Are labor supply and freedom related?

[Flubber]

I was never paradoxical since I never agreed with Kid's base idea that work ( amd by work KId means the current work) creates all the value.

If I build a machine a give it to someone else to use, it creates value because of the value of the work of the operator AND because of the value of my work as the builder. It seems only fair that we share the value of the wealth created by BOTH of our work.

Once you accept that the machine has value (because I worked to build it, it only seems fair that I can exchange it for other things of value and that the purchaser can stand in my stead with respect to the value I created.

Edited for clarity

[Velociryx]

Makes sense to me.

It seems that Kid's main beef is that I'm not out there sweating alongside him, and BECAUSE I'm not, I've not done any work.

Never mind that my sweat paid for the tractor.

Never mind that while he is using my tractor, I cannot.

Never mind that the use of my tractor enhances his productivity far about what it would have been with his shovel.

Never mind that others may desire use of my tractor (competition) and a "usage fee" is an excellent way of prioritizing them.

Nope. Never mind all these things. If I'm not sweating next to him, I don't deserve compensation for ANY of the above!

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Ok, I don't have much time so these are going to be short simple answers. I lot of this stuff is just what I think. It doesn't mean that's the way it would be. Others would have ideas too.

Originally posted by Kontiki


What is used for compensation for those man hours? Where does it come from?

Money. Print. You can prevent inflation by just keeping money out of curculation as people spend it and of course prices are controled.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian


Oh, I see the point you're trying to make.

One problem with it:

Without the loan, I can't start the business at all.

-Arrian

Sure the loan facilitates the work, but the ownership doesn't.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
Ok, seeya later. When you return, I have another question:

How will the man hours be coordinated? I mean, since you seem to be very big on fairness, surely workers will be free to choose where they work? So if the government (the people, whatever) decides to build a factory to make spaceships to go to Mars, how to you "coordinate" man hours to make that happen, without ordering people to go there and work? Incentives? If so, what? Better working conditions? Less hours?

Oh, another question: you say there will be no need to save money. Will there be money at all? How will compensation be handled?

-Arrian

Ohhh that's too much for me to answer right now. You will have to order people where to work though, and for how long. That is of course good and bad.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber



The work itself would not generate the additional wealth without the factory.

Take oil workers-- The Hibernia offshore platform pumps 180,000 barrels of oil a day and lets call it 40 bucks a barrell. Thats 7.2 million bucks. Lets make it 4 million a day after taxes and royalties. Counting shift changes there are probably a thousand people working on that project overall. That works out to $4000 per worker each and every day all year long or 1.46 million per year.

Do you plan to pay each of these workers 1.46 million OR don't you think just a teensy bit of the value had to do with the $300 million spent on exploration wells or the 2.5 billion dollar platform the oil is pumped through??

The revenue won't have anything to do with worker compensation although total spending is going to obviously equal total costs just like in a capitalist system.

Rent is no more a barrier than if the cost of food or clothing was too high. Obviously food and shelter should be available to all. But if you abolish rent, shouldn't you make food free as well ? Its even more of a necessity.

I think you should have a price for everything with value. It just wont work without prices.

Conceptually rent is no different to me than the cost of any good and service . . . and many landlords make very little or no profit for years ( and arguably that profit could be attributed to their labor in advertising and repairing the property)

It appears that way, but consider rising real estate prices and what that does to rent. The owners get a nice profit, but ultimately renters are the ones who pay for that, because the new owners raise the rents.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
With a practical inability to use increased wealth for a better home and no way to use it to produce an income, that only really leaves consumption. Oh and are there loans, I know there is no interest but can you borrow for that car you wanted?? if you can I'll borrow 1 million dollars!!


I just see a society with absolutely no incentives, no reason to innovate, no reason to work hard. If I bust my butt and save or if I laze around and spend frivolously, I will be in the same state housing regardless and nothing I can do can bring an additional income stream

I think loans are a possibility. Private lending is a no though.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber



But in housing the only market will be in bribing the housing officials to get the nicer house.

I can see quite a black market though in tool rental, particularly if you can invent some new handy gizmo. Kid is dreaming in technicolor if he doesn't think the workers would be willing to pay something to get a time-saving device that allows them either more leisure or a greater income

And I guess if the regime does not offer loans at all, the loan sharks will do quite well.

You could have a slight variation in housing prices. Even though incomes would be pretty much the same, some people will want to spend more of their income on housing than something else.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


well with "interest" being illegal, the regime can only do one of two things

1. Not have loans or credit at all OR
2. Offer interest free loans-- if they do this there is no incentive to pay them back quickly and I am unsure what remedies the regime would use if they were not paid back (probably an automatic garnishment of wages). But if they don't believe in interest its hard to even see a moral justification for quick repayment

In either case I fear that black market lending would become even more popular than it is today.

I just don't know about this one, if loans could fit in and how they would, and I guess there would be some black market activity.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kontiki


I think there's a few flaws in your summary. First, Kid admits that he doesn't want workers to get 100% of the fruits of their labors because you need to pay taxes. And you can't buy a house because you're not allowed to own land, IIRC. I'm not too clear on how consumption works either. I suppose you can buy something, but it would have to be from the government and purchased for cost. Not sure how the government decides what to produce - it must be put to a vote, because otherwise someone would have more power than someone else.

There would be taxes but not an income tax for example. It's kind of hard to give the short version but put it this way, an increase in the price of the things you be would be a tax.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber



yup-- my first service would be a travel service/emigration assistance service to all the people that wanted to leave this paradise. Assuming it is not worldwide I think you would see a brain drain of epic proportions as people flee to places that reward talent and effort. . . Oh adn if people see this coming, the flight of capital would be HUGE . .. could even create a mini-economic boom in other countries all by itself

There wouldn't be any countries.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious

The revenue won't have anything to do with worker compensation although total spending is going to obviously equal total costs just like in a capitalist system.

hmmm so some of the value isn't due to their work and is not paid to the workers????? I thought that was the base premise of your system...

Originally posted by Kidicious



I think you should have a price for everything with value. It just wont work without prices.

So if I want shelter I should pay a price for it-- If that price is a price for a period of time, we have a rent. I assume the only difference is you would have all rents paid to the state. So again something is fine if the state collects it but objectionable if collected by an individual. . . .

Originally posted by Kidicious
.

It appears that way, but consider rising real estate prices and what that does to rent. The owners get a nice profit, but ultimately renters are the ones who pay for that, because the new owners raise the rents.

Well in a rising market, the owners could get a nice profit if they sold out and new owners would then have to collect a rent to recover that purchase price. Why should a landlord that has chosen to retain a property be any different



Kid where we differ is that you see no value to capital wheras I (using your framework) see capital as accumulated work. If someone has a million dollars you could view it as a representation of 50,000 person hours of work. It is indisputable that assets purchased with this capital can increase the value of work beyond that which is possible without the use of those assets. So IMHO bother the worker and the past work should be compensated for their use

[Kidlicious]

That's all for now. Did I miss any? That's a stupid question.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious
That's all for now. Did I miss any? That's a stupid question.

You missed many.


Where is the incentive to work hard, to innovate?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
hmmm so some of the value isn't due to their work and is not paid to the workers????? I thought that was the base premise of your system...

They do receive an equal share of the total produce. The price of the good they produce might change, but their pay wouldn't necessarily.

edit: the price of the good they produced isn't necessarily the value of the good. The price would change for distribution purposes. If there's a shortage then the price would be increased, and consideration would be given to increasing capacity to increase supply of the good. If the supply was increased then the price would be lowered.

Well in a rising market, the owners could get a nice profit if they sold out and new owners would then have to collect a rent to recover that purchase price. Why should a landlord that has chosen to retain a property be any different

It's not different if the landlord keeps the property but raises the rent. I was just trying to make my point clear. Even though a new owner may only get a small return its the system that is harmfull to those without property.

Kid where we differ is that you see no value to capital wheras I (using your framework) see capital as accumulated work. If someone has a million dollars you could view it as a representation of 50,000 person hours of work. It is indisputable that assets purchased with this capital can increase the value of work beyond that which is possible without the use of those assets. So IMHO bother the worker and the past work should be compensated for their use

I see a value to money saved only equal to money spent. The same amount of work was done for it. Savings should not be compensated more at someone else's expense. It's much less painfull to save if you have a high income. In fact, if your income is high enough, it might even be tougher to spend than to save.