Living Wages and Wage Slavery

[WinePusher]

I read a post on this forum that referenced the concept of living wages and it got me thinking. So, here's a thread about it:

1) Should the government impose a living wage standard? In other words, should the government impose a minimum wage? Are minimum wages and living wages the same thing?

2) Is the concept of wage slavery correct and legitimate?

3) If someone does not make enough money to take care of themselves and their family, what should be done?

[Nickman]

That is a great point. The amount of compensation a corporate executive earns is based upon merit and performance. At first glance, it may seem ridiculous that one individual person is making billions of dollars annually. But, when you look at it in a wider context it makes sense because the billions the executive is making is only a fraction of the total value he generated for the company. And if it were not for his ingenuity the ordinary worker would have suffered.

That is a horrible point. CEOs spend very little time doing the actual job that makes corporations huge. Most CEOs are born into their positions. They have very little skills doing anything but getting wealthy. They come to snuff the rooster, but he ain't gonna die.

[bluethread]

Here is a little community in Spain, when faced with high unemployment, started becoming 'communist'.

It concentrated on producing things that were labor intensive, such as artichokes and things like that.. so people would have jobs.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/o ... age-utopia

Mind you, this is on a local level. However, by focusing on JOBS, and not on profit and efficiency, it was able to raise the standard of living for the people in the community.

It seems to me that there are many ways to go about the same basic principles.. but that isn't talking about 'economies of scale', and 'efficiency'... but by realizing people are people, and need and would like to work.

So, what is a JOB? It is a task or series of tasks defined in scope and duration by one party that is performed by another party for compensation. What is profit? It is income less expenditures. In a true communal cooperative, the party defining the tasks and providing the compensation is the same as the party performing the tasks. Therefore, if the example presented is a true communal cooperative, there are no jobs, there is merely self sustaining activity. So, since one is dependent upon the collective for ones needs and is directed by the collective, this to could be seen as a form of slavery. I doubt this is the case, however, because true communal cooperatives are very rare and short lived, due to the natural human tendency towaed personal self interest.

The example presented appears to be more of a command and control economy, which most attempts at communism eventually devolve into. I doubt that their beloved mayor is working long hours in the fields with them. We have these kind of self sustaining economies around here. They are useful in hard times, like the situation in the example presented, where people are happy to work hard and live in modest means in a directed lifestyle. However, I think that the happiness comes more from the hard work and modest means, than from the directed lifestyle. Also, in good times it becomes difficult to keep the kids on the farm. People will often wish to take more than their "fair share" and mot work as hard in those times. Therefore, I believe an economy that accounts for competing self interest is better than one that sacrifices freedom and trusts the system.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 58 by Goat]

Well of course people want JOBS. If the only purpose was is to end unemployment the government could hire a million people to dig holes, and then hire a million more to fill them back in. How long do you think that can last? Do you think people would be better or worse off in the long run?

[Goat]

[Replying to post 58 by Goat]

Well of course people want JOBS. If the only purpose was is to end unemployment the government could hire a million people to dig holes, and then hire a million more to fill them back in. How long do you think that can last? Do you think people would be better or worse off in the long run?

In the long run a heck of a lot better then chronic unemployment, that's for sure

[help3434]

Capitalism has been the best way the alleviate poverty, and Capitalism has the best track record when it comes to poverty reduction.

This is a myth whose time approaches for it to be busted in the common consciousness. The short answer is that it is empire that has the best record of alleviating poverty for the populations at the heart of the empire. Yes the old Soviet system managed to impoverish its own population, but empires first impoverish populations elsewhere, until they decline and that poverty comes to the homeland. The examples of capitalism raising standards of living without lowering them elsewhere are fleeting. The mathematical reality is that wealth cannot be created it can only be shifted around the planet.

Nonsense. Technological revolutions like the Green Revolution allow us to use resources more efficiently.

How does this point address what is said and how does it show it is nonsense. For example how does it show that capitalism is or is not the best record for alleviating poverty.

I was referring to the last sentence in what I quoted. Increased efficiency means that there is not just a static amount of wealth being shuffled around.

Why can't a country have free enterprise system without being imperialistic?

Capitalism is the control and accumulation of wealth. Denying freedom to others whilst keeping them for ourselves is the most efficient means to accumulate wealth tried and tested throughout history. For a country to avoid imperialism requires given up a lot. This will include its military and spies, it must also ensure it is not involved in the bribery of officials and heads of states, that it does not use financial institutions to aid its cause like the World Bank and IMF for instance, and it must engender polices that means it does to exploit the populations of other countries.

That is why I used the term "free enterprise" rather than the more negative term capitalism. Certainly nations that did not have a free market domestically have engaged in mercantilism.

Yes, lets think outside of our own borders. What is going to happen to the people in Eastern countries with these jobs if we put all of these trade barriers up? It seems like a lose/lose policy to me.

Well let's renegotiate GATT and restructure our own economies on to the cooperative model. Not just put up trade barriers. The problem here is not trade as in goods passing from one country to another, it is capital being moved around the world to seek out the lowest labour costs. Put it this way if General Motors was a cooperative do you think they would have exported their jobs to the far east. No they wouldn't. If China for instance wanted to compete with GM which is their right then they would have to develop their own car manufacturing much like Japan did. What we need to get rid of is the ability for a factory owner to close down a factory in the West, reopen the same manufacturing capacity in the East and export the same basic good backs to us.

This is bad for those that lost their job in the West, but good for those that gained a job elsewhere. In your proposal those people would have not gained that job, prices would be higher, and people in the West would still lose jobs because some jobs here depend on cheap imports from elsewhere. That is why I call it lose/lose.

That is insane....and as you mention the green revolution...this is clearly not resource efficient because now you have to add in a layer of transport that was not previously required to get the good back to the home market.

The green revolution was an agricultural revolution that prevented mass starvation. What you are trying to say is that the globalization of the economy is not efficient. You are wrong in saying that the added level of transportation is a sign that it is not efficient. It is not "required", it is done because it is more efficient than producing it at home.

It is also worth noting that for the goods that arrive back with us to be the same price or cheaper the cost of labour by definition has to be cheaper because of this new added cost of transportation added into the equation.

Yes, obviously the comparative advantage of producing something somewhere else would have to be significant to make it worth the cost of transporting it overseas.

[WinePusher]

That is a great point. The amount of compensation a corporate executive earns is based upon merit and performance. At first glance, it may seem ridiculous that one individual person is making billions of dollars annually. But, when you look at it in a wider context it makes sense because the billions the executive is making is only a fraction of the total value he generated for the company. And if it were not for his ingenuity the ordinary worker would have suffered.

That is a horrible point. CEOs spend very little time doing the actual job that makes corporations huge. Most CEOs are born into their positions. They have very little skills doing anything but getting wealthy. They come to snuff the rooster, but he ain't gonna die.

Where's the proof? These are all just unsupported claims and uninformed opinions. First of all, a companies size depends on its profit margin. And profits are themselves dependent upon good management and decision making skills. The people who make the decisions and manage the company are the executives, so when a company thrives it is due to good corporate management and if a company fails it is also due to poor and lousy corporate management.

Second of all, you said that 'most CEOs are born into their position' and that they have 'very little skills.' Where's the proof that CEOs are born into their position? Just admit you made this part up because we both know that isn't the case. And, being an executive requires knowledge and skills in business, computer science, marketing, management, etc. Ordinary people generally don't know anything about these things, which is why it takes a high level of skill to become an executive.

[WinePusher]

That is a great point. The amount of compensation a corporate executive earns is based upon merit and performance. At first glance, it may seem ridiculous that one individual person is making billions of dollars annually. But, when you look at it in a wider context it makes sense because the billions the executive is making is only a fraction of the total value he generated for the company. And if it were not for his ingenuity the ordinary worker would have suffered.

That is a horrible point. CEOs spend very little time doing the actual job that makes corporations huge. Most CEOs are born into their positions. They have very little skills doing anything but getting wealthy. They come to snuff the rooster, but he ain't gonna die.

Where's the proof? These are all just unsupported claims and uninformed opinions. First of all, a companies size depends on its profit margin. And profits are themselves dependent upon good management and decision making skills. The people who make the decisions and manage the company are the executives, so when a company thrives it is due to good corporate management and if a company fails it is also due to poor and lousy corporate management.

Second of all, you said that 'most CEOs are born into their position' and that they have 'very little skills.' Where's the proof that CEOs are born into their position? Just admit you made this part up because we both know that isn't the case. And, being an executive requires knowledge and skills in business, computer science, marketing, management, etc. Ordinary people generally don't know anything about these things, which is why it takes a high level of skill to become an executive.

[Nickman]

Where's the proof? These are all just unsupported claims and uninformed opinions. First of all, a companies size depends on its profit margin. And profits are themselves dependent upon good management and decision making skills. The people who make the decisions and manage the company are the executives, so when a company thrives it is due to good corporate management and if a company fails it is also due to poor and lousy corporate management.

Management isn't the only thing that makes the company. Infact the workers are what make the company strong. It is the abilities of the frontline supervisors, and lower management that helps keep things running properly, not the CEOs. If you know anything about management, micro-managing is harmful to a company. Hence, CEOs deligate to the frontline supervisors and lower management to take care of things. The supervisors and low-level managers rely on the efficiency of their staff. CEOs rarely see this side of their company. They use the chain-of-command.

Second of all, you said that 'most CEOs are born into their position' and that they have 'very little skills.' Where's the proof that CEOs are born into their position? Just admit you made this part up because we both know that isn't the case. And, being an executive requires knowledge and skills in business, computer science, marketing, management, etc. Ordinary people generally don't know anything about these things, which is why it takes a high level of skill to become an executive.

Many CEOs are handed their positions based on kin. Regardless, CEOs rarely know the inner workings of the lower levels. If I asked my commander to do my job, he wouldn't know what to do. That is why I am in the position that I am in. As a supervisor, I am required to take care of business, not my commander. My commander has no hand in my job, and wouldn't know but the basics of what I do.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 58 by Goat]

Well of course people want JOBS. If the only purpose was is to end unemployment the government could hire a million people to dig holes, and then hire a million more to fill them back in. How long do you think that can last? Do you think people would be better or worse off in the long run?

In the long run a heck of a lot better then chronic unemployment, that's for sure

This exchange reminds me of this clip of Milton Freedman.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hrg1CArkuNc How long could the economy sustain having tons of jobs that there is no demand for?

[Goat]

[Replying to post 58 by Goat]

Well of course people want JOBS. If the only purpose was is to end unemployment the government could hire a million people to dig holes, and then hire a million more to fill them back in. How long do you think that can last? Do you think people would be better or worse off in the long run?

In the long run a heck of a lot better then chronic unemployment, that's for sure

This exchange reminds me of this clip of Milton Freedman.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hrg1CArkuNc How long could the economy sustain having tons of jobs that there is no demand for?

And, who said there is no demand for those jobs?? IN that community, they chose to grow things that are human resource intensive to harvest, and could not be done by machine. Do you understand the difference between what they did, and proclaiming 'Jobs there are no demand for'.

You built one massive straw man.