Are labor supply and freedom related?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian


He worked, saved money, and bought the tractor.

And I've already said that he deserves compensation for that.

Here's a question... why do you deserve to use the tractor that Vel saved for and bought?

For nothing no. But how much rent is fair compensation and how much is exploitation?

[Velociryx]

If the fee's too high, you'll balk at using it. If I want the money, I've got to make the fee low enough that you'll consider it a worthwhile tradeoff.

We'll haggle, and come to an agreement.

Happens every day.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Usage fee, Kid...Usage fee. Not rent, remember? Same reason that the state charges one. It makes the allocation of my resource more efficient.

Also, there is the issue of what constitutes YOUR work.

Your work is the amount of work you can do.

By using MY tractor, I am an enabler. I am enabling you to do more work. Thus, as the facilitator of your greater productivity, I am entitled to a usage fee, as it creates for you, a situation where you are more productive with my tool than you were without it.

Based on the price (the amount of my usage fee) it falls to you to determine if it is "worth it" (ie, is the increased in productivity worth the fee)

Simple stuff, really.

-=Vel=-

You aren't facilitating anything. You aren't stoping me either, but you are charging a fee. That's exploitation. And a contradiction to your principle that people should keep all the fruits of their labor, because you are taking the workers fruits.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
If the fee's too high, you'll balk at using it. If I want the money, I've got to make the fee low enough that you'll consider it a worthwhile tradeoff.

We'll haggle, and come to an agreement.

Happens every day.

-=Vel=-

Haggle? Is that what you do when you go to rent a tool and Home Depot? Why is that fair?

[Velociryx]

Incorrect.

With my tractor, you are more productive than you are without it.

Use of my tractor facilitates the increase in your productivity.

You can save up money and buy your own tractor, yes, but in the here and now, you have an immediate need, and lack the funds to buy one outright.

You have already agreed that I deserve some compensation for your use of the tractor, so what is wrong with us haggling over the price until we are both satisfied?

Are you scared that you'll not be able to negotiate well? Remember, I WANT the usage fee, so I'm willing to deal. I don't wan to see you walk away without renting. Thus, how can you be exploited. We haggle, we BOTH agree the price is a fair one....what's the problem?

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Home depot has standardized their rent rates. No haggling there.

But that was not a part of the initial debate. I am not Home depot. I have the tractor you need, and I'm willing to deal.

Pony up, and greater productivity is yours!

-=Vel=-

[Flubber]

Plus the tractor is really represntative of an accumulation of the value of the labor that went into buying it. If it was my labor that paid for the tractor, it now sits their as a pool of accumulated labor value. You aren't saying that someone else can use this labor free of charge.

If you are, you get the silly situation where everyone parks their tractor after their individual workday is done since there is no value in allowing others to use the tractor

SO

1. either you have more tractors than you need since each person gets one
2. Or people use shovels and earn less money while tractors sit idle

So there is no advantage to buying a tractor -- you will thus achieve your goal that only government has them.

What I don't get is that government can then charge the very same usage fee that an individual cannot and thats ok with you. It seems that you don't care how much of the "value" of his work than an employee gets as long as no other INDIVIDUAL can ever profit.

Isn't that the basis of your whole ideology? A wage may be fair if paid by the state but if a capitalist paid twice the wage for the exact same work that is WRONG, BAD, EXPLOITIVE etc etc. The fact that capitalist and worker are all much better off is irrelevant if they have now deviated from your view of "equality"-- You seem to WANT a system where no one can "get ahead" of anyone else!!

[Velociryx]

And yes....I suspect you could even haggle a bit at Home depot, tho I have never tried.

If you complained that the usage fee was too high, they'd prolly bring out a manager and would work a lower rate for you. Try it and see!

-=Vel=-

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Velociryx
And yes....I suspect you could even haggle a bit at Home depot, tho I have never tried.

If you complained that the usage fee was too high, they'd prolly bring out a manager and would work a lower rate for you. Try it and see!

-=Vel=-

They do deal a little-- When I needed a rototiller during a time of lower demand ( a weekday), first you get the weekday rate and second they seem willing to let you have the thing for more hours than you pay for .. . Experiences on this may vary but the dept manager I dealt with couldn't adjust the "price" but he could let me have the thing for more hours than the price charged.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
Isn't that the basis of your whole ideology? A wage may be fair if paid by the state but if a capitalist paid twice the wage for the exact same work that is WRONG, BAD, EXPLOITIVE etc etc. The fact that capitalist and worker are all much better off is irrelevant if they have now deviated from your view of "equality"-- You seem to WANT a system where no one can "get ahead" of anyone else!!

Yes, I want a system where a class of people can't maintain their status through institutions that they create, and try to justify, only to contradict their own principles.

[Velociryx]

So....you propose to replace this system with a highly centralized, tightly controlled society which maintains its stranglehold on the populace by the institutions it creates, doling out an arbitrarily decreed "fairness" in the name of "liberty and justice and all", which contradicts its own principles.

I think I am beginning to see the light!

-=Vel=-

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Yes, I want a system where a class of people can't maintain their status through institutions that they create, and try to justify, only to contradict their own principles.

I may understand your problem with maintaining status, class structure etc etc but aren't you going further and essentially saying that no matter how hard someone works, or how smart they are, you don't want them to become wealthier than others ( in cash or assets or whatever might be valued).edit- amd if you do, don't dare presume you could pass it on to someone else!!

Isn't the bottom line a society where even if we start out exactly equal, No one is permitted to better themselves and get that bigger house or better car.

Or even if they don't want those things but want to work hard for a time so they can maintain their standard of living while working less hard later, you would deny them any opportunity to invest their money( you can call it capital but really it is a value of their accumulated labor).

[Flubber]

Seriously kid

In your society, if you and I started out exactly equal in education and starting wealth, would one of us be permitted to freely accrue more wealth than the other. Oh and by freely accrue, I include the right to pass on that wealth to whomever I choose including my children on my death.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Incorrect.

With my tractor, you are more productive than you are without it.

Use of my tractor facilitates the increase in your productivity.

Whatever, if you claim ownership to something you are keeping other people from using it. Letting them use it isn't facilitating anything. That's a perversion.

Anyway, renting a tool is not working, and you are taking away the fruits of someon elses labor for 'facilitating their labor' so obviously you don't believe that people should keep ALL of the fruits of their labor. Your idea that owners should be compensated for owning things is a principle of it's own and contradicts your first principle.

You keep going on and on about people deserve the fruits of their labor, as though that were your fundamental principle, when in fact your fundamental principle is that those who own tools should be compensated simply for owning them.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


I may understand your problem with maintaining status, class structure etc etc but aren't you going further and essentially saying that no matter how hard someone works, or how smart they are, you don't want them to become wealthier than others ( in cash or assets or whatever might be valued).edit- amd if you do, don't dare presume you could pass it on to someone else!!

Isn't the bottom line a society where even if we start out exactly equal, No one is permitted to better themselves and get that bigger house or better car.

Or even if they don't want those things but want to work hard for a time so they can maintain their standard of living while working less hard later, you would deny them any opportunity to invest their money( you can call it capital but really it is a value of their accumulated labor).

Because gaining wealth by work (call it pure work if that helps you understand the difference) and investment, are too different things. The latter how you become super wealthy at other's expense.