(source) |
It’s a good thing that Prof. Bill Mitchell – one of MMT founders – is as tenacious as he has a sense of humour, for he is fighting an uphill battle.
The passage you see above comes from a recent chat he had with Steven D. Grumbine, host of the Macro & Cheese podcast (audio and transcript). By itself, the fact Grumbine decided to make a meme suggests how much commentary that bit must have caused among Leftists.
Now, why should that comment ruffle anybody’s feathers? After all, what Mitchell says there is not only true, but obviously so: people go into business to make money, lots of it, the more the better.
In fact, that’s been known since forever: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker”, wrote Adam Smith in 1776, “that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love.”
Self-interest is in the DNA of capitalism. Begging First Nations readers their indulgence for my appropriation of their slogan: “Always was, always will be”.
It’s irrelevant what you call self-interest. Lefties may prefer greed, for example, for it makes it clear for all to see their righteous disapproval. But, paraphrasing the poet, a rose by any other name … and the truth is that whatever you call it, under capitalism, “self-interest is good” means the same as “greed is good”.
Those are the rules of the game. Deal with it.
You don’t have to like it. You may be among those losing in the game. I myself don’t like it a bit. But you don’t avoid the health consequences of smoking by burying your head in the sand or by changing to a lite brand of cigarettes. You need to quit smoking.
It’s up to you. Quit capitalism or quit whingeing about greed (and that “or” is of the exclusive variety).
----------
In our age of vacuous moralising and virtue signalling, it’s comforting to believe those close to us are immune to that kind of boneheaded stupidity. We, after all, have done our best to stamp that kind of thing out.
The problem is that the same idiocy is not uncommon among rank-and-file MMTers, who go around parading their ignorance as bona fide MMT.
I don’t write this with malevolent glee. Trust me, I feel for you, Prof. Mitchell. Any truth, no matter how evident and even trivial or how tactfully stated, is bound to elicit angry reactions among the intentional cretins that populate what passes for the Left.
You have your work cut out.
----------
Hoping to undo some of the damage pontificating simpletons inflict on MMT, here is Pavlina Tcherneva on unions and the Job Guarantee.
----------
Go ahead, point your accusing finger at me: I’m being unreasonably cynical. Chastise me because the Biden Administration has just started, so it’s unfairly premature to pass judgement on it. Say that I’m unable to grasp the nuances of American politics. But I suspect that the American liberal/Leftish had just started their next presidential election campaign.
(source) |
In 2016 you had to vote for Hillary Clinton because Donald J. Trump was Adolf Hitler reborn, conspiring to seize power in the same way Hitler seized power back then. A Nazi-Fascist takeover of America was just around the corner.
Now it's all about the Republican Party being the NSDAP renamed. A Nazi-Fascist takeover of America is just around the corner. (I hope the similarity between that liberal/Leftish conspiracy theory and the QAnon Storm Right-wing conspiracy theory will not be lost on readers: similar madness, better phrased by slightly more credible people).
----------
UPDATE:
26-06-2021. Eat your hearts out, Left- and Right-wing union bashers. Another union win!
(source) |
Ruby, from the Megaphone team (a part of the Victorian Trades Hall Council), informs us that
“After 3 weeks on strike the General Mills United Workers Union members just endorsed a deal that will see all their conditions maintained. This includes a wage increase of almost 9% over three years, a $1500 bonus and protection for all labour-hire casuals and contractors who participated in the strike.”
Join your union. There is strength in union.
----------
A General Mills worker writing under a pen-name explained the strike to Jacobin.
San Francisco, trade unions at odds over modular construction - even for homeless projects
ReplyDeleteI suppose the story you linked to must contain a devastating, pertinent and highly relevant counter to my support for unions -- unlike your comments at Philosopher's Stone.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, as I am not a subscriber to The San Francisco Chronicle, I will have to miss it.
But don't feel discouraged. I'm sure you will come up with other equally devastating, pertinent and highly relevant counters. :-)
Basically, a union blocking cheap housing that would help poor people. Also, give work to disadvantaged people who also happen to be in a union.
ReplyDeleteOver a two-week period earlier this month, the boxes that make up the building were trucked over the Bay Bridge from Factory OS on Mare Island in Vallejo late at night and set on the concrete foundation at 833 Bryant St. Once completed it will be the city’s first 100% affordable modular project, an assembly-line-built project that will cost $385,000 per unit. That compares with about $525,000 a unit for a conventional “stick-built” development.
It will also be completed about 40% faster than a typical affordable development, according to the developers, a joint venture between Mercy Housing, Tipping Point and the San Francisco Housing Accelerator Fund.
But the project — dubbed “Tahanan,” a Tagalog word meaning “home” — has become the latest flash point in the fight between the city’s building trade unions and some affordable housing proponents over the extent to which San Francisco will embrace factory-built housing in an effort to save money and speed up production.
San Francisco building trades leaders argue that modular construction lowers construction standards and pushes down wages. In September, in a letter to Mayor London Breed, Larry Mazzola Jr., San Francisco Building & Construction Trades Council board president, called the 833 Bryant St. complex “unacceptable” and a “direct insult” to union members.
“We are against modular housing, unless it is built in San Francisco with union workers and craft-specific employees,” he stated in the letter.
I see most of the article here:
clippings
I suggest you re-read the article, for there is a little bit more than just "basically, a union blocking cheap housing that would help poor people."
ReplyDeleteThe content of The SF Chronicle article you pointed to explains which projects the unions are blocking and why they are blocking it.
These are the four "supportive housing" projects the article mentions:
Location_______________Units
Treasure Island__________104
1064 Mission St._________248
Mission Bay_____________141
833 Bryant St.___________145
TOTAL_______________638
Altogether, the four projects are to provide "supportive housing" to 638 individuals/families. According to the same article, the city had "more than 8,000 homeless", which means that the four projects are not meant to solve the whole problem, but only a fraction, the size of which depends on the unspecified size of the "units" (say, a single-occupant "unit" solves the problem of one homeless person, and so on)
(to be continued)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWell, not quite "solve". "Supportive housing" is temporary accommodation. After an unspecified stay the occupants will have, presumably, to move on.
ReplyDeleteThe San Francisco Building & Construction Trades Council agreed not to oppose the first three projects (worth together 493 units). The remaining 145 units (last row in the table above), is where they have a problem. They say the city "betrayed" (in quotation marks in the article) the agreement made with the unions: 833 Bryant St. uses modular construction, which (1) lowers construction standards, and (2) pushes down wages.
833 Bryant St. financial backer Tipping Point, through a partnership with developer Mercy Housing, aims to produce those 145 units between 30% and 40% faster and 25% cheaper than the typical similar housing project. Costing an estimated $382,917 apiece, compared to a typical unit cost of $600,000-$700,000, those savings (between $217K and $371K per unit) do not come from the cost of land in a city where the land prices have skyrocketed. [*]
In other words, those savings come from either (1) shorter work contracts ("40% faster") or (2) lower wages or (3) a combination of (1) and (2). To put this differently, construction workers are asked to subsidise those 145 units (you, for example, are reproaching them for that). In the words of Tim Paulson, secretary-treasurer of the trades council (which close the article linked to):
"To lower the wages of workers as a way to cut costs is absolutely unacceptable and obscene, considering the cost of housing and real estate in San Francisco," he said. "To say that it’s OK because it’s supportive housing and affordable housing and to use that as an excuse to cut workers’ wages? Over my dead body. We will fight them every inch of the way on that."
A more detailed discussion, considering the viewpoints of all sides involved:
"California’s affordable housing crisis: Are labor union requirements in the way?", by Manuela Tobias (CalMatters), Jun. 21, 2021
[*] https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/bryant-street-project-offers-model-for-faster-cheaper-affordable-housing-construction/
I don't see anybody -- yourself included -- reproaching the landowners for the high price they demand for their real estate. Why not?
What everybody demands is for the workers to lower the price of their labour. Would it be because it is so much easier and much more profitable?
Tobias, for instance, mentions that "apprentices on average earned $124,000 more in wages and benefits over their careers". To scrap or decrease the union requirement of having a "skilled and trained workforce" implies to demand of those workers to forfeit $124K. That's what you want and why you attack unions.
"Once completed it will be the city’s first 100% affordable modular project, an assembly-line-built project that will cost $385,000 per unit. That compares with about $525,000 a unit for a conventional “stick-built” development."
ReplyDelete$525k - $385k = $140k
Lower labor costs lead to lower house prices. In the example you mentioned of $124k in forfeited earnings, the lower wages are more than offset by the lower housing costs.
When wages fall, so do prices.
In my already long life I have read and heard a great many really, really silly responses, but this one is a strong contender to take the cake.
DeleteLet me put this in boldface and upper case, to see if you do not miss it:
CHEAP UNITS CAN ALSO BE PRODUCED BY EXPROPRIATING THE LAND UPON WHICH THEY ARE BUILT
----------
In my "Comments Policy" page it clearly states that "This is not supposed to be a scholarly blog, and I am no scholar; but thoughtful reasoning is welcome. Obstinate ignorance, disingenuity, and general arseholism will get your comments deleted."
Consider this an exercise in prediction, based not on fancy maths, but simple reading comprehension: predict what will happen to any future comment of yours. :-)