Upward Pressure On Wages

[Joij21]

The Confederates thought the same thing, and for similar reasons.

I agree, not to mention all the wars where everyone said "It will be over by Christmas".

It's never quick, and it's never that easy.

 

[Zardnaar]

Oh great, so in the second decade of the 21st century we had a great enlightenment, and everything about politics, power relations, human relations, suddenly changed. I'm supposed to believe that? Is that politics or a religious cult?

Worse, this dogma of "intersectionality" doesn't even try to justify itself with a change in the material or social conditions of humanity. It actually posits that it applies because current conditions that are a continuation, a permanence, of past ones. So this new dogma is saying that everything we knew about politics was wrong, the enlightened ones giving talks about oppression and intersectionality and marginalization and race and whatever have made a great socio-political discovery that we were wrong about everything in the past!

This is ridiculous. This is the stuff of cults, not of a political movement. A sudden flare of rebellion based on some new revelation, that in a few years blows out. What has "intersectionality" achieved so far? Probably help elect Donald Trump as a candidate against it. Congratulations.

Why would politics have changed in this second decade of the 21st century? What has changed in the world that this intersectionality should suddenly make sense? The internet? People more easily retiring to their little echo chambers? That explains why this idea got some followers I guess, but not why it should work!



These myriad other rights movements are acting as political distractions. They are not allies that add to the strength of a political movement, they are divisions that sap it. You cannot have a party of vegetarians, a party of non-racists, a party of whites, a party of trans, a party of gays, a party of feminists, or even a party of greens, that are capable of presenting a coherent governing group. These don't even make sense as formalized groups within political parties. None alone, much less all of these in some coalition, can do more useful than provide inputs for some narrow issues. Worse, they don't even have common ground for a coalition, rather they compete for attention and resources for their specific agendas. And people know that, which is why none of these groups ever gets close to power in elections when they present themselves as parties. These are groups that campaign political for narrow interests, for stuff that a government can indeed do but which does not provide a program for government. They are a political sideshow. When working to influence political parties in their limited aims they get some victories, when trying to be more important than they really are socially, they achieve backlash. "Intersectionality" is a recipe for political defeat. This is not just me telling you. This is what we have been observing.

I would phrase it differently. It's about branding.

What does the right stand for? Let's face it it's tax cuts. It's always tax cuts and pro business.

What does the left stand for? There's a long laundry list of ideas but nothing really stands out.

 

[innonimatu]

Currently what passes for left in most countries in party politics lacks any coherent message and vision indeed.

But there's an odd inversion in some, between "the right" and "what passes for left". Big business in the US, for the starkest example, moves between those easily.

 

[Zardnaar]

Hmmn more economic stuff.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business...d-to-be-strong-as-immigration-slows-recruiter

Unemployment rate amoung the youth have almost halved. 10% down to 6.7.

Recruiters haven't seen anything like it in 20 years.

In my OP the upward pressure on wages unseen since the 1970's.

There are skill shortages but see previous comments and rubber stamping critical stuff.

 

[Gorbles]

Oh great, so in the second decade of the 21st century we had a great enlightenment, and everything about politics, power relations, human relations, suddenly changed. I'm supposed to believe that? Is that politics or a religious cult?

Worse, this dogma of "intersectionality" doesn't even try to justify itself with a change in the material or social conditions of humanity.

I'm going to stop you here because you literally just moaned at aelf for calling something "mumbo jumbo". And here you are, called intersectionality "dogma". Hypocritical much?

Advances in understanding happen all the time. It's often built on what came before, for sure, but there are plenty of breakthrough moments. Are you pretending that this is not the case? That we apparently know everything that there is to know, and we should stop trying to learn? I don't think you are, I just think you're struggling to reconcile your bias against social progressivism with your support for labour rights.

To take an extreme example, splitting the atom fundamentally changed science. Irrevocably. Permanently. The social sciences are often underestimated for not being as hard a science as, say, nuclear physics, but they represent a branch of science all the same. And advances happen all the time, all the same. Psychology and sociology have better tools available to them, better processes. Incremental improvements. And then there's real-world events to consider. The civil rights movement alone was in the second half of the 20th century. Trans rights have been a thing of study for a lot longer than the past ten years, nomatter how much you want to pretend that all these things are limited to the "second decade of the 21st century". The umbrella of LGBTQ rights and marginalised members of these demographics existing in society has been a thing of some study for most of the past century, if not before. No?

It's a very convenient argument to pretend that all the things you disagree with are some kind of newfangled fad. But it doesn't stack up to the evidence; the reality of modern history.

Labour protections are more important than ever. The pandemic has shown that even if you completely ignore the immigration aspect. But it's no longer enough to focus solely on class to the exclusion of all else. It is, quite literally, not that simple.

These myriad other rights movements are acting as political distractions.

The rights of marginalised demographics are not "political distractions". They're inherently political problems that require attention.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there's some labour efforts that could be made completely independently of these demographics, but any solution would greatly benefit from their presence. Leftist movements don't happen to have marginalised people in them by accident. The word "marginalised" doesn't appear for no reason. You will find that efforts to focus solely on class will leave these people behind to still be exploited because of their inherent marginalisation. Short of passing a complete version of UBI (which is akin to a Holy Grail, right? That's not exactly an easy sell given how capital has structured the workforce), these groups will be at a disadvantage because of discriminations in hiring, etc. Discrimination, if proven, which is already illegal in a variety of contexts. But companies always find a way around it. Pursuing a legal case takes money. If someone doesn't have money, it's harder for them to pursue it (pro bono cases aren't capable of scaling up to the level they'd be required to, in order to help everyone affected).

So no, they're not distractions. They're people. And if you want to drive a labour movement but ignore people just because of your own bias, that's on you. But you won't succeed, and it won't be their fault. It'll be your own.

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm going to stop you here because you literally just moaned at aelf for calling something "mumbo jumbo". And here you are, called intersectionality "dogma". Hypocritical much?

Advances in understanding happen all the time. It's often built on what came before, for sure, but there are plenty of breakthrough moments. Are you pretending that this is not the case? That we apparently know everything that there is to know, and we should stop trying to learn? I don't think you are, I just think you're struggling to reconcile your bias against social progressivism with your support for labour rights.

To take an extreme example, splitting the atom fundamentally changed science. Irrevocably. Permanently. The social sciences are often underestimated for not being as hard a science as, say, nuclear physics, but they represent a branch of science all the same. And advances happen all the time, all the same. Psychology and sociology have better tools available to them, better processes. Incremental improvements. And then there's real-world events to consider. The civil rights movement alone was in the second half of the 20th century. Trans rights have been a thing of study for a lot longer than the past ten years, nomatter how much you want to pretend that all these things are limited to the "second decade of the 21st century". The umbrella of LGBTQ rights and marginalised members of these demographics existing in society has been a thing of some study for most of the past century, if not before. No?

It's a very convenient argument to pretend that all the things you disagree with are some kind of newfangled fad. But it doesn't stack up to the evidence; the reality of modern history.

Labour protections are more important than ever. The pandemic has shown that even if you completely ignore the immigration aspect. But it's no longer enough to focus solely on class to the exclusion of all else. It is, quite literally, not that simple.


The rights of marginalised demographics are not "political distractions". They're inherently political problems that require attention.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there's some labour efforts that could be made completely independently of these demographics, but any solution would greatly benefit from their presence. Leftist movements don't happen to have marginalised people in them by accident. The word "marginalised" doesn't appear for no reason. You will find that efforts to focus solely on class will leave these people behind to still be exploited because of their inherent marginalisation. Short of passing a complete version of UBI (which is akin to a Holy Grail, right? That's not exactly an easy sell given how capital has structured the workforce), these groups will be at a disadvantage because of discriminations in hiring, etc. Discrimination, if proven, which is already illegal in a variety of contexts. But companies always find a way around it. Pursuing a legal case takes money. If someone doesn't have money, it's harder for them to pursue it (pro bono cases aren't capable of scaling up to the level they'd be required to, in order to help everyone affected).

So no, they're not distractions. They're people. And if you want to drive a labour movement but ignore people just because of your own bias, that's on you. But you won't succeed, and it won't be their fault. It'll be your own.

Except when you throw around terms like intersectionality people tune it out.

It's politically cancerous outside liberal university types.

 

[Gorbles]

Except when you throw around terms like intersectionality people tune it out.

It's politically cancerous outside liberal university types.

So is "UBI", or "worker protections" (or "unions", even) for various parts of society. When I'm talking to someone like inno, I'm discussing the validity of all sorts of things that you might find "politically cancerous", but it's irrelevant if they actually are or not outside of the scope of our individual discussion.

EDIT

I'm not suggesting I go and glue labels to peoples' faces, right? I'm talking to someone on CFC, and that's why I'm using the words and arguments I am.

 

[Zardnaar]

So is "UBI", or "worker protections" (or "unions", even) for various parts of society. When I'm talking to someone like inno, I'm discussing the validity of all sorts of things that you might find "politically cancerous", but it's irrelevant if they actually are or not outside of the scope of our individual discussion.

EDIT

I'm not suggesting I go and glue labels to peoples' faces, right? I'm talking to someone on CFC, and that's why I'm using the words and arguments I am.

Fair enough. If I was trying to win an election I would avoid nice big academic terms. Most people want know or care what you're talking about the ones that do will likely vote for you anyway.

 

[aelf]

I'm going to stop you here because you literally just moaned at aelf for calling something "mumbo jumbo". And here you are, called intersectionality "dogma". Hypocritical much?

There's something about the 60s that makes that generation generally crippled in critical thinking, or something. I don't even think he realises that he contradicts himself. No wonder so many of them hold repugnant views and still think they're the good guys.

 

[innonimatu]

The rights of marginalised demographics are not "political distractions". They're inherently political problems that require attention.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there's some labour efforts that could be made completely independently of these demographics, but any solution would greatly benefit from their presence. Leftist movements don't happen to have marginalised people in them by accident. The word "marginalised" doesn't appear for no reason. You will find that efforts to focus solely on class will leave these people behind to still be exploited because of their inherent marginalisation. Short of passing a complete version of UBI (which is akin to a Holy Grail, right? That's not exactly an easy sell given how capital has structured the workforce), these groups will be at a disadvantage because of discriminations in hiring, etc. Discrimination, if proven, which is already illegal in a variety of contexts. But companies always find a way around it. Pursuing a legal case takes money. If someone doesn't have money, it's harder for them to pursue it (pro bono cases aren't capable of scaling up to the level they'd be required to, in order to help everyone affected).

So no, they're not distractions. They're people. And if you want to drive a labour movement but ignore people just because of your own bias, that's on you. But you won't succeed, and it won't be their fault. It'll be your own.

I'll try a metaphor to convey what I'm thinking to get across. You can't make an opera where everyone is a prima donna. And this is how the people who came up with, and now run with, intersectionality want to perform. I'm not saying those issues or people are unimportant, but in the political fight they cant demand to be put constantly on center stage end expect to be well-received.
It's not just the academic terms used, though that is part of it. Wrong theories that do not have acceptance. But it's the practicality of it. There is only so much attention you can get. Spend that in talking of stuff that does not mobility most people, you won't win an election. They indeed "tune out". You're left preaching to that converted minority. Or assorted minorities. As political strategy this intersectionality thing is a recipe for defeat.