com/cap/com debate - laboring under delusions

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Spiffor

There is nothing offensive in that example, since you removed all actual problems that arise from capitalism: the owner of capital worked as hell to get his capital, and he doesn't exploit the worker.

The problem is that, for one of those win-win situations, you have plenty of win-lose situation. Heck, the very example you use could be quickly twisted in a win-lose situation if we make the story progress a little bit:

...snip...

I should really let Flubber argue this one on his own, but to me the problem is that you've placed an artificial cap on the number of people that can buy a tractor. As I see the example, the guy who bought the tractor in the first place did so by digging ditches and saving his money. But now, even with the workers making more than the original tractor owner did when he was digging ditches, no one can afford to buy another tractor. Why is this?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kontiki
But now, even with the workers making more than the original tractor owner did when he was digging ditches, no one can afford to buy another tractor. Why is this?

Plenty of possible reasons: they are more dispendious, have a family that is financially more demanding, have worked at 20$ an hour for two short a time, had a life accident in which much of their savings have been lost...
Certainly not everybody is up to the task of living like a warrior-monk, focused his whole life in the aim to buy a tractor.
Besides, should there be any urgency in their financial situation, the workers cannot afford to leave the company, as to not endanger the well-being of themselves and their loved ones.

It's not precisely easy to make a choice when you are forced to make ends meet.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kidicious
The thing that you are missing Kuci, is that Mr. Moneybags has to buy things for less than they are worth and sell them more more than they are worth. That's the only way that he can compete with the other capitalists. If he doesn't he won't be a capitalist much longer. Labor is just another commondity to him. Just like buying a machine, he has to hire the worker for less than his work is worth.

The worker on the other hand is only trying to survive. He takes a wage that he can get. He's willing to trade his labor for less than it's worth so that he can survive.

You see the capitalist will only take the trade at a price below value, and the worker will accept the trade at a price below value. That's the exploitation of the system.

Anyone else arguing for capitalism can respond too this since they miss it too.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Spiffor

This is not what I argued. Value is fundamentally produced by the combination of work * capital. I think that those who only provide capital shouldn't be rewarded, for moral reasons (with all the reservations about practicability).
If the value rises, damn right I want the worker to reap the rewards of it. The raise of productivity means that his work is worth more, so it's entirely normal he gets more money.

Th painter (that would be me?) continues to work, doesn't he? So how exactly does it oppose my idea that work should be rewarded?

Err, how exactly didn't I increase my productivity (I'm not sure I understand the vocabulary)? Do you mean that I am not responsible in doing so, or do you think that my work isn't more productive as before?

Again, it is pretty straightforward. Value is a combination of work*capital. I think only those who work in a company should get the financial rewards of that company, and that impersonal owners not working in should not. How exactly does it contradict my morals to say that the workers of the company get a pay rise if the company has produced significantly more value?

But how has your company produced significantly more value? You still make the same 400 widgets a year in the exact same manner as you did before. The only difference is that now you're making more money because some people in another company figured out a way to do their job better. You had precisely zero to do with their increase in productivity, but you, the owner of the capital, is getting rewarded for work you did not do.

You seem to be using value and profit interchangably, which is a problem. If you equate the two, then you have to object to Flubber's tractor situation - because there you're not getting 100% of the price paid for your labour. If you don't equate them, then you haven't increased the value of your work.

[Spiffor]

Kontiki:
I misread the original example, I thought "I" was the widget-painter. Since the quality and the quantity of my job doesn't change, I am not entitled to any inherent pay raise, except for the redistribution of the profit at the end of the year, if the general assembly decides to redistribute them.

For if the company's prfit raises, no matter if my job changed or not, I should reap part of those increased profits as I am part of the machinery. I believe that the people who found a way to get higher productivity should have a nice bonus, far bigger than the boon obtained by the rest of the employees.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious
The thing that you are missing Kuci, is that Mr. Moneybags has to buy things for less than they are worth and sell them more more than they are worth. That's the only way that he can compete with the other capitalists. If he doesn't he won't be a capitalist much longer. Labor is just another commondity to him. Just like buying a machine, he has to hire the worker for less than his work is worth.

Where does this magical term "worth" come into things? Yes a capitalist has to buy things (including labor) for less than they sell them for. Since suckers aren't lined up saying "let me sell you X for less than what the other guy will pay", it is only possible to sell things for more than other people are selling the same thing by adding something to it. That something may be work in organization, transporting, marketing or even capital (such as letting the worker use my tractor).

I still don't see something. VERY BASIC QUESTION-- HOW DO YOU DETERMINE HOW MUCH AN AMOUNT OF WORK IS WORTH ?? ( and if it is increased value, are you willing to pay the oil rig workers $2.4 millon each)

Originally posted by Kidicious
The worker on the other hand is only trying to survive. He takes a wage that he can get. He's willing to trade his labor for less than it's worth so that he can survive.

I call BULLCRAP. Or do you mean "survive" in its othermeanings than : "to remain alive or in existence".

In any event, I would say that the majority or working folk (in Canada and the US for instance) live a comfotable existence. I would even go on to say that the VAST majority do not see their existence threatened in any way due to economic circumstances. And of those that do, I am betting that they are not availing themselves of available government programs and charity works.

Originally posted by Kidicious

You see the capitalist will only take the trade at a price below value, and the worker will accept the trade at a price below value. That's the exploitation of the system.

Now you use "value"-- is this the same as "worth"?
Oh and your assertion is not always true-- The capitalist may have to pay a worker even if they are unable to sell the fruits of the labour onward. Thats part of the risk of being a capitalist.


Again and again it appears that communists discount the idea that a worker has any free will. Well, as a worker I dispute that. Mrs flubber is a worker and gets a good wage. But if they want her to work outside her regular 22 hours, they pay her double time or she doesn't go in. Free will . I didn't like my pay in NL so I moved thousands of miles. Free will.

Are there employers that abuse their employees? Yes. Are there people that feel they need a given job due to an abundant supply of labor. Again yes. But the answer to me is in the minimum wage and labor standards laws. Also its in the free market-- If there is too much labor available where you are. . . MOVE. Or does the communist system forsee employing people wherever they happen to want to live?


As a worker, I wish to thank all you communist folks for your concern about my well-being. For the same reasons that I personally would not wish to be in a union, I think I'll decline.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kontiki


I should really let Flubber argue this one on his own,

No keep going. I had a good run but won't be around for a few hours now that I am back to work.

I still want an answer on the worth of labor question though. Kid keeps saying the capitalist don't give the worker what their labor is "worth". I want to know who assigns the value and how.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Kontiki:
I misread the original example, I thought "I" was the widget-painter. Since the quality and the quantity of my job doesn't change, I am not entitled to any inherent pay raise, except for the redistribution of the profit at the end of the year, if the general assembly decides to redistribute them.

For if the company's prfit raises, no matter if my job changed or not, I should reap part of those increased profits as I am part of the machinery. I believe that the people who found a way to get higher productivity should have a nice bonus, far bigger than the boon obtained by the rest of the employees.

It doesn't matter if you're the widget painter. In that case, you still paint 400 widgets a year, just like you used to.

It's the second paragraph that's the issue here, though. You are getting increased pay for no increase in value creation. The machinery that created the increase in profits is no different than the capitalist's machinery now. Just like the capitalist, you've done no work to increase the profits and the value of your output has stayed the same, yet you are reaping the reward. In actuality, you are the capitalist.

[Kidlicious]

Flubber,

I think, as incredible as it seems, that you do not understand about being a capitalist.

When a capitalist buys something, or rents something, or hires someone, he decides that the price that he is paying is less than what the thing is worth. When he sells the thing he decided that the thing is worth less than what he sells it for. I hope this helps you become a better capitalist.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kontiki
Just like the capitalist, you've done no work to increase the profits

Who, exactly, has? Maybe the commercials who found a cheaper paint? I have already mentioned that whomever is responsible for finding a cheaper paint should get rewarded appropriately.

you've done no work to increase the profits and the value of your output has stayed the same, yet you are reaping the reward

The value has stayed the same, but the added value rose (added value = final price - price of the production process at the exception of wages). It is only normal that I get my fair share of the added value, even if the total value remains the same.

I don't see what is shocking about it. I continue to work, I continue to produce value, and thanks to a new arrangement, I (as a part of the society) produce a higher added value than before.

I do not believe that there is anything wrong with reaping the rewards of a rise in productivity or, as in your example, of a rise in added value. I believe there is something wrong to reap them when your only claim to reap them is that you own the means of production - I reject the legitimacy of that particular form of wealth distribution. I don't reject the idea that wealth should be distributed.

[Kuciwalker]

When a capitalist buys something, or rents something, or hires someone, he decides that the price that he is paying is less than what the thing is worth. When he sells the thing he decided that the thing is worth less than what he sells it for. I hope this helps you become a better capitalist.

That's what EVERYONE does.

The value of an object (which may be an intangible thing, like a patent or a music file) is a function of the object and the person. The value of some object X to person Y is val(X,Y). We normally represent this as equal to val($x,Y), where x is the maximum dollar value Y would pay for X and the minimum dollar value for which Y would sell X. If Y is selling X to Z, the price will be val(X,Y) < price < val(X,Z), by definition.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Why do you think it's more valuable to the capitalist?

If it wasn't, they couldn't agree on a price. Generally, capitalists hold a greater value on certain things because they have the ability to transform those things into even greater value.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

When a capitalist buys something, or rents something, or hires someone, he decides that the price that he is paying is less than what the thing is worth. When he sells the thing he decided that the thing is worth less than what he sells it for. I hope this helps you become a better capitalist.

That's what EVERYONE does.

Not the workers. They have to work. They capitalist can go out of business, and he does that if he can't find deals were he can buy low and sell high.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Flubber,

I think, as incredible as it seems, that you do not understand about being a capitalist.

When a capitalist buys something, or rents something, or hires someone, he decides that the price that he is paying is less than what the thing is worth. When he sells the thing he decided that the thing is worth less than what he sells it for. I hope this helps you become a better capitalist.

But what is the worth? Is it variable or is there some intrinsic worth? Who sets it and how? I am a good socially conscious capitalist and want to reward labour its full worth. But what is the worth.

Actually kid I am not a capitalist as you have defined it-- I am just a successful worker ( as I myself define success)

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Flubber,

I think, as incredible as it seems, that you do not understand about being a capitalist.

When a capitalist buys something, or rents something, or hires someone, he decides that the price that he is paying is less than what the thing is worth. When he sells the thing he decided that the thing is worth less than what he sells it for. I hope this helps you become a better capitalist.

You see I think you are wrong. I thing the capitalist makes no decision at all on worth. he merely looks at the actual practical costs of the inputs and the projected productivity and sale price of the outputs. If projected profits are sufficient the project proceeds. I think worth never even enters into it.