No, this doesn’t make any sense: either powerful interests can exploit their advantage in the market or they can’t. Your acceptance of a ‘zero-sum’ game would suggest you accept the former, which makes your notion of market rationality, with each worker being rewarded according to their labour, more difficult to understand. None of you have adressed Meaders’ basic point, which is that trades unions have been in a general sense, and at their best, a civilising institution in this country.

That would mean that it is in our interests to reduce the incomes of the wealthy. We need not use rhetoric of equality or democracy to justify this reduction, but merely a recognition that this reduction is in our own (provided that we are not part of the wealthy) economic interests. This realised, no one could use to slimeball ‘politics of envy’ rhetorical dodge to avoid answering these demands.

Quite apart from hte fact that if the tube drivers get less than ticket prices go down. That’s an increase in income for those nurses that use the system isn’t it?

Hahahahahahah! Yeah, in a massively subsidised public transport system run by a rent-seeking public bureaucracy and facing highly inelastic demand, of course reductions in tube drivers wages will lead to reductions in ticket prices. But of course.

No it ain’t; the rate of profit has to be in there too. Productivity has been rising in the USA for ages but real wages haven’t.

Yes indeed hangover sufferers! Here it is, your New Year’s Britblog Roundup. For those of you who had a dificult night I shall type this slowly and quietly. As you know you can make nominations for next week’s extravaganza by

Tripe. Average wages within an economy are set by average productivity. The distribution of wages (which, note, has nothing to do with returns to capital) depends upon the relative power of the various workers groups. A stronger group takes from the weaker. Note, it’s a zero sum game. The total amount of wagesis set by the average productivity.

Quite apart from hte fact that if the tube drivers get less than ticket prices go down. That’s an increase in income for those nurses that use the system isn’t it?

While I broadly agree with (most of) the post, I’d second that quote from Phil bigtime. They’ve chosen to disrupt a night out enjoyed by most ordinary Londoners (and which brings money disproportionately to small businesses) rather than, say, the big return to work on Tuesday which would have hit big business and capital interests. It doesn’t smack of solidarity with anyone but themselves.