Are labor supply and freedom related?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Kid...he GREW the bananas with his LABOR.

I was assuming that the bananas grow natually and in abundance.

It doesn't matter if he labored to create something he didn't need.

That is irrelevant, and not a part of the equation.

Why are you trying so hard to make it part of the equation now?

-=Vel=-

My point is that it's not moral to buy something to expoit people with. You have a right to be compensated for your labor but you do not have a right to exploit people with your labor.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious

If I pay him for something that doesn't cost him anything then how can that be fair?

So If I build a shovel, or guitar or work for 50 hours cultivating potatos, you would feel free to take those things as well?? After all, they don't "cost" me anything, only the labor I alone put into creating them.

Originally posted by Kidicious

Did he buy the island to make a profit from me? Of maybe he didn't but now sees an opportunity to do so. Of course it's at my expense. If neither of us owned the island then there would be no question about me just eating the bananas.

Knowing how you hate "ownership" arising from "capital", I haven't been using that as my example for quite some time. The scenario is that you are both on a island (largish ) with more arable land than either of you can use and equal resources. Bezerker immediately sets to work and cultivates land, creates fishing tackle, builds a hut. You have instead decided to eat bananas and coconuts and read your tattered copies of writings of Mao,Marx and Engels.

Bezerker has built up several assets through his labour. You are in much worse shape but would not die without making an arrangement with Bezerker. Its simply that you would be much much more comfortable under the arrangements that he is willing to provide.

Bezerker might be willing to

-- pay you two fish and some vegetables etc etc for each day you work for him-- perhaps even share the produce of a new field if you extend his existing irrigation
-- allow you to use his fishing tackle for 20% of the catch (he has found that smoked fish keep quite well and wants to maintain a store of fish)
-- rent you a room in his shack for some price


Again,

1. you will survice without these arrangements
2. you started on the island with the exact same resources
3. Everything Bezerker has was created out of his labour . .. Everything


Do I still hear you assert a right to take his things without payment?

How would it be exploitation of you to offer these deals? He is not a ruler or an upper class and he is only the "owner" of things that he himself created.

Note-- if it were me in Bezerker's position, I would probably end up giving you some food and shelter. But this would be charity and not because you had any "right" to the stuff.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Flubber
I don't have the numbers at my fingertips but healthcare funding has skyrocketed IIRC but it NEVER seems to meet the demands for more and more funding. Its a constant fight since there seems to be no amount of money that quenches the appetite of the health care monster. My recollection is that health care funding has been increasing in most provinces even against inflation but I will check it out

I'm remembering the Tory government of Ontario in the mid-90s cutting health care funding. Coure, this was before the boom of the late-90s. I am willing to admit I'm wrong about Canada. I know little more than its there, despite my thread about learning about Canada.

[Velociryx]

Kid, that's rediculous. The whole point of the exercise we're talking about is that you guys had an equal start, equal access to resources. Berz started a successful farm (implying that he GREW stuff), and one did not.

Don't try to weasel out.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Vel, try to take a more realistic view of how the world works. I'm sure you are a very nice guy who would give us a fair deal, but the world doesn't work that way. Maybe I can help you understand.

Originally posted by Velociryx
If something happend to Berz's farm, then yes, I absolutely would employ him too, and both of you would recieve similar deals.

Why would as self-interested person give us the same deal. It doesn't even make sense according to your economic theory. There is now a greater supply of labor so the wage will go down.

It is not in my self-interest to leave you entirely beholden to me, and why you would think so is completely alien to me.

Um. Yes it is. If I become financially independent you lose your worker.

Much preferable, IMO, would be to make use of your labor to better my own life, help you two get back on your feet, and trade with you as you do, so that we all become wealthier.

So that I can compete for your resources. That just too nice.

See, while you and berz are working my farm, I'll be using my free time to make the farm more efficient. Thus, when you and Berz go back to farming your own land, I'll STILL retain my free time, even in your absence. This will free me up to continue to innovate in the future, and I can trade the fruits of my innovative labor for stuff you guys are growing.

Heck, if I'm good enough at that, I might even get out of farming altogether.

-=Vel=-

That's all nice Vel, but in reality people have a very good understanding of their own self-interest and do not want competition, and want plentiful resources i.e. labor supply.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
But getting back to your original response to my question.

So...it's a "much better deal" for you, but do you still consider it exploitation? Why or why not?

-=Vel=-

I'm not answering this because I think you know the answer to this and I don't want to go in circles.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


I'm remembering the Tory government of Ontario in the mid-90s cutting health care funding. Coure, this was before the boom of the late-90s. I am willing to admit I'm wrong about Canada. I know little more than its there, despite my thread about learning about Canada.

Health-care funding was cut in Canada during periods of restraint but it was not part of an attack on social programs-- It was more a general cutback on spending during a time when the entire civil service was facing wage restraint or rollbacks.Healthcare has never lost its priority status here and I don't think any Canadian politician is seriously advocating scrapping our system, although there are those that propose "allowing" private health care for those that can afford it. Thus far this has not been permitted so the rich merely go to the US if they want to jump the wait-list for a test or procedure.

I salute your efforts to learn about countries other than your own. I am currently reading up on Pakistan. I think Israel might be next and then I think I may pick a smaller South American country ( it will depend what I can find at the library)

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I'm not answering this because I think you know the answer to this and I don't want to go in circles.

on so many levels

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
So If I build a shovel, or guitar or work for 50 hours cultivating potatos, you would feel free to take those things as well?? After all, they don't "cost" me anything, only the labor I alone put into creating them.

Hell no. How did you get this idea?

Knowing how you hate "ownership" arising from "capital", I haven't been using that as my example for quite some time. The scenario is that you are both on a island (largish ) with more arable land than either of you can use and equal resources. Bezerker immediately sets to work and cultivates land, creates fishing tackle, builds a hut. You have instead decided to eat bananas and coconuts and read your tattered copies of writings of Mao,Marx and Engels.

Bezerker has built up several assets through his labour. You are in much worse shape but would not die without making an arrangement with Bezerker. Its simply that you would be much much more comfortable under the arrangements that he is willing to provide.

Bezerker might be willing to

-- pay you two fish and some vegetables etc etc for each day you work for him-- perhaps even share the produce of a new field if you extend his existing irrigation
-- allow you to use his fishing tackle for 20% of the catch (he has found that smoked fish keep quite well and wants to maintain a store of fish)
-- rent you a room in his shack for some price


Again,

1. you will survice without these arrangements
2. you started on the island with the exact same resources
3. Everything Bezerker has was created out of his labour . .. Everything


Do I still hear you assert a right to take his things without payment?

How would it be exploitation of you to offer these deals? He is not a ruler or an upper class and he is only the "owner" of things that he himself created.

Note-- if it were me in Bezerker's position, I would probably end up giving you some food and shelter. But this would be charity and not because you had any "right" to the stuff.

No this isn't what I'm talking about. I don't think Berzerker owes me anything, but I think he is obligated to help me out. I should pay him back in one way or another though.

[Velociryx]

Kid, I'm sure you are a nice guy, but based on many of your conclusions, it seems clear to me that you would be a relatively poor choice of a person to attempt to learn "how the world works" from. You have a jaded worldview, no doubt based upon very real (and very personal) experiences.

Those experiences, however, are not mine, so again:

1) Having a cheap supply of labor, in and of itself, does NOTHING for me. In point of fact, aside from Kings and Maharajas, it does nothing for anyone. Labor, like anything else, is simply a means to an end. If I pay you and Berz to go out in the yard and dig, having you make a hole, and berz fill it in, I accomplish NOTHING. Get it through your head man...labor isn't the end-all, be-all. Marx was a bright, angry fellow. He had or two keen observations about the state of the world's economic systems as they existed a century and a half ago. He's outdated and worn thin. Put him on the shelf with the other history books, where he belongs, and come joing the real world.

2) For the purposes of our current discussion, this island IS the world. Again, one thing at a time. Once we have finished discussing the particulars of the island, by all means, we can move into the "real" world. Stay focused, please.

3) By pretty much enslaving you as you describe, yes, I can lavish myself with free time. I can laze around the farm all day while you and Berz break your backs for me. This, however, is not nearly as good or as attractive for me as to assist you in getting back on your feet.

You and berz eventually move off to begin your own farms, and we can start specializing. I'm not competing with you. You start gowing bananas, so I stop. Berz starts growing corn, so I grow wheat. We trade, and the combined efforts of three free men are FAR above what could be accomplished by one lazy man and two slaves. Thus, I get richer by helping you, than I do by enslaving you.

So how is enslaving you in my best interest again?
Explain please.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

And yes please! You admit that my deal is a good one...so do you consider it exploitive?

-=Vel=-

[Arrian]

Continuing our sidebar discussion (I've been busy with actual work for once )...

But hunter gatherer society members do not see each other as enemies. They compete together, but not against each other. It's the individualism of capitalism that causes conflict within society, and between societies.

Not within a tribe. Vis-a-vis members of other tribes - outsiders. In the modern context, outsiders don't necessarily mean the people in the next settlement over. It might mean people who have a different skin color, political affliation, sexual orientation, economic status... etc.

I'm talking, in a very general sense, about the "us vs. them" mentality. I think it's fair to say that such a mentality is part of all of us, and isn't something one can attribute to capitalism. I do allow that under capitalism it may manifest itself as class warfare, but that's just the symptom of the problem.

-Arrian

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Hell no. How did you get this idea?

From you with your flip quote that you could take things that someone else had that did not "cost" them anything. I'm glad you clarified this.

Originally posted by Kidicious

No this isn't what I'm talking about. I don't think Berzerker owes me anything, but I think he is obligated to help me out. I should pay him back in one way or another though.

But if his helping you out is offering you a job on terms similar to those I set out, is that exploitation?

I am happy to see that you don't assert any right to Bezerker's labour. As for his obligation to help you out . .. I have mixed feelings.

Personally I would probably feed you for a couple of days but if you continued to do nothing, my charity would wear thin and I'd tell you to get lost. My charity wouldn't extend to expending my labour to support another able-bodied person.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Labor, like anything else, is simply a means to an end. If I pay you and Berz to go out in the yard and dig, having you make a hole, and berz fill it in, I accomplish NOTHING. Get it through your head man...labor isn't the end-all, be-all. Marx was a bright, angry fellow. He had or two keen observations about the state of the world's economic systems as they existed a century and a half ago. He's outdated and worn thin. Put him on the shelf with the other history books, where he belongs, and come joing the real world.

Hence Marx's continued point about socially-necessary labor. Marx didn't say labor was the source of all wealth, nor that all labor is equally valuable. Those who claim Marx's theories are outdated either do not understand him (for whatever reason) or are deliberately obfuscating.

Part of the problem is that Marx tries to make certain emotionally charged words, scientific. Exploitation, for example, has a very negagtive connotation when used in association with people. Marx didn't use it in that way. For Marx, exploitation is the extraction of surplus value from labor. You could be exploited to your advantage. That seems to be a contradiction in terms. Marx was not making a moral indictment of capitalism with this term, but trying to show how it worked, and that it was no different, in this aspect, than previous forms of class society, except in that in our society, this exploitation is "voluntary" rather than coerced.

Also, while Marx was a curmudgeon, he wasn't angry.

[chequita guevara]

dp