Yabby

“To me” - so the criteria we are using is your opinion

“slavery-happens-when-you-have-no-options,-no-choices”.--“In-China-….people-have-options-and-choices”.

We return to an earlier-point. Would you “choose” to work under conditions like those in China? No, I doubt it. Probably because you have other “choices”. I know I wouldn’t – because I (currently) have better “choices”. So why do you think anyone else in their right mind would “choose” to work under such conditions if they didn’t have to? I’d really like a thoughtful answer to this one.

If they don’t have better-options for putting food on their table, they are effectively FORCED to take what they can get under conditions imposed by someone else. You-can-dress-it-up-whatever-way-you-like, but it is FORCED LABOUR for someone else’s profit, or slave labour. That the slave is not owned by an individual slave owner, or that there are no physical restraints or whips, is immaterial. The economic system enslaves an entire group of people while a select few profit.

“people-have-options-and-choices.-Starting-your-own-business-is-possible-for-starters.”

“More-and-more-people-can-become-self-employed,
as-is-happening.-Over-time-that-will-put-pressure-on-factory-owners
to-pay-higher-wages.-“

This solution is always posed by people like you and Col, but it is fundamentally flawed.

Theoretically, under capitalism “anyone” can start their own business because they are “free”. But practically, if “everyone” did, we would be going backwards to a more primitive economic-system.

Capitalism is based on goods being produced on a large-scale by many people (i.e. socially) using technology, large-plant and-equipment built by many people (i.e. again, socially). In that respect it is a progression from earlier economic-systems. The socialisation of labour is what enables us to produce vastly more than could be produced in earlier-modes of-production. It is the collective excess-production of all workers (i.e. what they produce over and above what is required to keep them alive) that is appropriated by capitalists as profit.

If everyone started their own business we would be regressing to a system where everyone produces their own goods on a small-scale with their own small individually-owned tools, and then trades their limited excess-product for someone else’s limited excess-product. There would be no collective excess-production for capital to appropriate to itself and “grow”. Capitalism would no longer “work”.

So, while the cry of capitalists is that “anyone” can take the initiative, start their own business and “make it”, the reality is that these capitalists’ “success” is reliant on the fact that not “everyone” does so. Capitalism has room for a small percentage of people to start their own business (of which 4 in 5 fail in the first few years), but that is not a solution for masses of people.

More than that, in order for capitalists to be able to pay workers a fraction of what they actually produce, thereby appropriating the excess-production as profit, they REQUIRE that the majority of people have little option but to work for one or another of them. Because logically, if people had other “options”, they wouldn’t trade their labour for a fraction of what it is worth under such abominable conditions.

"And-the-fact-is-that-their-exploitation-benefits-capitalists."

Interesting-then,-that-those-capitalists-happen-to-be-Western-workers
with-money-invested-in-super-funds-:)”

No worker ever benefits from the exploitation of other workers

For starters, Australian workers do not have the “choice” to invest in superannuation, the base rate of superannuation is “compulsory”. Those that “choose” to contribute more do so, not gleefully, or to be fabulously wealthy, but because of fear that they will live in poverty in their old age. Likewise, those that invest in small shareholdings, or investment property. These people are not “capitalists” in the true sense of the word because they are wage earners i.e. they must work for a living.

Ultimately, any perceived “gains” made by Australian workers in their superannuation funds will be no more than the loss of their collective excess production (which should have been spent on their collective wellbeing) that has been appropriated by capitalists.

Secondly, the massive pool of cheap exploitable labour in China, India etc. only serves to drive down the wages of Australian workers, so their share of the product of their labour is constantly being eroded. On top of this, given that “compulsory” superannuation payments are a percentage of their wage, the amount of superannuation they are paid is being eroded in the same process.

What-is-“given”-with-one-hand-is-taken-away-with-the-other.

Tao, in 1990 I hired a young 17 year old girl in my business, fresh from school..
Whilst her friends blew their wages on clothes, cds and makeup etc, she saved
her pennies. One day she mentioned that she had bought 4000 Westpac shares,
at the time they were 3$. She reinvested the dividends. Her hard work then
and diligent saving means that her 12k$ is now worth 150k$. Anyone could
have done it! That is capitalism to me, anyone can save their pennies
and risk losing it, but also risk gaining from a business venture. Why
should somebody who takes that risk, not be rewarded for taking it?

Anyone who provides capital for a business venture can be called a capitalist,
that includes your workers with super. They can choose which fund their
money is in. Most happen to want one with the highest returns. If returns
to capitalists are so easy to make, as they exploit workers, as you claim,
why don’t workers build their own factories with their Super money?
Most clearly don’t want the hassles or the headaches.

Yes people in China have choices. Most come from villages where they
used to grow their own food. Yup we are all forced to make a living,
main thing is we have choices in how we do it. Perhaps working in
factories is far easier then trying to grow your own for some.

An interesting article in Wednesdays AFR about China. Key points
were that wages have doubled in the past 5 years, as employers are
forced to compete for labour. Minimum wages and welfare payments
have also risen. The savings rate is high, almost double the world average.
Elsewhere I read that 330 million Chinese now have a mobile phone.
Internet access is huge, retail sales increased by 14% as rising incomes
spurred consumer spending. Look at the mega trend, as a nation the
Chinese have never had it so good!

If only 20% of Chinese factory workers started their own businesses, factory
wages would zoom up some more due to even greater competition for available
labour

“That is capitalism to me” Again the criteria by which we measure these things is your subjective judgement/opinion.

“anyone can save their pennies
and risk losing it, but also risk gaining from a business venture.”

Did you not understand my last posts? Of course theoretically “anyone” can, but practically, not everyone can. And those that can gain from a business venture are dependant on those that can’t.

“Why should somebody who takes that risk, not be rewarded for taking it?”

Why should someone who works not be entitled to the full value of what they produce?

Why should someone else, who employs workers, be able to appropriate for themselves as private property part of the value of what those workers produce?

“Yes people in China have choices. Most come from villages where they
used to grow their own food. Yup we are all forced to make a living,
main thing is we have choices in how we do it. Perhaps working in
factories is far easier then trying to grow your own for some.”

Would you work under the conditions such as those in China? If not, why not? If working in factories for 16 – 19 hours per day, 6+ days/week for very little return is “easier” than farming, how hard must earning a living from farming be in China?

With regard to your figures cited from the Financial Review, the Asia Development Bank published a report this year about employment in Asia. The following extracts are from an article on the report here http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/may2006/asdb-m09.shtml

““The-outlines-of-an-Asian-employment-crisis-are-already-taking-shape,”-the-ADB’s-chief-economist-Ifzal-Ali-said-at-the-book-launch.-“Strong-economic-growth-alone-will-not-solve-the-problem.-Even-in-countries-that-have-achieved-relatively-high-growth-rates-of-output,-employment-growth-has-been-disappointing.”

The-ADB-study-notes-that,-although-the-region-has-made-some-advances-in-the-reduction-of-poverty-over-the-past-two-decades,-some-1.9-billion-people-still-live-on-less-than-$2-a-day,-either-unable-to-find-work-or-earning-too-little-from-the-employment-they-do-obtain.
The-bank-pointed-to-a-“huge-global-oversupply-of-labour”-resulting-from-the-integration-of-China,-India-and-Russia-into-the-world-economy.

“Asia’s-success-will-sooner-or-later-be-eclipsed-by-the-pressures-of-a-huge-‘reserve-army’-of-unemployed-and-underemployed-workers-who-are-constantly-driven-to-seek-out-employment-at-sub-standard-wages-in-order-to-survive,”-Ali-said.”

“One-of-the-most-significant-findings-of-the-ADB-study-is-that-the-percentage-increase-in-employment-during-the-1990s-for-every-percentage-point-growth-in-the-gross-domestic-product-(GDP)-was-lower-than-in-the-previous-decade.-The-largest-fall-was-in-China—the-world’s-fastest-growing-economy—where-growth-of-3-percent-in-the-1980s-produced-a-1-percent-increase-in-employment,-while-a-growth-rate-of-almost-8-percent-was-needed-to-achieve-the-same-result-in-the-1990s.

The-problem-appears-to-be-worsening.-In-2006,-it-is-estimated-that-about-25-million-new-urban-jobs-need-to-be-created-in-China-to-accommodate-new-entrants-to-the-labour-market,-rural-migrants-and-workers-laid-off-from-state-enterprises.-But-according-to-the-latest-estimates,-only-11-million-new-jobs-will-be-generated.

The-ADB-has-found-what-it-calls-“disappointing”-results-so-far-as-income-inequality-is-concerned.-In-China,-the-Gini-index,-which-provides-a-statistical-measure-of-inequality,-rose-by-13-percentage-points-between-1981-and-2000.-Inequality-has-also-increased-in-India,-both-between-urban-and-rural-areas-and-within-urban-areas.”

“In-examining-the-causes-of-these-phenomena,-the-study-noted-that-the-increase-in-the-effective-size-of-the-global-labour-force-had-not-been-accompanied-by-a-surge-in-capital-for-investment.”

““In-other-words,-it-is-quite-likely-that-unemployment-driven-by-the-adoption-of-new-technologies-and-heightened-competition-among-firms-will-continue-to-be-serious-problems.”

Just-how-serious-was-underlined-in-a-recent-speech-by-the-head-of-one-of-India’s-leading-industrial-and-engineering-firms.-Delivering-the-Hatfield-lecture-at-Cornell-University-last-month,-Ratan-Tata,-the-head-of-the-Tata-Group,-pointed-out-that-of-India’s-billion-plus-population-20-percent-are-under-the-age-of-20.-By-the-year-2040-the-country-would-have-the-world’s-largest-working-age-population,-surpassing-even-that-of-China.”

That is some mega trend!

Yabby, your comments are simplistic, impressionistic opinion with little basis in objective reality.

You might have managed to plan and save for your retirement, however that is more due to the fact that you lived in a prosperous country during the post war boom than anything else.

You appear to base your beliefs about what is possible for everyone on your own personal experience. World economic conditions are changing. For example, young people in Australia today have less and less chance of even entering the property market. House prices are astronomical, and job security is getting scarcer. As the report said 1.9 billion people in Asia live on less than $2 per day. You ignore these realities and offer Pollyanna nonsense to starving people. Worse than that, you have the UNMITIGATED GALL to DECIDE FOR THEM THAT THEY SHOULD BE HAPPY ABOUT IT.

There appears to be not much point in continuing this discussion with you.

Tao you still don’t get it, but I didn’t think you would. Of course there still
is poverty in Asia and there will be for a long time. Fact is that socialist
interference is one of the major reasons for that poverty. As countries
haves switched to market economics, things have improved, as multitudes
of figures show. But your ideology does not want get its little mind
around that.

Go back 20-30 years in Asia and starvation was one of the largest problems.
Compare North and South Korea, that’s what your ideology does. Even
the Chinese had to accept that and give up on their State owned factories.
Your ideology is flawed!

Yup, anyone can go and buy some shares in a company and thus be a
provider of capital and benefit from taking that risk. You have written
nothing to disprove that. The 1 trillion $ in super is exactly that, workers
benefiting from being capital providers, effectively they own most
large companies these days, if you look at the share registries.

If workers want the full value of what they produce, they are free to
take the full risk in owning the business. That is their choice. That
risk includes losing their jobs, if they lose the markets for their
products. Consumers rule as they vote with their wallets!

Yup, houses are expensive in Australia. Its not building them but
land cost that is the problem. So why don’t Govts release more
land? Fact is that a lot of Govts restricted land release, as the
chardonnay set believed in high density living, which was a huge
mistake. Those beaurocrats clearly can’t run anything.

Sure job security is getting scarcer, markets are not guaranteed,
so why should jobs be guaranteed ? Selling your labour is just
like selling anything else. If markets want x and you produce
y, you won’t sell it, consumers rule. The same with labour.
So find something that consumers do want. In the end its
consumers who vote with their wallets and pay for your labour,
not companies