Are labor supply and freedom related?

[Al B. Sure!]

When there is a shortage of labor rulers need slavery.

there was no shortage of labor in the Roman Republic/Empire of 100 BC-200 AD yet slavery was a major part of that economy. in fact, the Republic's collapse and the formation of the Empire was a result of the abundant slave labour replacing the previously equally abundant but more expensive wage labour and the former wage labourers becoming unemployed and joining the legions en masse.

from a strictly economic standpoint, a labour force that exceeds the productive capabilities of an economy will not be in that great of a demand so labour will be worth less and wages will be lower (eventually though, a use for that labour surplus will be made availible throught investment in new industries) if there is a shortage, however, obviously, labour will be in great demand so they'll get paid more or, if the powers that be are strong enough, will chain them to their work (slavery/serfdom)

the issue with colonial slavery was that it was difficult to get people to the colonies. workers in the English colonies were paid quite well because they were in short supply. the persistant lack of workers though, due to the difficulty in getting to the colonies, caused plantation owners to seek to import workers against their will instead of paying rare white workers high wages.

[Urban Ranger]

Re: Are labor supply and freedom related?

Originally posted by Kidicious
Does anyone agree or disagree with me? What will happen when the labor supply starts falling again? What would happen if we had another epidemic like the Black Death?

You need to take into consideration that technology has been improving productivity, so the reliance on cheap labour is reduced.

As for having another epidemic, I don't see it having too much effect, unless you think that the underclasses will be particularly badly hit.

[Berzerker]

Maybe you don't get it. When labor is in abundance there is no reason for slavery. When there is a shortage of labor rulers need slavery.

You ignored my point, are the Bushmen among the least free because their "wages" are very low? Why some ruler needs slavery is irrelevant, slavery is anti-thetical to freedom and the marketplace. Of course, you think we are enslaved when we are free to participate in that marketplace even if we don't agree with your opinion, but how are we free under your ideology? Communists don't believe in self-determination...

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
there was no shortage of labor in the Roman Republic/Empire of 100 BC-200 AD yet slavery was a major part of that economy. in fact, the Republic's collapse and the formation of the Empire was a result of the abundant slave labour replacing the previously equally abundant but more expensive wage labour and the former wage labourers becoming unemployed and joining the legions en masse.

There was a shortage of labor in the Roman Republic/Empire. Think about it. Slaves aren't free. At first they are cheap, but they get more expensive. Why would people pay for slaves when there are plenty of people to work for cheap wages?

Soldiers lost their land (had to sell it, because they couldn't take care of it). When they returned from war they became wage laboreres, and many or them eventually became serfs. That's how slavery ended in the Roman Empire. The slaves were too expensive, and there were plenty of people that would work for low wages.

the issue with colonial slavery was that it was difficult to get people to the colonies. workers in the English colonies were paid quite well because they were in short supply. the persistant lack of workers though, due to the difficulty in getting to the colonies, caused plantation owners to seek to import workers against their will instead of paying rare white workers high wages.

Exactly

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
You ignored my point, are the Bushmen among the least free because their "wages" are very low? Why some ruler needs slavery is irrelevant, slavery is anti-thetical to freedom and the marketplace. Of course, you think we are enslaved when we are free to participate in that marketplace even if we don't agree with your opinion, but how are we free under your ideology? Communists don't believe in self-determination...

A capitalist will do anything to either enslave his worker or hire him for low wages. High wages are not in his interest, and he will take action to change the situation. As long as the capitalist/(insert other ruler name here) has power over us, whether that be the power to whip us or hire us, we are not free.

[problem_child]

"As long as the capitalist has power over us, whether that be the power to whip us or hire us, we are not free."

-Kidicious

Excellently subversive left-wing type-bite.

[Kidlicious]

That's good. I'm sure.

[Berzerker]

A capitalist will do anything to either enslave his worker or hire him for low wages. High wages are not in his interest, and he will take action to change the situation. As long as the capitalist/(insert other ruler name here) has power over us, whether that be the power to whip us or hire us, we are not free.

And yet most people work for more than the minimum wage. Why is that? Because just as employers have incentives to be streamlined that include paying less if they can, employees also act out of their self-interest to get the highest wages they can. That's why people generally try to enhance their skills to find niches into which they can fit where labor supply is reduced and they can demand more pay.

Now, your definition of freedom is flawed. The reason we work is to buy the things we want, my employer is not responsible for my desires and you blame him for the constraints placed upon us by nature. Freedom is the absence of coercion or constraint on choice or action, not the coercion or constraints imposed upon us by nature, but by other people. We're only "free" from nature when we die...

Let's say there are two people in the world living in close proximty and they meet one day, I (the capitalist) might offer them something I have of value and they may have something of value I want. Bingo, the first action of a free market - that's capitalism at it's core. But you the Communist would be angry should this other person have more things that you value than he values of yours. This envy is the basis of your ideology just as "greed" is the basis of capitalism... Both can kill, that's why we limit what we can do out of greed and envy (murder, robbery) under capitalism, but not under communism - that's institutionalised murder and robbery. Envy is worse than greed because it is greed combined with a negative outlook on life. Greed is: "I've got mine and I'm happy, get your own". Envy is: "I want what you have because I'm unhappy"...

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Berzerker
You ignored my point, are the Bushmen among the least free because their "wages" are very low?

That's bollocks. For one thing, they don't have a capitalistic society and any comparison is thus flawed.

[Kuciwalker]

@Kid: As long as he has the power to hire you, you aren't free? So you'd be in favor of laws prohibiting people from hiring specifically you?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
And yet most people work for more than the minimum wage. Why is that? Because just as employers have incentives to be streamlined that include paying less if they can, employees also act out of their self-interest to get the highest wages they can. That's why people generally try to enhance their skills to find niches into which they can fit where labor supply is reduced and they can demand more pay.

The real median pay is about $12 an hour. So, at least half the people work for minimum wage or slightly above that. Yes, every worker trys to diferentiate himself/herself, but only some do, and a lot of those owe so much in college loans that they really make little over $12 an hour after their loan payments. And a lot of those people live in very high rent districts, another way the rulers get paid.

Now, your definition of freedom is flawed. The reason we work is to buy the things we want, my employer is not responsible for my desires and you blame him for the constraints placed upon us by nature. Freedom is the absence of coercion or constraint on choice or action, not the coercion or constraints imposed upon us by nature, but by other people. We're only "free" from nature when we die...

What in the world makes you think the capitalist sytem is natural? There is nothing natural about a social system, because order is imposed upon us by others.

Let's say there are two people in the world living in close proximty and they meet one day, I (the capitalist) might offer them something I have of value and they may have something of value I want. Bingo, the first action of a free market - that's capitalism at it's core. But you the Communist would be angry should this other person have more things that you value than he values of yours.

Such is the basis of a ruler/subject relationship. Throughout history those subjected to rule have 'agreed' to be the subject because they were in need of protection or economic resources. But are the rulers who have agreed to protect them in order to exploit them any better than those who would kill them?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
@Kid: As long as he has the power to hire you, you aren't free? So you'd be in favor of laws prohibiting people from hiring specifically you?

I didn't mean prohibited. There's no reason to prohibit him from hiring me, if I don't need to work for him. He can hire me because he owns the means of production, and I don't.

[Kuciwalker]

Yes, well, given what you said, him not being able to hire you would make you free.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Yes, well, given what you said, him not being able to hire you would make you free.

I used the word 'power.' When you control things than people need, you have power over them.

[Provost Harrison]

There is a certain degree of supply and demand that affects wage rates. But as you will notice, further up it seems to be more an issue of privilege...