The wage is the result of your actions. You did not invest the money in the capital or the land or the natural resources. You did not arrange them in a way that is productive enough to generate enough revenue to continue operations. The wage is simply a price of the labor. Wages will rise as the workers skills become more specialized and there is more capital to produce more goods. And it is true that income tax is slavery, I agree with that part for sure
working for discretionary income, and not for basic survival, couldn't be considered wage slavery, even though the product of that labor was transferred to the owner of the enterprise that employed you. but the video is correct IMO in identifying that a choice between starvation and wage slavery is no choice at all. not joining the far left though, sorry.
@etzel33 If "working for discretionary income" can't be considered wage slavery, let me ask you this. If a chattle slave is placed in a nice house and given money to spend how ever they choose (but not enough to buy freedom), are they no longer a chattel slave? At what point of income/comfort does being owned by another person stop being chattel slavery?
@SpamSpamNEggs i was thinking along the lines of a basic, guaranteed income or "public dividend" that could remove the substinance factor from the wage equation. Hence "discretionary" income. If it costs everyone X to live and we only make X in wages, we have zero discretionary income. This is the unfortunate reality of the free market towards labor, to drive wages as far down as possible to X or even below it. Perhaps if unions were "presumed" in all businesses of 2 or more workers!
@etzel33 You are talking about solutions. I was identifying the factors that lead to the problems we agree exist in current "free markets". The underlying problems is how we THINK about labor. If we don't change that, then no solution will work.
@SpamSpamNEggs Free markets.... I agree, but I wouldn't call it objective. It is the accumilation of subjective preferences and valuations. I may be willing to pay more for service X than you. There is no fixed value or price.
@SpamSpamNEggs You can sell yourself into indefinite servitude. I don't think it is very wise, but if it's voluntary, I wouldn't stop anybody from doing so. This is NOT slavery, since FORCE isn't involved.
@SpamSpamNEggs If he only works the machine himself, than he would own the goods of course. If someone else works the machine, this person should have to be compensated for his work, and this can be ANYTHING, as long as they both voluntarily agree on it.
The example:
No, it doesn't work like that. Before the house is built, they sit together and discuss each of their compensation.
What strikes me as odd is that YOU seem to know what kind of deal these people should make.
@janc71 I'm not saying what the deal should be, only what it shouldn't be. We both agree (I hope) that whipping the guy building the shed until he agrees to do it for free is not a valid way to do business. I'm just adding to that with lying to they guy.
@SpamSpamNEggs "I'm not saying what the deal should be, only what it shouldn't be."
It's not up to you to decide, it's up to them. "We both agree (I hope) that whipping the guy building the shed until he agrees to do it for free is not a valid way to do business."
@janc71 I asked a simple question and you didn't answer it. WHO owns the shed. Is it the person that provided the raw material? The person that provided the tools? The person that provided the labor? absent any agreement between them, who gets to claim ownership?
There is an assumption of ownership somewhere. What is that assumption?
Absent any agreement? But that's the whole point! Whoever is going to own the shed is dependent upon what they agree upon. And remember, the shed doesn't HAVE to be built.
Well all three of them believe that the shed is theirs. All three of them showed up to "Build ME a shed", so all of them assumed the shed was for them. Who gets the shed in this contract dispute?
If you ever actually answer the question you will see the point of this line. I just need to know what YOU think, so I can tailor the point to your understanding.
@SpamSpamNEggs "Well all three of them believe that the shed is theirs."
Ooooh, you made up some farfetched arbitrary situation with people in it acting silly. Why the hell is this relevant? They should find some 3rd party arbitration to figure out this puzzle. Normally, you make a 3 way deal.
You want MY opinnion? If they all attributed equally, than they could all be owner of a third of the shed. But my opinion is irrelevant, because normally I'm not a part in this matter.
This situation is not "Far Fetched" this is the current situation with wage workers!!!! They are just making burgers not sheds. There exists NO agreement on who owns the product, it is just assumed that the owner of the tools owns the product.
With out wage slavery mentality (why my example was odd) you agree that the worker owns the part of the product he produced. This should not change if he is being payed for labor. The labor is a separate thing than ownership claim of product.
@SpamSpamNEggs This is all nonsense. There is no fundamental difference to wages, commision or part ownership. It is ALL just 'compensation' for rendered goods or services. The worker owns his labor and he needs something for that in return. It can be part-ownership of the house, a fixed price or an hourly fee.
Have you ever considered the possibility that he doesn't WANT (a 3rd of the) house, because he hasn't got the skills or know-how to sell it, and that he is very happy with his wage job?
@SpamSpamNEggs You just believe people aren't paid enough. And that's fine, but it isn't an argument against wage labor as such. I mean, would you still complain if Bill Gates paid $ 5000,- an hour? This isn't about the principle of wage labor.
And what you seem to overlook is that part-ownership and working on commission have disadvantages too.
@janc71 You are very much trying to put words into my mouth. Low income is an affect of wage slavery, but low incomes would still happen with out it. The same for high wages. There is a very real difference between wages, commision and part ownership. Commisions and part ownership are not based on fraud, but yes they do have problems.
(New argument)The worker CAN NOT sell his labor and be free. It is an integral part of himself, to sell labor is to sell part of yourself, partial slavery.
@SpamSpamNEggs What complete silliness. So in your world a police-officer or a garbage-collector would not exist (not producing anything, just selling labor)? Or is it possible to sell a service? But than building a house can be a service too.
You can sell ANYTHING. And as long it is voluntary, there's nothing wrong with it. Slavery is forcing people to work by threatening them with violence. Voluntary slavery is an oxymoron.
@janc71 No, police and garbage collection would still happen. It would just take thinking of these services in a completely different way. You don't pay for garbage collection so that someone does work, You pay for garbage collection so that you don't have garbage piling up in your house. It is the removal of garbage that has the value, it is the removal of trash that should be payed for, not the labor used to achieve that goal. It is the product of NO trash that is being payed for. cont.
@SpamSpamNEggs Sure, I do not disagree with this, but that's all just semantics. It's up to both the worker and the employer to come to an agreement about what kind and how much compensation should be given for the provided service.
"The service of cleaning up trace" or "the product of no trash", what's the fundamental difference? Why should it effect the compensation (which eventually they will have a mutual agreement upon)?
@janc71 If the trash man does 2 laps around each house does that make the service worth more? It would certainly take longer and he would get paid more for it. If I could install a Star Trek style teleporter to zap your trash directly to the dump, would this be worth less than having to wait till friday for the trash man to come? It would certainly take less labor to do it.
"You can sell ANYTHING" "Voluntary slavery is an oxymoron" Only one of these can be true, try for better consistency.
@SpamSpamNEggs Value isn't something that is fixed. It is subjective. If you try to sell me something (a good or service), than the value is ultimately based on what you want to have for and what I'm willing to give for it (whatever we base that on). If we come to an agreement than THAT is the price/value of the product in that very moment. All the rest is irrelevant.
@SpamSpamNEggs ""You can sell ANYTHING" "Voluntary slavery is an oxymoron" Only one of these can be true, try for better consistency."
Well, anything that you own of course. You own yourself, you own your labor, so it is up to you what to do with it. Who else should decide what YOU can do for what amount of money?
As for the rest of your story:
There is no objective way of to measure this, since nobody should be forced to pay ANY price for a service. Price and value is subjective.
@janc71 If you own yourself, and can sell anything you own, why can't you sell yourself into voluntary slavery? You can either sell any thing you own, or you can refute "voluntary slavery". You simply can't do both.
There is an objective way to measure price and value.....free markets. This is the entire basis of Misis economic calculation problem. You are trying to argue some form of labor theory of value to defend your point. We both know that theory is Bunk.
@SpamSpamNEggs "You are trying to argue some form of labor theory of value..."
Where do you get that?
As I've stated before: Value is subjective. I may value a good or service more than you do. Price is determined trough negotiation between seller and buyer. A price is fair when seller and buyer come to a mutual agreement (that is, when an exchange takes place without coercion).
@janc71 You are trying to argue that value is derivived from labor. This is the labor theory of value, not that it is some how objective. I am arguing that labor has no value, only the product of labor has value.
If you make this simple leep, one that I'm sure you've made before if you ever argued the Labor theory of value, You will come to the same conclusion as me. Paying something for nothing, so you can claim with out contract the property of another is fraud.
@SpamSpamNEggs Again, anything can have value, in the sence that someone sees value in it. If labor wasn't valuable than wage jobs wouldn't even exist. Labor IS perceived as valuable, whether we like it or not, and therefor people are willing to pay for it.
@janc71 Labor is only perceived to have value because businesses fraudulently claim they will pay for it. It is NEVER labor that is being payed for, it is the PRODUCT that is being payed for. It only appears to have value, and be voluntary because of fraud.
No job is labor without results. It is the results that matter. It is the results that have value. It is the results that are marketable. NOT the labor.
@SpamSpamNEggs It is NOT fraud, because employers do not (normally) LIE about what they pay for. The offer is: You work and I will pay you per hour. The employee can DECLINE the deal!
You seem to think that employers are incredibly smart and trick the gullible workers into working for them for an hourly wage. THAT is nonsense!
"..and be voluntary because of fraud."
It's NOT fraud, because it IS voluntary.
No. Ultimately it is not even the product that is being paid for, it's the the benefit
@janc71 This wage fraud is not some new thing that is thought up hunderdes of times every day with employers scheming to find new and creative was to defraud you. It is a simple fraud that is pounded into your head from an early age. You are so indoctrinated that this is right, even when presented with the truth you argue against it.
It is not fraud, and you haven't shown that it's fraud. It is just something you don't like. Even if it would be better if people were paid on commission (which you also haven't proven yet), and even if we have grown to much accustomed to working for wage (even though a lot of people DO work on commission), it is STILL NOT FRAUD!
@SpamSpamNEggs "No job is labor without results. It is the results that matter."
Of course it's the results that matter.
As I said before, the worker may not WANT to own the results of his labor. He may want to part with it automatically through contract, because he doesn't want the hassle of having to sell the stuff. He just wants X amount for the stuff he produces, and how X is calculated (wage or commission) is up to him and his employer. If BOTH are happy, than X is fair compensation.
@janc71 "He just wants X amount for the stuff he produces," This is exactly my argument. It makes the assumption that the worker OWNS by DEFAULT the product of his labor, then sells it. How, why, where, when, how much and to whom are all up for negotiation. It is perfectly reasonable to, by written contract, automatically sell the product at steeply discounted prices and assured sales. This or something similar would HAVE to be the case in more complex productions like cars.
@SpamSpamNEggs "It makes the assumption that the worker OWNS by DEFAULT the product of his labor, then sells it."
Owning product of labor: Yes.
Produce first, then sell: No
"How, why, where, when, how much and to whom are all up for negotiation."
Yes. It is implicit in the agreement between employer and employee that the employee SELLS all he produces to the employer, in return for X amount of money based on the hours he spends working.
There's always a risk involved, for BOTH parties.
This is where we disagree. It is not implicit in the agreement. The employer payed for labor and by default, not agreement implicit or explicit, the product of labor is never owned by the worker. This is the fraud. That the product of labor is not owned by the person that preformed the labor, but someone else that DID NOT by any agreed apon contract trade for that product. No, paying for labor is not the same as paying for product of that labor.
Am I allowed to do whatever I want (as long as I'm not initiating force)?
Is someone else allowed to give away stuff he owns?
If you answer yes to both questions, than why shouldn't we be allowed to do things for and give things to eachother, whichever way we see fit? It doesn't matter how much is being paid and for what, as long as both parties are happy.
And I am curious:
What do you have in mind here, besides telling people wage jobs are evil?
@janc71 Yes, you are allowed to give your stuff away if you want, but to give it away first you must OWN what ever it is that your giving away. It is this recognition of ownership of the product of labor that is missing. Not what happens after that. What ever you choose to do with your property is inmaterial to my argument, so long as it is recognized as YOUR property because YOU made it.
@SpamSpamNEggs "Yes, you are allowed to give your stuff away if you want, but to give it away first you must OWN what ever it is that your giving away."
This only goes into half of what I was asking.
I asked you if people can freely give away things AND if they can freely DO things. The employer is freely giving something away (X amount of money) and the worker is freely doing something (performing an action X hours a day).
@SpamSpamNEggs It also wouldn't change a thing. It would only be made more explicit in the contract (if that's not the case allready). They will make a contract that explicitly says, that as long as you work for the company, you agree to automatically sell everything you produce to the company, for an amount of X dollars per hours that you work.
simple flaw in this one. You are assuming that wage slavery (the fraud) has no affect on worker compensation. $/hour is payment for labor not payment for product.....$/unit of product would be how a non-wage slave gets payed.
@SpamSpamNEggs I'm not claiming that $/hour and $/unit will result in the same amount. What I'm saying is that whatever the agreement is, THAT is what he's voluntarily bargaining for.
Once more about fraud:
For wage labor to be fraud, the employer has to be lying about compensation (whether it be fixed price, $/unit or $/hour), and that is not the case here. The employee KNOWS what he signs up for and is also familiar with your views on wage labor (at least, that's what is assumed here).
@SpamSpamNEggs Yes, to give away, you must own it first. That deals with my first question. The second one was about being allowed to DO things.
The employer is freely giving away something (X amount of money) and the employee is freely doing things (performing an action X hours a day). If people are allowed to GIVE things away AND if people are allowed to DO things, than you can't be opposed to wage jobs on principle. You would be disallowing voluntary actions.
@janc71 If the contract address all relevant issues, then it is voluntary. If the contract does not include ALL of the transfers taking place, it is not voluntary.
I will pay you 50$/day to wear a red shirt.
Not included in the contract is that by wearing a red shirt the government, banks, and corporations all agree that any interest or dividends earned on red shirt days now belong to me, not you.
The lack of contracts, or complete contracts is WHY this is an issue.
@SpamSpamNEggs "If the contract address all relevant issues, then it is voluntary"
By which you admit that wage labor is not necessarily fraud.
"If the contract does not include ALL of the transfers taking place, it is not voluntary."
I don't see why. If I know that the deal is that I (as a worker) will not own ANY of the actual product, than why would I like to know about all the transfers? I could care less.
@janc71 "will not own ANY of the actual product" this is what I'm arguing against!!!! You by default Should (in a voluntary system) own the product of your labor. Transfers of your property are your concern up to and including the point that it stops being your property. The claim that you don't own the product of your own labor is the basis of wage slavery.
Yes, you do HAVE to own the results of you action, the product of your labor. Once it is yours, you can give it away, if some one else wants it, but first you must own it.
If I can choose to not own the results of my actions......you can't hold me responsible for shooting you in the head!!!! I choose to not own that result.
@SpamSpamNEggs You are responsible for the results of your actions. That is not the same as ownership. You were ASKED to do a job and you are responsible for the results (in the sense that you've got to do a good job). You were not asked to kill somebody, so you can ben held accountable for that. With your line of reasoning you might even own the body after you killed the person. Your kind of ownership only stems form mixing labor with UNowned material. Once it's owned, it a different ballgame.
@janc71 Ok, so it is perfectly fine to hire a hit man to kill you then. Then the killer is asked to do a job, and therefore not responsible. I didn't kill you and therefor not responsible.....any type of not personally owning results of your action will lead to legal murder. You can make it harder and harder with more complex systems.....but it boils down to "It wasn't me it was the ......." or ownership of action. You can't have it both ways.
@SpamSpamNEggs No no! You are introducing a 3rd person here. Employer/employee is a 2 party agreement. The employer can asks you to do something for HIM. If he would asks you to kill someone ELSE, it's a different thing. Then you would do something that the person you kill did not ask for, so YOU are still responible for his death. The only ownership involved here is the person's body you violated. That's what you are responsible for. The employer is not innocent, but that's more complicated.
@janc71 You really should watch the "Bomb on the Brain" series by StefBot. He does an Excellent job of explaining why new and earth shaking ideas are so hard to explain. This affect is what I see you doing in almost every argument you present. "If it is voluntary, then it is voluntary, and there is no problem". To accept the truth of my argument is to realize that YOU are a slave, and that is a hard truth to see.
@SpamSpamNEggs I've seen/heard a great deal from stefbot, including parts of bomb in the brain. He actually brought me on the path of anarcho-capitalism, and it kinda changed my life (although I don't want to sound too dramatic ). I've been a firm believer in social democracy for most of my life, but not anymore. So I guess I've proven to not be such a slave after all. :-) Talk to you later.
@SpamSpamNEggs "If it is voluntary, then it is voluntary, and there is no problem"
Just to clarify:
It think it's very well possible that people voluntarilly get themselves in a shitty deal, and that's not good. The point is that working on commission, or any other form of non-wage-labor, suffers from that as well. I might even go so far as to say that a wage job should make people more allert of ending up in a bad deal, but it's still not a fundamental argument against wage labor.
@janc71 2nd, I do recognize that production come from Labor and OWNED capital and OWNED material. This is one of the primary reasons that I'm not advocating a comprehensive solution. I don't know one. It is far to complex for me to know enough to come up with a solution. I can think of many possible solutions, but they all have major flaws. Just because I don't have an answer that is better than the problem, does not mean there is not a problem.
@janc71 I'm all for voluntary free markets. I am not some god that knows whats best for every one. I have faith that people will do the right thing. I am proven correct in this faith many times every day. It is only after this faith proves to be unfounded that I advocate change.
@SpamSpamNEggs I think you focus too much on the 'wage slavery' thing. Our prime minister has a wage job for EUR134 per year. You reeally want to call that slavery? I can understand why you would characterize SOME wage jobs that way, but since it's possible to make more money with wage jobs than with commission jobs, you can be better of with a wage job. It is not the wage job in itself, it's awareness about what you're worth. If you want to enhance that, than more power to you.
@janc71 This conversation and the video that inspired it are both about wage slavery, so yes that has been my focus in this conversation.
The question of wage slavery is not one of income, but ownership. You can not claim to fully own yourself if you do not own the product of your labor. I will try to get the time to make a video on this aspect. It should help narrow the gap between what I'm saying and what you are hearing.
@SpamSpamNEggs Yes, you'll have to explain why it is not voluntary, because I don't see any force being used to get you to take the job and agree to be paid by the hour. It is essential to my position that people have the freedom not to accept. Psychological appeal, as in 'people don't always act rational', is not valid, because that argument can also be made for other kinds of payment.
Looking forward to your video, and yeah, if you'd care to send me the outline, I'll be happy to read it.
"You can not claim to fully own yourself if you do not own the product of your labor"
You can do something for free. To say that you first have to own what you produce and then give it away, instead of saying up front that you are going to DO something for free, is unnecessary semantics. Both the volunteer and the beneficiary are not helped with that (especcially not if everything has to be written down in a contract).
@janc71 Ah, the semantics argument. The wage slavery problem probably started off as nothing but semantics. The most useful, agreeable, countable measure of your product was time. Hundreds or thousands of years (I don't know the origins of wage work) of bad semantics have lead to where we are now. It is no longer just semantics. We are so used to using the bad semantics that the words used to describe freedom sound odd.
No one can know everything so this is simple ignorance, and not a problem since you WANT to know. You really should do some research into financial markets, it is important stuff to know. A super simple explanation so my example will make sense.
interest is money payed to you for keeping money in a bank or investing in bonds.
dividends are money payed to you for investing in stocks.
interest and dividends have nothing to do with red shirts.
@janc71 I have no clue how to solve the problem in a way to make the system more voluntary. Seeing a problem and saying it is a problem does not mean I know the answer. Problems almost never come pre-packaged with the best solution possible, or they wouldn't be problems for long.
.
A government solution, making it illegal, would probably make the problem worse, not better.
I'm sure indoctrination exists, but I didn't like the argument you made that people are sort of lured into this whole wage job-deal. As I said, working on commission is a well known alternative and actually quite common. Claiming that wage jobs are not voluntary, to me is ridiculous.
That being said, I do want you to know that I've enjoyed our discussion. I think you've remained more calm than I have. :-)
@janc71 So far you have made the 2nd best points trying to debunk my theory (the first was a series of PM's). You have stayed on topic. You haven't tried to knowingly pull in irrelevant facts to confuse the issues. You haven't tryed to put words in my mouth. There where no adhomin attacks or other blatant fallacies.
You have struggled to make constant arguments, but this is much more of a flaw of the position you are trying to defend than in your ability to defend it.
@SpamSpamNEggs The owner of the machine can with it as he pleases, or he wouldn't own it. Me working the machine is a choice I make (or not). It is voluntary!
I like both the argument presented & the way it's presented. I appreciate it when someone genuinely expresses intellectual humility. Some people seem to assume that if you have no argument for a superior solution then the problem should be ignored or not be considered a problem... or something like that. Wage slavery is obviously problematic in many ways, but of course it's a lesser problem than chattel slavery. I just can't believe wage slavery is the best answer of which humans are capable.
@Wraith23 Whether or not it's a myth, it has very real world impact on real people. White supremacy & religious fundamentalism are myths, but many people have been oppressed & suffered because of them. Theoretically, a person who works a wage job is free, but try to explain that to someone who is trapped in a job that barely pays the bills, that offers few opportunities for betterment or security where unemployment & homelessness looms as a threat. To such a person, freedom seems like a myth.
@MarmaladeINFP "Theoretically, a person who works a wage job is free, but try to explain that to someone who is trapped in a job that barely pays the bills..."
So the problem here is not a wage job as such, but the amount of wage (which is still a voluntary agreement between an employer and an employee).
@janc71 It's only voluntary if there is a functioning free market, a functioning democracy, & functioning strong unions that are able to bargain on behalf of wage workers. This mostly doesn't describe our present society. The capitalist system we have is corporatism with a shrinking middle class & lower social mobility than other developed countries. The political system we have has been corrupted by corporate lobbyists & money. And the unions have been losing power & membership for decades.
@MarmaladeINFP "It's only voluntary if there is a functioning free market, a functioning democracy..."
Democracy is majority rule and not compatible with a free market. A truely free market will regulate itself, because e.g. people would be free to form unions.
I totally agree with the rest of what you said. We currently have corporatism, not capitalism.
@MarmaladeINFP I disagree. It is still not voluntary, wage slavery. I will agree that under these conditions it is not very problematic. This would effectively treat the systems of wage slavery, but not solve the problem.
@SpamSpamNEggs Yeah, I understand. I don't know what a voluntary society would look like. I was just pointing out, as you say, a less problematic form of capitalism. I must admit I'm somewhat of a cynic. Treating the symptom isn't solving the problem, but it's still something. Is there any form of capitalism that would promote freedom, that doesn't require strong regulations to keep it from being destructive? Can capitalism exist without wage slavery? How would such a capitalism operate?
@MarmaladeINFP Thank you for your positive comment. I get so few of them. I know I strike a nerve with my videos by how many negative comments I get. I'm just happy for a positive one.
@SpamSpamNEggs You're welcome. I don't recall what the video was about, but apparently I was impressed. I guess I should watch the video again. I do appreciate intellectual humility and it can be hard to find.
At worst you can call it "indentured servitude", wage slavery is an exaggeration, not even a real term. And everyone does own their labor, they simply trade it for money or other resources. Of course no one owns the product of their actions. If I steal your piece of metal and make a sword out of it, it's still your sword. And if you pay me to make a sword out of it, it is also still your sword. I don't see how slavery ever comes into the picture here or how there is a problem.
Your Labor is inseparable from YOU. To sell your labor is to sell part of yourself, forsaking full self ownership. The part of YOU that is results are owned by someone else. Being owned by someone else is slavery.
@SpamSpamNEggs, slavery is non-voluntary and not consentual. That's why I said at worst you can call it indentured servitude, which is when a person litterally sells all their freedoms and becomes a slave for a set amount of time and can't opt out. That is nothing like agreeing to do a task and receiving a reward for doing it. You are not trading away any of your rights or freedoms.
@SpamSpamNEggs, what do you mean I'm trying not "to make it sound not as bad"? How is it bad? Most of modern civilization was built from wage labor. You are the one trying to twist definitions to make it sound like slavery.
@SpamSpamNEggs, but there is a massive difference. Slavery involves initiating force against another person and taking away their rights without consent. Wage labor is consentual and no rights are taken away. I do a task, you give me a reward, everyone wins and there is no initiation of force. It's not immoral and it certainly doesn't fit the defenition of slavery.
@SpamSpamNEggs Wage slavery is enforced by force. The existance of private property is dependant on the threat of force for those who violate is, and this force comes from the power of the state. If one took what was made by oneself using the means of production posesed by a capitalist and tried to sell it for yourself you would be charged with theft. The fact the the state protects private property, and private ownership of the means of production means that you are coerced into wage slavery.
@SpamSpamNEggs, how is it fraud? Fraud requires lying or making false promises. I promise I will give you X dollars if you complete this task. As long as I pay it is not fraud.
I think your argument here is fallacious. I no way does 'wage slavery' mean that you do not own the product of your labor (except in the case of taxes).
The product of labor is the refinement or transfer of a good. This does not give the laborer a claim to the good in anyway. As, the majority of the work that has gone into the good was done by someone else. The worker only owns the refinement or transfer that was performed, which the worker agreed to sell prior to the action taking place.
@amcnea IF and that is the really big IF.... IF the worker owns the refinement and agrees to sell it it, then it is not wage slavery. That is selling the product of labor. The worker owned the Product, not the labor, and sold it.
IF the worker is getting payed for the labor of the refinement, not the product of the action, then that IS wage slavery.
No one is paid for just random labor. Such as moving a pencil 3 feet and then moving back and repeating for 8 hours. When a person is paid for labor it is always for a specific task or product. If a person performs labor but does not produce the product they will be fired (regardless of how much labor is performed). Hence the laborer is always selling a product and not his labor. This is why I believe your argument is fallacious. (Except for taxes, that is total slavery.)
@amcnea I see what you are saying now. I agree no one is payed for random labor. All jobs produce something, and it is that product the employer wants. We agree on this point. The REALITY of any job is payment for products.
The fraud occurs when the employer says "I will pay for labor". They are not paying for labor, they are paying for the product of labor. Just as whips and chains where the tools used to keep chattel slaves, this fraud is the tool used to keep wage slaves.
'The fraud occurs when the employer says "I will pay for labor"'
But no employer says that. The employer says "You will be responsible for completing [something], and I will pay you to do so." The responsibilities are usually defined in the job description. The completion of these responsibilities is what the laborer is producing and selling. And, the completion of these responsibility is what the employer is buying.
"There is not an intrinsic ownership of the results of your actions"
When I apply for a job, they tell me what the job is and what the job pays. If I voluntarily accept the job, I keep the wage I volunteer to receive. THAT IS the product of my labor. If I don't think it's a fair deal, I can just take the risks, and buy the infrastructure, and try to work for myself. Even then, however, I don't get to ask for money based on the sum of my labor, but based on the VALUE of the product.
@JacobSpinney It would depend on the terms of the loan. I have not thought though this aspect yet, so I can't elaborate on what terms would be exploitative, wage slavery.
But let's assume it can be shown that it's solely the workers labor that produces 10X, yet they are only being paid X. Even then, this is not wage slavery, since the worker is agreeing to trade 9X that may or may not end up in a selling product in return for an immediate and guaranteed wage of X. This can be thought of in the same context as a loan. You are being given X amount of money immediately in return for giving back 5X a few decades later.
@JacobSpinney Once again, You are insisting that the workers own the product of their labor and agree to sell it at a reduced price and guaranteed sale of all goods. This is not wage slavery.
There is no agreement to sell the product of labor in wage slavery. It is just owned by the capitalist, under the fraud of paying for labor, not the product of labor. It is this fraud that lead to the exploitation of workers.
The only way you can claim that a worker is only partially owning the fruit of their labor is if you make the assertion that the value of what they created was derived solely from their labor and not the capital that the capitalist was mixing with it. This assertion is false, as I demonstrated in my video.
@JacobSpinney You obviously didn't watch the whole video. At the end I asked the question How do you determine part ownership of a product that took 300 people and expensive capital goods to make? I did include capital goods. The productivity is not solely based on the labor.
My claim is that payment for LABOR is fraud, wage slavery,explotation. Labor has no value. Only the product of labor has value. Capital goods have value to. Renting these goods to labor would not be wage slavery.
@SpamSpamNEggs Yes. I did watch the whole video. It depends on how you think of it. You could just as easily think of a wage not in terms of paying for labor, but rather paying a guaranteed immediate value in order to relieve you of the time and risk involved in waiting to see if the product sells or flops.
@JacobSpinney Umm, yes. If there is not the fraud of "paying for labor" it is not wage slavery. If both parties recognize that it payment for the product of labor it is not paying for labor.
You recognizing that my brother is getting payed for the product of his labor does not mean he is not a wage slave. He believes he is getting payed for labor, his boss claims he is paying for labor, not the product of labor. The parties involved and committing fraud.
This argument does not properly recognize that the "wages" (money) could possibly equate to the "product of labor".
I assume you understand the function of money??
Nevertheless, wage slavery can/does exist, but it is only in the condition where some sort of force is used to withhold more value from one's labor than would be extracted in the absence of the force.
The presence of force is what merits the qualification for slavery, not merely wages themselves.
@ElDukerino1 I am proposing something relatively unseen before. I understand the resistance to it.
"The presence of force is what merits the qualification for slavery" I would only change this to "The presence of force OR FRAUD (sorry for caps, no italics) is what merits..."
Labor has no intrinsic value, only the product of labor has value. Insisting that payment is for the valueless labor, not the product of that labor is fraud.
Right, I'd also consider FRAUD to be a "force" qualifying it as slavery.
However, it's well understood by many who recieve wages what they're getting into...they're choosing to participate in the division of labor to produce end products for which they very well may be receiving a just value for.
Wage systems alone don't qualify as slavery...it is unjust capital distribution that facilites bargaining power disparity & ability to perpetrate fraud which is when slavery arises.
@ElDukerino1 I am arguing that there are wage systems that do qualify as slavery. Labor has no intrinsic Value. When some one says I will pay for Labor, that is fraud. They WILL NOT pay for labor. They pay for the product of labor. If Labor had value, then swinging a hammer in an empty field would be worth just as much as at a construction site.
Not all wage systems are slavery. Job lot production is not wage slavery. Commissioned sales is not wage slavery.
You're making absurd distinctions here..nobody offers to "pay for labor" in sense you're implying, of course it's understood wages are for "product of labor", everyone knows it.
Do people w/ capital have advantage over someone with none when negotiating wages? Yes! That's the problem!
I guess you're suggesting laborers ultimately should get share of profits which I'd be for, but I bet many wouldn't choose lower fixed wage for the upside potential, hence it's not slavery.
@ElDukerino1 Well, we have a clear disagreement on one of the basics. I do see many employers offering pay for labor. I see many people that believe they are being payed for that labor, not the product of the labor. This would be a very good topic for a sociology paper.
I am for workers getting a share of the profits. Better yet would be direct pay for production so individual efforts pay off, like sales or job lot production.
Well not to be insensitive, but these people you're talking about are probably lucky to get whatever they're getting if they really think that (although firstly they are unlucky to have not received a good education).
The solution to wage slavery is to eliminate the disadvantages some people have starting out in life..once that's addressed, then wage systems would function more justly.
@SpamSpamNEggs "I am for workers getting a share of the profits."
1. Than you DO agree that workers do not own the product of their labor 100%.
2. A lot of people have contract like this, it's called: working on commission.
3. A lot of people don't WANT to work on commission, because it doesn't provide a steady income and//or workers don't know how to sell the product (when commission is paid in % of produced items).
@SpamSpamNEggs 1. They did voluntarily parted with the product of their labor, and decided to work for wage instead.
2. Commission or not, the contract is voluntary!! You don't HAVE to work for a wage.
3. Oh, it's not relevant?! Okay, but then it is also totally irrelevant what YOU want. Just leave me alone and let me decide for myself, what I want to do, who I work for, and on what conditions!
And yes, if I would want to be a slave (which I wouldn't), it should be my right.
I was going through my old comments box & found this one...
I can see what you're saying a little more clearly after reading your other comments here, but you're really confusing the matter by claiming this is fraud by employers. To put it another way, what you are maybe suggesting here is that employers have a responsibility to do the following:
1) inform a worker that they are participating in making the product (duh)
2) aprise employee at w/ some frequency what (cont'd)...
Short answer: Yes, products have an intrinsic value.
Long answer:Yes, but I'm talking economics, not philosophy so that's all the answer your getting. In philosophy there have been arguments, and good ones, that PEOPLE don't exist, let alone have value.
You make really bad arguments, man... working for a wage is individually voluntary. Your employer does not "own the product of your labor," she owns "the product you voluntarily give her." Actual slavery and taxation are by definition involuntary, proactively coercive. The formal concept of "wage slavery" is based on exploitation theory, which is premised on the fallacious labor theory of value. Wage slavery as such is a non-concept and does not exist.
@asdfgasdfasdful "The product you voluntarily give her" Try walking out of a factory with some of the product and see what happens, you will see just how "voluntary" that giving is.
Wage slavery is coercive. It uses fraud instead of force, but that is still coercion.
"Fallacious labor theory of Value" where did I mention the labor theory of value? Just because others have made invalid arguments about Wage Slavery does not mean my argument is invalid.
Uh try walking away from the pawn shop with your television after you voluntarily sell it to the pawn shop. Are you proactively coerced by your employer or the pawn shop into agreeing to sell your product to them? No. It is voluntary.
@asdfgasdfasdful You are not selling your product to the employer. You never owned the product. The employer makes the claim that they own, with out trade, the product of your labor.
This is proactively coerced by the fraud that they are paying for labor, not the product of labor.
Uh no. You are indeed selling your product to your employer. That is your "labor." Your employer does not own your "labor" as in "owning" *you* when you are at work, she rather owns the product you voluntarily give (usually according to a voluntarily agreed-upon employment contract which you are free to abandon at any time). This is not proactively coerced in any sense and is quite obviously not fraudulent unless she refuses to pay you the previously agreed-upon amount or w/e.
@asdfgasdfasdful You really don't see the difference between owning your Labor and owning the PRODUCT of labor. In Wage Slavery employers do not claim to own the Labor, they pay for that, they claim to own the PRODUCT of the labor. For true self ownership, you must own the PRODUCT of your labor not just the labor. Labor has NO VALUE, only the product of labor has value.
@asdfgasdfasdful It also necessarily entails being able to voluntarily agree NOT to sell it. I can not go to a factory, make the product and bring it home. A wage slave is deprived by coercion of the option to NOT sell.
Right and in wage employment you necessarily can choose not to sell it. You can quit. You can get another job. You can start your own business. You can become an artisan. Whatever. And you voluntarily chose to agree to it in the first place by definition. If you do not have the option of voluntarily agreeing not to sell her the product of your labor, and are in fact proactively coerced into doing so, it's actual slavery, not your non-concept of "wage slavery."
@asdfgasdfasdful In wage employment you do not have the option to not sell to an employer. The options you presented are Don't make, or sell. Don't make is very different than don't sell.
Start your own business, become an artisan, these are not wage slavery to employers. You are getting payed for the product of your labor. As a small business owner you own the product that your business, your labor, produces. You are not working for a "wage" you are working for profits.
Wage employment is voluntary, you by definition do have the option not to sell, make, or do anything for the employer. I don't what point you think you're making here, man. You seem like an unintelligent person. Just sayin.
@asdfgasdfasdful Wage employment is only Partially voluntary. Wage Slavery is Partial self ownership. You do have the option to not work for an employer, you own your body. You have the option to sell to the employer, you own your labor. You do not have the option to NOT sell to your employer, you DO NOT own the product of your labor.
Yes, you do have the option not to sell to your employer and whatever particulars of your wage employment are detailed in the employment contract you voluntarily sign and agree to. That is the difference between taxes (non-voluntary, proactive coercion) vs. wage labor (mutual, voluntary). You have ownership over your income because there is an intersubjective consensus on property that stipulates criteria along the lines of what you have created yourself or voluntarily received.
@asdfgasdfasdful OK, so You own your income because you created it yourself, or it was voluntarily given to you. No special contract is needed to say you own your income. It is yours because you made it, not because a contract says it's yours. It is only by use of coercion that the government can claim some of it.
Since this coercion happens on a continuous basis, is it un reasonable to call it slavery?
Well, you "own" it because those are the criteria for ownership according to most naturally evolved intersubjective consensus standards for "ownership." There are no objective criteria for ownership. It would be somewhat unreasonable to call taxation "slavery" because slavery has other elements such imprisonment, however it is qualitatively similar to slavery. It would be more accurate to call it mass legitimated extortion.
@asdfgasdfasdful LOL You see where I'm going with this, so you've started splitting hairs so you can back track when I'm done. "no objective criteria for ownership" really? Imprisonment as a condition of slavery? Really?
You do understand my argument, it is reasonable, you just can't admit it to yourself or me. I understand, letting go of faith can be hard.
Dude... I'm not sure you understand what these words mean. If you think there are objective criteria for "ownership," you're just wrong. Property rights are like any other rights - intersubjective. And yes, slavery is generally held to include the quality of not being allowed to escape or move freely around i.e. imprisonment. You are generally allowed to emigrate from states and move around within them. You don't have an argument. You're just confused about definitions.
@asdfgasdfasdful You did a much better job of arguing your point than most on YouTube. You only made one Blatantly false argument, and stopped when I called you out on it. You stuck to a consistent argument almost all the way to the end.
You now seem dedicated to distraction and dissemination. Yes my argument requires you to look past the "Status Quo" and that is very hard for most people. I was hoping you could.
The problem I have with your argument is that you seem to forget that the employer owns the means of production (e.g. a machine). So it's simply not yours to use to produce stuff.
But it IS possible to voluntarily set up a contract that says: "I let you work the machine and in return I give you a salary (OR a percentage of (the profit made from) the goods you produce)".
@janc71 I don't argue that the employer owns the machine. I'm agruing that "I will give you money to run the machine" is both fraud and a form of slavery. I will rent you the machine would be just fine. I will pay a % of profits would be just fine. I will buy the product at reduced cost would be fine. Just not money for labor.
@asdfgasdfasdful I did very little to address wage slavery in the work place in my video because of exactly this kind of debate. You can't get past the appearance of voluntary action in Wage work. I addressed Wage slavery in Taxes and Crime, so lets move the conversation there.
Do you believe that The Income Tax is Theft? Why? What gives you ownership of your income?
The wage is the result of your actions. You did not invest the money in the capital or the land or the natural resources. You did not arrange them in a way that is productive enough to generate enough revenue to continue operations. The wage is simply a price of the labor. Wages will rise as the workers skills become more specialized and there is more capital to produce more goods. And it is true that income tax is slavery, I agree with that part for sure
mjbarrowful 1 month ago
working for discretionary income, and not for basic survival, couldn't be considered wage slavery, even though the product of that labor was transferred to the owner of the enterprise that employed you. but the video is correct IMO in identifying that a choice between starvation and wage slavery is no choice at all. not joining the far left though, sorry.
etzel33 6 months ago
@etzel33 If "working for discretionary income" can't be considered wage slavery, let me ask you this. If a chattle slave is placed in a nice house and given money to spend how ever they choose (but not enough to buy freedom), are they no longer a chattel slave? At what point of income/comfort does being owned by another person stop being chattel slavery?
SpamSpamNEggs 6 months ago
@SpamSpamNEggs i was thinking along the lines of a basic, guaranteed income or "public dividend" that could remove the substinance factor from the wage equation. Hence "discretionary" income. If it costs everyone X to live and we only make X in wages, we have zero discretionary income. This is the unfortunate reality of the free market towards labor, to drive wages as far down as possible to X or even below it. Perhaps if unions were "presumed" in all businesses of 2 or more workers!
etzel33 6 months ago
@etzel33 You are talking about solutions. I was identifying the factors that lead to the problems we agree exist in current "free markets". The underlying problems is how we THINK about labor. If we don't change that, then no solution will work.
SpamSpamNEggs 6 months ago
Comment removed
janc71 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs Free markets.... I agree, but I wouldn't call it objective. It is the accumilation of subjective preferences and valuations. I may be willing to pay more for service X than you. There is no fixed value or price.
janc71 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs You can sell yourself into indefinite servitude. I don't think it is very wise, but if it's voluntary, I wouldn't stop anybody from doing so. This is NOT slavery, since FORCE isn't involved.
janc71 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs If he only works the machine himself, than he would own the goods of course. If someone else works the machine, this person should have to be compensated for his work, and this can be ANYTHING, as long as they both voluntarily agree on it.
The example:
No, it doesn't work like that. Before the house is built, they sit together and discuss each of their compensation.
What strikes me as odd is that YOU seem to know what kind of deal these people should make.
janc71 1 year ago
@janc71 I'm not saying what the deal should be, only what it shouldn't be. We both agree (I hope) that whipping the guy building the shed until he agrees to do it for free is not a valid way to do business. I'm just adding to that with lying to they guy.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs "I'm not saying what the deal should be, only what it shouldn't be."
It's not up to you to decide, it's up to them. "We both agree (I hope) that whipping the guy building the shed until he agrees to do it for free is not a valid way to do business."
Of couse.
"I'm just adding to that with lying to they guy."
Sorry, don't know what you mean.
janc71 1 year ago
@janc71 Using force to make the guy build the shed is not valid (Whipping him into submition)
Using fraud to trick the guy into building the shed is not valid (Paying for labor, not the product of labor)
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SpamSpamNEggs "Using fraud to trick the guy into building the shed is not valid (Paying for labor, not the product of labor)"
When they have an agreement up front about compensation, it is NOT fraud. Can we at least agree on that?
janc71 1 year ago
@janc71 I asked a simple question and you didn't answer it. WHO owns the shed. Is it the person that provided the raw material? The person that provided the tools? The person that provided the labor? absent any agreement between them, who gets to claim ownership?
There is an assumption of ownership somewhere. What is that assumption?
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs
Absent any agreement? But that's the whole point! Whoever is going to own the shed is dependent upon what they agree upon. And remember, the shed doesn't HAVE to be built.
janc71 1 year ago
@janc71
Well all three of them believe that the shed is theirs. All three of them showed up to "Build ME a shed", so all of them assumed the shed was for them. Who gets the shed in this contract dispute?
If you ever actually answer the question you will see the point of this line. I just need to know what YOU think, so I can tailor the point to your understanding.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs "Well all three of them believe that the shed is theirs."
Ooooh, you made up some farfetched arbitrary situation with people in it acting silly. Why the hell is this relevant? They should find some 3rd party arbitration to figure out this puzzle. Normally, you make a 3 way deal.
You want MY opinnion? If they all attributed equally, than they could all be owner of a third of the shed. But my opinion is irrelevant, because normally I'm not a part in this matter.
janc71 1 year ago
@janc71
This situation is not "Far Fetched" this is the current situation with wage workers!!!! They are just making burgers not sheds. There exists NO agreement on who owns the product, it is just assumed that the owner of the tools owns the product.
With out wage slavery mentality (why my example was odd) you agree that the worker owns the part of the product he produced. This should not change if he is being payed for labor. The labor is a separate thing than ownership claim of product.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs This is all nonsense. There is no fundamental difference to wages, commision or part ownership. It is ALL just 'compensation' for rendered goods or services. The worker owns his labor and he needs something for that in return. It can be part-ownership of the house, a fixed price or an hourly fee.
Have you ever considered the possibility that he doesn't WANT (a 3rd of the) house, because he hasn't got the skills or know-how to sell it, and that he is very happy with his wage job?
janc71 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs You just believe people aren't paid enough. And that's fine, but it isn't an argument against wage labor as such. I mean, would you still complain if Bill Gates paid $ 5000,- an hour? This isn't about the principle of wage labor.
And what you seem to overlook is that part-ownership and working on commission have disadvantages too.
janc71 1 year ago
@janc71 You are very much trying to put words into my mouth. Low income is an affect of wage slavery, but low incomes would still happen with out it. The same for high wages. There is a very real difference between wages, commision and part ownership. Commisions and part ownership are not based on fraud, but yes they do have problems.
(New argument)The worker CAN NOT sell his labor and be free. It is an integral part of himself, to sell labor is to sell part of yourself, partial slavery.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs What complete silliness. So in your world a police-officer or a garbage-collector would not exist (not producing anything, just selling labor)? Or is it possible to sell a service? But than building a house can be a service too.
You can sell ANYTHING. And as long it is voluntary, there's nothing wrong with it. Slavery is forcing people to work by threatening them with violence. Voluntary slavery is an oxymoron.
janc71 1 year ago
@janc71 No, police and garbage collection would still happen. It would just take thinking of these services in a completely different way. You don't pay for garbage collection so that someone does work, You pay for garbage collection so that you don't have garbage piling up in your house. It is the removal of garbage that has the value, it is the removal of trash that should be payed for, not the labor used to achieve that goal. It is the product of NO trash that is being payed for. cont.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs Sure, I do not disagree with this, but that's all just semantics. It's up to both the worker and the employer to come to an agreement about what kind and how much compensation should be given for the provided service.
"The service of cleaning up trace" or "the product of no trash", what's the fundamental difference? Why should it effect the compensation (which eventually they will have a mutual agreement upon)?
janc71 1 year ago
@janc71 If the trash man does 2 laps around each house does that make the service worth more? It would certainly take longer and he would get paid more for it. If I could install a Star Trek style teleporter to zap your trash directly to the dump, would this be worth less than having to wait till friday for the trash man to come? It would certainly take less labor to do it.
"You can sell ANYTHING" "Voluntary slavery is an oxymoron" Only one of these can be true, try for better consistency.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs Value isn't something that is fixed. It is subjective. If you try to sell me something (a good or service), than the value is ultimately based on what you want to have for and what I'm willing to give for it (whatever we base that on). If we come to an agreement than THAT is the price/value of the product in that very moment. All the rest is irrelevant.
janc71 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs ""You can sell ANYTHING" "Voluntary slavery is an oxymoron" Only one of these can be true, try for better consistency."
Well, anything that you own of course. You own yourself, you own your labor, so it is up to you what to do with it. Who else should decide what YOU can do for what amount of money?
As for the rest of your story:
There is no objective way of to measure this, since nobody should be forced to pay ANY price for a service. Price and value is subjective.
janc71 1 year ago
@janc71 If you own yourself, and can sell anything you own, why can't you sell yourself into voluntary slavery? You can either sell any thing you own, or you can refute "voluntary slavery". You simply can't do both.
There is an objective way to measure price and value.....free markets. This is the entire basis of Misis economic calculation problem. You are trying to argue some form of labor theory of value to defend your point. We both know that theory is Bunk.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs "You are trying to argue some form of labor theory of value..."
Where do you get that?
As I've stated before: Value is subjective. I may value a good or service more than you do. Price is determined trough negotiation between seller and buyer. A price is fair when seller and buyer come to a mutual agreement (that is, when an exchange takes place without coercion).
janc71 1 year ago
@janc71 You are trying to argue that value is derivived from labor. This is the labor theory of value, not that it is some how objective. I am arguing that labor has no value, only the product of labor has value.
If you make this simple leep, one that I'm sure you've made before if you ever argued the Labor theory of value, You will come to the same conclusion as me. Paying something for nothing, so you can claim with out contract the property of another is fraud.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs Again, anything can have value, in the sence that someone sees value in it. If labor wasn't valuable than wage jobs wouldn't even exist. Labor IS perceived as valuable, whether we like it or not, and therefor people are willing to pay for it.
janc71 1 year ago
@janc71 Labor is only perceived to have value because businesses fraudulently claim they will pay for it. It is NEVER labor that is being payed for, it is the PRODUCT that is being payed for. It only appears to have value, and be voluntary because of fraud.
No job is labor without results. It is the results that matter. It is the results that have value. It is the results that are marketable. NOT the labor.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs It is NOT fraud, because employers do not (normally) LIE about what they pay for. The offer is: You work and I will pay you per hour. The employee can DECLINE the deal!
You seem to think that employers are incredibly smart and trick the gullible workers into working for them for an hourly wage. THAT is nonsense!
"..and be voluntary because of fraud."
It's NOT fraud, because it IS voluntary.
No. Ultimately it is not even the product that is being paid for, it's the the benefit
janc71 1 year ago
@janc71 This wage fraud is not some new thing that is thought up hunderdes of times every day with employers scheming to find new and creative was to defraud you. It is a simple fraud that is pounded into your head from an early age. You are so indoctrinated that this is right, even when presented with the truth you argue against it.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs "This wage fraud..."
It is not fraud, and you haven't shown that it's fraud. It is just something you don't like. Even if it would be better if people were paid on commission (which you also haven't proven yet), and even if we have grown to much accustomed to working for wage (even though a lot of people DO work on commission), it is STILL NOT FRAUD!
janc71 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs "No job is labor without results. It is the results that matter."
Of course it's the results that matter.
As I said before, the worker may not WANT to own the results of his labor. He may want to part with it automatically through contract, because he doesn't want the hassle of having to sell the stuff. He just wants X amount for the stuff he produces, and how X is calculated (wage or commission) is up to him and his employer. If BOTH are happy, than X is fair compensation.
janc71 1 year ago
@janc71 "He just wants X amount for the stuff he produces," This is exactly my argument. It makes the assumption that the worker OWNS by DEFAULT the product of his labor, then sells it. How, why, where, when, how much and to whom are all up for negotiation. It is perfectly reasonable to, by written contract, automatically sell the product at steeply discounted prices and assured sales. This or something similar would HAVE to be the case in more complex productions like cars.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs "It makes the assumption that the worker OWNS by DEFAULT the product of his labor, then sells it."
Owning product of labor: Yes.
Produce first, then sell: No
"How, why, where, when, how much and to whom are all up for negotiation."
Yes. It is implicit in the agreement between employer and employee that the employee SELLS all he produces to the employer, in return for X amount of money based on the hours he spends working.
There's always a risk involved, for BOTH parties.
janc71 1 year ago
@janc71 "implicit in the agreement"
This is where we disagree. It is not implicit in the agreement. The employer payed for labor and by default, not agreement implicit or explicit, the product of labor is never owned by the worker. This is the fraud. That the product of labor is not owned by the person that preformed the labor, but someone else that DID NOT by any agreed apon contract trade for that product. No, paying for labor is not the same as paying for product of that labor.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs Look here.
Am I allowed to do whatever I want (as long as I'm not initiating force)?
Is someone else allowed to give away stuff he owns?
If you answer yes to both questions, than why shouldn't we be allowed to do things for and give things to eachother, whichever way we see fit? It doesn't matter how much is being paid and for what, as long as both parties are happy.
And I am curious:
What do you have in mind here, besides telling people wage jobs are evil?
Make it illegal?
janc71 1 year ago
@janc71 Yes, you are allowed to give your stuff away if you want, but to give it away first you must OWN what ever it is that your giving away. It is this recognition of ownership of the product of labor that is missing. Not what happens after that. What ever you choose to do with your property is inmaterial to my argument, so long as it is recognized as YOUR property because YOU made it.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs "Yes, you are allowed to give your stuff away if you want, but to give it away first you must OWN what ever it is that your giving away."
This only goes into half of what I was asking.
I asked you if people can freely give away things AND if they can freely DO things. The employer is freely giving something away (X amount of money) and the worker is freely doing something (performing an action X hours a day).
janc71 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs It also wouldn't change a thing. It would only be made more explicit in the contract (if that's not the case allready). They will make a contract that explicitly says, that as long as you work for the company, you agree to automatically sell everything you produce to the company, for an amount of X dollars per hours that you work.
janc71 1 year ago
@janc71
simple flaw in this one. You are assuming that wage slavery (the fraud) has no affect on worker compensation. $/hour is payment for labor not payment for product.....$/unit of product would be how a non-wage slave gets payed.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs I'm not claiming that $/hour and $/unit will result in the same amount. What I'm saying is that whatever the agreement is, THAT is what he's voluntarily bargaining for.
Once more about fraud:
For wage labor to be fraud, the employer has to be lying about compensation (whether it be fixed price, $/unit or $/hour), and that is not the case here. The employee KNOWS what he signs up for and is also familiar with your views on wage labor (at least, that's what is assumed here).
janc71 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs Yes, to give away, you must own it first. That deals with my first question. The second one was about being allowed to DO things.
The employer is freely giving away something (X amount of money) and the employee is freely doing things (performing an action X hours a day). If people are allowed to GIVE things away AND if people are allowed to DO things, than you can't be opposed to wage jobs on principle. You would be disallowing voluntary actions.
janc71 1 year ago
@janc71 Choosing to do thing....voluntary.
Choosing to give your stuff away....voluntary.
Choosing to do things under false pretenses.....NOT voluntary.
Not having your own stuff to give away......NOT voluntary.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs "Choosing to do thing....voluntary."
That is the worker.
"Choosing to give your stuff away....voluntary."
And that's the employer.
"Choosing to do things under false pretenses.....NOT voluntary."
Worker knows what he's up for, so no false pretenses here.
"Not having your own stuff to give away......NOT voluntary."
Irrelevant, worker is simply performing a voluntary action.
Q: What if the worker sets up a wage labor contract for the employer to sign?
janc71 1 year ago
@janc71 If the contract address all relevant issues, then it is voluntary. If the contract does not include ALL of the transfers taking place, it is not voluntary.
I will pay you 50$/day to wear a red shirt.
Not included in the contract is that by wearing a red shirt the government, banks, and corporations all agree that any interest or dividends earned on red shirt days now belong to me, not you.
The lack of contracts, or complete contracts is WHY this is an issue.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs "If the contract address all relevant issues, then it is voluntary"
By which you admit that wage labor is not necessarily fraud.
"If the contract does not include ALL of the transfers taking place, it is not voluntary."
I don't see why. If I know that the deal is that I (as a worker) will not own ANY of the actual product, than why would I like to know about all the transfers? I could care less.
janc71 1 year ago
@janc71 "will not own ANY of the actual product" this is what I'm arguing against!!!! You by default Should (in a voluntary system) own the product of your labor. Transfers of your property are your concern up to and including the point that it stops being your property. The claim that you don't own the product of your own labor is the basis of wage slavery.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs "You by default Should (in a voluntary system) own the product of your labor."
Not if you don't want to.
To not be able to decline ownership, THAT would be an involuntary system.
"The claim that you don't own the product of your own labor is the basis of wage slavery."
If you voluntarily decline ownership then by definition it is NOT slavery.
We're not making any progress, are we? :-)
janc71 1 year ago
@janc71
Yes, you do HAVE to own the results of you action, the product of your labor. Once it is yours, you can give it away, if some one else wants it, but first you must own it.
If I can choose to not own the results of my actions......you can't hold me responsible for shooting you in the head!!!! I choose to not own that result.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs You are responsible for the results of your actions. That is not the same as ownership. You were ASKED to do a job and you are responsible for the results (in the sense that you've got to do a good job). You were not asked to kill somebody, so you can ben held accountable for that. With your line of reasoning you might even own the body after you killed the person. Your kind of ownership only stems form mixing labor with UNowned material. Once it's owned, it a different ballgame.
janc71 1 year ago
@janc71 Ok, so it is perfectly fine to hire a hit man to kill you then. Then the killer is asked to do a job, and therefore not responsible. I didn't kill you and therefor not responsible.....any type of not personally owning results of your action will lead to legal murder. You can make it harder and harder with more complex systems.....but it boils down to "It wasn't me it was the ......." or ownership of action. You can't have it both ways.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs No no! You are introducing a 3rd person here. Employer/employee is a 2 party agreement. The employer can asks you to do something for HIM. If he would asks you to kill someone ELSE, it's a different thing. Then you would do something that the person you kill did not ask for, so YOU are still responible for his death. The only ownership involved here is the person's body you violated. That's what you are responsible for. The employer is not innocent, but that's more complicated.
janc71 1 year ago
@janc71 You really should watch the "Bomb on the Brain" series by StefBot. He does an Excellent job of explaining why new and earth shaking ideas are so hard to explain. This affect is what I see you doing in almost every argument you present. "If it is voluntary, then it is voluntary, and there is no problem". To accept the truth of my argument is to realize that YOU are a slave, and that is a hard truth to see.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs I've seen/heard a great deal from stefbot, including parts of bomb in the brain. He actually brought me on the path of anarcho-capitalism, and it kinda changed my life (although I don't want to sound too dramatic ). I've been a firm believer in social democracy for most of my life, but not anymore. So I guess I've proven to not be such a slave after all. :-) Talk to you later.
janc71 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs "If it is voluntary, then it is voluntary, and there is no problem"
Just to clarify:
It think it's very well possible that people voluntarilly get themselves in a shitty deal, and that's not good. The point is that working on commission, or any other form of non-wage-labor, suffers from that as well. I might even go so far as to say that a wage job should make people more allert of ending up in a bad deal, but it's still not a fundamental argument against wage labor.
janc71 11 months ago
@janc71 2nd, I do recognize that production come from Labor and OWNED capital and OWNED material. This is one of the primary reasons that I'm not advocating a comprehensive solution. I don't know one. It is far to complex for me to know enough to come up with a solution. I can think of many possible solutions, but they all have major flaws. Just because I don't have an answer that is better than the problem, does not mean there is not a problem.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs "I'm not advocating a comprehensive solution. I don't know one."
Well, at least you should go with letting people decide for their own, and have a little faith that they will make the right decision.
I'll think about it more, gotta go now.
janc71 1 year ago
@janc71 I'm all for voluntary free markets. I am not some god that knows whats best for every one. I have faith that people will do the right thing. I am proven correct in this faith many times every day. It is only after this faith proves to be unfounded that I advocate change.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs I think you focus too much on the 'wage slavery' thing. Our prime minister has a wage job for EUR134 per year. You reeally want to call that slavery? I can understand why you would characterize SOME wage jobs that way, but since it's possible to make more money with wage jobs than with commission jobs, you can be better of with a wage job. It is not the wage job in itself, it's awareness about what you're worth. If you want to enhance that, than more power to you.
janc71 1 year ago
@janc71 This conversation and the video that inspired it are both about wage slavery, so yes that has been my focus in this conversation.
The question of wage slavery is not one of income, but ownership. You can not claim to fully own yourself if you do not own the product of your labor. I will try to get the time to make a video on this aspect. It should help narrow the gap between what I'm saying and what you are hearing.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs "The question of wage slavery is not one of income, but ownership."
You own your income.
"You can not claim to fully own yourself if you do not own the product of your labor."
You cannot be truely free if you HAVE to own the product of your labor, even though you'd rather have an hourly wage for rendered services.
And not that this is an argument, but I'm pretty sure stefbot agrees with me on this.
'As long as it's voluntary', he would say.
janc71 11 months ago
@janc71 My argument is it IS NOT voluntary.
I'm working on that video. The argument there is to complex for 500 character comments. I can send you the out line if you like.
SpamSpamNEggs 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SpamSpamNEggs "I can send you the out line if you like."
Sure, I'd love to read it.
And you need to define voluntary.
janc71 11 months ago
@SpamSpamNEggs Yes, you'll have to explain why it is not voluntary, because I don't see any force being used to get you to take the job and agree to be paid by the hour. It is essential to my position that people have the freedom not to accept. Psychological appeal, as in 'people don't always act rational', is not valid, because that argument can also be made for other kinds of payment.
Looking forward to your video, and yeah, if you'd care to send me the outline, I'll be happy to read it.
janc71 11 months ago
@SpamSpamNEggs Another comment on this one:
"You can not claim to fully own yourself if you do not own the product of your labor"
You can do something for free. To say that you first have to own what you produce and then give it away, instead of saying up front that you are going to DO something for free, is unnecessary semantics. Both the volunteer and the beneficiary are not helped with that (especcially not if everything has to be written down in a contract).
janc71 11 months ago
@janc71 Ah, the semantics argument. The wage slavery problem probably started off as nothing but semantics. The most useful, agreeable, countable measure of your product was time. Hundreds or thousands of years (I don't know the origins of wage work) of bad semantics have lead to where we are now. It is no longer just semantics. We are so used to using the bad semantics that the words used to describe freedom sound odd.
SpamSpamNEggs 11 months ago
@SpamSpamNEggs
I don't really follow your example (What dividend earnings? Of newly sold red shirts?)
But the deal IS very clear: You wear red, you get 50$/day. You don't wear red, you get nothing.
janc71 1 year ago
No one can know everything so this is simple ignorance, and not a problem since you WANT to know. You really should do some research into financial markets, it is important stuff to know. A super simple explanation so my example will make sense.
interest is money payed to you for keeping money in a bank or investing in bonds.
dividends are money payed to you for investing in stocks.
interest and dividends have nothing to do with red shirts.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@janc71 I have no clue how to solve the problem in a way to make the system more voluntary. Seeing a problem and saying it is a problem does not mean I know the answer. Problems almost never come pre-packaged with the best solution possible, or they wouldn't be problems for long.
.
A government solution, making it illegal, would probably make the problem worse, not better.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs "to make the system more voluntary"
I'm sure indoctrination exists, but I didn't like the argument you made that people are sort of lured into this whole wage job-deal. As I said, working on commission is a well known alternative and actually quite common. Claiming that wage jobs are not voluntary, to me is ridiculous.
That being said, I do want you to know that I've enjoyed our discussion. I think you've remained more calm than I have. :-)
And we agree about the government...
janc71 1 year ago
@janc71 So far you have made the 2nd best points trying to debunk my theory (the first was a series of PM's). You have stayed on topic. You haven't tried to knowingly pull in irrelevant facts to confuse the issues. You haven't tryed to put words in my mouth. There where no adhomin attacks or other blatant fallacies.
You have struggled to make constant arguments, but this is much more of a flaw of the position you are trying to defend than in your ability to defend it.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs I do of course not agree with that last assessment, but thanks! :-)
janc71 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs The owner of the machine can with it as he pleases, or he wouldn't own it. Me working the machine is a choice I make (or not). It is voluntary!
janc71 1 year ago
I like both the argument presented & the way it's presented. I appreciate it when someone genuinely expresses intellectual humility. Some people seem to assume that if you have no argument for a superior solution then the problem should be ignored or not be considered a problem... or something like that. Wage slavery is obviously problematic in many ways, but of course it's a lesser problem than chattel slavery. I just can't believe wage slavery is the best answer of which humans are capable.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP
Wage slavery is a myth
Wraith23 1 year ago
@Wraith23 Whether or not it's a myth, it has very real world impact on real people. White supremacy & religious fundamentalism are myths, but many people have been oppressed & suffered because of them. Theoretically, a person who works a wage job is free, but try to explain that to someone who is trapped in a job that barely pays the bills, that offers few opportunities for betterment or security where unemployment & homelessness looms as a threat. To such a person, freedom seems like a myth.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP "Theoretically, a person who works a wage job is free, but try to explain that to someone who is trapped in a job that barely pays the bills..."
So the problem here is not a wage job as such, but the amount of wage (which is still a voluntary agreement between an employer and an employee).
janc71 1 year ago
@janc71 It's only voluntary if there is a functioning free market, a functioning democracy, & functioning strong unions that are able to bargain on behalf of wage workers. This mostly doesn't describe our present society. The capitalist system we have is corporatism with a shrinking middle class & lower social mobility than other developed countries. The political system we have has been corrupted by corporate lobbyists & money. And the unions have been losing power & membership for decades.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP "It's only voluntary if there is a functioning free market, a functioning democracy..."
Democracy is majority rule and not compatible with a free market. A truely free market will regulate itself, because e.g. people would be free to form unions.
I totally agree with the rest of what you said. We currently have corporatism, not capitalism.
I consider myself an anarcho-capitalist.
janc71 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP I disagree. It is still not voluntary, wage slavery. I will agree that under these conditions it is not very problematic. This would effectively treat the systems of wage slavery, but not solve the problem.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs Yeah, I understand. I don't know what a voluntary society would look like. I was just pointing out, as you say, a less problematic form of capitalism. I must admit I'm somewhat of a cynic. Treating the symptom isn't solving the problem, but it's still something. Is there any form of capitalism that would promote freedom, that doesn't require strong regulations to keep it from being destructive? Can capitalism exist without wage slavery? How would such a capitalism operate?
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP Thank you for your positive comment. I get so few of them. I know I strike a nerve with my videos by how many negative comments I get. I'm just happy for a positive one.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs You're welcome. I don't recall what the video was about, but apparently I was impressed. I guess I should watch the video again. I do appreciate intellectual humility and it can be hard to find.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
At worst you can call it "indentured servitude", wage slavery is an exaggeration, not even a real term. And everyone does own their labor, they simply trade it for money or other resources. Of course no one owns the product of their actions. If I steal your piece of metal and make a sword out of it, it's still your sword. And if you pay me to make a sword out of it, it is also still your sword. I don't see how slavery ever comes into the picture here or how there is a problem.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter
Your Labor is inseparable from YOU. To sell your labor is to sell part of yourself, forsaking full self ownership. The part of YOU that is results are owned by someone else. Being owned by someone else is slavery.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs, slavery is non-voluntary and not consentual. That's why I said at worst you can call it indentured servitude, which is when a person litterally sells all their freedoms and becomes a slave for a set amount of time and can't opt out. That is nothing like agreeing to do a task and receiving a reward for doing it. You are not trading away any of your rights or freedoms.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter All your doing is playing with semantics to make it sound not as bad.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs, what do you mean I'm trying not "to make it sound not as bad"? How is it bad? Most of modern civilization was built from wage labor. You are the one trying to twist definitions to make it sound like slavery.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter Pre civil war most of the then modern civilization was built on chattel slavery. Just because it's common doesn't mean it's good.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs, but there is a massive difference. Slavery involves initiating force against another person and taking away their rights without consent. Wage labor is consentual and no rights are taken away. I do a task, you give me a reward, everyone wins and there is no initiation of force. It's not immoral and it certainly doesn't fit the defenition of slavery.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter Chattel slavery used violence. Wage slavery uses fraud. It only appears to be voluntary because fraud LOOKS voluntary.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs Wage slavery is enforced by force. The existance of private property is dependant on the threat of force for those who violate is, and this force comes from the power of the state. If one took what was made by oneself using the means of production posesed by a capitalist and tried to sell it for yourself you would be charged with theft. The fact the the state protects private property, and private ownership of the means of production means that you are coerced into wage slavery.
mutantguitarist123 1 year ago
@mutantguitarist123
"The existance of private property is dependant on the threat of force for those who violate is, and this force comes from the power of the state"
I can shoot you with my own gun if it makes you feel any better XD
"If one took what was made by oneself and tried to sell it for yourself you would be charged with theft."
Because such economic good was already paid by the entrepreneur, just because a worker gets involved in a productive process doesnt mean he owns it.
Wraith23 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs, how is it fraud? Fraud requires lying or making false promises. I promise I will give you X dollars if you complete this task. As long as I pay it is not fraud.
Houshalter 1 year ago
I think your argument here is fallacious. I no way does 'wage slavery' mean that you do not own the product of your labor (except in the case of taxes).
The product of labor is the refinement or transfer of a good. This does not give the laborer a claim to the good in anyway. As, the majority of the work that has gone into the good was done by someone else. The worker only owns the refinement or transfer that was performed, which the worker agreed to sell prior to the action taking place.
amcnea 1 year ago
@amcnea IF and that is the really big IF.... IF the worker owns the refinement and agrees to sell it it, then it is not wage slavery. That is selling the product of labor. The worker owned the Product, not the labor, and sold it.
IF the worker is getting payed for the labor of the refinement, not the product of the action, then that IS wage slavery.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs
No one is paid for just random labor. Such as moving a pencil 3 feet and then moving back and repeating for 8 hours. When a person is paid for labor it is always for a specific task or product. If a person performs labor but does not produce the product they will be fired (regardless of how much labor is performed). Hence the laborer is always selling a product and not his labor. This is why I believe your argument is fallacious. (Except for taxes, that is total slavery.)
amcnea 1 year ago
@amcnea I see what you are saying now. I agree no one is payed for random labor. All jobs produce something, and it is that product the employer wants. We agree on this point. The REALITY of any job is payment for products.
The fraud occurs when the employer says "I will pay for labor". They are not paying for labor, they are paying for the product of labor. Just as whips and chains where the tools used to keep chattel slaves, this fraud is the tool used to keep wage slaves.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs
'The fraud occurs when the employer says "I will pay for labor"'
But no employer says that. The employer says "You will be responsible for completing [something], and I will pay you to do so." The responsibilities are usually defined in the job description. The completion of these responsibilities is what the laborer is producing and selling. And, the completion of these responsibility is what the employer is buying.
amcnea 1 year ago
"There is not an intrinsic ownership of the results of your actions"
When I apply for a job, they tell me what the job is and what the job pays. If I voluntarily accept the job, I keep the wage I volunteer to receive. THAT IS the product of my labor. If I don't think it's a fair deal, I can just take the risks, and buy the infrastructure, and try to work for myself. Even then, however, I don't get to ask for money based on the sum of my labor, but based on the VALUE of the product.
hugesinker 1 year ago
Isn't a capitalist just as dependent on the market as the worker is on the capitalist?
Both are dependent on the actions of others in order to survive.
billburns2 1 year ago
Would you consider loaning money to be wage slavery as well?
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney It would depend on the terms of the loan. I have not thought though this aspect yet, so I can't elaborate on what terms would be exploitative, wage slavery.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
But let's assume it can be shown that it's solely the workers labor that produces 10X, yet they are only being paid X. Even then, this is not wage slavery, since the worker is agreeing to trade 9X that may or may not end up in a selling product in return for an immediate and guaranteed wage of X. This can be thought of in the same context as a loan. You are being given X amount of money immediately in return for giving back 5X a few decades later.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney Once again, You are insisting that the workers own the product of their labor and agree to sell it at a reduced price and guaranteed sale of all goods. This is not wage slavery.
There is no agreement to sell the product of labor in wage slavery. It is just owned by the capitalist, under the fraud of paying for labor, not the product of labor. It is this fraud that lead to the exploitation of workers.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
The only way you can claim that a worker is only partially owning the fruit of their labor is if you make the assertion that the value of what they created was derived solely from their labor and not the capital that the capitalist was mixing with it. This assertion is false, as I demonstrated in my video.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney You obviously didn't watch the whole video. At the end I asked the question How do you determine part ownership of a product that took 300 people and expensive capital goods to make? I did include capital goods. The productivity is not solely based on the labor.
My claim is that payment for LABOR is fraud, wage slavery,explotation. Labor has no value. Only the product of labor has value. Capital goods have value to. Renting these goods to labor would not be wage slavery.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs Yes. I did watch the whole video. It depends on how you think of it. You could just as easily think of a wage not in terms of paying for labor, but rather paying a guaranteed immediate value in order to relieve you of the time and risk involved in waiting to see if the product sells or flops.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney Umm, yes. If there is not the fraud of "paying for labor" it is not wage slavery. If both parties recognize that it payment for the product of labor it is not paying for labor.
You recognizing that my brother is getting payed for the product of his labor does not mean he is not a wage slave. He believes he is getting payed for labor, his boss claims he is paying for labor, not the product of labor. The parties involved and committing fraud.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs,
This argument does not properly recognize that the "wages" (money) could possibly equate to the "product of labor".
I assume you understand the function of money??
Nevertheless, wage slavery can/does exist, but it is only in the condition where some sort of force is used to withhold more value from one's labor than would be extracted in the absence of the force.
The presence of force is what merits the qualification for slavery, not merely wages themselves.
ElDukerino1 1 year ago
@ElDukerino1 I am proposing something relatively unseen before. I understand the resistance to it.
"The presence of force is what merits the qualification for slavery" I would only change this to "The presence of force OR FRAUD (sorry for caps, no italics) is what merits..."
Labor has no intrinsic value, only the product of labor has value. Insisting that payment is for the valueless labor, not the product of that labor is fraud.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs
Right, I'd also consider FRAUD to be a "force" qualifying it as slavery.
However, it's well understood by many who recieve wages what they're getting into...they're choosing to participate in the division of labor to produce end products for which they very well may be receiving a just value for.
Wage systems alone don't qualify as slavery...it is unjust capital distribution that facilites bargaining power disparity & ability to perpetrate fraud which is when slavery arises.
ElDukerino1 1 year ago
@ElDukerino1 I am arguing that there are wage systems that do qualify as slavery. Labor has no intrinsic Value. When some one says I will pay for Labor, that is fraud. They WILL NOT pay for labor. They pay for the product of labor. If Labor had value, then swinging a hammer in an empty field would be worth just as much as at a construction site.
Not all wage systems are slavery. Job lot production is not wage slavery. Commissioned sales is not wage slavery.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs
You're making absurd distinctions here..nobody offers to "pay for labor" in sense you're implying, of course it's understood wages are for "product of labor", everyone knows it.
Do people w/ capital have advantage over someone with none when negotiating wages? Yes! That's the problem!
I guess you're suggesting laborers ultimately should get share of profits which I'd be for, but I bet many wouldn't choose lower fixed wage for the upside potential, hence it's not slavery.
ElDukerino1 1 year ago
@ElDukerino1 Well, we have a clear disagreement on one of the basics. I do see many employers offering pay for labor. I see many people that believe they are being payed for that labor, not the product of the labor. This would be a very good topic for a sociology paper.
I am for workers getting a share of the profits. Better yet would be direct pay for production so individual efforts pay off, like sales or job lot production.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs
Well not to be insensitive, but these people you're talking about are probably lucky to get whatever they're getting if they really think that (although firstly they are unlucky to have not received a good education).
The solution to wage slavery is to eliminate the disadvantages some people have starting out in life..once that's addressed, then wage systems would function more justly.
ElDukerino1 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs "I am for workers getting a share of the profits."
1. Than you DO agree that workers do not own the product of their labor 100%.
2. A lot of people have contract like this, it's called: working on commission.
3. A lot of people don't WANT to work on commission, because it doesn't provide a steady income and//or workers don't know how to sell the product (when commission is paid in % of produced items).
janc71 1 year ago
@janc71
1) workers do own 100% of the product of their labor.....but their labor is only a fraction of the total labor/costs of the finished product.
2)Yes, not EVERY job is wage slavery, just most.
3)What people want is irrelevant to my argument. Many argued that Chattel slaves "Wanted" to be slaves
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
Comment removed
janc71 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs 1. They did voluntarily parted with the product of their labor, and decided to work for wage instead.
2. Commission or not, the contract is voluntary!! You don't HAVE to work for a wage.
3. Oh, it's not relevant?! Okay, but then it is also totally irrelevant what YOU want. Just leave me alone and let me decide for myself, what I want to do, who I work for, and on what conditions!
And yes, if I would want to be a slave (which I wouldn't), it should be my right.
janc71 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs
I was going through my old comments box & found this one...
I can see what you're saying a little more clearly after reading your other comments here, but you're really confusing the matter by claiming this is fraud by employers. To put it another way, what you are maybe suggesting here is that employers have a responsibility to do the following:
1) inform a worker that they are participating in making the product (duh)
2) aprise employee at w/ some frequency what (cont'd)...
ElDukerino1 11 months ago
..(cont'd)..
2) aprise employee at some frequency what the net income of the entire co-op organisation is, and
3) re-negotiate the amount of employees compensation with some frequency.
If all this is done, and the employee is offered & chooses to earn $8/hr all along the way, would you consider that wage slavery?
ElDukerino1 11 months ago
(cont'd).
I should add these to the employer responsibilities:
4) devise some mechanism to determine the employee's contribution toward total end products (share in value produced),
5) describe what are the required duties of the employee (what they do & how quickly they must do it).
ElDukerino1 11 months ago
@SpamSpamNEggs Does the product have an intrinsic value?
barccy 1 year ago
@barccy
Short answer: Yes, products have an intrinsic value.
Long answer:Yes, but I'm talking economics, not philosophy so that's all the answer your getting. In philosophy there have been arguments, and good ones, that PEOPLE don't exist, let alone have value.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
You make really bad arguments, man... working for a wage is individually voluntary. Your employer does not "own the product of your labor," she owns "the product you voluntarily give her." Actual slavery and taxation are by definition involuntary, proactively coercive. The formal concept of "wage slavery" is based on exploitation theory, which is premised on the fallacious labor theory of value. Wage slavery as such is a non-concept and does not exist.
asdfgasdfasdful 1 year ago
@asdfgasdfasdful "The product you voluntarily give her" Try walking out of a factory with some of the product and see what happens, you will see just how "voluntary" that giving is.
Wage slavery is coercive. It uses fraud instead of force, but that is still coercion.
"Fallacious labor theory of Value" where did I mention the labor theory of value? Just because others have made invalid arguments about Wage Slavery does not mean my argument is invalid.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs
Uh try walking away from the pawn shop with your television after you voluntarily sell it to the pawn shop. Are you proactively coerced by your employer or the pawn shop into agreeing to sell your product to them? No. It is voluntary.
asdfgasdfasdful 1 year ago
@asdfgasdfasdful You are not selling your product to the employer. You never owned the product. The employer makes the claim that they own, with out trade, the product of your labor.
This is proactively coerced by the fraud that they are paying for labor, not the product of labor.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs
Uh no. You are indeed selling your product to your employer. That is your "labor." Your employer does not own your "labor" as in "owning" *you* when you are at work, she rather owns the product you voluntarily give (usually according to a voluntarily agreed-upon employment contract which you are free to abandon at any time). This is not proactively coerced in any sense and is quite obviously not fraudulent unless she refuses to pay you the previously agreed-upon amount or w/e.
asdfgasdfasdful 1 year ago
@asdfgasdfasdful You really don't see the difference between owning your Labor and owning the PRODUCT of labor. In Wage Slavery employers do not claim to own the Labor, they pay for that, they claim to own the PRODUCT of the labor. For true self ownership, you must own the PRODUCT of your labor not just the labor. Labor has NO VALUE, only the product of labor has value.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs
Owning the product of your labor necessarily entails being able to voluntarily agree sell it to someone else.
asdfgasdfasdful 1 year ago
@asdfgasdfasdful It also necessarily entails being able to voluntarily agree NOT to sell it. I can not go to a factory, make the product and bring it home. A wage slave is deprived by coercion of the option to NOT sell.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs
Right and in wage employment you necessarily can choose not to sell it. You can quit. You can get another job. You can start your own business. You can become an artisan. Whatever. And you voluntarily chose to agree to it in the first place by definition. If you do not have the option of voluntarily agreeing not to sell her the product of your labor, and are in fact proactively coerced into doing so, it's actual slavery, not your non-concept of "wage slavery."
asdfgasdfasdful 1 year ago
@asdfgasdfasdful In wage employment you do not have the option to not sell to an employer. The options you presented are Don't make, or sell. Don't make is very different than don't sell.
Start your own business, become an artisan, these are not wage slavery to employers. You are getting payed for the product of your labor. As a small business owner you own the product that your business, your labor, produces. You are not working for a "wage" you are working for profits.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs
Wage employment is voluntary, you by definition do have the option not to sell, make, or do anything for the employer. I don't what point you think you're making here, man. You seem like an unintelligent person. Just sayin.
asdfgasdfasdful 1 year ago
@asdfgasdfasdful Wage employment is only Partially voluntary. Wage Slavery is Partial self ownership. You do have the option to not work for an employer, you own your body. You have the option to sell to the employer, you own your labor. You do not have the option to NOT sell to your employer, you DO NOT own the product of your labor.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs
Yes, you do have the option not to sell to your employer and whatever particulars of your wage employment are detailed in the employment contract you voluntarily sign and agree to. That is the difference between taxes (non-voluntary, proactive coercion) vs. wage labor (mutual, voluntary). You have ownership over your income because there is an intersubjective consensus on property that stipulates criteria along the lines of what you have created yourself or voluntarily received.
asdfgasdfasdful 1 year ago
@asdfgasdfasdful OK, so You own your income because you created it yourself, or it was voluntarily given to you. No special contract is needed to say you own your income. It is yours because you made it, not because a contract says it's yours. It is only by use of coercion that the government can claim some of it.
Since this coercion happens on a continuous basis, is it un reasonable to call it slavery?
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs
Well, you "own" it because those are the criteria for ownership according to most naturally evolved intersubjective consensus standards for "ownership." There are no objective criteria for ownership. It would be somewhat unreasonable to call taxation "slavery" because slavery has other elements such imprisonment, however it is qualitatively similar to slavery. It would be more accurate to call it mass legitimated extortion.
asdfgasdfasdful 1 year ago
@asdfgasdfasdful LOL You see where I'm going with this, so you've started splitting hairs so you can back track when I'm done. "no objective criteria for ownership" really? Imprisonment as a condition of slavery? Really?
You do understand my argument, it is reasonable, you just can't admit it to yourself or me. I understand, letting go of faith can be hard.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs
Dude... I'm not sure you understand what these words mean. If you think there are objective criteria for "ownership," you're just wrong. Property rights are like any other rights - intersubjective. And yes, slavery is generally held to include the quality of not being allowed to escape or move freely around i.e. imprisonment. You are generally allowed to emigrate from states and move around within them. You don't have an argument. You're just confused about definitions.
asdfgasdfasdful 1 year ago
@asdfgasdfasdful You did a much better job of arguing your point than most on YouTube. You only made one Blatantly false argument, and stopped when I called you out on it. You stuck to a consistent argument almost all the way to the end.
You now seem dedicated to distraction and dissemination. Yes my argument requires you to look past the "Status Quo" and that is very hard for most people. I was hoping you could.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs
The problem I have with your argument is that you seem to forget that the employer owns the means of production (e.g. a machine). So it's simply not yours to use to produce stuff.
But it IS possible to voluntarily set up a contract that says: "I let you work the machine and in return I give you a salary (OR a percentage of (the profit made from) the goods you produce)".
janc71 1 year ago
@janc71 I don't argue that the employer owns the machine. I'm agruing that "I will give you money to run the machine" is both fraud and a form of slavery. I will rent you the machine would be just fine. I will pay a % of profits would be just fine. I will buy the product at reduced cost would be fine. Just not money for labor.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@asdfgasdfasdful I did very little to address wage slavery in the work place in my video because of exactly this kind of debate. You can't get past the appearance of voluntary action in Wage work. I addressed Wage slavery in Taxes and Crime, so lets move the conversation there.
Do you believe that The Income Tax is Theft? Why? What gives you ownership of your income?
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago