White House puts UAW ahead of property rights

[Insein]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/White-House-puts-UAW-ahead-of-property-rights-44415057.html


White House puts UAW ahead of property rights
By: Michael Barone
Senior Political Analyst
05/05/09 7:11 PM
Wednesday April 29, 2009.

Last Friday, the day after Chrysler filed for bankruptcy, I drove past the company’s headquarters on Interstate 75 in Auburn Hills, Mich.

As I glanced at the pentagram logo I felt myself tearing up a little bit. Anyone who grew up in the Detroit area, as I did, can’t help but be sad to see a once great company fail.

But my sadness turned to anger later when I heard what bankruptcy lawyer Tom Lauria said on a WJR talk show that morning. “One of my clients,” Lauria told host Frank Beckmann, “was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight.”

Lauria represented one of the bondholder firms, Perella Weinberg, which initially rejected the Obama deal that would give the bondholders about 33 cents on the dollar for their secured debts while giving the United Auto Workers retirees about 50 cents on the dollar for their unsecured debts.

This of course is a violation of one of the basic principles of bankruptcy law, which is that secured creditors — those who lended money only on the contractual promise that if the debt was unpaid they’d get specific property back — get paid off in full before unsecured creditors get anything. Perella Weinberg withdrew its objection to the settlement, but other bondholders did not, which triggered the bankruptcy filing.

After that came a denunciation of the objecting bondholders as “speculators” by Barack Obama in his news conference last Thursday. And then death threats to bondholders from parties unknown.

The White House denied that it strong-armed Perella Weinberg. The firm issued a statement saying it decided to accept the settlement, but it pointedly did not deny that it had been threatened by the White House. Which is to say, the threat worked.

The same goes for big banks that have received billions in government Troubled Asset Relief Program money. Many of them want to give back the money, but the government won’t let them. They also voted to accept the Chrysler settlement. Nice little bank ya got there, wouldn’t want anything to happen to it.

Left-wing bloggers have been saying that the White House’s denial of making threats should be taken at face value and that Lauria’s statement is not evidence to the contrary. But that’s ridiculous. Lauria is a reputable lawyer and a contributor to Democratic candidates. He has no motive to lie. The White House does.

Think carefully about what’s happening here. The White House, presumably car czar Steven Rattner and deputy Ron Bloom, is seeking to transfer the property of one group of people to another group that is politically favored. In the process, it is setting aside basic property rights in favor of rewarding the United Auto Workers for the support the union has given the Democratic Party. The only possible limit on the White House’s power is the bankruptcy judge, who might not go along.

Michigan politicians of both parties joined Obama in denouncing the holdout bondholders. They point to the sad plight of UAW retirees not getting full payment of the health care benefits the union negotiated with Chrysler. But the plight of the beneficiaries of the pension funds represented by the bondholders is sad too. Ordinarily you would expect these claims to be weighed and determined by the rule of law. But not apparently in this administration.

Obama’s attitude toward the rule of law is apparent in the words he used to describe what he is looking for in a nominee to replace Justice David Souter. He wants “someone who understands justice is not just about some abstract legal theory,” he said, but someone who has “empathy.” In other words, judges should decide cases so that the right people win, not according to the rule of law.

The Chrysler negotiations will not be the last occasion for this administration to engage in bailout favoritism and crony capitalism. There’s a May 31 deadline to come up with a settlement for General Motors. And there will be others. In the meantime, who is going to buy bonds from unionized companies if the government is going to take their money away and give it to the union? We have just seen an episode of Gangster Government. It is likely to be part of a continuing series.

[glockmail]

Lauria better watch out for the concrete boots.

[Joe Steel]

White-House-puts-UAW-ahead-of-property-rights-44415057.html

It's about time!

[Nukeman]

It's about time!
Whats about time Joe?? that the government would put a money grubbing union with no interest in its members other than for heir money ahead of hard working people... you really are a pile of shit......

[Agnapostate]

The beneficial effects of workers' ownership and management of the auto industry cannot be fully realized until complete collectivization and establishment of a participatory direct democratic framework is implemented. With the financial class reeling, this would be an opportune moment for such a move, as they'd not be inclined to offer such resistance.

[PostmodernProphet]

The beneficial effects of workers' ownership and management of the auto industry cannot be fully realized until complete collectivization and establishment of a participatory direct democratic framework is implemented. With the financial class reeling, this would be an opportune moment for such a move, as they'd not be inclined to offer such resistance.

not true....the beneficial effects of worker ownership could have been realized any time workers bought a company....a step curiously skipped in this instance.....

[Agnapostate]

not true....the beneficial effects of worker ownership could have been realized any time workers bought a company....a step curiously skipped in this instance.....

"The workers" lack the capital (and organization, given oppositional factors), to effectively assert ownership and control over the means of production. I'm aware that you consider the means of production to be legitimately privately owned by the financial class, but such an arrangement is merely an inheritance of an openly coercive phase of primitive accumulation wherein the state aided in class creation.

[mundame]

The beneficial effects of workers' ownership and management of the auto industry cannot be fully realized until complete collectivization and establishment of a participatory direct democratic framework is implemented. With the financial class reeling, this would be an opportune moment for such a move, as they'd not be inclined to offer such resistance.


Well ------- we'd offer revolution, of course.

[Agnapostate]

Well ------- we'd offer revolution, of course.

The financial class? They'd be lucky to grab the fair market value of their failing industries.

[mundame]

The financial class? They'd be lucky to grab the fair market value of their failing industries.


Don't forget the White Russians.

You are probably underestimating the anti-communist sentiment in this country.

I'm expecting revolution, too, but not THAT kind of revolution!

[Agnapostate]

Don't forget the White Russians.

You are probably underestimating the anti-communist sentiment in this country.

I'm expecting revolution, too, but not THAT kind of revolution!

White Russians? Communism? You're a bit confused if you mix up the Red Army and the Black Army and communism and market socialism...if even that.

[PostmodernProphet]

"The workers" lack the capital (and organization, given oppositional factors), to effectively assert ownership and control over the means of production.

not true.....the capital is available to them in the same way it is to everyone else who begins a business......do you think the "financial class" paid cash?....the only difference between a guy who borrows the money to start a business and the guy who works for him is that you like to think one works and the other doesn't.....

[mundame]

White Russians? Communism? You're a bit confused if you mix up the Red Army and the Black Army and communism and market socialism...if even that.


I'm saying, remember the White Russians put up a fight.

Don't expect you wouldn't get a fight.

[Agnapostate]

not true.....the capital is available to them in the same way it is to everyone else who begins a business......do you think the "financial class" paid cash?....the only difference between a guy who borrows the money to start a business and the guy who works for him is that you like to think one works and the other doesn't.....

Incorrect, considering that your speculation has little relation to empirical evidence. We could first consider the means by which the financial class has been enriched. Contrary to rightist fantasy of the financial class being the "hardest workers," who "pulled themselves up by their bootstraps," empirical data has strongly evidenced The Role of Intergenerational Transfers in Aggregate Capital Accumulation (http://www.jstor.org/pss/1833031), as documented by Summers and Kotlikoff. And quite a major role it has been! Consider their abstract:


This paper uses historical U.S. data to directly estimate the contribution of intergenerational transfers to aggregate capital accumulation. The evidence presented indicates that intergenerational transfers account for the vast majority of aggregate U.S. capital formation; only a negligible fraction of actual capital accumulation can be traced to life-cycle or "hump" savings.

And what role do you suppose this plays in the ability of the financial class to assert and maintain power in a manner that the working class has no ability to do? Simple question with a simple answer. Their inheritances are gained from an earlier time when the state openly allied itself with the financial class and those aspiring to join them; a state of primitive accumulation.

As noted by Marx in The Secret of Primitive Accumulation (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch26.htm):


This primitive accumulation plays in Political Economy about the same part as original sin in theology. Adam bit the apple, and thereupon sin fell on the human race. Its origin is supposed to be explained when it is told as an anecdote of the past. In times long gone-by there were two sorts of people; one, the diligent, intelligent, and, above all, frugal elite; the other, lazy rascals, spending their substance, and more, in riotous living. The legend of theological original sin tells us certainly how man came to be condemned to eat his bread in the sweat of his brow; but the history of economic original sin reveals to us that there are people to whom this is by no means essential. Never mind! Thus it came to pass that the former sort accumulated wealth, and the latter sort had at last nothing to sell except their own skins. And from this original sin dates the poverty of the great majority that, despite all its labour, has up to now nothing to sell but itself, and the wealth of the few that increases constantly although they have long ceased to work. Such insipid childishness is every day preached to us in the defence of property.

This is, of course, the ultimate irony that plagues us in these modern times. The state intervention so allegedly despised by modern rightists is what has empowered the rise of capitalism and its perpetuation, since it is the force of the state that protects the private ownership of the means of production from expropriation and collectivization by the widespread public.


I'm saying, remember the White Russians put up a fight. Don't expect you wouldn't get a fight.

White Russians? Another inaccurate reference to state capitalism? The Red Army brutally suppressed the Kronstadt Rebellion; if you had greater familiarity with these issues, you would not abuse political economy in this manner. I'll admit a certain degree of resemblance amongst the monarchical tsarists and the financial class in light of their shared authoritarianism, but the financial class would leap for table scraps at the moment; they would be fortunate to receive the fair market value of their failing industries, as I mentioned above. They thus have no resistance to offer.

[Psychoblues]

Doesn't UAW, by proper stock ownership, deserve a seat at this table?!?!?!??!?!?!?!
1

[Insein]

Doesn't UAW, by proper stock ownership, deserve a seat at this table?!?!?!??!?!?!?!
1

Common stock is last on t he list of secured creditors. Usually common stock owners receive nothing in bankruptcies. Bond holders are top of the list right after direct debtors such as suppliers. That is why this wreaks of special interest payback which Obama swore would not happen under his watch.

[Psychoblues]

Please allow me to repeat my post: Doesn't UAW, by proper stock ownership, deserve a seat at this table?!?!?!??!?!?!?!





Common stock is last on t he list of secured creditors. Usually common stock owners receive nothing in bankruptcies. Bond holders are top of the list right after direct debtors such as suppliers. That is why this wreaks of special interest payback which Obama swore would not happen under his watch.

Just how silly do you want to get on this issue?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!??!

[Joe Steel]

Please allow me to repeat my post: Doesn't UAW, by proper stock ownership, deserve a seat at this table?!?!?!??!?!?!?!

Why bother with stock? Labor holds a stake in the success of the enterprise. It should have portion of the control with or without stock ownership.

[PostmodernProphet]

Contrary to rightist fantasy of the financial class being the "hardest workers," who "pulled themselves up by their bootstraps," empirical data has strongly evidenced The Role of Intergenerational Transfers in Aggregate Capital Accumulation, as documented by Summers and Kotlikoff.

what malarky......so you have a study that shows that people get richer each generation?.....d'uh!........I know hundreds of people who have borrowed money and begun businesses.....I have started and sold two businesses and currently run a third.....I will inherit property from my parents when they pass and they did the same.....I will have added to that and leave my children more.....thus, we are more statistics to confirm your study......

here in town there is an industry.....in the 60s a college graduate begin in his parent's garage.....a friend joined him....in the 70s they had a disagreement and the friend decided to start his own business....in the 80s an employee decided to go into competition with him....in the 90s the first guy died of a heart attack and a large corporation bought his company from the family for $3.7billion......the other two companies also are successful.....what is the difference between these three men and any other worker?......

there are two differences....1) they had an idea and chose to borrow money and begin a business and 2) you stopped liking them the minute they borrowed money and began a business.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Please allow me to repeat my post: Doesn't UAW, by proper stock ownership, deserve a seat at this table?!?!?!??!?!?!?!



it was already answered properly by Ins, but let's try again.....in a normal situation would there still be a table for the UAW to have a seat at?....or would the table have been sold to pay the companies bills?.....I have a client who is waiting for a $12k check for steel fabrication from a company that is waiting for a $240k check from Chrysler for a testing chamber....do you think the UAW folks are going to pay that bill?.....my client wants to know......

[Joe Steel]

not true.....the capital is available to them in the same way it is to everyone else who begins a business......do you think the "financial class" paid cash?....the only difference between a guy who borrows the money to start a business and the guy who works for him is that you like to think one works and the other doesn't.....

Do you honestly think workers have the same access to capital investors and entrepreneurs have?

[Insein]

Please allow me to repeat my post: Doesn't UAW, by proper stock ownership, deserve a seat at this table?!?!?!??!?!?!?!






Just how silly do you want to get on this issue?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!??!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

We're not talking philosophically about who should get the money. We are talking about what the law clearly states for bankruptcy. The government has decided that the law does not apply for their special interests.

[Insein]

A little more on the subject.

http://detnews.com/article/20090507/OPINION03/905070376/Obama-s-flawed-auto-logic


Thursday, May 7, 2009
Manny Lopez
Obama's flawed auto logic

President Barack Obama insists he doesn't want to run the domestic auto industry -- and we should all be thankful for that.

But his actions speak differently -- and we should all be worried.

"... I rejected the original restructuring plan" that Chrysler LLC submitted for government loans, he said April 30 in announcing his decision to force Chrysler into bankruptcy. "... And the standard I set was high -- I challenged them to design a plan ..."

That's a lot of self promotion and involvement from a guy who doesn't want to control the companies.

Advertisement

To be sure, the government, with the investment of $4 billion in our tax dollars in Chrysler and $15.4 billion in General Motors Corp. needs to set guidelines and rules for repayment. If not met, call the loans and get our money back.

But forcing a private American company into bankruptcy because the president thinks it's the most prudent action. Um, no. Not by any measure.

Blaming the hedge funds
The president found a scapegoat in the hedge funds that balked at the government's "offer" to take pennies on the dollar for their secured investment

"... It was unacceptable to let a small group of speculators endanger Chrysler's future by refusing to sacrifice like everyone else," he said.

Pardon me while I puke.

Chrysler's secured lenders held about $6.9 billion in debt and a couple didn't want to take significantly less than what they were owed. The lenders that opposed hold less than 10 percent of that debt.

You mean to tell me that the president, who has authorized more than $19 billion in cash to the auto companies, with much of it likely never to be repaid, was willing to force Chrysler into bankruptcy over less than a billion bucks?

When you're doling out dump trucks full of cash, another Ram pickup full doesn't break the government's back.

Too much auto ignorance
Make no mistake: The president had this outcome in mind all along. He'll force that action on GM, too.

All the while bashing Detroit for not being Toyota.

"I don't know how to create an affordable, well-designed plug-in hybrid. But I know that, if the Japanese can design an affordable, well-designed hybrid, then, doggone it, the American people should be able to do the same," he said during his 100-days-in-office speech. "So my job is to ask the auto industry: Why is it you guys can't do this?"

Seriously? GM is building the Volt. The Ford Fusion hybrid will get top mileage numbers.It's about time Obama starts looking past the nonsense he's being fed by Californians in Congress. Certainly, the domestic industry needs to do more and it didn't adapt fast enough.

But to suggest that less than a billion bucks forced Chrysler into court or that these companies aren't in the same league as the Japanese shows that the auto ignorance in Washington rolls on.

[Agnapostate]

what malarky......so you have a study that shows that people get richer each generation?.....d'uh!........I know hundreds of people who have borrowed money and begun businesses.....I have started and sold two businesses and currently run a third.....I will inherit property from my parents when they pass and they did the same.....I will have added to that and leave my children more.....thus, we are more statistics to confirm your study......

here in town there is an industry.....in the 60s a college graduate begin in his parent's garage.....a friend joined him....in the 70s they had a disagreement and the friend decided to start his own business....in the 80s an employee decided to go into competition with him....in the 90s the first guy died of a heart attack and a large corporation bought his company from the family for $3.7billion......the other two companies also are successful.....what is the difference between these three men and any other worker?......

there are two differences....1) they had an idea and chose to borrow money and begin a business and 2) you stopped liking them the minute they borrowed money and began a business.....

I'm not interested in your little anecdotes. I'm interested in applicable empirical evidence (derived from statistical data), that's able to inform approaches to policy formation. And as I've said here many times, the establishment of worker-owned enterprises, labor cooperatives, and the like is hindered by both opposition to such forms of organization by financial institutes, as well as market concentration that hinders the gains that could be made by efficient democracy.

[PostmodernProphet]

Do you honestly think workers have the same access to capital investors and entrepreneurs have?

of course.....entrepreneurs are simply workers who went out and got loans to start businesses....walk down any small town street....every "capitalist pig" running a store used to be a "worker"......I must ask, are you totally devoid of real world experience?.......

[PostmodernProphet]

I'm not interested in your little anecdotes. I'm interested in applicable empirical evidence (derived from statistical data), that's able to inform approaches to policy formation. And as I've said here many times, the establishment of worker-owned enterprises, labor cooperatives, and the like is hindered by both opposition to such forms of organization by financial institutes, as well as market concentration that hinders the gains that could be made by efficient democracy.

my anecdotes ARE empirical evidence....you seem to be totally aware of how businesses begin.....they don't spring forth out of a bank as multinational corporations.....they begin in small buildings and grow into larger ones.....for every Fortune 500 capitalist there are a hundred thousand workers who've gone "bad" and borrowed money to start a business....

I suspect that your exposure to reality is limited to what you can see out of the ivy shaded window of your campus orifice....

[crin63]

All this is about is the Obama administration paying back one of their strongest voting blocks. This way Obama and the Dems can expect to get a portion back in their pockets via donations. They cant just put the right into their pockets, it has to be laundered through the UAW first.

[Agnapostate]

my anecdotes ARE empirical evidence....you seem to be totally aware of how businesses begin.....they don't spring forth out of a bank as multinational corporations.....they begin in small buildings and grow into larger ones.....for every Fortune 500 capitalist there are a hundred thousand workers who've gone "bad" and borrowed money to start a business....

I suspect that your exposure to reality is limited to what you can see out of the ivy shaded window of your campus orifice....

Try again. The spectrum of human experiences and behaviors is so tremendously varied that no mere anecdote could suffice as a legitimate form of "empirical evidence." It is, however, relatively simple to dispel your claims with the utilization of empirical evidence. We've already examined the major role of intergenerational transfers in aggregate capital accumulation (thus creating the "Rockefeller grandson" problem); hence, we need only look to the limited social mobility in the American class system and the role of market concentration in preventing and inhibiting efficiency through economic democracy to conceive a well-formed conclusion.

[PostmodernProphet]

Try again. The spectrum of human experiences and behaviors is so tremendously varied that no mere anecdote could suffice as a legitimate form of "empirical evidence." It is, however, relatively simple to dispel your claims with the utilization of empirical evidence. We've already examined the major role of intergenerational transfers in aggregate capital accumulation (thus creating the "Rockefeller grandson" problem); hence, we need only look to the limited social mobility in the American class system and the role of market concentration in preventing and inhibiting efficiency through economic democracy to conceive a well-formed conclusion.

crock....you're empirical evidence only shows us that when working men are successful at becoming entrepreneurs they accumulate assets they can pass on to their children....it by no means shows that there is an obstacle in the way of workingmen becoming entrepreneurs...."limited social mobility" is a myth....three generations ago my grandfather came to America....his documents listed him as "servant".....my father worked as a migrant farm worker during the depression....both of them accumulated capital operating their own businesses.....when I got married I had $10 left after the honeymoon was over....I have accumulated capital.....where is the limitation?......

you act as though there is a limited supply of capital, that if one person makes money, someone else needs to do without it it in order to compensate....

[Agnapostate]

crock....you're empirical evidence only shows us that when working men are successful at becoming entrepreneurs they accumulate assets they can pass on to their children....it by no means shows that there is an obstacle in the way of workingmen becoming entrepreneurs....

"limited social mobility" is a myth....three generations ago my grandfather came to America....his documents listed him as "servant".....my father worked as a migrant farm worker during the depression....both of them accumulated capital operating their own businesses.....when I got married I had $10 left after the honeymoon was over....I have accumulated capital.....where is the limitation?......

It cannot be emphasized enough that isolated anecdotal accounts cannot function as a legitimate form of empirical evidence for the purposes of policy formation. As previously mentioned, humans and their sub-classes are not homogenous groups. The spectrum of human behaviors and experiences is far too complex and varying in its arrangement for isolated accounts to legitimately serve as a substitute for thorough statistical analysis. An example of legitimate empirical evidence would be Gangl's Income Inequality, Permanent Incomes, and Income Dynamics (http://wox.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/32/2/140). Consider the abstract:


As income mobility over time serves to offset income inequality existing at any point in time, cross-national differences in social stratification are preferably assessed from data on average incomes over an extended period of time. Hence, this article uses longitudinal income data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics and the European Community Household Panel to reassess the received empirical evidence. Even discounting the impact of income mobility, however, the United States continues to exhibit the highest level of permanent income inequality in this particular sample of industrial countries. In addition, older workers and individuals at the bottom of the income distribution have faced significantly worse income prospects than common in many European countries.

Additional supplementation by Corak's Do Poor Children Become Poor Adults? Lessons from a Cross-Country Comparison of Generational Earnings Mobility (http://www.international.ucla.edu/media/files/corak.pdf) also provides insightful analysis.


In the United States almost one half of children born to low income parents become low income adults. This is an extreme case, but the fraction is also high in the United Kingdom at four in ten, and Canada where about one-third of low income children do not escape low income in adulthood. In the Nordic countries, where overall child poverty rates are noticeably lower, it is also the case that a disproportionate fraction of low income children become low income adults. Generational cycles of low income may be common in the rich countries, but so are cycles of high income. Rich children tend to become rich adults. Four in ten children born to high income parents will grow up to be high income adults in the United States and the United Kingdom, and as many as one third will do so in Canada.

Your hatred of empirical evidence notwithstanding, it's a source substantially preferable to anecdotal speculation.


you act as though there is a limited supply of capital, that if one person makes money, someone else needs to do without it it in order to compensate....

I've not claimed any such thing. I merely refer to the unjust extraction of surplus labor (and therefore surplus value), promoted in a state of affairs that involves the private ownership of the means of production, and therefore, extensive wage labor.

[PostmodernProphet]

It cannot be emphasized enough that isolated anecdotal accounts cannot function as a legitimate form of empirical evidence for the purposes of policy formation.

wrong...empirical evidence is nothing more than a collection of anecdotal incidents.....my experiences are not unique, if anything, they are the norm.....



As previously mentioned, humans and their sub-classes are not homogenous groups.

of course they are...the only subgroup which is not homogeneous with the rest of humanity is liberal college professors......




In the United States almost one half of children born to low income parents become low income adults.

uh, doesn't that mean that over 50% of children born to low income parents are socially mobile?.....pretty good odds, don't you think?


Four in ten children born to high income parents will grow up to be high income adults in the United States

apparently, you have a better chance at being rich if you start out poor (50% plus) than if you start out rich (40%)....doesn't that sort of fuck up your "empirical evidence"?.......



I've not claimed any such thing. I merely refer to the unjust extraction of surplus labor (and therefore surplus value), promoted in a state of affairs that involves the private ownership of the means of production, and therefore, extensive wage labor.

but you see....there is no empirical evidence to demonstrate this "unjust extraction".....it only exists in your oddball perspective of reality.....

[Agnapostate]

wrong...empirical evidence is nothing more than a collection of anecdotal incidents.....my experiences are not unique, if anything, they are the norm.....

Empirical evidence is derived from statistical data based on a rather significant collection of "anecdotal incidents" (though even this is an oversimplification). Furthermore, any isolated personal experience of yours cannot be a valid substitute for statistical evidence, regardless of whether it correlates with it or not.


of course they are...the only subgroup which is not homogeneous with the rest of humanity is liberal college professors......

If I come across any, I'll be sure to let them know. But really, was this intended to be a jab at me? If so, it wasn't very well aimed. As a socialist, liberal democratic capitalism is effectively a greater foe of mine than Anglo-Saxon capitalism. It possesses an ability to fine-tune some facets of capitalist efficiency and appease worker militancy that more rightist forms do not. Rightists are thus ironically greater allies of socialists than liberals are.


uh, doesn't that mean that over 50% of children born to low income parents are socially mobile?.....pretty good odds, don't you think?

No. It destroys the illusion of near-perfect social mobility in America, and at any rate, your focus was on the poor individual who "pulls himself up by his bootstraps" to become a wealthy entrepreneur, and that is apparently almost a statistical unreality. It also illustrates the relatively poor performance of the U.S. compared to Europe.


apparently, you have a better chance at being rich if you start out poor (50% plus) than if you start out rich (40%)....doesn't that sort of fuck up your "empirical evidence"?.......

Your understanding of this data is grossly incorrect if you are under the impression that "low income" and "high income" are the two exclusive categories that exists for the purpose of such classification. Please examine these studies in closer detail before making such assertions.


but you see....there is no empirical evidence to demonstrate this "unjust extraction".....it only exists in your oddball perspective of reality.....

Your hatred of empirical evidence is apparently unrelenting. So be it. Regardless, we need only examine the phenomenon of underpayment in the labor market to identify clear disparities between wages and labor output (and thus, extraction of surplus labor), the reason for this being the prevalence of asymmetric information. Fr instance, much can be derived from Hofler and Murphy's Underpaid and Overworked: Measuring the Effect of Imperfect Information on Wages (http://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ecinqu/v30y1992i3p511-29.html). Consider the abstract:


This paper investigates the degree of shortfall between the wages workers earn and what they could earn assuming perfect or costless information in the labor market. The authors use the stochastic frontier regression technique to estimate the degree of shortfall found in wages on an individual basis. The paper tests, in addition, a number of hypotheses supplied by search theory in this context. The results generally confirm the propositions from search theory and indicate that, on the average, worker wages fall short of worker potential wages by approximately 10 percent.

Incidentally, rightist opposition to unemployment benefits would only exacerbate this phenomenon.

[PostmodernProphet]

and that is apparently almost a statistical unreality.


you can't have it both ways, Ag.....if you want to use the data, you have to acknowledge that the data shows over 50% are upwardly mobile....that is hardly "statistical unreality".....



Your understanding of this data is grossly incorrect if you are under the impression that "low income" and "high income" are the two exclusive categories that exists for the purpose of such classification. Please examine these studies in closer detail before making such assertions.

perhaps I erred in waxing hyperbolic, but your claim was mobility not "high income".....your data denies your claim....



Your hatred of empirical evidence is apparently unrelenting.

you err, I don't hate empirical evidence, I hate foolish socialists who can't understand it.....

[Agnapostate]

you can't have it both ways, Ag.....if you want to use the data, you have to acknowledge that the data shows over 50% are upwardly mobile....that is hardly "statistical unreality".....

Are you lost? You're apparently unfamiliar with class designations other than "low income" or "high income," but you should perhaps be advised that some degree of social mobility is not equivalent to masses of the poor hurling themselves into the upper classes.


perhaps I erred in waxing hyperbolic, but your claim was mobility not "high income".....your data denies your claim....

Incorrect. My claim was not an utter lack of social mobility; my claim pertained to limited social mobility, which remains a more unpleasant reality in the U.S. than in Europe, for instance. You apparently misinterpreted the parameters of the study so badly that you believed that the only two available results were "low income" and "high income."


you err, I don't hate empirical evidence, I hate foolish socialists who can't understand it.....

Socialists have nothing to gain from the rejection of empirical evidence, given that it supports their prospects of autogestion. Anti-socialists, on the other hand...

[PostmodernProphet]

Are you lost? You're apparently unfamiliar with class designations other than "low income" or "high income," but you should perhaps be advised that some degree of social mobility is not equivalent to masses of the poor hurling themselves into the upper classes.



Incorrect. My claim was not an utter lack of social mobility; my claim pertained to limited social mobility, which remains a more unpleasant reality in the U.S. than in Europe, for instance. You apparently misinterpreted the parameters of the study so badly that you believed that the only two available results were "low income" and "high income."

dodge.....my response doesn't hinge on "low income" or "high income"....the issue is mobility.....your highly prized data shows your contention is wrong....those who start out as children in the "low income" group are more likely to advance financially than to remain.....those who start out as high income are more likely to go down than poor going up.....social mobility is not only not limited, statistically both groups are more likely to change financial status than remain where they are.....




Socialists have nothing to gain from the rejection of empirical evidence, given that it supports their prospects of autogestion. Anti-socialists, on the other hand...

I'm not saying you rejected empirical evidence, I'm saying you misrepresented it.....

[Agnapostate]

dodge.....my response doesn't hinge on "low income" or "high income"....the issue is mobility.....your highly prized data shows your contention is wrong....those who start out as children in the "low income" group are more likely to advance financially than to remain.....those who start out as high income are more likely to go down than poor going up.....social mobility is not only not limited, statistically both groups are more likely to change financial status than remain where they are.....

These assertions are also incorrect, given your misunderstanding of the various categories involved in such measurement. You still continue to laboe under this delusion regarding the "low income" and "high income" brackets, as illustrated by comments such as "those who start out as high income are more likely to go down than poor going up." This is a simplistic asseration which ignores the degree to which either group "goes down" or "goes up," and whether each barely escapes classification in a certain income bracket or makes a massive leap or plunge. But my chief point was still the higher degree of social mobility in Europe than in the U.S. Partial social mobility cannot validate your utopian assumptions; it can, however, support my remarks regarding its limitations (not its absence). As a fellow socialist remarked:


"[T]he United States was found to be the only country in the sample that experienced a clear polarization of income mobility during the 1990s: In the United States, income trends have actually been negative in the bottom of the income distribution and positive in the top deciles, whereas the typical European pattern was exactly the reverse...Against the background that, in most of Europe, real income growth was actually higher than in the United States, many European countries thus achieve not just less income inequality but are able to combine this with higher levels of income stability, better chances of upward mobility for the poor, and a higher protection of the incomes of older workers than common in the United States."

Hence, my chief point regarding generally preferable European conditions remains accurate, and serves to address much of the propaganda regarding the illusion of the "American dream."


I'm not saying you rejected empirical evidence, I'm saying you misrepresented it.....

I've not misrepresented any empirical evidence; you've simply not accurately understood it.

[PostmodernProphet]

You still continue to laboe under this delusion regarding the "low income" and "high income" brackets, as illustrated by comments such as "those who start out as high income are more likely to go down than poor going up."

you are simply ignoring what your data indicates and hiding behind "high income" "low income" so you can pretend it isn't obvious.....high/low have nothing to do with my argument and you know it.....if you can't admit that having more than half those starting out "low" leave that category, then you are simply hiding from the truth so you can pretend you haven't already lost the argument.....if the majority of those who grow up in that category leave it, then there is ample mobility......the means of mobility are obviously available, a minority of those in the category fail to leave it, likely due to their own shortcomings......

[Agnapostate]

you are simply ignoring what your data indicates and hiding behind "high income" "low income" so you can pretend it isn't obvious.....high/low have nothing to do with my argument and you know it.....if you can't admit that having more than half those starting out "low" leave that category, then you are simply hiding from the truth so you can pretend you haven't already lost the argument.....if the majority of those who grow up in that category leave it, then there is ample mobility......the means of mobility are obviously available, a minority of those in the category fail to leave it, likely due to their own shortcomings......

Why not simply admit that you've not even read the study? You're obviously blatantly ignorant of its contents. Moreover, social mobility for "half" is still tremendously limited in light of utopian fantasies of "the American dream," especially considering that most who leave the "low income" bracket do not enter into the "high income" bracket.

[PostmodernProphet]

Moreover, social mobility for "half" is still tremendously limited in light of utopian fantasies of "the American dream,"

actually, upward social mobility for half is excellent.....how does that compare to those born into low income categories in communist nations?......and of course I haven't read the study....all you have available on line is a one paragraph summary.....

[Agnapostate]

actually, upward social mobility for half is excellent.....how does that compare to those born into low income categories in communist nations?......and of course I haven't read the study....all you have available on line is a one paragraph summary.....

Yes, it's called an abstract. I have full access through my educational institute, but it's typical for a small fee to be charged for reading the entire study. This is not my fault; please do not attempt to blame this on me as others have. There are no and have never been any "communist nations" in existence; without further elaboration, I'm already rather certain that your reference is to state capitalism. As to the constrictions of social mobility, they're quite severe impositions in the U.S. compared to Europe, as has been extensively discussed here and ignored by you.

[PostmodernProphet]

As to the constrictions of social mobility, they're quite severe impositions in the U.S. compared to Europe, as has been extensively discussed here and ignored by you.

lol....you have extensively claimed it...it is only a matter of your opinion whether less than half is a severe imposition or not......I suspect so long as you retain your stilted view of humanity you will retain your supposition......

I rather suppose that in Europe the difference between the highs and the lows is not so great because you have fewer highs.....the socialists having taxed all the highs out of existence....

[PostmodernProphet]

There are no and have never been any "communist nations" in existence;

and I expect there never will be....."communism" is an economic theoretical concept that will likely never exist in reality.....nor will "socialism" or "capitalism" the way you define them......

[PostmodernProphet]

Yes, it's called an abstract. .

I know what it's called....I also know it is worthless as documentation in an argument.....

[Agnapostate]

lol....you have extensively claimed it...it is only a matter of your opinion whether less than half is a severe imposition or not......

Of course it is. It shatters the illusion of the "American dream," considering the statistical rarity of a member of the low income bracket entering the high income bracket. I've actually never encountered anyone who's misinterpreted this data as badly as you have.


I suspect so long as you retain your stilted view of humanity you will retain your supposition......

Everything you've said thus far has inclined me to believe that my view of humanity is significantly more accurate than your own.


I rather suppose that in Europe the difference between the highs and the lows is not so great because you have fewer highs.....the socialists having taxed all the highs out of existence....

Europe is not "socialist" in nature. In fact, the social democratic and related Rhine capitalism practiced in Europe is actually a greater foe of socialism in some instances than rightist Anglo-Saxon capitalism is because the former possesses an ability to fine-tune components of capitalist economic structure and appease worker militancy that the latter has not. At any rate, social democracy has no deleterious impacts on economic efficiency and simultaneously provides improves certain social benefits, and is thus broadly preferable to more rightist forms of capitalism.


and I expect there never will be....."communism" is an economic theoretical concept that will likely never exist in reality.....nor will "socialism" or "capitalism" the way you define them......

All three claims are inaccuracies. Communism has existed; simply not in a manifestation through a nation-state. For instance, if you examine the nature of anarchism in Aragon, communism characterized much of the rural economic organization that was a reality for hundreds of thousands, if not millions. Socialism existed on a far more widespread basis during the Spanish Revolution in the regions of Aragon, Catalonia, and portions of the Levant in light of the anarchist nature of that social revolution. Capitalism obviously exists and characterizes day-to-day economic interactions; it's merely free markets that have never existed.


I know what it's called....I also know it is worthless as documentation in an argument.....

Only if one is inclined to reject the value of empirical evidence, as you clearly are.

[PostmodernProphet]

Of course it is.

of course it is in your opinion....



Everything you've said thus far has inclined me to believe that my view of humanity is significantly more accurate than your own.

your inclinations are unsurprising....but then the view of humanity available from the towers of your "educational institution" is a bit occluded by the ivy.....




Europe is not "socialist" in nature.

by your nineteenth century definition, nothing ever will be....



Only if one is inclined to reject the value of empirical evidence, as you clearly are.
I don't reject the evidence, I merely reject your manipulation of it.....you claim your data proves something it was never intended to prove, and in addition, deny it's results which contradict your claims.....

[Agnapostate]

You seem not to understand that transition from the fringe of one economic bracket to another does not constitute full social mobility. When we combine this with your lack of understanding of socialism necessitating the collective ownership of the means of production (you're likely among those who views the mixed economy as "capitalism with a bit of socialism" and welfare programs as "socialist" in nature), it's an unfortunate reality that you're not able to form a well-reasoned conclusion.

[PostmodernProphet]

You seem not to understand that transition from the fringe of one economic bracket to another does not constitute full social mobility. When we combine this with your lack of understanding of socialism necessitating the collective ownership of the means of production (you're likely among those who views the mixed economy as "capitalism with a bit of socialism" and welfare programs as "socialist" in nature), it's an unfortunate reality that you're not able to form a well-reasoned conclusion.

mobility is mobility....do you demand that every worker become a Slumdog Millionaire before you acknowledge the reality of mobility demonstrated by your empirical evidence?......

[Agnapostate]

You can't be anything but brutally unfamiliar with the empirical evidence if you assert that. True "equality of opportunity," as it were, is defined by the ability of a worker to become a millionaire based on his or her own merits. Not only does the staistical evidence we have available to us indicate the extreme improbability of that, it also indicates that what mobility does exist is restricted to an unhealthy degree. Your conception of mild transition for half of the low-income population as a good thing prevents you from seeing that.

[PostmodernProphet]

You can't be anything but brutally unfamiliar with the empirical evidence if you assert that.

true...I am only familiar with the evidence you provided....that the majority of children who start out in the low income bracket are upwardly mobile.....


True "equality of opportunity," as it were, is defined by the ability of a worker to become a millionaire based on his or her own merits.

what a fuckingly stupid definition....so the poverty stricken youth aren't successful if they only make $500k?........so, if we exclude from "success" all high income people who make a million dollars from their previously held investments and not from their own merits, what does your empirical data say about the odds of low versus high income people making a million?..... as I recall the majority of children from high income brackets declined in wealth....I suspect then they didn't make a million on their merits either.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Your conception of mild transition for half of the low-income population as a good thing prevents you from seeing that.
I know....it sucks to be an optimist.....thinking it's a good thing that the majority of the low income population improves their financial situation is such a curse......