Are labor supply and freedom related?

[Kuciwalker]

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

Then if he was not allowed to supply you with what you need, he would no longer have power over you and everything would be fine.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Then if he was not allowed to supply you with what you need, he would no longer have power over you and everything would be fine.

No. Obviously it wouldn't. Do you have a point?

[Berzerker]

UR -

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

They don't have the complexity of a modern capitalist system but they do have a rudimentary capitalist system, i.e., a marketplace for exchanging goods.

Kid -

The real median pay is about $12 an hour. So, at least half the people work for minimum wage or slightly above that.

It doesn't matter if they work for slightly more than the minimum, according to you everyone would work for the minimum since that's what employers want to pay. Only a small percentage of people work for the minimum, primarily those starting out at a new business with little in the way of skills. You see, if I'm not worth $6/hour to my employer, he has no reason to employ me at $7/hour. I have to produce more than it costs to hire me or the business loses money on the transaction. I know communists have trouble understanding that but this is how the world works. Forcing that employer to pay me $12/hour (or whatever) when my labor is only worth $6/hour translates into a lot of unemployed people.

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.

You forgot the kitchen sink - repaying college loans is irrelevant to whether or not your argument is logical.

And a lot of those people live in very high rent districts, another way the rulers get paid.

Ah, there's the kitchen sink. Can you stick to the issue instead of constantly raising every gripe you have about life? Where rents are kept low by people sympathetic to your ideology - rent control - slums often result because owners don't earn enough on their property to make improvements. If you owned a house you planned on selling in 5 years, would you make improvements if you were told by some quasi-commie you have to eat the cost of those improvements?

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.

Before you laugh at what I said, try quoting me instead of employing strawmen. Where did I say that? I said my desires/needs are a result of nature, not my employer. Therefore, it isn't my employer who is placing constraints on my freedom, nature does that (read slower next time). Whether you can admit it or not, capitalism is conducive to freedom. Aside from the inefficiency of communism, nothing prevents communists from setting up their own worker owned businesses within a capitalist system. Strange how, in the name of freedom of all things, communists won't let workers decide to sell their labor. Commies and religious fundies do have something in common, the ability to see exploitation unseen by the "exploited"...

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.

That's a trade off we all make, so what? Are you suggesting our mere existence creates a "right" to force others to take care of us? Your hatred of this ruler/subject relationship disappears when it comes to your ideology...

But are the rulers who have agreed to protect them in order to exploit them any better than those who would kill them?

So my employer is comparable to a murderer? The fact I have something you value doesn't make me an evil person... I guess it comes down to how we look at life, the commie is green with envy and hatred. I don't care if you make more money than me, I don't care if you're rich. I understand why some commies are upset since so much theft happened in the past and communism is sold to the masses as a means to remedy the crimes of the past...unfortunately by committing more crimes.

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.

That makes sense, if we just force him to pay your bills, you won't have to work for him. Communism...Brilliant!
Tell me, will I need to work under communism to get these things I want? If so, won't the people rewarding me for my work be in control?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
It doesn't matter if they work for slightly more than the minimum, according to you everyone would work for the minimum since that's what employers want to pay. Only a small percentage of people work for the minimum, primarily those starting out at a new business with little in the way of skills. You see, if I'm not worth $6/hour to my employer, he has no reason to employ me at $7/hour. I have to produce more than it costs to hire me or the business loses money on the transaction. I know communists have trouble understanding that but this is how the world works. Forcing that employer to pay me $12/hour (or whatever) when my labor is only worth $6/hour translates into a lot of unemployed people.

You just keep avoiding my point. Then you acuse me of avoiding yours. Stick to the topic or start your own thread.

The point is that capitalists will do anything possible to minimize their labor costs. Sometimes it's cheaper for them to own slaves, and sometimes it's cheaper for them release their slaves and charge them rent, and/or pay them a wage. My claim is that that is determined by the supply of labor. I never said that wages would be any minimum amount. I said the higher wages are the more pressure there would be on capitalists to lower their labor costs. In fact, in the current era capitalist are improving prductivity and moving operations overseas where they can pay less. My claim is that if they were not able to do either of those things they would take our freedom away to negotiate our wages. If you want to argue about that then do so, please.

You forgot the kitchen sink - repaying college loans is irrelevant to whether or not your argument is logical.

Just like a libertarian to discount costs that they prefer to ignore.

Ah, there's the kitchen sink. Can you stick to the issue instead of constantly raising every gripe you have about life? Where rents are kept low by people sympathetic to your ideology - rent control - slums often result because owners don't earn enough on their property to make improvements. If you owned a house you planned on selling in 5 years, would you make improvements if you were told by some quasi-commie you have to eat the cost of those improvements?

Rents are the issue. If landlords not take care of their property its their fault. That's according to your world view. They agree to rent the place and take care of it. If they don't take care of it they are stealing.

Before you laugh at what I said, try quoting me instead of employing strawmen. Where did I say that? I said my desires/needs are a result of nature, not my employer. Therefore, it isn't my employer who is placing constraints on my freedom, nature does that (read slower next time). Whether you can admit it or not, capitalism is conducive to freedom. Aside from the inefficiency of communism, nothing prevents communists from setting up their own worker owned businesses within a capitalist system. Strange how, in the name of freedom of all things, communists won't let workers decide to sell their labor. Commies and religious fundies do have something in common, the ability to see exploitation unseen by the "exploited"...

I'm not talking about the constraints of nature. I'm talking about one person saying "This is mine. If you want it you will have to pay me a fee or some other cost that is worth more than what it cost me to optain it." You say it's moral to do that, because it goes along with the rules that you think are fair. I say those rules are only fair to those that they favor. In order to have fair rules, they should not favor one person over another.

That's a trade off we all make, so what? Are you suggesting our mere existence creates a "right" to force others to take care of us? Your hatred of this ruler/subject relationship disappears when it comes to your ideology...

No. Our existence creates a right, to not be exploited by others who have more power than we do. Not exploiting someone is not the same as taking care of them. You are just allowing them to take care of themselves, and not profiting from it at a cost to them.

So my employer is comparable to a murderer? The fact I have something you value doesn't make me an evil person... I guess it comes down to how we look at life, the commie is green with envy and hatred. I don't care if you make more money than me, I don't care if you're rich. I understand why some commies are upset since so much theft happened in the past and communism is sold to the masses as a means to remedy the crimes of the past...unfortunately by committing more crimes.

It makes you evil it you aquire something for the purpose of exploiting someone. Not wanting to be exploited is not envy, it's a basic desire and right to equality.

That makes sense, if we just force him to pay your bills, you won't have to work for him. Communism...Brilliant!
Tell me, will I need to work under communism to get these things I want? If so, won't the people rewarding me for my work be in control?

Now you're wondering off into your absurd world. If you had the slightest idea about what communism was about you would know that it's not about people paying other people's bills. It's exactly the opposite.

[Berzerker]

You just keep avoiding my point. Then you acuse me of avoiding yours. Stick to the topic or start your own thread.

The point is that capitalists will do anything possible to minimize their labor costs. Sometimes it's cheaper for them to own slaves, and sometimes it's cheaper for them release their slaves and charge them rent, and/or pay them a wage.

Some of those slaves become marketplace competitors when freed, the "freedom" commies offer up is equal enslavement. Why do you equate having the multitude of options we have as free people in a marketplace with slavery? I equate totalitarianism with your ideology since our most important decisions would be made by politicians "speaking" for the majority. I've never disliked an employer as much as them, so why on Earth would I go for politicians doing "the people's will" under a Kidocracy.

My claim is that that is determined by the supply of labor. I never said that wages would be any minimum amount. I said the higher wages are the more pressure there would be on capitalists to lower their labor costs.

You said capitalists would pay the lowest wages they can (generally true) as if that was an indictment of capitalism. I pointed out that there are other factors driving up wages and used the minimum wage as an example, I never said you brought it up. You can be free, relatively speaking, regardless of labor supply. They are only related when using a bogus definition of freedom. If you make $20/hour and I make $10 (a product of labor supply), you are not freer than me.

In fact, in the current era capitalist are improving prductivity and moving operations overseas where they can pay less. My claim is that if they were not able to do either of those things they would take our freedom away to negotiate our wages. If you want to argue about that then do so, please.

My freedom to negotiate is not a "right" to punish them for not wanting to negotiate because they have other plans. Do the people living where those capitalists move overseas get our freedom?

Just like a libertarian to discount costs that they prefer to ignore.

You didn't explain why it's related. You then rambled on about rent, etc., so you were clearly in rant mode and not addressing the issue. You believe renting an apartment is akin to slavery. Does that mean people under a Kidocracy all get free room and board? Of course not, they will be servants of the state and modern conveniences and necessities will be the pay off, true? How is that any different than capitalism other than renaming the landlord and employer? Well, under capitalism we have a multitude of options, many landlords, many employers, and many self-employed. We have one landlord and one employer under communism. The more people lose their autonomy the more society crumbles as personal morale withers on the tree of liberty. Look at what slavery did to this country...

Rents are the issue. If landlords not take care of their property its their fault. That's according to your world view. They agree to rent the place and take care of it. If they don't take care of it they are stealing.

Why world view? It isn't there fault when politicians employ rent control to buy votes. The result over time is less development/improvement which can translate into slums. Hell, politicians here in Topeka over value property constantly when deciding our property taxes so I wouldn't be surprised if they do it in bigger cities. Imagine being told your property is worth $1 million but not being able to charge the appropriate rent while the politicians who devalued your property with rent control charge you taxes based on what the property would be worth without the rent control. These are the people you want running our lives?

I'm not talking about the constraints of nature. I'm talking about one person saying "This is mine. If you want it you will have to pay me a fee or some other cost that is worth more than what it cost me to optain it." You say it's moral to do that, because it goes along with the rules that you think are fair. I say those rules are only fair to those that they favor. In order to have fair rules, they should not favor one person over another.

My needs and desires resulting from nature do not create an obligation for you to satisfy them. You accuse employers of "exploitation" which implies they are responsible for nature's constraints. Now, if I build something of value, why shouldn't I be rewarded for my effort? Why should I have to share it with you? It's bizarre you'd have this philosophy out of some hatred of coercion.

No. Our existence creates a right, to not be exploited by others who have more power than we do. Not exploiting someone is not the same as taking care of them. You are just allowing them to take care of themselves, and not profiting from it at a cost to them.

But that isn't the "right" you are arguing for, you want the "right" to decide if we are exploited regardless of what we think. And based on your determination that we are, you'd then grab everything and give it to politicians to divy up among "us" because "that's fair". Explain how the people running Kidocracy won't be violating this "right" you speak of. What happens when millions of people try to leave Kidocracy because they do believe they are being exploited by the Kidocrats and they want to take their wealth? Communist countries don't exactly have a backlog of people trying to get in to their "exploitation free" zones.

It makes you evil it you aquire something for the purpose of exploiting someone. Not wanting to be exploited is not envy, it's a basic desire and right to equality.

Hmm...that's why most young guys want their own car, to "exploit" chicks. We are both exploiting that "something", we just aren't exploiting it "equally" because one of us - the employer who actually bought or built the machine gets a bigger cut than the guy he
trains to operate the machine. That's fair in my book... You jumping in to tell me the machine operator I'm being exploited and must now work for you and your state is not fair. Oh yeah, if it was such a basic desire we would see communism prevail if your argument was logical, not capitalism. But we can see very few people want to live under communism and the few communist countries out there have to prevent people from leaving.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement...

Now you're wondering off into your absurd world. If you had the slightest idea about what communism was about you would know that it's not about people paying other people's bills. It's exactly the opposite.

Once again you didn't answer my question. So Communism is about me paying my bills and you paying yours? What happened to all that "re-distribution" of other people's wealth to "share" bill paying?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Once again you didn't answer my question. So Communism is about me paying my bills and you paying yours? What happened to all that "re-distribution" of other people's wealth to "share" bill paying?

People aquire wealth because they have the power to do so. As long as people have less power to aquire wealth you can hardly say that the wealthy pay their fair share of bills.

As for the rest of your post I'll address the part that is relavent.

Some of those slaves become marketplace competitors when freed

Duh! They are competitors out of the choice of the rulers. Why? Because the rulers can charge higher rent and pay a lower wage.

[Kidlicious]

Berzerker,

We both believe differently when it comes to morality. Let's say we were both stranded on a deserted island. For one reason or another (it really doesn't matter the reason) you claimed ownership of the island, and told me that I would have to work for you to recieve everything that I wanted. I would just laugh at you. Your claim would mean nothing to me. You call this immoral.
To me claiming the island as your own in order to get me to work for you is immoral. So lets just leave the discussion of morality out of this.

[Berzerker]

People aquire wealth because they have the power to do so. As long as people have less power to aquire wealth you can hardly say that the wealthy pay their fair share of bills.

You're right, they pay far more than their "fair share". And you certainly know they're paying other people's bills and would do so in Kidocracy until there were no rich people. So why did you say your ideology is the opposite of a welfare state (bill "sharing" )?

Duh! They are competitors out of the choice of the rulers. Why? Because the rulers can charge higher rent and pay a lower wage.

Slaveowners chose to free their slaves? It took a war here...

We both believe differently when it comes to morality. Let's say we were both stranded on a deserted island. For one reason or another (it really doesn't matter the reason) you claimed ownership of the island, and told me that I would have to work for you to recieve everything that I wanted. I would just laugh at you. Your claim would mean nothing to me. You call this immoral.

Please, let me make my own arguments about morality.
Of course you'd laugh because I'd have no greater claim to the island than you. We'd both own it and we could cooperate or divide the island up. How is that any different than my example of two people alone in the world?

To me claiming the island as your own in order to get me to work for you is immoral. So lets just leave the discussion of morality out of this.

Two people stranded on some island is not analogous to me using part of my life to build a business and hiring you to help me run it. I have a greater moral claim to my business and the time it took me to build it than you.

I spend years building a business, you walk up and demand that my business be handed over to you because it is immoral to hire you as an employee. So, what happens to me? I become your employee, an employee of Kidocracy. And you think that's moral?

Truly bizarre

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
You're right, they pay far more than their "fair share". And you certainly know they're paying other people's bills and would do so in Kidocracy until there were no rich people. So why did you say your ideology is the opposite of a welfare state (bill "sharing" )?

No. Working people pay all the bills bud.

Slaveowners chose to free their slaves? It took a war here...

I think racism played a pert there.

Please, let me make my own arguments about morality.
Of course you'd laugh because I'd have no greater claim to the island than you. We'd both own it and we could cooperate or divide the island up. How is that any different than my example of two people alone in the world?

I told you I wouldn't care about your claim. Say you paid for it before we were stranded. I still would not care. I wouldn't work for you, because I don't believe in that. I wouldn't consider it stealing if I picked my own bananas and ate them all. If you tried to take the bananas from me, claiming that they were yours, I would consider that stealing.

Two people stranded on some island is not analogous to me using part of my life to build a business and hiring you to help me run it. I have a greater moral claim to my business and the time it took me to build it than you.

You have no 'just' moral claim to my work. I don't care what you 'own.' You own the business because of the constraints placed on me by the society we live in. That's the only reason. There is no 'just' moral claim.

I spend years building a business, you walk up and demand that my business be handed over to you because it is immoral to hire you as an employee. So, what happens to me? I become your employee, an employee of Kidocracy. And you think that's moral?

Truly bizarre

No. We simply keep all of our work. You no longer get any of it. You can continue to claim ownership to our work and call us theives like a lunatic. We just ignore you.

[Flubber]

Kid

Do I take from your island example that you do not believe in any private ownership of property? That not what you said but it seemed to be the direction you were headed in if you won't accept another person's property rights even if legitimately acquired according to society's existing rules.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
Kid

Do I take from your island example that you do not believe in any private ownership of property? That not what you said but it seemed to be the direction you were headed in if you won't accept another person's property rights even if legitimately acquired according to society's existing rules.

I believe that people should have the right to privacy at their residence, and I believe that people should have exclusive rights to some things that they pay for with their work. But I don't believe that people should be able to own the means of production for the purpose of either exploiting workers or preventing workers from using those means.

[Flubber]

Lets break this down

Originally posted by Kidicious


I believe that people should have the right to privacy at their residence,

Not what I asked but fine-- But can they own that residence? Can they sell it? Could they sell it for periodic payments in return ? ( I know they wouldn't be allowed to rent it out in your world)

Originally posted by Kidicious
and I believe that people should have exclusive rights to some things that they pay for with their work. .

Only some things? So if I work hard and buy a snow shovel, will my neighbors assert a right to use it?

Originally posted by Kidicious


But I don't believe that people should be able to own the means of production for the purpose of either exploiting workers or preventing workers from using those means.

You made this a two-parter. So I can own a means of production if I don't exploit workers or prevent others from using those means.

So I buy a tractor and use it myself for doing work. I don't dare offer to pay anyone else to operate it ( since even paying them double the wage they could get elsewhere would be exploitive right?) But do I have to let other people use my tractor free of charge .. . What do you mean when you talk of preventing others from using the means of production. Obviously, they are free to work hard to earn more and buy their own tractor but would you go further and say I must let them use my tractor?? If so, private ownership becomes a farce and you might as well say that private ownership of any means of production is prohibited.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
Lets break this down

Not what I asked but fine-- But can they own that residence? Can they sell it? Could they sell it for periodic payments in return ? ( I know they wouldn't be allowed to rent it out in your world)

I think eminent domain should apply

Only some things? So if I work hard and buy a snow shovel, will my neighbors assert a right to use it?

Why would they need to? They would have the means to make their own snow shovel.

You made this a two-parter. So I can own a means of production if I don't exploit workers or prevent others from using those means.

I don't find that immoral.

So I buy a tractor and use it myself for doing work. I don't dare offer to pay anyone else to operate it ( since even paying them double the wage they could get elsewhere would be exploitive right?) But do I have to let other people use my tractor free of charge .. . What do you mean when you talk of preventing others from using the means of production. Obviously, they are free to work hard to earn more and buy their own tractor but would you go further and say I must let them use my tractor?? If so, private ownership becomes a farce and you might as well say that private ownership of any means of production is prohibited.

No. Primarily the ownership of land should be prohibited where it prevents society from the means of production or allows exploitaton. As long as the workers have access to land and resources they can build their own tools.

[Flubber]

So each worker can have his own tractor but they must sit idle when that particular owner is not using it because paying a wage or rent is not permitted. ( and allowing free use is nonsensical when one considers the wear and tear)

[Velociryx]

Blah.

This discussion again?

Getting any converts this go 'round, Kid?

-=Vel=-