From: nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson)
Subject: Re: Socialism, again
Organization: Clarkson University, Potsdam NY
	<1992Aug25.071059.29449@meteor.wisc.edu>
	<NELSON.92Aug25231653@sun.clarkson.edu>
	<1992Aug26.042803.14759@meteor.wisc.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 05:18:49 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.042803.14759@meteor.wisc.edu> stvjas@meteor.wisc.edu (Stephen Jascourt) writes:
   In article <NELSON.92Aug25231653@sun.clarkson.edu> nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) writes:
   > Stephen Jascourt writes:
   >   Most people in this country are employees in some larger company in
   >   which the power and company earnings are disporportionately
   >   concentrated at the top, disproportionate to the economic value of
   >   the contributions of those disenfranchised employees.  There are
   >   many exceptions, but this is true for the majority.
   >
   >But also consider that companies have to bid for the labor of skilled
   >employees.  The historical trend in the West and Japan is toward
   >higher and higher pay for workers.

   That has not been the case in the U.S. recently, nor in a number of
   other countries. Salaries have not kept pace with inflation in the
   1980's for many professional and industrial positions despite the
   low inflation rates in recent years. Many labor workers have had
   actual reductions in pay or benefits and the faculty and staff at
   the University of Wisconsin were given a 0.5% pay raise this year
   and have fallen way behind in the past 5 years by comparable
   increases not keeping up with the increased cost of living.

Agreed, 100%.  However, any long-range trend has short-range variations in it.
Right now, we're in a short-term variation downward.

   >   But a more general word on regulations: most broad categories
   >   of regulations were created to deal with problems that resulted
   >   from an absence of there being rules-- people were being taken
   >   advantage of by profit-minded capitalists in every imagineable
   >   way and rules were created to protect the consumer and the
   >   worker. Nowadays, many of the rules have become very twisted,
   >   some to the point that they no longer server their purpose or
   >   are counterproductive, but to do away with them altogether
   >   would bring back the original problem. Instead, they need to be
   >   reworked.
   >
   >Again, you propose to fix something which has become broken over time.  Why
   >do think it will fail to break again?

   The original regulations had a purpose. To eliminate regulations altogether
   rather than remake them would bring back the problem that created the
   regulations in the first place. On the other hand, maybe there are other
   non-regulatory methods to avoid the problem, but I sure haven't seen any.

And I argue that for most problems, the answer is not forcing a common
solution on everyone.  What works for New York State (e.g. we have
lots of water and little dump space, so cloth diapers make sense) does
not work for California (little water and lots of dump space, so
disposable diapers make sense).

Of course, there are other problems that cannot be solved without one
owner (be it private or public).  For example, overpopulation and air
and water pollution and fishery overextraction and good government.
But again, for many of these problems, I'd argue that the private owner
is more likely to arrive at a good solution.

   >   And a hell of a life that capitalism gives the majority!
   >   Capitalism by its very nature concentrates the wealth at the
   >   top.
   >
   >Oh yes?  Multiply the net worth of the top 5% wealthiest people
   >times the size of their population.  Then multiply the net worth
   >of everybody else times their numbers.

   I have some statistics which were previously posted on
   alt.activism: Poorest fifth of American households: fell to 3.8%,
   the lowest since the 1950's Richest fifth of American households:
   rose to 46.3%, the highest ever"

Right, I *agree* that income is being artificially concentrated by
governmental action.  This seems like more evidence that government
always screws things up.  Governments enforce their actions at the
point of a gun.  A gun is a powerful tool, not to be used lightly.

But you didn't address my point that personnel costs are the major
cost of US industry.

--
--russ <nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> I'm proud to be a humble Quaker.
Peace is not the absence of war.  Peace is the presence of a system for
resolving conflicts before war becomes necessary.  War never creates peace.
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc