign.

Then the actual legislation that the politician has pushed through is something else to be looked upon. Promises are one thing, actual policy decisions another.

What's the point of the mention? — creativesoul

It's a great example of just how much the American workplace differs from others in this issue. And do notice that China naturally has it's one labour union, which is part of the government.

He's more of an imaginary God for those who peddle capitalism. — creativesoul

Well so is Marx for others. Yet both should be taken for what they truly say and meant, not what people just think they stand for as icons.

Good employers do not have nor need unions. Bad ones do. That's the whole point of them. They emerged for very good reason, and those reasons are now actual again. — creativesoul

I would disagree.

In a large workplace that workers use collective bargaining is I think totally reasonable. It's not about the employer being good or bad. It simply just makes sense. Above all, labor unions ought not to be thought as an ideological vehicle for the left, they can be totally unpolitical also. I've always given the example of the officer corps of the Finnish Armed Forces: 98% of all active officers belong to one labor union formed in 1918 and trust me, those guys genuinely aren't pinkos. Never have been and never will be.

(90th birthday ceremony of one Labor union. Notice that the union members are using their uniforms in the event. No red flags btw.)

And people use "Communist" to describe Sanders. Does not make it either true, nor sensible. Makes it propaganda. — creativesoul

And the term "fascist" is used as a similar derogative for right wing politicians. Yet I've tried to explain that there is a definition in economics to free markets, which I explained to Benkei above.

Yes, and for many others it isn't. They work very hard and are still screwed. To highlight and rail on one and not the other, particularly when there's far more evidence to support the latter, exposes your own prejudices.

Personal decisions are huge. I shouldn't have to explain this. If you have children that's a huge burden especially as an unmarried, single parent. In fact, that's probably the biggest predictor of poverty. Do you know how much raising a child costs? Around $250k from cradle to the time they're 18. Now lets just throw in 3 kids.

My approach is to examine the micro before we approach the macro.

I'm going by brookings institute here - a left wing institute.

Top 3 predictors of poverty:

1. Graduating from high school.

2. Waiting to get married until after 21 and do not have children till after being married.

3. Having a full-time job.

If you do all those three things, your chance of falling into poverty is just 2 percent. Meanwhile, you’ll have a 74 percent chance of being in the middle class.

https://www.jacksonville.com/article/20120127/OPINION/801258741

It's really quite a good article.

It's really quite a good article — BitconnectCarlos

The "Success Sequence" is a bunch of nonsense actually.

Too frail, too corrupt. His looks aren't decieving either. He'll play how he looks.

Your red button under Bernie is an surprise ruining aunt scenario.

He clearly doesn't know what he is doing in the world, maybe on paper. Trump's fore features are better suited.

It should be clear that having children - especially many of them - before one is financially stable should be avoided if your priority is to avoid poverty. I don't know how you can argue against that. Same thing with high school education.

So, what prevented them with coming up with the rule: Don't have children. Period? Oh, I know, that would conflict with conservative ideology, which is what this is obviously really about.