I posted a lecture of his a while back. This one has a similar theme; it begins around the 6:40 mark and lasts a little over an hour, followed by a question and answer segment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6DLT9MHO4M

The entrance of large numbers of women to the workforce stagnated wages...

Credible or misogynist?

(Not the central focus of his lecture, for those curious.)

4/8/2011 11:00:24 PM

I'd say that the sex of those who entered the workplace was irrelevant. Simply having a large influx of people into the workforce would probably cause wages to stagnate, as the supply just increased dramatically

4/8/2011 11:05:25 PM

So, the tally thus far:

aaronburro Credible

4/9/2011 11:39:02 PM

This video is definitely worth more views than this thread has received.

Whether you agree or disagree with the points that are made, there are probably more than a hundred points that could be argued credible/not credible/incredible.

So, have at it Wolf Web.

Let's get this going.

4/10/2011 11:00:52 PM

The Threats of Business and the Business of Threats
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2011/wolff100511.html

Quote :

"... When major corporations threaten to cut or relocate production abroad in response to changes in their taxes and subsidies or demands to cut their prices or serious enforcement of environmental protection rules, the US government could promise retaliation. Here's a brief and partial list of how it might do that (with illustrative examples for the energy and pharmaceutical industries): 1. Inform such threatening businesses that the US government will shift its purchases to other enterprises. 2. Inform them that top officials will tour the US to urge citizens to follow the government's example and shift their purchases as well. 3. Inform them that the government will proceed to finance and organize state-operated companies to compete directly with threatening businesses. 4. Immediately and strictly enforce all applicable rules governing health and safety conditions for workers, environmental protection laws, equal employment and advancement opportunity, etc. 5. Present and promote passage of new laws governing enterprise relocation (giving local, regional, and national authorities veto power over corporate relocation decisions). 6. Purchase energy and pharmaceutical outputs in bulk for mass resale to the US public, passing on all the savings from bulk purchases. 7. Seize assets of enterprises that seek to evade or frustrate increased taxes or reduced subsidies. Laws enabling such actions either already exist in the US or could be enacted. In other countries today, existing models of such laws have performed well, often for many years. These could be used and adjusted for US conditions. Of course, it is possible to create a much better basis than threat and counter-threat for sharing the costs of government between individuals and businesses. That basis would be established by a transition to an economic system where workers in each enterprise functioned collectively and democratically as their own board of directors. Such worker-directed enterprises eliminate the basic split and conflict inside capitalist corporations between those who make the key business decisions (what, how, and where to produce, for example) and those who must live with and most immediately depend on those decisions' results (the mass of employees)..."

5/16/2011 4:56:32 PM

^haha I like some of the ideas but it seems like its almost political suicide to threaten businesses so I don't think it would ever happen.

look at the BP disaster this past year, forcing the company to put aside money for mitigation was a "shakedown"

5/16/2011 5:20:59 PM

What a foolish man. I wish I could somehow trick him into reading Economics in One Lesson, just so I could see his look of bewilderment.

Quote :

"Inform such threatening businesses that the US government will shift its purchases to other enterprises."

A corporation has made the determination that they can operate more profitably by moving the enterprise out of the country. The government can only threaten to terminate its contracts if it 1) has active contracts with the company 2) those contracts represent a large enough percentage of the company's total revenue to influence their decision to relocate.

If both of those conditions are met, why in the world is a company dependent on government funding to operate at a profit, and can it even be called a private enterprise at that point? Is there not enough demand in the private sector to make the company viable? If not enough people are willing to buy the product, then shouldn't that company fail or at least restructure itself?

Quote :

"Inform them that top officials will tour the US to urge citizens to follow the government's example and shift their purchases as well."

LOL. How do "top officials" urge citizens to shift their purchases without the use of force? Are people going to voluntarily pay more for a product, knowing that they could get it for less somewhere else? Absurd.

Quote :

"Inform them that the government will proceed to finance and organize state-operated companies to compete directly with threatening businesses."

They'll finance another company with tax money that could have been used productively, thus there is no net gain, and very likely there is a net loss to society. All state run enterprises are inherently less efficient than private sector enterprises; state controlled corporations have no bottom line, as they can get as much revenue as they need by taxing the people or corporations. By doing so, more people or corporations are encouraged to leave the country for greener pastures. Socialism is a vicious cycle, and it fails 100% of the time.

Quote :

"Immediately and strictly enforce all applicable rules governing health and safety conditions for workers, environmental protection laws, equal employment and advancement opportunity, etc."

I thought the goal was to keep the company within the country? This suggestion seems to be aimed at getting them out even sooner.

Quote :

"Present and promote passage of new laws governing enterprise relocation (giving local, regional, and national authorities veto power over corporate relocation decisions)."

Jesus Christ. This sounds like something right out of the Soviet playbook. Wolff is suggesting that corporations (and by default, the individuals that make up that corporation) be prohibited from leaving the country. Just...wow. When your government tells you that you're not allowed to leave, that's when it's time to leave.

Quote :

"Purchase energy and pharmaceutical outputs in bulk for mass resale to the US public, passing on all the savings from bulk purchases."

From who?

Marxism is one of the most vile and offensive ideologies imaginable. It's also paradoxical; Marx talked about a stateless, classless society, yet a state would be required to enforce any of these ill-advised policies. I can see no difference between what Marx described and state capitalism.

Quote :

"look at the BP disaster this past year, forcing the company to put aside money for mitigation was a "shakedown""

The real injustice there is that the government allows for LLCs. Why should liabilities be limited for corporations? I'm liable for 100% of my mistakes as an individual. The same should hold true for BP. This is yet another example of where corporatism is the norm, not "free market capitalism." In a free market, there is no state to limit liabilities.

[Edited on May 16, 2011 at 5:43 PM. Reason : ]

5/16/2011 5:38:46 PM

Quote :

"All state run enterprises are inherently less efficient than private sector enterprises"

During the health care debate, wasn't the argument against having a public option that it would have been more efficient and cheaper and would ultimately have driven private insurance companies out of the market?

5/16/2011 6:22:22 PM

no, the argument was that it would undercut prices by being subsidized by tax dollars or getting favorable treatment from the gov't, thus running other companies out of business.

5/16/2011 6:28:44 PM

Quote :

"During the health care debate, wasn't the argument against having a public option that it would have been more efficient and cheaper and would ultimately have driven private insurance companies out of the market?"

^Said it, but the point I'm making is that you can't compete with a company that is subsidized, at least if the subsidization gives them a substantial leg up. There's no way it would have actually been cheaper for the consumer; competition in the private sector is the only thing keeping prices down. If you subsidize it, you can bet that the price for the consumer (whether it's the amount of taxes they have to pay, or the actual cost of seeing a health care provider) will go up.

[Edited on May 16, 2011 at 6:56 PM. Reason : ]

5/16/2011 6:53:05 PM

Any thoughts on the conclusion paragraph (that I didn't initially include)?

Quote :

"... Corporations have used repeated threats (to cut or move production) as means to prevent tax increases and to secure tax reductions. Likewise they have made the same threats to secure desired spending from the federal government (military expenditures, federal road and port building projects, subsidies, financial supports, and so on). In effect, corporate boards of directors and major shareholders seek to shift tax burdens onto employees. Their success over the last half-century is clear. Tax receipts of the US government have increasingly come (1) from individual rather than corporate income taxes and (2) from middle and lower individual income groups rather than from the rich. In worker-directed enterprises, the incentive for such shifts would vanish because the people who would be paying enterprise taxes are the same people who would be paying individual income taxes. Taxation would finally become genuinely democratic. The people would collectively decide how to distribute taxes on what would genuinely be their own businesses and their own individual incomes."

5/16/2011 7:04:00 PM

I'm glad you pointed that out because I didn't read it, I've always favored worker controlled enterprise and I agree with him.

Hierarchy anywhere in our lives reduces our freedom (for better or worse)

5/16/2011 9:11:48 PM

Hierarchy is necessary for an organization to function, though. If workers ran the company, they'd just jack up their own wages and leave it at that. Someone with some financial sense has to sit down, look at costs and revenues, and come up with a sustainable plan. There also has to be someone figuring out what kind of positions need to be filled, what qualifications that position calls for, how much they should be paid (after all, they are competing for labor against other companies), and other considerations. I would also argue that hierarchies within business organizations do not reduce freedom - workers voluntarily agree to perform tasks for a set wage. The myth perpetuated by Marxists/syndicalists - that workers are destined to be exploited by companies - assumes that there is only one company in town.

Quote :

"In effect, corporate boards of directors and major shareholders seek to shift tax burdens onto employees."

...or the customer. A corporation will lose their labor force if they lower wages at all, or in some cases, if they fail to raise wages at a suitable pace. Some other company that is run more efficiently (and perhaps, with less useless middlemen) will attract many of those workers with higher wages or better working conditions.

[Edited on May 16, 2011 at 9:44 PM. Reason : ]

5/16/2011 9:19:29 PM

Quote :

"Hierarchy is necessary for an organization to function, though."

there are plenty of examples of worker run organizations, Co-ops, and businesses. Some still may have some form of hierarchy but its greatly reduced from the typical top-down approach we are so accustomed to. I'm much more interested in the real world function of these types of enterprises rather than some theoretical utopian ZERO hierarchy idea.

Quote :

"Someone with some financial sense has to sit down, look at costs and revenues, and come up with a sustainable plan. There also has to be someone figuring out what kind of positions need to be filled, what qualifications that position calls for, how much they should be paid (after all, they are competing for labor against other companies), and other considerations."

Some workers do have someone, or a smaller group, that comes up with a financial plan. That is, there is some form of hiearchy in the organization that every one agrees with and they probably only have limited decision power. They usually then present the plan to everyone for a vote, but not always. However they function, the structure is agreed upon beforehand and no two businesses are necessarily alike.

Quote :

"they'd just jack up their own wages and leave it at that."

Because they are part owner they realize that their wages depend directly on the health of the business. An example might be that workers agree to reinvest some percentage of profit back into their company to become more competitive and share the remaining profit.

Quote :

"I would also argue that hierarchies within business organizations do not reduce freedom - workers voluntarily agree to perform tasks for a set wage. The myth perpetuated by Marxists/syndicalists - that workers are destined to be exploited by companies - assumes that there is only one company in town. "

Monopsony is a pretty common market failure. Corporations have shown they are more than willing to pick up and move to locations where they have the advantage so they can depress wages and turn a bigger profit. You can't blame them, they are just doing their job.

Quote :

"...or the customer. A corporation will lose their labor force if they lower wages at all, or in some cases, if they fail to raise wages at a suitable pace. Some other company that is run more efficiently (and perhaps, with less useless middlemen) will attract many of those workers with higher wages or better working conditions. "

If they raise prices on the consumer then no one will buy their product. There are only a few ways that a capitalist can make the extra profit off the top of an operation. When you consider that labor is a primary cost of doing business then squeezing workers as much as possible becomes a major goal.

5/17/2011 8:30:53 AM

Quote :

"there are plenty of examples of worker run organizations, Co-ops, and businesses. Some still may have some form of hierarchy but its greatly reduced from the typical top-down approach we are so accustomed to. I'm much more interested in the real world function of these types of enterprises rather than some theoretical utopian ZERO hierarchy idea."

Quote :

"Some workers do have someone, or a smaller group, that comes up with a financial plan. That is, there is some form of hiearchy in the organization that every one agrees with and they probably only have limited decision power. They usually then present the plan to everyone for a vote, but not always. However they function, the structure is agreed upon beforehand and no two businesses are necessarily alike."

There are free market solutions that address this concern. As I already mentioned, companies that try to keep as flat of a hierarchy as possible will often reduce their overall costs on middle management. Accordingly, they can often attract better workers with higher wages/improved working conditions, or they can lower their prices to be more competitive.

Remember, enterprises always must strike a balance between administrative costs, wages, and prices. It's not an easy thing to do, which is why competition is so important.

Quote :

"Because they are part owner they realize that their wages depend directly on the health of the business. An example might be that workers agree to reinvest some percentage of profit back into their company to become more competitive and share the remaining profit."

I don't think it's reasonable to expect workers to be altruistic and work for the greater good. People look out for themselves; they want to take as much home to their family as possible, and that desire will trump long term considerations, especially when knowledge of business fundamentals is absent.

Quote :

"Monopsony is a pretty common market failure. Corporations have shown they are more than willing to pick up and move to locations where they have the advantage so they can depress wages and turn a bigger profit. You can't blame them, they are just doing their job."

That's not a market failure; that's a corporation taking the path of least resistance. When the government becomes too burdensome, people move. Take a look around at your country. That's what is happening.

Quote :

"If they raise prices on the consumer then no one will buy their product. There are only a few ways that a capitalist can make the extra profit off the top of an operation. When you consider that labor is a primary cost of doing business then squeezing workers as much as possible becomes a major goal."

Prices on all sorts of goods are going up right now, but people continue buying them. If material costs go up enough, then prices have to eventually go up as well.

5/17/2011 11:53:03 AM

I dont really wanna argue this, instead I'll just leave some videos in case someone reading is interested:

Mondragon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7efaDeFmurQ&feature=related
A huge Coop in Spain, I know the least about.

The Take:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEzXln5kbuw
Some people are gonna shit all over parts of this documentary about Argentine factories but I thought it was great

Fixing the future
http://www.pbs.org/now/fixing-the-future/
Documentary on some stuff in America, I am specifically impressed with the evergreen cooperative in Cleveland.


Is it slightly utopian? probably, but they do make for interesting alternatives to our current systems

5/17/2011 1:16:20 PM

bump

4/28/2012 12:20:51 PM

^^
I was a big fan of that second video about the Argentinian factory workers, as well.

Here's a fairly recent lecture from Wolff:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=pJlXhYigqAQ#t=402s

It should automatically start around the 6:45 mark. This lecture lasts a little less than an hour.

It's worth mentioning, given his unorthodox take on economics, that Wolff studied at Harvard, Stanford and Yale, receiving a Ph.D in economics.

4/28/2012 12:35:54 PM

Elizabeth Warren makes the same observation about women entering the workforce:


The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A&ob=av3e

4/28/2012 1:17:28 PM

^^

Quote :

"For workers to control the enterprises, is simply, the final, long overdue, step in democracy as a concept."

4/28/2012 1:49:56 PM

I hadn't watched more than just the first segment of the Mondragon video before today. I'm glad that I went back and watched all five. Thanks for posting.

4/28/2012 5:28:38 PM

yea, its [old] but pretty informative.

^^^I'm liking that video too, lots of good analysis.

4/29/2012 12:10:52 PM

this is a little old, but just came to my attention:

Mondragon and US steelworkers are "teaming up" to start pushing Co-ops in the US

http://www.usw.org/our_union/co-ops

I haven't dug very deep into it (not sure how they are going to provide support), but its a sorta interesting development

5/21/2012 6:25:26 PM

Richard D. Wolff on Moyers & Company:

http://billmoyers.com/segment/richard-wolff-on-fighting-for-economic-justice-and-fair-wages/

Nothing too groundbreaking, but Wolff discusses Glass-Steagall around the 25 minute mark.


Below is a lecture of his that initially brought him to my attention, Capitalism Hits the Fan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=0HTkEBIoxBA#t=72s

[Edited on March 5, 2013 at 12:47 AM. Reason : ]

3/5/2013 12:46:46 AM

So I'm only like 30 mins into that second video, and again its a good, surprisingly simple analysis. But what I really like about Wolff is how he adds a human element into the discussion (and rightfully so). It's not just that people aren't able to "physically" work more or borrow more to keep up with stagnating wages, its that they "HUMANLY" can't, they aren't able to because, to some degree, there is something inhuman about where our system is pushing people.

I'm reading between the lines a little because he usually just says something along the lines of "People aren't able to do more, they are being pushed toward breaking points . . . ." Its an economic analysis that doesn't treat workers like robots, and for that reason alone its more correct than a majority of the usual talking heads.

3/5/2013 9:33:14 AM

Quote :

"The entrance of large numbers of women to the workforce stagnated wages..."

I'm sorry, I haven't read the rest of the thread, but you know this is a go-to talking point of liberals like Elizabeth Warren, right?

I don't mean she said it once either.

http://www.amazon.com/Two-Income-Trap-Middle-Class-Parents-Going/dp/0465090907

3/5/2013 10:55:23 AM

^
Yeah, I've watched the video of her talk that JesusHChrist posted earlier.

I'm not sure why I pinpointed that specific argument; if I recall, that wasn't even the focus of his lecture. I guess I just thought it would generate some discussion.


^^
I agree and was particularly struck by his suggestion that stagnated wages are now being provided to workers in the form of high-interest loans.

[Edited on March 5, 2013 at 3:54 PM. Reason : ]

3/5/2013 3:53:23 PM

Truly, I did not read this thread before posting.

Quote :

"stagnated wages are now being provided to workers in the form of high-interest loans."

I don't quite understand what you mean here.

---
I watched a little of the video, and I thought the hypocrisy came out around the time he started bashing SUVs and saying that more people should take public transportation. And yet he spent the entire video talking about how bad things were for the middle class.

The sheer number of SUVs sold disproves the thesis that they're a toy for the rich. The impending climate disaster is certainly on the hands of the middle class. Not to mention, when has public transportation ever been family friendly?

Quote :

"Credible or misogynist?"

mrfrog says credible. The claim isn't that women shouldn't have entered the workforce, it's that companies hijacked the productivity gains from the extra hours. Nothing about the ethical argument for equal opportunity is mentioned.

If anything, Wolff's argument is that as
- men should reduce their own hours when their wives up theirs
- we should collectively demand more compensation for all labor

This is, in a sense, a feminist issue. The needs of the family hasn't changed because our workforce composition has. We know the wage gap is largely due to different hours worked, and we know that comes from unequal responsibility taken for children.

[Edited on March 5, 2013 at 4:18 PM. Reason : ]

3/5/2013 4:18:23 PM

I appreciate the input, and I agree with your points regarding women in the workforce.

I unfortunately don't recall what he said about SUVs, so I'll try to go back and find that; however, I agree that middle class workers drive a lot of SUVs and that lower class workers are more likely to use public transportation.

Quote :

"I don't quite understand what you mean here."

He was discussing how real wages stagnated and personal debt increased after the 70s; in other words, that debt supplemented the increase in wages that workers never received.

3/5/2013 5:02:48 PM

Holy shit balls.


Richard Wolff asserts that the Social Security Trust Fund was a means of regressively taxing the working class, as opposed to progressively taxing the rich, for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=7AobLvtbDuk#t=3058s

From the 51:15 mark through the 1:07:45 mark.



[Edited on June 6, 2013 at 1:58 AM. Reason : ]

6/6/2013 1:54:21 AM

To anyone who enjoyed his other videos, this link should already be cued to the 34:21 mark:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zt5M27F5XKg#t=2061

He discusses the decision to borrow from the wealthy, instead of taxing them, in order to rescue the banks during the financial crisis.

12/10/2013 1:20:11 PM

Quote :

"Richard Wolff asserts that the Social Security Trust Fund was a means of regressively taxing the working class, as opposed to progressively taxing the rich, for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars."

It's invested in treasuries. If that wasn't obviously a "tax" to you from the beginning, then you trust government far too much.

I mean, if an investment house sold you a product like that, you'd have them in court very soon.

12/10/2013 1:26:11 PM

I think I was more alarmed that it was used as a means to pay for the wars.

Quote :

"if an investment house sold you a product like that"

Could you clarify this for me?

12/10/2013 2:14:48 PM