None of These Candidates Hate War Like a Soldier Hates War

When I was a teenager in the 90s, I thought about joining the military. I had some classmates who had gone though the reserves and did boot over summer to prep themselves.

One of the reasons I was thinking about was that it seemed at that time that it was a perquisite for public service (I had a timeline where I would run in this election, as this year I become eligible per the constitution). If you had not served, you had to at least have some public awkward conversation about why you hadn't. This was when the men of the WWII and Vietnam generations were passing through leadership roles and military service was a fact of life.

I suppose this stopped being important in the discourse after 2004, where the sitting president's campaign was able to successfully deride the service record of the challenger when the sitting president had a very questionable service to be charitable.

Now, none of the remaining major candidates have served in the military. I am not pro-military by any means (I wish every soldier and sailor would lose their job because there were no more wars to fight), but what does it mean socially when the people who want to wield this very powerful tool have no sense of the consequences they're asking young men and women to face?

You Are Not Your Marginal Product

People are on social media mocking socialism as if the market price for your labor is something you earned and not a fraction of the value you created.

OK. So not a huge fan of the state as is, but it is how we order society.

The idea that socialism is just redistribution of what you already have is overly reductive.

In addition, the idea is that what we have "earned" is often a conscious decision of our employers on what a job is worth or what you are worth. In many instances, it is less than the value you create.

That's the basic Marxist framework - the employer (capitalist) takes your surplus value.

One of the problems with capitalism post about 1980 is that the tradition share of value created has gone more towards the owners of capital as more value has been created.

This means that in spite of more women in the labor force, etc, the median household wage has stagnated.

Making people defensive about holding onto what they still do have, seeing growth at the upper bounds accelerate while there is little growth in the middle of the wage distribution that most people

We all do work hard, but it seems that people think the state is the culprit (and they are in a sense of being bought and controlled by big money politics) but ultimately it is the owners of capital that have taken the excess for what we work for, not the state.

The thing is that capitalism in the US has been better and it could be better for the people. There was much greater distribution amongst the classes when the USSR was on some levels a viable option. The end of history has aided the global rich more than the people who create value.

 

The title is a reference to your marginal product, or what you produce when you are added to a company in econ 101 terms. The idea in the intro textbooks is that you are paid what you are worth, but there is much empirical evidence and other discussion around the minimum wage that shows it is false.

And it's this chart, which show the disconnect of productivity (how much stuff is made) versus wages (how much people are paid), and how it has grown, which speaks to so much dissatisfaction in our contemporary climate from both sides, Capitalism has long been broken, but the current version is brokener.

How Much Exploitation? : Labor's Share of Income

Source:  http://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/notes/feds-notes/2015/gifjpg/figura-ratner-fig3-20150608.png

 

 

 

Even though the pie has been growing, the worker's share of the pie has been shrinking - under presidents of both parties. Capitalism: Broken and getting brokener. The chart is labor's share of national income.

The best is if you look at the chart, every gray bar is a recession. The labor share drops right around every recession. Now remember, this isn't in absolute dollars, but in the share of income. This means that capital owners use recessions to eliminate labor expenses. This is not labor expenses lowered in proportion to the downturn, but labor shed in excess of the downturn. If the recession was 3% of GDP decrease and the labor income decreased by 3%, there would be no decrease on the chart. Instead GDP dropped 3% and labor costs were decreased 6%, say. And with wage stickiness (people will not accept an absolute decrease in their take-home pay from the same employer) people lost their jobs and it was pocketed by capital.

Now, some people may point to technology as the driving factor - there is capital deepening as there are investments to technology and less people are needed to make the same amount of goods. The problem here is that even this is missing the point. Even when capitalism was working, labor gave up 30% of their working day for the owners. Now it is 40%. This is important, but it is just being conscious of your greater exploitation, not coming to terms with the fact of the exploitation.

Ice-9 of the Economic System: Ellen Meiksins Wood's "The Origin of Capitalism"

I had only just discovered Wood when she died, and had some passionate sharing about her writings with a  friend and it was like discovering a band no one had hear of.  But now she died and it’s like becoming a Sublime fan in 1996 – too late to go to one of those conferences where’s she’s talking and listen to her talk and then ask her a twenty-minute question that is 90% the thing you think and then realize that you have to tie it in to the thing she was there talking about at the very end to your great embarrassment.

So there’s a lot to like here. The best thing is that she sets capitalism aside. The classical Marxist view is to think of capitalism as some sort of evolution. This makes it an inevitability and then communism is its own sort of proclaimed inevitability. What she does is instead look at the start of capitalism as a historical accident, one that started in one place and then spread.

This isolates the system, into one that has a definite start. What makes a definite start good is that it creates an idea of an ending. It isn’t inevitable. It is just a thing that happened that could be overcome. But the problem is that once settled in one country, it spread with its own “imperative” in each new country as Wood described (195). This puts me to mind of Vonnegut’s description of Ice-9, one where once it started; every water molecule knew how to form the new crystal. The problem is melting all the crystals so that the water (read: economic system) forgets what structure it once took so that it can take on less destructive to the human race. This book doesn’t take us all the way, but it shows the monster can be slain.

Reflections on this census-taker and other thoughts of China Mieville

Like, I have read some books, man.

I’ve read some that have given people problems like Kafka and a Lot of Pynchon and Infinite Jest and even that Olipo stuff. I read Joyce, but never finished the Wake.

So I know for hard books. The books written by men that are not meant to be enjoyable but may be a bit of an enigma.  I studied Joyce, reading books about his books and his bragging that in a century the professors would be stroking their chins over his stuff.

That’s just where this book falls.

It’s not really bad. But it’s not good. The book is a problem, waiting to be solved.

I don’t think I know the moves.

I may be too old to learn.