Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Real Class War

americanaffairsjournal.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 634 posts

Re: The Real Class War

#361

Post by ernst_klim »

claudiawerner wrote: post #225
_carl_jung wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what it's worth, the principle objection I have to the Marxist position on wage and profit is the redefinition of the term "exploitation". It muddies the argument because it enables a circular argument whereby the transaction of employment can be labelled as exploitative, where it's easy to defend against the claim of exploitation if the original definition of the word is preserved. In other words, profit generat…

The definition of "exploitation" is a technical one; even those who argue against the Marxist claim actually take this in stride, for instance, there is an objection to the Marxist idea of exploitation that Marx's selection of labour-power as the exploited commodity is arbitrary, thus we can say that any commodity (such as steel, peanuts or shoes) is "exploited" - the Marxist reply to this isn't to say "well, exploit…

>that there is some amount of labour that is unpaid

What is unpaid labor? If I employ a carpenter, and pay him $10 for a chair I later sell for $15, is this labor paid?

Re: The Real Class War

#362

Post by fspeech »

simonh wrote: post #105

This is all driven by globalisation, and don't get me wrong I'm a globalist, but this is just a fact. First manual labour in manufacturing was outsourced abroad, then higher tier tech jobs in software and product engineering. Now big firms from former third world countries are muscling in on markets at every level of the economy, creating competition at every level of business. You can't add hundreds of millions of C…

"because Chinese labourers have more skills now and can command high enough wages in more upmarket jobs that they don't need the low end work any more"

I think what is happening is that the low-skilled laborers can now earn higher wages in service (such as online shopping delivery) because the higher skilled labor force can now command a higher income and generate demand for more service. The point is while the overall skill level is up it is not necessary for the low-skill section to also have higher skill in order to have higher income. This has already happened in the developed economies, but people here seem to look down on these service jobs and pine for manufacturing jobs.

Re: The Real Class War

#363

Post by fungicide »

asjw wrote: post #346
mrzimmerman wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've read it as we repeat a cycle where people are always far up on top and the only way to break that cycle is to be content with more or less everyone being in or near the middle. Or put another way: So long as there is a high that people can day dream about becoming then there will never be equality for the majority of people. Otherwise people will get into the high places, slam the door shut as soon as they can,…

How would you avoid it? I agree with your sentiment and I am probably on the lower end of the middle class now, coming from a working class family, but I can't find a way to avoid that someone will get more than me by simply not caring about obeying the rules. If you have more resources you can buy your exemptions from the law. Probably from someone who can be "bought" because that money is a significant amount compa…

"The Fourth Industrial Revolution" is one of the most successfully lobbied and marketed instruments of our time. It has preoccupied governments and distracted them from addressing existing inequalities.

Re: The Real Class War

#364

Post by yibg »

MithrilTuxedo wrote: post #354
tc wrote: post #321

George Orwell covered this basic point in `1984` (published in 1949): > The aims of these three groups are entirely irreconcilable. The aim of the High is to remain where they are. The aim of the Middle is to change places with the High. The aim of the Low, when they have an aim -- for it is an abiding characteristic of the Low that they are too much crushed by drudgery to be more than intermittently conscious of any…

One would assume that with advances in technology such cycles will eventually be broken.

Not sure why that'd be a natural assumption. Advances in technology, especially in communication technology could very well hasten the cycles.

Re: The Real Class War

#365

Post by AnimalMuppet »

claudiawerner wrote: post #225
_carl_jung wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what it's worth, the principle objection I have to the Marxist position on wage and profit is the redefinition of the term "exploitation". It muddies the argument because it enables a circular argument whereby the transaction of employment can be labelled as exploitative, where it's easy to defend against the claim of exploitation if the original definition of the word is preserved. In other words, profit generat…

The definition of "exploitation" is a technical one; even those who argue against the Marxist claim actually take this in stride, for instance, there is an objection to the Marxist idea of exploitation that Marx's selection of labour-power as the exploited commodity is arbitrary, thus we can say that any commodity (such as steel, peanuts or shoes) is "exploited" - the Marxist reply to this isn't to say "well, exploit…

I could agree with almost everything in your last paragraph, but you're still using loaded words. "Appropriated", for instance. Even "unpaid" carries (perhaps just to me?) the implication that it should be paid.

I would describe the same thing like this: The workers plus tools (capital) create value. The workers don't get all the value produced; capital also gets a cut.

You can say that this is morally right. Or you can say that this is necessary, because the capital isn't invested out of the goodness of the capitalist's heart. We have to give them some payback if we want them to buy the tools. The alternative is to have only the tools that our in-house workers create, which is usually a sub-optimal situation.

Now, any given situation can still be exploitation of the workers (in the common rather than axiomatic sense), and still be morally wrong.

Re: The Real Class War

#366

Post by sujNansnam »

Miner49er wrote: post #281
username90 wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gay marriage was also prevented in America for hundreds of years 100% due to activists. There is no money for or against gay marriage, it was always only activists on both sides so it isn't a good example of a class war.

I'm not so sure, gay rights intersects with the class war in at least a couple of ways: - Dividing the working class on the issue of gay rights is an effective way for the elites to get the working class to ignore the class war. - Control of reproduction offers some control over labor.

Can you elaborate on the second point? I don’t understand how banning gay marriage controls reproduction.

Re: The Real Class War

#367

Post by rehasu »

motohagiography wrote: post #274
tvanantwerp wrote: post #159

I've spent my career working in public policy circles, and this rings true to me. > At most, working-class voters can cast their ballots for an “un­acceptable” candidate, but they can exercise no influence on policy formation or agency personnel, much less on governance areas that have been transferred to technocratic bodies. > Unlike the work­ing class, the professional managerial class is still capable of, and re­q…

To +1 one this: Having spent a great deal of time consulting to government, in addition to working in media, but with a deep background in tech, the managerial class of people making policy have a revolving door to the universities, which are seized by faddish ideas as often as the elected representatives. Many of these policy people actually come to hate technologists because they find their more chauvinistic plans…

My impression in recent years is that the middle class has real value in almost any society we had until now. They are the glue that brings stability to any organization, they are what keeps to energetic lower layer people from gaining power from crazy ideas, and they are the first to get blamed when a crazy idea from the top management layer fails. Do you see differences between that statement and your experience?

And the real question I want to ask: Do you feel that especially the middlest of managers have to fear AI the most, because AI could theoretically replace exactly that middle layer and do it even better than a human could?

Re: The Real Class War

#368

Post by buboard »

viburnum wrote: post #258
tvanantwerp wrote: post #159

I've spent my career working in public policy circles, and this rings true to me. > At most, working-class voters can cast their ballots for an “un­acceptable” candidate, but they can exercise no influence on policy formation or agency personnel, much less on governance areas that have been transferred to technocratic bodies. > Unlike the work­ing class, the professional managerial class is still capable of, and re­q…

Gay people can get married in America, which was completely unthinkable a generation ago. 100% due to activists, many who risked their lives to make it happen.

The gilettes jaunes are on the streets, nobody cares to make them cultural icons. Gays had very visible and generally disproportionate (compared to population) media coverage of their rights. Was it really 100% due to activists on the street, or very influential but high profile gay people who helped build one of the few successful rights movements of our times?

Re: The Real Class War

#369

Post by buboard »

yibg wrote: post #364
MithrilTuxedo wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One would assume that with advances in technology such cycles will eventually be broken.

Not sure why that'd be a natural assumption. Advances in technology, especially in communication technology could very well hasten the cycles.

if it is going to accelerate class mobility, bring it on. However the data shows that the rise of tech correlates with lower class mobility

Re: The Real Class War

#370

Post by triceratops »

sodafountan wrote: post #320
triceratops wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't tell if this is a parody post or not. But I will try to understand it. > Bitcoin doesn't have a dividend...in order to realize any gains you have to sell it So...like gold and silver? We've already had those for millennia. We've also had inequality for millennia - and at times it was way worse than it is now. > The script gets flipped if that asset is a hard, un-inflatable asset like bitcoin with a built in s…

> So...like gold and silver? Yes, except gold and silver don't scale. Bitcoin scales, it's almost infinitely divisible and can be traded without a third party on the internet. It's Gold 2.0. > I'm trying to understand this. If everyone puts their money into Bitcoin, inflation won't eat the value of their money so they won't try to increase it by investing into dividend-producing businesses? Otherwise how is this "scr…

> Do you think bitcoin will gain in value from this point on or do you think bitcoin will fizzle out, and why do you think that?

If I knew the answer to that, I'd be off making money rather than arguing with random strangers on the Internet :-)

Gold and silver have valid (if limited) practical utility and thousands of years of history as stores of value. Bitcoin has neither. And gold and silver only became synonymous with money and value once they began to be used in coinage i.e. as a currency, issued by the state, and you could pay taxes with it.

Your thesis is "Bitcoin is a good investment because it appreciates". It doesn't answer "why does Bitcoin appreciate?". Practically everything that can be called an "investment" or "asset" has at least one of two properties:

1. has practical use

2. generates income

Say all you want about investors buying up houses and driving up prices (and the Bay Area's housing problems run deeper than that), but they're getting an asset that has actual value. Even if people stop believing in the value of houses, a house will still shelter you, and afford access to good jobs and/or surroundings/weather.

I'll grant you that Bitcoin has one property that can't be found anywhere else. It's a store of value that can be exchanged without intermediaries. So it has exactly one practical use.

But the point of a store of value is to...store value. The idea that "someone will pay more for this later" has been the basis of innumerable bubbles and crashes throughout history - as recently as the Great Recession to as far back as the Tulip Mania, and probably farther still. Volatility isn't a great property for a store of value to have, because most people don't like crazy gyrations in their net worth every day.

And if Bitcoin isn't a store of value, but is a currency instead, then it has a different problem. As you said, it's non-inflationary. So people are incentivized to hang onto it rather than spending it.

> Looking back obviously there would have been no better place to put it than into bitcoin but nobody knew that back then.

Past performance is no predictor of future performance. Someone putting a million dollars into Bitcoin in 2017 would be pretty sad right now. People believe in the stock market, not (just) because of its past performance, but because it represents companies that deliver actual, real-world value.

Post reply on HN