Are labor supply and freedom related?

[Velociryx]

Ummm...how do my morals have ANYTHING to do with YOUR sense of what is fair (which was the question)? It is not as though you are a puppet, and I am pulling your strings...the question was regarding YOU and your sense of fairness. My morals do not enter into such an equation.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Agree, Brother Arrian! Just...trying to figure out exactly WHAT Kid is proposing.

Not that I believe HE knows the answer to that question...LOL!

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Just an observation: If you seek to equalize everybody in THAT manner (ie, make everyone of the same level of fitness, with the same drive for hard work...you know, in order that everything be all nice and "fair" and "equal" my question is this: aside from genetically engineering everyone to be EXACTLY like you...how exactly, would you propose getting to this type of equality?

-=Vel=-

How many ****ing times do I have to repeat myself? You do it by communal ownership of the means of production. Do you even have any idea what communism is about? For Christs sake I waste my time with you.

[Kidlicious]

I have to concertrate on what I'm doing now. I can't be bothered anymore.

[Velociryx]

So...communal ownership of the means of production will make it so that you and I both have the same work ethic and drive?

How?

How will forcing me to submit to the will of the state make us equal?

I submit to you that you would be content to live as the state decreed, and I would be among the *many* who would simply seek out the black market (which thrived even in soviet russia) and get, according to you "more than my fair share."

And you still have not answered the earlier question regarding how the state's "usage fee" is ANY different from "rent." I am most curious to hear your explanation!

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

I just found out this assignment isn't due for another week. I can procrastinate more like the dirty little commie that I am.

Vel,

People are pretty much equal in ability. If they aren't it's usually because they are sick or disabled.

And I did tell you why a usage fee (that goes to no person in particular, but is simple a tool for efficient allocation of resources) is different from rent (which is a transfer payment from one individual to another).

[Velociryx]

Kid, the usage fee goes to the state machine (and not to an individual) and therefore, that's okay, even tho it is still a transfer of payment (in this case, from the individual to the state).

That would be like saying that if I own several apartment buildings under the guise of a corporation, my charging them a "usage fee" for the apartments they live in would be okay, since (per your own definition) the money is going to no one in particular, but to the "machine" - it is the same with your example, is it not?

And I disagree.

I am a strapping, strong fellow, but I could not lift anywhere nearly the amount of weight that an olympic bodybuilder could. Thus, he and I are NOT equal in that regard.

Likewise, I have probably forgotten more about computers than most casual users will ever learn. Sit me down in front of a piece of software I have never seen before, and sit someone else down who has used AOL for casual e-mailing, and let's see who figures out the software first.

We are not equal in ability in the least, and tying us to the yoke of the State Machine will not make it so.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Kid, the usage fee goes to the state machine (and not to an individual) and therefore, that's okay, even tho it is still a transfer of payment (in this case, from the individual to the state).

That would be like saying that if I own several apartment buildings under the guise of a corporation, my charging them a "usage fee" for the apartments they live in would be okay, since (per your own definition) the money is going to no one in particular, but to the "machine" - it is the same with your example, is it not?

No. The usage fee does not result in a greater distribution of resources going to the state. It's just a method of allocating goods and services among the population. Rent results in one class of people receiving less goods and services than another.

You didn't think that things would actually be free in a communist society did you? That's just crazy Marxist utopia talk. You will still have to pay for things. The difference is that the money you pay is just redistributed back into society, not to a ruling class.

And I disagree.

I am a strapping, strong fellow, but I could not lift anywhere nearly the amount of weight that an olympic bodybuilder could. Thus, he and I are NOT equal in that regard.

Likewise, I have probably forgotten more about computers than most casual users will ever learn. Sit me down in front of a piece of software I have never seen before, and sit someone else down who has used AOL for casual e-mailing, and let's see who figures out the software first.

We are not equal in ability in the least, and tying us to the yoke of the State Machine will not make it so.

-=Vel=-

Everyone has some talent that they can use to be productive. Not everyone has equal physical stregth, but if you put people to work at something they are good at they can be productive.

[Velociryx]

Absolutely the "usage fee" to the state results in greater distribution of resources TO the state, and further, it sets up exactly what you describe...a situation whereby a certain class of people (in this case, those who elect NOT to make use of the state's stuff, thereby not paying the usage fee) WILL have greater resources than those who opt to pay into the system.

IE - let's say that every week, you pay the state usage fee of twenty bucks to borrow the communal lawn mower (well, when it's working...since it is community property, nobody is particularly inclined to spend their hard earned dollars to maintain it, and the state maintinance shop hasn't been paid in six months, and are not overly inclined to take care of it either), and I do not.

Over the course of a month, I have longer grass than you, but I also have $80 extra dollars. I use this money to buy myself a goat, who eats the grass and gets me out of trouble with the People's Committee on Good and Proper Grass Length (who can put me in a re-education camp, I presume, if I don't march properly to the People's Drum), and so, I set up a situation whereby, over the course of a year, I will suddenly have more than a thousand MORE dollars than you.

This is not equal, thus, per the definition of your Utopia, it must be evil...no telling what I might do with that extra money...it opens the door for me to do all sorts of exploitation. And over time, the difference between our households will grow. If left unchecked, I will have vastly more financial influence than you....

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

And what you say is absolutely true.

EVERYONE has talents and skills that can be put to productive use.

We need not be lashed to the State Machine for this to be true...it is true right now. This very moment.

-=Vel=-

[Flubber]

I'm still looking for an indication of where I stated you were lazy.

[Kidlicious]

Flubber,

Nevermind.

[Flubber]

OH and as for the initial question . . . it really depends on how you define freedom. A tighter labor supply willusually lead to higher incomes which provides additional economic freedom. To the extent that lack of funds constricts freedom, an ample labor supply with lower wages would result in less free folks

[Kidlicious]

What about rights to unionize. It seems to me that the tighter the labor supply that harder business is going to try to make it difficult legally to unionize. If there's plenty of labor supply and/or they can go off shore. They can just let the market take care of their problems.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious
What about rights to unionize. It seems to me that the tighter the labor supply that harder business is going to try to make it difficult legally to unionize. If there's plenty of labor supply and/or they can go off shore. They can just let the market take care of their problems.

You see to me, the tight labour market is one where the bisiness doesn't care as much about union involvement since they have to pay through the nose to get employees anyway and the employees enjoy higher wages and job security, which often make unionization drives tougher.

edit-- we may have to differntiate between mobile and non-mobile industries since it is difficult to talk about a tight or a loose labour market without considering the scope of that market. Obviously a given WAL-MART might face a tight labour market in their city for retail jobs even though there is ample supply elsewhere in the country or around the world.