Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 27 of 27

Thread: David Harvey and Libertarians

  1. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gladiator View Post
    Well, the incomes of the top, say 5% have gone up drastically, which could be pushing up the average.
    Yeah, so is that excluded from the hourly earnings graph above for some reason?
    "In a word, we reject all legislation, all authority, and all privileged, licensed, official, and legal influence, even though arising from universal suffrage, convinced that it can turn only to the advantage of a dominant minority of exploiters against the interest of the immense majority in subjection to them. This is the sense in which we are really Anarchists." - Bakunin

    "If your object is to secure liberty, you must learn to do without authority and compulsion." - Alexander Berkman

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    919
    Organisation
    League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
    Rep Power
    26

    Default

    Yeah, I think they exclude the top earners.
    Any real change implies the breakup of the world as one has always known it, the loss of all that gave one an identity, the end of safety. And at such a moment, unable to see and not daring to imagine what the future will now bring forth, one clings to what one knew, or dreamed that one possessed. Yet, it is only when a man is able, without bitterness or self-pity, to surrender a dream he has long possessed that he is set free - he has set himself free - for higher dreams, for greater privileges.”
    -James Baldwin

    "We change ideas like neckties."
    - E.M. Cioran

  3. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gladiator View Post
    Yeah, I think they exclude the top earners.
    I looked at the sources for the image on Wikipedia and it seems that 'earnings' only refers to the data of earnings of 'employees on nonfarm payrolls', as defined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (of course, it doesn't include employee benefits other than wages). There is, therefore, room for income gains in other professions to reconcile the original graph with the census data referred to in the OP's video, and it is increases in the income of those non-wage earners that shows up in the overall income increases in the census data. So I think that solves his problem. The video refers to the income of all income-earners, not just wage-earners, while the graph refers only to the earnings of wage-earners.
    Last edited by Bakunin Knight; 9th November 2012 at 05:01.
    "In a word, we reject all legislation, all authority, and all privileged, licensed, official, and legal influence, even though arising from universal suffrage, convinced that it can turn only to the advantage of a dominant minority of exploiters against the interest of the immense majority in subjection to them. This is the sense in which we are really Anarchists." - Bakunin

    "If your object is to secure liberty, you must learn to do without authority and compulsion." - Alexander Berkman

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    7,583
    Organisation
    IWW
    Blog Entries
    3
    Rep Power
    184

    Default

    Of course, it doesn't include employee benefits other than wages.
    Healthcare probably wouldn't account at all for that, though, as employee-sponsored healthcare coverage has been going steadily downward, for the past 12 years at least.
    "Win, lose or draw...long as you squabble and you get down, that's gangsta."

  5. #25

    Default

    No, I wasn't saying that that was the cause of the census data showing increased incomes, but rather that it is the income of non-wage earners that has increased. I'll edit the post so that it's less confusing.
    "In a word, we reject all legislation, all authority, and all privileged, licensed, official, and legal influence, even though arising from universal suffrage, convinced that it can turn only to the advantage of a dominant minority of exploiters against the interest of the immense majority in subjection to them. This is the sense in which we are really Anarchists." - Bakunin

    "If your object is to secure liberty, you must learn to do without authority and compulsion." - Alexander Berkman

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    1
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Harvey said "wages".

    People working on Wall Street don't earn wages.

    Income would include wages, salaries, bonuses, interest, inheritance, and capitals gains as far as I know.

    Just google "ucsc who rules america".

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Oakland, California
    Posts
    7,865
    Organisation
    ISO
    Rep Power
    161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bakunin Knight View Post
    I looked at the sources for the image on Wikipedia and it seems that 'earnings' only refers to the data of earnings of 'employees on nonfarm payrolls', as defined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (of course, it doesn't include employee benefits other than wages). There is, therefore, room for income gains in other professions to reconcile the original graph with the census data referred to in the OP's video, and it is increases in the income of those non-wage earners that shows up in the overall income increases in the census data. So I think that solves his problem. The video refers to the income of all income-earners, not just wage-earners, while the graph refers only to the earnings of wage-earners.
    Yeah ignoring the context and form of something in society is the bread and butter of capitalist apologists - especially since the 1970s when it was important to provide cover for increasing inequality. I don't know where the statistics in the video come from, but most likely they are comparing $10/hr job today vs. a $4/hr job in 1975 without adjusting for inflation, or they are including things like the value of home assets (which would have increased home-possessing workers wealth during the period of the housing bubble). Also the transfer from traditional benefits to stock-based benifits may also play into this if one is not considered income whereas the stock holdings are. I'm not really sure where they are drawing this conclusion from - if not a shallow and unscientific presentation of data.

    But even if wages of workers were increasing - I'm totally convinced from everything I've read both radical and bourgeois that US wages have stagnated, and personally in effect I think the stagnation is more like an experienced decline for people (working harder for less) - it doesn't tell us much about the relationship of workers in production. I think comparing wages to productivity gives a better picture of how the ruling class has been able to greatly increase its control of wealth while workers have lost ground:



    So induvidually workers may be working harder - or they may be more precarious and working part time, but on a whole the class has increased the wealth of the bosses while progressively loosing the percentage of the surplus that comes back to workers both in wages/benefits but also in social spending.

Similar Threads

  1. David Harvey books
    By A Revolutionary Tool in forum Literature & Films
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 27th March 2012, 00:26
  2. david harvey
    By ComradeAV in forum Literature & Films
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 20th January 2011, 22:39
  3. David Harvey Encapsulates Capitalism
    By Conquer or Die in forum Opposing Ideologies
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 11th July 2010, 05:35
  4. David Harvey
    By Meridian in forum Theory
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 3rd March 2010, 18:25
  5. Theories of neo-liberalism; David Harvey, etc
    By boxinghefner in forum Theory
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 14th December 2006, 14:10

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •