When Was Vicodin Invented

what occurs: the dilemma of hell.

The third observation made by Hans Rothgiesser addresses the issue of surplus or, in other words, goodwill. He says if we argue that the worker does not get everything it produces, and that the capitalist is left with one hand, that the the "roll Marxist" and the thing is going to be heavy.
I can not accept the argument that "the Marxist roll does not apply here." In fact, it is not argument, is a priori disqualification. I could respond by disqualifying "roll Austrian school "(which appears to allow Hans), saying it is the neoliberal fundamentalism, or whatever. That road is not going anywhere.
Since 1997 John Cassidy, in a famous article published in New Yorker, Marx proposed as the thinker of the millennium, and soon after, in a BBC poll , public vote decreed same, and it is difficult to argue that "the Marxist roll does not apply." On the contrary, there is growing consensus that Marx's analysis of capitalism is essential to understand the current economy.
But I reassure Hans (and, incidentally, the readers): I will not argue here and now on the theory of surplus value. It is not necessary to do so, we address the question differently.
What I say is somewhat simpler, and I say in the video . When a worker goes to use a more modern and faster machines, and thereby increases productivity, where does this increase productivity? Does shared equally between employer and employee? The seamstress nustro
example, when going to produce sixteen poles a day instead of eight, do you receive adequate compensation for the increase in production?
Before you answer, keep in mind that it would be perfectly possible that, having doubled production, also doubling wages and company profits. The worker would receive a salary equivalent to the sale of eight poles, instead of four. And the company anticipated a gain equivalent also to eight instead of four. Both parties, employee and company, would gain.
Now the question is whether this actually happens, and I was quite obviously not.
When my designer productivity fourfold (in fact, up to fivefold, presumably), in the nineties, my salary increased, it is true, but not nearly quadrupled (even doubled).
you, friend us now reads, make the same argument about his work, and probably find the same thing happens.

When incorporated in this great technological revolution we are living, more and more technical improvements to our work, it is normal that the productivity gains they bring to the benefit of the company, while our wages, if we're lucky, get a 10 or 20%, and if we do not have nothing. This is how things happen, and knows that anyone who works for wages. Not even occur to us to demand that the company that increases in proportion to productivity. In summary, not receive all the product of our work .
This is, in short, the answer to the question asked Hans about whether the worker must earn everything it produces. It should, but do not earn that, far from it.
It is, therefore, a surplus, to be in the form of capital aculmulando. And it is on the other hand, a problem, because that way we, as we have seen (and we see in the video ) to the layoffs, which occurs when, having increased productivity, it turns out to produce the same should be fewer workers than before, and the rest should be thrown out.
And that is precisely the other argument to meet Hans. For if the workers win everything they produce, and when production increases were proportionally increased wages, then, as Keynes would say, increase their consumption, and dismissal should not occur. But if they do occur. And the fact is that unemployment is permanent ("structural" to use the euphemism in vogue).
The existence of unemployment is further proof that not everything that is consumed is produced.
And to show that we have not had to use, even for a moment, the dreaded "roll of goodwill", but common sense and experience of each.