Why We Love "Wage Slavery"

How hierarchical structures of production are the result of consumers maximizing utility in the marketplace due to increased efficiency. We love "wage slavery".

This video and its script are protected by a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/

Category:

Education

Tags:

• wage
• slavery
• free
• market
• free market
• anarchism
• anarcho-capitalism
• anarcho-communism
• communism
• socialism
• hierarchy
• boss
• corporate
• corporation
• business
• horizontal
• labor
• work
• structure
• organization
• structures of production
• production
• consumption
• prices
• profit
• products
• manufacturing
• efficiency
• economics
• government
• regulations
• contracts
• employer
• employee
• competition
• liquidity
• cooperative

[QuatFax]

Also, I notice you don't respond to any of the arguments made in the video that this is a response to.

[adjohnson916]

@QuatFax This wasn't really meant to be a response, but I posted it as such because it's the same topic and I wanted to get at least a few views (I don't have enough subs to justify making many stand-alone videos). I'm sort of friends with LaughingMan0X, we've talked on Skype, and he didn't have to accept it, but he did anyway, so I guess he approves, so there.

[QuatFax]

It is true that firms have to attract consumers. But they also have to attract workers. If workers won't work at a firm, it doesn't matter how efficient that firm is; it won't produce anything. With the opportunity presented, workers would obviously chose horizontal firms over hierarchal ones. Why would a worker chose to work for less money and without power when she could work for more money and play a role in decision-making?

[adjohnson916]

@QuatFax I think I did mention the labor market in my video. But it's not clear workers will always prefer horizontal environments. Perhaps are not confident in what to do and prefer to be told. Perhaps they don't want the responsibility of making decisions. I don't care, it's up to them. Again, it doesn't matter to me. In this video I am critiquing the perspective that voluntary hierarchy is evil regardless of any consumer preferences to the contrary. There are those who believe this.

[QuatFax]

The fact that horizontal firms don't currently dominate the economy doesn't prove they are less efficient. We do not live in anything like a free market. Government restrictions on finance, land use, trade, and "intellectual property, along with transportation subsidies, all encourage large-scale, hierarchal firms relative to small-scale cooperative firms. In the absence of these market distortions, horizontally-organized firms would likely dominate.

[adjohnson916]

@QuatFax I'm of the Austrian orientation with respect to economics and the social sciences, so obviously I am highly skeptical of using statistics or examples as evidence of specific policies outside of correlation, because isolating just one among all the pertinent factors and variables, as in the laboratory experiments of the physical sciences, is nearly impossible. You are correct it doesn't prove anything conclusively, but there's still something to be said mildly about the correlation.

[QuatFax]

@s0beit As for your example, I would tend to think of the janitorial staff as almost a different business than the people who actually run the power plant. I imagine that the janitors would self-manage their cleaning while the plant workers would self-manage the plant. They're certainly completely different jobs, and one has little to do with the other. This is just my speculation, of course; different coops and industries will make different decisions about this.

[QuatFax]

@s0beit True, I'm certain workers would like to have the OPTION of making decisions in the workplace, even if they don't usually care to take advantage of it. I can't really see a lot of reasons why worker coops would be less attractive to workers than ordinary businesses. I imagine that for the vast majority of workers, they would be willing to start their own businesses (individually or collectively) if it were easier to do so, but as it is, they're too discouraged by all the barriers.

[QuatFax]

@s0beit Generally I agree with you there: as long as it's anarcho. The one issue I have with what you said is that you're against "stealing private property." I am against stealing, but what constitutes stealing depends on what constitutes property. Surely you'll agree that there are different definitions of property, and that it isn't clear that Lockean property will dominate in the absence of the state.

[s0beit]

@QuatFax However I still believe that people wish to externalize risk. People take jobs now not because they couldn't start their own businesses, hell, i did, but because they want a steady income and some people really don't care to direct a company. I don't mind working for people, especially if I'm not qualified to make certain decisions. Would a janitor have a vote in how a nuclear power plant is run? That seems a bit dangerous, if he's always outvoted, how is it different?

[s0beit]

@QuatFax Possibly, as long as it's truly "anarcho" and there's no coercion involved, the difference between anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-syndicalism is in the fine details. It really doesn't matter, to be honest. In my opinion, one is more realistic than the other but there's no way to tell. I can make guesses, but, in the end I don't have any problems with it as long as it's TRULY anarcho. No stealing private property, no shunning business people, if there's a competitive market it seems fine

[QuatFax]

@s0beit "Co-ops also don't reward growth very well, companies usually add employees before any extra benefit, so that would mean each time they wanted to hire they would need to work for less"

Well, no, they don't have an expansionary dynamic like other businesses, but that's not my point. My point is that businesses will have NO CHOICE but to adopt cooperative structures because they won't be able to hire anyone otherwise. Why work for a hierarchical business when you can just start a coop?

[QuatFax]

@s0beit Yes, but my point is the risk is GREATER than it would be without government intervention. Again, without regulations, it would be far easier for workers to start their own businesses. Faced with increased workers' bargaining powers, hierarchical businesses would be forced to adopt more participatory democratic structures in order to maintain employees. In this manner, worker self-management becomes the norm.

[s0beit]

@QuatFax Define "suppressing", the reason businesses exist as they do is because risk for the worker is externalized. One person puts up their capital to risk hoping for reward, but the possibility of failure is always there. Co-ops also don't reward growth very well, companies usually add employees before any extra benefit, so that would mean each time they wanted to hire they would need to work for less. Co-ops aren't any less hampered than normal businesses right now.

[QuatFax]

@s0beit Again, you are assuming that there aren't other alternatives that the state is suppressing. Without government intervention, it would be so easy for workers to start their own businesses, either individually or collectively, that it would be essentially impossible for businesses to exist without adopting participatory-democratic structures. Virtually any business would have to become a worker coop or a sole proprietorship. "Wage labor" would be replaced by self-management.

[QuatFax]

@s0beit But that's just the issue: the risk involved in starting a business is artificially higher than it would be in a free market. Things like regulatory cartels, banking restrictions, patents, transportation subsidies, and the like favor large, established businesses and increase the risk of taking a new business onto the market. This allows the few businesses that DO survive to obtain greater rents from workers or consumers.