The Giant Pool Of Money. Implications

Well the aforementioned corporations are forcing people to work more for less.

No, corporate workers are not chattel.

I didn't say they were. I was pointing out that the word 'force' does not mean 'violence' it can mean 'given little to no alternative'.They *could* withhold their labour - as they are not chattel. This could be by striking, working for smaller companies or starting their own. But that would force the corporations to offer more money for the labour. Or they might force the smaller companies out of business if they can.Making the alternatives untenable is not something to intrinsically balk at. The corporate workers realistically cannot all work elsewhere - as there aren't enough alternate jobs, and those jobs might not pay much better because the corporate entities have such power over the market that they may in fact be offering the best salaries, even as they are decreasing. So their alternatives are striking - trying to force the corporations using the old 'workers control the means of production' concept - or they don't because they can't. The corporations do what they can to make striking untenable and to pay as little in wages as they can - so they are forcing low wages on the workers.Right now, the corporations are using their power to force the suppressed salaries, even as profits climb. Balking at using your leverage to raise salaries but not balking at corporations using their leverage to lower salaries seems a little hypocritical, right?

How do you decide that it's "fair"? From what I've seen, employers tend to pay the least they can get away with. That has nothing to do with fairness.

Bullshit. You contradict yourself. You just said that your father pulled himself up on his own. What a horrible thing to say. You don't want to help the hungriest? You should be ashamed of yourself, as a citizen never mind as a "Christian".

Okay - I wouldn't call that force, it's just doing business, but your point is not lost. Yeah, that's better - I just wouldn't call it force. Are all negotiations forced?If I haggle with someone, am I forcing them to lower their price? I would say no. I just don't see it that way - that the workers are forced. It's an agreement, nobody is making them take the job. If they were forced into a job that'd be chattel. Both sides want to maximize their own gain - that's doing business. As long as it's mutually consensual, I don't consider it forced, and in that case do what you got to do to get that money.I call that negotiating.

Looks like you're more of a Marxist than I am. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I'm not in favour of corporate taxes at all. They should be used only in a carrot-and-stick approach - e.g. to incentivize environmental friendliness. They should not be used as a major source of revenue.I believe that the working class and middle class should pay the bulk of the taxes - and they should be paid so that they can afford to do so.

Everyone has the same opportunity to make their own way. Nobody is being made to do something against their will. It's a mutually consensual agreement.What's unfair about that? What makes it unfair?

Obviously not. Some people have parents to put them through college; others have to take care of their sick parents while taking whatever work they can get. That's only one example.

Uh, that's them making their own way...

And it isn't fair....

But in English that is what force can mean. The politician was forced out of his seat, the chess player was forced to resign, the debater was forced to concede the point, the small business owner was forced to sell his interests in the business, the child was forced to go church on Sunday. If you end up doing something you didn't want to do by circumstances or the actions of others - not just physical strength, it is perfectly normal to say you were forced to do it.Negotiations can end with a mutually acceptable agreement, but its also typical for negotiations to involve 'leverage'. The notion of leverage doesn't mean someone got a stick and fulcrum and pried you away from your position. They metaphorically used a lever to metaphorically force you from your position. Probably not. But if you are an influential celebrity you might leverage your influence to get a price much lower than the seller would want to avoid the bad consequences of an influential person's opinion might have on sales as a whole.In that case, you might say the seller was forced to sell at a price he would not be happy with. Normal haggling ends with both parties satisfied, even if one would prefer cheaper and one prefer more expensive. The need to pay for food, rent/mortgage, healthcare etc is pretty strong. A person might not be forced to work a particular job, but in general they are forced to work. And if all the salaries are basically the same for that job then they are forced, by this circumstance, to accept that salary or thereabouts. That circumstance is influenced heavily (but not exclusively) by large companies with their large influence on the job market. Negotiating and using leverage are not mutually exclusive. But now you understand Phat was not talking about physical coercion. There is, as Marx put it, a struggle between the classes: Workers who want to be paid as much as possible, and the Capitalists who want to pay as little as possible. The Workers have get a job, the capitalists don't have to hire any specific individual. A struggle comes out of this, and it can result in a reasonable outcome. But it doesn't have to - one side can come out better than the other.One way to negotiate is to refuse to take a given job. But doing this on an individual basis may not be effective - and in the meantime the bills are coming in. This need for money now - or soon - is the leverage the capitalist class exerts. This is one their forcing tools. This is why the term 'wage slavery' is sometimes used. It isn't chattel slavery, but a worker's need for a wage packet is usually immediate. It is rare that someone can go for several months without any income without serious ramifications. So they need to sell their labour. The workers do have one point of leverage: they control the means of production. Hence if they cooperate to withhold that labour all at the same time - hopefully they won't have to go for a long time without a wage before the capitalists have to relent and offer better salary or whatever.So again

quote:

---

We need stronger unions! We need to force these corporations to share more of the wealth!

---

We need to work together to negotiate a bigger slice of the pie using the leverage of negotiating in a bloc rather than independently. This is just as much 'just doing business' as anything the corporate world gets up to. So you are no longer 'lost' at the word 'force'?

are you saying it isn't fair that my parents could have sent me to college while yours couldn't?You may also know that I take care of my 94-year-old Mom with Alzheimer's at partially my own expense. Is that fair?

If the wealthy own or control 90+% of everything and benefit the most from corporate profits, why not hold their feet to the fire also? The alternative is to tax the middle class at higher rates so that they essentially have little more than the working class. You think I was horrible for saying not to focus exclusively on the hungry, but I was being metaphorical. Yes, some of us had it easier than others, but by excluding the responsibility of the rich to contribute you are forcing the middle class to become overburdened. Don't you see that?

Of course it isn't fair. Nobody said life was fair but at least try to understand what fairness means. See above.