I like to think that I'm a very knowledgeable organizer, so if folks want some advice ask me in the comments!
this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2023
631 points (95.7% liked)
Socialism
5474 readers
38 users here now
Rules TBD.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's definitely not true at all, but even if it was inflation is going up anyways without wage increases.
Yes, it is definitely true.
Literally, cost push inflation was just explained to you. In this case it is wage costs that increase, causing businesses to increase costs to adjust, causing increase in inflation which your wage cannot afford.
All businesses exist for profit. There is no other reason why they exist. But this does not mean all businesses exist for insane profit. Demand for higher wages because of record profits of corporations could see small businesses fail as they lose business from raising prices to stay on top of the new costs to remain operating,. This would ironically make the situation of the rich getting richer and poor getting poorer even worse, making your current situation retrospectively seem desirable.
There is much more to economics and inflation than "You make more; I make more."
Before screaming for more wage, you'd need to understand if your employer, your source of income, can actually afford it. If they can and aren't doing their bit to keep the economy healthy, then by all means, unionise.
The article you referenced contains the following excerpts:
Yeah. That's why it's a concept, not a rule. Economics is organic. There are many concepts that are applicable at times and not at others. Anyone that tries to conservatively apply a concept as a rule to something as organic as economics would be a moron.
Supply and demand; this much is true. The rest is conceptual. Inflation itself is a concept that can be argued if applied like it's a rule. It has many variables, but in most cases, cost and demand pushes are the concepts that can explain or understand different parts of it.
Of course, if greed is the main drive, neither cost or demand push concepts apply and go out the window.
The term used to describe cost-push inflation was not rule or concept, but myth.
Ultimately, as conceded by Friedman, hardly an advocate for workers rights, average prices ultimately reflect simply the relation between total real wealth and supply of money.
Well, since you read so many details of someone claiming it as a myth in the article, you'd have also astutely read the parts where real world examples were provided of it happening.
I think you'd find that someone claiming a concept as a myth is more focused on academic definement.
The Big Bang Theory is a theory, it does not make it a myth, though many would claim it is. Do you want to highlight them too? We run with it based on real world evidence supporting the concept, but it's not a rule.
Edit: Also, I'm not linking it to worker's rights. I don't know why you are. Simply providing further explaination of how workers costs can cause inflation like any other cost to businesses, be that oil, infrastructure, tax, etc. This is why we protect small and medium sized businesses as much as workers. Bad things happen if either are in financial dire.
I read the article.
The discussion is descending even below the level of pointlessness.
You are not even understanding basic terms.
A scientific theory is given as...
In turn, a myth is given as...
The feeling is mutual.
I'd point out that I provided a concept used to explain things we've observed in economics for a long time.
You are challenging this as though it's my opinion.
I think you, and the points you are pulling from the information—I provided to you, none the less—are seeing this as a binary drive of economic inflation as though "it is" or "it is not", when the whole concept works as, "it is here, it is not here, it is of influence here, it is something else here". i.e. a contributing factor that has scalable influence in a bigger picture.
Also, just because my example of a theory so happened to be a "scientific" theory, you didn't need to go barreling down that path all on your own. I don't see what supplying the definition of scientific theories has to do with anything here, but 👍
You are being incredibly dishonest, given the context.
Hm?
Okay, it seems we were ever on the same page to begin with and I apologise if it's caused confusion and time of your day to be wasted. It was never my intent to have you use so much energy on something so useless and I feel responsible for encouraging it with replying.
Much peace.
Well, you are promoting ideas that antagonize worker interests, in a socialist community. It may be expected, and rightfully so, that you would encounter resistance.
The comments quite exactly resemble those promulgated by reactionary sources that help oligarchs maintain their power.
If you are interested genuinely in exploring the best strategies for workers to make gains, then please consider the importance of the sources you invoke being ones that can be understood as reliable and robust, as well as generally independent from hegemonic institutions and ideals.
It is an accurate characterization that you have been promoting ideas antagonist to worker interests, because the natural and obvious reading of your comments is for workers to be discouraged from demanding higher wages. In fact, the language you supported is indistinguishable from that used by right wing outlets whose intention is to keep the working class repressed.
If you have a different narrative, then it is important that you present it as explicitly as possible.
At present, you seem to be suggesting that governments care about workers, which is obviously mistaken.
If you are supporting rhetoric that encourages workers to act against their own interests, then you are not supporting workers, and you will not find friends in a socialist space.
If you have deeper insight or analysis that credibly supports the interests of the working class, then you carry the burden of distinguishing your ideas clearly from those that have been employed to repress workers.
You should not expect anyone to treat you as someone different from whom you resemble, or to sympathize with ideas that have already been rejected.
I think a Wikipedia article detailing a concept should be more than enough. At no point did I mention anything against workers. At no point did I support unethical employers. That's entirely an assumption born in your mind that was the immediate conclusion and means for attack.
How you came to that assumption has nothing to do with me. But, as you know, it turned out that it couldn't have been more wrong.
How more could someone prepare for a mind like that? Why should they? We are all strangers and I wouldn't know what buttholes to start covering with pages of disclaiming footnotes, "just in case someone's brain does this".
The time of day given is me pooping, wasting time, or waiting for something. I can respect people have more to give, but I'd appreciate their energy spent pondering a little before participating.
I made no assumption about you.
The language you chose is language whose most natural and obvious effect is to discourage workers from advancing their interests, of demanding higher wages.
A choice whose effect is against worker interests is one that rightfully will be resisted.
The current context is social media.
Someone insisted that workers demanding higher wages would not help them improve their conditions, and your response in the thread was generally approving of the position.
The broader effect of your comment is to discourage workers from attempting to advance their interests, of demanding higher wages.
Your comment received negative reactions, as you should expect.