More jobs and pay bad – JPMorgan

Written By: - Date published: 11:19 am, November 13th, 2009 - 7 comments
Categories: capitalism, class war - Tags:

I was sent a press release from financiers JPMorgan in Australia. There’s a line in it that reveals much about how the capitalist class views the rest of us.

“labour shortages and wage pressures probably will rear their heads again. This will, of course, be a concern for the RBA [Reserve Bank of Australia]”

Let me translate: “labour shortages” = people have jobs, near full employment; “wage pressures” = pay rises, higher standards of living for working families. They don’t care about us, our well-being. We are just a cost to them. If too many of us have work, that’s a problem for them. If we start to get better pay for our work (a slight redressing of the fact that the capitalist class controls most of the wealth), that’s a problem too. Because it can lead to a slight increase in inflation, which lowers the value of their wealth.

So, “of course” they would rather have slower growth with more unemployment and lower wages than slightly higher inflation, which primarily affects those with lots of assets – the wealthy.

Grow the pie, take a wider slice – it doesn’t matter to them. All they are concerned about is getting more for themselves. If to get more they have to take it off you, they have absolutely no qualms about doing so.

As Warren Buffet says “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning”. The capitalists know that they are in competition with the rest of us over the wealth of this country. Why do so many working people try to fool themselves that it’s not the case?

7 comments on “More jobs and pay bad – JPMorgan ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Nick 1
    13 November 2009 at 1:33 pm

    Ever heard the saying: “inflation is the worst enemy of the poor”?

    • Bright Red 1.1
      13 November 2009 at 2:25 pm

      at high levels sure inflation is bad. but we’re talking the difference between say 2% and 4%. the people that are affected iby inflation at those low levels are the owners of capital.

      I think the worst enemy of the poor is unemployment and low wages – both of which are tools the right uses to keep inflation down with no regard for the effect on the poor.

      • Roger Anderson 1.1.1
        13 November 2009 at 2:52 pm

        Agreed, I especially love the way that firms renegotiating collective agreements will offer lower pay increases than the CPI and defend this by saying that paying their staff more than this will create inflationary pressure. The lowest paid workers must therefore bear a personal income burden to protect the rest of society from a collective burden of inflation.

    • Roger Anderson 1.2
      13 November 2009 at 2:48 pm

      Yes I have, and in the case of the comparison between unemployment and inflation, I would suggest that this saying is found wanting. The short term effect of reducing unemployment is upward pressure on inflation (Phillips curve). As the market heads for full employment, wage pressure is exerted on the market that can push inflation up. But the idea that inflation is the worst enemy of the poor in these circumstances is just plain nonsense. The negative effect of inflation is far outweighed by the positive effect of reduced unemployment on the very poor who gain employment when they otherwise wouldn’t have adequate work. The wage rises experienced by those on the lowest wages and throughout the market help to mitigate some of the inflation effects. Inflation therefore has a negative effect on the wealthy since it is their investments that suffer and they are losing more money servicing higher wages. Unemployment is a much worse enemy for the poor than inflation is.

  2. A Nonny Moose 2
    13 November 2009 at 2:47 pm

    I just hired a couple new staff members, and I got so sick of listening to the boss grizzle about “not being able to afford them” while he’s paying his mates consultant rates that I deliberately stumped for higher wages for the new staff, then told him to put his mates on proper salary if it bugged him so much.

    That’ll teach him to go through an acrimonious divorce and lose half the company.

  3. Draco T Bastard 3
    13 November 2009 at 3:26 pm

    We are just a cost to them.

    The reality, of course, is that they are a cost to us.

  4. Irascible 4
    14 November 2009 at 5:28 pm

    Here’s a critique that gives a clue to the thinking and failure of the money speculators at the core of the socialmelt-down.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/books/review/Barrett-t.html?pagewanted=1&nl=books&emc=booksupdateema3

    Enjoy