Changing times: Socialist Kshama Sawant wins council seat in Seattle - Polidicks

[QUOTE]Seattle voters have elected a socialist to city council for the first time in modern history. Kshama Sawant, an Occupy Seattle member, hopes to [B]raise minimum wage to $15[/B] and levy a [B]'millionaire's tax'[/B] Sawant, a 41-year-old college economics professor, first drew attention as part of local Occupy Wall Street protests that included taking over a downtown park and a junior college campus in late 2011 “We didn’t take a dime from big business," Sawant told Al Jazeera. "We raised $120,000 through grassroots efforts alone, and we didn’t seek any endorsements from the Democratic Party.” [url]http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/11/16/socialist-wins-seatonseattlecitycouncilfirstinnearly100years.html[/url][/QUOTE] It's the beginning of new era at the very least for Seattle, as the failure of the current American system to represent the people has become apparent.

I wonder how far he'll get being the only socialist there, though.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;42892284]I wonder how far he'll get being the only socialist there, though.[/QUOTE] She, and if she has the backing of the people then she will be there for a long time

Raising minimum wage to $15/hr puts you on the same level as a starting out welder, and that's fucking stupid. Put minimum wage at $12/hr to $13/hr and the price will fluctuate by the need for extra labor. What every state needs is a state bank. Look at the [URL="http://banknd.nd.gov/"]Bank of North Dakota[/URL]. Even for a Republican State, North Dakota is the only state with a "socialist" banking system, and its effects are graceful. The national average for unemployment? 7.7%. North Dakota unemployment? 3.3%. Capitalism on it's own requires a spice of socialism in order to ensure a healthy consumer. As a capitalist, I can't make money off someone who is dead, sick, or broke. In order to ensure that my consumers are healthy, I'd support programs to nationalize healthcare, create organized living wage, and job programs which would transfer low-income workers across the country to get better wages. One of the reasons I don't like the American Socialist Party is because they fail to understand this, and are all about "wahhwah capitalism". If they stopped with all this Marx shit, they would make greater strides with bringing socialist concepts into the United States. TL;DR: Capitalism requires Socialist concepts to ensure that a consumer exists to buy products. The current mockup of the Socialist party is on-par with "Obama is a kenyan muslim and non-american" by Tea Baggers, and it's going to harm any platform they try to create. Another note: In North Dakota, the minimum wage is $7.25, most McDonald workers make about $13 to $15/hr with benefits around here[Mandan, North Dakota].

that moron yawmwen is coming duck in cover

[QUOTE=Antlerp;42892268]It's the beginning of new era at the very least for Seattle, as the failure of the current American system to represent the people has become apparent.[/QUOTE] Man, look at my avatar. Even I think this is silly.

I've always thought that the best possible option for government would be a conglomeration of multiple ideologies at the different levels of government. Just for example: at the local level, make it communistic, with the community helping one another out. At the state level, make it mostly socialistic, where there are social programs in place to help out those one the bottom. At the top, make it capitalistic so that industry can stay competitive and relevant. Maybe I'm just retarded, and this is a terrible idea because of this, that and the other thirty thousand things, but I think something like that would be infinitely better than what we have in place now.

I don't really see a single guy elected as a sign of changing times. People elect various fringe politicians all the time. In Britain we've even elected members of the Monster Raving Loony Party to various positions in local governments.

I wonder what she plans to do about the rampant meth problem.

[QUOTE=frozensoda;42894362]I wonder what she plans to do about the rampant meth problem.[/QUOTE] Place the means of production in the hands of the people?

I, for one, accept our new socialist city councilpersons. Ty Moore also ran for city council, in Minneapolis, as a socialists and lost that election by a mere 229 votes. Fact of the matter is that worker-based politics and a message of "profits over people" and "raise the standards of living for workers" is becoming more popular. Further, the criticisms of the 15$/hour wage is silly considering that that is the [I]living wage[/I] of West Coast communities- that is, the cost of living in the West Coast is high enough that 15$/hr is enough to meet the poverty line there and meet average necessary income expenditures. Currently California only has a 8$/hr min. wage, but will see an increase to 10$/hr. Yet that's still 33% less than the necessary mark to make the California living wage of 15$/hr. Further, the argument that [I]it's outlandish that we pay unskilled workers decent wages![/I] is so tried and foolish because it's so reactionary. The fact of the matter is that that worker does labor that has value, if they value exceeds his costs, then he is not fired. If the value exceeds those costs and necessary costs, then the rest becomes profit. If any of it becomes profit for the owner of operations, then that is surplus value and is taken from the labor of someone else. IF a wage can be calculated into costs and after all costs, the value of the labor exceeds the value of the costs and therefore the wage can be paid. That is a return on the value of your labor- it is not unreasonable that labor that produces X value receives a return of labor value-costs. Often, this is labor value-costs-wage=profits, and it is in the interest of the business owner to to keep cost and wage values as low as possible, while maximizing labor value income. This dynamic only changes with the introduction of skill because skill is scarce and requires investment, and as such skill is a levying tool. Skilled labor does not mean that labor value is increased, but if an employer needs skilled labor, then they will seek out skilled laborers. In this instance, a skilled laborer will have a higher wage because the skilled laborer, who is attractive to employers, relies less on a given employer than in an unskilled dynamic. An unskilled laborer absolutely relies on the employer. Because they have literally no bartering tools, they are subjected to the employer's will. With the exception of meager state protections, an unskilled laborer is at the mercy of an employer. Unskilled labor is labor that anyone could do or that takes no particular investment to do, and therefore because it is the laborer who is in a worse position, they simply have no other options than to practice their labor under and employer or face replacement. This does not affect the value of unskilled labor. Take, for example, a mining operation, wherein unskilled miners whose job it is to mine some rare metal work a 9 hour shift 5 days a week, and at the end of the day they produce enough value that it covers costs of operation. Because these miners are unskilled and have no bartering tools they are paid at the state mandated minimum wage of 7.20$/hr. The gold they mined today created in excess of 200$/hr, per person. After costs and so on, and after wages, the profits going into the company account are 35$/hr, per person, or a profit margin of 17.5%, an average margin for a larger mining company. Regardless of how you calculate it, each miner there is making 35$/hr worth of value that they are getting a return on. I could give another example of a skilled laborer but it's ultimately just going to be repetitive, so here's the rundown: the labor value of the skilled worker is less than the unskilled miners, but he receives a higher return through a high wage or salary. The more dependent on operation to the individual laborer, the more of a return on labor-value the laborer sees. On one side of the spectrum you have disposable unskilled workers with little return on their labor, on the other side you have movie stars and film directors who see extremely high returns on their labor relative to labor value, because the entire value rests primarily on them. Per these examples, skill does not figure into the actual value of labor, although skilled labor is in more demand because of its scarcity. Basically, someone in an unskilled labor position is getting screwed out of their labor-value, what they make. Now whether you're a left-wing radical like me and say "Give [I]all[/I] the labor value to the laborer", or just a reform-minded moderate like Sawant who seeks to give a larger return on labor to the laborers, then the answer is the same: an increase in minimum wage is justified. What you all miss is that it's not the ease of the labor that should see an increase in return, it's the value of it. Further I would say that it is justified to provide your employees with a wage that provides relatively well-off living conditions. Further still, the minimum wage is actually, when adjusted for inflation, [I]lower[/I] than it was in 1974- at 2$/hr in 1974, adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage would be 9.48$/hr today, or 2.28$/hr less than the federal minimum wage and 0.29$/hr more than the highest state minimum wage. If you're willing to argue that workers today deserve to be paid less than workers in 1974, since when cost of living has increased, then I think that you're arguing for increased poverty to the poor.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];42894603']Further, the argument that [I]it's outlandish that we pay unskilled workers decent wages![/I] is so tried and foolish because it's so reactionary. The fact of the matter is that that worker does labor that has value, if they value exceeds his costs, then he is not fired. If the value exceeds those costs and necessary costs, then the rest becomes profit. If any of it becomes profit for the owner of operations, then that is surplus value and is taken from the labor of someone else. IF a wage can be calculated into costs and after all costs, the value of the labor exceeds the value of the costs and therefore the wage can be paid. That is a return on the value of your labor- it is not unreasonable that labor that produces X value receives a return of labor value-costs. Often, this is labor value-costs-wage=profits, and it is in the interest of the business owner to to keep cost and wage values as low as possible, while maximizing labor value income.[/QUOTE] Oh god psuedoeconomics again. Surplus value doesn't exist!!!

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;42894071]Raising minimum wage to $15/hr puts you on the same level as a starting out welder, and that's fucking stupid. Put minimum wage at $12/hr to $13/hr and the price will fluctuate by the need for extra labor. [/QUOTE] He's going to say $15/hr so settling at $10-12/hr seems more reasonable. [editline]17th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;42894636]Oh god psuedoeconomics again. Surplus value doesn't exist!!![/QUOTE] Isn't the notion of surplus value the entire basis of capitalism?

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;42894671]Isn't the notion of surplus value the entire basis of capitalism?[/QUOTE] Not at all. Surplus value is based on the old idea that labour holds objective value. Therefore, the only way to generate a profit was to keep workers wages below this objective value, and extract the (surplus) value. It's an ancient idea first brought up by Adam Smith and popular among early economists including Marx up until the mid 19th century, when the marginal theory of value came along. Basically it said that value was actually subjective (nothing holds value independent of what people give it). Say I had 3 sacks of corn, one to eat, one to sell, and one to feed to the pigeons. If I lost one sack, I'm not eating 1/3 less food and selling 1/3 less. Instead I'm just going to stop giving corn to the pigeons. Wealth in reality is created when people trade with each other, not when people create things.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42894636]Oh god psuedoeconomics again. Surplus value doesn't exist!!![/QUOTE] I'm not even talking objective value, Sobotnik, I'm talking simple economics hun. You've proven to me previously that you've fundamentally misunderstood surplus value because you seem to think that it applies only if labor have objective value- while I believe that it does, it is irrelevant to the simple cost-income analysis I gave.

A city council seat. Wow so powerful.

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;42894671]He's going to say $15/hr so settling at $10-12/hr seems more reasonable. [/QUOTE] I wish they wouldn't bang around the bush like that. :v:

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];42894603']words words words[/QUOTE] Do you really need to post a block of text about the technicalities of politics and economics in every thread?

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];42894924']I'm not even talking objective value, Sobotnik, I'm talking simple economics hun. You've proven to me previously that you've fundamentally misunderstood surplus value because you seem to think that it applies only if labor have objective value- while I believe that it does, it is irrelevant to the simple cost-income analysis I gave.[/QUOTE] Your post isn't simple economics, it's completely wrong and isn't taught in economics courses. It's horribly convoluted and isn't how the real world works.

[QUOTE=frozensoda;42894362]I wonder what she plans to do about the rampant meth problem.[/QUOTE] Move the entire police department to aurora.

here's some videos of her talking about stuff and things [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pT07ghQgPUg[/media] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FCUtNhRAsA[/media] she's a leftist, which means i'm more sympathetic to her than the right wing clowns in the democratic/republican party. also the rightists say she is a terrorist. those nationalist pigs getting angry about having poc on the council always makes me happy. :) [QUOTE=SexualShark;42894175]that moron yawmwen is coming duck in cover[/QUOTE] hi [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;42895168]Do you really need to post a block of text about the technicalities of politics and economics in every thread?[/QUOTE] well i could be the only leftist poster in these sort of threads. seed eater is more educated and more articulate than me tho so i prefer him being around. [editline]17th November 2013[/editline] [url]https://twitter.com/SHEEPDOGREPORT[/url] "I don't think it is, at least the Pacific NW as a whole - Seattle is a cesspool of collectivism" "Have you strapped a suicide vest on your children today?" "Please don't retweet me, I have not called tech support." "If there was no Western influence on your country, you would still be lime covered cannibals, jumping across fire pits." i love u seattle

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;42895168]Do you really need to post a block of text about the technicalities of politics and economics in every thread?[/QUOTE] You're not required to read it and I don't expect you to. It's there is someone wants to understand the position in more detail than one sentence that will start an argument. I'm skipping 10 pages of back and forth with one long post fars I'm concerned. And plus, I think the only threads I've posted really long posts in recently is this one and the property one, and the property one was by request. [editline]17th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;42895180]Your post isn't simple economics, it's completely wrong and isn't taught in economics courses. It's horribly convoluted and isn't how the real world works.[/QUOTE] Yes, you would know exactly how economics works, as your total economics experience is probably something like the 6 months you've worked on the ground floor of a biscuit factory right? If you seriously can not understand simply that [I]taking more money in than putting out[/I] is a sample elementary basis for a business strategy then you're too far up your own macroeconomic ass to understand simple ground-level finances. Nothing that I said there was for a large scale economy or meant to be an indicator of that. But if you want, you can feel free to tell me how spending more money on wages and costs makes you profit instead, because that is literally the opposite of what I am saying.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];42894603']Further still, the minimum wage is actually, when adjusted for inflation, [I]lower[/I] than it was in 1974- at 2$/hr in 1974, adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage would be 9.48$/hr today, or 2.28$/hr less than the federal minimum wage and 0.29$/hr more than the highest state minimum wage. If you're willing to argue that workers today deserve to be paid less than workers in 1974, since when cost of living has increased, then I think that you're arguing for increased poverty to the poor.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.lewrockwell.com/2006/07/ron-paul/the-yoke-of-the-fed/"]Maybe the key thing here is actually inflation.[/URL]

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];42895465']But if you want, you can feel free to tell me how spending more money on wages and costs makes you profit instead, because that is literally the opposite of what I am saying.[/QUOTE] Increasing wages is a legitimate business strategy though.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42895590]Increasing wages is a legitimate business strategy though.[/QUOTE] Sure, you're right, and I never said it wasn't. I [I]did[/I] allude that the more costs you have the lower your profits will be, and in fact my entire post up there was not arguing to completely hand over all profits, but to increase a return on labor. If I thought that raising wages was going to ruin businesses or destroy profits, then I would further argue that it would be a legitimate way to bring in socialism. I don't think that's the case and I do believe that raising wages could be an investment- I see this actually in two places right now: a paper on the effect of unions on worker wages comparative to non-unionized workers, in which an increase in wages and benefits to workers bring higher gains and a more functional and stable workplace over time almost across the board; and also in my own life, wherein the place across the road from my workplace pays significantly higher for the same work and sees more profits out of it. Fact of the matter is that what I'm saying isn't that raising wages is doom, it's that [I]if you lose more money than you make then you don't have any fucking money[/I], and then further that by saying that a worker should expect a fair return on the labor they do, the value of that labor being the value of what they produce. My argument is in the context of capitalism, not in the context of socialism or Marxism. [editline]17th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Eudoxia;42895552][URL="http://www.lewrockwell.com/2006/07/ron-paul/the-yoke-of-the-fed/"]Maybe the key thing here is actually inflation.[/URL][/QUOTE] You know, Ron Paul by Ron Paul has always been an upstanding guy with sound economic ideas in my book, count me convinced!

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];42895669'] You know, Ron Paul by Ron Paul has always been an upstanding guy with sound economic ideas in my book, count me convinced![/QUOTE] said no sane person ever

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];42895669']You know, Ron Paul by Ron Paul has always been an upstanding guy with sound economic ideas in my book, count me convinced![/QUOTE] This did not seem to follow the rest of your post, I have to say.

You guys aren't as far from Sobotnik as you'd like to think :C

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;42892284]I wonder how far he'll get being the only socialist there, though.[/QUOTE] Name like that? 2013? Seattle? Pretty sure she's secretly a dragon. So pretty far, I'd imagine.

[QUOTE=Eudoxia;42895745]You guys aren't as far from Sobotnik as you'd like to think :C[/QUOTE] I support the state, free enterprise, and a massive social security net. That's enough to piss off or make people of various political views happy.