Loss and Risk

[erudito]

In social science and humanities academe, and in much of the wider Left - even amongst those who would not describe themselves as any sort of Marxist - the base economic intuitions and presumptions are quasi-Marxian. Either because they were the only economics they have been directly exposed to or as pervasive contagion effect. The legacy of

Comments

[quietthomas]

Just because profit under Marxism involves perceived exploitation doesn't mean that loss must equal generosity. That's like saying oh this cold water is 5 degrees C so hot water must be -5 degrees C. Just because one word has consequence AND an opposite, doesn't mean that opposite word must have an opposite consequence.

As for your theories on making it harder to sack people, they're a bit more solid - although I'd still question their nature in relation to actual events. Ultimately I think contractual obligations and job descriptions are there in order to make the sacking of someone fair (ie, there are "objective" pre-set criteria, rather than post-hoc fire at will scenarios).

That said, I don't know that much about industrial relations.

Differentiation

[erudito]

contractual obligations and job descriptions are there in order to make the sacking of someone fair (ie, there are "objective" pre-set criteria, rather than post-hoc fire at will scenarios)
Not quite how it works, either in theory or practice. All the a laws making hard to sack folk essentially put the onus of proof on the employer. However "fair" that sounds (or can be made to sound), in practice it raises the risks of hiring folk, which have predictable effects. Particularly on small businesses. Essentially forcing a small employer to continue to employ someone they really don't want to employ is a nightmare scenario for any small businessperson.

profit under Marxism involves perceived exploitationNo, under Marxism all value comes from labour. So any surplus (one is permitted to consider costs) which does not go back to labour is exploitation. By which logic, if the company makes a loss the owner is "contributing" rather than "extracting

Re: Differentiation

[sacred_chao]

I'd be inclined to say there are degrees of profit involved here. The CEO of a company hiring employees at bare minimum wage while pocketing a few million a year could be reasonably described as exploiting those employees. The CEO hiring employees at a rate commensurate to market and including reasonable allowances for indexed increase in pay, sick pay, incentives for good perfomance, opportunities for advancement and so on while pocketing maybe $150,000 pa (ish...figure plucked from arse) I would not describe as exploitative. These things are seldom all or nothing and attempting to make them seem so doesn't usually result in a particularly good description of what's actually going on

Re: Differentiation

[erudito]

The problem with Marxism is not that it has a concept of exploitation -- the notion that people can be, and are, exploited is hardly exceptional in itself. Because folk can be and sometimes are.

The problem with Marxism is it makes the concept of exploitation mechanical and absolute. If an enterprise produces any surplus which does not go to the workers, that is "exploitation".

But labour is not the only thing that produces value, even in economic terms.

Teasing out what we mean by "exploitation" is a worthy exercise. Coercion, fraud, deliberate denial of information seem to be constituent features.

And, with overpaid CEOs, it is not the workers who are being exploited but the shareholders.

Also, Western societies are highly mobile, income wise. Particularly the US, the Western society with the most unequal incomes.

[korgmeister]

This is one I can definitely relate to. Restrictions on firing people really fuck me up the ass (in the bad way =P). Because although I'm sure I come off as very talented, keen and intelligent, I also come across as very nervous and weird (particularly in interview settings).

Practically every boss has, at some point in their life, decided to give someone weird a chance and had them proceed to flip out royally two days into their employment. I've certainly heard enough horror stories of that nature to know why I tend to get falsely identified as one of these stealth nutjobs.

Of course, it doesn't help that I'm nearly impossible to 'read'. I tend to wear my emotions on my sleeve, but most people who know me have at some point express their being weirded out by the fact that I don't give the faintest indication as to what I'm thinking. (They'll know my emotional reaction to what I'm thinking, which I'm sure just makes it even more unsettling)

So yeah, these are also let's really screw over the socially abberant laws.

Good point

[erudito]

Hadn't considered that, but it's a natural extension of the point, ta.

[iamcaleb]

Of course, the other thing is the "killing the goose that lays the golden egg" scenario.

Some businesses have to put up with laws. Others can move off-shore. Eventually, many do and not just because of the direct economic benefits, but the indirect (ie. the reduction in stress of dealing with unions and government saves a lot of time, money and energy). Then no one (in Australia) has a job, not even employees who would normally be perceived as a safe bet.

At some point

[erudito]

At some point the process stops: both the economic and political system have feedbacks.

For example, people move to other modes of employment -- casual, contract, offer-and-accept etc.