Communism, Marxism, Socialism, Capitalism, What are your thoughts?

[AmazonQueen]

The benefit is the work they do, is that not clear? People have an instinct to run restaurants, let them run restaurants. They'll reap the benefits of feeding people every day and being appropriately recognized for their contribution to society and rewarded on that basis, just like every day in normal society but without some people owning most things.

Theres a few people have the instincts to be a chef or manage a restaurant and might still do it because they enjoy it but good luck finding waiters or kitchen porters who will do the job without tangible reward.

 

[Gorbles]

Theres a few people have the instincts to be a chef or manage a restaurant and might still do it because they enjoy it but good luck finding waiters or kitchen porters who will do the job without tangible reward.

This isn't a leading question, but do you have much experience with the restaurant trade? Ancedotally, my family run a restaurant, and while money can be tight, and wages in general aren't high, it's not difficult to find people willing to do that kind of job. There are people that do enjoy it, full stop. More physical trades like the restaurant business might suffer more than a more creative endeavour, but it's hard to generalise.

For example, I went into computer science because I liked computers. A lot. You couldn't get me off of them, you couldn't stop me getting games onto them (high school, go figure). But it's also a paycheck. It was a kinda naive decision at 17 or 18 (what isn't, really), but certainly better than going into history, which was my alternative (which I also enjoy greatly).

If there wasn't the pressure of "get job to make money", as Crezth is saying, people would be free to do what interests them. We cannot safely assume that it is in peoples' inherent interests to lie on the floor inert and do nothing forever. People like to do things. That's a large part of how charities work in the first place (before they go corporate-ish, anyhow). People making unpaid time out of a desire to better things.

I wouldn't give up computers if I wasn't paid for it (assuming life itself was paid for). I enjoy making things, solving problems, and generally making peoples' lives easier (I'm big on infrastructure and ease of use stuff, when I'm not doing my primary role of developing integrations). And sure, I'm just one guy. But as anecdotal as my experience is, you can't generalise the other way either.

 

[Zardnaar]

Theres a few people have the instincts to be a chef or manage a restaurant and might still do it because they enjoy it but good luck finding waiters or kitchen porters who will do the job without tangible reward.

That's what I've been saying about farmers.

 

[Zardnaar]

This isn't a leading question, but do you have much experience with the restaurant trade? Ancedotally, my family run a restaurant, and while money can be tight, and wages in general aren't high, it's not difficult to find people willing to do that kind of job. There are people that do enjoy it, full stop. More physical trades like the restaurant business might suffer more than a more creative endeavour, but it's hard to generalise.

For example, I went into computer science because I liked computers. A lot. You couldn't get me off of them, you couldn't stop me getting games onto them (high school, go figure). But it's also a paycheck. It was a kinda naive decision at 17 or 18 (what isn't, really), but certainly better than going into history, which was my alternative (which I also enjoy greatly).

If there wasn't the pressure of "get job to make money", as Crezth is saying, people would be free to do what interests them. We cannot safely assume that it is in peoples' inherent interests to lie on the floor inert and do nothing forever. People like to do things. That's a large part of how charities work in the first place (before they go corporate-ish, anyhow). People making unpaid time out of a desire to better things.

I wouldn't give up computers if I wasn't paid for it (assuming life itself was paid for). I enjoy making things, solving problems, and generally making peoples' lives easier (I'm big on infrastructure and ease of use stuff, when I'm not doing my primary role of developing integrations). And sure, I'm just one guy. But as anecdotal as my experience is, you can't generalise the other way either.

Without forcing or rewarding people not enough people will want to do the crap jobs if they have other options.

You'll still likely need money it just means the government chooses what's worth more so maybe a full time student gets an ubi, a farm worker gets paid more.

You would probably need to prioritize food and housing over luxuries.

Government shouldn't try and determine who gets what more what you can and can't make and how much people get paid.

 

[AmazonQueen]

This isn't a leading question, but do you have much experience with the restaurant trade? Ancedotally, my family run a restaurant, and while money can be tight, and wages in general aren't high, it's not difficult to find people willing to do that kind of job. There are people that do enjoy it, full stop. More physical trades like the restaurant business might suffer more than a more creative endeavour, but it's hard to generalise.

For example, I went into computer science because I liked computers. A lot. You couldn't get me off of them, you couldn't stop me getting games onto them (high school, go figure). But it's also a paycheck. It was a kinda naive decision at 17 or 18 (what isn't, really), but certainly better than going into history, which was my alternative (which I also enjoy greatly).

If there wasn't the pressure of "get job to make money", as Crezth is saying, people would be free to do what interests them. We cannot safely assume that it is in peoples' inherent interests to lie on the floor inert and do nothing forever. People like to do things. That's a large part of how charities work in the first place (before they go corporate-ish, anyhow). People making unpaid time out of a desire to better things.

I wouldn't give up computers if I wasn't paid for it (assuming life itself was paid for). I enjoy making things, solving problems, and generally making peoples' lives easier (I'm big on infrastructure and ease of use stuff, when I'm not doing my primary role of developing integrations). And sure, I'm just one guy. But as anecdotal as my experience is, you can't generalise the other way either.

Yes, I worked in hotels for a couple of years.
You are talking nonsense if you claim that many of the people who work as kitchen porters and other poorly paid menial jobs do it for pleasure or out of interest.

 

[Colon]

What social, legal and political factors are you referring to?.

Well, this introduction provides a good example of the kind of things institutional economists investigate and the approach they use:

1. INTRODUCTION
THE ROLE OF HISTORICAL INSTITUTIONS in explaining contemporary underdevelopment
has generated significant debate in recent years.2 Studies find quantitative
support for an impact of history on current economic outcomes (Nunn
(2008), Glaeser and Shleifer (2002), Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson (2001,
2002), Hall and Jones (1999)), but have not focused on channels of persistence.
Existing empirical evidence offers little guidance in distinguishing a variety of
potential mechanisms, such as property rights enforcement, inequality, ethnic
fractionalization, barriers to entry, and public goods. This paper uses variation
in the assignment of an historical institution in Peru to identify land tenure and
public goods as channels through which its effects persist.
Specifically, I examine the long-run impacts of the mining mita, a forced
labor system instituted by the Spanish government in Peru and Bolivia in 1573
and abolished in 1812. The mita required over 200 indigenous communities to
send one-seventh of their adult male population to work in the Potosí silver and
Huancavelica mercury mines (Figure 1). The contribution of mita conscripts
changed discretely at the boundary of the subjected region: on one side, all
communities sent the same percentage of their population, while on the other
side, all communities were exempt.
This discrete change suggests a regression discontinuity (RD) approach for
evaluating the long-term effects of the mita, with the mita boundary forming
a multidimensional discontinuity in longitude–latitude space. Because validity
of the RD design requires all relevant factors besides treatment to vary
smoothly at the mita boundary, I focus exclusively on the portion that transects
the Andean range in southern Peru. Much of the boundary tightly follows the
steep Andean precipice, and hence has elevation and the ethnic distribution of
the population changing discretely at the boundary. In contrast, elevation, the
ethnic distribution, and other observables are statistically identical across the
segment of the boundary on which this study focuses. Moreover, specification
checks using detailed census data on local tribute (tax) rates, the allocation of
tribute revenue, and demography—collected just prior to the mita’s institution
in 1573—do not find differences across this segment. The multidimensional
nature of the discontinuity raises interesting and important questions about
how to specify the RD polynomial, which will be explored in detail.
Using the RD approach and household survey data, I estimate that a longrun
mita effect lowers equivalent household consumption by around 25% in
subjected districts today. Although the household survey provides little power
for estimating relatively flexible models, the magnitude of the estimated mita
effect is robust to a number of alternative specifications. Moreover, data from
a national height census of school children provide robust evidence that the
mita’s persistent impact increases childhood stunting by around 6 percentage
points in subjected districts today. These baseline results support the well
known hypothesis that extractive historical institutions influence long-run economic
prosperity (Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson (2002)). More generally,
they provide microeconomic evidence consistent with studies establishing
a relationship between historical institutions and contemporary economic outcomes
using aggregate data (Nunn (2008), Banerjee and Iyer (2005), Glaeser
and Shleifer (2002)).
After examining contemporary living standards, I use data from the Spanish
Empire and Peruvian Republic, combined with the RD approach, to investigate
channels of persistence. Although a number of channels may be relevant,
to provide a parsimonious yet informative picture, I focus on three that the
historical literature and fieldwork highlight as important. First, using districtlevel
data collected in 1689, I document that haciendas—rural estates with
an attached labor force—developed primarily outside the mita catchment. At
the time of the mita’s enactment, a landed elite had not yet formed. To minimize
the competition the state faced in accessing scarce mita labor, colonial
policy restricted the formation of haciendas in mita districts, promoting communal
land tenure instead (Garrett (2005), Larson (1988)). The mita’s effect
on hacienda concentration remained negative and significant in 1940. Second,
econometric evidence indicates that a mita effect lowered education historically,
and today mita districts remain less integrated into road networks. Finally,
data from the most recent agricultural census provide evidence that a
long-run mita impact increases the prevalence of subsistence farming.
Based on the quantitative and historical evidence, I hypothesize that the
long-term presence of large landowners in non-mita districts provided a stable
land tenure system that encouraged public goods provision. The property
rights of large landowners remained secure from the 17th century onward.
In contrast, the Peruvian government abolished the communal land tenure
that had predominated in mita districts soon after the mita ended, but did
not replace it with a system of enforceable peasant titling (Jacobsen (1993),
Dancuart and Rodriguez (1902, Vol. 2, p. 136)). As a result, extensive confiscation
of peasant lands, numerous responding peasant rebellions as well as banditry
and livestock rustling were concentrated in mita districts during the late
19th and 20th centuries (Jacobsen (1993), Bustamante Otero (1987, pp. 126–
130), Flores Galindo (1987, p. 240), Ramos Zambrano (1984, pp. 29–34)). Because
established landowners in non-mita districts enjoyed more secure title to
their property, it is probable that they received higher returns from investing
in public goods. Moreover, historical evidence indicates that well established
landowners possessed the political connections required to secure public goods
(Stein (1980)). For example, the hacienda elite lobbied successfully for roads,
obtaining government funds for engineering expertise and equipment, and organizing
labor provided by local citizens and hacienda peons (Stein (1980,
p. 59)). These roads remain and allow small-scale agricultural producers to
access markets today, although haciendas were subdivided in the 1970s.
The positive association between historical haciendas and contemporary
economic development contrasts with the well known hypothesis that historically
high land inequality is the fundamental cause of Latin America’s poor
long-run growth performance (Engerman and Sokoloff (1997)). Engerman
and Sokoloff argued that high historical inequality lowered subsequent investments
in public goods, leading to worse outcomes in areas of the Americas
that developed high land inequality during the colonial period. This theory’s
implicit counterfactual to large landowners is secure, enfranchised smallholders
of the sort that predominated in some parts of North America. This is not
an appropriate counterfactual for Peru or many other places in Latin America,
because institutional structures largely in place before the formation of the
landed elite did not provide secure property rights, protection from exploitation,
or a host of other guarantees to potential smallholders.3 The evidence in
this study indicates that large landowners—while they did not aim to promote
economic prosperity for the masses—did shield individuals from exploitation
by a highly extractive state and ensure public goods. Thus, it is unclear whether
the Peruvian masses would have been better off if initial land inequality had
been lower, and it is doubtful that initial land inequality is the most useful foundation
for a theory of long-run growth. Rather, the Peruvian example suggests
that exploring constraints on how the state can be used to shape economic interactions,
for example, the extent to which elites can employ state machinery
to coerce labor or citizens can use state guarantees to protect their property,
could provide a particularly useful starting point for modeling Latin America’s
long-run growth trajectory.
In the next section, I provide an overview of the mita. Section 3 discusses
identification and tests whether the mita affects contemporary living standards.
Section 4 examines channels empirically. Finally, Section 5 offers concluding
remarks.

It's from a paper by Melissa Dell that investigates the impact of Spanish colonial policies on today's living standards: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/dell/files/ecta8121_0.pdf
(mind that she isn't defending the hacienda system on the whole, just pointing out the even more harmful outcomes of the mita system, and showing the deep impact specific policies can have)

I would like elaboration on this post. It is interesting to me, but I'm not clear on what you mean to say.

Well, I haven't finished the book yet and I'm hardly an expert on classical economics either, so it's just an impression. However, a big thing for Piketty is his second fundamental law of capitalism, which dictates that in the long run the ratio of capital over (national) income well be equal to the ratio of savings over economic growth or, B=s/g, which is an equation that has its origins in classical models. The notion of capital as a single countable whole is also very classical, even if he defines capital differently (as the financial value of all assets). He argues that as population and productivity growth shall return to the tepid pace that was common before the industrial revolution, the s/g ratio will shoot up and therefore the wealth/income ratio as well. The notion that technological change (from which productivity growth derives) is exogenous is again very classical and runs counter to the beliefs of institutional economists that technological change is endogenous and the result of secure property rights, impartial courts enforcing contracts, investments in education and healthcare etc.
He then argues that as the marginal product of capital (again a very classical notion) will fall proportionally less than the ratio of capital over income will increase. The return on capital comes from the marginal product on capital, so the end result will be that income from capital as a share overall income will inexorably rise, at the expense of income from labour.

It all feels very similar to how Marx would draw on the work of the classical economists of his time, using rigid models and tenuous assumptions. Moreover, he's completely bypassing the whole body of institutional economics (of which I've given an example higher up) in his analysis of prosperity and inequality.

 

[Hrothbern]

Have you ever met a passionate restaurant owner? Someone who cares about food and serving it to people? The same can be said of virtually any indispensable service. For everything else there is the simple motivation of working for a fair wage, same as everybody else, with the possibility for promotion or recognition for hard work.

Question to you
To get some feel on what you consider as "fair"

How would you balance wage differences between workers ?
(we have now for example per country crude indicators like the GINI on gross incomes, or the multiple of CEO's to average wage of that company-country, or the multiple between a MP salary and the average salary of a country)

More precise worded:
A * What would be the multiple between the minimum wage and for example the nurse-teacher level, the GPs, the medical specialists.(assuming education cost of students is funded by the government)
B * What would be the multiple between the minimum wage and the salary of a MP (or Congress member) and that multiple for a President or Prime Minister
C * Would that President or Prime Minister salary also be the max salary of civil society and non-profit paid or substantially funded by the Government ? Like Central Bank, non-profit housing associations, etc.
D * How to handle shift allowances ? Say I am production employee and at 55 years old because of age-health regulations go to only day-shifts and lose the for example usual 20% shift allowance and earn less than I always did and less than the bulk of my colleagues.

If I shoot "fair" from the hip for a developed country like the Netherlands and excluding competion on and with labor between countries:
A: 1.25, 1.50, 1.75
B: 1.75 and 2.00
C: yes
D. I would simply compensate when you are forced to stop shifts from health regulations. And I would lower the shift allowance to 10% and compensate with the imo more appropiate earlier pension age. In effect I split up the usual 20% in a 10% social compensation and a 10% higher wear and tear of your body compensation and than decide that that higher wear and tear, shortening life belongs to earlier pension and cannot be bought by an employer by that 10% higher allowance.

I left out how to transform over time to that ABCD and I left out UBI, unemployment and partial disability allowances because we had enough discussions on UBI etc and it only distracts from the beef of the wage discussion: "what is a fair wage for differing jobs".

EDIT Overtime also a separate topic.

 

[red_elk]

Theres a few people have the instincts to be a chef or manage a restaurant and might still do it because they enjoy it but good luck finding waiters or kitchen porters who will do the job without tangible reward.

In the Noon Universe (from novels of Strugatsky brothers), most or every kids had special talents and it was the Teachers job to discover and develop them.
It could be something exotic like archery, but the kid could have several talents as well. People usually were taking the job they liked and happy to do.

In our current world, many people's talents may be undeveloped and many menial job exist only because robotics is not advanced enough. In a couple of decades we may already get rid of many of them.

 

[Birdjaguar]

So it appears that the socialism answer to innovation and technological progress is that everyone gets to do what they think is fun without regard to whether or not they can do it well or if anyone wants the product or service. Who pays for all the start up costs and wages for the first few years and what happens when 10,000 restaurants fail? How would all the many necessary supply chains work? Who is going to design all the new equipment needed as manufacturing needs change? If there is population growth how will you grow the economy to keep up? If the population does not grow, where will the new workers come from as the population ages? How does such an economy trade globally? Passionately made hamburgers are not much of an export.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Keep in mind that investors prefer stability over everything else. The primary reason why many countries are so poor are because they are not stable enough and investment is too risky as low stability mean the investment can be lost at any moment. Many investors think in long term, how much their investment will be worth in the next decade or even longer, for example Amazon hardly turn a profit but is attractive for investors simply due to its growth potential.

The better of the poor are the more they can consume and the more social mobility they have, like if the poor can't afford education, that is a big problem and generally the more money someone have the less of it will go towards consumption.

 

[Hrothbern]

Keep in mind that investors prefer stability over everything else. The primary reason why many countries are so poor are because they are not stable enough and investment is too risky as low stability mean the investment can be lost at any moment. Many investors think in long term, how much their investment will be worth in the next decade or even longer, for example Amazon hardly turn a profit but is attractive for investors simply due to its growth potential.

The better of the poor are the more they can consume and the more social mobility they have, like if the poor can't afford education, that is a big problem and generally the more money someone have the less of it will go towards consumption.

More precise worded:
A * What would be the multiple between the minimum wage and for example the nurse-teacher level, the GPs, the medical specialists.(assuming education cost of students is funded by the government)
B * What would be the multiple between the minimum wage and the salary of a MP (or Congress member) and that multiple for a President or Prime Minister
C * Would that President or Prime Minister salary also be the max salary of civil society and non-profit paid or substantially funded by the Government ? Like Central Bank, non-profit housing associations, etc.
D * How to handle shift allowances ? Say I am production employee and at 55 years old because of age-health regulations go to only day-shifts and lose the for example usual 20% shift allowance and earn less than I always did and less than the bulk of my colleagues.

If I shoot "fair" from the hip for a developed country like the Netherlands and excluding competion on and with labor between countries:
A: 1.25, 1.50, 1.75
B: 1.75 and 2.00
C: yes
D. I would simply compensate when you are forced to stop shifts from health regulations. And I would lower the shift allowance to 10% and compensate with the imo more appropiate earlier pension age. In effect I split up the usual 20% in a 10% social compensation and a 10% higher wear and tear of your body compensation and than decide that that higher wear and tear, shortening life belongs to earlier pension and cannot be bought by an employer by that 10% higher allowance.

Do quantify what you say
Your shot from the hip please

And do mind that the numbers I gave from my shot of the hip are actually not extremely far away from the Dutch salary system when minimum wage is increased with the excess incomes of the really high level management and capital gains of the really wealthy.

And do mind that this virtual exercise is without competition effects between countries.

Our MPs have currently a multiple of 2,5 to average (and not a multiple of 5.3 to average like Italy)
https://www.euronews.com/2016/04/12/who-are-the-best-paid-mps-in-the-eu
Our original 20% max bonus for managers was shot down by the EU (mainly because of France and Germany)
etc
It would for sure be a change... and will need 2-3 decades to transform under a stronger social-democratic presence in our succesive cabinets... but for my feel of Dutch culture, also based on hundreds and hundreds of salary decisions partially by me, also supported by meetings with trade unions, workers councils regarding job-descriptions & resulting salary level, etc... do-able without any sort of revolution, barricades etc.
Most people here want really that fair salary reflecting their work... and everything in absolute amounts is a bit relative. More is more does not mean excessive more.

And one cannot say that the Netherlands is not functioning in terms of economy and knowledge.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

I don't think Sweden even have a legal minimum wage which may sound insane but strong unions and such make sure the wages are kept at a resonable level. Generally the people who benefit the most from additional money is the poorest and there is diminishing returns from ever increasing incomes, in short term double income don't generally double living standard, so there are some major advantages of trying to move money from the top towards the bottom, which is usually done with taxes.

For inventions, as long as it will raise standard of living I don't see it stop. In our society living standard is strongly based on income so it make sense to assume that the prospect of increased income will increase the willingness to innovate. However inventions have happened in all kinds of human societies, so I think in the end it is about the living standard and money is just a means to achieve better living standard.

 

[red_elk]

...everyone gets to do what they think is fun without regard to whether or not they can do it well

No, it's the other way around. People who are talented in something are able to do these things well. And it usually coincides with what they enjoy doing.
Enjoyment motivates people for professional growth.

If you are doing your job just for money, you'll start to hate it very soon.

 

[aelf]

Aren't you forgetting that the company, however, does exploit the profits, hence why they even pay and enable the inventor?

That's assuming they are paying the inventor to innovate in the first place, which is pretty unlikely. AFAIK, you don't have anyone with the role of "inventor" or "innovation specialist" in companies. So the inventor should have not much of an incentive to innovate under the capitalist logic.

Well, this introduction provides a good example of the kind of things institutional economists investigate and the approach they use:

It's from a paper by Melissa Dell that investigates the impact of Spanish colonial policies on today's living standards: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/dell/files/ecta8121_0.pdf
(mind that she isn't defending the hacienda system on the whole, just pointing out the even more harmful outcomes of the mita system, and showing the deep impact specific policies can have)

And how does this relate to the thread topic? Since you brought it up in relation to technological development, presumably you have derived some insight from it on how capitalism is necessary for technological development (or, conversely, how Marxist ideas impede technological development).

 

[Hrothbern]

which is usually done with taxes.

Redistribution with taxes is together with public state paid Health care a major instrument to stay competitive with imports of, or exports to other countries for goods that need much lower skilled labor.
The cost per product stays lower for the company, and the social level is kept high enough by taxing the higher incomes more.

 

[Colon]

And how does this relate to the thread topic? Since you brought it up in relation to technological development, presumably you have derived some insight from it on how capitalism is necessary for technological development (or, conversely, how Marxist ideas impede technological development).

You asked what I meant with legal, political and social factors. I gave an example to illustrate. Keep your presumptions for yourself.

 

[aelf]

Oh, so you had no real point to make? Got it. Your words.

 

[El_Machinae]

The benefit is the work they do, is that not clear? People have an instinct to run restaurants, let them run restaurants. They'll reap the benefits of feeding people every day and being appropriately recognized for their contribution to society and rewarded on that basis, just like every day in normal society but without some people owning most things.

Yes, it was clear. What's the form of 'appropriately recognized for their contribution'? I've asked a few times for the benefit, and smack-dab in the middle of your answer is the word I'm getting hung up on, apparently. Hopefully by asking again, I'll show what I'm not understanding.

 

[Gorbles]

Yes, I worked in hotels for a couple of years.
You are talking nonsense if you claim that many of the people who work as kitchen porters and other poorly paid menial jobs do it for pleasure or out of interest.

I don't mean to nitpick, but hotels aren't restaurants (not that there aren't bad restaurants, particularly chains. But see below).

This is important, because a lot of the exploited professions (like service workers - particularly in hotels where I've heard horrific stories of treatment and conditions) are so exploited due to capitalism. Arguably in the hypothetical situation where at least the capitalism we're used to is irrevocably changed (I would say broken, honestly) by something like UBI, so would the inherent power dynamics in places like hotel chains.

I've done a lot of that kind of work myself; I understand your point completely. I just don't think you understand the more wider connotations of something like UBI on the general situation. It's the driving force behind capitalistic force opposing better rights for workers. You empower workers, and they're less exploitable.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I don't mean to nitpick, but hotels aren't restaurants (not that there aren't bad restaurants, particularly chains. But see below).

This is important, because a lot of the exploited professions (like service workers - particularly in hotels where I've heard horrific stories of treatment and conditions) are so exploited due to capitalism. Arguably in the hypothetical situation where at least the capitalism we're used to is irrevocably changed (I would say broken, honestly) by something like UBI, so would the inherent power dynamics in places like hotel chains.

I've done a lot of that kind of work myself; I understand your point completely. I just don't think you understand the more wider connotations of something like UBI on the general situation. It's the driving force behind capitalistic force opposing better rights for workers. You empower workers, and they're less exploitable.

No, I agree UBI would improve things.

Being a cleaner or a kitchen porter (both of which I've done) or any of those menial jobs can be a tolerable enough experience given the right employer and colleagues, but they are never going to be fulfilling. Given the choice most people have other things they'd rather be doing so short of automation making them unnecessary any society will need some sort of compulsion or incentive to get people to do them.