French Presidential Election 2012

[innonimatu]

Originally Posted by luiz

Of course not, especially because I don't believe in that position. For instance, I don't believe that for us workers to be prosperous we have to fight the more prosperous individuals and confiscate 75% of their income above an arbitrary threshold.

And I don't believe that you are one of "us workers". I believe that you are a member of the "managerial class" that has been, along with owners, the one reaping all the profits of economic growth for the last few decades. And that your crusade against worker's interests, against any past and present successes of workers in organizing to claim for themselves a greater portion of the economic output, is a nice example of class warfare.

See, other people can just drop claims without evidence too!

[luiz]

Originally Posted by innonimatu

And I don't believe that you are one of "us workers". I believe that you are a member of the "managerial class" that has been, along with owners, the one reaping all the profits of economic growth for the last few decades. And that your crusade against worker's interests, against any past and present successes of workers in organizing to claim for themselves a greater portion of the economic output, is a nice example of class warfare.

See, other people can just drop claims without evidence too!

You can believe whatever you want, the objective fact remains what I make would place me at the heart of the middle class in most developed nation, and lower middle class in the expensive ones.

I certainly don't crusade against "worker's interests", in fact I'm strongly commited with giving proper reward to the good workers in the projects I work on. What I would like is the ability to fire the bad, lazy and dishonest workers without having to pay a fortune; to be able to hire workers for a decent salary without having to pay more than that salary to the government in payroll taxes (in Brazil a worker who makes R$1k per month costs over R$2k per month to the company), in fact I would like to be paid more myself but it's extremely expensive for the company to give me a raise because of those taxes. Labor flexibility, productivity pay, etc., all those things that are painted as an "anti-workers" crusade are actually good for the good workers. I want them for myself and as such I am comfortable wanting them for others as well. The incompetent, the lazy and the dishonest can rot in the streets as far as I care.

[Akka]

Originally Posted by luiz

I certainly don't crusade against "worker's interests", in fact I'm strongly commited with giving proper reward to the good workers in the projects I work on. What I would like is the ability to fire the bad, lazy and dishonest workers without having to pay a fortune;

Don't recruit bad workers to begin with ?
Isn't that the argument about everything for capitalist ? "you just had to do it right !" ? Why don't you apply it to yourself instead of saying "it's because of the government !" when something is detrimental, and "it's because of myself !" when something is beneficial ?

to be able to hire workers for a decent salary without having to pay more than that salary to the government in payroll taxes (in Brazil a worker who makes R$1k per month costs over R$2k per month to the company), in fact I would like to be paid more myself but it's extremely expensive for the company to give me a raise because of those taxes.

Don't worry, they would give it to shareholder if the taxes were lower, not to the workers.
And anyway this is about taxes, not work flexibility.

Labor flexibility, productivity pay, etc., all those things that are painted as an "anti-workers" crusade are actually good for the good workers. I want them for myself and as such I am comfortable wanting them for others as well. The incompetent, the lazy and the dishonest can rot in the streets as far as I care.

Basically, you're fine with the top-tier exploiting the lower-tier of the population. All these pretty words to just rename it all with nice/bad words to fits your picture of a binary world with good, hard-working, honest people (of whom you, of course, belong) and evil, lazy, dishonest lowlife (acting as the cushion to prevent your own fall against people above you).

[luiz]

Originally Posted by Akka

Don't recruit bad workers to begin with ?
Isn't that the argument about everything for capitalist ? "you just had to do it right !" ? Why don't you apply it to yourself instead of saying "it's because of the government !" when something is detrimental, and "it's because of myself !" when something is beneficial ?

It's often hard to know the work ethics and even competence of a blue collar worker before actually working with him for a while. You talk to the guy a bit, he operates the machine in front of you, and that's it, he has a job. If he manages to stay under the radar for at least 3 months (trial period in Brazil) he can slack all he wants and still I can't fire him without paying a fortune. This is very bad for the good workers, because it makes hiring people a risky move and as such hiring becomes a last alternative.

Don't worry, they would give it to shareholder if the taxes were lower, not to the workers.
And anyway this is about taxes, not work flexibility.

That's not how it works. I'm not paid minimum wage (and neither are the blue collar workers who work with me). Our wage is not determined by law, it is determined by market equilibrium. Remove payroll taxes and the equilibrium rises. This is basic logic.

And payroll taxes and labor flexibility are the two things I would reform first in Brazil, and probably France as well. I'm told firing people in France is even harder and more expensive than in Brazil.

Basically, you're fine with the top-tier exploiting the lower-tier of the population. All these pretty words to just rename it all with nice/bad words to fits your picture of a binary world with good, hard-working, honest people (of whom you, of course, belong) and evil, lazy, dishonest lowlife (acting as the cushion to prevent your own fall against people above you).

I'm fine with being able to hire more good guys and fire more bad guys, with being able to pay good salaries for the good guys without being bled dry by taxes. You can't possibly distort those things as being fine with "exploitation" or whatever. It's justice.

[Kaiserguard]

Originally Posted by luiz

That's not how it works. I'm not paid minimum wage (and neither are the blue collar workers who work with me). Our wage is not determined by law, it is determined by market equilibrium. Remove payroll taxes and the equilibrium rises. This is basic logic.

Minimum wages are indeed often symbolic and usually have less influence on wages than is popularly thought. However, rules of market equilibria do not always apply and especially not so in the area of labour economics. When labour becomes overly expensive (read: stands in the way of more profit), employers can chose between decreasing wages, firing workers or a combination of the two. Textbook models of market equilibria often suppose that wages will simply be decreased, but even in a hypothetical completely "free" labour market, employers may prefer sacking workers instead.

Honestly, do you really think employers think "He costs too much, so I'll decrease his pay?"

[innonimatu]

Originally Posted by luiz

That's not how it works. I'm not paid minimum wage (and neither are the blue collar workers who work with me). Our wage is not determined by law, it is determined by market equilibrium. Remove payroll taxes and the equilibrium rises. This is basic logic.

And the tax shortfall will be covered with money coming magically from..? Or the state spending cuts would magically be made without a negative impact in..?

Btw, caw we indeed know if you're a managed or not? It's none of my business if you don't claim to represent the interests of the majority of wage workers, of course. I'm just curious if you don't happen to have an undisclosed personal interest when asking for policies to make it easier to fire people.

[luiz]

Originally Posted by Kaiserguard

Minimum wages are indeed often symbolic and usually have less influence on wages than is popularly thought. However, rules of market equilibria do not always apply and especially not so in the area of labour economics. When labour becomes overly expensive (read: stands in the way of more profit), employers can chose between decreasing wages, firing workers or a combination of the two. Textbook models of market equilibria often suppose that wages will simply be decreased, but even in a hypothetical completely "free" labour market, employers may prefer sacking workers instead.

Honestly, do you really think employers think "He costs too much, so I'll decrease his pay?"

Employers think "he cost too much, so I won't give him a good raise". Firms are not concerned with wages, they're concerned with total labor costs. High payroll taxes means firms will be reluctant to hire and reluctant to give raises. Lower payroll taxes would lower general labor costs and as such firms would consider hiring it situations where they don't today, and would be more open to raises (in fact they would have to be or competing firms would take their employees).

[holy king]

Originally Posted by luiz

You can believe whatever you want, the objective fact remains what I make would place me at the heart of the middle class in most developed nation, and lower middle class in the expensive ones.

being "lower middle class in an "expensive" country" means your purchasing power in brazil makes you upper middle class at least, right?

[luiz]

Originally Posted by innonimatu

And the tax shortfall will be covered with money coming magically from..? Or the state spending cuts would magically be made without a negative impact in..?

Btw, caw we indeed know if you're a managed or not? It's none of my business if you don't claim to represent the majority of wage workers, of course.

The tax shortfall could be covered by cutting spending. In Brazil for instance if there was not a huge deficit on the pensions of public employees, who retire too early on full salaries, taxes could be cut accross the board.

I'm not a manager. My job description is "Project Engineer". Of course I "manage" stuff, but so does everybody with an engineering degree. I could never be a manager because I'm 27 years old, such is the culture in the industrial world.

[luiz]

Originally Posted by holy king

being "lower middle class in an "expensive" country" means your purchasing power in brazil makes you upper middle class at least, right?

Not really, Brazil is as expensive as the expensive developed nations. Our PPP GDP is lower than our nominal GDP, for instance. Cars are twice as expensive as they are in Germany; apartments in Rio rival Tokyo and Manhattan.

That said, I do think of myself as "upper middle class" in Brazil. But that's because the county has a poor majority (which is called "new middle class", but is in fact poor), not because I can afford an upper middle class lifestyle comparable to say the US, which I can't.

[innonimatu]

Originally Posted by luiz

The tax shortfall could be covered by cutting spending. In Brazil for instance if there was not a huge deficit on the pensions of public employees, who retire too early on full salaries, taxes could be cut accross the board.

I'm not a manager. My job description is "Project Engineer". Of course I "manage" stuff, but so does everybody with an engineering degree. I could never be a manager because I'm 27 years old, such is the culture in the industrial world.

Indeed that's the general rule, you're probably still only attached to projects, not managing projects. But you're also aiming to become a manager, aren't you? Most engineers expect to make it to manager, afraid they're become "too old" otherwise for purely engineering work. Kind of sad, depends on the specific area, though. Anyway, I shouldn't insist on this, it's a bit like a personal attack. I don't want to know what motivates your opinion, just want to say that I very much doubt your opinion is prevalent among waged workers.

Anyway, I even agree with being more careful with pensions. But that cannot mean eliminating pensions, disability payments, etc, meaning that payroll taxes cannot be substantially lowered either. Unless you want to move that into general state spending. Or, far worse, privatize the whole thing - which ends up becoming more expensive to workers, then forced to pay into private schemes out to make a profit from them!

[luiz]

Originally Posted by innonimatu

Indeed that's the general rule, you're probably still only attached to projects, not managing projects. But you're also aiming to become a manager, aren't you? Most engineers expect to make it to manager, afraid they're become "too old" otherwise for purely engineering work. Kind of sad, depends on the specific area, though. Anyway, I shouldn't insist on this, it's a bit like a personal attack. I don't want to know what motivates your opinion, just want to say that I very much doubt your opinion is prevalent among waged workers.

Anyway, I even agree with being more careful with pensions. But that cannot mean eliminating pensions, disability payments, etc, meaning that payroll taxes cannot be substantially lowered either. Unless you want to move that into general state spending. Or, far worse, privatize the whole thing - which ends up becoming more expensive to workers, then forced to pay into private schemes out to make a profit from them!

Well of course I aim to be a manager, indeed make it to director at some point! I agree it's a bit sad people feel (correctly) a need to move away from a mostly technical position into a mostly managerial one in order to receive better pay, but that's how it is at least in Latin America. It might change someday (I hope and believe it will), but now we have to play ball. My opinions are not very unusual in an industrial context. Pretty much anyone who deals with hiring and firing wants the process made easier and cheaper, and everyone wants higher wages and thus resent payroll taxes (the unions are frequently requesting payroll tax cuts in Brazil).

As for pensions, in Brazil they're a major upwards income redistribution scheme - everyone financing public employees, who of course are well above average in income. It's a tremendous injustice that every year tax payers have to pour billions of dollars to cover the deficit in their pensions. To me it's quite clear that they should only get what they put in. Fixing that would pave the way for massive tax cuts. We're a young country that spends as much in pensions (as a share of GDP) as Belgium and Italy. It's messed up.

Edit: the graph below should be enough to show why I hate the left-wing consensus in Brazil that created this mess:

[Akka]

Originally Posted by luiz

It's often hard to know the work ethics and even competence of a blue collar worker before actually working with him for a while. You talk to the guy a bit, he operates the machine in front of you, and that's it, he has a job. If he manages to stay under the radar for at least 3 months (trial period in Brazil) he can slack all he wants and still I can't fire him without paying a fortune. This is very bad for the good workers, because it makes hiring people a risky move and as such hiring becomes a last alternative.

Let me repeat the part that was the very quote you answered, but seems to have been conveniently stepped over :

Isn't that the argument about everything for capitalist ? "you just had to do it right !" ? Why don't you apply it to yourself instead of saying "it's because of the government !" when something is detrimental, and "it's because of myself !" when something is beneficial ?

That's not how it works. I'm not paid minimum wage (and neither are the blue collar workers who work with me). Our wage is not determined by law, it is determined by market equilibrium. Remove payroll taxes and the equilibrium rises. This is basic logic.

No, this is wishful thinking, not logic.
The wages are determined by how little the company can get away with (which is the very reason why minimal wage was created, BTW). If they have less taxes to pay, they will simply put more in their pocket. People don't get an increase in paycheck when the company double its profits, they wouldn't if the taxes were lowered either.

And payroll taxes and labor flexibility are the two things I would reform first in Brazil, and probably France as well. I'm told firing people in France is even harder and more expensive than in Brazil.

I'm fine with being able to hire more good guys and fire more bad guys, with being able to pay good salaries for the good guys without being bled dry by taxes. You can't possibly distort those things as being fine with "exploitation" or whatever. It's justice.

No it's not justice, it's a self-serving simplistic and binary worldview. I've already called you out about this childish "black vs white" thing, and the way you just ignored it tends to make me think I hit dead center and you hold this reasoning only because you consider yourself being part of the upper half of the population (and so able to find a job and to compete favourably on the whole).

[Leoreth]

I think luiz is right that wages are determined by market equilibrium. What he overlooks is the fact that for jobs that where there is a large supply and comparatively low demand (thanks to, in part, automatization), the market equilibrium doesn't lead to desirable wages.

I'm sure a neurosurgeon can use the value of his labour as bargaining chip to get a good wage. Certain other professions can't.

[luiz]

Originally Posted by Akka

Let me repeat the part that was the very quote you answered, but seems to have been conveniently stepped over :

Isn't that the argument about everything for capitalist ? "you just had to do it right !" ? Why don't you apply it to yourself instead of saying "it's because of the government !" when something is detrimental, and "it's because of myself !" when something is beneficial ?

I just explained why sometimes legislation makes it harder to properly reward the good guys and get rid of the bad guys. This doesn't mean that other parties can't make mistakes. I'm frankly baffled at the poor quality of your argument. If you disagree with me on the negative effect of labor rigidity explain why, instead of accusing me of trying to deflect blame.

No, this is wishful thinking, not logic.
The wages are determined by how little the company can get away with (which is the very reason why minimal wage was created, BTW). If they have less taxes to pay, they will simply put more in their pocket. People don't get an increase in paycheck when the company double its profits, they wouldn't if the taxes were lowered either.

I'm afraid you betray a complete lack of understanding of how the world works.

Of course employers will pay the minimum they can get away with, just like employees will demand the maximum they can get away with. The question is: how is the amount determined? Clearly not the minimum wage for the great majority of workers. It is, as I said, an equilibrium.

Of course, the notion that a single company would increase it's paycheck when they doubled profits is wrong (though bonuses will get increased). They don't have to because the other companies didn't experience such increase, and as such there is no extra pressure on their workers. But when a whole sector experiences a boom, paychecks do increase. The company that does not increase pay will lose employees. See how paychecks rise in the construction sector during a construction boom, or on the oil sector when oil prices rise for some years in a row. This is a demonstrable fact. Those wages are not rising because some all-powerfull government is telling them to rise, they are rising because market equilibrium is rising. This is indeed basic logic.

No it's not justice, it's a self-serving simplistic and binary worldview. I've already called you out about this childish "black vs white" thing, and the way you just ignored it tends to make me think I hit dead center and you hold this reasoning only because you consider yourself being part of the upper half of the population (and so able to find a job and to compete favourably on the whole).

You have not really explained where I'm wrong, and it is your reasoning which is over simplistic and demonstrably wrong.

[kronic]

Hollande appoints Jean-Marc Ayrault as Prime Minister, a former German teacher. The charm offensive got kicked off already...

[Leoreth]

I hope that's a coincidence.

[Akka]

Originally Posted by luiz

I just explained why sometimes legislation makes it harder to properly reward the good guys and get rid of the bad guys. This doesn't mean that other parties can't make mistakes. I'm frankly baffled at the poor quality of your argument. If you disagree with me on the negative effect of labor rigidity explain why, instead of accusing me of trying to deflect blame.

I disagree on the negative effect of labour rigidity because you see it as a way to make it difficult to reward the best workers and punish the worst one, I see it as a way to protect people from the abuse of those with more power.
As I said before, flexibility in labour is only acceptable when there is an equal field - that is, it's as easy for the worker to find a new work as it is for the boss to fire him. If not, then it's just a tool for subtle (or unsubtle, sometimes) blackmail.

I'm afraid [...] equilibrium is rising. This is indeed basic logic.

Let me reformulate what I meant : sure, wages have some relationship with market equilibrium. The problem is that this equilibrium has, just like you said, much more to do with the pressure the company receive, and not with how much the work of someone is really worth. The entire point of exploitation stem from this, and even someone seriously delusionnal will have a hard time saying that exploitation doesn't exist.

Without the pressure of laws and regulation, there is nothing preventing companies to play the race to the bottom and force most people to work for barely subsistance level and in difficult conditions.
That's why countries have labour laws. If the market magic was sufficient, these laws would not have been necessary. Fact is, it is not, and as such outside intervention is needed to ensure that there is less abuse of power.

You have not really explained where I'm wrong, and it is your reasoning which is over simplistic and demonstrably wrong.

Actually, yes I have, twice.
"binary world with good, hard-working, honest people on one side and bad, lazy,
dishonest people on the other"
That's pretty much word for word what you said. It's a bit hard to take such a simplistic point of view seriously, especially for something as complex as economy.

[innonimatu]

Originally Posted by Akka

Let me reformulate what I meant : sure, wages have some relationship with market equilibrium. The problem is that this equilibrium has, just like you said, much more to do with the pressure the company receive, and not with how much the work of someone is really worth. The entire point of exploitation stem from this, and even someone seriously delusionnal will have a hard time saying that exploitation doesn't exist.

That reminds me of the news of the day here in Portugal: CEOs gave themselves a rise of 5% last year; employees' wages were cut on average some 11%...

Or for a more notorious example, see the CEO of Morgan Stanley, who got rewarded for failing. It's all about power. The rest are excuses.

[cegman]

Originally Posted by innonimatu

That reminds me of the news of the day here in Portugal: CEOs gave themselves a rise of 5% last year; employees' wages were cut on average some 11%...

Or for a more notorious example, see the CEO of Morgan Stanley, who got rewarded for failing. It's all about power. The rest are excuses.

Multiple or single CEO that did this?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...y-shareholders

Shareholders need to be the ones to take control of CEO pay.