To make the whole conversation shorter: What Z said. In greater details:
Originally Posted by contracycle
|
|
But "legal" is just the position held by a majority of sellers. It's a market action like any other.
|
I don't understand what you're trying to say here, actually.
|
Quote:
|
|
I've read stuff to the contrary.
|
My info comes from what was done when the French went from a 39 hours week to a 35 one. Basically, the lower the income, the more resistant people were to getting it cut in line with time reduction. Which makes sense if you link that to the satiety research we've seen saying that happiness does not increase much with money above $50k. People below that will tend to want the money, people above the extra time...
|
Quote:
|
|
But why would that be reasonable for them and unreasonable for us? The whole point of "flexibility" is to reduce our wages.
|
Nope. Well, yes. Wages might be reduced but income would stay stable/go up. That's the idea. Minimum wages and stuff were and are just tools to allow people to have an income to live.
|
Quote:
|
|
It seems obvious to me that the system produces these effects, and that they are contrary to the interests of the vast majority. Why should I be expected to endorse a system that actively seeks to make my life worse?
|
As I said, the system doesn't seek anything. But, as agreed, the present conditions are not good for labour. OTOH, as you pointed out, when labour suffers, usually, this backfires on capital/profit. What need to be done is to make sure that, through cooperation, the legal framework make the system works for everybody - Chinese included.
|
Quote:
|
|
I'm just pointing out that this is a case of getting hoist by your own petard. They're playing the game on the rules you support, but it seems you don't like the results.
|
No, that's the point. They don't play the game by the rules I support.
Linear Mode
